HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA 07-128_Report 02CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA B
Al #:
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of:
September 10, 2012
Dept/Div/Board: AJLS/City Clerk
Agenda Status
Staff Contact: Bonnie 1. Walton, x6502
Consent ................ X
Public Hearing........
Subject:
Correspondence.......
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision by Galloway at the
Ordinance .............
Highlands attorney Talis Abolins, Campbell, Dille, Barnett &
Resolution
Smith, PLLC. regarding Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12 building permit
.............
impact fees. (File No. LUA-07-128 FP)
Old Business..........
New Business.........
Exhibits:
Study Sessions........
+ City Clerk's Appeal notification letter (8/1/2012) f }.
Information............
• Appeal to Council (7/19/2012)
+ Hearing Examiners' Decision/Response to Appeal of Impact
Fee Assessment (7/9/2012)
• Notice of Appeal from Galloway at the Highlands by their
Attorney Talis Abolins & check (4/27/2012)
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept...........
Finance Dept........
Other ..................
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment........
Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget .... City Share Total Project...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Galloway at the Highlands (Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12) Final Plat
was filed on 7/19/2012, by Galloway at the Highlands representative Talis Abolins of Campbell, Dille,
Barnett & Smith, PLLC. accompanied by the required $250.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Galloway at the Highlands appeal.
Rentonnedagnbill/ bh
Came )ell, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.LI.C.
Attorneys at Later
R,il ; U ; [9[16-100(3?
3J SOUTiJ ,\`IFYIDfAN 1 1?C).E)OX F8 1?L.``°AL1;LI', r1S1fI GI"C)V48-3i.1-011
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TalisA@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: www.cdb-law.com
April 27, 2012
Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3rd Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
ATTORNEYS
ROBJ,,RT IJ. (:A,%1111311L ;1906-2000)
'I UAS 1. ABO1.1NS
HOLLIS H.BARN1 I Y, P.S,'
STEPHEN A. BURNHAM
BRYCL 11. DILLE, P.S.
HILLARY :1 HCsL1413ti
SHANNON R.JONES
DEBORAH A. PURCELL
DANIEL W. SMITH
EREMY M. SWAN
OF COUNSId.
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOA,r. u)o
CITY pE RENTO j
MAY 02 Z01Z
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
11,'3?a� pn,
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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, Dille, Barnett & 11,1,1 .C. q >>Rc�rr..tiSI11 r11. i trT„ .u�t�n iY cxm� nrn ttvt i.� ��n�c; ;� Prtor tiSroN v, sr_rt��LZ cait��oam�o t
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 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,
there were no school impact fees for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the
property, representatives of Galloway Heights I, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the
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, 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.
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.
Camgbeil D,1)e Fiamett&5nirh PI_I.C. I npaorrs�IC)NAi,IJMrrFr>>aAsr,.rr) coNmAvvLNazDTNGAPxoFFI�,sioNv,smti'ICFCORPo]tn'7oN
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -3-
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 Lincoln Shiloh
Associates, Ltd._v. Muki_lteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation
omitted).
We expect 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.
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
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel.
Camphell, T)I�-, Bamm & Smith, P.I .I.C. I A PROITSSIC7*dALT]MfiM T -I. }3I7 T'IY CONP.ANY IN=LNG APRDFFSSIONAI. SERVIM CORPORATION
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -4-
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,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
Tans M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Enclosures
Cc: Client
I:OATAO] HhBV%4\ 3artels, JonathanlGalloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22827.0091CCity of Renton 4-I3-12.docx
Camphe]I,Mr,Bwm &Srnirh,PL.LC. I AnxorEsSIC)NALu.mnFDLL�,B conPANYIN 2,,IGAPRorEssiota.Li.sDivrcF:oc)RpoRA,ic)N
Amends ORD 5317
CITE' OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCLNO, 5442 Amended by ORD 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER I, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $55495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND $3,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,495; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No, 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,110 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
1
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
WHEREAS, the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2009 -- 2013-2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase in the
impact fee for new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi -family units to $3,266;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Note 5 of subsection 4-1-1601), Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No, 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to take into account local Conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of neer housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally, The City council establishes the following fees:
Single- Multi -Family
Family Fee Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah $5,495.00 Not
School Applicable,
District
Kent School $5,304.00 $3,266.00
District
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-1507, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
1. The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the.
City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Issaquah School District No. 411 2007 Capital Facilities Plan:
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 — 2012-2013 Capital
Facilities Plan.
2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the
City:
1. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan,
2. An annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and
five (5) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January , 2Q09.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of January 2Q09,
L,tV,-j-/ )/Ij- /� -
Dens Law; Mayor
3
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 1216/2oo9 (summary)
ORD. 1526.12/l 1 /48:scr
4
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, VSA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way WILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee 1 School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
9 3812 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100090 CP07293
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,196.63which 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07293 $8,196.63
Please note that ive have a disagreement on the application of the school blipact 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.
Tlta, you, Please ontact ole if you have any questions:
Jon n r
G ioway of tia Hi lands.
(253)606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels@coincast.net
Galloway at the Highlands
1'O Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 south Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee 1 School Impact frees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
10 3808 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100I00 CP07301
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07301 $8,201.32
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 -,vith 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.
Tl yo"as,contactne if you have any questions:
th
altovay eHighlands.
(253)606 -493rD
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels�7a corncast.net
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Bax 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY of RENTQN
RECEIVED
City of Renton,
Development Services Division APR 2 4 2012
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, NVA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject; Permit Fee I School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
11 3804 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100110 CP07300
Dear City of Rentor:
Enclosed is our clieck for $ 8,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07300 $8,201.32
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.
T7jKi4a!0 ou. Pleas coma t Ine if you have any questions:
7Gy of th Hi lands.
(253)606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels c@conicast,net
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA. 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Rentor;, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee ! School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW $2.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Buiidit,g Permit #
12 3800 NE 3RD PLACE 2690104120 CP07292
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $7,898.14 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school irnpact fees
assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5532, Marc 8, 20I0).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07292 $7,898.14
Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and
are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to
RCW 82.02.1170(4),
We look forward to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but hope to
achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute.
A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future,
Tira rk4y,,1,,aactIne ifyou have any questions:
JoGalloway ods.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
ikbartels comcastmet
y CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
INV rV 425-430-6510
0 Cash
Check No. 9 16
]Description:
El Copy Fee
El Appeal Fee
Receipt 99
Date
0 Notary Service
El
7c- 5 �IJ (,, � ) 1r 11
Funds Received From:
Amount
Name
Address
city/Zip
City$taff Signature"
March 8, 2007
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXA]tMTR
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
4)
APPLICANT/CONTACT: Johnathan Kurth
Davis -Kurth Consulting
1201 Monster Rd SW, Ste. 320
Renton, WA 98057
OWNERS: Minh Van Pham and Dan. My Du
Rainier Pacific Development
1618 S Lane Street
Seattle, IWA 98144
Galloway at the Highlands
File No.: LUA 06-138, PP, CU --A,, SA -A, ECF
LOCATION: 343 Union Avenue NE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval to subdivide a 1.61 -acre site zoned Commercial
Arterial, into individual lots for future development of a mixed-
use building and townhouses.
SLiN1MARY OF ACTION; Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on February 13, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a publichearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the February 20, 2007 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, at 9.01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Ea Mbft No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
3: Zoning Map I ExhWbit No. 4: Site Plan
Galloway at the Highlands P_ urinary Plat
File No._ LUA-06-138, PP, CIJ-A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 2
The hearing opened `vith a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Hij 6ns, Senior Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady, 1A7ay, Renton, Washington 98055_ The request today is for preliminary
plat approval, site plan approval, and conditional use permit. The project was originally submitted without the
preliminary plat request; which is why it was assigned to be an administrative site plan approval. The
preliminary plat raised it to Hearing Examiner review.
The project is located on Union Avenue NE and is about 1.6 acres, which was developed in 1970 with a one-
story grocery store and an asphalt parking lot. Subsequent uses to the grocery store included a discount food
store and a succession of thrift stores. The site has been the same since its development with the building and
the parking. The building is currently vacant_
The uses surroundm' g the property are commercial to the north and east, and multi -family residential to the west
and single-family townhornes to the south. There is a new City of Renton park, Heather Downs that is located to
the south.
The area of the property is zoned Comrnercial Arterial (CA) with the exception of the park which becomes
residential zoning. This property is located within the NE 4'h Business District, there are specific limitations
related to use and would limit on-site services on the property to Video Stores, Financial and Real Estate
Services and Repair Services, excluding any automobile repair_
The project was originally submitted as an all residential use, the applicant was requested to re -design to include
a mixed-use development on the east end of the property. The project now includes commercial and residential
at the east end of the property and two mixed-use buildings on each side of the new street and a stand-alone
residential at the back of the property. Townhouses would be built on the west end and apartment style
condominiums over the commercial and parking areas. The access to all of the units would be via a new public
street that would terminate in a hammerhead at the west end.
Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of the property into 22 townhouse lots, 2 lots for the
mined use, 5 open space tracts located at the center of the property ori each side of the road and at the ends of
the hammerhead, and a new public street coming off Union Avenue NE. The applicant requested and received
approval for a 24 -foot wide public street, which was approved as long as curbs were rolled for emergency
vehicle accommodation.
The 22 -townhouse lots meet zoning requirements, they would be developed into 3 and 4 consecutively attached
dwellings in six buildings. Each townhouse unit would have approximately 240 square feet of ground related
outdoor space at the rear of the unit. The landscape tracts would provide almost 5000 square feet of open space
Exhibit No. 5:
Preliminary Plat Map
Exhibit No. 6:
water feature
View of NE 3` Street frontage with
Exhibit 1`7o. 7:
and Union
Vieux of commercial space at NAE 3,dExhibit
No. 8:
Building Cluster PIan
Exhibit No. 9:
.Front Elevations
Exhibit No. 10:
Right and Left Elevations
Exhibit No. 11.:
Rear Elevation
Exhibit No. 12:
Aerial Photograph of Area
Exhibit No. 13:
Colored Rendering
The hearing opened `vith a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Hij 6ns, Senior Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady, 1A7ay, Renton, Washington 98055_ The request today is for preliminary
plat approval, site plan approval, and conditional use permit. The project was originally submitted without the
preliminary plat request; which is why it was assigned to be an administrative site plan approval. The
preliminary plat raised it to Hearing Examiner review.
The project is located on Union Avenue NE and is about 1.6 acres, which was developed in 1970 with a one-
story grocery store and an asphalt parking lot. Subsequent uses to the grocery store included a discount food
store and a succession of thrift stores. The site has been the same since its development with the building and
the parking. The building is currently vacant_
The uses surroundm' g the property are commercial to the north and east, and multi -family residential to the west
and single-family townhornes to the south. There is a new City of Renton park, Heather Downs that is located to
the south.
The area of the property is zoned Comrnercial Arterial (CA) with the exception of the park which becomes
residential zoning. This property is located within the NE 4'h Business District, there are specific limitations
related to use and would limit on-site services on the property to Video Stores, Financial and Real Estate
Services and Repair Services, excluding any automobile repair_
The project was originally submitted as an all residential use, the applicant was requested to re -design to include
a mixed-use development on the east end of the property. The project now includes commercial and residential
at the east end of the property and two mixed-use buildings on each side of the new street and a stand-alone
residential at the back of the property. Townhouses would be built on the west end and apartment style
condominiums over the commercial and parking areas. The access to all of the units would be via a new public
street that would terminate in a hammerhead at the west end.
Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of the property into 22 townhouse lots, 2 lots for the
mined use, 5 open space tracts located at the center of the property ori each side of the road and at the ends of
the hammerhead, and a new public street coming off Union Avenue NE. The applicant requested and received
approval for a 24 -foot wide public street, which was approved as long as curbs were rolled for emergency
vehicle accommodation.
The 22 -townhouse lots meet zoning requirements, they would be developed into 3 and 4 consecutively attached
dwellings in six buildings. Each townhouse unit would have approximately 240 square feet of ground related
outdoor space at the rear of the unit. The landscape tracts would provide almost 5000 square feet of open space
Galloway at the Highlands Prchij .,5ary Plat
File No_: LUA-06-1?8, PP, CU -A, SA -A., ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 3
to the project. The 22 proposed townhouse units would have five different floor plans and be three stories in
height, which meets size and height requirements for this zone_
The two commercial projects would front on Union Avenue NE and be located in two 3 -story buildings, one on
each side north and south of the access street. Parking is Iocated in the back of each building and is shared with
the condominium units. All pervious areas of the site would be landscaped.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -significance — Mitigated for the project,
which included six mitigation measures. No appeals of the determination were filed.
Fire, Traffic and Park Mitigation fees were imposed on this project.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan criteria for commercial corridor designations. It meets
the requirements of the Community Design Element Policies and complies with the underlining Zoning
Designation requirements. The density is 31.06 du/ac, which is within the allowed range for the Business
District.
Parking for the Townhouses would provide more than required by the zoning regulations. Guests will most
likely have to park on the driveway aprons or on Union Avenue NE_ No parking would be allowed on the new
24 -foot wide street. If the commercial use is daytime only, there should be no parking issues_ The
cornmerciaUmixed-use is a requirement of the City, the applicant did not originally request it, in fact, quest] oned
the economic feasibility of commercial on what is essentially a dead-end street. In addition there is minimum
setback along Union so that there is no opportunity to have parking for a commercial use that is just a "drive up,
run in get a latte situation_"
There 17,1ill be landscaping, however it has been requested that a homeowner's association be established to be
----- sur at_thelandscap.ingis.mamtained_for_the-r-ornrnon_areas_and_street_trees.--I.f-trees-were-damaged for -any
reason, the homeowner's association would be responsiblc for replacing them
r^
The site is Iocated within the Renton School District The School District has indicated that they can
accommodate the approximately 16 additional students.
Public services can be provided readily, utilities are to the property and will be brought onto the property by the
applicant.
The proposed townhouses will provide housing to an area that still is seeing a lot of demand. It is located to the
rear of a property that is configured in a long narrow manner that would reduce the visibility of commercial uses
from Union Avenue NE, it is debatable whether or not the feasibility of the commercial that is actually located
on Union Avenue will be sufficient to support the various uses that are allowed. The stand-alone residential at
the rear of the property increases the likelihood of economic viability.
The newer project that abuts this site to the south is townhomes of basically the same configuration as these.
there is no commercial on that property and the property to the west is all residential,
The pedestrian connections are required to all abutting properties. There is a possibility for a connection to the
west, which is a parking area for the multi -family use, there can be connections to the south although the
abutting property is fenced along its north property line. They were not required to have connections. The
streets are access easements on private property and again they are fenced at the ends of driveways that access
the towrihomes.
Galloway at the Highlands P. mnary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
IAarch 8, 2007
Page 4
The project is subject to the urban design regulations and must meet the intent of various elements of the
regulations. This does meet the intent of site design and street pattern, building location and Orientation_
building entries that are to be from streets, transition to surrounding development,. and a service element location
and design which would be private for the townhouses and located in the parking garages for the commercial
uses. This project does meet all required minimum standards required.
One of the commercial buildiings appears to be right along the property line, there does not seem to be room for
a service lane in back of either building. There will be a fence between the rear open space and the property line
except where the common open space is located.
Johnathan Kurth 1201 MOnster Road SW, Ste. 320, Renton, WA 98057 stated that they agree with the planning
department, there were some challenges in trying to make a long narrow site work and become cconomiealIy
viable. They have been pleased with the development of a good design.
Mike Davis, 1201 Monster Road SW, Ste. 320, Renton, WA 98057 stated that he appreciated the fact that Tracts
A and D should possibly be classified as open space. They had the same issues with the Cottages Plat in the
same sense that open space was not fechnically required but they labeled them as such, then it was very hard to
get the use changed_ They were hoping that they could put something that stated the area as being "non
residential".
Upon questioning by the Examiner, he stated that they would have preferred this site to be all residential_
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that all services are there, water, sewer and storm have been
handled. This has been scrutinized so far that there have not been any problems. They are tending to go more in
favor of public streets rather than primate driveways_ There is enough activity and the tendency is to go towards
public streets so the City has more control. If it is a private road, the Renton Police do not have the jurisdiction
nr authority tQ gormand supportio parking rules Fire and Maintenance have been concerned about that.
Darrell Offe, 13932 SE 159" Place, Renton, WA 98058 stated that he wanted to try to answer the question
regarding back of house services for the buildings to the north. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the survey of the actual
edge of buildings to the northwest and northeast on the property line. The buildings are within feet of the
property line. The building on the east comes in on the upper part and that you can see on the cover sheet of the
Staff Report. There are no back of house services to the building on Union. On the building that comes off of
4's, this is basically a strip mall of food services, little shops and there is a circle parking lot coming in off of 4`'
with no access to Union or into the subject property here today. There is no activity occurring at the back of
these buildings, all activity is to the front of the buildings.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:56 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Johnathan Kurth, filed a request for a series of approvals for a mixed-use complex. The
approvals sought are for a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use and Site Plan.
Galloway at the Highlands Prelir,_,ary Plat
l~ile No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECIC
March 8, 2007
Page 5
The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
The subject site is located at 343 Union Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of
Union Avenue a few parcels south of NE 4th Street.
6_ The reap element of the Comprchensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of Commercial Corridor uses, but does not mandate such development
without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial).
S. The subject site was annexed to tbr- City with the adoption of Ordinance 2249 enacted in June 1966.
9. The subject site is approximately 1. 61 acres or 69,959 square feet. Thb rectangular parcel is 165 feet
wide (north to south) along Union and 424 feet deep.
10. The site is flat. It contains no critical or sensitive areas and no significant trees.
11. A vacant, 17,640 square foot building and surrounding parking lot are located on the subject site. It had
been used as a grocery store and.thrift shop at one time,
12. The applicant proposes developing a mixed-use complex consisting of freestanding attached townhomes
and condominium units over retail or commercial spaces. The buildings would flank an east -west street
that runs through the center of the site. The building facades would more or less mirror each other
across the new roadway. There would be two buildings located along Union with one north and one
south of the new street. These two buildings would contain commercial spaces on the ground floor at
Union and seven (7) condominiums above the commercial spaces and three townhomes west of the
conunercial/condominium section_ Interior parking would be located between the mixed-use
component and the to wrihomes. To the rear or west of those buildings would be six buildings, wjth
three north and three south of the new street. These buildings would be townhomes in 3 -attached and 4 -
attached arrangements.
13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 24 lots and 5 tracts. Twelve lots would be located
along the north side of the new access road and twelve lots would be located on the south side of the
roadway. One tract would be a decorative, circular, traffic island in the center of the road about halfway
in from Union Avenue. Two open space tracts would be located north and south of the traffic island.
Two additional open space tracts would be located at the extreme northwest and southwest comers of
the plat, adjacent to what will be a hammerhead turnaround_
14. Twenty-two (22) lots for townhomes will range in size from 1,275 square feet to 1,477 square feet. The
townhomes would be three stories and contain a variety of floor plans ranging in size from 2,017 square
feet to 2,125 square feet. They would each have 240 square feet of outdoor space at the rear of each
building. They would each also contain garages. '
Galloway at the Highlands P.-ninaTy Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 6
15. The corner lots, the ones containing the mixed-use con-,mcrcial and residential uses, would be 8,220
square feet (north of the street) and 8,270 square feet (south of the street). Fourteen units or seven in
each corner building will consist of two and three bedroom condominiums that would be located above
the corner commercial uses. There would be shared parking for the residential and commercial uses
located to the rear (west) of the ground floor commercial uses.
16. As noted above, the buildings on the north will generally mirror the buildings on the south side of the
street. Running east to west, on each side of the street the commercial building will be attached to a
triplex of townhomes. Then there will be open space (north and south of the traffic circle) followed by a
fourplex of townhomes. a narrow yard and another fourplex of townhomes. The buildings will vary in
height but all buildings will be 3 -stories high with peaked roof and gable treatments. There will be
modulation and entrance porches and decks along the facades. The commercial facades will be located
along the street frontage.
l7. Access to the site will be from anew east to west roadway. A modification has been granted to allow
the access road to be 24 feet wide and have rolled curbs. The rolled curbs are intended to allow
emergency vehicles to maneuver in and around the traffic island or temporarily stopped vehicles. The
road will end in a hammerhead turnaround. Curbs and 6 -foot wide sidewalks with tree grates would be
located in easements in the front yard of each lot. The roadway could be extended to the west
depending on development proposals west of the subject site.
18. The proposed layout of this mixed-use complex makes use of various exceptions, district overlays and
conditional use permit approvals. Apartments, whether rental or condominium ownership are permitted
in mixed use buildings wren the ground floor commercial space is at least 30 feet deep. A Conditional
Use Permit is required for standalone townhome units constructed in the comnnercial corridor along
Union Avenue if they do not contain commercial space. A Conditional Use Permit showing that they
meet that permit's criteria is required. The District Overlay for NE 4th Street requires certain design
features including modulation and facade treatment. While the CA zone permits a wide range of
commercial uses, the NE 4th Street Business District overlay restricts uses to things such as
entertainment rental, financial and real estate services and small-scale repair businesses but not
automobile repair.
19. The density for the NE 4th Street Business District and the CA zone permits a minimum density of 10
units per acre to a maximum of 60 units per acre when in a mixed-use project. This development would
be 31.06 dwelling units per acre after subtracting approximately 19,471 square feet for roadurays. The
density is calculated for the number of dwelling units (36) and not the number of proposed lots (24).
20. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate
approximately 16 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be
assigned on a space available basis.
21. The development will generate ixrcreased traffic over the current vacant property.
22. The existing lot has more open space but will have less impermeable area after redevelopment, An
analysis found that the proposal is exempt from detention and water quality treatment.
23 Sewer and domestic water will be provided by the City and services are available along Union Avenue.
These services will have to be extended into the project site.
Galloway at the Highlands Preli ,_iary Plat
Pile No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A SA -A, ECl~
March 8, 2007
Page 7
CONCLUSIONS:
Preliminary flat
Thi proposed Preliminary Plat appears to serve the public use and interest. The proposed plat will
permit a mix of uses on a commercially zoned parcel. The plat would divide the subject site to allow
individual ownership of smaller townhome lots on the interior of the site while creating tWo larger tots
for mixed-use commercial and residential uses along Union Avenue, NE. This division will meet the
goals and policies of the comprehensive plan for commercial and urban mixed-use developments along
and adjacent to NE 4th Street.
2. The plat will provide an opportunity to own homes with individually owned ground floor Open space but
smaller, limited yards for those wbo do not want large yards and extensive maintenance responsibilities.
The larger lots will provide both commercial services immediately adjacent to the residential
component, hopefully providing needed urban services that reduce the need for extra vehicle trips, and
residential condominium ownership opportunities, again, proN�ding ownership opportunities rather than
rental opportunities for housing.
The redevelopment of this underutilized site will add to the tax base of the City_ The ERC imposed
mitigation fees to help offset the impacts of this additional development on existing City services_ The
additional impacts such as noise and traffic were anticipated when the property was designated for
comsuch uses-
and potential mixed use 'a the comprehensive plan and when zoning was applied allowing
such uses_
The lots are rectangular and will be served by a public street. The plat provides open space components
providing breaks in the building facades and relief from buildings that are otherwise very close to the
street. The plat appears to have reasonable access for residents and a hanimerhead turnaround for
emergency vehicles. The traffic circle provides an element of additional visual interest as well as
providing a limitation to excessive speed on a narrow roadway.
There are suitable facilities to serve the site with water and sewer utilities.
Conditional Use Permit
Normally, residential buildings located along Union Avenue in the NE 4th District must be attached to
or included within buildings containing a commercial component. "Standalone" residential buildings
may be permitted by conditional use permit along Union Avenue NE. The intent is to make sure that
residential uses do not displace the favored commercial uses in the CA zone. In this case, the applicant
and staff agree that the lack of commercial exposure for portions of the lot interior to Union Avenue
would be unsuitable for commercial use.
The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest, will
not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found
in Section 4-31.-36 (C), which provides in part that:
a_ The proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan;
b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location;
There '%ill be no undue impacts on adjacent property;
Galloway at the Highlands P fninary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU-A, SA-A FCF
March 8, 2007
Page 8
d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any;
C. Parking, unless otherwise permitted, will not occur in the required yards;
f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project;
g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property;
h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property
where appropriate; and
Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal.
The requested conditional use appears justified.
8. The mixed-use project appears to comply with the goals and policies of the Commercial Corridor
designation in the comprehensive plan. The proposal will contain commercial uses along Union but
develop them in conjunction with both attached residential uses above and west of the commercial uses.
The interior of the site of this narrow site was considered unsuitable for additional commercial uses and
urban goals suggest a mix of commercial and residential uses to provide convenience for the residents
and a built-in clientele for the commercial uses.
The CA zoning permits residential uses in consort with commercial uses and permits standalone
residential units in the CA zone. The proposed townhomes appear suitable and are permitted by the
underlying zoning.
10. The applicant has described a demand for this type of housing and the City's policies appear to support
such uses_ The site is somewhat removed from the heavily traveled NE 4th corridor and Union itself is
not a through street, limiting the passersby on that street.
11. There are a variety of uses adjacent to the subject site. The proposal will provide a transition between
the higher intensity commercial uses along NE 4th and the single-family and other residential uses
adjacent to the site. The buildings are scaled similarly to single-family uses and commercial uses could
actually be taller in some cases. The modulations in facades and rooflines as well as the setbacks
provided by the included rear yard open space would also aid in the transition between commercial,
larger buildings and these residential uses and the less intense nearby residential uses_
12. Parking will be contained in individual garages as well as common garages and will not encroach into
yard space. The narrow street will not support parking and will be kept clear for general and emergency
access. Sidewalks will separate pedestrians from vehicles.
13. Aside from the short-lived construction noise, there will be the normal hubbub associated with
residential development and low -scale, low intensity commercial uses. There will be additional traffic
but Iocal streets should be able to handle the additional load and the applicant will be contributing
mitigation fees to help offset some traffic impacts.
14. The project appears to be well landscaped and Code requires compliance with certain criteria making
sure that the proposal will fit in with the community,
Galloway at the Highlands Prelih_,xary Plat
l=ife No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 9
Is- As noted, the site is Served by City infrastructure for water and sewer service.
16. In addition, Section 4-9-030(K) provides additional criteria for standalone uses. These criteria in
summary contain the following guidance:
Stand-alone residential use may not be located within 150 feet of an adjacent or abutting arterial street.
This includes Sunset Boulevard, Duvall Avenue, Anacortes Avenue, or Union Avenue in tth h
th e Sunset
Business District; NE 4 Street, Union Avenue, or Duvall Avenue in the NE 4 Street Business District;
and Puget Drive. or South Benson Road in the Puget Drive Business District, as shown on the Business
District Maps in RMC 4-3-040.
A mix of commercial, service, and residential uses exist within a 150 -foot radius of the proposed
residential use.
Commercial use of the property is not feasible for reasons including, but not limited to: lack of
commercial frontage, lack of access, critical areas and/or critical area buffers, or property configuration.
Residential use will augment the primary purpose of the commercial arterial zone by adding a
pedestrian oriented land use that provides a physical connection between residential and commercial
uses.
The use provides a transition between commercial and lower density R-10 and R-8 zoned areas and
provides a visual, pedestrian, and vehicular connection from the residential zoned areas to the
Commercial Arterial zoned areas.
Development standards from RMC 4-3-04OF ["Development Standards for Uses Located Within the
Northeast Fourth Strect...Business District") are met unless the applicant opts for a planned urban
development, subject to RMC 4-9-150. Pedestrian connection standards from this section must be met
without modification.
17_ _ The standalone uses are approximately 230 feet from Union and fall outside of the 150 -foot prohibited
area— 'his a�laws�o3ru�nercial-tls s t6fi� l cater along Union wliile flee less efpos d—in— erna pamon of—
the site will be providing housing_ There are commercial uses within 150 feet of the proposed
residential uses, As noted, the applicant did not believe commercial uses would be viable in this
location and cited the failed prior uses of the site, the lack of commercial exposure and the limited
traffic along Union south of NE 4`' Street. The applicant did, although reluctantly, add commercial uses
along Union. The residents could prove to be customers of the commercial uses at the site and along
NTE 4"', north of the site. The residential uses do provide a reasonable transition between more intense
commercial uses and the arterial traffic carried along NE 4m and the less intense residential uses south of
the site. Abrupt transitions between commercial uses and single family residential uses do not always
prove popular due to noise and other nuisance issues.
Site Plan
18. In addition to the proposed plat and the fact that the proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit the
subject site is also subject to Site Plan Re -view although in some cases the criteria mirror some of those
already considered in the other reviews. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria
for reviewing a site plan, Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
Galloway at the Highlands k. rnjnaryP]at
File No_: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March S, 2407
Page 10
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
Conservation of prope,-ty values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g_ Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public senrices to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
19. The proposal conforms to both the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan as well as the CA
Zoning regulations, The mixed-use commercial component as well as the interior townhomes are
permitted since the buildings feature the appropriate design features and are appropriately located in
juxtaposition to Union and _NTE 4th Street and its other commercial uses_
20. The buildings are appropriately scaled for the CA zone and for their locations on the subject site. Ti
�e
commercial components comply with the 50 -foot height limits while the residential buildings comply
with the 35 -foot height limits imposed in the CA zone.
21. The proposal contains buildings that close on the street but contain modulations and design features
such as peaked roofs, decks and porches that provide visual interest. There is open space included in the
lots as well as common open space near the center of the project as well as open space near the end of
the roadway_ There should be sufficient light and air although the narrow street will be somewhat
limiting.
22. The confined nature of the project on a narrow lot should not adversely affect neighboring properties.
There will be rear yard setbacks created by the open space providing separation from adjAcent uses.
23. The road and sidewalks provide reasonable circulation for residents both in vehicles and on foot.
Emergency access has been accommodated on the narrow street with rolled curbs and the hammerhead
turnaround. Pedestrian connections to adjacent property are limited by existing developmerit patterns in
those areas. Code Iimits parking to 1.75 stalls per unit while the applicant has proposed 1.78 stalls. The
additional parking is anticipated to provide shared parking for the residential units and the commercial
units in the two mixed use commercial-residcutial buildings and due to the fact that on -street parking
will be limited due to the narrow street.
24. As noted, the site is served by City utilities, which are available along Union. They would be extended
into the new street to serve the properties interior to Union.
District $ Urban Center Design. Criteria
25. Again, many of these criteria mirror those already reviewed but there are some speck criteria. In
summary, the criteria are:
Galloway at the Highlands Prelil--nary Plat
File No., LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page I l
] . create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses; maintain existing grid street pattem_
2. provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the
street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street; orient Buildings to the
street with clear connections to the sidewalk
3. ensure that building entries fiuther the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban
character of the district; primary entrance of each building shall be located on the fagade facing
a street.
4. redevelopment projects respect the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are presen=ed; achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from
suizounding development
S. reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks)
by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
6. incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce
traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided
7. maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating
vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -
oriented streets; parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available.
S. have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors;
provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in convenient locations; and provide the
opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such
activity.
9. landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and
climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the
community; street trees are required and shall be between the curb and buildings.
10. recreation areas and common open space be provided; equal to ISO square feet per unit of which
100 square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks.
11. ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that
all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting; facades shall
include modulation or articulation; untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks,
or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited; use materials that reduce the visual bulk of large
buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood.
26. The proposal would provide a new right-angle street intersecting Union but due to existing development
currently there would be no continuation of a street grid pattern. The new street could be continued
west at some point in the future. Similarly, constraints on the site prevent the use of alleys. The lot is
too narrow to provide alleys and even the main street has been reduced in width due to that constraint.
Pedestrians R=ill be accommodated on sidewalks and parking will occur in garages and not in front of
either the residential or commercial buildings. Pedestrians will be able to circulate within the codex,
to the proposal's commercial spaces and to the NE 4th Street corridor.
2T Landscaping and building design features will be used to reduce the apparent bulk of the buildings and
avoid a "looming" affect over the streetscape. Landscaping wiII be provided along the street and in the
open space areas. The complex proN ides a mix of public and private open spaces. Open space areas
will provide recreational opportunities as well as providing landscape relief. The buildings have
porches and other articulations and modulations as well as varied rooflines to improve appearance. The
exterior treatment will provide definition and the facades of opposing units will mirror one another
providing some symmetry coupled with the articulation and modulation differences.
Galloway at the Highlands P. minaryPlat
File No.: LUA-06-138: PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 12
28. In conclusion, the proposa1 is modest in size but contains a number of complex elements including
commercial spaces, shared parking; condominium and townhome m,,ncrship opportunities, narrow
streets, open space and traffic island. The project should appeal to those seeking urban living and
residential ownership.
RECOMAMNDATION AND DECISIONS:
The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat and this office approves the Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permits subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated
that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on January 23, 2007.
2. Demolition permit shall be obtained and all inspections completed on the demolition of the existing
building prior to Final Plat approval.
3. A Homeowners' Association shall be created concurrently with the recording of the Final Plat in order to
establish maintenance responsibilities for the landscaped open space tracts. A draft of the document(s)
shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted, meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-070, "Landscaping," Approval
by the Development Services Department of a conceptual landscape plan shall be a condition of Site
Plan Review. Subnnttal of a final landscape plan shall'be required prior to Final Plat approval.
The areas labeled as open space shall not be used for residential development and covenants shall be
required stating this limitation.
ORDERED THIS 8a' day of March 2007.
t
FRED J. ICA
HEARING EXXMMR
TRANSMTITED THIS 8" day of March 2007 to the parties of record:
Elizabeth Higgins
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Johnathan Kw th
1201 Monster Road SW, Ste, 320
Renton, WA 98057
Darrell Offe
13932 SE 159"'Place
Renton., WA 98058
Kayren Kittrick Mike Davis Don Maletta
1055 S Grady Way 1201 Monster Road SW, Ste. 320 345 Union Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98059
Galloway at the Highlands Preiii—aary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 1.3
Pham Ming Van & Dan My Du Stephen Northeraft
1618 S Lane Street 4209 SE Yd Place
Seattle, WA 9$144 Renton, WA 98059
TRANSMITTED THIS 8a' day of March 2007 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
King Counts, Journal
Larry Rude, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code,. request for reconsideration must be filed iri
writing on or before 5:00 p.)p_ March 22-.2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision.. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,. and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
------G-are-available forinspectionor-purchase-in the-Finance-Departm-ent,-first-floor of -C- ity
Hail. An appeal must be filed in wrif-'ng on or before 5:00 p.m. March 22 2007
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final PrOcessine of the file. You
imay contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides. that no ex parte {private one-on-one} communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the Iand use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be. made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court,
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Project Lacaticn_ 343 Union Avenue NE
E5 9 T23N R5E E U2
7
74th St_ CA
4th -St. CA CA
• i
C A ca CA
w -- -- CAi CA
R-10
CA R-1o'(P)
R
— 8 NE 2nd St-
- Y -
RMH
o -R !�B
RMH -
R.
E-+ R';-FQ
�RMH
R- 8 j
f
I
�' -- RMH
.. , R-8 ,
CN
Y
ZONING
+ i P/hTW 72CENW.AL 5MVICBS
Q71iaw
y
RC(P)
G5 - zl T23N RSE E Vz
----lt� 0i,
RC(P)
EXHEBYT
16 T23N - R5E 3
d# 10 H O -H.1 VIS3-ZV3x-H L`dn)f-SIAVQ
('2S ---�AV ONZ£' L)
'3'N '3AV NOINn
1�ul¢
K
I
O
I
Q
/ o t'r
w,Dg
�?M
iLl
w
o^
L
I—
U
w
('2S ---�AV ONZ£' L)
'3'N '3AV NOINn
1�ul¢
K
I
O
I
/ o t'r
w,Dg
�?M
iLl
--"
L
bqS'•�
�TG
.I
f lu
��-sil
o.
a�-
1�ul¢
K
I
O
I
/ o t'r
w,Dg
�?M
iLl
--"
L
S
.I
f lu
o.
a�-
3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated;
1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the
geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Highlands Square
Townhome Development, 343 Union Avenue Southeast jsic), Renton, Washington," dated
September 27, 2006, as prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC.
2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements outlined in Volume Il of the most recent Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed if the site plan indicates a net increase in
average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee is $75.00 per trip and
shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat.
4_ The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per
new multi -family unit and $0.52 per net square foot of commercial space. Fire Mitigation
Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to recording the Final Plat and for the
commercial buildings prior to obtaining building permits.
5. All residential units within the project shall be equipped with automatic fire suppression
systems (sprinklers) prior to final inspection.
6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new
multi -family unit prior to obtaining building permits.
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Al #:
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of:
September 10, 2012
Dept/Div/Board. Y
De t/Div/Board: AJ LS/Cit Clerk
Agenda Status
Staff Contact: Bonnie I. Walton, x6502
Consent ................ yllr X
Public Hearing........
Correspondence.......
Subject: i
-�'',`
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision Galloway at the
Ordinance .............
Highlands IVt#+eirattorney T II Aboliris Campbell, Dille,
Resolution
Barnett & Smith, PLLC.
Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12 (File No. LUA-07-128 FP)
.............
Old Business..........
1u.l iAing for" )*Apad-4�e5
New Business.........
Study Sessions........
Exhibit -
7
• City Clerk's Appeal notificatione ter (8/1/2012)
Information............
• NctirTbf Appeal a
Nili
• Hearing Exi rs. p�e°af o�mpact Fee Assessment
{7/9/2 12)�l-F� ] 20/z�
A
Bm, 11 TP r� ,
fJ
a i/1S
ur�'
A,, P.I
�
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept...........
Finance Dept........
Other ..................
Fiscal impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment........
Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated.........
Total Proiect Budget .... City Share Total Proiect...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal of th iner's decision on the Galloway at the Highlands (Lots 9, 1Q 11, & 12) Final Plat
was filed on my _ , 2012, y Galloway at the Highlands representative Talis Abolin ,- ampbell, Dille,
Barnett & Smi ompanied by the required 5250.00 fee_
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Galloway at the Highlands Qppeal-
RentonnafagnbilU bb
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CITY OF RENTON
JUL 10 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Galloway at the Highlands APPEAL OF IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Appeal
Summary
c,
The Appellant appeals the imposition of school impact fees for the construction of four single-family
homes, totaling $32,497.41 The appeal is denied and the imposition of $ 32,497.41 in school impact
fees is sustained. The key issue of this appeal is whether an ordinance assessing impact fees at
building permit issuance based upon amounts in effect at the time of subdivision approval creates
constitutionally protected vested rights that cannot be extinguished or modified by subsequent
amendment. No such vested right was created in this case and no fee adjustment is warranted.
The Appellant appeals the imposition of impact fees for the Renton School District ("RSD") for
building permits issued for development of single-family homes in the Galloway of the Highlands
subdivision. When the subdivision was approved on March 28, 2007, there was no RSD impact fee.
At that time the City's impact fee only assessed and only applied to impact fees collected for the
Issaquah School District ("ISD"). RMC 4-1-160(E) provided that impact fees came due at building
permit issuance but that the amount of the fee would be based upon the "fee schedule in effect when
the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval." The definitions and purpose clause of the ordinance
clearly provided that the impact fee ordinance was to exclusively apply to ISD fees, including RCW
4-1-160(E). Consequently, when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved, the impact fee
ordinance did not dictate that any future RSD impact fees would be based upon impact fee schedules
in effect at preliminary plat approval.
Subsequent to the approval of the Galloway preliminary plat, for a brief period of time the Renton
City Council did amend the impact fee ordinance to provide that the RSD impact fee amounts in
effect at preliminary plat approval (0$) would apply for impact fees that carne due at building permit
issuance. On December 23, 2009 the Renton City Council added RSD impact fees to its impact fee
ordinance. The definitions and purpose clause of the impact fee ordinance were not revised to
include the RSD and its fees, but this was clearly an oversight and the only rational way to apply the
amendment as intended was to apply all provisions of the impact fee ordinance to RSD fees,
including RMC 4-1-160(E). RMC 4-1-160(E) also happened to provide that it applied to any
preliminary plats approved after the effective date of Ordinance 4808. Ordinance 4808 went into
effect on November 10, 1999. The Galloway preliminary plat was approved after November 10,
1999. Consequently, when the impact fee ordinance was amended on December 23, 2009 to include
APPEAL - 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RSD impact fees, the RSD impact fees for the Galloway development due at building pennit issuance
were based upon the adopted amounts in effect when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved,
which was $0. The Appellant purchased the Galloway development on March 10, 2010 while the
December 23, 2009 amendments remained in effect and testified that he purchased the property in
reliance upon the fact that the RSD impact fees would be $0.
On March 17, 2010, the Renton City Council amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that the amount
for an impact fee charged at building permit issuance was to be based upon the fee schedules in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, instead of the fees in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval. If the December 23, 2009 amendments of RMC 4-1-160(E)constitute a constitutionally
protected vested right to the $0 RSD impact fee, the Council would have been precluded from
amending RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide for a higher amount. However, RMC 4-1-16(E) doesn't create
any such vested rights. Rather it just creates an expectancy that is most analogous to an adopted
"mode" of tax collection that provides guidelines on what impact fee schedules apply when amounts
come due at the time of building permit issuance. Those guidelines were amended on March 17,
2010 and the RSD impact fees for any building permits issued after that date must be based upon
impact fee schedules in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Testimony
Talis Abolins testified that the appellant is asking for the reversal of a retroactive repeal of a
provision in the city of Renton's code which had expressly granted Galloway LLC the right to the fee
schedule in place when the preliminary plat received approval. The approval was received on March
28, 2007. At that point in time, the school fees in affect were zero dollars. Renton indicated that
school fee impacts would be mitigated by an increase in the city's tax -base. However, after the
appellant purchased the vested Highlands project, the city retroactively repealed the ordinance,
resulting in a substantial financial impact. The appellant is asking for reversal based on due process,
fairness, and RCW 82.02.070 which provides that a city must give an appeal process which allows a
fee to be modified based on principles of fairness.
Greg Heath, 2214 Tacoma Road, stated that he has been involved in real estate development for a
number of years. He has participated in around 10-12 development projects. There are 4 members of
the Galloway LLC including Mr. Heath, his wife, Jonathan Arnold, and Kris Arnold. The LLC was
formed to purchase the property and complete the building project. Galloway purchased the property
through a bankruptcy process from a receiver. Exhibit 4 is a landscape plan and reflects the current
plan for the development of the project. At the time of Mr. Heath's acquisition of the property, there
was a small amount of development on the property. The south east quadrant contained the framing
and partial roofing for a building. The south-west quadrant had foundations, and the north quadrant
was vacant. There will be 35 dwelling units and 3 commercial spaces under the current plan. The
LLC reviewed the building permit, infrastructure, fees paid, and if there was bonding required before
purchasing the property. As part of this due -diligence process, the LLC reviewed the effect of school
impact fees. Exhibit 1 is the school impact fee ordinance in effect at the time the property was
purchased by Galloway LLC. When reviewing the ordinance, Mr. Heath noted that the use of "vested
APPEAL -2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plat" in item 2, section E. Galloway LLC was aware school impact fees were zero at the time of the
preliminary plat approval and believed that vesting would result in the continuation of this policy.
Exhibit 2 notes the minutes of the meeting where the preliminary plat received approval. Galloway
LLC was under the impression that the school impact fees would be zero and resurrected already
approved building permits. After acquiring the property, Galloway LLC discovered that the city had
modified the Renton code, and the modification applied retroactively. Exhibit 6 reflects the
clarification from Neil Watts in regard to the impact of the city change on the Galloway project.
Permit fees were paid under protest from Galloway LLC. Exhibit 7 is a coalescing of the permit fees
expected to be paid for school impacts created by a consulting firm working for Galloway LLC.
Based on these calculations, the anticipated impact on the project is over 74,000 dollars. The fees
will have a vast negative impact on the financial situation of the project, especially in a difficult
market. 1f Galloway had been aware of these school impact fees, they would have paid less for the
project or not pursued it at all.
Mr. Abolins argued that for some time, the vested rights doctrine has not applied to school impact
fees. Courts have indicated that a developer should expect to be tied to fluctuations in school impact
fees. However, a developer has a right to proceed in a manner of certainty under due process. Renton
had enacted ordinances guaranteeing developers the right to school impact fees at the time of plat
approval. Exhibit 12 is a staff report from the Renton Planning Division which discussed the changes
made under the new ordinance. The report notes that school impact fees should be collected at the
time of building permit review for the amount required when preliminary plat approval was given.
Galloway had already received plat approval and was vested under city ordinance. An administrative
decision, detailed in an email from Neil Watts (exhibit 6), stated that the city was going to apply the
new school impact fee ordinance to projects that had already received plat approval. In exhibit 12
(page 3), the city acknowledges that the code allows applicant's to be vested to impact fees they
received when given preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 13 is additional Planning and Development
Committee material which states that applicants can be vested to previous fee schedules. Galloway
LLC created an entire cost -analysis based on the presumption they would not be paying any school
impact fees. Exhibit 8 is the ordinance that set -forth the vesting principle. Exhibit 9 is the
preliminary report to the hearing examiner on the Highlands project which notes, on page 11, that the
school district would be able to handle additional students from the development. Pages 10 and 1 I of
exhibit 10 note the environmental checklist given for the project. The public services section of this
checklist states that the project will increase need for public services and gives increased tax -base as
the method of paying for services (not school impact fees).
The hearing examiner questioned Mr. Abolins about the applicability of Graham Neighborhood Ass'n
u F. G. Associates, which recently held that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to procedural
requirements as opposed to land use controls. The Examiner noted that Mr. Abolins had
acknowledged that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to impact fees because they aren't
considered land use controls.
Garmon Newsom, assistant Renton City Attorney, cross examined Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath stated the
property was purchased in March 2010.
APPEAL - 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Newsom argued that the appellant does not have a vested right to the previous school impact
fees. Exhibit 8 (a copy of ordinance 4808) does not apply to the Renton School District. There is no
reference to Renton, only a reference to the Issaquah School District. Nothing in this section of the
code gives provision for vesting under the school district. The appellant cannot prove any forth of
vesting right based on this ordinance. Mr. Newsom commented that the appellant suggested that they
had an expectation of not paying their share of fees. A vested right must be something more than an
expectation. There is no language that benefits the appellant in the ordinance. The appellant was
aware that the code was changing during the period the property was purchased. Mr. Newsom noted
that Mr. Heath used the word "assumed" when discussing his belief the school impact fees would be
zero. Vesting is limited to zoning, building, or land use control ordinances. Impact fees are not
zoning ordinances. He submitted a previous court case which makes clear that impact fees are
collected at the time of building permits. Impact fees do not influence use or division. No guarantee
of availability in schools was given to the appellant. There is no vested night provision for schools
under Renton code, so Washington law and city ordinances must be adhered. Accordingly, Renton
code provides that school impact fees must be collected at the time of building permit approval. He
also noted the case of Abbey Rd. v. Bonney Lake which rejected the argument of financial cost being
too great as a reason not to levy a fee. The case provided that RCW 19.27.095(1) is unequivocal and
requires a complete building permit application to be submitted in order to receive vesting rights. No
vesting protection was entitled to Galloway LLC.
In regard to equitable estoppel, Mr. Newsom testified that the application of equitable estoppels
against government is disfavored. He referred to the decision in .Dept of Ecology v. George
Theodoratus which gave that the courts should be reluctant to find the government equitable estoppel
"when public revenues are involved." There is a three-part test to applying equitable estoppels. The
appellant has failed to prove that there was any party admission in consistent with the later claim.
The appellant has failed to prove that Galloway has relied on a specific act, statement, or admission.
A mistaken reading of the code is not the fault of Renton. The appellant has failed to prove there was
any type of injury based on reliance on the false beliefs. Paying more money is not considered an
injury by the courts. The appellant has not proven that there is any sort of manifest error. The money
will go the Renton School District, not the City. Malting a profit is not the city's concern.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner in regard to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), which the Examiner
noted isn't expressly limited to the Issaquah School District, Mr. Newsom commented that the
appellant has failed to prove this section of the code refers to Renton. School District and that
provisions in other parts of the impact fee ordinance were clearly designed to only apply to impact
fees assessed for the Issaquah School District.
Talis Abolins testified that the language of the original ordinance does not restrict itself to a single
school district. Exhibit 6 shows that the city of Renton interpreted the ordinance as giving vesting
rights to the Appellant's project in the Issaquah School District. Neil Watts, director of the
Development Services division, assumed the provision applied to Galloway's project based on his
email sent to the appellant in exhibit 6. Although there have been no previous application of the
APPEAL - 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
ordinance with a similar nature, the city gave conclusive proof that they were applying the ordinance
within the Renton School District. The Planning Division's discussion of the impact fees in exhibits
12 and 13 is very broad and does not suggest a limit to the Issaquah School District. The appellant is
aware of how school impact fees work and understands there are fluctuations. A careful due -
diligence process was followed in order to assure the appellant understood the city's interpretation of
the ordinance before purchasing the property. The appellant does not just have an expectation; they
have an affirmative legislative statement backed up by the Director of Development Services for
Renton.
In regard to providing additional legislative history, Mr. Newsom stated that he does not see any
ambiguity in the ordinance. No specific provision for the Renton School District is made. The
ordinance is specific to the lssaquah School District, and Renton School District would not have been
able to collect school impact fees under the ordinance as written.
Mr. Abolins noted that exhibit 11 discusses RMC 4-1-160 and refers to the Kent School District
along with the Issaquah School District. A city official stated in an email that the original ordinance
applied to the Galloway project (exhibit 6), knowing that the project fell in the Renton School
District.
Mr. Newsom testified that Renton is addressing the appellant's decision to rely on the plat approval
for vesting rather than the building permit. The plat approval was from 2007. Ordinance 5442
expands to apply to Issaquah and Kent School District, but Renton School District is not included.
Page 3 of the, ordinance identified Issaquah School District 411 and Kent School District 415. The
ordinance reflects the intent of the City Council. There is no vesting for the Renton School District
given in the past ordinances.
Exhibits
At hearing, the Appellant submitted an exhibit notebook consisting of 13 exhibits, all of which were
admitted into the record.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
1, Appellant. Galloway Heights I, LLC.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the appeal was held on June 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm in the Renton City
Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
APPEAL - 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Appeal. The Appellant appeals the imposition $32,497.41 in RSD school
impact fees levied upon the issuance of building permit CP07293($8,196.63),
CP07301($8,201.32), CP07300($8,201.32) and CP07292($7,898.14). All four building permits
were issued for single-family homes located in the Galloway at the Highlands subdivision in the
RSD. The fees were paid under protest on April 20, 2012. The Appellant asserts that RMC 4-1-
160(E) gave it a vested right to $0 RSD school impact fees when the Galloway preliminary plat
was approved and also that the City is barred by equitable estoppel from requiring any RSD school
impact fees.
4. Chronology.
A. November 10 1999• Issaquah impact fee first adopted. The Renton City Council first
adopted a school impact fee on November 1, 1999 as Ordinance No. 4808, which went
into effect on November 10, 1999. Section 4-1-160(A) of the ordinance noted that the
ordinance was adopted for the collection of impact fees for the TSD. No other school
district was mentioned. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) of the ordinance provided that impact fees
come due at the time of building permit issuance but the amount must be based upon fee
schedules in effect at the time of planned unit development ("PUD") or preliminary plat
approval. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) on its own did not mention the ISD or any other school
district.
B. March S 2007• Gallowapreliminary lat qpproved. The Appellant's subdivision,
Galloway at the Highlands, received preliminary plat approval on March 8, 2007.
C. March 15 2007• Kent School District added to impact fee ordinance. The Renton City
Council amended Section 4-1-160(A) by Ordinance 5263 to provide that the ordinance
was adopted to impose impact fees for both the Kent and Issaquah school districts. The
definition of "District" was also expanded to include the KSD. The amendment went
into effect on March 15, 2007. A whereas clause to the ordinance noted that the City of
Renton may annex property within the Kent School District ("KSD"). RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) was not amended and retained the original wording from Ordinance No. 4808.
D. December 23 2009; first Renton School District impact fee goes into effect. A whereas
clause to Ordinance No. 5514 provides that "until recently the Renton School District
has been able to accommodate growth within existing facilities, but currently estimates a
need for additional school facilities". Ordinance No. 5514 imposes an impact fee for
Renton, apparently for the first time. It amends Section 4-1-160(D), note 5, to set impact
fee amounts for the RSD. Ordinance No. 5514 does not amend the definition of
"District" to include the RSD or the Section 4-1-160(A) purpose clause to provide that
the purpose of the impact fee ordinance is to collect impact fees for the RSD.
E. March 2010• Appellant urchases Gallowgy propelty. Under cross examination during
the hearing on this appeal, an officer of the Appellant testified that it purchased the
APPEAL -6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Galloway Heights property in March, 2010. It is unclear whether the Appellant
purchased the property before or after the Ordinance No. 5532 went into effect.
F. March 17 2010• RMC 4-1-160(E) amended. Ordinance No. 5532, which went into
effect on March 17, 2010, amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that impact fees are
based upon the amounts in effect when paid at the time of building permit issuance. A
staff report that accompanied the proposed amendment, Ex. 12, acknowledged that RMC
4-1-160(E) applied to RSD impact fees and that basing impact fee amounts upon the
schedules in effect at PUD/preliminary plat approval did not effectively mitigate school
impacts, "especially the impacts to the Renton School District".
G. May 2 2012 ose clause revised to include Renton School District. Ordinance No.
5657, which went into effect May 2, 2012, amended Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that
the impact fee ordinance was adopted to assess fees for the Issaquah, Kent and Renton
school districts. Up until this point Section 4-1-160(A) did not include the Renton
School District. The definition of district was also stricken from the ordinance, so that
references in the ordinance to "district" were no longer limited to the ISD and Kent
School District.
Conclusions of Law
Procedural:
- 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-1-160(G)(2) provides that an appeal of a
school impact fee shall follow the process for the underlying permit action. The underlying permit
action in these appeals was approval of the subject building permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) assigns
building permit appeals to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing and final decision
appealable to the Renton City Council.
2. Appeal Review Criteria. RMC 4-1-160(G)(1) provides that impact fees may be
adjusted if the fees were incorrectly assessed or unusual and unique circumstances render the fees
unfair, unjust or unlawful. If the Appellant is correct in its assertion that it has a vested right,
protected by due process, to $0 impact fees than the Appellant would qualify for a waiver of the fees
imposed by the City since the due process violation would (1) render the fees unfair, unjust and
unlawful; or (2) would compel the conclusion that the fees were incorrectly assessed under an
interpretation of the impact fee ordinance that is consistent with the vested rights of the Appellant.
3. Impact fee ordinance did not provide for vesting of RSD impact fee amounts at
preliminM plat approval when the Galloway Heights preliminary Mat was approved. The Appellant
argues that RSDs $0 impact fees vested at the time of preliminary plat approval. However, when the
Galloway preliminary plat was approved the City's impact fee ordinance only governed ISD impact
fees.
APPEAL - 7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The asserted "vesting" provision in effect when Galloway Heights was approved was RMC 4-1-
160(E) of Ordinance No. 4808, which provided as follows:
E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES.-
1.
EES.
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, using the
fee schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval....
(emphasis added)
A key point of disagreement between the City and the Appellant is the underlined language above —
the City maintains that these impact fees are limited to impact fees assessed for the ISD and the
Appellant claims they are any impact fees imposed by the City. The City's interpretation is the more
compelling. RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) authorizes and requires the City to collect impact fees for "...final
plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit..." RMC 4-1-160(E)(2)
relates back to the range of impact fees authorized by RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) by providing that for those
impact fees linked to PUD and preliminary plat approval, they will vest at the time of preliminary
plat/PUD approval. Subsection 2 is setting the amount to a portion of the impact fees authorized in
subsection 1. Unfortunately for the Appellant, subsection 1 limits the authorized range of impact
fees to those assessed for "dwelling units located within the District's boundaries". RMC 4-1-
160(B)(8) of Ordinance No. 4808 defines the "District" as the ISD. Since the impact fee amounts set
by subsection 2 only applies to the fees authorized by subsection 1, subsection 2 only applies to ISD
impact fees. This interpretation is further corroborated by the purpose clause of Ordinance No. 4808,
which provided at RMC 4-1-160(A) that "the Council adopts this title to assess school impacts for
the Issaquah School District." The purpose clause makes no mention of the RDS.
4. Impact fee ordinance amended to set amount of RSD impact fees on those in effect at
preliminary plat approval when RSD impact fees added to impact fee ordinance on December 23
2009. As noted in the findings of fact, RSD impact fees were first authorized by Ordinance 5514.
This authorization included the application of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), such that for preliminary plats and
PVDs the impact fees assessed at building permit issuance were those in effect at the time of
preliminary plat/PUD approval if those plat/PUD was approved after November 10, 1999.
The impact of Ordinance 5514 on RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was not immediately apparent. Ordinance
5514 only amended RMC 4-1-160(D)(5) to identify the amount the RSD impact fee and RSD 4-1-
160(J) to adopt the RSD capital facilities plan. This was the first time RSD impact fees were ever
identified in the City's school impact fee ordinance. Notably, Ordinance 5514 did not amend
APPEAL - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"District" to include the RSD or amend Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that the purpose of the impact
fee ordinance was to assess school impact fees for the RSD in addition to impact fees for the KSD
and ISD, despite the fact that the KSD had been added to the "District" definition and 4-1-160(A)
when its impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance via Ordinance No. 5263.
Without an amendment to the definition of "District", read literally the City had no authority to
impose the fee since the authority for imposing impact fees was limited to the "District" in RMC 4-
1-160(E)(1) as previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 3. Nonetheless, it is clear that the
City Council intended RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) to authorize and require the imposition of RSD impact
fees and that the failure to amend "District" and 4-1-160(A) was an oversight. The Council would
not have added an impact fee amount for RSD to the impact fee ordinance without intending that the
City have the authority to impose it_ Interpreting Ordinance 5514 as authorizing the imposition of
impact fees for the RSD necessarily requires that "District" include the RSD which in turn requires
that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees.
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) expressly provided that it applied to all preliminary plats/PLTDs approved after
the effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. The Galloway Heights project was approved after the
effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. Consequently, subsequent to the effective date of Ordinance
No. 5514, all impact fees collected at building permit issuance for Galloway Heights was $0 for as
long as the Ordinance No. 5514 amendments remained in effect.
5. Appellant has no vested right in RMC 4-1-160(F)(2). With the conclusions of law
above, the key issue in this appeal is whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No. 4808
created a vested right that under due process cannot be extinguished by subsequent retroactive
legislation, in this case Ordinance No. 5532. If RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No.
4808 does create a constitutionally protected vested right, then the Appellant would be entitled to a
refund of all fees paid as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 2. However, it is concluded as a
matter of law that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) does not create a constitutionally protected vested right.
As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that it is uncontested by the parties to this appeal that the
vested rights doctrine as codified for subdivisions does not apply to impact fees. This issue was
resolved in New Castle Investments, LLC v. City of La Center, 98 Wm App. 224 (1999), which held
that RCW 58.17.033 only vests subdivisions to "land use controls" and that impact fees are not land
use controls. The Appellant acknowledges at p. 3 of their appeal statement that "[tlhere is no
question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs." The
Appellant distinguishes RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) from the right of the City to vary the amount of the
impact fee by noting that the City "expressly created vested rights" in RMC 44-160(E)(2). The
vesting issue at hand is not whether the City can generally vary impact fee amounts after preliminary
plat approval, but rather whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) creates a locally adopted vested right that
cannot be extinguished by a subsequent amendment.
An important similarity between Farm Bureau and the impact fees at hand are that they both involve,
for the most part, taxes. Impact fees are largely treated as taxes by Washington courts. Sundquist
APPEAL - 9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/.
Homes, Inc. v. County of Snohomish, 276 F. Supp. 1123, 1126 (2003)(" Although the issue has
never been decided for all contexts and in all circumstances, when foreed to characterize impact fees
the state courts have generally treated them as `taxes. "). The mode of levying taxes does not create
any vested rights protected by due process. Two cases are instructive on this issue.
The first case dealt with retroactive legislation that altered a timing requirement for the collection of
taxes. Newman v_ Commercial Waterway Dist. No. I of King County, 125 Wash. 577, 582 (1923).
In Newman, a state statute authorized the collection of property assessments by waterway districts to
retire bonds for waterway improvements. The statute placed time limits on the collection of the
assessments and a waterway district failed to meet the deadlines prior to the maturation of some
bonds it had issued. The legislature remedied the situation by amending the applicable statutes to
authorize the waterway district to issue new bonds to pay off the matured bonds along with the
authority to re -assess benefitted properties to pay off the newly issued bonds. The new assessments
changed the amount and timing of taxes collected for the improvements leading to the argument
from the property owners that the new assessments violated their vested rights. The Court disagreed,
holding as follows:
The method and time of levying the assessment was a matter of remedy rather than a
matter of vested right, and when the remedy pointed out failed, no matter whatsoever
may have been the cause, it was within the power of the Legislature to provide
another. That the state may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes or
assessments when those formerly enacted fail of their purpose without any violation
of the Constitution, either federal or state, is not a matter of doubt. The taxpayer has
no vested right in the existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between
him and the state that the latter will not vary such mode, and so long as no
fundamental right of the taxpayer is invaded he cannot complain of a variation in the
mode.
125 Wash. at 582.
The second, more recent case, on vested rights in taxation involves the retroactive amendment of an
initiative to remove a requirement of voter approval for the raising of state taxes. Washington State
Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284 (2007). In Farm Bureau, a state initiative had
set a yearly cap on the revenues raised by taxation that could only be exceeded by a vote of the public.
In 2006, nine months after the start of the fiscal year for 2005, the legislature adopted a statute that
increased the cap for 2005 without a public vote. The Washington State Farm Federation challenged
the amendment to the initiative, arguing in part that the public had a vested right in voter approval of
any expenditures that exceeded the cap. The Court agreed that the amendment acted retroactively as
to the 2005 fiscal year. It acknowledged that the due process clause prohibits retroactive amendments
that interfere with vested rights. 162 Wn.2d at 304. However, the Court did not find the cap to
qualify as a vested right. It noted that a vested right, entitled to protection from retroactive
legislation, must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance
of the existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment
APPEAL -10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of property, a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand by another. Id. The Court also noted
that no one has a vested right in any general rule of law or policy of legislation which gives an
entitlement to insist that it remain unchanged for one's own benefit. .Id. The Court concluded that
"Washington voters' statutory "right" to approve taxes that raise revenues in excess of the state
expenditure limit is a mere expectation—it is not a vested right entitled to due process protections
from subsequently enacted legislation." 162 Wn.2d at 305.
As in Newman and Farm Bureau, the Renton City Council has not altered any vested rights in its
amendment of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) by Ordinance No. 5532. It merely modified the "mode" of
collecting taxes by modifying the timing for what impact fee schedule is used to ascertain the
amount. As in Newman this change in timing ultimately affects the amount of the tax collected.
Similarly, the removal of the public vote requirement in Farm Bureau also may have changed the
amount of taxes raised, since the public may have rejected the increase ultimately adopted by the
legislature. If the courts are unwilling to protect the integrity of a cap on taxes created by public
initiative, it is unlikely they will find much to honor in a regulation that sets the applicability of an
impact fee schedule.
The case at hand is distinguishable from Farm Bureau in that impact fees arguably have a much
more burdensome and/or direct impact on property owners than the general tax laws of the state.
The burden on the property owner is certainly a valid consideration in assessing the applicability of
due process. Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
However, the courts have already determined that impact fees generally don't trigger any vested
rights protected by the due process clause. See New Castle, supra. The fact that the Ordinance
5532 amendments to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) changes the timing of how impact fees amounts are to be
assessed adds nothing to the due process public/private balancing of interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is no legislative intent evident or assurance made within RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) that the Council created a vested right that could not be altered by subsequent legislative
amendment. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4808 was only designed to provide a
methodology for assessing impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. When the Appellant
contemplated the purchase of the subject property in 2010, it had to base its feasibility analysis with
the knowledge that property taxes, real estate excise taxes and all other taxes applicable to its real
estate venture could change at any time. The amount of the impact fees, which is essentially another
tax, was subject to the same unpredictability. The fact that for a period of less than three months
between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 20101 the amount of the RSD impact fees were based
upon the fees in place at preliminary plat approval did not create any vested right to prevent that
unpredictability.
As outlined in the findings of fact, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(8)(2) applied to RSD impact fees between
December 23, 2009 (when RSD impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance) and March 17, 2010 (when
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was amended to provide that impact fees are based upon the amount in place at building permit
issuance).
APPEAL -11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. Even if a vested right were created by Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), it likely
would not apply to Appellant. As previously noted, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) only
applied to RSD impact fees for a brief period of time, between December 23, 2009 and March 17,
2010. If this temporary period of time created any vested rights, it is likely that those rights would
only apply if the Appellant filed a complete building permit application or acquired PUD approval
during that time period. It is clear from the record that the Appellant acquired PUD approval well
before December 23, 2009 and there is no evidence to support a finding that any complete building
permit applications were filed between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 2010. Consequently, even
if Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) created vested rights, they don't apply to the Appellant.
In the context of land use controls, the courts and the state legislature require the filing of a complete
development permit application to trigger vested rights. The judicial policies underlying this
requirement equally apply in the context of any vesting to impact fees. The requirement for a
complete permit application to vest land use controls prevents permit speculation by making it too
easy to vest and also helps create a date certain that makes the point in time for vesting predictable,
instead of having to inquire into the "moves and countermoves" of the parties. East County
Reclamation v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 438 (2005); Graham Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G.
Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98, 113 (2011). In order to assure the same predictability and to also
prevent permit speculation, the vesting of impact fee provisions such as RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) would
also most likely be required by a court to occur upon the filing of a complete development permit
application. For RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) that would either have to be the preliminary plat application or
building permit application, since those are the two permits within the subsection linked to impact
fee amounts.
7. The Examiner has no authority to ..,_rule upon issues concerning equitable estoppel. In
its appeal statement the Appellant also argues equitable estoppel. The Hearing Examiner does not
have the authority to rule upon equitable estoppel claims. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council,
38 Wn. App. 630 (1984)(hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). Chaussee may be
distinguishable on the basis that the broad "fairness" standards of review for impact fee appeals
encompass the broad fairness considerations involved in principles of equitable estoppel. However,
equitable estoppel often involves some highly fact specific issues that the fact finding apparatus of
reviewing courts are more suited to review. Unless and until the courts authorize Examiners to
consider equitable estoppel claims in cases similar to the appeal at bar, the Examiner will decline to
assume jurisdiction on that issue.
APPEAL -12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
The appeal is denied. The imposition of $32,497.41 in school impact fees is sustained.
DATED this 9t' day of July, 2012.
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decision are heard in a closed record hearing by the City
Council. Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office, together
with the applicable appeal fee, within fourteen (14) clays of the Examiner's final decision
Change in Valuation
Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program
of revaluation.
APPEAL -13
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS
Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 & 7291
APPELLANT'S EXHIBIT LIST
L RMC 4.1.160E(1) — (4) (pre -amendment)
2. Hearing Examiner Minutes — Approving Preliminary Plat (March 8, 2007)
3. Photos — Galloway at the Highlands Exterior (two views)
4. Galloway at the Highlands — Landscape Plan (Feb. 1, 2011)
5. Galloway at the Highlands —Schematic Site Plan (April 30, 2010)
6. Neil Watts e-mail, regarding repeal of vesting language (August 19, 2010)
7. School Impact Fee Totals -- $74,442
Related Public Records — from City of Renton's Public Disclosure
S. Ordinance 4808 (November 1, 1999)
9. Preliminary Report to Hearing Examiner, Re: Galloway Preliminary Plat
(February 20, 2006)"l
10. Environmental Checklist (October 18, 2006)
11. Ordinance 5442 (January 16, 2009)
12. Staff Report, Docket Request "D-36 PROCEDURE FOR FEES" (December 2,
2009)
13. Planning and Development Committee Report, "D-36 PROCEDURE FOR FEES"
(March 1, 2010)
Vesting ordinance 4.1160E City of Renton Municipal Codes
(Ord. 6194, 1-23-2006; Ord. 5263, 3-5-2007; Ord. 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, sing'the fee
'schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval. 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 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
,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 toe 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.
March 8, 2007
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EYAAIIN'ER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
APPLICANT/CONTACT: Johnathan Kurth
Davis -Kurth Consulting
1201 Monster Rd SW, Ste_ 320
Renton, WA 98057
OWNERS: Minh Van Pham and Dan My Du
Rainier Pacific Development
1618 S Lane Street
Seattle, WA 98144
Galloway at the Highlands
File No.: LUA 06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
LOCATION: 343 Union Avenue NE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval to subdivide a 1.61 -acre site zoned Commercial
Arterial, into individual lots for future development of a mixed-
use building and townhouses.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on February 13, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on Tile with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows.
NYIINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the February 20, 2007 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, at 9:01 a.m, in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. f : Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 3: Zoning Map Exhibit Na. 4: Site Plan
Galloway at the Highlands E minary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CZJ-A; SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 2
Exhibit No. 5:
Preliminary Plat Map
Exhibit No. 6.
water feature
View of NE 3 Street frontage with
E
Exhibit No. 7:
and Union
View of commercial space at NAE 3`
Exhibit No. S:
Building Cluster PIan
Exhibit No. 9:
Front Elevations
Exhibit No. 10:
Pi ht and Left Elevations
Exhibit No. 11:
Rear Elevation
Exhibit No, 12:
Aerial Photograph of Area
Exhibit No. 13:
Colored Rendering
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The request today is for preliminary
plat approval, site plan approval, and conditional use permit. The project was originally submitted without the
preliminary plat rcquest, which is why it was assigned to be an administrative site plan approval. The
preliminary plat raised it to Hearing Examiner review.
The project is located on Union Avenue NE and is about 1.6 acres, which was developed in 1970 with a one-
story grocery store and an asphalt parking lot. Subsequent uses to the grocery store included a discount food
store and a succession of thrift stores. The site has been the same since its development with the building and
the parking_ The building is currently vacant.
The uses surrounding the property are commercial to the north and east, and multi -family residential to the west
and single-family toymbomes to the south. There is a new City of Renton park, Heather Downs that is located to
the south.
The area of the property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) with the exception of the park which becomes
residential zoning. This property is located within the NE 4a' Business District, there are specific limitations
related to use and would limit on-site services on the property to Video Stores, Financial and Real Estate
Services and Repair Services, excluding any automobile repair.
The project was originally submitted as an all residential use, the applicant was requested to re -design to include
a mixed-use development on the east end of the property. The project now includes commercial and residential
at the east end of the property and two mixed-use buildings on each side of the new street and a stand-alone
residential at the back of the property_ Townhouses would be built on the west end and apartment style
condominiums over the commercial and parking areas. The access to all of the units would be via a new public
street that would terminate in a hammerhead at the west end.
Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of the property into 22 townhouse lots, 2 lots for the
mixed use, 5 open space tracts located at the center of the property on each side of the road and at the ends of
the hammerhead, and a new public street corning off Union Avenue NE. The applicant requested and received
approval for a 24 -foot wide public street, which was approved as long as curbs were rolled for emergency
vehicle accommodation.
The 22 -townhouse lots meet zoning requirements, they would be developed into 3 and 4 consecutively attached
dwellings in six buildings. Each townhouse unit would have approximately 200 square feet of ground related
outdoor space at the rear of the unit. The landscape tracts would provide almost 5000 square feet of open space
Galloway at the Highlands Prelii.-,iary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP. CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 3
to the project. The 22 proposed townhouse units would have five different floor plans and be three stories in
height, which meets size and height requirements for this zone.
The two commercial projects would front on Union Avenue NE and be located in two 3 -story buildings, one on
each side north and south of the access street. Parking is located in the back of each building and is shared with
the condominium units. All pervious areas of the site would be landscaped.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -significance — Mitigated for the project,
which included six mitigation measures. No appeals of the determination were filed.
Fire, Trak and Park Mitigation fees were imposed on this project_
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan criteria for commercial corridor designations. It meets
the requirements of the Community Design Element Policies and complies with the underlining Zoning
Designation requirements. The density is 31.06 du/ac, which is within the allowed range for the Business
District.
Parking for the Townhouses would provide more than required by the zoning regulations. Guests will most
likely have to park on the driveway aprons or on Union Avenue NE. No parking would be allowed on the new
24 -foot wide street. If the commercial use is daytime only, there should be no parking issues. The
commerciaUmixed-use is a requirement of the City, the applicant did not originally request it, in fact, questioned
the economic feasibility of commercial on what is essentially a dead-end street. In addition there is minimum
setback along Union so that there is no opportunity to have parking for a commercial use that is just a "drive up,
run in get a latte situation."
There will be landscaping, however it has been requested that a homeowner's association be established to be
sure_that_the_landscaping_issnaintained_for-the-r-ommon...areas_aud street-trees.-.If.-trees-were-darnaged-for any —
reason, the homeowner's association would be responsible for replacing them
The site is located within the Renton School District. The School District has indicated that they can
accommodate the approximately 16 additional students.
Public services can be provided readily, utilities are to the property and will be brought onto the property by the
applicant.
The proposed townhouses will provide housing to an area that still is seeing a lot of demand. It is located to the
rear of a property that is configured in a long narrow manner that would reduce the visibility of commemia] uses
from Union Avenue NE, it is debatable whether or not the feasibility of the commercial that is actually located
on Union Avenue uAglI be sufficient to support the various uses that are allowed. The stand-alone residential at
the rear of the property increases the likelihood of economic viability.
The newer project that abuts this site to the south is townhomes of basically the same configuration as these,
there is no commercial on that property and the property to the west is all residential.
The pedestrian connections are required to all abutting properties. There is a possibility for a connection to the
west, which is a parking area for the multi -family use, there can be connections to the south although the
abutting property is fenced along its north property line. They were not required to have connections. The
streets are access easements on private property and again they are fenced at the ends of driveways that access
the townhomes.
Galloway at the Highlands P. aiinary Plat
File No.: LUA-46-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECP
March 8, 2607
4
Page
The project is subject to the urban design regulations and must meet the intent of various elements of the
regulations. This does meet the intent of site design and street pattern, building location and orientation,
building entries that are to be from streets, transition to surrounding development, and a service element location
and design which would be private for the townhouses and located in the parking garages for the commercial
uses. This project does meet all required minimum standards required.
One of the commercial buildings appears to be right along the property line, there does not seem to be room for
a service lane in back of either building. There will be a fence between the rear open space and the property line
except where the common open space is located,
Johnathan Kurth 1201 Monster Road SW, Ste. 320, Renton, WA 98057 stated that they agree with the planning
department, there were some challenges in trying to make a long narrow site work and become economically
viable. They have been pleased with the development of a good design.
Mike Davis, 1201 Monster Road SW, Ste. 320, Renton, WA 98057 stated that he appreciated the fact that Tracts
A and D should possibly be classified as open space. They had the same issues with the Cottages Plat in the
same sense that open space was not technically required but they labeled them as such, then it was very hard to
get the use changed. They were hoping that they could put something that stated the area as being `bion
residential".
Upon questioning by the Examiner, he stated that they would have preferred this site to be all residential.
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that all services are there, water, sewer and storm have been
handled. This has been scrutinized so far that there have not been any problems. They are tending to go more in
favor of public streets rather than private driveways. There is enough activity and the tendency is to go towards
public streets so the City has more control. If it is a private road, the Renton Police do not have the jurisdiction
or -authority -to go in and support no -parking rules. Fire and Maintenance have been concerned about that,
Darrell Offe, 13932 SE 159` Place, Renton, WA 98058 stated that he wanted to try to answer the question
regarding back of house services for the buildings to the north. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the survey of the actual
edge of buildings to the northwest and northeast on the property line. The buildings are within feet of the
property line. The building on the east comes in on the upper part and that you can see on the cover sheet of the
Staff Report. There are no back of house services to the building on Union. On the building that comes off of
4'b, this is basically a strip mall of food services, little shops and there is a circle parking lot coming in off of 4`"
with no access to Union or into the subject property here today. There is no activity occurring at the back of
these buildings, all activity is to the front of the buildings_
The Examiner calked for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing, to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:56 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDEgGS:
1. The applicant, Johnathan Kurth, filed a request for a series of approvals for a mixed-use complex. The
approvals sought are for a Preliminary flat, Conditional Use and Site Plan.
Galloway at the Highlands Prelirn..,iary flat
Pile No.: LLA -06-138; PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECP
March 8, 2007
Page 5
The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
The subject site is located at 343 Union Avenue NE, The subject site is located on the west side of
Union Avenue a few parcels south of NE 4th Street.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of Commercial Corridor uses, but does not mandate such development
without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial).
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2249 enacted in June 1966.
The subject site is approximately 1.61 acres or 69,959 square feet. The rectangular parcel is 165 feet
wide (north to south) along Union and 424 feet deep.
10. The site is flat. It contains no critical or sensitive areas and no significant trees.
11. A vacant, 17,640 square foot building and surrounding parking lot are located on the subject site. It had
been used as a grocery store and thrift shop at one time.
12. The applicant proposes developing a mixed-use complex consisting of freestanding attached townhomes
and condominium units over retail or commercial spaces. The buildings would flank an east -west street
that runs through the center of the site. The building facades would more or less mirror each other
across the new roadway. There would be two buildings located along Union with one north and one
south of the new street. These two buildings would contain commercial spaces on the ground floor at
Union and seven (7) condominiums above the commercial spaces and three townhomes west of the
commercial/condominium section. Interior parking would be located between the mixed-use
component and the townhomes. To the rear or west of those buildings would be six buildings, with
three north and three south of the new street. These buildings would be townbomes in 3 -attached and 4 -
attached arrangements.
13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 24. lots and 5 tracts. Twelve lots would be located
along the north side of the new access road and twelve lots would be located on the south side of the
roadway. One tract would be a decorative, circular, traffic island in the center of the road about halfway
in from Union Avenue. Two open space tracts would be located north and south of the traffic island.
Two additional open space tracts would be located at the extreme northwest and southwest corners of
the plat, adjacent to what will be a hammerhead turnaround.
14. Twenty-two (22) lots for townhomes ,%ill range in size from 1,275 square feet to 1,477 square feet. The
townhomes would be three stories and contain a variety of floor plans ranging in size from 2,017 square
feet to 2,125 square feet. They would each have 200 square feet of outdoor space at the rear of each
building. They would each also contain garages.
Galloway at the Highlands P. minaTy flat
File No_: LUA-06-138, PP, CC) -A, SA -A, EC)"
March 8, 2007
Page 6
15. The corner lots, the ones containing the mixed-use commercial and residential uses, would be 8,220
square feet (north of the street) and 8,270 square feet (south of the street). Fourteen units or seven in
each corner building will consist of two and three bedroom condominiums that would be located above
the corner commercial uses. There would be shared parking for the residential and commercial uses
located to the rear (west) of the ground floor commercial uses.
16. As noted above, the buildings on the north will generally mirror the buildings on the south side of the
street. Running east to west, on each side of the street the commercial building will be attached to a
triplex of townhomes. Then there will be open space (north and south of the traffic circle) followed by a
fourplex of townhomes, a narrow yard and another fourplex of townhomes. Tile buildings will vary in
height but all buildings will be 3 -stories high with peaked roof and gable treatments. 'There will be
modulation and entrance porches and decks along the facades_ The commercial facades will be located
along the street frontage.
17. Access to the site will be from a new east to west roadway. A modification has been granted to allow
the access road to be 24 feet wide and have rolled curbs. The rolled curbs are intended to allow
emergency vehicles to maneuver in and around the traffic island or temporarily stopped vehicles. The
road will end in a hammerhead turnaround. Curbs and 6 -foot wide sidewalks with tree grates would be
located in easements in the front yard of each lot. The roadway could be extended to the west
depending on development proposals west of the subject site.
18. The proposed layout of this mixed-use complex makes use of various exceptions, district overlays and
conditional use permit approvals_ Apartments, whether rental or condominium ownership are permitted
in mixed use buildings when the ground floor commercial space is at least 30 feet deep_ A Conditional
Use Permit is required for standalone townhome units constructed in the commercial corridor along
Union Avenue if they do not contain commercial space. A Conditional Use Permit showing that they
meet that permit's criteria is required. The District Overlay for NE 4th Street requires certain design
features including modulation and facade treatment. While the CA zone permits a wide range of
commercial uses, the NE 4th Street Business District overlay restricts uses to things such as
entertainment rental, financial and real estate services and small-scale repair businesses but not
automobile repair.
19. The density for the NE 4th Street Business District and the CA zone permits a minimum density of 10
units per acre to a maximum of 60 units per acre when in a mixed-use project. This development would
be 31.06 dwelling units per acre after subtracting approximately 19,471 square feet for roadways. The
density is calculated for the number of dwelling units (36) and not the number of proposed lots (24).
20. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate
approximately 16 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be
assigned on a space available basis_
21. The development will generate increased traffic over the current vacant property.
22_ The existing lot has more open space but will have less impermeable area after redevelopment. An
analysis found that the proposal is exempt from detention and water quality treatment.
23 Sewer and domestic water will be provided by the City and services are available along Union Avenue.
These services will have to be extended into the project site.
Galloway at the Highlands Prelii,,,iary Plat
File No_: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, 11CF
March 8, 2007
Page 7
CONCLUSIONS:
Preliminary Plat
The proposed Preliminary PIat appears to serve the public use and interest. The proposed plat will
permit a mix of uses on a commercially zoned parcel. The plat would divide the subject site to allow
individual ownership of smaller townhome lots on the interior of the site while creating two larger lots
for mixed-use commercial and residential uses along Union Avenue NE. This division will meet the
goals and policies of the comprehensive plan for commercial and urban mixed-use developments along
and adjacent to NE 4th Street.
The plat will provide an opportunity to own homes with individually owned ground floor open space but
smaller, limited yards for those who do not want large yards and extensive maintenance responsibilities.
The larger lots will provide both commercial services immediately adjacent to the residential
component, hopefully providing needed urban services that reduce the need for extra vehicle trips, and
residential condominium ownership opportunities, again, providing ownership opportunities rather than
rental opportunities for housing.
The redevelopment of this underutilized site will add to the tax base of the City. The ERC imposed
mitigation fees to help offset the impacts of this additional development on existing City services. The
additional impacts such as noise and traffic were anticipated when the property was designated for
commercial and potential mixed use in the comprehensive plan and when zoning was applied allowing
such uses.
4. The lots are rectangular and will be served by a public street. The plat provides open space components
providing breaks in the building facades and relief from buildings that are otherwise very close to the
street. The plat appears to have reasonable access for residents and a hammerhead tumaround for
emergency vehicles. The traffic circle provides an element of additional visual interest as well as
providing a limitation to excessive speed on a narrow roadway.
There are suitable facilities to serve the site with water and sewer utilities.
Conditional Use Permit
6. Normally, residential buildings located along Union Avenue in the NE 4th District must be attached to
or included within buildings containing a commercial component. "Standalone" residential buildings
may be permitted by conditional use permit along Union Avenue NE. The intent is to make sure that
residential uses do not displace the favored commercial uses in the CA zone. In this case, the applicant
and staff agree that the lack of commercial exposure for portions of the lot interior to Union Avenue
would be unsuitable for commercial use.
7. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest, will
not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found
in Section 4-31-36 (C), which provides in part that:
a. The proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan;
b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location;
C. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property;
Galloway at the Highlands P. n inary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 8
The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any;
e. Parking, unless otherwise permitted, will not occur in the requircd yards;
f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project;
g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property;
h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property
where appropriate; and
Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal.
The requested conditional use appears justified.
8. The mixed-use project appears to comply with the goals and policies of the Commercial Corridor
designation in the comprehensive plan. The proposal will contain commercial uses along Union but
develop them in conjunction with both attached residential uses above and west of the commercial uses_
The interior of the site of this narrow site was considered unsuitable for additional commercial uses and
urban goals suggest a mix of commercial and residential uses to provide convenience for the residents
and a built-in clientele for the commercial uses.
The CA zoning permits residential uses in consort with commercial uses and permits standalone
residential units in the CA zone. The proposed townhomes appear suitable and are permitted by the
underlying zoning.
10. The applicant has described a demand for this type of housing and the City's policies appear to support
such uses. The site is somewhat removed from the heavily traveled NE 4th corridor and Union itself is
not a through street, limiting the passersby on that street.
11. There are a variety of uses adjacent to the subject site. The proposal will provide a transition between
the higher intensity commercial uses along NE 4th and the single-family and other residential uses
adjacent to the site. The buildings are scaled similarly to single-family uses and conunercial uses could
actually be taller in some cases. The modulations in facades and rooflines as well as the setbacks
provided by the included rear yard open space would also aid in the transition between commercial,
larger buildings and these residential uses and the less intense nearby residential uses.
12. Parking will be contained in individual garages as well as common garages and will not encroach into
yard space. The narrow street will not support parlang and will be kept clear for general and emergency
access. Sidewalks will separate pedestrians from vehicles.
13. Aside from the short-lived construction noise, there will be the normal hubbub associated with
residential development and low -scale, low intensity commercial uses. There will be additional traffic
but local streets should be able to handle the additional load and the applicant will be contributing
mitigation fees to help offset some traffic impacts.
14. The project appears to be well landscaped and Code requires compliance with certain criteria making
sure that the proposal will fit in with the community.
Galloway at the Highlands P-r-1h,_,ary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP; CCI -A, SA -A, ECP
March 8, 2007
Page 9
15. As noted, the site is served by City infrastructure for water and sewer service.
16. In addition, Section 4-9-030(K) provides additional criteria for standalone uses, These criteria in
summary contain the following guidance:
Stand-alone residential use may not be located within 150 feet of an adjacent or abutting arterial street.
This includes Sunset Boulevard, Duvall Avenue, Anacortes Avenue, or Union Avenue in the Sunset
Business District; NE 4th Street, Union Avenue, or Duvall Avenue in the NE 4f Street Business District;
and Puget Drive or South Benson Road in the Puget Drive Business District, as shown on the Business
District Maps in RMC 4-3-040-
A mix of commercial, service, and residential uses exist within a I50 -foot radius of the proposed
residential use.
-Corrunercial use of the property is not feasible for reasons including, but not limited to: lack of
commercial frontage, lack of access, critical areas and/or critical area buffers, or property configuration.
Residential use will augment the primary purpose of the commercial arterial zone by adding a
pedestrian oriented land use that provides a physical connection between residential and commercial
uses.
The use provides a transition between commercial and lower density R-10 and R-8 zoned areas and
provides a visual, pedestrian, and vehicular connection from the residential zoned areas to the
Conumercial Arterial zoned areas.
Development standards from RMC 4-3-04OF ["Development Standards for Uses Located Within the
Northeast Fourth Street... Business District"] are met unless the applicant opts for a planned urban
development, subject to RMC 4-9-150. Pedestrian connection standards from this section must be met
without modification.
17, The standalone uses are approximately 230 feet from Union and fall outside of the 150 -foot prohibited
-area-.- This -allows c-o=nereial uses -to -b-e lbeated-along union while—the less eigposedinterna portion of
the site will be providing housing. There are commercial uses within 150 feet of the proposed
residential uses. As noted, the applicant did not believe commercial uses would be viable in this
location and cited the failed prior uses of the site, the lack of commercial exposure and the limited
traffic along Union south of NE 4's Street. The applicant did, although reluctantly, add commercial uses
along Union. The residents could prove to be customers of the commercial uses at the site and along
NrE 4a', north of the site. The residential uses do provide a reasonable transition between more intense
commercial uses and the arterial traffic carried along NE 4th and the Jess intense residential uses south of
the site. Abrupt transitions between commercial uses and single family residential uses do not always
prove popular due to noise and other nuisance issues.
Site Plan
18. In addition to the proposed plat and the fact that the proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit the
subject site is also subject to Site Plan Review although in some cases the criteria mirror some of those
already considered in the other reviews. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria
for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration;
a_ Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes;
c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses;
Galloway at the Highlands 1. urinary Plat
File No.. LUA-06-138; PP, CU -A, SA -A; ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 10
d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself;
e. Conservation of property values;
f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use;
The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance.
19. The proposal conforms to both the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan as well as the CA
Zoning regulations. The mixed-use commercial component as well as the interior townhomes are
permitted since the buildings feature the appropriate design features and are appropriately located in
juxtaposition to Union and NE 4th Street and its other commercial uses.
20. The buildings are appropriately scaled for the CA zone and for their locations on the subject site. The
commercial components comply with the 50 -foot height limits while the residential buildings comply
with the 35 -foot height limits imposed in the CA zone.
21- The proposal contains buildings that close on the street but contain modulations and design features
such as peaked roofs, decks and porches that provide visual interest. There is open space included in the
lots as 'hell as common open space near the center of the project as well as open space near the end of
the roadway_ There should be sufficient light and air although the narrow street will be somewhat
limiting_
22. The confined nature of the project on a narrow lot should not adversely affect neighboring properties.
There will be rear yard setbacks created by the open space providing separation from adjacent uses.
23. The road and sidewalks pro-6de reasonable circulation for residents both in vehicles and on foot,
Emergency access has been accommodated on the narrow street with rolled curbs and the hammerhead
turnaround. Pedestrian connections to adjacent property are limited by existing development patterns in
those areas. Code limits parking to 1.75 stalls per unit while the applicant has proposed 1.78 stalls. The
additional parking is anticipated to provide shared parking for the residential units and the commercial
units in the two mixed use commercial -residential buildings and due to the fact that on -street parking
will be linuted due to the narrow street.
24. As noted, the site is served by City utilities, which are available along Union. They would be extended
into the new street to serve the properties interior to Union.
District B Urban Center Design Criteria
25. Again, many of these criteria mirror those already reviewed but there are some specific criteria, in
summary, the criteria are:
Galloway at the Highlands Preju.ijnaty Plat
File No.: LUA-06-338, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8; 2007
Page 11
I . create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle
circulation; and provide service to businesses; maintain existing grid street pattern.
2. provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the
street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street; orient Buildings to the
street with clear connections to the sidewalk
3. ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban
character of the district; primary entrance of each building shall be located on the fagade facing
a street.
4. redevelopment projects respect the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing
neighborhoods are preserved; achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from
surrounding development
5. reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks)
by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
6. incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce
traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided
7. maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating
vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -
oriented streets; parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available.
8. have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors;
provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in convenient locations; and provide the
opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such
activity.
9. landscaping is intended to reinforce the arclaatecture or concept of the area; provide visual and
climatic relief in areas of expansive paying or structures; ehannelize and define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the
con-ununity; street trees are required and shall be between the curb and buildings.
10. recreation areas and common open space be provided; equal to 150 square feet per unit of which
100 square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks.
11. ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that
all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting; facades shall
include modulation or articulation; untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks,
or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited; use materials that reduce the visual bulk of large
buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood.
26. The proposal would provide a newright-angle street intersecting Union but due to existing development
currently there would be no continuation of a street grid pattern. The new street could be continued
west at some point in the future. Similarly, constraints on the site prevent the use of alleys. The lot is
too narrow to provide alleys and even the main street has been reduced in width due to that constraint.
Pedestrians will be accommodated on sidewalks and parking will occur in garages and not in front of
either the residential or commercial buildings. Pedestrians will be able to circulate within the complex,
to the proposal's commercial spaces and to the NE 4th Street corridor.
27. Landscaping and building design features will be used to reduce the apparent bulk of the buildings and
avoid a "looming" affect over the streetscape. Landscaping will be provided along the street and in the
open space areas. The complex provides a mix of public and private open spaces. Open space areas
will provide recreational opportunities as well as providing landscape relief. The buildings have
porches and other articulations and modulations as well as varied rooflines to improve appearance. The
exterior treatment will provide definition and the facades of opposing units will mucor one another
providing some symmetry coupled with the articulation and modulation differences.
Galloway at the Highlands F. minai), Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 12
28. In conclusion, the proposal is modest in size but contains a number of complex elements including
commercial spaces, shared parking, condominium and townhome ov,,nership opportunities, narrow
streets, open space and traffic island. The project should appeal to those seeking urban living and
residential ownership.
RECOMMElvDATION AND DECISIONS:
The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat and this office approves the Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permits subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated
that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on January 23, 2007.
2. Demolition permit shall be obtained and all inspections completed on the demolition of the existing
building prior to Final Plat approval.
A Homeowners' Association shall be created concurrently with the recording of the Final Plat in order to
establish maintenance responsibilities for the landscaped open space tracts. A draft of the document(s)
shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the
City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted, meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-070, "Landscaping," Approval
by the Development Services Department of a conceptual landscape plan shall be a condition of Site
Plan Review. Submittal of a Final landscape plan shall be required prior to Final Plat approval.
5- The areas labeled as open space shall not be used for residential development and covenants shall be
required stating this limitation. -
ORDERED THIS geh day of March 2007.
FRED J. KA
HEARING EXXMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS St� day of March 2007 to the parties of record:
Elizabeth Higgins
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Kayren Kittrick
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Johnathan Kurth
1201 Monster Road SW, Ste. 320
Renton, IVA 98057
Mike Davis
1201 Monster Road SW, Ste. 320
Renton, WA 98057
Darrell Offe
13932 SE 159th Place
Renton, WA 98058
Don. Maletta
345 Union Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Galloway at the Highlands Prelii_iary Plat
File No.: LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
March 8, 2007
Page 13
Pham Ming Van & Dan My Du Stephen Northcraft
1618 S Lane Street 4209 SE 3rd Place
Seattle, WA 98144 Renton, WA 98059
TRANSMITTED THIS 8t' day of March 2007 to the following;
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
King County Journal
Larry Rude, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 22. 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
--Copies-of this-or-dinance-are-available-for--inspection or -purchase -in the Finance-Departmr_nt, first -floor -of City -
Hall. An appeal must be filed in wrP,'ug on or before 5:00 .m. March 22 2007.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants Tvill be required prior to approval by City Council or final Processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must bemade in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court,
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Project Location: 343 Union Avenue NE
E5 - 9 T23N RSE E U2 —
Y
ZONING
GS - 21 T23N R5E E 1/Z
---- ami arty U�a
p eoc jpp
1:"Oo
16 T23N - R5E
EXHIBIT
3
rw —r.^s 'r••+is yaK :.acs
d1102[ J-:lIVIST NEEP?-HlT dflX-SIAV(l
V1`!❑ 1:;p"oZld IN4'-Id 31I=_ i-a"c i�ll41`l3b'd
L �• ; i d i ��'� �`�� ISL p,
(3S '3AV oN;,S7i) —�
-3'N '3AV NOINn
L l
} 4
a
CLij
ou
(3S '3AV oN;,S7i) —�
-3'N '3AV NOINn
3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated:
1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the
geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Highlands Square
Townhome Development, 343 Union Avenue Southeast [sic], Renton, Washington," dated
September 27, 2006, as prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC.
2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the most recent Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed if the site plan indicates a net increase in
average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee is $75.00 per trip and
shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat.
4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per
new multi -family unit and $0.52 per net square foot of commercial space. Fire Mitigation
Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to recording the Final Plat and for the
commercial buildings prior to obtaining building permits.
5. Ali residential units within the project shall be equipped with automatic fire suppression
systems (sprinklers) prior to final inspection.
6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new
multi -family unit prior to obtaining building permits.
NOW
UL.21
14
s
s
J
$9
P
14
I
`rig 1 P�gy '-
d
MixILMOMHLLJ
LU e :
(':It '3AV ON QJ �� ' - aedai
i _ 11
-- t 'OCT,
,®qn
^ R
a; m i-
ri1
Imc
ci 41
Ol 4'Im�'I r`--- III _r . S.
tr''MM� � f
ttL Z _� l r n �Q 3N d VVICOVI
tis _� q;•'3 - _ -3 +9 � I o
� fir•- � �.� .
d
A
L
r g $�
z,� ILS r -z
JLo
N - OZ •I
x
0 lu
in
5 3N '3AV VVIO�V Q lfl
• #1_��ist��■ ■N �se31�N �!
:u+1 :Inl
v
i
m
iL I
tt
mz
n9
�
I
nom.
nL
m
ill-
J
"
z
to -
ry
m
I
-1
III
II
I I
L
°fin, J
II
gpjgpj
S6.
�3t,
Froin: Neil R. Watts [mailto:Nwatts@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:56 PM
To: mike@thereoservices.com
Cc: 'Jonathan Bartels'; heatheng@comcast.net; Jan A. Conklin; Chip Vincent
Subject: RE: School Impact Fees for Galloway at the Highlands
Mike
Sorry for the long delay in responding. The code provisions regarding the assessments of
school impact fees was revised by City Council last March, removing any language
which established any vesting for the school impact fees. The fee is not vested by land
use approvals, and any building permit is subject to the school impact fee in place at time
of issuance. Following is the current code language on this topic.
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 building pen -nit approval from the City for
dwelling units located within the District's boundaries.
2. For any fee that 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. If no payment was made through
King County, then the entire fee will be due and owing at the time building permits are
issued.
3. For all new dwelling units, the total amount of the impact fees shall be assessed
and collected from the applicant at the time of building permit issuance, using the fee
schedule then in effect. No permit shall be issued until the required school impact fees
set forth in the fee schedule have been paid. (Ord. 5532, 3-8-2010)
Neil Watts, Director
Development Services Division
From: Mike Bauer[mailto:mike@thereoservices.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:48 AM .
To: Neil R. Watts
Cc: 'Jonathan Bartels'; heatheng@comcast.net
Subject: School Impact Fees for Galloway at the Highlands
Dear Mr. Watts,
We received your name from Ms. Jan Conklin as to be the person to contact
regarding a fee charged this week. Attached is the Building Permit Receipt for
Permit # B070401. The project had received preliminary approval before
January 17, 2010 and we anticipated the school impact fee schedule to have
been vested prior to that date.
Also attached is Vesting ordinance 4.1.160E City of Renton Municipal Codes
to identify where we got that idea. Although the fee was paid at time of
permit, we would like to go on record that it was done so under protest.
Lo
If there has been a new ordinance adopted that ovenides this code or an
error in our interpretation, please let us know where that infonnation may be
found.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Respectfully,
Mike Bauer
Cell: 425-495-6112
Office: 253-881-3034
(D a
Lr)
64 619,
to
Ef}
N
(N
N
N
N
N
ce)
co
N
N
I-
0
-CW
w
o
O
0
U7
U7
Lf)
LD
Lf)
N
(D
(D
C')
c?
r
U-1
Ln
>
>
>
>
-
d'
�t
(O
CO
c7
co
(D
r
r
CO
cl)
CD
N
w
O
O
O
O
I`
t
ti
LC)
N
CO
I -I
m
O
CO
m
co
W
r q
-0-0
.Q
m
T
T
r
N
O
N
N
T
N
N
00
O
M
N
M
M
C6
C6
C6
CC)
CD
cci
00
CD
06
CKI
I_
U7
(D
co
W
CQ
(D
ffi
ff3
6R
64
EA),
H3
49.
b%
69
ci}
fs>
a
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(N
N
Q
69
0
(D
0
0
0
C)
0
0
0
o
a
o
a
o
o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
co
c6
co
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
aC-
i
C1
w
4y`>
Lo
LO
LO
LD
r
r
r
r
T
T
r
r
r"
ti--
T
E
Lo
N
-
N
N
N
Cl)
m
co
co
co
m
co
co
Cr)
c 7
m
�
~
0
0
r
T
T
T
(D
[D
CD
Cp
(D
CD
(D
(D
CD
(Q
tD
2
m
a)
2
69
ER
6q
64
b4
6g
}
y9
ug-
69
61)
b4
Efi
64
Eq
—
t-
0
LL
Z
a
CL
0
v
0
c
0
c)
O
0
CL 0
0
t
t
� U
3 R
0
C U)
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
0.-.
0
Of
QC
o
U
'O
_0
73
'o
"6
'O
7D
_0
�
N
O
Q7
CU
N
N
0
CIS
N
Q)
C)
a)
O
0
O
Q)
U)
�
w
w
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
Q)
¢
+
aLL
CL
a
Q
a
0-
CL
Q
Q
—
Q
Q
CL
a
Q
-L
CL
Q
U-
J
Ln
a
C.
a
a
a
Q
a
a
a
a
Q
Ci
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a¢¢
a
Cl -
¢
a
a
a
a
¢
d
a
¢
¢
¢
❑
n
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
a
Q
m
cn
Cl)
r)
m
M
CY)
co
r)
C'7
E
m
CY)
0
0
0
0
a
oa
O)
O
(f)
Cry
(N
Ict
co
r
O
N
w.
W
w
tQ
to
to
w
00
Z
LO
(D
D)
C)
O
m
C)
O
O
0}
Z
Z
z
N
N
N
N
N
T
r
r
N
m
Cr)
N
N
c7
CII)
N
O
It
(fl
0
(D
CO
O
O
0
0
�.. Qj
0
o
0
a
0
0
_o
N
00
IT
0
0
O
O
0
0
�
a s
r
r
T
T
r
a
a
d
a-
CL
a
CL
a
d
a
a
aj
m
m
m
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(D a
C)
a
O
O
CD
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
-CW
N
Ce)
LC)
CO
N
00
m
O
N
d
0❑0❑0
O
o
0
0
0
0
a
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
CD
m
m
m
m
0
a
O
O
0
0
a
COC)
4
C)
0
0
00
0
a
0
a
a
to
m
m
m
C)
G)
m
m
m
m
a)
co
(D
co
W
CQ
(D
CD
(D
w
CD
CO
t0
w
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(N
N
Q
0
E-
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
LL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
'a
O
'D
O
2
2
2
2
2
2
m
T
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
a
CL
0
v
0
c
0
c)
O
0
0
t
t
3 R
0
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
0.-.
Of
QC
o
U
to c
A
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
W.
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
0
0
U
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ca
aaa
a
¢
¢
¢
¢
a
a
¢
¢
¢
¢
a
Z
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
ga
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Cl -
a
Ln
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
n
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
a
m
cn
Cl)
r)
m
M
CY)
co
r)
C'7
m
m
CY)
to
m
ch
2 0
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
W.
w
w.
W
w
W.
w
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
v
F a
�.. Qj
C]
O
N
00
IT
O
tD
N
N
OD
IT
0
a s
o
C
0)
w
aj
o
0)
(M
rn
o
oao
OD
w
5t
m
C7
M
C")
Cl)
C'i
C+7
co
m -
M
C%
`
3 u
m
O CL7
T
N
r]
NrLiz
0
ti
Od
CD
O
N
(D a
Amends ORD 4722
Amended by ORD 51.94 ,
5263, 5450, 5532
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 0 8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON ADDING A NEW
SECTION ENTITLED "SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEES" TO
TITLE 4 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), OF ORDINANCE 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 411;
PROVIDING FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR
IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND FEE .CALCULATIONS;
PROVIDING FOR FEE ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR
EXEMPTIONS, CREDITS, APPEALS, AND INDEPENDENT
CALCULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT,
USES OF FUNDS, AND REFUNDS; AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 411;
PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE DISTRICT'S CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE
FEE SCHEDULE; AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. A new section 4-1-160 entitled "School Impact Mitigation Fees" is hereby
added to Title 4 (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington' for the collection of school impact fees and
provision for certain other matters in connection therein to read as follows:
SECTION 4-1-160
SCHOOL B PACT MITIGATION FEES
SECTION:
4-1-160-A: Findings and Authority.
4-1-160-B: Definitions,
4-1-160-C: Impact Fee Program Elements.
4-1-160-D: Fee Calculations.
4-1-160-E: Assessment of Impact Fees.
9
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 a 8
4-1-160-F: Exemptions and Credits.
4-1-160-G: Appeals and Independent Calculations.
4-1-160-H: The Impact Fee Account, Uses ofhWact Fees, and Refunds.
4-1-160-I: Interlocal Agreement.
4-1-160-J: Adoption of the District Capital Facilities Plan and Submissions of the
Annual Updates and Report and Data.
4-1-160-K: Review.
4-1-160-L: Special City Fund Created.
4-1-160-M: City Not Responsible.
4-1-160-N: Severability.
4-1-160-A: FINDINGS AND AUTHORITY.
The City Council of the City of Renton (the "Council") hereby finds and determines that
new growth and development in the City of Renton will create additional demand and need for
school facilities in the Issaquah School District, and the Council finds that new growth and
development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the
new growth and development.
Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the Council adopts this title to assess school
impact fees for the Issaquah School District. The provisions of this title shall be liberally
construed in order to carry out the purposes of the Council in establishing the school impact fee
program.
4-1-160-B: DEFIIVITIONS.
The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this
title, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be
defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090, or given their usual and customary meaning.
1. "Capital Facilities Plan" means the District's Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the
School Board consisting of
K
ORDINANCE No. 4 8 o 8
a. a forecast of future needs for school facilities based on the District's
enrollment projections;
b. the long-range construction and capital improvements projects of the
District;
C. the schools under construction or expansion;
d. the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new school facilities;
e. at least a six-year Financing Plan Component, updated as necessary to
maintain at least a six-year forecast period, for financing needed school facilities within projected
funding levels, and identifying sources of financing for such purposes, including bond issues
authorized by the voters and projected bond issues not yet authorized by the voters; and
f. any other long-range projects planned by the District.
2. "City" means the City of Renton, King County, Washington.
3. "Classrooms" means educational facilities of the District required to house students
for its basic educational program. The classrooms are those facilities the District determines are
necessary to best serve its student population. Specialized facilities as identified by the District,
including but not limited to gymnasiums, cafeterias, libraries, administrative offices, and child care
centers, shall not be counted as classrooms.
4. "Construction Cost Per Student" means the estimated cost of construction of a
permanent school facility in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function
of the District's design standard per grade span and taldng into account the requirements of
students with special needs.
9
ORDINANCE N0. 4 8 0 8
S. "Design Standard" means the space required, by grade span, and taking into
account the requirements of students with special needs, which is needed in order to fulfill the
educational goals of the District as identified in the District's Capital Facilities Pian.
6. "Developer" means the person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or
other development control over property for which development activity is proposed.
7. "Development Activity" means any residential construction or expansion of a
building, structure or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of
land that creates additional demand for school facilities.
8. "District" means the Issaquah School District No. 411, King County, Washington.
9. "Elderly" means a person aged 62 or older.
10. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in
order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public
facilities.
"Fee Schedule means the schedule set forth as Attachment -Bto this ordinance
indicating the standard fee amount per dwelling unit that shall be paid as a condition of residential
development within the City.
12. "Grade Span" means the categories into which a District groups its grade of
students, ie., elementary school, middle or junior high school, and high school.
13. "Interlocal Agreement" means the interlocal agreement by and between the City of
Renton and the Issaquah School District as authorized in section 9 herein.
14. "Permanent Facilities" means the facilities of the District with a fixed foundation
which are not relocatable facilities.
4
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 a 8
15. "Relocatable Facility" means any factory -built structure, transportable in one or
more sections, that is designed to be used as an education space and is needed to prevent the
overbuilding of school facilities to meet the needs of service areas within the District, or to cover
the gap between the time that families move into new residential developments and the date that
construction is completed on permanent school facilities.
1$. "Relocatable Facilities Cost Per Student" means the estimated cost of purchasing
and siting a relocatable facility in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a
function of the District's design standard per grade span, and taking into account the requirements
of students with special needs.
17. "Site Cost Per Student" means the estimated cost of a site in the District for the
grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District's design standard per grade span,
and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs.
18. "Standard of Service" means the standard adopted by the District which identifies
the program year, -the -class -size b ---
y -gr a spa—n, and faking into account e requirements of
students with special needs, the number of classrooms, the types of facilities the District believes
will best serve its student population, and other factors as identified by the District. The District's
standard of service shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed in relocatable
facilities which are used as transitional facilities or for any specialized facilities housed in
relocatable facilities. Except as otherwise defined by the School Board pursuant to a Board
resolution, transitional facilities shall mean those facilities that are used to cover the time required
for the construction of permanent facilities, provided that the District has the necessary financial
commitments in place to complete the permanent facilities called for in the Capital Facilities Plan.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 0 8
19. "Student Factor" means the number derived by the District to describe how many
students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit. Student factors shall
be based on District records of average actual student generation rates for new developments
constructed over a period of not more than five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation;
provided that, if such information is not available in the District, data from adjacent districts,
districts with similar demographics, or countywide averages may be used. Student factors must
be separately determined for single-family and multi -family dwelling units, and for grade spans.
4-1-160-C: IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.
1. Impact fees will be assessed on all residential development activity in that portion
of the City located within the District's boundaries based on the provisions of section E herein.
2. The impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the
development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system, improvements that
are reasonably related to the development.
3. The impact fee shall be based on a Capital Facilities Plan developed by the District
and approved by the School Board, and adopted by reference by the City as part of the Capital
Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
4-1-160-D: FEE CALCULATIONS.
1. Separate fees shall be calculated for single family and multi -fancily dwelling units,
and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each type of dwelling
unit. For purposes of this ordinance, mobile horses shall be treated as single family dwelling units
and duplexes shall be treated as multi -family dwelling units.
2. The fee calculations shall be made on a district -wide basis to assure maximum
utilization of all school facilities in the District currently used for instructional purposes.
N
ORDINANCE NO. 4808
3. The formula in Attachment A provides a credit for the anticipated tax
contributions that would be made by the development based on historical levels of voter support
for bond issue in the District.
4. The District may provide a credit for school sites or facilities actually provided by
a developer which the District finds to be acceptable as provided for in section. F herein
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this section, as it sees fit, to
take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price differentials throughout the
District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy levels, and the percent of the District's
Capital Facilities Budget which will be expended locally. For purposes of the initial fee, the City
Council establishes that fee as $2,937.00.
4-1-160-E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES.
1. The City shall collect school impact fees, established by this ordinance 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 this ordinance, the
ianpact 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. Residential developments proposed for short plats shall
not be governed by this subsection, but shall be governed by subsection 4 below.
3. If, on the effective date of this ordinance 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
7
ORDINANCE N0. 4808
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 this ordinance 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 2 above.
4. For existing lots or lots not covered by subsection B above, applications for single-
family, mobile home permits, and site plan approval for mobile home parrs 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.
4-1-164-F: EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS.
1. The following shall be exempt from the application of impact fees:
a. any form of housing exclusively for the elderly, including nursing homes
and retirement centers, so long as these uses are maintained in perpetuity and the necessary
covenants or declarations of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensure that no children
will reside in the development; or
b. the replacement of the same number of dwelling units at the same site or lot
when such replacement occurs within twelve (12) months of the demolition or destruction of the
prior structure, or
8
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 0 8
C. alterations or expansion or enlargement or remodeling or rehabilitation or
conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional units are created and the use is not
changed; or
d. any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee
pursuant to RCW 82.02. 100, due to mitigation of the same system improvement under the ,State
Environmental Policy Act; or
e. any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated by
the payment of fees, dedication of land, or construction or improvement of school facilities
pursuant to a preliminary plat or PUD approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance, unless
the terms of the plat or PUD approval provide otherwise; or
£ any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated by
the payment of fees, dedication of land, or construction or improvement of school facilities
pursuant to a voluntary agreement entered into with the District prior to the effective date of this
or ce, unless he terms of the agreement provide otherwise.
2. Any credit shall be the responsibility of the District, and shall be independent of the
fees collected by the City. The burden of establishing such credit shall be on the party seeking the
credit. Proof under subsection 3 shall include such things as a receipt or cancelled check.
3. Ager the effective date of this ordinance, and if the development activity is not
exempt from impact fees pursuant to subsection 1 above, the developer shall receive a credit from
the District for any payment made for the lot or development activity in question, either as a
condition of development approval or pursuant to the terms of a voluntary mitigation agreement.
The fee amount due on the development activity shall be reduced by the amount of the credit.
Wl
ORDINANCE N0. 4 8 0 8
4. After the effective date of this ordinance, the developer can request that a credit or
credits be awarded by the District for the value of dedicated land, improvements, or construction
provided by the developer. The District shall first determine the general suitability of the land,
improvements, and/or construction for District purposes. Second, the District shall determine
whether the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are included within the District's
adopted Capital Facilities Plan or the Board of Directors for the District may make the finding
that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the goals and objectives of the Capital
Facilities Plan of the District: The District shall forward its determination to the City, including
cases where the District determines that the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction
are not suitable for District purposes.
5. For each request for a credit or credits, if appropriate, the District shall select an
appraiser from a list of independent appraisers. The appraiser shall be directed to determine for
the District the value of the dedicated land, improvements, or construction provided by the
developer on a case-by-case basis. The developer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal.
6. After receiving the appraisal, the District shall provide the developer with a letter
or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, where
applicable, the legal description of the site donated, and the legal description or other adequate
description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must
sign and date such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or
certificate, and return such signed document to the District before the City will award the impact
fee credit, The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within sixty (60)
calendar days shall nullify the credit.
10
ORDINANCE N4. 4 s 0 s
7_ Any claim for credit must be made no later than twenty (20) calendar days after the
submission of an application for a building permit.
4-1-160-G: APPEALS AND INDEPENDENT CALCULATIONS.
X . After the City has collected fees under this ordinance, the District may adjust the
amount of the school impact fee assessed if one of the following circumstances exist, provided
that the developer can demonstrate to the District's satisfaction that the discount fails to
ameliorate for the unfairness of the fee:
a. the developer demonstrates to the District's satisfaction that an impact fee
assessment was incorrectly assessed; or
b. unusual and unique circumstances identified by the developer demonstrate
that if the standard impact fee amount were applied to the development, it would be unfair, unjust
or unlawful.
2. Requests for flee adjustments, and the administrative appeals process for the appeal
of an impact fee, shall follow the process for the appeal of the underlying development
application. The District shall provide staffing and .legal assistance for such an appeal consistent
with the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the District, as that Agreement may be
amended from time to time.
3. A developer may provide studies and data to demonstrate that any particular factor
used by the District may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal, but the
District's data shall be presumed valid unless clearly demonstrated to be otherwise by the
developer. The developer shall pay for the cost of the studies and data, and must demonstrate to
the District's satisfaction that the discount fails to adjust for the error in the fee
11
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 0 8
4. Any appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner with regard to fee amounts
shall follow the appeals process for the underlying development application and not be subject to
a separate appeal process. Any errors identified as a result of an appeal should be referred to the
Council for possible modification,
5. Impact fees may be paid under protest, in order to obtain a permit or other
approval of development activity.
4-1-1.60-H: THE IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT, USES OF IMPACT FEES, AND
REFUNDS.
1. Impact fee receipts shall be initially deposited into a City fund created under
section L of this ordinance. When sufficient funds have accumulated to make transfer of those
funds to the District advisable, the Finance and Information Services Department shall mare such
transfer. Such funds shall be transferred not less than quarterly, if the balance in the fund is more
than $5,000.00. Impact fee receipts shall be ' earmarked specifically and retained in a special
interest-bearing account established by the District solely for the District's school innpact fees as
provided for in section J herein. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the
purpose or purposes identified in subsection 2. Annually, the City shall provide accounting
records to the District and the District shall prepare a report on school impact fees showing the
source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received, and capital or system
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
2. Impact fees for the District's system improvements shall be expended by the
District for capital improvements including but not limited to school planning, land acquisition,
site improvements, necessary off-site improvements, construction, engineering, architectural,
permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, relocatable facilities, capital equipment
12
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 0 8
pertaining to educational facilities, and any other expenses which could be capitalized, and which
are consistent with the District's Capital Facilities Plan.
3. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for the advanced
provision of capital facilities for which impact fees may be expended and where consistent with
the provisions of the bond covenants, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds
or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are
consistent with the requirements of this section.
4. School impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six (6) years of
receipt, unless the Council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or
reasons for the District to hold the fees beyond the six-year period. The District may petition the
Council .for an extension of the six-year period and the District set forth any such extraordinary or
compelling reason or reasons in its petition, Where the Council identifies the reason or reasons in
written findings, the Council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall
- - - - - - - be -expended or encumbered, after consuftation with the District.
S. The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a
refund of such fees if the impact fees have not been expended or encumbered within six (6) years
of receipt of the funds by the City, except as provided for in subsection 4. In deterrn ning whether
impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first
out basis. The District shall notify potential clai nants by first-class mail deposited with the United
States postal service addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the King County
property tax records.
6. An owner's request for a refund must be submitted to the City, in writing, within
one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given,
13
ORDINANCE NO, 4 8 Q,8
whichever date is later. Any impact fees that are not expended or encumbered within the
limitations in subsection 4, and for which no application for a refund has been made within this
one (1) year period, shall be retained and expended consistent with the provisions of this section_
Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees.
7. LShould the City seek to terminate any or all school impact fee requirements, all
unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded to the current
owner of the property for which a school impact fee was paid. Upon the finding that any or all
fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the
availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) times, and shall notify
all potential claimants by first-class mail addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the
King County property tax records. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of
one (1) year. At the end of one (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but
must be expended for the District, consistent with the provisions of this section. The notice
requirement set forth above shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances
within the account or accounts being terminated.
8. A developer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on
the impact fees, when:
a. The. developer does not proceed to finalize the development activity as
required by statute or City Code or the Uniform Building Code, and
b. No impact on the District has resulted. "impact" shall be deemed to
include cases where the District has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior
to the application for a refund. In the event that the District has expended or encumbered the fees
in good faith, no refund shall be forthcoming. However, if within a period of three (3) years, the
14
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 0 8
same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar
development activity, the owner shall be eligible for a credit. The owner must petition the City
and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the owner for a development of the same or
substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof The City shall
determine whether to grant a credit, and such determinations may be appealed by following the
procedures set forth in section G above.
9. Interest due upon the refund of impact fees required by this section shall be
calculated according to the average rate received by the City or the District on invested funds
throughout the period during which the fees were retained and paid by the governmental entity
controlling the funds and receiving the interest.
4-1-160-I: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
1. The Mayor is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, an Interlocal Agreement
for the collection, expenditure, and reporting of school impact fees, provided that, such Interlocal
Agreement comply with the provisions of this section.
2. The District shall establish a School Impact Fee Account with the office of the
King County Treasurer, who serves as the Treasurer for the District. The Account shall be an
interest-bearing account, and the school impact fees received shall be prudently invested in a
manner consistent with the investment policies of the District.
3. For administrative convenience while processing the fee payments, school impact
fees may be initially deposited in the City account known as the "School Impact Fee Fund", with
interest earned retained by the District. As soon as advisable, the City shall deposit the school
impact fees collected for the District in the District's School Impact Fee Account.
15
ORDINANCE NO. 4 8 a 8
4. The City shall retain 5%'of all fees collected to pay for its costs in administering
this ordinance.
4-1-160-.I: ADOPTION OF THE DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
AND SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL UPDATES AND REPORT AND DATA.
1. The 1998 Capital Facilities Plan of the District is hereby adopted by reference by
the City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the City:
a. the annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan;
b. an updated fee calculation based on the formula in Attachment A, and a
revised fee schedule (Attachment S); and
C. an annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were
financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
4-1-160-K: REVIEW.
The fee schedule established in this ordinance shall be reviewed and updated by the
Council on an annual basis after the Council receives the District's Plan and data required ander
section J. The review may occur in conjunction with the annual update of the Capital Facilities
Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan..
4-1-160-L: SPECIAL FUND CREATED.
There is hereby created a special City fund known as the "School Impact Fee Fund" into
which all school impact mitigation fees will be deposited.
16
ORDINANCE N0. 4808
4-1-160-M: CITY NOT RESPONSIBLE.
The City will use its best efforts to collect such fees during its ordinary administrative
process , such fees as are due under this ordinance and consistent with the Interlocal Agreement
between the City and the District, as that Agreement may be amended from time to time, but shall
not be responsible to the District for failure to collect such fees.
4-1-160-N: SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason,
such finding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section of this ordinance.
SECTION H. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days
after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1 St day of November '1999.
MarilyMIP6;n, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 1st day of_Novemb, 1999.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, ity Attorney
Date of Publication: 11 / 5 / 9 9
ORD. 510:10/04199: as.
Jesse er, Mayor
17
City of Renton
PUBLIC Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
Public Hearing Date: February 20, 2006
Project Name: Galloway at the Highlands
Applicant: Johnathan Kurth; Davis -Kurth Consulting; 1201 Monster Rd SW, Suite 320; Renton
WA 98057
Contact: (same as above)
File Number, LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, Project Manager' Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
SA -A, EGF
Project Description. The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval, Site Plan approval,
Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review to subdivide an
existing 69,959.96 square foot (1.61 acre) site zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) into
individual lots for future development of a mixed-use (commercial and residential)
building and townhouses_ An existing commercial building would be demolished.
Access to the project would be provided by a new internal public street.
Project Location: 343 Union Avenue NE
•ly7�F
7[b
41
77
TED
k
y
F.
II®&A
SITE
L�
!i
-
x �
y _
77
TED
k
y
F.
II®&A
SITE
L�
City of Renton P/B/PW Deparimei. Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALLDYVAYATTHE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC NEARING DA TF: February 20, 20G7 Page 2 of 21
B. HEARING EXHIBITS:
_
Fxhibit 1:
Project fife ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other
material pertinent to the review of the project.
Exhibit 2:
Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit 3:
Zoning Map sheet F5 east 1/z (dated 211612006)
Exhibit 4;
Site Pian (dated 12/3012006)
Exhibit 5:
Preliminary Plat Map (dated 911112006, revised 1/18107)
Exhibit 6:
View of NE 3`d street frontage with water feature
Exhibit 7:
View of commercial space at NE 3`d and Union
Exhibit 8:
ERC Mitigation Measures
Exhibit 9,
Front Elevations
Exhibit 10:
Right and Left Elevations
Exhibit 11:
Rear Elevation
C. GENERAL INFORMATION.
1. Owners of Record: Minh Wan Pham and Dan My Du; Rainier Pacific Development; 1618 S
Lane St; Seattle WA 98144
2. Zoning Designation: Commercial Arterial (CA) and NE 4'h Business District
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation;
4. Existing Site Use;
5. Neighborhood Characteristics:
North:
East:
South:
West:
6. Access:
7. Site Area:
8. Project Data:
Existing Building Area:
Commercial Corridor (CC)
Commercial (vacant building, former thrift store)
Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning; commercial development
Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning; commercial development
Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning; single family residential development
Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning; multi -family residential development
New internal public street
69,959.96 square feet (1,61 acres)
Area
17,640 sf
New Building Area: 22 townhouse units);
3,470 sf commercial space in 2 buildings; and
14 condominium units
Total Building Area: Approx. square feet
D, HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No.
Annexation N/A 2249
Comprehensive Plan NIA 5099
Zoning N/A 5191
Hex Report 06-135.doc
Comments
Existing building to be
removed
Townhouse and
Condominium. units will
vary in size
Date
6120/66
11/0112004
2/16/2006
City of Renton PISIPW Depadmei. Prelimin2ry Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALL OWAYATTHE HIGHLANDS LVA-D6-f3t, PP, GU -A, 5A -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEAR-ING DA TF: February 20, 2007 Page 3 of 21
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table
Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts
Section 4-3-040: Commercial Corriddr Business Designations
Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations
3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations
Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations
Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations
Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
b. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures
Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision
Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Pian -General Requirements and
Minimum Standards
Section 4-7-150: Streets — General Requirements and Minimum Standards
Section 4-7-160; Residential Blocks —General Requirements and Minimum Standards
Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots — General Requirements and Minimum Standards
6, Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria
7- Chapter 11 Definitions
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Land Use Element: Commercial Corridor objectives and policies.
Community Design Element.
G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1, PROJECT DESCRIPTIONIBACKGROUND
The 1.61 acre project site was originally developed in 1970 with a 17,640 single -story, masonry building
used as a grocery store and an expansive, asphalt parking lot. Subsequent uses included a discount
food store and a succession of thrift shops. The building is currently vacant.
The property is located on the west side of Union Avenue NE, approximately 300 feet south of the
intersection of Union with NE 40 Street, a principal arterial (Exhibit 2). The property lies in a transition
area, with commercial development to the north and east and residential development west and south.
A new City of Renton public park, Heather Downs, is located one block south on the west sine of Union
Avenue at NE Yd Court.
The property is within a Commercial Arterial Zone ('CA', see Exhibit 3), as are the surrounding
properties. CA allows commercial, retail, and service uses, but the property is also within the "NE 4"'
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton PIE/PW Departmer. Prefiminary Report to the Nearing Examiner
GALL OWA Y AT 7HE HIGHLANDS LUA-06.738, PP, CU -A, 5A -A, ECF
PUB! IC HEARING DATE February 20, 2007 Wage 4 of 21
Street Business District," which has specific use (imitations related to retail, entertainment/recreation,
service, and vehicle -related activities. on-site services within the Business District would be limited to
"entertainment media rental" (DVD/video stores), financial and real estate services, and repair services
(excluding auto repair).
The proposed project is a commercial and residential development consisting of townhouses and
condominiums, with commercial space fronting on Union Avenue NE (Exhibit 4). All residential units
and commercial space would have vehicle access from a new public street aligned perpendicular to
Union Avenue NE.
Apartment -style attached dwellings (condominiums) are allowed as part of mixed-use development, if
space for commercial development at least 30' deep, is located on the ground floor. Attached
dwellings, such as the proposed townhouses, are allowed as "stand-alone" structures within 150' of
Union Avenue NE with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Approval of the project proposal would result in subdivision of the property into 32 townhouse lots, 2
lots for mixed -used commercial and residential development, 4 open space tracts, and new public
street right-of-way for access (Exhibit 5)_
The applicant has requested and been granted approval of a 24 foot wide public street. Curbs within
the project would be rolled, or "mountable" by emergency vehicles. Curbs and 6 foot wide sidewalks
with tree grates would be located in easements at the front of each lot.
A "traffic circle" with traffic speed control, landscaping, and a water feature would be located within the
public right-of-way (Exhibit 6).
Twenty-two separate "townhouse lots„ would range in size from 1,275 to 1,477 sf in size. They would
be developed with 3- and 4 -consecutively attached dwellings in 6 buildings. The 3 -unit Townhomes
would be further attached to the mixed-use buildings. Therefore, the 2 mixed-use buildings would have
3 townhouses, 7 condominiums, and a commercial space in each. Four buildings would have 4
townhouses each (Exhibit 7).
Each townhouse unit would have approximately 200 sf ground -related outdoor space at—the rear oft�e
unit. Five landscaped tracts would provide approximately 4,668 sf of semi -private open space to the
project,
The 22 proposed townhouse units would have different floor plans and be sized at 2,125, 2,081, or
2,017 sf, be 3 stories in height, have 3 bedrooms, a garage, 2 decks and an entry porch each.
Individual units would be painted one of four coordinated colors.
The 2 commercial parcels would be 8,220 sf (north of NE 3O) and 8,270 sf (south of NE 3'd). The 3,470
sf of commercial space would front on Union Avenue NE and be located in two 3 -story buildings, one on
each side north and south of the access street (Exhibit 8). The commercial spaces would be 45 feet
deep and be accessed from entries fronting on both Union and the new access street (NE 3`d}.
Walkways abutting the buildings would be covered by canopies.
Fourteen 2- and 3- bedroom condominium units above the commercial space would be 1,098, 1,100,
1,340, or 1,835 sf each. Parking for these units would be shared with the commercial space and be
located beneath of residential and in back of the commercial portions of the building (Exhibit 4).
The exterior color of the two condominium ( commercial buildings will be the same.
There are no critical areas located on or near the project site. The property has consisted primarily of
impervious surface since developed in the 1970s. Street trees would be planted along Union Avenue
NE and the new street, NE 3`d, Private and semi -private open space would be landscaped and it is
anticipated that the amount of pervious surface would be greater following redevelopment of the site.
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton P/5/PW Depar;mer, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALLOWAYAT THE HIGHLANDS LUUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 5 of 21
This report includes Preliminary Plat review, Site Plan Review, and Conditional Use Permit review.
Approval or approval with conditions would be required in order to proceed to Final Plat review and
building permit stages of project development. The project requires Preliminary Plat review to ensure
that individual lots created by the proposed subdivision meet standards of the zone; Site Plan Review
to ensure that proposed residential development meets required development standards and design
regulations; and Conditional Use Permit review to approve the construction of buildings designed for
residential use only in the zone.
Each review is based on criteria delineated in the Renton Municipal Code. In addition to basic criteria,
the Conditional Use Permit review requires use of "Special Decision Criteria for Stand Alone
Residential Uses in the NE 4'h [Street)... Business District." The proposed project includes both
residential within a mixed-use building and "stand alone" residential use within attached townhouse
structures. The Conditional Use Permit criteria and Special Decision criteria apply only to the latter.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43,21C, 1971 as
amended), on January 23, 2007, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-
Signfficance, - Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Galloway at the Highlands project. The DNS -M included 6
mitigation measures. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on January 29, 2007, and ended on
February 12, 2007. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed.
3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated:
1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the
geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Highlands Square
Townhome Development, 343 Union Avenue Southeast [sic], Renton, Washington," dated
September 27, 2006, as prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC.
2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the most recent Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed if the site plan indicates a net increase in
average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee is $75.00 per trip and
shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat,
4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.OD per
new multi -family unit and $0.52 per net square foot of commercial space. Fire Mitigation
Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to recording the Final Plat and for the
commercial buildings prior to obtaining building permits.
5. Ali residential units within the project shall be equipped with automatic fire suppression
systems (sprinklers) prior to final inspection.
Hex Report 06-136.doc
City of Renton PIS/PW Departmer, Preliminary Report 4o the Nearing Examiner
GALCQWAYAT THEHIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP CU -A, 5A -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 6 of 21
6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new
multi -family unit prior to obtaining building permits_
4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official
file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report
and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report.
5. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA:
Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been
established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision:
(1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation
The subject site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map. The CC areas evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts into business areas
characterized by enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated
access, amenities, and boulevard treatment. Commercial Corridor areas may include designated
districts including concentrations of specialized uses such as the Auto Mall, or features such as
transit stops and a combination of businesses creating a focal point of pedestrian activity and visual
interest.
The proposed plat is consistent with the following Commercial Corridor policies and objectives:
Land Use Element
Policy LU -363. Structures at Commercial Corridor intersections should not be set back from the
street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the
sidewalk and the building.
No parking is proposed between the sidewalk and the buildings
Objective LU-JJJ: Where Commercial Corridor areas intersect other land use designations,
recognition of a transition and/or buffer between uses should be incorporated into redevelopment
plans.
The project is planned as a mixed commercial /residential development, with open space areas to
enhance the transition between commercial areas to the north and residential areas to the west and
south.
Policy LU -368: Consideration of the scale and building style -of near -by residential neighborhoods
should .be included in development proposals.
Building heights in the proposed project are between those allowed in surrounding residential zones
and height allowed in commercial areas.
Hex Report 05-138,doc
City of Renton P/B/pw Deparimer, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
CAL LDWAYATTHE HIGHLAtti'DS LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, 5A -A, ECF
PUBLIC HFAR,NG CA TF. February 20, 2007 Page 7 of 21
Policy LU -368: Consideration of the scale and building style of near -by residential neighborhoods
should be included in development proposals.
The proposed project is compatible with the scale and reflects the architectural style of the adjacent
development to the south.
Policy LU -369: Development should be designed to consider potential adverse impacts on
adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, landscaping, and setbacks should all be considered
during design_
Northeast. Fourth Street Business District
The Northeast Fourth Street Business District is an active commercial area located at a gateway to
the City. It features a wide variety of retail and service uses and several different structural forms
from small professional offices to large-scale strip malls with major grocery anchors_
Policy LU -391: To the extent possible, undeveloped parcels and pads and/or redevelopment in the
Northeast Fourth Street Business District should feature street facing building facades located a
maximum of fifteen (15) feet setback from the non -curb edge of sidewalks abutting the principal
arterial.
Although the project is not located on a `principal arterial" it meets the policy of being within 15 feet
of the non -curb edge of sidewalk. The intent is to enhance the pedestrian environment and
increase viability of commercial uses for walk -by traffic.
Communitv Design Element
Site Planning
Objective CD -D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's
established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network.
The development pattern of the proposed project would be consistent with streets and structures
in residential neighborhoods throughout Penton. Due to the narrow configuration of the property
and the situation of being surrounded on three sides by private property without public rights-of-
way, interconnected roads and cross streets are not feasible.
Policy CD -'i 5; Land should be subdivided into blocks sized so that walking distances are
minimized and convenient routes between destination points are available.
The development would be approximately the length of a typical city block with sidewalks on both
sides of the new public street.
Policy CD -16: During land division, all lots should front streets or parks. Discourage single tier
lots with rear yards backing onto a street.
The new public street would be "double -loaded" with lots fronting on both sides. Rear yards
would be private open space with fences along back property lines.
Policy CD -17: Development should be designed (e.g. building orientation, setbacks, landscape
areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality
development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration.
Based on the plans submitted for review, the project would result in a high-quality development
and would have density below the maximum allowed.
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton P/E/Pw Departmel" Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP, CU•A,,SA-A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 8 of 21
Policy CD-21: Development should have buildings oriented toward the street or a common area
rather than toward parking lots.
Buildings would be oriented toward the new public street. Parking for the commercial uses would
be within the structure at the rear of the commercial space.
Policy CD-22: When appropriate, due to scale, use, or location, on-site open space and
recreational facilities in developments should be required.
Although not required, the project would have landscaped open space located in two places on
the property.
Policy CD-26: Streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian or bike paths should be arranged as an
interconnecting network. The use of cul-de-sacs should be discouraged. A grid or "flexible grid"
pattern of streets and pathways, with a hierarchy of widths and corresponding traffic volumes,
should be used.
The internal circulation system is designed to fit into a grid pattern, should the property to the
west be redeveloped in the future. Pedestrian connections will be made to adjacent properties
where possible.
Policy CD-29: In mixed-use developments with ground-floor retail uses, residential parking
areas should not conflict with pedestrian and vehicular access to the retail component of the
project.
Commercial parking, which would be shared with condominiums, would be located to the rear of
commercial space. Entry would be from the new public street, not the more heavily traveled
Union Avenue NE.
Policy CD-31: In mixed-use developments, residential uses should be connected to other uses
through design features such as pedestrian walkways and common open space.
Th-e-proposed.,or_oject-w-aul-d pr_avlde iotfioaen space_and_ped�pstrian walkways.. Sidewalks
would be wider than typical, at 6; with street trees and tree grates provided.
Policy CD -50. Trees should be planted along residential streets, in parking lots requiring
landscaping, and in other pervious areas as the opportunity arises. Trees should be retained
whenever possible and maintained using Best Management Practices as appropriate for each
type -
Landscaping is proposed throughout the development. All pervious areas would be landscaped
(as required by Renton Municipal Code). Street trees would be planted along Union Avenue NE
fronting the project and on the new public street, NE 3rd.
(2) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation.
The 1.61 acre site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The
proposed development would allow for the future construction of up to 22 new townhouse and 14
condominium residential units. Commercial space in 2 mixed-use buildings is also proposed.
Density—The density range permitted in the Northeast Fourth Street Business District of the CA zone is a
minimum of 10 dwelling units per net acre (dula) up to a maximum of 60 duia when the project includes
commercial and residential as a mixed-use development.
Net density is calculated after public rights-of-way, private access easements (vehicular or pedestrian), and
critical areas are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. After the deduction of 19,471 square feet of
proposed public right-of-way dedication, the net area for purposes of density calculations would be 50,488 sf
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton P F_1FW Oeparfiner, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALL OWAYAT THE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, 5A -A, irCr=
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2067 Page 9 0112
(1.16 A). The 36 residential units wou!d have a density of 31.06 du/a, which is within the allowed range for
the Business District and Zone.
Lot Dimensions and Size No minimum iot size is required in the CA zone, however within the Northeast
Fourth Street Business District a minimum lot size of 1,200 sq ft is required. There are no minimum lot width
or depth requirements. The proposed plat would create 24 lots and 5 tracts with the following sizes:
Lot Number Lot Size (square feet)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tract 'A'
Tract `B'
Tract 'C'
Tract `D'
Tract 'E'
8,220
1,276
1,275
1,374
1,359
1,275
1,276
1,467
1,467
1,276
1,275
1,294
1,304
1,284
1,284
1,477
1,477
1,284
1,284
4,333
1,487
1,284
1,284
8,270
1,583
610
623
1598
254
As proposed, all lots appear to be in compliance with the required size standard for the CA zone.
Setbacks — In the CA zone, the minimum front yard setback is 10 feet and may be reduced down to zero feet
through the Site Plan Review process provided no blank walls are located within the reduced setback_ In the
NE 4th Corridor Business District, the maximum front yard setback permitted is 15 feet. A 10 -foot side yard
along a street setback is required, which may be reduced down to zero feet through the Site Pian Review
process, provided no blank walls are located within the reduced setback. The proposed project meets these
requirements.
The proposed lots appear to contain adequate area for the construction of the proposed townhouse,
condominium, and commercial structures. See further discussion below under Site Plan Review Criteria,
Building Standards —The CA zone and NE 4th Street Business District limit the number cf attached
residential units to 4 per structure. The stand-alone townhouses would have a maximum of 4 attached
residential units per structure.
Building height in the CA zone and NE 4th Corridor Business District is limited to 35 feet for residential uses.
The proposed structures would have a height below 35 feet_
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton PJB/PW Departmei, Preliminary Report fo the Hearing Examiner
GALLDWAYAT THE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-738, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 10 of 21
The existing commercial building is proposed to be removed as a result of the construction of the proposed
plat. A demolition permit and inspection would be required.
The NE 4th Street Business District requires that the proposed structures comply with the Urban Design
Regulations District B, see discussion further discussion below on the structures compliance with these
regulations.
Parking -- Each dwelling unit is required to provide 1.75 off-street parking stalls per unit. Each proposed unit
would provide parking for 2 vehicles within a 2 car garage. The proposed building pads appear to be
adequately sized for the provision of the required parking.
Landscaping — The City's landscaping regulations require the installation of landscaping. The minimum
amount of on-site landscaping required along street frontages is 14 feet, except where the front or side yard
along a street setbacks have been reduced through the Site Plan Review process. The applicant submitted a
Conceptual landscape plan with the project application.
To ensure that landscaping is adequately maintained in common areas, staff recommends as a condition of
approval, that a Homeowners' Association be formed and be responsible for the maintenance of landscaping
for the residential common areas.
(3) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations
Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access. to a
public street or road. As proposed, the lots appear to comply with arrangement and access requirements of
the Subdivision Regulations.
Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the
applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated.
Each of the proposed lots is rectangular in shape, oriented to provide front yards facing a street, and satisfies
the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the CA zone and the NE 4th Street Business District.
When considering the required setbacks, as well as access points for each lot, the proposed lots appear to
have sufficient building area for the development of townhomes.
Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except
alleys, shall have minimum radius of 15 feet, The street within the plat would meet this requirement.
Access and Street Improvements: Access to the site is proposed via a new internal access road off (NE 3`d)
Union Avenue NE. Full street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting are required
on the new internal public street (ISE P) and along Union Avenue N1_.
The City's subdivision regulations RMC 4-7-150E.5 specifies that "alley access" (to rear yards of lots] is the
preferred street pattern. The proposed layout does not include private alley easements due to the narrow
configuration of the property prior to subdivision. A concept plan indicates approximately % of the lots and all
of the rear yard private space would be eliminated with the addition of alleys. Alleys would not connect to
other alleys on abutting property.
To mitigate potential impacts to the local street system, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
imposed mitigation on the project in the form of the requirement for payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee if the
project indicated a net increase in traffic. Traffic generated by the former commercial use may have been
more significant than that generated by the proposed uses. Such fees would be assessed prior to recording
the Final Plat.
Topography, and Vegetation: The project site is flat and has been paved or otherwise an impervious surface
since the 1974s, There are no trees or significant vegetation on the site.
Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP) and the use of Best Management Practices would
serve to mitigate potential erosion and off-site sedimentation impacts. The project application includes a
Construction Mitigation Plan, which is subject to final approval prior to the issuance of construction permits for
the project. In addition, the project will be subject to the DOE manual regarding erosion control, as required
by mitigation measures imposed by the ERC.
Flex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton PIS/PW Departmen Preliminary Reporf to the Nearing Examiner
GAL.OWAYATTHE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP CV -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 page 11 of 21
Relationship to Existin.o Uses: Commercial development is located to the north and east of the project site
and residential development is located to the west and south. The proposed development would be
compatible with the surrounding development.
(4) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness)
Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to
the proposed development, subject to the applicant's provision of Code required improvements and fees.
Therefore, the City's Environmental Review Committee is requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee
based on $388.00 per new multi -family unit and $0.52 per square foot for the commercial space. These fees
are payable prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
Recreation: The proposal provides open space, but does not provide significant on-site recreation areas for
future residents of the proposed plat. There is a new City of Renton public park, Heather Downs, to the south
of the proposed project at NE 3`'� Court and Union Avenue NE. It is anticipated that the proposed
development would generate future demand on existing City Parks and recreational facilities and programs.
Therefore, the City's Environmental Review Committee is requiring the applicant to pay a Parks Mitigation
Fee based on $354.51 per new unit.
Schools: The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District No. 403. According to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Fenton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City
of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling. Based on
the student generation factor, the proposed plat wou#d potentially result in 16 additional students (0.44 x 36 =
16). The schools would include: Maplewood Elementary School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High
School. The school district has indicated that they would be able to handle to additional students coming frarn l
the proposed development. f
Storm Drainage/Surface Water: A Preliminary Technical Information was submitted with the application
materials. According to the report, the project would be below the thresholds for both water quality and
detention requirements. Therefore, the project is exempt from detention and water quality treatment.
All other surface water improvements including, but not limited to conveyances, roof drains, yard drains,
driveway crossings, and any frontage improvements are required to meet City of Renton standards.
A Surface Water System Development Charge, based on the current rate of $759.00 per new single-family
lot, would be required prior to the issuance of construction permits for the plat.
Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: The project site is located within the 565 Water Pressure Zone. There is
an existing 16 -inch water main located in Union Avenue NE.
Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the preliminary fire flow is 2,750 gpm and one hydrant is required within
150 feet of each structure and an additional hydrant is required within 300 feet of each structure.
Each townhouse unit requires a separate water service line and meter, which will serve domestic and fire.
The size is determined by a certified fire sprinkler designer, but shall be a minimum of 1 -inch.
Water System Development Charges are $1,956 per dwelling unit_ The Development Charges are collected
as part of the construction permit. The project will be reviewed to determine if redevelopment credit applies_
There is an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer main in Union Avenue NE, The applicant shall install individual
side sewers to serve the project.
Sewer System Development Charges are $1,017 per dwelling unit. The Development Charges are collected
as a part of the construction permit. The project will be reviewed to determine if redevelopment credit applies.
6. CONSISTENCY WITH CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA:
A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the construction of a stand alone residential project within
the CA zone. Section 4-9-030.G lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all
other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following:
(1) CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING CODE & OTHER ORDINANCES:
Hex Report 06-138,doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Deparimei. Prelirninary Report to the Nearing Examiner
GALLOWAYArTHE HIGHLANDS _ LUA-08-738, PP, CU -A, 5A -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE; February 20, 2007 Page 12 of 21
The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, reap or ordinance of the City of
Renton.
(a) Comprehensive Pian Land Use Element
(See discussion above under Preliminary Plat Criteria.)
(b) Zoning Code
The proposed townhouse project is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation.
The purpose of the Center Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business
districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot
design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment- The proposed attached townhouse
development would be located west of two mixed-use commercial/residential buildings that would
provide ground -related commercial space on Union Avenue NE. The site is located too distant from
the principal arterial, NE 4th Street, to support full site development for commercial use.
(c) Development Standards
(See previous discussion above under Preliminary Plat Criteria and further discussion ,below under
Site Plan Review Criteria,)
(2) COMMUNITY NEED:
There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. in the determination of
community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant
information:
(a) The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular i,se
within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use.
The proposed project would result in the construction of for -sale residential townhouses and, above
the commercial space, condominiums. Residential projects in these housing types have continued to
be successful ventures within the City of Renton, therefore the proposal would not result in an over
concentration of townhouse residential units -
(b) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use.
The subject site is abutting residential uses on the west and south and would serve as a transition to
the commercial property to the north and the east end of the subject property. The proposed
townhouses would be more compatible with the surrounding residential uses than commercial use.
(3) EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES--
The
ROPERTIES:
The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on
adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required:
(a) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is
to be located.
See further discussion below under the Site Plan Review criteria.
(b) Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard.
See previous discussion under Preliminary Plat criteria and further discussion below under Site Plan
Review criteria -
(c) Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the
proposed use is to be located. Spires, bell towers, public utility antennas or similar structure may
exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to
surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views
from adjacent structures.
Hex Report 06-138,doc
City of Renton Deparlme;
GALLOVdAYAT Preliminary Repo>i io the Hearing Examiner
THETHEN�GNLAIv'D5 LUA-06-138, PP, CU-A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC NEAPNG CATs: February 2G,. 2007
Page 13 o€27
The proposed buildings would comply with the height requirements of the CA zone; see further
discussion below under Site Plan Review criteria.
(4) COMPATIBILITY:
The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood.
The subject property has most recently been a vacant thrift store set back on the property with a large
asphalt parking lot fronting Union Ave NE. It is located within an area with both commercial and high-
density residential uses, both of which are located on the abutting properties. The proposed attached
residential tewnhomes would serve as a transition from the higher intensity uses of the commercial area
to the single family residential uses to the south and would be compatible with the surrounding uses.
(5) PARKING:
Parking under the building structure should be encouraged_ Lot coverage may be increased to as much
as seventy-five percent (75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone, in which the proposed use is
located, if ail parking is provided underground or within the structure.
All parking is proposed within attached private garages located under the proposed structures. See
further discussion below under Site Plan Review criteria.
(6) TRAFFIC:
Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding
area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area.
Staff has reviewed the circulation patterns of potential vehicles and pedestrians. See further discussion
below under Site Plan Review criteria regarding pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
(7) NOISE, GLARE:
Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on
the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas, and refuse storage areas.
It is anticipated that the most significant noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
pmLe-0. Thea-Plicant_has submitted a C-Qastructic?a-Mitigation Pian_that-oro-vides-measures.to-peduce--
construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc, In addition, the project will be
required to comply with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours.
There would be noise impacts from traffic and activities that are normally associated with an attached
townhouse development. These noise impacts, however, would be comparableto noises from existing
residential development abutting the property to the west and south.
(8) LANDSCAPING:
Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The Hearing Examiner
may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the
proposed use.
See previous discussion above under Preliminary Plat criteria and further discussion below under Site
Plan Review criteria.
(9) ACCESSORY USES:
Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities,
health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be
considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are
located.
There are no accessory uses proposed.
(10) CONVERSION:
No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure
complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter,
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton F/8/PW Departmer,, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GA.LLOWAYATTHE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUSLfC HEARM3 DATE, February 20, 2007 Page 14 of 21
lJo building conversion is proposed.
(11) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:
The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any
public improvements, facilities, utilities, and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be
conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements,
facilities, utilities, andior services.
The proposed project would be required to install utilities and construct road improvements as mandated
by the City's regulations. See previous discussion above under Preliminary Plat criteria.
Section 4-9-030.K lists 6 additional Special Criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider regarding
stand alone residential uses in the NE 4th Street Business District, along with all other relevant information, in
making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following:
(1) Stand alone residential use may not be located within 150 feet of an adjacent or abutting arterial street.
This includes Sunset Boulevard, Duvall Avenue, Anacortes Avenue, or Union Avenue in the Sunset
Business District; NE 4`h Street, Union Avenue, or Duvall Avenue in the NE 4,h Street Business District;
and Puget Drive or South Benson Road in the Puget Drive Business District, as shown on the Business
District Maps in RMC 4-3-040.
The subject site fronts on Union Avenue NE, but the "stand alone' townhouse portion of the project would
be no closer than 230 feet to union Avenue.
(2) A mix of commercial, service, and residential uses exist within a 150 -foot radius of the proposed
residential use.
Commercial and service uses are located on the abutting properties to the north. Two mixed-use
commerciallresidential buildings would be located on the east portion of the project site.
(3) Commercial use of the property is not feasible for reasons including, but not limited to: lack of
commercial frontage, lack of access, critical areas and/or critical area buffers, or property configuration.
The applicant had deemed the feasibility of commercial development to be limited by both the location
and.th._eeonfiguratiorzot the_pcopexty_.B_oth_pe-destiian and_vehi_cula� frac on Ur�i�n etwe _south. of NE
4' Street Street are extremely limited. There is no commercial development to the south to draw pedestrians to
the property. Vehicle traffic volumes are low due to the tact that Union Avenue is not a through street.
The project was revised, following initial application, to include a commercial component along NE Union
Street, although the likelihood of success for businesses in that location may be marginal_ The narrow
configuration of the property would limit feasible commercial development to that portion that fronts
directly on Union Avenue NE, as has been proposed. Commercial development at 'the back' of the
property would not be visible from Union Avenue and therefore have greatly reduced feasibility.
(4) Residential use will augment the primary purpose of the commercial arterial zone by adding a pedestrian
oriented land use that provides a physical connection between residential and commercial uses.
The proposed development would provide pedestrian connections to the surrounding residential and
commercial uses along the east and west sides of the property. There could be a future connection to the
north, if property to the north is redeveloped to provide a connection. Recently redeveloped property to
the south is privately owned with no access easements available.
(5) The use provides a transition between commercial and lower density R-10 and R-8 zoned areas and
provides a visual, pedestrian, and vehicular connection from the residential zoned areas to the
Commercial Arterial zoned areas.
There are no Residential S or Residential 10 zones in the vicinity of the property. Surrounding zoning is
all Commercial Arterial. The project would, however, provide transition between all -commercial uses to
the north and all -residential uses to the west and south.
Hex Report D6-9 38.doc
Gify of Renior P/B/PW DepaRmer. Preliminary Report to the Heanng Examiner
GALLGWAYATTHEHIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC NEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 15 cf 21
(6) Development standards from RMC 4-3-04OF ["Development Standards for Uses Located Within the
Northeast Fourth Street... Business District") are met unless the applicant opts for a planned urban
development, subject to RMC 4-9-150. Pedestrian connection standards from this section must be met
without modification.
The development standards as outlined in RMC 4-3-04OF would be met (see discussion below).
7. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA:
In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-200.E of the Site
Plan Ordinance and Development Standards from RMC 4-3-040F, the following issues have been identified by
City Departmental Reviewers.-
1.
eviewers:
1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its Elements and Policies;
See discussion above under Preliminary Plat criteria.
2. Conformance with existing land use regulations;
The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City's Zoning Map and is located within
the NE 4th Street Business [District. The proposed mixed-use (commercial/residential) is allowed in the
CA zone. The attached townhouse development is also a permitted use within the CA zone, subject to
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The compliance of the proposal with the development .
standards of the CA zone and NE 4th Street Business District regulations is addressed below..
Lot Coverage - The CA zone allows building coverage at a maximum of 75 percent if ail of the parking
would be contained within the individual buildings. All parking would be contained within garages. The
estimated building coverage would be 73 percent_
Setbacks — In the CA zone, the minimum front yard setback is 10 feet and may be reduced down to zero
feet through the Site Plan Review process provided no blank walls are located within the reduced
setback. In the NE 41h Street Business District, the maximum front yard setback permitted is 15 feet.
No blank walls are proposed (Exhibits 9-11). The mixed-use building setback along NE Union Street has
been reduced to zero to further the pedestrian orientation of the block. The setback between the
townhouses and sidewalk has been reduced to zero. The project does not abut residential zones, so no
separating setbacks are required for rear yards. Rear yards, however, are planned to provide ground -
related open space for individual units.
Landscaping — The City's landscaping regulations require all pervious areas of the property to be
landscaped. The minimum amount of on-site landscaping required along street frontages is 10 feet,
except where the front or side yard along a street setbacks have been reduced through the site plan
review process.
A landscape plan must be submitted, as required by Renton Municipal Code and meeting the standards
of RMC 4-4-074, "Landscaping.' Approval by the Development Services Department of a conceptual
landscape plan is recommended as a condition of Site Plan Review.
Height — The CA zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet in the zone and 35 feet for [stand
alone] residential structures.
The mixed-use buildings would have a height below 54 feet. The proposed townhouse structures would
be less than 35 feet in height. Both building types would be below the maximum height permitted.
Pedestrian Connections — All development in the CA zone within the NE 4th Street Business District is
required to provide a minimum of one pedestrian connection from the entry of each building to the street
and sidewalks, and a minimum of one pedestrian connection is required from each side of a property to
commercial and/or residential uses.
The proposed project would have direct connections from all front building entries to the streets and
potential pedestrian connections on a# sides of the property. A pedestrian connection on the south side
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton PISIPW Departrner, Prefiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALLOWAYAT THE HIGHLANDS LUA-08-138, PP, CU•A, SA -A, ECF
'HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 16 of 21
is not currently available due to the existence of a new fence along the property line and private property
with no public access easements.
Parkin — The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls based on the
proposed use. A maximum of 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling units may be permitted_
Twenty parking spaces are available for the 14 condominium units and would be shared with the
commercial uses in the 2 buildings. Each proposed townhouse has proposed 2 spaces each within a
private garage. The total number of parking spaces is 64. With 36 total units, the parking provided would
be 1.78 spaces per unit, Due to the fact that commercial space will be required to share parking with
condominiums, staff recommends that a modification be approved that allows one additional space than
allowed under the maximum parking requirement_
Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas
The location and pick up of the service elements shall be approved by Waste Management.
The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the mixed-use buildings would be located within the parking
garage. The service elements for each townhouse would be located within each individual unit_
3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses;
The proposed mixed-use ! residential project is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to
surrounding properties and uses. The properties to the west and south all have residential uses and
properties to the north and east have commercial uses. The proposal for the construction of mixed-use
commercial and townhouses on the subject site would provide a transition from the commercial uses to
the north and the single family residential uses to the south and west_ In addition, pedestrian connections
are proposed, which would connect pedestrians in developments to the west of this site to the commercial
area to the east.
There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent properties (e.g., noise), which would result from the
construction of the project. These impacts will be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation
plan, which limits work and haul hours to those permitted by City Code..
Long term impacts included increased traffic associated with a residential townhouse development:
These impacts were anticipated through the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning process.
4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site;
The proposed residential structures are oriented to the new public street (NE 3`d). Each structure would
have an individual backyard that would be located away from streets. Landscaping would be provided in
open space areas and along the perimeter property lines.
5. Conservation of area -wide property values;
By eliminating a frequently -vacant building and providing high-quality development, the proposal would
enhance the neighborhood and tend to increase surrounding property values.
6. Safety and efficiency of Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation;
The proposed project would provide access to Union Avenue N E via the proposed public street NE P. !n
addition, pedestrian sidewalks along the new public right-of-way, as well as private pedestrian access
easements at the perimeter of the property (Where feasible) are proposed to provide safe and efficient
pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites.
7. Provision of adequate light and air;
The proposed buildings are designed appropriately to allow adequate light and air circulation to the
buildings and the site. The design of the buildings will not result in excessive shading of the property. In
addition, there is ample area surrounding the buildings to provide for normal airflow.
8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions;
The proposal is not expected to create any harmful or unhealthy conditions. Noise, dust, and odors,
which may result from the temporary construction on the site, will be mitigated by the applicant's
construction mitigation plan and code requirements for the use of Hest Management Practices,
Hex Report 06-138,doc
City of Renton P/E/PW Depa&ner,- Prefiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALLOWAYAT THEH1G,YLANDS _ LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING OATE.' February .20, 2007 Page 17 of 27
9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use;
Public services would be available to the site. See previous discussion above under Preliminary Plat
Criteria,
10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight.
No deterioration or blight is expected to occur as a result of the proposal. The site is proposed to be
developed with attached townhome units that would be compatible with existing commercial and
residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
11. Review of Compliance to District B Design Guidelines.
The proposed protect is subject to the District B Urban Center Design Regulations, The Hearing
Examiner shall have the authority of approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the
provisions of the design regulations. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design
Regulations where the regulations are applicable_
In rendering a decision, the Hearing Examiner will consider proposals on the bases of individual merit, will
consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design
alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations.
A. Site Design and Building Location
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the
City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from
public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan
districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban
densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying
dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses.
Minimum standard: Maintain existing grid street pattern.
The proposed project would maintain the existing grid street pattern and provide the opportunity for
continuation of the grid through to the west, if the abutting property is redeveloped in the future.
2. Building Location and Orientation_
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian
pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage
siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space;
enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition
between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential
uses located near the street.
Minimum standard: Orient Buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
All of the buildings would be oriented towards a street and clear connections to the sidewalks from the
front doors and/or driveways would be provided.
3, Building Entries
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access and ensure that building
entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton F/B/P',N Deparimen, Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner
GALLOVdAYATTHE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-938, PP GU -A, SA -A, EGF
PUBLIC HEAR)NG DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 18 of 21
Minimum standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the fagade facing a street.
Such entrances shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human scale elements. Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have
weather protection at least four and one-half feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of
access.
Each of the proposed buildings is oriented so that the front faces a public street (Union Avenue NE or NE
3rd). The building entrances as shown on the building elevations would be prominent and visible from the
street. A direct connection would be provided to the public street- Canopies would be provided over the
sidewalks fronting the commercial space in mixed-use buildings.
4. Transition to Surrounding Development
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established,
existing neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum standard: Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition
where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale. At
least one of the fol#awing design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding
uses:
a, Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased in order to reduce the bulk and scale
of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; or
b. Building articulation provided to divide a larger architectural element into smaller pieces; or
c. Roof fines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with
existing development.
The proposed project would incorporate building articulation to reduce the apparent scale of 3 story
sttuctrrre��b)-Roof line and7oof pitch-wouid-reduce-apparent-bulk-of the -attached -structures -(c)- ---
5. Service Element Location and Design
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading
docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
Minimum standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize impacts on the
pedestrian environment, concentrated, and located where easily accessible to service vehicles. In
addition to the enclosure requirements addressed in the development standards, the design regulations
require that service areas be enclosed on all sides including the roof to prevent the attraction of birds to
the service areas. The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
See previous discussion above under Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas.
B. Parking and Vehicular Access
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access [to the Urban Center;] incorporate various modes of
transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from
vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking
areas, allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot
siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access
streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district -
1. Location of Parking
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renlon P/5/PW Departmen, Preliminary ,Report to the Hearing Fxamiaer
GALLOWAY ATTHE NIGHLANDS LUA-06-13$, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEART e DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 19 of 21
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back
of buildings.
Minimum standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line
or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
No surface parking is proposed.
2, Vehicular Access
Intent. To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating
vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented
streets.
Minimum standard, Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available.
Access to the individual parking garages would be provided from the public street fronting the townhouse
units. Alleys would not be available. For explanation of why alley design is not feasible, see discussion
of "access" above.
C. Landscaping/Recreation Areas/Common Open Space
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian
and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas
suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in
sufficient amounts and in convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places
centrally located and designed to encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping
- — — ----Intent L-andscaping is-intended-to-reinforce-the-architecture--or-concept-of-the area; -Provide -visual and -
climatic relief in areas of expanF've paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community,
Minimum standard: All pervious areas are required to be landscaped and the landscaping shall be
consistent with the design intent of the development and shall reinforce the concept of the development.
Street trees are required and shall be between the curb and buildings.
Submittal of a landscape plan has been recommended as a condition of Site Plan approval. The
landscaping would include street trees located in front of the buildings along the sidewalk on both Union
Avenue NE and NE Y". Landscaping, which is required, would enhance the proposed development and
the neighborhood.
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space
Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents,
workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient
locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote
pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners.
Minimum standard: Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable
open space equal to 150 square feet per unit of which 100 square feet are contiguous. Such space may
include porches, balconies, yards, and decks.
Hex Report 06-138.doc
City of Renton F/B/F'VN Deparfinea Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
GALLOWAYAT THE HIGHL IVDS LUA-06.938, PP, CU -,4, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARINC DA. -TE: February 20, 2007 Page 20 of 21
Each proposed townhouse unit would have approximately 200 square feet of ground -related open space
in the rear yard areas. Each townhouse would have 2 decks and an entry porch. Fight of fen
condominium Units would open to outdoor decks.
D. Building Architectural Design
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale,
and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage
franchise retail architecture.
f. Building Character and Massing
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure
that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Minimum standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more
than 20 feet. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to
reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance
the character of the neighborhood. AFUculation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of
scale important to residential buildings. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to
add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects.
All sides ofproposed structures are fully articulated and detailed so as to provide interesting facades.
2. Ground -Level Details
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character
of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view
have visual interest.
Minimum standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian
pathways are prohibited. A wall is considered a blank wall if: It is a ground floor wall or portion of a
ground floor wall over 6 feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet and does not include a
window door, building modulation or other architectural detailing.
No blank walls are proposed.
3. Building Roof Lines
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project
and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
Minimum standard: Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roof with
a minimum slope of one to four. Such roof shouid have dormers or intersecting roof forms that break up
the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. The roof color shall be dark.
The proposed roofs all have slopes that exceed the minimum required. Roof lines of all buildings would
provide visual interest.
4. Building Materials
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of
materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visuai
interest to the neighborhood.
Hex Report 05-138.doc
Cify of Renfon PISIPW Departmer,, Preliminary Report to the rearing Examiner
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LUA-06-138, PP, CU -A, SA -A, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 20, 2007 Page 21 of 21
Minimum standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space
shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different,
with materials of the same quality. Buildings shali employ material variations such as colors, brick or
metal banding, patterns, or textural changes.
The proposed building facades would be finished with the same materials on all sides_
H, RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Galloway at the Highlands Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit,
and Site Plan, Project File No. LUA-06-138, PP, SA -A, CU -A, ECF subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated
that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on January 23, 2007.
2. Demolition permit shall be obtained and all inspections completed on the demolition of the existing
building prior to Final Plat approval.
3. A Homeowners' Association shall be created concurrently with the recording of the Final Plat in order
to establish maintenance responsibilities for the landscaped open space tracts. A draft of the
documents) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and
approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted, meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-070, "Landscaping."
Approval by the Development Services Department of a conceptual landscape pian shall be a
condition of Site Plan Review. Submittal of a final landscape plan shall be required prior to Final Plat
approval.
EXPIRATION PERIODS:
Preliminary Plats (PP): Five (a) years from final approval (signature) date.
Site Plan Approval (SA -A): Two (2) years from final approval (signature) date.
Conditional Use Permit (CU -A): Two (2) years from final approval (signature) date.
Hex Report 0r138.doc
NE 16-23-05
KING COUNTY `'—�••- ,. `" .__,. � '� -` � xd.suwm-,oc�w ..
DEPARTMENT cf ASSESSMENTS r^--•�^••-"•-•^^'«•d•u•- •••• �••.•�.• I� s..u.ra�, moe
II i d�
POFTFn.SSL T
� k
rrw—
I i PA
OP
1
� 6
i ! ri
i $ E I s
lit
E fff IT
2
P4
z
M
C4
E5 - 9 T23N ME R 1/2
CP
4th St.
s St.
CA-- CA
CA
A --
CA
CA CA R -B
CA
SITE: - -- -----
SE
R-10
CA R-10�
i(p)
_zK
R 2rid St.
IL(P)
CN
RMH
RMH
RC(P)
RMH
RMH
RC(P)
Q
G5 - 21 TZ3N R.5E R VZ
ZONING - - EXHIBIT
PfAw Tzcmnc" BMVWM
16 T23N R5E
3
I PN 2AV SOIN`1 SpS-S3WDHNVC)l -WVrE' G, ❑N"y"3H91H
�I . .,..ZE i' dD0W0-91V.LSa--IH9-a-HL-dn)i-SIAVQ
_7�i P2dd /N'd'ld ?115 :.b'`{NIWI'1�23d i 1"L
c ij{��•{j r+ EY �Z• jO 6 , V]
J
Q
Q
U
Li
"!A'N '3AV NOINFI n K P?
ir
—
IXI
I
J
A
rim
8
"
m
All!
II
3N "fid rv, �v,
_ I
r` I
I
IL
it I
w
y^I
I
I
I
I
[
1
z
I
I a
m
cc
I
� r
VJ
S
I � I
I
I
I
IXC
"!A'N '3AV NOINFI n K P?
ir
—
IXI
I
J
A
rim
8
II
3N "fid rv, �v,
_ I
r` I
I
IL
it I
f
I
I
I
I
[
1
z
I
I a
m
cc
I
� r
S
I � I
I
I
I
U
$11'el
d[1080 3.t Y153 �Oi> SKY4
awww P .•- wl.mH ��i....i SCJN`d7HOJH 3Hl lb ),VMojjy S
'�7.'7 s81Y7�osSr Ql,t•�
a°' t3DS2i7QhI�{f Hl,ts �7}�
�lb'1d A2IYNIXIl3Sd
i I� o
[ � I Oo�c1
� )k Eli
''�. Aovrc W.NNu pxamgarSn sMlsooK .
�a ,um
IM
I � -
_ , I
l !4-h
sr
. =� a• a , I I ��. � yy !
kl n+x � r i ►-_-P.y_..iJ � � Yf j1 .
3N 3hY YWo-el
'I'I
8 I
LO
I I 1
If 1
will LO
![!' 7 ��b gwin 0
�A31:s««.`.i.�aigill fra ig3saa 2 41
[4
x Q m
Ile
6
------_—__
(,3'S "3ny ON2ci)
3.N NoINn-
x5
_3nv
� )k Eli
''�. Aovrc W.NNu pxamgarSn sMlsooK .
�a ,um
IM
I � -
_ , I
l !4-h
sr
. =� a• a , I I ��. � yy !
kl n+x � r i ►-_-P.y_..iJ � � Yf j1 .
3N 3hY YWo-el
'I'I
8 I
LO
I I 1
If 1
will LO
![!' 7 ��b gwin 0
�A31:s««.`.i.�aigill fra ig3saa 2 41
[4
x Q m
\p -�
/ «
%��Y\p/L < d ----
/ I NN -on \
«9�ƒ\
Von
rol n^s �..as yaa scr d OMI D'9lV.LSa-` Va d -HJ Xfjx-SIAVG ! p� _Eli = {z,; T� !! •� �� =--� r
�=� I`i7?Jv NOS'�313d ?,'dG'W
/NY1d 3115
�T� Q ui m s nR
»an 251;
LJr9m
--D u W ` £i �s
(3'S 'any �l
O-NZCL) M
W
z
00
z0
z
9 9 0911:
ET(
;Ill RAV Nr-xn C17G 2�4ern,
dfIO'dg 21VIS9 IV9�1 SIAVC
ul
Lk
A
U
>
11
u
4,
r, a••�•G f 2N ;�hY NOW E76-Ga�-CHNMo1 -.e"dnVG ON'd i -191k ';;� ��;3�� ` ,F
anoxg Ridis9 IV9x sznVa F S �'€ f� i.3 t�if
s+,ollyh�l- 21DIa-z X^ J.2l4'MiWI saa 2 S ��� fi 3 '6
o -1
U( LL
to z
i T -
k ;�w w
D-
w
HIGHLANDS SQUARE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST -
Purpose of checklist:
. The State Environmental Act (SEPA), chapter 43.210
RCW, requires all governments agencies to consider the environmental impacts
of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS)
must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on
the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identifies impacts from your proposal
(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help
the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
A. Background
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Highland Square
2. Name of applicant: niF
3. Address and phone number of applicants and contact person:
Applicant:
1201 Monster Road SW
Suite 320
Benton, Washington 98057
4. Date checklist prepared: October 2, 2006
S. Agency requesting checklist: City of Benton
Contact:
Johnathan Kurth
425-228-5959 (ofFice)
425-226-9227 (Fax)
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Preliminary Site Plan A,pprovals —Winter 2006
Engineering and Building Permit Approvals — Spring 2007
Start Construction --Summer 200.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes explain:
No
S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,
or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal:
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc completed a Geotechnical Engineering Study
on September 27r 2006.
A Trip Generation Analysis was prepared by Transportation Consulting
Northwest dated September 20, 2006
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approvals of
other proposals .directly affecting the property covered by your proposai? If yes
explain:
No
Highland Square SF_PA moment
1C.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known:
City of Renton Site Plan and Conditional Use Approval, Engineering
Construction and Building Permit approval by the City of Renton.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed
uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies ma modify this form
to include additional specific information on project descriptli n
The Qroposal is to create 30 residential units on an existiny 1.606 -acme
retail site. The parcel is identified as KC Tax Parcel 162305-9098,
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including street
address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range of boundaries of the
site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan. Vicinity map and topographic
atop, if. �-EaSonably available. While you should sLit]rTiit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to dbp&ate maps or detailed pians
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The site is locat d along Union Avenue NE at 343 Union Avenue NE,
south of NE 4" Street and Union A venue NE. The property .
currently consists of a vacated retail (grocery) and paved parking
lot The parcel No. is 162305-9098 m the NE '1a of Section 16,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, and [3! M.
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one) Flat; rolling, hilly, portion steep,
slopes, mountainous. other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
3% grade from west to east
c. What general types of soil are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify
them and note any prime farmland:
Glacial Till
d. Are there surface indications of or history of unstable soils in the immediate
Vicinity? If so, describe:
WEI
2
Highland Square SEPA Document
e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill:
Approximately 200 cu yd of select imported fill material will be needed
for road base and forgeneral site fill.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally
describe:
Yes, erosion could occur during construction.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
909/0
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any:
Sift fabric fencing, sedimentation ponds, and swales will be utilized
daring construction if necessary,
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile odors, and industrial wood smoke during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally descri e and give approximate quantities
if known:
Emissions from construction equipment, dust during construction.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe:
M11 .
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
Construction equipment will meet current State and Federal emission
requirements, dst control (water) will be provided during
construction,
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds and
wetlands? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into:
No
3
Highland Square SERA Document
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans:
M
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material:
N/A.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known:
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 5.00 -year floodplain? if so, note location on the
site plan:
No
5) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge:
No.
b. Ground:
t) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known:
►M
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial.
containing the following chemicals...: agricultural: etc). Describe the general size
of thestem, the number of such systems, and the number of houses to be
served (cif applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve:
N/A
c. Water runoff (including storm water);
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? Ipso describe:
The storm water runoff generated by this project will be callected
within catch basins and conveyed to a water quality facility located in
the central portion of the property, The wager quality facility will be
sized according to the 2005 King County ,Drainage manual and then
discharged into the storm conveyance system within Union A venue NE.
4
Highland Square SEPA Dx=ent
Z} Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
explain:
Household spills could enter the storm system.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water
impacts. If any:
Storm water. BMP`s (Best Management Practice] will 6e incorporated
into the project to mrnimlze surfacL' and gmund water impacts during
and after Caristructian. City of Renton standards for BMP`s willbe
inaorporatedand shown on the ufilityplan,
4. Plants
a. check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deCidUOUS tree: big leaf maple, black cottonwood
evergreen tree: Douglas fir, western red cedar, western hemlock
shrubs•
grass: miscellaneous unidentified grasses and (orbs.
n shire
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation — No vegetation exists on the sr"te
b, What kind and amount of -vegetation will be removed or altered?
N/A
C. List threafene-d or endangered species known to be on or near, the site: --
None known,
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Landscap nwill ect rbe bamatanRed b the futures HOMe to pwn rs of the buildings
Associafron.
S. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site.-
birds:
ite.
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,son birds other
mammals: deer, bear, el beaver, of er
fish: bass, salmon, trout, 1�erring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered or endangered species known to near or
on the site:
5
Highland Square SS -A axvment
None known,
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain:
No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None,
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood' stove, solar) will be used
for heating, manufacturing, etc.:
Electricity and natural gas will be used to meet the project's energy
needs.
affec± Vii-.¢ r ni?I -- l!y gnarntif h.�
properties? If so, generally describe:
6",
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
a ny:
Homes will be constructed W Washington ,Mate energy code
requirements.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there an environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as
a result aIthis proposal? If so, describe:
Unknown at this tune
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
NIA
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if
any:
NIA
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: Traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
6
Highland Square SEPA Document
Traffic
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
,Shores term noise associated with construction equipment, Long-term
noise associated with 3Q new single-family units
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Construction equipment will meet State and Federal noise
B. Land and Shoreline Use re9u1ab0ns
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is currently a "closed grocary store and parking loti
The surrounding Parols to the west and south consist of high-density
east�d a! use To she no►th, is an existing business area and to the
r"` • &�ess and snr qfe n?Mf/f Y
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe:
No
C. Describe any structures on the site:
A large building exists an the west side of the project to
with a
paved parking lot~
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Yes', to be removed for future proles A demo permit will be obtained
from the City of Renton,
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site:
CA — C01"mercialArtaerial
f. What is the current comprehensive pian designation of the site?
NE 4`fi Street Business District COrridare
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
NIA
h. -Has anyart of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive- area?
If so, specify;
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or, work in the completed
project?
7
highland Square 5514 Dommerrt
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
0
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
lY/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal are compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Proposal conforms to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing:
30 Esew mfddLo- ir}vamp,
b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing:
Cf]
c, Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Mitigation Fees,
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest heigght of any proposed structure(s). Not including
antennas: what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed?
35 foot
Wood, concrete, wood products
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None.
11. Light and Glare
B
Highland Square SEPA Document
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would
it mainly occur?
Light and glare associated with 30 new units plus street lighting.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views'.•
Na
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None.
1-2. Recreation'
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the Immediate
vicinity?
New City Park at 3'd and Union (under construction), Kiwanis Parr Proposed
Heather Downs Park
b. Would the propose_ d project, displace and existing recreational uses? If so,
describe:
Iva
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreational opportunities
to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Pay City of Renton Park mitigation fees
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or
local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If 'so, generally
describe:
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site:
None known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
9
Highland Square SEPA Dowment
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any:
The project abuts Union Avenue ME — the proposed access to the site
would off of Union Avenue NE
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
The site is currently served by ICC Metro bus route #114 along Union
Avenue NF. At the intersection of NE a and Union Ave is a "Transfer
Point" that is served by Routes 114 111, 105, and 9d8. This is located
approximately .730 feet to the norfli along a public sidewalk.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eliminate?
T`=Vpa?A=•s = i- � L14Ug`� L- _.:_rteiil �
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
Yes. A new proposed (Private) access road would he construction in
the interior of the project to provide access from the project onto
Union A venue NE
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
- - transpor_taboEL?_lf.-so,_generally describe,---- -_
m
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur:
The project would generate 17PM trips and 188 weekday trips,
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
No measures arae needed or proposed. However, due to the demolition
of the exisdng retail store, the project woulrreduce the number of
trips to the road system by cban#Zng the land use.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe:
The project w611 result in an increased need for all public serum
10
Highland sgrare SEPA Document
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if
any:
Increased tax base pays for serrka!;. Parks, .fire, sewer and storm
water mitigation fees will also be paid.
16. Utii hies
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural 9a& water,
refuse service, .telephone, sanity ewerseptic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Sewer, Water and Public Access - City of Renton
Power and Natural Gas - Puget Sound Enetyy
Phone - yyest
Internet Access - Corncast
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and
understand that the lead agency is
Signatune
r
Name Printed: offe Fngi rs,
DarrellOfte, P.E.
Date Submitted: October 18, 2oo6
complete to the best of my knowledge, i
Xing on them to make a decision.
11
Highland Square SEPA DOMMett
Amends ORD 5317
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE N0, 5442 Amended by ORD 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND $3,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries:
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,495; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter I, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
thermAdth, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,110 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family Unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
WHEREAS, the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2004 — 2013-2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase in the
impact fee for new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi -family units to $3,266;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Note 5 of subsection 4-1-160D, Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title 1V (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally. The City council establishes the following fees:
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-160J, Adoption of the District Capital .Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
Single-
Multi -Family
Family Fee
Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah
$5,495.00
Not
School
Applicable,
District
Kent School
$5,304.00
$3,266.00
District
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-160J, Adoption of the District Capital .Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
ORDINANCE N0. 5442
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
1. The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the
City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Issaquah School District No. 4112007 Capital FaFilities Play;
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 — 2012-2013 Capital
Facilities Plan.
2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the
City:
1. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan;
2, An annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees,
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage; approval and
five (5) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January , 20Q9,
Bonnie I. Walton, City Cleric
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this .12th day of January , 2009.
Oil "",
Derns Law, Mayor
3
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publicalion1 �� ���ong (summary)
ORD. 1526:12111108: scr
4
D# 36 PROCEDURE FOR FEES
General Description
The City of Renton Planning Division made this docket request. This item proposes to amend
RMC 4-1-160 School impact Mitigation Fees so that the fees will be collected based on the rate
that is in place at the time the building permit is issued. Currently, the fee is based on the rate
that is in place at the time of site plan approval. A second proposed change is in regards to the
table that is included in this portion of the code which details the fee amount for single family
and multi -family units. A recent code interpretation (CI -07) determined that Accessory
Dwelling Units should be charged school impact fees at the same rate as multi -family units. It is
proposed that the table be amended accordingly.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Not applicable. The proposed changes would not affect the rate of growth or rate of
development.
Effect on the City's capaci!Y to provide a deg uate_public facilities
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate
public facilities created by the proposed changes.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment
growth created by the proposed changes.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable. In general, this docket item includes only a procedural change to Title IV and as
such there are no relevant Comprehensive Plan objectives.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs
created by the proposed changes.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable. The proposed changes do not have any bearing on the Growth Management
Act (GMA) and Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Not applicable. The proposed changes would not have any effects on critical areas and/or
natural resource lands.
H:\CED\PIanning\T1t1e IV\Docket\D-36 Procedure for Fees\D-36 staff Report.doc
December 2, 2009
Effect on other considerations
Not applicable.
First Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends amending 4-1-160.E Assessment of Impact Fees as shown in strikeout form
below.
E. Assessment of Impact Fees:
The City shall collect school impact fees, established by this Section as adjusted
from time to time, from any applicant seeking deve!epr, ent buildin ermit
approval from the City for dwelling units located within the district's boundaries.
.
.
W.
EMM
Mrat
PFelif.RaF api;Fe al through KiRg f'GUnt. I, t theR if For any e#44e-fee that
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 PrekMiRaFy Plat
appFeval. If no payment was made through King County, then the entire fee will
be due and owing at the time building permits are issued. ren the „ffeeti e
date ef C)FdinanGe 4809, an applicant has applied fOF
I' naFy lat 4
119
appFeval, but has net yet FeGeived such approval, the appli6ant shall follew the
PF66ed,,, es set forth in r. rl 5eetieR (C)(2) f thi C t
I..�....�...r wr ...1 set rv. a.ir rir .ru u' .
4-3. For
r
P@rIE5 PFOpall new dwelling units, the total amount of the impact fees shall
be assessed and collected from the applicant when the bHildft permit is isqued
at the time of building 12ermit issuance, using the fee schedule then in effect.
n-allo permit shall be issued until the required school impact fees set forth in the
fee schedule have been paid.
#d-36 Page 2 of 4 January 20, 2010
The manner in which the code currently functions allows applicants to be vested to the fee
schedule for impact fees that was in place when they received preliminary approval for their
] 4r
plat application. They pay the fees when they are issued a building permit for a dwelling. The
amount of time that, on average, passes between the preliminary plat approval and the
issuance of building permits is two to five years. Due to the significant time between these two
aspects of land development, the impacts of school age children on the school districts,
especially the impacts to the Renton School District, are not as effectively mitigated. For the
Renton School District (RSD) this issue is particularly acute because RSD adopted a school
impact fee for the first time in 2009. If new dwelling units are allowed to not pay impact fees
because they are paying the amount of the fee that was in effect at the time of their plat
approval ($0 in the case of RSD prior to 2009) the real impacts of anticipated new children in
schools will not be mitigated.
Case law regarding the issue of vested rights for impact fees has changed since the time the
existing language was adopted. The proposed amendment reflects case law decisions regarding
vested rights that have occurred since then. The code language that is proposed to be stricken
was adopted in 1999 and reflected the laws and court decisions up to that time, Since then,
court decisions have further clarified State law regarding vesting and what aspects of the land
use process can be vested.
Municipal Research Services Center explains vested rights:
"In Washington State, the vested rights doctrine "refers generally to the notion
that a land use application, under the proper conditions, will be considered only
under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the
application's submission." Noble Manor v. Pierce County, -133 Wn.2d 269, 275
(1997). The doctrine was originally applied by the state supreme court and in a
different manner than is applied in a majority of states, where it is invoked only
when substantial development has occurred in reliance on an issued permit. See
Hull v. Hunt, 53 Wn.2d 125, 128-30 (1958). The rationale for the Washington
courts rejecting the majority approach and applying the doctrine upon permit
application is to provide certainty and predictability in land use regulations. West
Main Assocs. Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 51 (1986) ("Society suffers if
property owners cannot plan developments with reasonable certainty, and
cannot carry out the developments they begin.") The Washington approach is,
according to the courts, based on "constitutional principles of fairness and due
process, acknowledging that development rights are valuable and protected
property interests." Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 95 Wn. App. 853, 891
(1999)."
However, in December 1999 the court decision in the New Castle Investments v. City of La
Center case held that vested rights do not apply to impact fees. This change in case law allows
the City to determine the appropriate time to collect impact fees.
4D•36 Page 3 of 4 January 20, 2030
Additionally, the City of Renton attorney's office has determined that, "under RCW 58.17.033, a
vesting statute, a development is subject to the "land use control ordinances" in effect at the
time the application was perfected. But this court has already decided that impact fees do not
affect physical aspects of a development. Therefore, they are not land use control ordinances.
The impact fees simply add to the cost of a project, and the vested rights doctrine does not
protect the developer against such additional cost. Belleau V. City of Bellingham, 150 Wash.
App. 228, 239 (Div. 12009)."
Therefore, staff recommends that RMC 4-1-160 be amended as shown on page 2 of this report.
Court decisions that have occurred since the time of adoption of the existing code have
determined that impact fees are not vested to the standards that were in place at the time of
application. By amending the code so that school impact fees are collected at the time of
building permit issuance, the proposed changes work to more accurately mitigate the impacts
of children on the school districts.
Second Staff Recommendation
The second staff recommendation proposes to codify a code interpretation (CI -07). The
interpretation found that "While accessory dwelling units do not increase the density of the
residential lots on which they are located, they are neither considered single-family nor multi-
family dwellings when calculating school impact fees. An addition to the headings in the table in
RMC 4-1-160D.5 would provide clarification of the school impact fees which would be charged
for new accessory dwelling units. Specifically, the heading "Multi -Family Fee Amount", should
be amended to read "Multi -Family and Accessory Dwelling Unit Fee Amount"."
The proposed amendment is shown below in strikeout:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it sees fit, to take into
account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price differentials throughout the District in the
cost of new housing, school occupancy levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities
Budget which will be expended locally. The City Council establishes the following fees:
#D-36 Page 4 of 4 January 24, 2010
Multi -Family and
Single -Family Fee
Accessory
Amount
Dwelling Unit Fee
Amount
Issaquah School
$3,344.00
Not Applicable
District
Kent School
$5,394.00
$3,322.00
District
Renton School
$6,310.00
$1,258.00
District
#D-36 Page 4 of 4 January 24, 2010
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
. COMMITTEE REPORT
March 1, 2010
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
Dade
City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) 2009 Docket Group Three
Referred May 11, 2009
The Planning and Development Committee concurs with the staff and Piannin-g Commission
recommendations to adopt the following items on the 2009 Title IV Docket:
D-18: Landscaping and Street Trees - Amend Title IV development standards to consolidate landscaping
related standards into one general section. Also, create interim street tree sta•nclards and approved species
list until these two items are more extensively developed through the Community and Urban Forestry
Development Plan.
D-33: Parking Standards - Amend Title IV development standards to adjust vehicle.parking requirements W
better reflect demand and add short and long term bicycle parking standards for new developn'entt
D-32: SLPA Categorical Exem tions - Amend Title IV development standards to eliminate outdated and
unnecessary .tent, correctly reference Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sections, and' adopt .by
reference WAC 197-11-510 Public Notice. Also; amend the dwelling unit type of -categorical exemptio so.
that the number of dwelling units exempt from SEPA evaluation is increased from four to nine,
D-35: Design Overlay Consolidation - Amend the Urban Design Dverlay sectidn-of.Title 'IV to consolidate
Design District E with Design District 13, eliminating District E. Amend the text f6r-clarity regarding t*.
requirements and guidelines and re -format the section into a table. Finally, amend Title iV footnotes
associated with develdpment standards for clarity and to eliminate duplications.'
D-36: Procedure for Fees - Amend the School Impact'Mitigation Fees section -'of Title W'so'that fees are
collected•at the rate that is in place when• a building permit is issued. Also, amend the section so that
Accessory Dwelling Units are charged school impact fees at the same rate as multi-fa,iriily units.
The .Con)Mittee further recommends that the- ordinances regarding these matters be presented -far first
reading.
Terri Briere, hair
7RichZwWifcker,;rrrbeF-�}I�G �5,
cc Chip vincent, Planning Director
Alex pletsch, CED Administrator
Docket Item ##36 — Procedure for Fees
Summary of proposed changes:
• Amend 4-1-160 School Impact Mitigation Fees to:
■ Collect the fee at the rate that is in place at the time the building permit
is issued, and
■ Charge Accessory Dwelling Units at the same rate as Multi -family
housing.
Backround:
Currently, the School Impact Mitigation fee is paid when an applicant is issued a building
permit, but they are charged the amount that was in effect when their plat and/or
Planned Urban Development (PUD) was approved. Charging fees in this manner
effectively allows applicants to be vested to the fee schedule for impact fees; and the
fee amount can change greatly in the amount of time that passes between plat and/or
PUD approval and building permit issuance and is inconsistent with current case law.
Due to the significant time between these two aspects of land development, the
impacts of school age children on the school districts, especially the impacts to the
Renton School District, are not as effectively mitigated. For the Renton School District
(RSD), this issue is particularly acute because RSD adopted a school impact fee for the
first time in 2009. The Courts and the State have established acceptance of a complete
building permit application as vesting an applicant to all development regulations in
effect at the time of complete application. Development regulations do not include
fees. Fees are considered as a part of the development procedures/process and are
evaluated at the time of building permitapplication, not before.
The second proposed change is to amend the table that is included in this portion of the
code which details the fee amount for single family and multi -family units. A recent
code interpretation (C1-07) determined that Accessory Dwelling Units should be charged
school impact fees at the same rate as multi -family units. It is proposed that the table
be amended accordingly.
Appeal Available:
Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning
Commission are a Type X process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the
Growth Management hearings Board.
From: Bonnie Walton
Seat: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:21 PM
To: Phil Qlbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)
Cc: Garmon Newsom; Rocale Timmons; Iwen Wang
Subject: FW: Galloway at the Highlands - Amendment to Notice of Appeal
Attachments: SKMBT_C65012111409370.pdf
The attached document was also received in this office today via legal messenger.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk, x6502
From: Michelle Lea [mailto:MLea(acdb-law.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:51 AM
To: Garmon Newsom
Cc: Bonnie Walton; Talis Abolins
Subject: Galloway at the Highlands - Amendment to Notice of Appeal
Attached is an Amendment to Notice of Appeal which is being delivered via ABC Legal Messengers today.
Sincerely,
Michelle A. Lea I Legal Assistant
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
P.Q. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
P: (253) 8483513
F: (253) 845-4941
E: ml dpi-law.cQm
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the
intended recipient(s). It this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
From: admin@cdb-law,com jmailto:admin@cdb-law.comJ
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:07 PM
To: Michelle Lea
Subject: Message from KMBT_C650
Came 11, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorncys at Law
317 SOU'1 H IERWIA;N 1 110. BOX 488 1 ri. r,�l.l.t;1: �_�sr1IN� 1on98�7I-C}1(3�i
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513
SENDER'S E-MAIL: Ta1isA@,cdb-1aw.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: wu,,ur.cdb-law.com
November 14, 2012
,TTORNEYS
ROBERT n. CAMPBEN, J1906-2000)
I'A:.IS nt. ;�BOI.ws
11[ >; .; ,rs I t,l? ;xNI : i•r, I�
I�I'ITI IIiN A. BURNI IAM
BKYU- I1- 1)IL.LI.:, P.S.
HILLARY A. HOIATI'S
SHANNON
DEBOK:11-1 A. PURCELL
DANIGI, W. S ITII
JE1tliMY M. SW;lNN
0I C(XNklll?,
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN kROXI', i.PO
CITY OF RENTON
NOV 14 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE
Re: AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OFAPPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands I, LLC
City of Renton -- NE P 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:
On June 27, 2012, Galloway Heights I, LLC (Galloway) timely appealed the City of
Renton's imposition of school impact fees in connection with Building Permiis 7295, 7303, 7302
and 7294. (Attached). The appeal is set for hearing on December 18, 2012.
On August 20, 2012, the City of Renton began producing documents in response to
Galloway's public records request, which sought to verify the procedures and basis for the City's
school impact fee calculations. Since that time the City has issued a series of responsive
documents, with the most recent disclosure occurring on October 26, 2012. These documents
have confirmed the existence of an additional basis for challenging the school impact fees that
are now on appeal. With this letter Galloway sets forth its additional grounds for challenging
the school impact fees now on appeal. These new grounds are brought in good faith, and
Galloway specified these grounds for City review in a detailed letter on October 8, 2012.
C�npUell,1)ille,Rarnett&5mith,P.l,},.C.I APROF SSIONAI i1M117-111]AHILfIYCOMPANY INCLUDING APKOI+S.S10NAI.tiIS1iVIU,,C(MWWATKIN
Phil A. Qlbrechts
November 14, 2012
Page -2-
Renton's Impact Fee Ordinance Is Void. Following repeated public disclosure
requests, the City has confirmed its full and complete disclosure of the entire record relating to
its adoption of the Renton School District impact fee schedule. A review of this record reveals
that Renton Municipal Code section 4-1-160 is void, and that the fees were arbitrarily established
and are not collectible. The City's decision to collect such fees presents a substantial error of
law highly prejudicial to the applicant, further justifying the present appeal.
First, RMC 4-1-160 is void because it was adopted in an arbitrary and capricious
administrative action through incorporation by reference and without any record of a reasoned
consideration by City staff or the City Counsel of the specific calculations or formulas that are
the basis for the School Impact Fees adopted in RMC 4-1-160D. There is nothing in the City
records to support the City's independent review or consideration of any of the School District
Capital Facilities Plans. Also, there is no record of any finding (let alone analysis) by City Staff
or the City Council that the School Impact Fees requested by any of the School Districts
complied with RCW 82.02.050 - .090. The lack any analysis regarding the statutory elements
makes the City's adoption by simple "incorporation by reference" an arbitrary and capricious
action. An ordinance adopted in this manner is void. Palermo v. Bonne, 147 Wn.App 64,
193 P.3d 168 (2008); Boe v. Seattle, 66 Wn.2d 152, 401 P.2d 648 (1965); Faxe v. City of
Grandview, 48 Wn.2d 342, 294 P.2d 402 (1956); Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of
Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 49 P.3d 867 (2002) .
The ordinance is also void because it fails to meet the statutory requirements of RCW
82.02.050 - .090 including without limitation RCW 82.02.050(3), (4); RCW 82.02.060(1), (4),
(5), (6), and (7). Specific failures include:
(1) a failure to specifically identify capital facilities within the jurisdiction of the
City of Renton for which it is responsible and which require construction or expansion to meet
growth from development within the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Renton, the School
Impact. The School District Capital Facilities Plans include consideration for facilities and
growth impacts that are outside of the City of Renton boundaries and therefore outside of any
authority of the City of Renton to consider in calculating and collecting impact fees;
(2) the failure to identify service areas over which the City of Renton has
jurisdiction. The adoption of the school district boundaries as a service area includes portions of
service areas that are in jurisdictions of other cities and King County;
(3) a failure to meet mandatory requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1), (4), (5), (6)
and (7). For instance, the City is not in a position to abdicate its statutory responsibilities for
GripbeU,IA]e,$anlelt&Snuti,l�.1_f.( . 1 APR( IT&SIONALIJW 117) 11ABILTIYO.WTANYINC UDTN(;APROi•1CURPL)1MIION
Phil A. Qlbrechts
November 14, 2012
Page -3-
proper impact fee collection to the school districts, as it has attempted to do in this case. The
responsibility (and the liability therefore) rests solely with the City;
(4) a failure to meet the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(3) that impact fees may
only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development;
will not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably
related to the new development; and will only be used for system improvements that will
reasonably benefit the new develop. By adopting three different School Impact Fee rates for the
same development activities without conducting any independent study or analysis of the
impacts of growth within the City of Renton jurisdictional boundaries upon public facilities
within those boundaries, developers are treated disproportionately and arbitrarily. A developer
in one area of the City pays a fee of substantially higher impact fee than a developer in another
area of the City without any analysis or calculation by the City staff or the City Council on how
the impact fee actually relates to the impacts of growth on public facilities within the City's
jurisdiction; and
(5) a failure to meet the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) that requires all
impact fees actually be spent on public facilities for which the City of Renton is responsible.
The fact that the City imposes three different school impact fees based on public facilities and
growth impacts outside the City's jurisdiction including King County, City of Newcastle, City of
Kent and City of Tukwila establishes that impact fees its collects are being spent of public
facilities for which the City of Renton is neither responsible for or has any authority to enforce
the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4).
The City's record reveals that the owners of Galloway have arguments that are much
more powerful than those that were successfully advocated by the plaintiffs in Palermo, where
the City of Bonney Lake had a better record of an internal review process. As Palermo made
clear, there is no opportunity for a "do over" to correct the error, and retroactively apply a new
ordinance. A void statute is simply unenforceable. Palermo v. Bonney Lake, 147 Wn.App 64,
85 86, 193 P.3d 168 (2008). "It is the rule in [Washington] that an invalidly enacted statute is a
nullity. It is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." State ex rel. Evans v. [Bhd.] of
Friends, 41 Wn.2d 133, 247 P.2d 787 (1952); State ex rel. Goodner v. Speed, 96 Wn.2d 838,
843, 640 P.2d 13, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 863 (1982). The City does not get to "fix" the fee
ordinance after the fact. Instead, the City is obligated to refund "the entire amount" wrongfully
collected under ,its void ordinance, with prejudgment interest. Palermo v. Bonney Lake, 147
Wn.App 64, 89, 193 P.3d 168 (2008).
(;am�beJl,I]ille,Barnett&Sm::h,Y.]J.C. I et�xc�rvstit«n.,v.antra�r���r,HnnY<x�mn>nm������.»mien£�xemrssr<»,v.stxvic�:coz��ft�uo�
Phil A. Olbrechts
November 14, 2012
Page -4-
Based on the foregoing, Galloway respectfully updates its pending appeal with the new
grounds revealed by the City's recently disclosed public record. These grounds were specified
for the City's review on October 8, 2012, and are appropriately addressed at the December 18,
2012 hearing on this appeal. We appreciate this opportunity to seek review of this important
matter.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
Talis M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Enclosure
Cc: Client
1:0ATA\MHHI3W\Bartels, Jonatha&Galloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22827.0091CCity of Renton 4-13-12 docx
CampheU,Ui➢e,l3aznett&5mith,RI-I.(-'. I APROITSSIONALuNITIT2)1sABIIIIv(x),mnrYINC IMIvc;APROM --IMONAI.';IRVci;.eDRP( )FIX110N
Cam, -ill, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, PL.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
Rbc= D. Campbell 0 YM -20467
31SOU1'HA4ER1D1,kN J PO_BOx458 I!'UY.kLLUT',V,ASHING1"GN98371-0I6
TELEPHONE. (253) 848-3513 FAX: (253) 845-4941
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TaNsA a@,cdb-law.com WEBSITE: www.cdb-law.com
June 27, 2012
Phil A. 01brechts
Hearing Examiner
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728
Renton, WA 98057
.TTO RNEYS
ROBERT D. CAMPBELL (1906-2N)0)
TALIS M. ABOLiN 'S
HOLLIS H.BARI.IE-171', P,S,*
STEPHEN A. BURN HAM
BRYCE H. DILLE, P,S.
HILLARY A. HOLMES
SHANNON R. JONES
DEBORAH A. PURCELL
DANIEL W, SMITH
JEREMY M. SWANN
* OF COUNSEL
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT, LPO
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 2 8 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
AM-�-
Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3"1 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 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:
CaspbeADiUl ,Bamett&Smith,PJ—LC. I APROFESS]ONAT.IIM=lLSBILMClifaAi,�1';NCI.UDihGAPROr-F-InCIN„i.SaVJ(}'WRPL)RKilc)N
y
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, Lf C
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 Iegal 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.
CAmpbeI4L'I-,Bzmea&Smith,PJ_LG � APROrEZIONALLIIvdI LLhBTFYYOOWANYINQ. INGAPRO=ONALSORVECFOC)RPMATION
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. Cily 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 tune 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 1, 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
r DkB=rt&Smrtd-,�P.L.L.0 I APRat- cN.AiLu� =unanm=ccwANYBiauDnaGAMO=Ot SD. VIezco>PoxnnON
Phil A. Olbrechts
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.
F .r
Talis M. Abolins
TMA./mal
Enclosures
Cc: Client
IAIDATAV%PM%MlBartels, Jona>hanlGalloway at the Highlands - school Impact Fees 22827.0091CCity of Renton 4-13-12.docx
CatnpbetD31-,Barnett&amuh,P- LC I APitQIF ONALLDAJTMJJAB=COWANYD4al ,rAPROFMONAL2RV1CF-ODRKRAUQN
Denis Law -- City Of
Mayor, ,f
. 5
City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton
November 13, 2012
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
P.O. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Re: Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7295, 7303, 7202 & 7294
Dear Talis Abolins:
The appeal hearing you have requested in the above referenced Matter has been postponed
from November 13, 2012 and will be heard by the Hearing Examiner on December 18 2012 at
2:00 Wim. This hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton
City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
If you have any questions, please email me at bwalton@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Encl. Notice of Appeal
cc: Hearing Examiner
Larry warren, City Attorney
Garmon 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
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
P.O. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Renton School District
Attn: John Knutson
300 SW 7th Street
Renton, WA 98057
Renton School District
Attn: Rick Stacke
300 SW 7th Street
Renton, WA 98057
Renton School District
Attn: Stewart Shusterman
300 SW 7th Street
Renton, WA 98057
Cynthia Maya
a ��rnnrr�rrurrr�rrrrrw �
From: Bonnie Walton
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 837 AM
To: Cynthia Moya
Subject: FW: Galloway - Agreed Continuance of Hearing -- December 18, 2012
Importance: High
We need to get notice out to all about this schedule change. Check to see who all needs to know.
Thx.
Bonnie
... ........ ..
From: Talis Abolins [mailto:TalisAC7a cdb-law.coml
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Garmon Newsom; Bonnie Walton
Cc: Michelle Lea
Subject: RE: Galloway - Agreed Continuance of Hearing -- December 18, 2012
Good morning,
December 18, 2012 works well for me as well. Thank you_
Talis Abolins
Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
Puyallup, WA 98371
www.cdb-law.com
T_alisA@cdb-law.com
(253) 848-3513
From: Garmon Newsom [maiIto: GNewsom()Rentonwa.govl
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:12 PM
To: Bonnie Walton; Talis Abolins
Cc: Michelle Lea
Subject: RE: Galloway - Agreed Continuance of Hearing
can be there on the 18`h if that date works for Talis.
Garmon
From: Bonnie Walton
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:39 PM
To: Talis Abolins'
Cc: Garmon Newsom; Michelle Lea
Subject: RE: Galloway - Agreed Continuance of Hearing
The Hearing Examiner is currently scheduled to be here at City Hall for another hearing the afternoon of Tuesday,
December 18`h.
Would postponing to that same date work for this hearing?
Bonnie Walton
1
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
From: Talis Abolins [mailto:TalisA@cdb-law.coml
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:26 PM
To: Bonnie Walton
Cc: Garman Newsom; Michelle Lea
Subject: Galloway - Agreed Continuance of Hearing
Importance: High
Hi Bonnie,
The appellant and the City have agreed to continue next week's hearing. What dates do you have available in
December? I am afraid I am out the week after next due to holidays. Thank you.
Talis Abolins
Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
Puyallup, WA 98371
www.cdb-law.com
TalisA@cdb-law.com
(253) 848-3513
From: Garmon Newsom [mailto:GNewsom@Rentonwa.govl
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:13 PM
To: Talis Abolins
Subject: RE: Galloway - Stipulation and Order
Good Afternoon Talis,
I am out of the office today and Monday. I would agree that a continuance of next week's hearing would be
best. Perhaps one week to see if we can get the stipulation done? If the following week is a problem, please pick a date
before the Christmas holidays_ Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience.
G• Ne.,nrWTW it
Assistant Cite Attorney
Cit- of Renton
106 S. 2nd Street
P.O_ Box 626
Renton W.� 98006
425-430-6487 (1'ele.phone)
G News om@rentonwa.gov
2
i
Denis Law City of
Mayor �� r,
U
� Jl
City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton
August 1, 2012
APPEAL FILED BY: Galloway at the Highlands by their attorney Talis Abolins, Campbell,
Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 9, 2012, regarding Galloway at the
Highlands, Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12. (File No. LUA-07-128 FP)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Codeof Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the referenced issue has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00'o.m., Monday,_Aueust 13, 2012.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p..m: on Thursday,
September 27, 2012, in the Council Chambers, 7'h Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington 98.057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I: Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 /Fax (425) 430=6516 • rentonwa_gov
Section 110 — eals
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee
schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-IIOF: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency,
only the Applicant, City or a Party of Record who has been aggrieved or affected by the
Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing
may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have
participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral
comments at the public hearing: or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the
Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing: or C. Has been
granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the
public hearing.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their
positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the
notice of appeal.
4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is
made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been
available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that
additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for
reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing
record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an
order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a
remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be
presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City
Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner.
5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the Appellant.
6- Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the
report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section.
Cam, Smith,
Dille, Barnett
Smith, PL.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
K, l-: f.J(l9iNrNOO)
31; S01.711 MERIDIAN j WBOX 488� ]'UY.-I[_[_�171.1 �-AS iINGTON9S31]-0164
TELEPHONE. (253) 848-3513
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TalisA@cdb-law.com
Renton City Council, c/o
Bonnie L Walton, City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
FAX: (253) 845-4941
WEBSITE: x�-w.cdh-law.com
July 19, 2012
ATTORNEYS - CITYOFRENTON r-
ROBEAT D. 11906-2000)
TALISM.,L',01ANS JUL 2 0 2012
IIOLLIS II -B.,U NC-:r"r, l?.s.,
STEPHT-N:1. BURNHAM RECEIVED
BRY(:1-. H. DTI 117, P.S. C) Fy CLERK'S OF -ICE
HILLARY A. HOLR1I:S
V'K..'�i�
,,HANNON R. SONES
DLBO)tU 1A PURCEL] ,
DAN 11 1, W. S'•UTiI
JLRL t,ff,\4. SWANN
* OF COL] NS U,
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT, LPO
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF IIEARIArG EXAMINER'S DECISION DATED
JULY 9, 2012 TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3`d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 26901001 1U)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120)
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
My client, Galloway Heights I, LLC, hereby appeals the Hearing Examiner's decision on
the imposition of school impact fees in connection with building permits issued on the Galloway
at the Highlands project, including the currently issued Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 &
7292. With this correspondence we are submitting the $250.00 appeal fee for an appeal of a
Hearing Officer decision to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 OE(8) and 1 l OF.
This is the first set of Galloway permits being appealed. The hearing on this first set of
permits was held on June 19, 2012, pursuant to RMC 4-8-OSO(C).
Rackaround. Galloway Heights I, LLC (Galloway), is a small business owned by two
families. They formed the business to investigate the possible acquisition and completion of a
blighted and unsightly property within the City of Renton. This highly visible property was in a
state of disrepair, and was mired in receivership. Galloway conducted a thorough due diligence
of the project, and carefully reviewed Renton's business friendly code provisions. Galloway also
Campbell,l)dle,Satnett&Smith,13J..L.C. J APROF-[=sslovnl.Lrnfl]rn>s,v;rr.TT-YCOIFPAMlK-CL.-IDINCAPItOFFslOvnt-sr"z%rlcri:OR'OltKiION
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -2-
met with City officials regarding the status of the project. Based on this information Galloway
successfully negotiated a purchase of the property and, at great expense, have proceeded to
convert it from an eyesore into an attractive residential development within the City's limits.
Galloway's appeal arises from the hearing examiner's decision on the application of City
of Renton's Ordinance 4.1.160E(2) to the Galloway Heights project. During the due diligence
process the Galloway project was subject to a unique and business friendly ordinance adopted by
this Council. Section 160(E)(2) was clearly designed to provide certainty and encouragement for
those businesses looking to develop within the City of Renton. This provision unambiguously
established a vested right to the fee schedule in effect at the time of preliminary approval for a
project:
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).
The Galloway project received preliminary approval on March 8, 2007. At the time of
acquisition, Galloway understood that RMC 4.1.160E(2) was still 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 I, 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, who was
helping with Galloway's due diligence process. 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 invest its limited funds to acquire and revive the blighted development, which had
ground to a halt.
Campbell, DJle, Bamett & smid-� P.LLC. I A PROITS510KM-J J3ViTr- I,L4.3aiI1 COMPANY ENCLU NG A PROFE�SidNAL WRN,'ICT CORPO[VI ION
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -3-
On or about March 17, 2010, the City amended subsection E(2) with Ordinance 5532.
The amendment removed the pre-existing vesting language. Under the amendment, school
impact fees would be assessed and collected from the lot owner "at the time the building permits
are issued, using the fee schedule than in effect." RMC 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5532). Galloway has no problem with a reasonable prospective application of this ordinance,
which logically applied to applications for preliminary plat approvals submitted after its effective
date. However, the hearing examiner ultimately decided that the modified Section E(2) would
be applied retroactively, to the Galloway project — to the tune of more than $75,000 in impact
fees. This retroactive interpretation has a dramatic and unanticipated financial impact on the
Galloway project and its owners. For Galloway, a retroactive interpretation destroys the fee
structure originally mandated by Section 2(E), and in doing so, the retroactive interpretation also
destroys the Galloway project budget. This appeal is based on the clear and substantial errors
of law created if the amendment is applied retroactively to the Galloway's vested project.
Substantial Errors of Law. The Hearing Examiner's retroactive interpretation and
application of the ordinance creates clear and substantial errors of law that are fundamentally
unfair and are arbitrary and capricious. The applicant is a small business which reasonably
assumed that the City ordinance meant what it said. Galloway relied on the City's laws which
include an unqualified guarantee vesting the project to a specific impact fee schedule. Galloway
relied on this legal provision and moved forward on a major investment and challenge. The
applicant acquired an unsightly and blighted project within the City, and they have invested hard
earned family resources to try and complete the development in an attractive and code compliant
residential development, during a time of economic recession. For multiple reasons, the hearing
examiner's decision erroneously concluded that it was proper to apply a retroactive repeal of the
City's legal guarantee, and apply a new ordinance to the old project in a manner that destroys the
financial success of the Galloway's entire operation.
The Amendment To 160(E)(2) Should Be Prospective, Not Retroactive. As a matter
of plain language and logic, the original section 160(E)(2) applied to the Galloway project, and
vested that project to an impact fee schedule of "zero". Even the hearing examiner ultimately
agreed that impact fees within Renton School District were "zero" between December 29, 2009
(when Renton impact fees were added) and March 17, 2010 (when the 160(E)(2) plat approval
language was repealed). Decision, pp. 7-9. Moreover, City officials including the Director of
Development Services himself indicated that the ordinance had originally vested the Galloway
project. Thus, the City's own interpretation contradicts that portion of the hearing examiner's
complex interpretation which suggests that section 160(E)(2) was limited to Renton School
CampbetDiIe,&amed&5rruNPI LC. I APRo14ssIONnr.J-Tl�=LL6,BIIrlYoorinnYINC2an�rNGAmzorrWONALSERVICCCaiu'alzn-i7aN
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -4-
District plats applied for after December 23, 2009. The hearing examiner's limited interpretation
is also contradicted by the express language of 160(E)(2). The City's ordinance unequivocally
stated that the impact fees were vested for all plats applied for after the effective date of
Ordinance 4808 (November 10, 1999). Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 646, 151
P.3d 990 (2007) (holding that full effect must be given to the language of an ordinance, with no
part rendered meaningless or superfluous). This included the Galloway project.
The hearing examiner's interpretation of the ordinance also presents a clear violation of
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 Ianguage, which expressly created vested rights. There is no dispute that this
amendment was not remedial. Rather than a clarification, the amendment created a dramatic
and substantive change in a legal promise that applied to specific projects. To apply this change
in the law retroactively is an unreasonable and unlawful interpretation of the City's laws.
A Retroactive Repeal of the Vesting Law Is Unconstitutional. In addition, a
retroactive repeal of this substantive 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
Lincoln Shiloh Associates, Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083)
(citation omitted).
The Hearing Examiner has supported its decision with authorities such as New Castle and
RCW 58.17.033, which address vesting under the Revised Code of Washington. However, the
Galloway appeal does not take issue with the City's decision to increase impact fees under RCW
58.17.033. 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 projects that were legally vested under the City's own unique vesting laws. Section 2(E)
CampbelD1le,Bamett&smitti,Y.LLC. I APROFESSIONAL LIM=I1AB TY C0WAT,�YTNC.wuaGArrcor-FS IONALSERVCECORPORA770N
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Ileights
July 19, 2012
Page -5-
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. Retroactively, the interpretation
violates Galloway's rights under the common law and the constitution. This decision also
requires modification based on the statutory "fairness" standard which governs impact fee
appeals in Renton. 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.").
The hearing examiner also suggests that the original 160(E)(2) only created a "mere
expectancy" or "guideline", similar to a "mode" of tax collection. See Decision, pp. 9-11.
Again, the plain language of the ordinance intentionally creates a vested right, without
qualification. This appeal involves much more than a developer's mere expectation to a fee
schedule or guideline on taxes. This appeal involves a City ordinance that expressly grants
developers a vested right to the fee schedule in effect at plat approval. State and local laws can
and do create vested property rights; the unique ordinance in this case does not use loose
language of "guidelines" or procedure, but instead vested the Galloway project to the fee
schedule in effect at the time of plat application. The language in 160(E)(2) could only have
meant what it says — it is unqualified and specific, and was reasonably relied on by the
developers in this case in a manner that clearly satisfies the standard for vesting of rights under
the constitution and common law.
Equitable Estoppel. Galloway also appeals on the ground that a retroactive repeal of
subsection 2(l-) would be 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 1, LLC relied upon the
City's language in Section 2(E) — the Ianguage was unambiguous at the time of application.
While the City properly amended Section 2(E) prospectively, a retroactive application of the
amendment is a fundamentally inconsistent statement depriving the owners of more than $75,000
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel. The hearing examiner decided that he could not
decide the equitable estoppel argument, and indicated that this issue would need to be resolved
by the superior court. Decision, p. 12. However, this Council is in a position to avoid the need
for litigation of the equitable estoppel issue by issuing a ruling to correct the fundamentally
unfair situation where a local developer is saddled with over $70,000 in impact fees that the City
originally guaranteed would not apply.
Caml)lUe➢,L)lle,Bamett&Strnth,l'.L.L.C. j APROPfSSIONA[.1]NffTF7�I.dABU=COKTiAr4 iNCIIJDING.APRC?F-7SSIOIIALSO-R-1ICGCORPORAT1()N
Renton City Council
Appeal by Gallaway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -6-
Based on the foregoing, Galloway respectfully appeals the Hearing Examiner's decision
approving the retroactive imposition of more than $70,000 in school impact fees on its project.
We appreciate this important opportunity to seek review and correction of this decision.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBEL DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
Talis M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Cc: Client
1ADATAIDIHH13 M Bartels, JonathanlGalloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees M27.009\Mry of Kenton 4-13-12.docx
=mpbeIL DMe, Barnett & Smith, FLLG I A PRO- mss OMn L LkZT ---M IIAB= ODNTA Y uac[ LmTvG Antzo-F-SSIGN il. sFRvtcr: CORDO A r7ora
Denis Lawlt
Mayor Y O y
City Clerk - Bonnie L Walton
July 9, 2012
Talis Aboiins '
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC JUL ���z
317 South Meridian
P.Q. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Re: Decision for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 & 7291
Dear Mr. Abolins:
Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 9, 2012, in the above -
referenced matter.
If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bonnie 1. Walton
City Clerk
Enc.; Hearing Examiner's Decision
cc: Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon 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) 430-657 0 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
I
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
2
3}
RE: Galloway at the Highlands
4 APPEAL OF IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Appeal
6
8 Summary
9 The Appellant appeals the imposition of school impact fees for the construction of four single-family
10 homes, totaling $32,497.41 The appeal is denied and the imposition of $ 32,497.41 in school impact
fees is sustained_ The key issue of this appeal is whether an ordinance assessing impact fees at
1.1 building permit issuance based upon amounts in effect at the time of subdivision approval creates
constitutionally protected vestedrights that cannot be extinguished or modified by subsequent
12 amendment. No such vested right was created in this case and no fee adjustment is warranted.
13
The Appellant appeals the imposition of impact fees for the Renton School District ("RSD") for
14 building permits issued for development of single-family homes in the Galloway of the Highlands
subdivision. When the subdivision was approved on March 28, 2067, there was no RSD impact fee.
15 At that time the City's impact fee only assessed and only applied to impact fees collected for the
16 Issaquah School District ("ISD"). RMC 4-1-160(E) provided that impact fees came due at building
permit issuance but that the amount of the fee would be based upon the "fee schedule in effect when
17 the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval." The definitions and purpose clause of the ordinance
clearly provided that the impact fee ordinance was to exclusively apply to ISD fees, including RCW
18 4-1-160(E). Consequently, when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved, the impact fee
19 ordinance did not dictate that any future RSD impact fees would be based upon impact fee schedules
in effect at preliminary plat approval.
20
Subsequent to the approval of the Galloway preliminary plat, for a brief period of time the Renton
21 City Council did amend the impact fee ordinance to provide that the RSD impact fee amounts in
effect at preliminary plat approval (0$) would apply for impact fees that came due at building permit
22 issuance. On December 23, 2009 the Renton City Council added RSD impact fees to its impact fee
23 ordinance. The definitions and purpose clause of the impact fee ordinance were not revised to
include the RSD and its fees, but this was clearly an oversight and the only rational way to apply the
24 amendment as intended was to apply all provisions of the impact fee ordinance to RSD fees,
including RMC 4-1-160(E). RMC 4-1-160(E) also happened to provide that it applied to any
25 preliminary plats approved after the effective date of Ordinance 4808_ Ordinance 4808 went into
26 effect on November 10, 1999. The Galloway preliminary plat was approved after November 10,
1999. Consequently, when the impact fee ordinance was amended on December 23, 2009 to include
APPEAL - i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RSD impact fees, the RSD impact fees for the Galloway development due at building permit.issuance
were based upon the adopted amounts in effect when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved,
which was $0. The Appellant purchased the Galloway development on March 10, 2010 while the
December 23, 2009 amendments remained in effect and testified that he purchased the property in
reliance upon the fact that the RSD impact fees would be $0.
I On March 17, 2010, the Renton City Council amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that the amount
for an impact fee charged at building permit issuance was to be based upon the fee schedules in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, instead of the fees in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval. If the December 23, 2009 amendments of RMC 4-1-160(E)constitute a constitutionally
protected vested right to the $0 RSD impact fee, the Council would have been precluded from
amending RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide for a higher amount. However, RMC 4-1-16(E) doesn't create
any such vested rights. Rather it just creates an expectancy that is most analogous to an adopted
"mode" of tax collection that provides guidelines on what impact fee schedules apply when amounts
come due at the time of building permit issuance. Those guidelines were amended on March 17,
2010 and the RSD impact fees for any building permits issued after that date must be based upon
impact fee schedules in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Testimony
Talis Abolins testified that the appellant is asking for the reversal of a retroactive repeal of a
provision in the city of Renton's code which had expressly granted Galloway LLC the right to the fee
schedule in place when the preliminary plat received approval. The approval was received on March
28, 2007. At that point in time, the school fees in affect were zero dollars. Renton indicated that
school fee impacts would be mitigated by an increase in the city's tax -base. However, after the
appellant purchased the vested Highlands project, the city retroactively repealed the ordinance,
resulting in a substantial financial impact. The appellant is asking for reversal based on due process,
fairness, and RCW 82.02.070 which provides that a city must give an appeal process which allows a
fee to be modified based on principles of fairness.
Greg Heath, 2214 Tacoma Road, stated that he has been involved in real estate development for a
number of years. He has participated in around 10-I2 development projects. There are 4 members of
the Galloway LLC including Mr. Heath, his wife, Jonathan Arnold, and Kris Arnold. The LLC was
formed to purchase the property and complete the building project. Galloway purchased the property
through a bankruptcy process from a receiver. Exhibit 4 is a landscape plan and reflects the current
plan for the development of the project. At the time of Mr. Heath's acquisition of the property, there
was a small amount of development on the property. The south east quadrant contained the framing
and partial roofing for a building. The south-west quadrant had foundations, and the north quadrant
was vacant. There will be 35 dwelling units and 3 commercial spaces under the current plan. The
LLC reviewed the building permit, infrastructure, fees paid, and if there was bonding required before
purchasing the property. As part of this due -diligence process, the LLC reviewed the effect of school
impact fees. Exhibit 1 is the school impact fee ordinance in effect at the time the property was
purchased by Galloway LLC. When reviewing the ordinance, Mr. Heath noted that the use of "vested
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plat" in item 2, section E. Galloway LLC was aware school impact fees were zero at the time of the
preliminary plat approval and believed that vesting would result in the continuation of this policy.
Exhibit 2 notes the minutes of the meeting where the preliminary plat received approval. Galloway
LLC was under the impression that the school impact fees would be zero and resurrected already
approved building permits. After acquiring the property, Galloway LLC discovered that the city had
modified the Renton code, and the modification applied retroactively. Exhibit 6 reflects the
clarification from Neil Watts in regard to the impact of the city change on the Galloway project.
Permit fees were paid under protest from Galloway LLC. Exhibit 7 is a coalescing of the permit fees
expected to be paid for school impacts created by a consulting firm working for Galloway LLC_
Based on these calculations, the anticipated impact on the project is over 74,000 dollars. The fees
will have a vast negative impact on the financial situation of the project, especially in a difficult
market. If Galloway had been aware of these school impact fees, they would have paid less for the
project or not pursued it at all.
Mr. Abolins argued that for some time, the vested rights doctrine has not applied to school impact
fees. Courts have indicated that a developer should expect to be tied to fluctuations in school impact
fees. However, a developer has a right to proceed in a manner of certainty under due process. Renton
had enacted ordinances guaranteeing developers the right to school impact fees at the time of plat
approval. Exhibit 12 is a staff report from the Renton Planning Division which discussed the changes
made under the new ordinance. The report notes that school impact fees should be collected at the
time of building permit review for the amount required when preliminary plat approval was given.
Galloway had already received plat approval and was vested under city ordinance. An administrative
decision, detailed in an email from. Neil Watts (exhibit 6), stated that the city was going to apply the
new school impact fee ordinance to projects that had already received plat approval. In exhibit 12
(page 3), the city acknowledges that the code allows applicant's to be vested to impact fees they
received when given preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 13 is additional Planning and Development
Committee material which states that applicants can be vested to previous fee schedules. Galloway
LLC created an entire cost -analysis based on the presumption they would not be paying any school
impact fees. Exhibit 8 is the ordinance that set -forth the vesting principle. Exhibit 9 is the
preliminary report to the hearing examiner on the Highlands project which notes, on page 11, that the
school district would be able to handle additional students from the development. Pages 10 and I 1 of
exhibit 10 note the environmental checklist given for the project. The public services section of this
checklist states that the project will increase need for public services and gives increased tax -base as
the method of paying for services (not school impact fees).
The hearing examiner questioned Mr. Abolins about the applicability of Graham Neighborhood Assn
v. F.G. Associates, which recently held that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to procedural
requirements as opposed to land use controls. The Examiner noted that Mr. Abolins had
acknowledged that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to impact fees because they aren't
considered land use controls.
iarmon Newsom, assistant Renton City Attorney, cross examined Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath stated the
.3roperty was purchased in March 2010.
APPEAL - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 '
Mr_ Newsom argued that the appellant does not have a vested right to the previous school impact
fees. Exhibit 8 (a copy of ordinance 4808) does not apply to the Renton School District. There is no
reference to Renton, only a reference to the Issaquah School District. Nothing in this section of the
code gives provision for vesting under the school district. The appellant cannot prove any form of
vesting right based on this ordinance. Mr. Newsom commented that the appellant suggested that they
had an expectation of not paying their share of fees. A vested right must be something more than an
expectation. There is no language that benefits the appellant in the ordinance. The appellant was
aware that the code was changing during the period the property was purchased. Mr. Newsom noted
that Mr. Heath used the word "assumed" when discussing his belief the school impact fees would be
zero. Vesting is limited to zoning, building, or land use control ordinances. Impact fees are not
zoning ordinances. He submitted a previous court case which makes clear that impact fees are
collected. at the time of building permits_ Impact fees do not influence use or division. No guarantee
of availability in schools was given to the appellant. There is no vested right provision for schools
under Renton code, so Washington law and city ordinances must be adhered. Accordingly, Renton
code provides that school impact fees must be collected at the time of building permit approval. He
also noted the case of Abbey Rd v. Bonney Lake which rejected the argument of financial cost being
too great as a reason not to levy a fee. The case provided that RCW I9.27.095(l) is unequivocal and
requires a complete building permit application to be submitted in order to receive vesting rights. No
vesting protection was entitled to Galloway LLC.
In regard to equitable estoppel, Mr. Newsom testified that the application of equitable estoppels
against government is disfavored. He referred to the decision in Dept of Ecology v. George
Theodoratus which gave that the courts should be reluctant to find the government equitable estoppel
"when public revenues are involved." There is a three-part test to applying equitable estoppels. The
appellant has failed to prove that there was any party admission in consistent with the later claim.
The appellant has failed to prove that Galloway has relied on a specific act, statement, or admission.
A mistaken reading of the code is not the fault of Renton. The appellant has failed to prove there was
any type of injury based on reliance on the false beliefs. Paying more money is not considered an
injury by the courts. The appellant has not proven that there is any sort of manifest error. The money
will go the Renton School District, not the City. Making a profit is not the city's concern.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner in regard to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), which the Examiner
noted isn't expressly limited to the Issaquah School District, Mr. Newsom commented that the
appellant has failed to prove this section of the code refers to Renton School District and that
provisions in other parts of the impact fee ordinance were clearly designed to only apply to impact
Fees assessed for the Issaquah School District.
Falls Abolins testified that the language of the original ordinance does not restrict itself to a single
school district. Exhibit 6 shows that the city of Renton interpreted the ordinance as giving vesting
•ights to the Appellant's project in the Issaquah School District. Neil Watts, director of the
)evelopment Services division, assumed the provision applied to Galloway's project based on his
:mail sent to the appellant in exhibit 6. AIthough there have been no previous application of the
APPEAL - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ordinance with a similar nature, the city gave conclusive proof that they were applying the ordinance
within the Renton School District. The Planning Division's discussion of the impact fees in exhibits
12 and 13 is very broad and does not suggest a limit to the Issaquah School District. The appellant is
aware of how school impact fees work and understands there are fluctuations. A careful due -
diligence. process was followed in order to assure the appellant understood the city's interpretation of
the ordinance before purchasing the property. The appellant does not just have an expectation; they
have an affirmative legislative statement backed up by the Director of Development Services for
Renton.
In regard to providing additional legislative history, Mr. Newsom stated that he does not see any
ambiguity in the ordinance. No specific provision for the Renton School District is made. The
ordinance is specific to the Issaquah School District, and Renton School District would not have been
able to collect school impact fees under the ordinance as written.
Mr. Abolins noted that exhibit 11 discusses RMC 4-1-160 and refers to the Kent School District
along with the Issaquah School District. A city official stated in an email that the original ordinance
applied to the Galloway project (exhibit 6), knowing that the project fell in the Renton School
District.
Mr. Newsom testified that Renton is addressing the appellant's decision to rely on the plat approval
for vesting rather than the building permit. The plat approval was from 2007. Ordinance 5442
expands to apply to Issaquah and Kent School District, but Renton School District is not included.
.Page 3 of the ordinance identified Issaquah School District 411 and Kent School District 415. The
ordinance reflects the intent of the City Council. There is no vesting for the Renton School District
given in the past ordinances.
Exhibits
At hearing, the Appellant submitted an exhibit notebook consisting of 13 exhibits, all of which were
admitted into the record.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
1. Appellant. Galloway Heights I, LLC.
2. H_ Barin . A hearing on the appeal was held on June 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm in the Renton City
Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
APPEAL -5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Appeal. The Appellant appeals the imposition $32,497.41 in RSD school
impact fees levied upon the issuance of building permit CP07293($8,196.63),
CP07301($8,201.32), CP07300($8,201.32) and CP07292($7,898.14). All four building permits
were issued for single-family homes located in the Galloway at the Highlands subdivision in the
RSD. The fees were paid under protest on April 20, 2012. The Appellant asserts that RMC 4-1-
160(E) gave it a vested right to $0 RSD school impact fees when the Galloway preliminary plat
was approved and also that the City is barred by equitable estoppel from requiring any RSD school
impact fees.
4. Chronolo�-_y.
A. November 10, 1999; Issaquah impact fee first adopted. The Renton City Council first
adopted a school impact fee on November 1, 1999 as Ordinance No. 4808, which went
into effect on November 10, 1999- Section 4-1-160(A) of the ordinance noted that the
ordinance was adopted for the collection of impact fees for the ISD. No other school
district was mentioned. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) of the ordinance provided that impact fees
come due at the time of building permit issuance but the amount must be based upon fee
schedules in effect at the time of planned unit development ("PUD") or preliminary plat
approval. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) on its own did not mention the ISD or any other school
district.
B. March 8, 2007; Galloway preliminary plat approved. The Appellant's subdivision,
Galloway at the Highlands, received preliminary plat approval on March 8, 2007.
C. March 15, 2007; Kent School District added to impact fee ordinance. The Renton City
Council amended Section 4-1-160(A) by Ordinance 5263 to provide that the ordinance
was adopted to impose impact fees for both the Kent and Issaquah school districts. The
definition of "District" was also expanded to include the KSD. The amendment went
into effect on March 15, 2007. A whereas clause to the ordinance noted that the City of
Renton may annex property within the Kent School District ("KSD").,. RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) was not amended and retained the original wording from Ordinance No. 4808.
D. December 23 2009• first Renton School District impact fee goes into effect. A whereas
clause to Ordinance No. 5514 provides that "until recently the Renton School District
has been able to accommodate growth within existing facilities, but currently estimates a
need for additional school facilities". Ordinance No. 5514 imposes an impact fee for
Renton, apparently for the first time. It amends Section 4-1-160(D), note 5, to set impact
fee amounts for the RSD. Ordinance No. 5514 does not amend the definition of
"District" to include the RSD or the Section 4-1-160(A) purpose clause to provide that
the purpose of the impact fee ordinance is to collect impact fees for the RSD.
E. March, 2010; Appellant purchases Gallowayproperiy. Under cross examination during
the hearing on this appeal, an officer of the Appellant testified that it purchased the
APPEAL -6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Galloway Heights properly in March, 2010. It is unclear whether the Appellant
purchased the property before or after the Ordinance No. 5532 went into effect.
F. March 17 2010• RMC 4-1-160(E) amended. Ordinance No. 5532, which went into
effect on March 17, 2010, amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that impact fees are
based upon the amounts in effect when paid at the time of building permit issuance. A
staff report that accompanied the proposed amendment, Ex. 12, acknowledged that RMC
4-1-160(E) applied to RSD impact fees and that basing impact fee amounts upon the
schedules in effect at PUD/preliminary plat approval did not effectively mitigate school
impacts, "especially the impacts to the Renton School District".
G. May 2, 2012; purpose clause revised to include Renton School District_ Ordinance No.
5657, which went into effect May 2, 2012, amended Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that
the impact fee ordinance was adopted to assess fees for the Issaquah, Kent and Renton
school districts. Up until this point Section 4-1-160(A) did not include the Renton
School District. The definition of district was also stricken from the ordinance, so that
references in the ordinance to "district" were no longer limited to the ISD and Kent
School District.
Conclusions of Law
Procedural:
1. Authori1y of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-1-160(G)(2) provides that an appeal of a
school impact fee shall follow the process for the underlying permit action. The underlying permit
action in these appeals was approval of the subject building permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) assigns
building permit appeals to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing and final decision
appealable to the Renton City Council.
2. Appeal Review Criteria. RMC 4-1-160(G)(1) provides that impact fees may be
adjusted if the fees were incorrectly assessed or unusual and unique circumstances render the fees
unfair, unjust or unlawful. If the Appellant is correct in its assertion that it has a vested right,
protected by due process, to $0 impact fees than the Appellant would qualify for a waiver of the fees
imposed by the City since the due process violation would (1) render the fees unfair, unjust and
unlawful; or (2) would compel the conclusion that the fees were incorrectly assessed under an
interpretation of the impact fee ordinance that is consistent with the vested rights of the Appellant.
3. Impact fee ordinance did not Drovide for vesting of RSD impact fee amounts at
preliminary plat approval when the Galloway Heights prelimingn plat was approved. The Appellant
argues that RSDS $0 impact fees vested at the time of preliminary plat approval. However, when the
Galloway preliminary plat was approved the City's impact fee ordinance only governed ISD impact
fees.
APPEAL - 7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The asserted "vesting" provision in effect when Galloway Heights was approved was RMC 4 -I -
160(E) of Ordinance No. 4808, which provided as follows:
E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES.-
1,
EES:
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, using the
fee schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval....
(emphasis added)
A key point of disagreement between the City and the Appellant is the underlined language above —
the City maintains that these impact fees are limited to impact fees assessed for the ISD and the
Appellant claims they are any impact fees imposed by the City. The City's interpretation is the more
compelling. RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) authorizes and requires the City to collect impact fees for "...final
plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit..." RMC 4-1-160(E)(2)
relates back to the range of impact fees authorized by RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) by providing that for those
impact fees linked to PUD and preliminary plat approval, they will vest at the time of preliminary
plat/PUD approval. Subsection 2 is setting the amount to a portion of the impact fees authorized in
subsection 1. Unfortunately for the Appellant, subsection 1 limits the authorized range of impact
fees to those assessed for "dwelling units located within the District's Boundaries". RMC 4-1-
160(13)(8) of Ordinance No. 4808 defines the "District" as the ISD. Since the impact fee amounts set
by subsection 2 only applies to the fees authorized by subsection 1, subsection 2 only applies to ISD
impact fees. This interpretation is further corroborated by the purpose clause of Ordinance No. 4808,
which provided at RMC 4-1-160(A) that "the Council adopts this title to assess school impacts for
the Issaquah School District." The purpose clause makes no mention of the RDS.
4. Impact fee ordinance amended to set amount of RSD impact fees on those in effect at
preliminM plat approval when RSD impact fees added to impact fee ordinance on December 23,
2009. As noted in the findings of fact, RSD impact fees were first authorized by Ordinance 55I4.
This authorization included the application of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), such that for preliminary plats and
PUDs the impact fees assessed at building permit issuance were those in effect at the time of
preliminary plat/PUD approval if those plat/PUD was approved after November 10, 1999.
Me impact of Ordinance 5514 on RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was not immediately apparent. Ordinance
5514 only amended RMC 4 -I -160(D)(5) to identify the amount the RSD impact fee and RSD 4-1-
160(J) to adopt the RSD capital facilities plan. This was the first time RSD impact fees were ever
dentified in the City's school impact fee ordinance. Notably, Ordinance 5514 did not amend
APPEAL -8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"District" to include the RSD or amend Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that the purpose of the impact
fee ordinance was to assess school impact fees for the RSD in addition to impact fees for the KSD
and ISD, despite the fact that the KSD had been added to the "District" definition and 4-1-160(A)
when its impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance via Ordinance No. 5263_
Without an amendment to the definition of "District", read literally the City had no authority to
impose the fee since the authority for imposing impact fees was limited to the "District" in RMC 4-
1-160(E)(1) as previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 3. Nonetheless, it is clear that the
City Council intended RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) to authorize and require the imposition of RSD impact
fees and that the failure to amend "District" and 4-1-160(A) was an oversight. The Council would
not have added an impact fee amount for RSD to the impact fee ordinance without intending that the
City have the authority to impose it. Interpreting Ordinance 5514 as authorizing the imposition of
impact fees for the RSD necessarily requires that "District" include the RSD which in turn requires
that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees.
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) expressly provided that it applied to all preliminary plats/PUDs approved after
the effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. The Galloway Heights project was approved after the
effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. Consequently, subsequent to the effective date of Ordinance
No. 5514, all impact fees collected at building permit issuance for Galloway Heights was $0 for as
long as the Ordinance No. 5514 amendments remained in effect.
5_ Appellant has no vested right in RMC 4-1-160(E)Q. With the conclusions of law
above, the key issue in this appeal is whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No. 4808
created a vested right that under due process cannot be extinguished by subsequent retroactive
legislation, in this case Ordinance No. 5532. If RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No.
4808 does create a constitutionally protected vested right, then the Appellant would be entitled to a
refund of all fees paid as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 2. However, it is concluded as a
matter of law that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) does not create a constitutionally protected vested right.
As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that it is uncontested by the parties to this appeal that the
vested rights doctrine as codified for subdivisions does not apply to impact fees. This issue was
resolved in New Castle Investments, LLC v_ City of La Center, 98 Wn. App. 224 (1999), which held
that RCW 58.17.033 only vests subdivisions to "land use controls" and that impact fees are not land
use controls. The Appellant acknowledges at p. 3 of their appeal statement that "[t]here is no
question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs." The
Appellant distinguishes RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) from the right of the City to vary the amount of the
Impact fee by noting that the City "expressly created vested rights" in RMC 4-1-160(E)(2). The
vesting issue at hand is not whether the City can generally vary impact fee amounts after preliminary
alat approval, but rather whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) creates a locally adopted vested right that
;annot be extinguished by a subsequent amendment.
kn important similarity between Farm Bureau and the impact fees at hand are that they both involve,
br the most part, taxes. Impact fees are largely treated as taxes by Washington courts. Sundquist
APPEAL - 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Homes, Inc. v. County of Snohomish, 276 F. Supp. 1123, 1126 (2003)(" Although the issue has
never been decided for all contexts and in all circumstances, when forced to characterize impact fees
the state courts have generally treated them as `taxes. "). The mode of levying taxes does not create
any vested rights protected by due process. Two cases are instructive on this issue.
The first case dealt with retroactive legislation that altered a timing requirement for the collection of
taxes. Newman v. Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 of King County, 125 Wash. 577, 582 (1923).
In Newman, a state statute authorized the collection of property assessments by waterway districts to
retire bonds for waterway improvements. The statute placed time limits on the collection of the
assessments and a waterway district failed to meet the deadlines prior to the maturation of some
bonds it had issued. The legislature remedied the situation by amending the applicable statutes to
authorize the waterway district to issue new bonds to pay off the matured bonds along with the
authority to re -assess benefitted properties to pay off the newly issued bonds. The new assessments
changed the amount and timing of taxes collected for the improvements leading to the argument
from the property owners that the new assessments violated their vested rights. The Court disagreed,
holding as follows:
The method and time of levying the assessment was a matter of remedy rather than a
matter of vested right, and when the remedy pointed out failed, no matter whatsoever
may have been the cause, it was within the power of the Legislature to provide
another. That the state ' may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes or
assessments when those formerly enacted fail of their purpose without any violation
of the Constitution, either federal or state, is not a matter of doubt. The taxpayer has
no vested right in the existing mode of collecting taxes, There is no contract between
him and the state that the latter will not vary such mode, and so long as no
fundamental right of the taxpayer is invaded he cannot complain of a variation in the
erode.
125 Wash. at 582.
The second, more recent case, on vested rights in taxation involves the retroactive amendment of an
initiative to remove a requirement of voter approval for the raising of state taxes. Washington State
Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284 (2007). In Farm Bureau, a state initiative had
set a yearly cap on the revenues raised by taxation that could only be exceeded by a vote of the public.
In 2006, nine months after the start of the fiscal year for 2005, the legislature adopted a statute that
increased the cap for 2005 without a public vote. The Washington State Farm Federation challenged
the amendment to the initiative, arguing in part that the public had a vested right in voter approval of
any expenditures that exceeded the cap. The Court agreed that the amendment acted retroactively as
:o the 2005 fiscal year. It acknowledged that the due process clause prohibits retroactive amendments
:hat interfere with vested rights. 162 Wn.2d at 304. However, the Court did not find the cap to
qualify as a vested right. It noted that a vested right, entitled to protection from retroactive
egislation, must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance
)f the existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment
APPEAL -10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of property, a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand by another. Id. The Court also noted
that no one has a vested right in any general rule of law or policy of legislation which gives an
entitlement to insist that it remain unchanged for one's own benefit. Id. The Court concluded that
"Washington voters' statutory "right" to approve taxes that raise revenues in excess of the state
expenditure limit is a mere expectation -----it is not a .vested right entitled to due process protections
from subsequently enacted legislation." 162 Wn.2d at 305.
As in Newman and Farm Bureau, the Renton City Council has not altered any vested rights in its
amendment of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) by Ordinance No. 5532. 1t merely modified the "mode" of
collecting taxes by modifying the timing for what impact fee schedule is used to ascertain the
amount. As in Newman this change in timing ultimately affects the amount of the tax collected.
Similarly, the removal of the public vote requirement in. Farm Bureau also may have changed the
amount of taxes raised, since the public may have rejected the increase ultimately adopted by the
legislature. if the courts are unwilling to protect the integrity of a cap on taxes created by public
initiative, it is unlikely they will find much to honor in a regulation that sets the applicability of an
impact fee schedule.
The case at hand is distinguishable from Farris Bureau in that impact fees arguably have a much
more burdensome and/or direct impact on property owners than the general tax laws of the state.
The burden on the property owner is certainly a valid consideration in assessing the applicability of
due process. Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
However, the courts have already determined that impact fees generally don`t trigger any vested
rights protected by the due process clause. See New Castle, supra. The fact that the Ordinance
5532 amendments to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) changes the timing of how impact fees amounts are to be
assessed adds nothing to the due process public/private balancing of interests.
1t is also noteworthy that there is no legislative intent evident or assurance made within RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) that the Council created a vested right that could not be altered by subsequent legislative
amendment. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4808 was only designed to provide a
methodology for assessing impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. When the Appellant
contemplated the purchase of the subject property in 2010, it had to base its feasibility analysis with
the knowledge that property taxes, real estate excise taxes and all other taxes applicable to its real
estate venture could change at any time. The amount of the impact fees, which is essentially another
tax, was subject to the same unpredictability. The fact that for a period of less than three months
between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 20101 the amount of the RSD impact fees were based
upon the fees in place at preliminary plat approval did not create any vested right to prevent that
unpredictability.
' As outlined in the findings of fact, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-I60(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees between
December 23, 2009 (when RSD impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance) and March 17, 2010 (when
SMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was amended to provide that impact fees are based upon the amount in place at building permit
ssuance).
APPEAL -li
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. Even if a vested ri ht were created b Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160 E 2 it likel
would not apply to Appellant. As previously noted, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) only
applied to RSD impact fees for a brief period of time, between December 23, 2009 and March 17,
2010. If this temporary period of time created any vested rights, it is likely that those rights would
only apply if the Appellant filed a complete building permit application or acquired PUD approval
during that time period. It is clear from the record that the Appellant acquired PUD approval well
before December 23, 2009 and there is no evidence to support a finding that any complete building
permit applications were filed between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 2010. Consequently, even
if Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) created vested rights, they don't apply to the Appellant.
In the context of land use controls, the courts and the state legislature require the filing of a complete
development permit application to trigger vested rights. The judicial policies underlying this
requirement equally apply in the context of any vesting to impact fees. The requirement for a
complete permit application to vest land use controls prevents permit speculation by making it too
easy to vest and also helps create a date certain that makes the point in time for vesting predictable,
instead of having to inquire into the "moves and countermoves" of the parties. East County
Reclamation v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 438 (2005); Graham Neighborhood Assn v. FG.
Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98, I13 (2011). In order to assure the same predictability and to also
prevent permit speculation, the vesting of impact fee provisions such as RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) would
also most likely be required by a court to occur upon the filing of a complete development permit
application. For RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) that would either have to be the preliminary plat application or
building permit application, since those are the two permits within the subsection linked to impact
fee amounts.
7. The Examiner has no authority to rule upon issues concerning equitable estoppel. In
its appeal statement the Appellant also argues equitable estoppel. The Hearing Examiner does not
have the authority to rule upon equitable estoppel claims. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council,
38 Wn. App. 630 (1984)(hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). Chaussee may be
distinguishable on the basis that the broad "fairness" standards of review for impact fee appeals
encompass the broad fairness considerations involved in principles of equitable estoppel. However,
equitable estoppel often involves some highly fact specific issues that the fact finding apparatus of
reviewing courts are more suited to review. Unless and until the courts authorize Examiners to
consider equitable estoppel claims in cases similar to the appeal at bar, the Examiner will decline to
assume jurisdiction on that issue.
APPEAL - 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
The appeal is denied. The imposition of $32,497.41 in school impact fees is sustained.
DATED this 9`h day of July, 2012.
Is Phil Olbrechts (Signed original in ofciul file)
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decision are heard in a closed record hearing by the City
Council. Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office, together
with the applicable appeal fee, within fourteen (14) days of the Examiner's final decision
Change in Valuation
Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program
of revaluation.
APPEAL -13
Clerk's Office Distribution List
Appeal, Galloway at the Highlands (Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12)
File No. LUA-07-128 FP
1
Renton Reporter
1
City Attorney
Larry Warren
1
City Council *
Julia Medzegian
1
CER
Alex Pietsch
1
Assistant Fire Marshal
David Pargas
7
Planning Commission
Judith Subia
Parties of Record**
(see attached list)
1
PW/Administration
Gregg Zimmerman
7
PW/Development Services
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Stacy Tucker
Rocale Timmons
Kayren Kittrick
Janet Conklin
Larry Meckling
1
PW/Transportation Services
Connie Brundage
1
PW/Utilities & Tech Services
Lys Hornsby
1
LUA-07-128
*City Clerk's Letter & POR List only
Cynthia Moya
From:
Bonnie Walton
Sent:
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:02 PM
To:
Cynthia Moya
Cc:
Sandi Weir
Subject:
FW: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal
fyi.
bw
From: Bonnie Walton
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:37 PM
To: Talis Abolins
Cc: Michelle Lea
Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal
Thank you for the email. I understand and will get back to you as soon as I have further information.
Bonnie
From: Talis Abolins [TalisA@cdb-law.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:44 AM
To: Bonnie Walton
Ce: 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
From: Bonnie Walton [ma !Ito:Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov]
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 -d his decision for the first appeal on Ga ay 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 281h appeal, then I will need notice from you to that
effect for my file.
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:iWane@Rentonwa.gov?suhied=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.
�l
Cam ,U, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.L.L.C. 017Y OF RENTON
.Attornevs at Law
RECEIVED
31 ; ti(7l!'1 H 41-:1,101AN i P.(). BOX ERS ! ]"UY,,VIET LVASC i6�C:1�{.�\��„
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513 FAX: (253) 845-4941
SENDER'S E-MAIL: Talisa@cdb-law.com WEBSITE: www.cdb-law.com
July 25, 2012
Renton City Council, c/o
Bonnie L Walton, City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Notice of Appeal: Galloway at the Highlands 1, LLC
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3rd Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Dear Ms. Walton and Honorable Members of the City Council:
ATTORNEYS
KOBISR'C!)_(:ANTPIiP] rNW,-2140!.
1'.A]'IS Al ABO (ANIS
fiC)1,1,I 11.1 %11N FIT P.S.'
STUNWN -1. BURNT AM
BRYr;I:11. ull.Ll_, P s.
I111JARY A. 1-101.,'111:4
SI fANNON R.JONES
Dh'BORA1 1A. PURCU.1-L
DAN II J, W. SR91'1'11
1I:Rl;MY V. SWAN
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT, Ll'0
My client, Galloway at the Highlands I, LLC, recently submitted its appeal of the
Hearing Officer's July 9 decision regarding school impact fees. I note that the appeal letter
contains a typographical error, referring to the applicant as "Galloway Heights". To avoid any
confusion we are confirming that the correct name is Galloway at the Highlands 1, LLC. Thank
you.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
f
Talis M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Cc: Client
Campbd,Dille, Rametr&Smirh,11.1AA,'_ I ,tirizorI'NSIONM,LINIMDIJ BJI.r1YcoWANYINCLUDINGA11R01I-"&SINN I. S1�RVI 1011110RA:110N
\
\
�
«
�
�
\
. y�
�
-
DeMayor Law
City O
City Clerk - Bonnie I: Walton
August 1, 2012
APPEAL FILED BY: Galloway at the Highlands by their attorney Talis Abolins, Campbell,
Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC.
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 9, 2012, regarding Galloway at the
Highlands, Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12. (File No.. LUA-07-128 FP)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to'Title IV,- Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the referenced issue has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired; the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Monday. August 13, 2012
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 a.m. on Thursday,
September 27. 2012, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration bythe full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing..Examiner.
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council Will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established.. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony, on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510.
Sincerely
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 /Fax (4.25)430-06 • rentonwa.gov
unici al Me; Title IV Cha ter 8 Section 110 — eals
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee
schedule of the City. (Ord. 3558, 9-13-82)
4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency,
only the Applicant, City or a Party of Record who has been aggrieved or affected by the
Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing
may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have
participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral
comments at the public hearing: or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the
Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the bearing: or c. Has been
granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the
public hearing.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their
positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the
notice of appeal.
4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is
made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been
available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that
additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for
reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing
record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an
order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a
remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be
presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City
Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner.
5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the Appellant.
5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the
report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section.
August 1, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
COUNTY OF KING )
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says that I am 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 Vt day of August, 2012, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed
in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all
parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Galloway at the Highlands by their attorney Talis
Abolins, Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC. of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
regarding the Galloway at the Highlands. (File No. LUA-07-128 FP)
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 1st day of August, 2012.
f.. I
-11f/1'14', 11f/1'14',
Cynthia'K. Moya
Notary Public in and for the State of,�'.
4'8`�C
Washington, residing in Renton
-� „ "'• - i
—F �'�SI'�ijery/Ifs;1
My commission expires: 8/27/2014
J����/IIII/Irr
Easy Pee ,0' Label-. i A Bend along line to
.��
Use Avery Template 5160' 1 Feed Paper expose Fop -up EdgeTM AVERY® 5160�
Renton School District
Attn: John Knutson
300 SW 7 I Street
Renton, WA 98057
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC Renton School District
317 South Meridian Attn: Rick Stacke
P.O. Box 488 300 SW 7th Street
Puyallup, WA 98371. Renton, WA 98057
Renton School District
Attn: Stewart Shusterman
300 SW 7th Street
Renton, WA 98057
tiquettes faciles a paler 1 A Repliez a la hachure An de www.avery.com
ltilisez leabarit AVERY'M 5160 Sens de
reveler le rehard Po -u "� '
9 , �harnarnnnt a p 1 -800 -GO -AVERY
Q
Carni 11, Dille, Barnett
Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
ks�lxxi D, la»ipa II i 1901 201',0)
31?SOUTH;1'1L-;ZIDIAN 11'.(.),Ii0X4S9 PUY.�L,L.UI'.11�15i[11[�IC)�t}4371-M04
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TalisA@cdb-law.com
Renton City Council, c/o
Bonnie L Walton, City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
FAX: (253) 845-4941
WEBSITE: tvw-w.cdb-la-,v.coin
July 19, 2012
.'I'TORNEYS C4.Y4}F MENTON
ROBI:R'l t) [;_1111'BI .1.1- (L911(-'FfNI i) fi
r:li.lS til. nBOLINS J1UL 2 0 2012 �deri
I IOLLTS 11.H;IRNLAT, P.S,
5t'I,:PFIIiN A. BURNHAM RECEIVED
BRYCE' CITY CI-ERK'S OFFICE
H.L
I1_1KY A. IIOLME
SIiANNON R. IONI,'S
LK,BORAII .1_ PUR(IF1.1.
DAN ltil, W. 5 T1 L I
JI:.RI?tilY M. SWANK
i i], COUNSI'l.
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT, 1.1'0
+I
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL. OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DATED
JULY 9, 2012 TO THE RENTON CITY COUN_C_I_R_
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3`d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120)
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
My client, Galloway Heights I, LLC, hereby appeals the Hearing Examiner's decision on
the imposition of school impact fees in connection with building permits issued on the Galloway
at the Highlands project, including the currently issued Building Pern-11ts 7293, 7301, 7300 &
7292. With this correspondence we are submitting the $250.00 appeal fee for an appeal of a
Hearing Officer decision to the City Council pursuant to RMC 4-8-110E(8) and 110F.
This is the first set of Galloway permits being appealed. The hearing on this first set of
permits was held on June 19, 2012, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C).
Backp,round. Galloway Heights I, LLC (Galloway), is a small business owned by two
families. They formed the business to investigate the possible acquisition and completion of a
blighted and unsightly property within the City of Renton. This highly visible property was in a
state of disrepair, and was mired in receivership. Galloway conducted a thorough due diligence
of the project, and carefully reviewed Renton's business friendly code provisions. Galloway also
Campbell, Dille, l3amett&Smith, P.l,.l_C. inhROl�:tisrc)N�1.1.InirlT.Ul,rnxrr.rlvr;omm�nn'IN(:L["r]IN{inVIiUII:SSIUN.�L51'121'1CI?t:UNPtrltnnc)n
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -2-
met with City officials regarding the status of the project. Based on this information Galloway
successfully negotiated a purchase of the property and, at great expense, have proceeded to
convert it from an eyesore into an attractive residential development within the City's limits.
Galloway's appeal arises from the hearing examiner's decision on the application of City
of Renton's Ordinance 4. L 160E(2) to the Galloway Heights project. During the due diligence
process the Galloway project was subject to a unique and business friendly ordinance adopted by
this Council. Section 160(E)(2) was clearly designed to provide certainty and encouragement for
those businesses looking to develop within the City of Renton. This provision unambiguously
established a vested right to the fee schedule in effect at the time of preliminary approval for a
project:
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).
The Galloway project received preliminary approval on March 8, 2007. At the time of
acquisition, Galloway understood that RMC 4.1.160E(2) was still 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 I, 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 Brunel]) who specifically
pointed out the protections of this vesting provision in a meeting with Mike Bauer, who was
helping with Galloway's due diligence process. 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 invest its limited funds to acquire and revive the blighted development, which had
ground to a halt.
(:unfit l7ille,Barnett&timitkz,]'.J.].C.I [ION
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -3-
On or about March 17, 2010, the City amended subsection E(2) with Ordinance 5532.
The amendment removed the pre-existing vesting language. Under the amendment, school
impact fees would be assessed and collected from the lot owner "at the time the building permits
are issued, using the fee schedule than in effect." RMC 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5532). Galloway has no problem with a reasonable prospective application of this ordinance,
which logically applied to applications for preliminary plat approvals submitted after its effective
date. However, the hearing examiner ultimately decided that the modified Section E(2) would
be applied retroactively, to the Galloway project — to the tune of more than $75,000 in impact
fees. This retroactive interpretation has a dramatic and unanticipated financial impact on the
Galloway project and its owners. For Galloway, a retroactive interpretation destroys the fee
structure originally mandated by Section 2(E), and in doing so, the retroactive interpretation also
destroys the Galloway project budget. This appeal is based on the clear and substantial errors
of law created if the amendment is applied retroactively to the Galloway's vested project.
Substantial Errors of Law. The Hearing Examiner's retroactive interpretation and
application of the ordinance creates clear and substantial errors of law that are fundamentally
unfair and are arbitrary and capricious. The applicant is a small business which reasonably
assumed that the City ordinance meant what it said. Galloway relied on the City's laws which
include an unqualified guarantee vesting the project to a specific impact fee schedule. Galloway
relied on this legal provision and moved forward on a major investment and challenge. The
applicant acquired an unsightly and blighted project within the City, and they have invested hard
earned family resources to try and complete the development in an attractive and code compliant
residential development, during a time of economic recession. For multiple reasons, the hearing
examiner's decision erroneously concluded that it was proper to apply a retroactive repeal of the
City's legal guarantee, and apply a new ordinance to the old project in a manner that destroys the
financial success of the Galloway's entire operation.
The Amendment To 160(E)(2) Should Be Prospective, Not Retroactive. As a matter
of plain language and logic, the original section 160(E)(2) applied to the Galloway project, and
vested that project to an impact fee schedule of "zero". Even the hearing examiner ultimately
agreed that impact fees within Renton School District were "zero" between December 29, 2009
(when Renton impact fees were added) and March 17, 2010 (when the 160(E)(2) plat approval
language was repealed). Decision, pp. 7-9. Moreover, City officials including the Director of
Development Services himself indicated that the ordinance had originally vested the Galloway
project. Thus, the City's own interpretation contradicts that portion of the hearing examiner's
complex interpretation which suggests that section 160(E)(2) was limited to Renton School
Ca7n]Abell,lli�le,ti'diTlCftcge5[iliCil,h.l.�_�'.. � r�PROIIiCIONAiJJl1ITf,i7T.Il1SIT1']YU3ia11'AI�Z'll*iCLUDTIGGAPR01�1:45ION.\L517t�'iCEiCORI't)2Z�110N
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -4-
District plats applied for after December 23, 2009. The hearing examiner's limited interpretation
is also contradicted by the express Ianguage of 160(E)(2). The City's ordinance unequivocally
stated that the impact fees were vested for all plats applied for after the effective date of
Ordinance 4808 (November 10, 1999). Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 646, 151
P.3d 990 (2007) (holding that full effect must be given to the language of an ordinance, with no
part rendered meaningless or superfluous). This included the Galloway project.
The hearing examiner's interpretation of the ordinance also presents a clear violation of
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. There is no dispute that this
amendment was not remedial. Rather than a clarification, the amendment created a dramatic
and substantive change in a legal promise that applied to specific projects. To apply this change
in the law retroactively is an unreasonable and unlawful interpretation of the City's laws.
A Retroactive Repeal of the Vesting Law Is Unconstitutional. In addition, a
retroactive repeal of this substantive 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. Valle
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
Lincoln Shiloh Associates, Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083)
(citation omitted).
The Hearing Examiner has supported its decision with authorities such as New Castle and
RCW 58.17.033, which address vesting under the Revised Code of Washington. However, the
Galloway appeal does not take issue with the City's decision to increase impact fees under RCW
58.17.033. 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 projects that were legally vested under the City's own unique vesting laws. Section 2(E)
CmilAcll,lXle,Bamctt&Smith, P3.1.C:. Inr�tc���_45u�tiv.rrnirm�r�ni;rrm'[ohm� r�'iNC�.t't�rucnnac)rr;�sr�r v.5rav�crc.oitr �iU i�ov
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -5-
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. Retroactively, the interpretation
violates Galloway's rights under the common law and the constitution. This decision also
requires modification based on the statutory "fairness" standard which governs impact fee
appeals in Renton. 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.").
The hearing examiner also suggests that the original 160(E)(2) only created a "mere
expectancy" or "guideline", similar to a "mode" of tax collection. See Decision, pp. 9-11.
Again, the plain language of the ordinance intentionally creates a vested right, without
qualification. This appeal involves much more than a developer's mere expectation to a fee
schedule or guideline on taxes. This appeal involves a City ordinance that expressly grants
developers a vested right to the fee schedule in effect at plat approval. State and local laws can
and do create vested property rights; the unique ordinance in this case does not use loose
language of "guidelines" or procedure, but instead vested the Galloway project to the fee
schedule in effect at the time of plat application. The language in 160(E)(2) could only have
meant what it says — it is unqualified and specific, and was reasonably relied on by the
developers in this case in a manner that clearly satisfies the standard for vesting of rights under
the constitution and common law.
Equitable Estoppel. Galloway also appeals on the ground that a retroactive repeal of
subsection 2(E) would be 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 properly amended Section 2(E) prospectively, a retroactive application of the
amendment is a fundamentally inconsistent statement depriving the owners of more than $75,000
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel. The hearing examiner decided that he could not
decide the equitable estoppel argument, and indicated that this issue would need to be resolved
by the superior court. Decision, p. 12. However, this Council is in a position to avoid the need
for litigation of the equitable estoppel issue by issuing a ruling to correct the fundamentally
unfair situation where a local developer is saddled with over $70,000 in impact fees that the City
originally guaranteed would not apply.
Ciunplxll,[�ille }itmctt.&5mst1,,P.]_L_C. APROIISCS]oNN.nnfrrrnI.JABUrtvt.oNWANYIvu.unNG A PRon_SSIUNALSIRVI( :1 CORPORA FON
Renton City Council
Appeal by Galloway Heights
July 19, 2012
Page -6-
Based on the foregoing, Galloway respectfully appeals the Hearing Examiner's decision
approving the retroactive imposition of more than $70,000 in school impact fees on its project.
We appreciate this important opportunity to seek review and correction of this decision.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBEL DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
1 t ,
Talis M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Cc: Client
1ADATAIMHHBIMIBarte1s, lonathanlGalloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22827.00%Mty of Renton 4-13-12.docx
Campbell,D�lc,}iamctt&Smitlz,PJ.LC. � ni�Rr�iT�tot�.v,i.�tUtrn>��1r.-�xnrtti�Comm�n��rrticJ�n��cni�itoi�i_ctitoN:usi�zvicF:cc7iti�c>��,uu>N
Denis Law gc7
O
Mayorr tv
July 9, 2012
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
P.O. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Re: Decision for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 & 7291
Dear Mr. Abolins:
City Clerk - Bonnie I.Walton
Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 9, 2012, in the above -
referenced matter.
If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision
cc: Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon 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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
}
RE: Galloway at the Highlands APPEAL OF IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Appeal }
)
Summary
The Appellant appeals the imposition of school impact fees for the construction of four single-family
homes, totaling $32,497.41 Theappeal is denied and the imposition of $ 32,497.41 in school impact
fees is sustained. The key issue of this appeal is whether an ordinance assessing impact fees at
building permit issuance based upon amounts in effect at the time of subdivision approval creates
constitutionally protected vested rights that cannot be extinguished or modified by subsequent
amendment. No such vested right was created in this case and no fee adjustment is warranted.
The Appellant appeals the imposition of impact fees for the Renton School District ("RSD") for
building permits issued for development of single-family homes in the Galloway of the Highlands
subdivision. When the subdivision was approved on March 28, 2007, there was no RSD impact fee.
At that time the City's impact fee only assessed and only applied to impact fees collected for the
Issaquah School District ("ISD"). RMC 4-1-160(E) provided that impact fees came due at building
permit issuance but that the amount of the fee would be based upon the "fee schedule in effect when
the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval." The definitions and purpose clause of the ordinance
clearly provided that the impact fee ordinance was to exclusively apply to ISD fees, including RCW
4-1-160(E). Consequently, when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved, the impact fee
ordinance did not dictate that any future RSD impact fees would be based upon impact fee schedules
in effect at preliminary plat approval.
Subsequent to the approval of the Galloway preliminary plat, for a brief period of time the Renton
City Council did amend the impact fee ordinance to provide that the RSD impact fee amounts in
effect at preliminary plat approval (0$) would apply for impact fees that came due at building permit
issuance. On December 23, 2009 the Renton City Council added RSD impact fees to its impact fee
ordinance. The definitions and purpose clause of the impact fee ordinance were not revised to
include the RSD and its fees, but this was clearly an oversight and the only rational way to apply the
unendment as intended was to apply all provisions of the impact fee ordinance to RSD fees,
including RMC 4-1-160(E). RMC 4-1-160(E) also happened to provide that it applied to any
.)reliminary plats approved after the effective date of Ordinance 4808. Ordinance 4808 went into
.ffect on November 10, 1999. The Galloway preliminary plat was approved after November 10,
1999. Consequently, when the impact fee ordinance was amended on December 23, 2009 to include
APPEAL - 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I$
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RSD impact fees, the RSD impact fees for the Galloway development due at building permit issuance
were based upon the adopted amounts in effect when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved,
which was $0. The Appellant purchased the Galloway development on March 10, 2010 while the
December 23, 2009 amendments remained in effect and testified that he purchased the property in
reliance upon the fact that the RSD impact fees would be $0.
On March 17, 2010, the Renton City Council amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that the amount
for an impact fee charged at building permit issuance was to be based upon the fee schedules in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, instead of the fees in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval. If the December 23, 2009 amendments of RMC 4-1-160(E)constitute a constitutionally
protected vested right to the $0 RSD impact fee, the Council would have been precluded from
amending RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide for a higher amount. However, RMC 4-1-16(E) doesn't create
any such vested rights. Rather it just creates an expectancy that is most analogous to an adopted
"mode" of tax collection that provides guidelines on what impact fee schedules apply when amounts
come due at the time of building permit issuance. Those guidelines were amended on March 17,
2010 and the RSD impact fees for any building permits issued after that date must be based upon
impact fee schedules in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Testimony
Talis Abolins testified that the appellant is asking for the reversal of a retroactive repeal of a
provision in the city of Renton's code which had expressly granted Galloway LLC the right to the fee
schedule in place when the preliminary plat received approval. The approval was received on March
28, 2007. At that point in time, the school fees in affect were zero dollars. Renton indicated that
school fee impacts would be mitigated by an increase in the city's tax -base. However, after the
appellant purchased the vested Highlands project, the city retroactively repealed the ordinance,
resulting in a substantial financial impact. The appellant is asking for reversal based on due process,
fairness, and RCW 82.02.070 which provides that a city must give an appeal process which allows a
fee to be modified based on principles of fairness.
Greg Heath, 2214 Tacoma Road, stated that he has been involved in real estate development for a
number of years. He has participated in around 10-12 development projects. There are 4 members of
the Galloway LLC including Mr. Heath, his wife, Jonathan Arnold, and Kris Arnold. The LLC was
formed to purchase the property and complete the building project. Galloway purchased the property
through a bankruptcy process from a receiver. Exhibit 4 is a landscape plan and reflects the current
pian for the development of the project. At the time of Mr. Heath's acquisition of the property, there
was a small amount of development on the property. The south east quadrant contained the framing
and partial roofing for a building. The south-west quadrant had foundations, and the north quadrant
was vacant. There will be 35 dwelling units and 3 commercial spaces under the current plan. The
LLC reviewed the building permit, infrastructure, fees paid, and if there was bonding required before
purchasing the property. As part of this due -diligence process, the LLC reviewed the effect of school
.mpact fees. Exhibit 1 is the school impact fee ordinance in effect at the time the property was
)urchased by Galloway LLC. When reviewing the ordinance, Mr. Heath noted that the use of "vested
APPEAL -2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plat" in item 2, section E. Galloway LLC was aware school impact fees were zero at the time of the
preliminary plat approval and believed that vesting would result in the continuation of this policy.
Exhibit 2 notes the minutes of the meeting where the preliminary plat received approval. Galloway
LLC was under the impression that the school impact fees would be zero and resurrected already
approved building permits. After acquiring the property, Galloway LLC discovered that the city had
modified the Renton code, and the modification applied retroactively. Exhibit 6 reflects the
clarification from Neil Watts in regard to the impact of the city change on the Galloway project.
Permit fees were paid under protest from Galloway LLC. Exhibit 7 is a coalescing of the permit fees
expected to be paid for school impacts created by a consulting firm working for Galloway LLC.
Based on these calculations, the anticipated impact on the project is over 74,000 dollars. The fees
will have a vast negative impact on the financial situation of the project, especially in a difficult
market. If Galloway had been aware of these school impact fees, they would have paid less for the
project or not pursued it at all.
Mr. Abolins argued that for some time, the vested rights doctrine has not applied to school impact
fees. Courts have indicated that a developer should expect to be tied to fluctuations in school impact
fees. However, a developer has a right to proceed in a manner of certainty under due process. Renton
had enacted ordinances guaranteeing developers the right to school impact fees at the time of plat
approval. Exhibit 12 is a staff report from the Renton Planning Division which discussed the changes
made under the new ordinance. The report notes that school impact fees should be collected at the
time of building permit review for the amount required when preliminary plat approval was given.
Galloway had already received plat approval and was vested under city ordinance. An administrative
decision, detailed in an email from Neil Watts (exhibit 6), stated that the city was going to apply the
new school impact fee ordinance to projects that had already received plat approval. In exhibit 12
(page 3), the city acknowledges that the code allows applicant's to be vested to impact fees they
received when given preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 13 is additional PIanning and Development
Committee material which states that applicants can be vested to previous fee schedules. Galloway
LLC created an entire cost -analysis based on the presumption they would not be paying any school
impact fees. Exhibit 8 is the ordinance that set -forth the vesting principle. Exhibit 9 is the
preliminary report to the hearing examiner on the Highlands project which notes, on page 11, that the
school district would be able to handle additional students from the development. Pages 10 and I 1 of
exhibit 10 note the environmental checklist given for the project. The public services section of this
checklist states that the project will increase need for public services and gives increased tax -base as
the method of paying for services (not school impact fees).
The hearing examiner questioned Mr. Abolins about the applicability of Graham Neighborhood Ass'n
v. F.G. Associates, which recently held that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to procedural
requirements as opposed to land use controls. The Examiner noted that Mr. Abolins had
acknowledged that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to impact fees because they aren't
considered land use controls.
3armon Newsom, assistant Renton City Attorney, cross examined Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath stated the
property was purchased in March 2010.
APPEAL -3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Newsom argued that the appellant does not have a vested right to the previous school impact
fees. Exhibit 8 (a copy of ordinance 4808) does not apply to the Renton School District. There is no
reference to Renton, only a reference to the Issaquah School District. Nothing in this section of the
code gives provision for vesting under the school district. The appellant cannot prove any form of
vesting right based on this ordinance. Mr. Newsom commented that the appellant suggested that they
had an expectation of not paying their share of fees. A vested right must be something more than an
expectation. There is no language that benefits the appellant in the ordinance. The appellant was
aware that the code was changing during the period the property was purchased. Mr. Newsom noted
that Mr. Heath used the word "assumed" when discussing his belief the school impact fees would be
zero. Vesting is limited to zoning, building, or land use control ordinances. Impact fees are not
zoning ordinances. He submitted a previous court case which makes clear that impact fees are
collected at the time of building permits. Impact fees do not influence use or division. No guarantee
of availability in schools was given to the appellant. There is no vested right provision for schools
under Renton code, so Washington law and city ordinances must be adhered. Accordingly, Renton
code provides that school impact fees must be collected at the time of building permit approval. He
also noted the case of Abbey Rd. v. Bonney Lake which rejected the argument of financial cost being
too great as a reason not to levy a fee. The case provided that RCW 19.27.095(1) is unequivocal and
requires a complete building permit application to be submitted in order to receive vesting rights. No
vesting protection was entitled to Galloway LLC.
In regard to equitable estoppel, Mr. Newsom testified that the application of equitable estoppels
against government is disfavored. He referred to the decision in Dept of Ecology v. George
Theodoratus which gave that the courts should be reluctant to find the government equitable estoppel
"when public revenues are involved." There is a three-part test to applying equitable estoppels. The
appellant has failed to prove that there was any party admission in consistent with the later claim.
The appellant has failed to prove that Galloway has relied on a specific act, statement, or admission.
A mistaken reading of the code is not the fault of Renton. The appellant has failed to prove there was
any type of injury based on reliance on the false beliefs. Paying more money is not considered an
injury by the courts. The appellant has not proven that there is any sort of manifest error. The money
will go the Renton School District, not the City. Malting a profit is not the city's concern.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner in regard to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), which the Examiner
noted isn't expressly limited to the Issaquah School District, Mr. Newsom commented that the
appellant has failed to prove this section of the code refers to Renton School District and that
provisions in other parts of the impact fee ordinance were clearly designed to only apply to impact
fees assessed for the Issaquah School District.
Talis Abolins testified that the language of the original ordinance does not restrict itself to a single
school district. Exhibit 6 shows that the city of Renton interpreted the ordinance as giving vesting
rights to the AppelIant's project in the Issaquah School District. Neil Watts, director of the
Development Services division, assumed the provision applied to Galloway's project based on his
-mail sent to the appellant in exhibit 6. Although there have been no previous application of the
APPEAL - 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ordinance with a similar nature, the city gave conclusive proof that they were applying the ordinance
within the Renton School District. The Planning Division's discussion of the impact fees in exhibits
12 and 13 is very broad and does not suggest a limit to the Issaquah School District. The appellant is
aware of how school impact fees work and understands there are fluctuations. A careful due -
diligence process was followed in order to assure the appellant understood the city's interpretation of
the ordinance before purchasing the property. The appellant does not just have an expectation; they
have an affirmative legislative statement backed up by the Director of Development Services for
Renton.
In regard to providing additional legislative history, Mr. Newsom stated that he does not see any
ambiguity in the ordinance. No specific provision for the Renton School District is made. The
ordinance is specific to the Issaquah School District, and Renton School District would not have been
able to collect school impact fees under the ordinance as written.
Mr. Abolins noted that exhibit 11 discusses RMC 4-1-160 and refers to the Kent School District
along with the Issaquah School District. A city official stated in an email that the original ordinance
applied to the Galloway project (exhibit 6), knowing that the project fell in the Renton School
District.
Mr. Newsom testified that Renton is addressing the appellant's decision to rely on the plat approval
for vesting rather than the building permit. The plat approval was from 2007. Ordinance 5442
expands to apply to Issaquah and Kent School District, but Renton School District is not included.
Page 3 of the ordinance identified Issaquah School District 411 and Kent School District 415. The
ordinance reflects the intent of the City Council_ There is no vesting for the Renton School District
given in the past ordinances.
Exhibits
At hearing, the Appellant submitted an exhibit notebook consisting of 13 exhibits, all of which were
admitted into the record.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
1. Appellant. Galloway Heights I, LLC.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the appeal was held on June 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm in the Renton City
Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
APPEAL -5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Appeal. The Appellant appeals the imposition $32,497.41 in RSD school
impact fees levied upon the issuance of building permit CP07293($8,196.63),
CP07301($8,201.32), CP07300($8,201.32) and CP07292($7,898.14). All four building permits
were issued for single-family homes located in the Galloway at the Highlands subdivision in the
RSD. The fees were paid under protest on April 20, 2012. The Appellant asserts that RMC 4-1-
160(E) gave it a vested right to $0 RSD school impact fees when the Galloway preliminary plat
was approved and also that the City is barred by equitable estoppel from requiring any RSD school
impact fees.
4. Chronology.
A. November 10 1999• Issaquah impact fee first ado ted. The Renton City Council first
adopted a school impact fee on November 1, 1999 as Ordinance No. 4808, which went
into effect on November 10, 1999. Section 4-1-160(A) of the ordinance noted that the
ordinance was adopted for the collection of impact fees for the ISD. No other school
district was mentioned. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) of the ordinance provided that impact fees
come due at the time of building permit issuance but the amount must be based upon fee
schedules in effect at the time of planned unit development ("PUD") or preliminary plat
approval. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) on its own did not mention the ISD or any other school
district.
B. March 8 2007- Galloway relimin lat approved. The Appellant's subdivision,
Galloway at the Highlands, received preliminary plat approval on March 8, 2007.
C. March 15 2007• Kent School District added to impact fee ordinance. The Renton City
Council amended Section 4-1-160(A) by Ordinance 5263 to provide that the ordinance
was adopted to impose impact fees for both the Kent and Issaquah school districts. The
definition of "District" was also expanded to include the KSD. The amendment went
into effect on March 15, 2007. A whereas clause to the ordinance noted that the City of
Renton may annex property within the Kent School District ("KSD"). RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) was not amended and retained the original wording from Ordinance No. 4808.
D. December 23, 2009; first Renton School District impact fee goes into effect. A whereas
clause to Ordinance No. 5514 provides that "until recently the Renton School District
has been able to accommodate growth within existing facilities, but currently estimates a
need for additional school facilities". Ordinance No. 5514 imposes an impact fee for
Renton, apparently for the first time. It amends Section 4-1-160(D), note 5, to set impact
fee amounts for the RSD. Ordinance No. 5514 does not amend the definition of
"District" to include the RSD or the Section 4-1-160(A) purpose clause to provide that
the purpose of the impact fee ordinance is to collect impact fees for the RSD.
E. March 2010• Appellant purchases Gallowa pro . Under cross examination during
the hearing on this appeal, an officer of the Appellant testified that it purchased the
APPEAL - 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Galloway Heights property in March, 2010. It is unclear whether the Appellant
purchased the property before or after the Ordinance No. 5532 went into effect.
F. March 17, 2010; RMC 4-1-160(E) amended. Ordinance No. 5532, which went into
effect on March 17, 2010, amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that impact fees are
based upon the amounts in effect when paid at the time of building permit issuance. A
staff report that accompanied the proposed amendment, Ex. 12, acknowledged that RMC
4-1-160(E) applied to RSD impact fees and that basing impact fee amounts upon the
schedules in effect at PUD/preliminary plat approval did not effectively mitigate school
impacts, "especially the impacts to the Renton School District".
G. Mqy 2 2012; pulpose clause revised to include Renton School District. Ordinance No.
5657, which went into effect May 2, 2012, amended Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that
the impact fee ordinance was adopted to assess fees for the Issaquah, Kent and Renton
school districts. Up until this point Section 4-1-160(A) did not include the Renton
School District. The definition of district was also stricken from the ordinance, so that
references in the ordinance to "district" were no longer limited to the ISD and Kent
School District.
Conclusions of Law
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-1-160(G)(2) provides that an appeal of a
school impact fee shall follow the process for the underlying permit action. The underlying permit
action in these appeals was approval of the subject building permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) assigns
building permit appeals to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing and final decision
appealable to the Renton City Council.
2. Appeal Review Criteria. RMC 4-1-160(G)(1) provides that impact fees may be
adjusted if the fees were incorrectly assessed or unusual and unique circumstances render the fees
unfair, unjust or unlawful. If the Appellant is correct in its assertion that it has a vested right,
protected by due process, to $0 impact fees than the Appellant would qualify for a waiver of the fees
imposed by the City since the due process violation would (1) render the fees unfair, unjust and
unlawful; or (2) would compel the conclusion that the fees were incorrectly assessed under an
interpretation of the impact fee ordinance that is consistent with the vested rights of the Appellant.
3. Impact fee ordinance did not vrovide for vesting of RSD impact fee amounts at
preliminary plat approval when the, Galloway Heights prelimipm plat was approved. The Appellant
argues that RSDs $0 impact fees vested at the time of preliminary plat approval. However, when the
Galloway preliminary plat was approved the City's impact fee ordinance only governed ISD impact
fees.
APPEAL - 7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The asserted "vesting" provision in effect when Galloway Heights was approved was RMC 4-1-
160(E) of Ordinance No. 4808, which provided as follows:
E. ASSESSMENT OFIMPACT 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 far on or after the effective date of Ordinance 4808,
the impact fees due on the lat 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....
(emphasis added)
A key point of disagreement between the City and the Appellant is the underlined language above —
the City maintains that these impact fees are limited to impact fees assessed for the ISD and the
Appellant claims they are any impact fees imposed by the City. The City's interpretation is the more
compelling. RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) authorizes and requires the City to collect impact fees for "..final
plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit..." RMC 4-1-160(E)(2)
relates back to the range of impact fees authorized by RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) by providing that for those
impact fees linked to PUD and preliminary plat approval, they will vest at the time of preliminary
plat/PUD approval. Subsection 2 is setting the amount to a portion of the impact fees authorized in
subsection 1. Unfortunately for the Appellant, subsection 1 limits the authorized range of impact
fees to those assessed for "dwelling units located within the District's boundaries". RMC 4-1-
160(B)(8) of Ordinance No. 4808 defines the "District" as the ISD. Since the impact fee amounts set
by subsection 2 only applies to the fees authorized by subsection 1, subsection 2 only applies to ISD
impact fees. This interpretation is further corroborated by the purpose clause of Ordinance No. 4808,
which provided at RMC 4-1-160(A) that "the Council adopts this title to assess school impacts for
the Issaquah School District." The purpose clause makes no mention of the RDS.
4. Impact fee ordinance amended to set amount of RSD impact fees on those in effect at
relimin plat approval when RSD impact fees added to impact fee ordinance on December 23
2009. As noted in the findings of fact, RSD impact fees were first authorized by Ordinance 5514.
This authorization included the application of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), such that for preliminary plats and
PUDs the impact fees assessed at building permit issuance were those in effect at the time of
preliminary plat/PUD approval if those plat/PUD was approved after November 10, 1999.
The impact of Ordinance 5514 on RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was not immediately apparent. Ordinance
5514 only amended RMC 4-1-160(D)(5) to identify the amount the RSD impact fee and RSD 4-1-
160(J) to adopt the RSD capital facilities plan. This was the first time RSD impact fees were ever
identified in the City's school impact fee ordinance. Notably, Ordinance 5514 did not amend
APPEAL -8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"District" to include the RSD or amend Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that the purpose of the impact
fee ordinance was to assess school impact fees for the RSD in addition to impact fees for the KSD
and ISD, despite the fact that the KSD had been added to the "District" definition and 4-1-160(A)
when its impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance via Ordinance No. 5263.
Without an amendment to the definition of "District", read Iiterally the City had no authority to
impose the fee since the authority for imposing impact fees was limited to the "District" in RMC 4-
1-160(E)(1) as previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 3. Nonetheless, it is clear that the
City Council intended RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) to authorize and require the imposition of RSD impact
fees and that the failure to amend "District" and 4-1-160(A) was an oversight. The Council would
not have added an impact fee amount for RSD to the impact fee ordinance without intending that the
City have the authority to impose it. Interpreting Ordinance 5514 as authorizing the imposition of
impact fees for the RSD necessarily requires that "District" include the RSD which in turn requires
that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees.
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) expressly provided that it applied to all preliminary plats/PVDs approved after
the effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. The Galloway Heights project was approved after the
effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. Consequently, subsequent to the effective date of Ordinance
No. 5514, all impact fees collected at building permit issuance for Galloway Heights was $0 for as
long as the Ordinance No. 5514 amendments remained in effect.
5. Appellant has no vested right in RMC 4-1-160(E)(2 . With the conclusions of law
above, the key issue in this appeal is whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No. 4808
created a vested right that under due process cannot be extinguished by subsequent retroactive
legislation, in this case Ordinance No. 5532. If RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No.
4808 does create a constitutionally protected vested right, then the Appellant would be entitled to a
refund of all fees paid as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 2. However, it is concluded as a
matter of law that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) does not create a constitutionally protected vested right.
As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that it is uncontested by the parties to this appeal that the
vested rights doctrine as codified for subdivisions does not apply to impact fees. This issue was
resolved in New Castle Investments, LLC v. City of La Center, 98 Wn. App. 224 (1999), which held
that RCW 58.17.033 only vests subdivisions to "land use controls" and that impact fees are not land
use controls. The Appellant acknowledges at p. 3 of their appeal statement that "[t]here is no
question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs." The
Appellant distinguishes RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) from the right of the City to vary the amount of the
impact fee by noting that the City "expressly created vested rights" in RMC 4 -I -160(E)(2). The
vesting issue at hand is not whether the City can generally vary impact fee amounts after preliminary
plat approval, but rather whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) creates a locally adopted vested right that
cannot be extinguished by a subsequent amendment.
An important similarity between Farm Bureau and the impact fees at hand are that they both involve,
for the most part, taxes. Impact fees are largely treated as taxes by Washington courts. Sundquist
APPEAL - 9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Homes, Inc. v. County of Snohomish, 276 F. Supp. 1123, 1126 (2003)(" Although the issue has
never been decided for all contexts and in all circumstances, when forced to characterize impact fees
the state courts have generally treated them as 'taxes. "). The mode of levying taxes does not create
any vested rights protected by due process. Two cases are instructive on this issue.
The first case dealt with retroactive legislation that altered a timing requirement for the collection of
taxes. Newman v. Commercial Waterway Dist. No. I of King County, 125 Wash. 577, 582 (1923).
In Newman, a state statute authorized the collection of property assessments by waterway districts to
retire bonds for waterway improvements. The statute placed time limits on the collection of the
assessments and a waterway district failed to meet the deadlines prior to the maturation of some
bonds it had issued. The legislature remedied the situation by amending the applicable statutes to
authorize the waterway district to issue new bonds to pay off the matured bonds along with the
authority to re -assess benefitted properties to pay off the newly issued bonds. The new assessments
changed the amount and timing of taxes collected for the improvements leading to the argument
from the property owners that the new assessments violated their vested rights. The Court disagreed,
holding as follows:
The method and time of levying the assessment was a matter of remedy rather than a
matter of vested right, and when the remedy pointed out failed, no matter whatsoever
may have been the cause, it was within the power of the Legislature to provide
another. That the state ' may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes or
assessments when those formerly enacted fail of their purpose without any violation
of the Constitution, either federal or state, is not a matter of doubt. The taxpayer has
no vested right in the existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between
him and the state that the latter will not vary such mode, and so long as no
fundamental right of the taxpayer is invaded he cannot complain of a variation in the
mode.
125 Wash. at 582.
The second, more recent case, on vested rights in taxation involves the retroactive amendment of an
initiative to remove a requirement of voter approval for the raising of state taxes. Washington State
Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284 (2007). In Farm Bureau, a state initiative had
set a yearly cap on the revenues raised by taxation that could only be exceeded by a vote of the public.
In 2006, nine months after the start of the fiscal year for 2005, the legislature adopted a statute that
increased the cap for 2005 without a public vote. The Washington State Farm Federation challenged
the amendment to the initiative, arguing in part that the public had a vested right in voter approval of
any expenditures that exceeded the cap. The Court agreed that the amendment acted retroactively as
to the 2005 fiscal year. It acknowledged that the due process clause prohibits retroactive amendments
that interfere with vested rights. 162 Wn.2d at 304. However, the Court did not find the cap to
qualify as a vested right. It noted that a vested right, entitled to protection from retroactive
legislation, must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance
A the existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment
APPEAL -10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of property, a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand by another. Id. The Court also noted
that no one has a vested right in any general rule of Iaw or policy of legislation which gives an
entitlement to insist that it remain unchanged for one's own benefit. Id. The Court concluded that
"Washington voters' statutory "right" to approve taxes that raise revenues in excess ojthe state
expenditure limit is a mere expectation—it is not a vested right entitled to due process protections
from subsequently enacted legislation." 162 Wn.2d at 305.
As in Newman and Farm Bureau, the Renton City Council has not altered any vested rights in its
amendment of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) by Ordinance No. 5532. It merely modified the "mode" of
collecting taxes by modifying the timing for what impact fee schedule is used to ascertain the
amount. As in Newman this change in timing ultimately affects the amount of the tax collected.
Similarly, the removal of the public vote requirement in Farm Bureau also may have changed the
amount of taxes raised, since the public may have rejected the increase ultimately adopted by the
legislature. If the courts are unwilling to protect the integrity of a cap on taxes created by public
initiative, it is unlikely they will find much to honor in a regulation that sets the applicability of an
impact fee schedule.
The case at hand is distinguishable from Farm Bureau in that impact fees arguably have a much
more burdensome and/or direct impact on property owners than the general tax laws of the state.
The burden on the property owner is certainly a valid consideration in assessing the applicability of
due process. Presbytery of Seattle v_ King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
However, the courts have already determined that impact fees generally don't trigger any vested
rights protected by the due process clause. See New Castle, supra. The fact that the Ordinance
5532 amendments to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) changes the timing of how impact fees amounts are to be
assessed adds nothing to the due process public/private balancing of interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is no legislative intent evident or assurance made within RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) that the Council created a vested right that could not be altered by subsequent legislative
amendment. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4808 was only designed to provide a
methodology for assessing impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. When the Appellant
contemplated the purchase of the subject property in 2010, it had to base its feasibility analysis with
the knowledge that property taxes, real estate excise taxes and all other taxes applicable to its real
estate venture could change at any time. The amount of the impact fees, which is essentially another
tax, was subject to the same unpredictability. The fact that for a period of less than three months
between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 20101 the amount of the RSD impact fees were based
upon the fees in place at preliminary plat approval did not create any vested right to prevent that
unpredictability.
As outlined in the findings of fact, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees between
December 23, 2009 (when RSD impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance) and March 17, 2010 (when
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was amended to provide that impact fees are based upon the amount in place at building permit
issuance).
APPEAL -11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. Even if a vested right were created by Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), it likely
would not apply to Appellant. As previously noted, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) only
applied to RSD impact fees for a brief period of time, between December 23, 2009 and March 17,
2010. If this temporary period of time created any vested rights, it is likely that those rights would
only apply if the Appellant filed a complete building permit application or acquired PUD approval
during that time period. It is clear from the record that the Appellant acquired PUD approval well
before December 23, 2009 and there is no evidence to support a finding that any complete building
permit applications were filed between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 2010. Consequently, even
if Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) created vested rights, they don't apply to the Appellant.
In the context of land use controls, the courts and the state legislature require the filing of a complete
development permit application to trigger vested rights. The judicial policies underlying this
requirement equally apply in the context of any vesting to impact fees. The requirement for a
complete permit application to vest land use controls prevents permit speculation by making it too
easy to vest and also helps create a date certain that makes the point in time for vesting predictable,
instead of having to inquire into the "moves and countermoves" of the parties. East County
Reclamation v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 438 (2005); Graham Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G.
Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98, 113 (2011). In order to assure the same predictability and to also
prevent permit speculation, the vesting of 'impact fee provisions such as RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) would
also most likely be required by a court to occur upon the filing of a complete development permit
application. For RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) that would either have to be the preliminary plat application or
building permit application, since those are the two permits within the subsection linked to impact
fee amounts.
7. The Examiner has no authority to rule upon issues concerning equitable estoppel. In
its appeal statement the Appellant also argues equitable estoppel. The Hearing Examiner does not
have the authority to rule upon equitable estoppel claims. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council,
38 Wn. App. 630 (1984)(hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). Chaussee may be
distinguishable on the basis that the broad "fairness" standards of review for impact fee appeals
encompass the broad fairness considerations involved in principles of equitable estoppel. However,
equitable estoppel often involves some highly fact specific issues that the fact finding apparatus of
reviewing courts are more suited to review. Unless and until the courts authorize Examiners to
consider equitable estoppel claims in cases similar to the appeal at bar, the Examiner will decline to
assume jurisdiction on that issue.
APPEAL -12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
The appeal is denied. The imposition of $32,497.41 in school impact fees is sustained.
DATED this 9"' day of July, 2012.
Is Phil 41brechts {Signed original in official file}
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decision are heard in a closed record hearing by the City
Council. Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office, together
with the applicable appeal fee, within fourteen (14) days of the Examiner's final decision
Change in Valuation
Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program
of revaluation.
APPEAL -13
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT 98178
CHECK
DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE # AMOUNT DEDUCTION NET AMOUNT
917 City of Renton
07/18/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels 250.00 250.00
CHECK DATE CONTROL NUMBER
07/18/12 98178 TOTALS ► Gross: 250.00 Ded: 0.00 Net: 250.00
Campbell, Dille, Bamett COLUMBIA STATE BANK
& Smith. P.L.L.C. 4220 SOUTH MERMAN
i PUYALLUP, WA 98373
Auarneys al Lau 34-8 2 711 25 1
-,I T 5uu1h hfendian
P.O. Buz 488
Pur allup, RSA 9F371-0164 -
,,;3)848-3513 DATE CHECK AMOUNT
07/18/12 98178 ****$250.00
PAY *** TWO HUNDRED FIFTY & 00/100 DOLLARS
Thi TH E
ORDER GENERAL ACCOUNT
OF: City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South 1101
Renton WA 98055
OAJA IF w
11'098 0110 1: L 2 5 L08 27 21:?00040 140 Ilia
............. .
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT
Vendor: 917 City of Renton
Date Description Invoice #
07/18/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels
Check Date Check # Gross Amt
07/18/12 98178 250.00
98178
Amount Disc Net Amt
250.00 250.00
Disc Amt Net Amt
0.00 250,00
LI 445HGNI 3956779
**Y
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6510
❑ Cash
[Check No.�
Description:;�lrs
❑ Copy Fee
❑ Appeal Fee
Funds Received From:
Name )
Address t
City/Zip
Receipt N2 1931
Date —�30f/�
❑ Notary Service
El
Amount $ (-; so
City
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
--tTY CLERKS OFPICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Galloway at the Highlands }
Appeal )
}
)
APPEAL OF IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Summary
The Appellant appeals the imposition of school impact fees for the construction of four single-family
homes, totaling $32,497.41 The appeal is denied and the imposition of S 32,497.41 in school impact
fees is sustained. The key issue of this appeal is whether an ordinance assessing impact fees at
building permit issuance based upon amounts in effect at the time of subdivision approval creates
constitutionally protected vested rights that cannot be extinguished or modified by subsequent
amendment. No such vested right was created in this case and no fee adjustment is warranted.
The Appellant appeals the imposition of impact fees for the Renton School District ("RSD") for
building permits issued for development of single-family homes in the Galloway of the Highlands
subdivision. When the subdivision was approved on March 28, 2007, there was no RSD impact fee.
At that time the City's impact fee only assessed and only applied to impact fees collected for the
Issaquah. School District ("ISD"). RMC 4-1-160(E) provided that impact fees came due at building
permit issuance but that the amount of the fee would be based upon the "fee schedule in effect when
the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval." The definitions and purpose clause of the ordinance
clearly provided that the impact fee ordinance was to exclusively apply to ISD fees, including RCW
4-1-160(E). Consequently, when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved, the impact fee
ordinance did not dictate that any future RSD impact fees would be based upon impact fee schedules
in effect at preliminary plat approval.
Subsequent to the approval of the Galloway preliminary plat, for a brief period of time the Renton
City Council did amend the impact fee ordinance to provide that the RSD impact fee amounts in
effect at preliminary plat approval (0$) would apply for impact fees that came due at building permit
issuance. On December 23, 2009 the Renton City Council added RSD impact fees to its impact fee
ordinance. The definitions and purpose clause of the impact fee ordinance were not revised to
include the RSD and its fees, but this was clearly an oversight and the only rational way to apply the
amendment as intended was to apply all provisions of the impact fee ordinance to RSD fees,
including RMC 4-1-160(E). RMC 4 -t -160(E) also happened to provide that it applied to any
preliminary plats approved after the effective date of Ordinance 4808. Ordinance 4808 went into
effect on November 10, 1999. The Galloway preliminary plat was approved after November 10,
1999. Consequently, when the impact fee ordinance was amended on December 23, 2009 to include
APPEAL - 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RSD impact fees, the RSD impact fees for the Galloway development due at building permit issuance
were based upon the adopted amounts in effect when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved,
which was $0. The Appellant purchased the Galloway development on March 10, 2010 while the
December 23, 2009 amendments remained in effect and testified that he purchased the property in
reliance upon the fact that the RSD impact fees would be $0.
On March 17, 2010, the Renton City Council amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that the amount
for an impact fee charged at building permit issuance was to be based upon the fee schedules in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, instead of the fees in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval. If the December 23, 2009 amendments of RMC 4-1-160(E)constitute a constitutionally
protected vested right to the $0 RSD impact fee, the Council would have been precluded from
amending RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide for a higher amount. However, RMC 4-1-16(E) doesn't create
any such vested rights. Rather it just creates an expectancy that is most analogous to an adopted
"mode" of tax collection that provides guidelines on what impact fee schedules apply when amounts
come due at the time of building permit issuance. Those guidelines were amended on March 17,
2010 and the RSD impact fees for any building permits issued after that date must be based upon
impact fee schedules in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Testimony
Talis Abolins testified that the appellant is asking for the reversal of a retroactive repeal of a
provision in the city of Renton's code which had expressly granted Galloway LLC the right to the fee
schedule in place when the preliminary plat received approval. The approval was received on March
28, 2007. At that point in time, the school fees in affect were zero dollars. Renton indicated that
school fee impacts would be mitigated by an increase in the city's tax -base. However, after the
appellant purchased the vested Highlands project, the city retroactively repealed the ordinance,
resulting in a substantial financial impact. The appellant is asking for reversal based on due process,
fairness, and RCW 82.02.070 which provides that a city must give an appeal process which allows a
fee to be modified based on principles of fairness.
Greg Heath, 2214 Tacoma Road, stated that he has been involved in real estate development for a
number of years. He has participated in around 10-12 development projects. There are 4 members of
the Galloway LLC including Mr. Heath, his wife, Jonathan Arnold, and Kris Arnold. The LLC was
formed to purchase the property and complete the building project. Galloway purchased the property
through a bankruptcy process from a receiver. Exhibit 4 is a landscape plan and reflects the current
plan for the development of the project. At the time of Mr. Heath's acquisition of the property, there
was a small amount of development on the property. The south east quadrant contained the framing
and partial roofing for a building. The south-west quadrant had foundations, and the north quadrant
was vacant. There will be 35 dwelling units and 3 commercial spaces under the current plan. The
LLC reviewed the building permit, infrastructure, fees paid, and if there was bonding required before
purchasing the property. As part of this due -diligence process, the LLC reviewed the effect of school
impact fees. Exhibit 1 is the school impact fee ordinance in effect at the time the property was
purchased by Galloway LLC. When reviewing the ordinance, Mr. Heath noted that the use of "vested
APPEAL -2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plat" in item 2, section E. Galloway LLC was aware school impact fees were zero at the time of the
preliminary plat approval and believed that vesting would result in the continuation of this policy.
Exhibit 2 notes the minutes of the meeting where the preliminary plat received approval. Galloway
LLC was under the impression that the school impact fees would be zero and resurrected already
approved building permits. After acquiring the property, Galloway LLC discovered that the city had
modified the Renton code, and the modification applied retroactively. Exhibit 6 reflects the
clarification from Neil Watts in regard to the impact of the city change on the Galloway project.
Permit fees were paid under protest from Galloway LLC. Exhibit 7 is a coalescing of the permit fees
expected to be paid for school impacts created by a consulting firm working for Galloway LLC.
Based on these calculations, the anticipated impact on the project is over 74,000 dollars. The fees
will have a vast negative impact on the financial situation of the project, especially in a difficult
market. If Galloway had been aware of these school impact fees, they would have paid less for the
project or not pursued it at all.
Mr. Abolins argued that for some time, the vested rights doctrine has not applied to school impact
fees. Courts have indicated that a developer should expect to be tied to fluctuations in school impact
fees. However, a developer has a right to proceed in a manner of certainty under due process. Renton
had enacted ordinances guaranteeing developers the right to school impact fees at the time of plat
approval. Exhibit 12 is a staff report from the Renton Planning Division which discussed the changes
made under the new ordinance. The report notes that school impact fees should be collected at the
time of building permit review for the amount required when preliminary plat approval was given.
Galloway had already received plat approval and was vested under city ordinance. An administrative
decision, detailed in an email from Neil Watts (exhibit 6), stated that the city was going to apply the
new school impact fee ordinance to projects that had already received plat approval. In exhibit 12
(page 3), the city acknowledges that the code allows applicant's to be vested to impact fees they
received when given preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 13 is additional Planning and Development
Committee material which states that applicants can be vested to previous fee schedules. Galloway
LLC created an entire cost -analysis based on the presumption they would not be paying any school
impact fees. Exhibit 8 is the ordinance that set -forth the vesting principle. Exhibit 9 is the
preliminary report to the hearing examiner on the Highlands project which notes, on page 11, that the
school district would be able to handle additional students from the development. Pages 10 and 11 of
exhibit 10 note the environmental checklist given for the project. The public services section of this
checklist states that the project will increase need for public services and gives increased tax -base as
the method of paying for services (not school impact fees).
The hearing examiner questioned Mr. Abolins about the applicability of Graham !Neighborhood Ass'n
v. F.G. Associates, which recently held that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to procedural
requirements as opposed to land use controls. The Examiner noted that Mr. Abolins had
acknowledged that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to impact fees because they aren't
considered land use controls.
Garrison Newsom, assistant Renton City Attorney, cross examined Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath stated the
property was purchased in March 2010.
APPEAL -3)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Newsom argued that the appellant does not have a vested right to the previous school impact
fees. Exhibit 8 (a copy of ordinance 4808) does not apply to the Renton School District. There is no
reference to Renton, only a reference to the Issaquah School District. Nothing in this section of the
code gives provision for vesting under the school district. The appellant cannot prove any form of
vesting right based on this ordinance. Mr. Newsom commented that the appellant suggested that they
had an expectation of not paying their share of fees. A vested right must be something more than an
expectation. There is no language that benefits the appellant in the ordinance. The appellant was
aware that the code was changing during the period the property was purchased. Mr. Newsom noted
that Mr. Heath used the word "assumed" when discussing his belief the school impact fees would be
zero. Vesting is limited to zoning, building, or land use control ordinances. Impact fees are not
zoning ordinances. He submitted a previous court case which makes clear that impact fees are
collected at the time of building permits. Impact fees do not influence use or division. No guarantee
of availability in schools was given to the appellant. There is no vested right provision for schools
under Renton code, so Washington law and city ordinances must be adhered. Accordingly, Renton
code provides that school impact fees must be collected at the time of building permit approval. He
also noted the case of Ahhey Rd v. Bonney Lake which rejected the argument of financial cost being
too great as a reason not to levy a fee. The case provided that RCW 19.27.095(1) is unequivocal and
requires a complete building permit application to be submitted in order to receive vesting rights. No
vesting protection was entitled to Galloway LLC.
In regard to equitable estoppel, Mr. Newsom testified that the application of equitable estoppels
against government is disfavored. He referred to the decision in Dept of Ecology v. George
Theodoratus which gave that the courts should be reluctant to find the government equitable estoppel
"when public revenues are involved." There is a three-part test to applying equitable estoppels. The
appellant has failed to prove that there was any party admission in consistent with the later claim.
The appellant has failed to prove that Galloway has relied on a specific act, statement, or admission.
A mistaken reading of the code is not the fault of Renton. The appellant has failed to prove there was
any type of injury based on reliance on the false beliefs. Paying more money is not considered an
injury by the courts. The appellant has not proven that there is any sort of manifest error. The money
will go the Renton School District, not the City. Making a profit is not the city's concern.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner in regard to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), which the Examiner
noted isn't expressly limited to the Issaquah School District, Mr. Newsom commented that the
appellant has failed to prove this section of the code refers to Renton School District and that
provisions in other parts of the impact fee ordinance were clearly designed to only apply to impact
fees assessed for the Issaquah School District.
Talis Abolins testified that the language of the original ordinance does not restrict itself to a single
school district. Exhibit 6 shows that the city of Renton interpreted the ordinance as giving vesting
rights to the Appellant's project in the Issaquah School District. Neil Watts, director of the
Development Services division, assumed the provision applied to Galloway's project based on his
email sent to the appellant in exhibit 6. AIthough there have been no previous application of the
APPEAL -4
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ordinance with a similar nature, the city gave conclusive proof that they were applying the ordinance
within the Renton School District. The Planning Division's discussion of the impact fees in exhibits
12 and 13 is very broad and does not suggest a limit to the Issaquah School District. The appellant is
aware of how school impact fees work and understands there are fluctuations. A careful due -
diligence process was followed in order to assure the appellant understood the city's interpretation of
the ordinance before purchasing the property. The appellant does not just have an expectation; they
have an affirmative legislative statement backed up by the Director of Development Services for
Renton.
In regard to providing additional legislative history, Mr. Newsom stated that he does not see any
ambiguity in the ordinance. No specific provision for the Renton School District is made. The
ordinance is specific to the Issaquah School District, and Renton School District would not have been
able to collect school impact fees under the ordinance as written.
Mr. Abolins noted that exhibit 11 discusses RMC 4-1-160 and refers to the Kent School District
along with the Issaquah School District_ A city official stated in an email that the original ordinance
applied to the Galloway project (exhibit 6), knowing that the project fell in the Renton School
District.
Mr. Newsom testified that Renton is addressing the appellant's decision to rely on the plat approval
for vesting rather than the building permit. The plat approval was from 2007. Ordinance 5442
expands to apply to Issaquah and Kent School District, but Renton School District is not included.
Page 3 of the ordinance identified Issaquah School District 411 and Kent School District 415. The
ordinance reflects the intent of the City Council. There is no vesting for the Renton School District
given in the past ordinances.
Exhibits
At hearing, the Appellant submitted an exhibit notebook consisting of 13 exhibits, all of which were
admitted into the record.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
Appellant. Galloway Heights I, LLC.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the appeal was held on June 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm in the Renton City
Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
APPEAL - 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Appeal. The Appellant appeals the imposition $32,497.41 in RSD school
impact fees levied upon the issuance of building permit CP07293($8,196.63),
CP07301($8,201.32), CP07300($8,201.32) and. CP07292($7,898.14). All four building permits
were issued for single-family homes located in the Galloway at the Highlands subdivision in the
RSD. The fees were paid under protest on April 20, 2012. The Appellant asserts that RMC 4-1-
160(E) gave it a vested right to $0 RSD school impact fees when the Galloway preliminary plat
was approved and also that the City is barred by equitable estoppel from requiring any RSD school
impact fees.
4_ Chronology.
A. November 10, 1999; Issaquah impact fee first adopted. The Renton City Council first
adopted a school impact fee on November 1, 1999 as Ordinance No. 4808, which went
into effect on November 10, 1999. Section 4-1-160(A) of the ordinance noted that the
ordinance was adopted for the collection of impact fees for the ISD. No other school
district was mentioned. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) of the ordinance provided that impact fees
come due at the time of building permit issuance but the amount must be based upon fee
schedules in effect at the time of planned unit development ("PUD") or preliminary plat
approval. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) on its own did not mention the ISD or any other school
district.
B. March 8, 2007; Galloway preliminary plat approved. The Appellant's subdivision,
Galloway at the Highlands, received preliminary plat approval on March 8, 2007.
C. March 15, 2007; Kent School District added, to impact fee ordinance. The Renton City
Council amended Section 4-1-160(A) by Ordinance 5263 to provide that the ordinance
was adopted to impose impact fees for both the Kent and Issaquah school districts. The
definition of "District" was also expanded to include the KSD. The amendment went
into effect on March 15, 2007. A whereas clause to the ordinance noted that the City of
Renton may annex property within the Kent School District ("KSD"). RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) was not amended and retained the original wording from Ordinance No. 4808.
D. December 23 2009• first Renton School District impact fee goes into effect. A whereas
clause to Ordinance No. 5514 provides that "until recently the Renton School District
has been able to accommodate growth within existing facilities, but currently estimates a
need for additional school facilities". Ordinance No. 5514 imposes an impact fee for
Renton, apparently for the first time. It amends Section 4-1-160(D), note 5, to set impact
fee amounts for the RSD. Ordinance No. 5514 does not amend the definition of
"District" to include the RSD or the Section 4-1-160(A) purpose clause to provide that
the purpose of the impact fee ordinance is to collect impact fees for the RSD.
E. March, 2010, Appellant purchases Galloway property. Under cross examination during
the hearing on this appeal, an officer of the Appellant testified that it purchased the
APPEAL - 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Galloway Heights property in March, 2010. It is unclear whether the Appellant
purchased the property before or after the Ordinance No. 5532 went into effect.
F. March 17, 2010; RMC 4-1-160(E) amended. Ordinance No. 5532, which went into
effect on March 17, 2010, amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that impact fees are
based upon the amounts in effect when paid at the time of building permit issuance. A
staff report that accompanied the proposed amendment, Ex. 12, acknowledged that RMC
4-1-160(E) applied to RSD impact fees and that basing impact fee amounts upon the
schedules in effect at PUD/preliminary plat approval did not effectively mitigate school
impacts, "especially the impacts to the Renton School District".
G. May 2, 2012; purpose clause revised to include Renton School District. Ordinance No.
5657, which went into effect May 2, 2012, amended Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that
the impact fee ordinance was adopted to assess fees for the Issaquah, Kent and Renton
school districts. Up until this point Section 4-1-160(A) did not include the Renton
School District. The definition of district was also stricken from the ordinance, so that
references in the ordinance to "district" were no longer limited to the ISD and Kent
School District.
Conclusions of Law
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-1-160(G)(2) provides that an appeal of a
school impact fee shall follow the process for the underlying permit action. The underlying permit
action in these appeals was approval of the subject building permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) assigns
building permit appeals to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing and final decision
appealable to the Renton City Council.
2. Appeal Review Criteria. RMC 4-1-160(G)(1) provides that impact fees may be
adjusted if the fees were incorrectly assessed or unusual and unique circumstances render the fees
unfair, unjust or unlawful. If the Appellant is correct in its assertion that it has a vested right,
protected by due process, to $0 impact fees than the Appellant would qualify for a waiver of the fees
imposed by the City since the due process violation would (1) render the fees unfair, unjust and
unlawful; or (2) would compel the conclusion that the fees were incorrectly assessed under an
interpretation of the impact fee ordinance that is consistent with the vested rights of the Appellant.
3. Impact fee ordinance did not provide for vesting of„RSD impact fee amounts at
preliminary 1p at approval when the Galloway Heights preliminary_ plat was approved. The Appellant
argues that RSDS $0 impact fees vested at the time of preliminary plat approval. However, when the
Galloway preliminary plat was approved the City's impact fee ordinance only governed ISD impact
fees.
APPEAL - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7�
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The asserted "vesting" provision in effect when Galloway Heights was approved was RMC 4-1-
160(E) of Ordinance No. 4808, which provided as follows:
E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES.-
1.
EES.
1. The City shall collect school impact fees, established by this Section as adjusted
from lime 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, using the
fee schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval....
(emphasis added)
A key point of disagreement between the City and the Appellant is the underlined language above —
the City maintains that these impact fees are limited to impact fees assessed for the ISD and the
Appellant claims they are any impact fees imposed by the City. The City's interpretation is the more
compelling. RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) authorizes and requires the City to collect impact fees for "...final
plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit..." RMC 4-1-160(E)(2)
relates back to the range of impact fees authorized by RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) by providing that for those
impact fees linked to PUD and preliminary plat approval, they will vest at the time of preliminary
plat/PUD approval. Subsection 2 is setting the amount to a portion of the impact fees authorized in
subsection 1. Unfortunately for the Appellant, subsection 1 limits the authorized range of impact
fees to those assessed for "dwelling units located within the District's boundaries". RMC 4-1-
160(B)(8) of Ordinance No. 4808 defines the "District" as the ISD. Since the impact fee amounts set
by subsection 2 only applies to the fees authorized by subsection 1, subsection 2 only applies to ISD
impact fees. This interpretation is further corroborated by the purpose clause of Ordinance No. 4808,
which provided at RMC 4-1-160(A) that "the Council adopts this title to assess school impacts for
the Issaquah School District." The purpose clause makes no mention of the RDS.
4. Impact fee ordinance amended to set amount of RSD impact fees on those in effect at
preliminaryplat approval when RSD impact fees added to impact fee ordinance on December 23,
2009. As noted in the findings of fact, RSD impact fees were first authorized by Ordinance 5514.
This authorization included the application of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), such that for preliminary plats and
PVDs the impact fees assessed at building permit issuance were those in effect at the time of
preliminary plat/PUD approval if those plat/PUD was approved after November 10, 1999.
The impact of Ordinance 5514 on RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was not immediately apparent. Ordinance
5514 only amended RMC 4-1-160(D)(5) to identify the amount the RSD impact fee and RSD 4-1-
160(J) to adopt the RSD capital facilities plan. This was the first time RSD impact fees were ever
identified in the City's school impact fee ordinance. Notably, Ordinance 5514 did not amend
APPEAL - 8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"District" to include the RSD or amend Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that the purpose of the impact
fee ordinance was to assess school impact fees for the RSD in addition to impact fees for the KSD
and ISD, despite the fact that the KSD had been added to the "District" definition and 4-1-160(A)
when its impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance via Ordinance No. 5263.
Without an amendment to the definition of "District", read literally the City had no authority to
impose the fee since the authority for imposing impact fees was limited to the "District" in RMC 4-
1-160(E)(1) as previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 3. Nonetheless, it is clear that the
City Council intended RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) to authorize and require the imposition of RSD impact
fees and that the failure to amend "District' and 4-1-160(A) was an oversight. The Council would
not have added an impact fee amount for RSD to the impact fee ordinance without intending that the
City have the authority to impose it. Interpreting Ordinance 5514 as authorizing the imposition of
impact fees for the RSD necessarily requires that "District" include the RSD which in turn requires
that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees.
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) expressly provided that it applied to all preliminary plats/PVDs approved after
the effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. The Galloway Heights project was approved after the
effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. Consequently, subsequent to the effective date of Ordinance
No. 5514, all impact fees collected at building permit issuance for Galloway Heights was $0 for as
long as the Ordinance No. 5514 amendments remained in effect.
5. Appellant has no vested rilzbt in RMC 4-1-160(E)(2). With the conclusions of law
above, the key issue in this appeal is whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No. 4808
created a vested right that under due process cannot be extinguished by subsequent retroactive
legislation, in this case Ordinance No. 5532. If RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No.
4808 does create a constitutionally protected vested right, then the Appellant would be entitled to a
refund of all fees paid as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 2. However, it is concluded as a
matter of law that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) does not create a constitutionally protected vested right.
As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that it is uncontested by the parties to this appeal that the
vested rights doctrine as codified for subdivisions does not apply to impact fees. This issue was
resolved in New Castle Investments, LLC v. City of La Center, 98 Wn. App. 224 (1999), which held
that RCW 58.17.033 only vests subdivisions to "land use controls" and that impact fees are not land
use controls. The Appellant acknowledges at p. 3 of their appeal statement that "[t]here is no
question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs." The
Appellant distinguishes RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) from the right of the City to vary the amount of the
impact fee by noting that the City "expressly created vested rights" in RMC 4-1-160(E)(2). The
vesting issue at hand is not whether the City can generally vary impact fee amounts after preliminary
plat approval, but rather whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) creates a locally adopted vested right that
cannot be extinguished by a subsequent amendment.
An important similarity between Farm Bureau and the impact fees at hand are that they both involve,
for the most part, taxes. Impact fees are largely treated as taxes by Washington courts. Sundquist
APPEAL - 9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
homes, Inc. v. County of Snohomish, 276 F. Supp. 1123, 1126 (2003)(" Although the issue has
never been decided for all contexts and in all circumstances, when forced to characterize impact fees
the state courts have generally treated them as `taxes. "). The mode of levying taxes does not create
any vested rights protected by due process. Two cases are instructive on this issue.
The first case dealt with retroactive legislation that altered a timing requirement for the collection of
taxes. Newman v. Commercial Waterway Dist. No. I of King County, 125 Wash. 577, 582 (1923).
In Newman, a state statute authorized the collection of property assessments by waterway districts to
retire bonds for waterway improvements. The statute placed time limits on the collection of the
assessments and a waterway district failed to meet the deadlines prior to the maturation of some
bonds it had issued. The legislature remedied the situation by amending the applicable statutes to
authorize the waterway district to issue new bonds to pay off the matured bonds along with the
authority to re -assess benefitted properties to pay off the newly issued bonds. The new assessments
changed the amount and timing of taxes collected for the improvements leading to the argument
from the property owners that the new assessments violated their vested rights. The Court disagreed,
holding as follows:
The method and time of levying the assessment was a matter of remedy rather than a
matter of'vested right, and when the remedy pointed out failed, no matter whatsoever
may have been the cause, it was within the power of the Legislature to provide
another. That the state may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes or
assessments when those formerly enacted.fail of their purpose without any violation
of the Constitution, either federal or state, is not a matter of doubt. The taxpayer has
no vested right in the existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between
him and the state that the latter will not vary such mode, and so long as no
fundamental right of the taxpayer is invaded he cannot complain of a variation in the
mode.
125 Wash. at 582.
The second, more recent case, on vested rights in taxation involves the retroactive amendment of an
initiative to remove a requirement of voter approval for the raising of state taxes. Washington State
Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284 (2007). In Farm Bureau, a state initiative had
set a yearly cap on the revenues raised by taxation that could only be exceeded by a vote of the public.
In 2006, nine months after the start of the fiscal year for 2005, the legislature adopted a statute that
increased the cap for 2005 without a public vote. The Washington State Farm Federation challenged
the amendment to the initiative, arguing in part that the public had a vested right in voter approval of
any expenditures that exceeded the cap. The Court agreed that the amendment acted retroactively as
to the 2005 fiscal year. It acknowledged that the due process clause prohibits retroactive amendments
that interfere with vested rights. 162 Wn.2d at 304. However, the Court did not find the cap to
qualify as a vested right. It noted that a vested right, entitled to protection from retroactive
legislation, must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance
of the existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment
APPEAL - 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of property, a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand by another. Id. The Court also noted
that no one has a vested right in any general rule of law or policy of legislation which gives an
entitlement to insist that it remain unchanged for one's own benefit. Td. The Court concluded that
"Washington voters' statutory "right" to approve taxes that raise revenues in excess of the state
expenditure limit is a mere expectation it is not a vested right entitled to due process protections
from subsequently enacted legislation." 162 Wn.2d at 305.
As in Newman and Farm Bureau, the Renton City Council has not altered any vested rights in its
amendment of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) by Ordinance No. 5532. It merely modified the "mode" of
collecting taxes by modifying the timing for what impact fee schedule is used to ascertain the
amount. As in Newman this change in timing ultimately affects the amount of the tax collected.
Similarly, the removal of the public vote requirement in Farm Bureau also may have changed the
amount of taxes raised, since the public may have rejected the increase ultimately adopted by the
legislature. If the courts are unwilling to protect the integrity of a cap on taxes created by public
initiative, it is unlikely they will find much to honor in a regulation that sets the applicability of an
impact fee schedule.
The case at hand is distinguishable from Farm Bureau in that impact fees arguably have a much
more burdensome and/or direct impact on property owners than the general tax laws of the state.
The burden on the property owner is certainly a valid consideration in assessing the applicability of
due process. Preshytery of .Seattle v. Ding County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
However, the courts have already determined that impact fees generally don't trigger any vested
rights protected by the due process clause. See New Castle, supra. The fact that the Ordinance
5532 amendments to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) changes the timing of how impact fees amounts are to be
assessed adds nothing to the due process public/private balancing of interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is no legislative intent evident or assurance made within RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) that the Council created a vested right that could not be altered by subsequent legislative
amendment. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4808 was only designed to provide a
methodology for assessing impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. When the Appellant
contemplated the purchase of the subject property in 2010, it had to base its feasibility analysis with
the knowledge that property taxes, real estate excise taxes and all other taxes applicable to its real
estate venture could change at any time. The amount of the impact fees, which is essentially another
tax, was subject to the same unpredictability. The fact that for a period of less than three months
between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 20101 the amount of the RSD impact fees were based
upon the fees in place at preliminary plat approval did not create any vested right to prevent that
unpredictability.
' As outlined in the findings of fact, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees between
December 23, 2009 (when RSD impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance) and March 17, 2010 (when
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was amended to provide that impact fees are based upon the amount in place at building permit
issuance).
APPEAL. - 11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. Even if a vested richt were created by Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), it likely
would not apply to Appellant. As previously noted, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) only
applied to RSD impact fees for a brief period of time, between December 23, 2009 and March 17,
2010. If this temporary period of time created any vested rights, it is likely that those rights would
only apply if the Appellant filed a complete building permit application or acquired PUD approval
during that time period. It is clear from the record that the Appellant acquired PUD approval well
before December 23, 2009 and there is no evidence to support a finding that any complete building
permit applications were filed between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 2010. Consequently, even
if Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) created vested rights, they don't apply to the Appellant.
In the context of land use controls, the courts and the state legislature require the filing of a complete
development permit application to trigger vested rights. The judicial policies underlying this
requirement equally apply in the context of any vesting to impact fees. The requirement for a
complete permit application to vest land use controls prevents permit speculation by making it too
easy to vest and also helps create a date certain that makes the point in time for vesting predictable,
instead of having to inquire into the "moves and countermoves" of the parties. East County
Reclamation v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 438 (2005); Graham Neighborhood Ass'n v. FG.
Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98, 113 (2011). In order to assure the same predictability and to also
prevent permit speculation, the vesting of impact fee provisions such as RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) would
also most likely be required by a court to occur upon the filing of a complete development permit
application. For RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) that would either have to be the preliminary plat application or
building permit application, since those are the two permits within the subsection linked to impact
tee amounts.
7. The Examiner has no authority to rule upon issues concerning equitable estoppel. In
its appeal statement the Appellant also argues equitable estoppel. The Hearing Examiner does not
have the authority to rule upon equitable estoppel claims. C'haussee v. Snohomish County Council,
38 Wn. App. 630 (1984)(hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). C'haussee may be
distinguishable on the basis that the broad "fairness" standards of review for impact fee appeals
encompass the broad fairness considerations involved in principles of equitable estoppel. However,
equitable estoppel often involves some highly fact specific issues that the fact finding apparatus of
reviewing courts are more suited to review. Unless and until the courts authorize Examiners to
consider equitable estoppel claims in cases similar to the appeal at bar, the Examiner will decline to
assume jurisdiction on that issue.
APPEAL -12
1
2 DECISION
3 The appeal is denied. The imposition of $32,497.41 in school impact fees is sustained.
4 DATED this 9`h day of July, 2012.
5
6
7 Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
8
9 Appeal Right
10
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decision are heard in a closed record hearing by the City
11 Council. Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office, together
12 with the applicable appeal fee, within fourteen (14) days of the Examiner's final decision
13 Change in Valuation
14 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program
15 of revaluation.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
APPEAL -13
Denis Law
Mayor City ,A -rj
AP
1
City Clerk -Bonnie 1,Walton
July 9, 2012
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC.
317 South Meridian
P.O. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Re: Decision for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 & 7291
Dear Mr. Abolins:
Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 9, 2012, in the above -
referenced matter.
If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bonnie 1. Walton
City Clerk
Enc.; Hearing Examiner's Decision
cc: Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon 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) 430-65 1 p /Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
}
RE: Galloway at the Highlands }
APPEAL OF IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT
Appeal )
)
Summary
The Appellant appeals the imposition of school impact fees for the construction of four single-family
homes, totaling $32,497.41 The appeal is denied and the imposition of $ 32,497.41 in school impact
fees is sustained. The key issue of this appeal is whether an ordinance assessing impact fees at
building permit issuance based upon amounts in effect at the time of subdivision approval creates
constitutionally protected vested rights that cannot be extinguished or modified by subsequent
amendment. No such vested right was created in this case and no fee adjustment is warranted.
The Appellant appeals the imposition of impact fees for the Renton School District ("RSD") for
building permits issued for development of single-family homes in the Galloway of the Highlands
subdivision. When the subdivision was approved on March 28, 2007, there was no RSD impact fee.
At that time the City's impact fee only assessed and only applied to impact fees collected for the
Issaquah School District ("ISD"). RMC 4-1-160(E) provided that impact fees came due at building
permit issuance but that the amount of the fee would be based upon the "fee schedule in effect when
the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval." The definitions and purpose clause of the ordinance
clearly provided that the impact fee ordinance was to exclusively apply to ISD fees, including RC W
4-1-160(E), Consequently, when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved, the impact fee
ordinance did not dictate that any future RSD impact fees would be based upon impact fee schedules
in effect at preliminary plat approval.
Subsequent to the approval of the Galloway preliminary plat, for a brief period of time the Renton
City Council did amend the impact fee ordinance to provide that the RSD impact fee amounts in
effect at preliminary plat approval (0$) would apply for impact fees that came due at building permit
issuance. On December 23, 2009 the Renton City Council added RSD impact fees to its impact fee
ordinance. The definitions and purpose clause of the impact fee ordinance were not revised to
include the RSD and its fees, but this was clearly an oversight and the only rational way to apply the
amendment as intended was to apply all provisions of the impact fee ordinance to RSD fees,
including RMC 4-1-160(E). RMC 4-1-160(E) also happened to provide that it applied to any
preliminary plats approved after the effective date of Ordinance 4808. Ordinance 4808 went into
effect on November 10, 1999. The Galloway preliminary plat was approved after November 10,
1999. Consequently, when the impact fee ordinance was amended on December 23, 2009 to include
APPEAL - 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RSD impact fees, the RSD impact fees for the Galloway development due at building permit.issuance
were based upon the adopted amounts in effect when the Galloway preliminary plat was approved,
which was $0. The Appellant purchased the Galloway development on March 10, 2010 while the
December 23, 2009 amendments remained in effect and testified that he purchased the property in
reliance upon the fact that the RSD impact fees would be $0.
On March 17, 2010, the Renton City Council amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that the amount
for an impact fee charged at building permit issuance was to be based upon the fee schedules in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, instead of the fees in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval. If the December 23, 2009 amendments of RMC 4-1-160(E)constitute a constitutionally
protected vested right to the $0 RSD impact fee, the Council would have been precluded from
amending RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide for a higher amount. However, RMC 4-1-16(E) doesn't create
any such vested rights. Rather it just creates an expectancy that is most analogous to an adopted
"mode" of tax collection that provides guidelines on what impact fee schedules apply when amounts
come due at the time of building permit issuance. Those guidelines were amended on March 17,
2010 and the RSD impact fees for any building permits issued after that date must be based upon
impact fee schedules in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Testimony
Talis Abolins testified that the appellant is asking for the reversal of a retroactive repeal of a
provision in the city of Renton's code which had expressly granted Galloway LLC the right to the fee
schedule in place when the preliminary plat received approval. The approval was received on March
28, 2007. At that point in time, the school fees in affect were zero dollars. Renton indicated that
school fee impacts would be mitigated by an increase in the city's tax -base. However, after the
appellant purchased the vested Highlands project, the city retroactively repealed the ordinance,
resulting in a substantial financial impact. The appellant is asking for reversal based on due process,
fairness, and RCW 82.02.070 which provides that a city must give an appeal process which allows a
fee to be modified based on principles of fairness.
Greg Heath, 2214 Tacoma Road, stated that he has been involved in real estate development for a
number of years. He has participated in around 10-12 development projects. There are 4 members of
the Galloway LLC including Mr. Heath, his wife, Jonathan Arnold, and Kris Arnold. The LLC was
formed to purchase the property and complete the building project. Galloway purchased the property
through a bankruptcy process from a receiver. Exhibit 4 is a landscape plan and reflects the current
plan for the development of the project. At the time of Mr. Heath's acquisition of the property, there
was a small amount of development on the property. The south east quadrant contained the framing
and partial roofing for a building. The south-west quadrant had foundations, and the north quadrant
was vacant. There will be 35 dwelling units and 3 commercial spaces under the current plan. The
LLC reviewed the building permit, infrastructure, fees paid, and if there was bonding required before
purchasing the property. As part of this due -diligence process, the LLC reviewed the effect of school
impact fees. Exhibit 1 is the school impact fee ordinance in effect at the time the property was
purchased by Galloway LLC. When reviewing the ordinance, Mr_ Heath noted that the use of "vested
APPEAL -2
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plat" in item 2, section E. Galloway LLC was aware school impact fees were zero at the time of the
preliminary plat approval and believed that vesting would result in the continuation of this policy.
Exhibit 2 notes the minutes of the meeting where the preliminary plat received approval. Galloway
LLC was under the impression that the school impact fees would be zero and resurrected already
approved building permits. After acquiring the property, Galloway LLC discovered that the city had
modified the Renton code, and the modification applied retroactively. Exhibit 6 reflects the
clarification from Neil Watts in regard to the impact of the city change on the Galloway project.
Permit fees were paid under protest from Galloway LLC. Exhibit 7 is a coalescing of the permit fees
expected to be paid for school impacts created by a consulting firm working for Galloway LLC.
Based on these calculations, the anticipated impact on the project is over 74,000 dollars. The fees
will have a vast negative impact on the financial situation of the project, especially in a difficult
market. If Galloway had been aware of these school impact fees, they would have paid less for the
project or not pursued it at all.
Mr. Abolins argued that for some time, the vested rights doctrine has not applied to school impact
fees. Courts have indicated that a developer should expect to be tied to fluctuations in school impact
fees. However, a developer has a right to proceed in a manner of certainty under due process. Renton
had enacted ordinances guaranteeing developers the right to school impact fees at the time of plat
approval. Exhibit 12 is a staff report from the Renton Planning Division which discussed the changes
made under the new ordinance. The report notes that school impact fees should be collected at the
time of building permit review for the amount required when preliminary plat approval was given.
Galloway had already received plat approval and was vested under city ordinance. An administrative
decision, detailed in an email from. Neil Watts (exhibit 6), stated that the city was going to apply the
new school impact fee ordinance to projects that had already received plat approval. In exhibit 12
(page 3), the city acknowledges that the code allows applicant's to be vested to impact fees they
received when given preliminary plat approval_ Exhibit 13 is additional Planning and Development
Committee material which states that applicants can be vested to previous fee schedules. Galloway
LLC created an entire cost -analysis based on the presumption they would not be paying any school
impact fees. Exhibit 8 is the ordinance that set -forth the vesting principle. Exhibit 9 is the
preliminary report to the hearing examiner on the Highlands project which notes, on page 11, that the
school district would be able to handle additional students from the development. Pages 10 and 1 i of
exhibit 10 note the environmental checklist given for the project. The public services section of this
checklist states that the project will increase need for public services and gives increased tax -base as
the method of paying for services (not school impact fees).
The hearing examiner questioned Mr. Abolins about the applicability of Graham Neighborhood Ass'n
v. F.G. Associates, which recently held that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to procedural
requirements as opposed to land use controls. The Examiner noted that Mr. Abolins had
acknowledged that the vested rights doctrine doesn't apply to impact fees because they aren't
considered land use controls.
Gannon Newsom, assistant Renton City Attorney, cross examined Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath stated the
property was purchased in March 2010.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Newsom argued that the appellant does not have a vested right to the previous school impact
fees. Exhibit 8 (a copy of ordinance 4808) does not apply to the Renton School District. There is no
reference to Renton, only a reference to the Issaquah School District. Nothing in this section of the
code gives provision for vesting under the school district. The appellant cannot prove any form of
vesting right based on this ordinance. Mr. Newsom commented that the appellant suggested that they
had an expectation of not paying their share of fees. A vested right must be something more than an
expectation. There is no language that benefits the appellant in the ordinance. The appellant was
aware that the code was changing during the period the property was purchased. Mr. Newsom noted
that Mr. Heath used the word "assumed" when discussing his belief the school impact fees would be
zero. Vesting is limited to zoning, building, or land use control ordinances. Impact fees are not
zoning ordinances. He submitted a previous court case which makes clear that impact fees are
collected at the time of building permits. Impact fees do not influence use or division. No guarantee
of availability in schools was given to the appellant. There is no vested right provision for schools
under Renton code, so Washington law and city ordinances must be adhered. Accordingly, Renton
code provides that school impact fees must be collected at the time of building permit approval. He
also noted the case of Abbey Rd. v. Bonney Lake which rejected the argument of financial cost being
too great as a reason not to levy a fee. The case provided that RCW 19.27.095(1) is unequivocal and
requires a complete building permit application to be submitted in order to receive vesting rights. No
vesting protection was entitled to Galloway LLC.
In regard to equitable estoppel, Mr. Newsom testified that the application of equitable estoppels
against government is disfavored. He referred to the decision in Dept of Ecology v. George
Theodoratus which gave that the courts should be reluctant to find the government equitable estoppel
"when public revenues are involved." There is a three-part test to applying equitable estoppels. The
appellant has failed to prove that there was any party admission in consistent with the later claim.
The appellant has failed to prove that Galloway has relied on a specific act, statement, or admission.
A mistaken reading of the code is not the fault of Renton. The appellant has failed to prove there was
any type of injury based on reliance on the false beliefs. Paying more money is not considered an
injury by the courts. The appellant has not proven that there is any sort of manifest error. The money
will go the Renton School District, not the City. Making a profit is not the city's concern.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner in regard to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), which the Examiner
noted isn't expressly limited to the Issaquah School Distract, Mr. Newsom commented that the
appellant has failed to prove this section of the code refers to Renton School District and that
provisions in other parts of the impact fee ordinance were clearly designed to only apply to impact
fees assessed for the Issaquah School District,
Talis Abolins testified that the language of the original ordinance does not restrict itself to a single
school district. Exhibit 6 shows that the city of Renton interpreted the ordinance as giving vesting
rights to the Appellant's project in the Issaquah School District. Neil Watts, director of the
Development Services division, assumed the provision applied to Galloway's project based on his
email sent to the appellant in exhibit 6. Although there have been no previous application of the
APPEAL -4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 ordinance with a similar nature, the city gave conclusive proof that they were applying the ordinance
within the Renton School District. The Planning Division's discussion of the impact fees in exhibits
12 and 13 is very broad and does not suggest a limit to the Issaquah School District. The appellant is
aware of how school impact fees work and understands there are fluctuations. A careful due -
diligence. process was followed in order to assure the appellant understood the city's interpretation of
the ordinance before purchasing the property. The appellant does not just have an expectation; they
have an affirmative legislative statement backed up by the Director of Development Services for
Renton.
In regard to providing additional legislative history, Mr. Newsom stated that he does not see any
ambiguity in the ordinance. No specific provision for the Renton School District is made. The
ordinance is specific to the Issaquah School District, and Renton School District would not have been
able to collect school impact fees under the ordinance as written.
Mr. Abolins noted that exhibit 1I discusses RMC 4-1-160 and refers to the Kent School District
along with the Issaquah School District. A city official stated in an email that the original ordinance
applied to the Galloway project (exhibit 6), knowing that the project fell in the Renton School
District_
Mr. Newsom testified that Renton is addressing the appellant's decision to rely on the plat approval
for vesting rather than the building permit_ The plat approval was from 2007. Ordinance 5442
expands to apply to Issaquah and Kent School District, but Renton School District is not included.
Page 3 of the ordinance identified Issaquah School District 411 and Kent School District 415. The
ordinance reflects the intent of the City Council. There is no vesting for the Renton School District
given in the past ordinances.
Exhibits
At hearing, the Appellant submitted an exhibit notebook consisting of 13 exhibits, all of which were
admitted into the record.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
Appellant. Galloway Heights I, LLC.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the appeal was held on June 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm in the Renton City
Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
APPEAL -5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Appeal_ The Appellant appeals the imposition $32,497.41 in RSD school
impact fees levied upon the issuance of building permit CP07293($8,196.63),
CP07301($8,201.32), CP07300($8,201.32) and CP07292($7,898.14). All four building permits
were issued for single-family homes located in the Galloway at the Highlands subdivision in the
RSD. The fees were paid under protest on April 20, 2012. The Appellant asserts that RMC 4-1-
160(E) gave it a vested right to $0 RSD school impact fees when the Galloway preliminary plat
was approved and also that the City is barred by equitable estoppel from requiring any RSD school
impact fees.
4. Chronolof4y.
A. November 10 1999 Issaquah impact fee first adopted. The Renton City Council first
adopted a school impact fee on November 1, 1999 as Ordinance No. 4808, which went
into effect on November 10, 1999. Section 4-1-160(A) of the ordinance noted that the
ordinance was adopted for the collection of impact fees for the ISD_ No other school
district was mentioned. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) of the ordinance provided that impact fees
come due at the time of building permit issuance but the amount must be based upon fee
schedules in effect at the time of planned unit development ('`PUD") or preliminary plat
approval. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) on its own did not mention the ISD or any other school
district.
B. March 8, 2007; Galloway preliminary plat approved. The AppelIant's subdivision,
Galloway at the Highlands, received preliminary plat approval on March 8, 2007.
C. March 15, 2007; Kent School District added to impact fee ordinance. The Renton City
Council amended Section 4-1-160(A) by Ordinance 5263 to provide that the ordinance
was adopted to impose impact fees for both the Kent and Issaquah school districts. The
definition of "District" was also expanded to include the KSD. The amendment went
into effect on March 15, 2007. A whereas clause to the ordinance noted that the City of
Renton may annex property within the Kent School District ("KSD"). RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) was not amended and retained the original wording from Ordinance No. 4808.
D. December 23, 2009; first Renton School District impact fee goes into effect. A whereas
clause to Ordinance No. 5514 provides that "until recently the Renton School District
has been able to accommodate growth within existing facilities, but currently estimates a
need for additional school facilities". Ordinance No. 5514 imposes an impact fee for
Renton, apparently for the first time. It amends Section 4-1-160(D), note 5, to set impact
fee amounts for the RSD. Ordinance No. 5514 does not amend the definition of
"District" to include the RSD or the Section 4-1-160(A) purpose clause to provide that
the purpose of the impact fee ordinance is to collect impact fees for the RSD.
E. March, 2010; Appellant purchases GallowU property. Under cross examination during
the hearing on this appeal, an officer of the Appellant testified that it purchased the
APPEAL - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Galloway Heights property in March, 2010. It is unclear whether the Appellant
purchased the property before or after the Ordinance No. 5532 went into effect.
F. _March 17, 2010, RMC 4-1-160(E) amended. Ordinance No. 5532, which went into
effect on March 17, 2010, amended RMC 4-1-160(E) to provide that impact fees are
based upon the amounts in effect when paid at the time of building permit issuance. A
staff report that accompanied the proposed amendment, Ex. 12, acknowledged that RMC
4-1-160(E) applied to RSD impact fees and that basing impact fee amounts upon the
schedules in effect at PUD/preliminary plat approval did not effectively mitigate school
impacts, "especially the impacis to the Renton School District".
G. May 2, 2012, purpose clause revised to include Renton School District. Ordinance No.
5657, which went into effect May 2, 2012, amended Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that
the impact fee ordinance was adopted to assess fees for the Issaquah, Kent and Renton
school districts. Up until this point Section 4-1-160(A) did not include the Renton
School District. The definition of district was also stricken from the ordinance, so that
references in the ordinance to "district" were no Ionger limited to the ISD and Kent
School District.
Conclusions of Law
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner_ RMC 4-1-160(G)(2) provides that an appeal of a
school impact fee shall follow the process for the underlying permit action. The underlying permit
action in these appeals was approval of the subject building permits. RMC 4-8-080(G) assigns
building permit appeals to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing and final decision
appealable to the Renton City Council.
2. Appeal Review Criteria. RMC 4-1-160(G)(1) provides that impact fees may be
adjusted if the fees were incorrectly assessed or unusual and unique circumstances render the fees
unfair, unjust or unlawful. If the Appellant is correct in its assertion that it has a vested right,
protected by due process, to $0 impact fees than. the Appellant would qualify for a waiver of the fees
imposed by the City since the due process violation would (1) render the fees unfair, unjust and
unlawful; or (2) would compel the conclusion that the fees were incorrectly assessed under an
interpretation of the impact fee ordinance that is consistent with the vested rights of the Appellant.
3. Impact fee ordinance did not provide for vesting of RSD impact fee amounts at
preliminary lata royal when the Gallowqy. Heights preliminary plat was approved. The Appellant
argues that RSDS $0 impact fees vested at the time of preliminary plat approval. However, when the
Galloway preliminary plat was approved the City's impact fee ordinance only governed ISD impact
fees.
APPEAL - 7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The asserted "vesting" provision in effect when Galloway Heights was approved was RMC 4-1-
160(E) of Ordinance No. 4808, which provided as follows:
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 im act 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....
(emphasis added)
A key point of disagreement between. the City and the Appellant is the underlined language above —
the City maintains that these impact fees are limited to impact fees assessed for the ISD and the
Appellant claims they are any impact fees imposed by the City. The City's interpretation is the more
compelling. RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) authorizes and requires the City to collect impact fees for "...final
plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit..." RMC 4-1-160(E)(2)
relates back to the range of impact fees authorized by RMC 4-1-160(E)(I) by providing that for those
impact fees linked to PUD and preliminary plat approval, they will vest at the time of preliminary
plat/PUD approval. Subsection 2 is setting the amount to a portion of the impact fees authorized in
subsection 1. Unfortunately for the Appellant, subsection I limits the authorized range of impact
fees to those assessed for "dwelling units located within the District's boundaries". RMC 4-1-
160(B)(8) of Ordinance No. 4808 defines the "District" as the ISD. Since the impact fee amounts set
by subsection 2 only applies to the fees authorized by subsection 1, subsection 2 only applies to ISD
impact fees. This interpretation is further corroborated by the purpose clause of Ordinance No. 4808,
which provided at RMC 4-1-160(A) that "the Council adopts this title to assess school impacts for
the Issaquah School District." The purpose clause makes no mention of the RDS.
4. Impact fee ordinance amended to set amount of RSD impact fees on those in effect at
prelimingg plat approval when RSD irnpact fees added to impact fee ordinance on December 23,
2009. As noted in the findings of fact, RSD impact fees were first authorized by Ordinance 5514.
This authorization included the application of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2), such that for preliminary plats and
PUDs the impact fees assessed at building permit issuance were those in effect at the time of
preliminary plat/PUD approval if those plat/PUD was approved after November 10, 1999.
The impact of Ordinance 5514 on RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was not immediately apparent. Ordinance
5514 only amended RMC 4-1-160(D)(5) to identify the amount the RSD impact fee and RSD 4-1-
160(J) to adopt the RSD capital facilities plan. This was the first time RSD impact fees were ever
identified in the City's school impact fee ordinance. Notably, Ordinance 5514 did not amend
APPEAL -8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"District" to include the RSD or amend Section 4-1-160(A) to provide that the purpose of the impact
fee ordinance was to assess school impact fees for the RSD in addition to impact fees for the KSD
and ISD, despite the fact that the KSD had been added to the "District" definition and 4-1-160(A)
when its impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance via Ordinance No. 5263.
1 Without an amendment to the definition of "District", read literally the City had no authority to
impose the fee since the authority for imposing impact fees was limited to the "District" in RMC 4-
1-160(E)(1) as previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 3. Nonetheless, it is clear that the
City Council intended RMC 4-1-160(E)(1) to authorize and require the imposition of RSD impact
fees and that the failure to amend "District" and 4-1-160(A) was an oversight. The Council would
not have added an impact fee amount for RSD to the impact fee ordinance without intending that the
City have the authority to impose it. Interpreting Ordinance 5514 as authorizing the imposition of
impact fees for the RSD necessarily requires that "District" include the RSD which in turn requires
that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) applied to RSD impact fees.
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) expressly provided that it applied to all preliminary plats/PUDs approved after
the effective date of Ordinance No. 4808. The Galloway Heights project was approved after the
effective date of Ordinance No_ 4808. Consequently, subsequent to the effective date of Ordinance
No. 5514, all impact fees collected at building permit issuance for Galloway Heights was $0 for as
long as the Ordinance No. 5514 amendments remained in effect.
5. Appellant has no vested right in RMC 4-1-160 E 2 . With the conclusions of law
above, the key issue in this appeal is whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No. 4808
created a vested right that under due process cannot be extinguished by subsequent retroactive
legislation, in this case Ordinance No. 5532. If RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted by Ordinance No.
4808 does create a constitutionally protected vested right, then the Appellant would be entitled to a
refund of all fees paid as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 2. However, it is concluded as a
matter of law that RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) does not create a constitutionally protected vested right.
As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that it is uncontested by the parties to this appeal that the
vested rights doctrine as codified for subdivisions does not apply to impact fees. This issue was
resolved in New Castle Investments, LLC v. City of La Center, 98 Wn. App. 224 (1999), which held
that RCW 58.17.033 only vests subdivisions to "land use controls" and that impact fees are not land
use controls. The Appellant acknowledges at p. 3 of their appeal statement that "[t]here is no
question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs." The
Appellant distinguishes RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) from the right of the City to vary the amount of the
impact fee by noting that the City "expressly created vested rights" in RMC 4-1-160(E)(2). The
vesting issue at hand is not whether the City can generally vary impact fee amounts after preliminary
plat approval, but rather whether RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) creates a locally adopted vested right that
cannot be extinguished by a subsequent amendment.
An important similarity between Farm Bureau and the impact fees at hand are that they both involve,
for the most part, taxes. Impact fees are largely treated as taxes by Washington courts. Sundquist
APPEAL -9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Homes, Inc. v. County of Snohomish, 276 F. Supp_ 1123, 1126 (2003)(" Although the issue has
never been decided for all contexts and in all circumstances, when forced to characterize impact fees
the state courts have generally treated them as `taxes_ "'). The mode of levying taxes does not create
any vested rights protected by due process. Two cases are instructive on this issue.
The first case dealt with retroactive legislation that altered a timing requirement for the collection of
taxes. Newman v. Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 of King County, 125 Wash. 577,582 (1923).
In Newman, a state statute authorized the collection of property assessments by waterway districts to.
retire bonds for waterway improvements. The statute placed time limits on the collection of the
assessments and a waterway district failed to meet the deadlines prior to the maturation of some
bonds it had issued. The legislature remedied the situation by amending the applicable statutes to
authorize the waterway district to issue new bonds to pay off the matured bonds along with the
authority to re -assess benefitted properties to pay off the newly issued bonds. The new assessments
changed the amount and timing of taxes collected for the improvements leading to the argument
from the property owners that the new assessments violated their vested rights. The Court disagreed,
holding as follows:
The method and time of levying the assessment was a matter of remedy rather than a
matter of vested right, and when the remedy pointed out failed, no matter whatsoever
may have been the cause, it was within the power of the Legislature to provide
another. That the state' may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes or
assessments when those formerly enacted fail of their purpose without any violation
of the Constitution, either federal or state, is not a matter of doubt. The taxpayer has
no vested right in the existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between
him and the state that the latter will not vary such mode, and so long as no
fundamental right of the taxpayer is invaded he cannot complain of a variation in the
mode.
125 Wash. at 582.
The second, more recent case, on vested rights in taxation involves the retroactive amendment of an
initiative to remove a requirement of voter approval for the raising of state taxes. Washington State
Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284 (2007). In Farm Bureau, a state initiative had
set a yearly cap on the revenues raised by taxation that could only be exceeded by a vote of the public.
In 2006, nine months after the start of the fiscal year for 2005, the legislature adopted a statute that
increased the cap for 2005 without a public vote. The Washington State Farm Federation challenged
the amendment to the initiative, arguing in part that the public had a vested right in voter approval of
any expenditures that exceeded the cap. The Court agreed that the amendment acted retroactively as
to the 2005 fiscal year. It acknowledged that the due process clause prohibits retroactive amendments
that interfere with vested rights. 162 Wn.2d at 304. However, the Court did not find the cap to
qualify as a vested right. It noted that a vested right, entitled to protection from retroactive
legislation, must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance
of the existing law, it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment
APPEAL -10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of property, a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand by another. Id. The Court also noted
that no one has a vested right in any general rule of law or policy of legislation which gives an
entitlement to insist that it remain unchanged for one's own benefit. Id. The Court concluded that
"Washington voters' statutory "right" to approve taxes that raise revenues in excess of the state
expenditure limit is a mere expectation it is not a vested right entitled to due process protections
from subsequently enacted legislation." 162 Wn.2d at 305.
As in Newman and Farm Bureau, the Renton City Council has not altered any vested rights in its
amendment of RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) by Ordinance No_ 5532. It merely modified the "mode" of
collecting taxes by modifying the timing for what impact fee schedule is used to ascertain the
amount. As in Newman this change in timing ultimately affects the amount of the tax collected_
Similarly, the removal of the public vote requirement in Farm Bureau also may have changed the
amount of taxes raised, since the public may have rejected the increase ultimately adopted by the
legislature. If the courts are unwilling to protect the integrity of a cap on taxes created by public
initiative, it is unlikely they will find much to honor in a regulation that sets the applicability of an
impact fee schedule.
The case at hand is distinguishable from Farm Bureau in that impact fees arguably have a much
more burdensome and/or direct impact on property owners than the general tax laws of the state.
The burden on the property owner is certainly a valid consideration in assessing the applicability of
due process. Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
However, the courts have already determined that impact fees generally don't trigger any vested
rights protected by the due process clause. See New Castle, supra. The fact that the Ordinance
5532 amendments to RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) changes the timing of how impact fees amounts are to be
assessed adds nothing to the due process public/private balancing of interests.
It is also noteworthy that there is no legislative intent evident or assurance made within RMC 4-1-
160(E)(2) that the Council created a vested right that could not be altered by subsequent legislative
amendment. RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4808 was only designed to provide a
methodology for assessing impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. When the Appellant
contemplated the purchase of the subject property in 2010, it had to base its feasibility analysis with
the knowledge that property taxes, real estate excise taxes and all other taxes applicable to its real
estate venture could change at any time. The amount of the impact fees, which is essentially another
tax, was subject to the same unpredictability. The fact that for a period of less than three months
between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 20101 the amount of the RSD impact fees were based
upon the fees in place at preliminary plat approval did not create any vested right to prevent that
unpredictability.
1 As outlined in the findings of fact, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(1;)(2) applied to RSD impact fees between
December 23, 2009 (when RSD impact fees were added to the impact fee ordinance) and March 17, 2010 (when
RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) was amended to provide that impact fees are based upon the amount in place at building permit
issuance).
APPEAL -11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6. Even if a vested right were created by Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2),it likel
would not apply to Appellant. As previously noted, Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) only
applied to RSD impact fees for a brief period of time, between December 23, 2009 and March 17,
2010. If this temporary period of time created any vested rights, it is likely that those rights would
only apply if the Appellant filed a complete building permit application or acquired PUD approval
during that time period. It is clear from the record that the Appellant acquired PUD approval well
before December 23, 2009 and there is no evidence to support a finding that any complete building
permit applications were filed between December 23, 2009 and March 17, 2010. Consequently, even
if Ordinance 4808 RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) created vested rights, they don't apply to the Appellant.
In the context of land use controls, the courts and the state legislature require the filing of a complete
development permit application to trigger vested rights. The judicial policies underlying this
requirement equally apply in the context of any vesting to impact fees. The requirement for a
complete permit application to vest land use controls prevents permit speculation by making it too
easy to vest and also helps create a date certain that makes the point in time for vesting predictable,
instead of having to inquire into the "moves and countermoves" of the parties. East County
Reclamation v. Rjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 438 (2005); Graham Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G.
Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98, 113 (2011). In order to assure the same predictability and to also
prevent permit speculation, the vesting of impact fee provisions such as RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) would
also most likely be required by a court to occur upon the filing of a complete development permit
application. For RMC 4-1-160(E)(2) that would either have to be the preliminary plat application or
building permit application, since those are the two permits within the subsection linked to impact
fee amounts.
7. The Examiner has no authority to rule upon issues concerning equitable estoppel. In
its appeal statement the Appellant also argues equitable estoppel. The Hearing Examiner does not
have the authority to rule upon equitable estoppel claims. Chaussee V. Snohomish County Council,
38 Wn. App. 630 (1984)(hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). Chaussee may be
distinguishable on the basis that the broad "fairness" standards of review for impact fee appeals
encompass the broad fairness considerations involved in principles of equitable estoppel. However,
equitable estoppel often involves some highly fact specific issues that the fact finding apparatus of
reviewing courts are more suited to review. Unless and until the courts authorize Examiners to
consider equitable estoppel claims in cases similar to the appeal at bar, the Examiner will decline to
assume jurisdiction on that issue.
FAN=J fl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECISION
The appeal is denied. The imposition of $32,497.41 in school impact fees is sustained.
DATED this 9t' day of July, 2012.
1s1 Phil Dlbrechis (Signed original in offcial file)
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decision are heard in a closed record hearing by the City
Council. Any such appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk's office, together
with the applicable appeal fee, within fourteen (14) days of the Examiner's final decision
Change in Valuation
Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program
of revaluation.
APPEAL -13
Denis Law
Mayor City Of
_ �
City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton
June 4, 2012
Talis Abolins
.Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
P.Q. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98.371
Re: Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 & 7291
Dear Talis Abolins:
The appeal hearing you have, requested in the above referenced matter will be heard by the
Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the
Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall; 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057.
If you have any questions, please email me at bwalton@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Bonnie 1. Walton.
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon 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
Cynthia Moya
From: Cynthia Moya
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:19 AM
To: Garman Newsom; 'phil olbrechts'
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
I am sending out the letter today to confirm that the Galloway at the Highlands appeal hearing will be on June 19, 2012
at 10 am. If there is any objection to this date and time, please let me know immediately.
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton - Executive/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
From: Garmon Newsom
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:09 PM
To: 'phil olbrechts'; Cynthia Moya
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Thank you. If it has to be the 19th I should be fine by 10:00 a.m.
Garman
From: phil olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Garman Newsom; Cynthia Moya
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
The 19th or any date between the 12th and the 19`h, except for the 13`h, works for me. If the 19th is the only available
date, should we do it in the afternoon to give Mr. Newsom a chance for his mouth to function again?
From: Garman Newsom [mailto:GNewsom (&Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:33 PM
To: Cynthia Moya; 'Phil Olbrechts'
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Hello All,
have a dentist appointment the morning of the 19th. Hopefully, I will not be numb at 10:00 a.m. If we cannot have it
before the 191h, I have no objection to the hearing being rescheduled to June 19, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
C: Newsonvll
Assistant Ory Attomey
1
City- of Denton
100 Sourh 1nci Street
P.U. Boy. 626
Renton W_.A 98057
425 430-648"1 (1)
425 255-5474 (N)
QNewsom@rentonwa.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This message may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege. If this
message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or distribution of its contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in
error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed above and delete this message without printing,
copying, or forwarding it. Thank you.
From: Cynthia Moya
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:47 AM
To: 'Phil Olbrechts; Garman Newsom
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: FW: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Phil & Garman,
Mr. Abolins, Attorney for the Appellant, would like to get rescheduled. is there a way we could do a 10 am on June 19,
2012?
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton - Executive/City Clerk Division
cmoya@rentonwa.a_v
425-430-6513
From: Jason Seth
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Cynthia Moya
Cc: Bonnie Walton
Subject: FW: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Cindy,
Please contact Mr. Olbrechts when you come in tomorrow and see if this can be rescheduled. Please keep Mr. Abolins
updated. I let him know that he may not hear from us until Friday afternoon or Monday morning. Thanks,
-Jason
Jason Seth
Deputy City Clerk
Iseth@ rentonwa.gov
425-430-6SO4
2
From: Talis Abolins ,[mailto:TalisA@_ aw.com_ 1
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Jason Seth
Cc: Bonnie Walton
Subject: Schedule: Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Mr. Seth,
As discussed, I represent the appellant in this case_ This week I received notice that a hearing date was set for Tuesday,
June 12, 2012. Unfortunately, I have a conflict with that hearing because of a previously scheduled out of state
vacation. Can you please check with the hearing examiner on what other dates maybe available in the month of June?
I am fairly flexible later in the month, with the exception of June 13 and June 25. Thank you!
Talis Abolins
Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
Puyallup, WA 98371
www.cdb-law.com
(253) 848-3513
From: Cynthia Moya
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:47 AM
To: 'Phil Olbrechts'; Garmon Newsom
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: FW: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Phil & Garmon,
Mr. Abolins, Attorney for the Appellant, would like to get rescheduled. Is there a way we could do a 10 am on June 19,
2012?
Thank you,
Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist
City of Renton - Executive/City Clerk Division
cmova @rentonwa.gov
425-430-6513
...........
From: Jason Seth
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Cynthia Maya
Cc: Bonnie Walton
Subject: FW: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Cindy,
Please contact Mr. Olbrechts when you come in tomorrow and see if this can be rescheduled. Please keep Mr. Abolins
updated. I let him know that he may not hear from us until Friday afternoon or Monday morning. Thanks,
-Jason
Jason Seth
Deputy City Clerk
iseth@rentonwa.gov
425-430-6504
. .................... ........ .
From: Talis Abolins fmailto:TalisA@cdb-law.com1
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Jason Seth
Cc: Bonnie Walton
Subject: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Mr. Seth,
As discussed, I represent the appellant in this case. This week I received notice that a hearing date was set for Tuesday,
June 12, 2012. Unfortunately, I have a conflict with that hearing because of a previously scheduled out of state
vacation. Can you please check with the hearing examiner on what other dates may be available in the month of lune?
I am fairly flexible later in the month, with the exception of June 13 and June 25. Thank you!
Talis Abolins
Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
Puyallup, WA 98371
www.cdb-law,com
(253) 848-3513
2
Cynthia Moya
From: Garmon Newsom
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:09 PM
To: 'Phil olbrechts'; Cynthia Moya
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Thank you. If it has to be the 19th I should be fine by 10:00 a.m.
Garmon
From: Phil olbrechts fmaiito:olbrechtslaw@gmail.coml
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Garmon Newsom; Cynthia Moya
Cc: Stephanie Rary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
The 191h or any date between the 12th and the 19th, except for the 13th, works for me. If the 19th is the only available
date, should we do it in the afternoon to give Mr. Newsom a chance for his mouth to function again?
From: Garmon Newsom fmailto:GNewsom@Rentonwa.govl
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:33 PM
To: Cynthia Moya; 'Phil Olbrechts'
Cc: Stephanie nary; Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth
Subject: RE: Schedule Conflict -- Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Hello All,
I have a dentist appointment the morning of the 19th. Hopefully, 1 will not be numb at 10:00 a.m. If we cannot have it
before the 191h, 1 have no objection to the hearing being rescheduled to June 19, 2012, at 10.00 a.m.
Ci- N~J0P;V11
_assistant City Attome3
Cite of Renton
100 South 2nd Street
P.O. Box 626
Renton 98057
425 430-6487 ('1�
425 255-5474 (F)
G Newsom Qrentonwa.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This message may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product privilege. If this
message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure or distribution of its contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in
error, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed above and delete this message without printing,
copying, or forwarding it. Thank you.
EVftYK-WQ0'-LtRAftS
lji�Ebi35
i- 1L ad"11%;�
�' �l
NNW
Renton School District
Attn: John Knutson
300 SW 7th Street
Renton, WA 98057
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
Renton School District
317 South Meridian
Attn: Rick Stacke
P.Q. Box 488
300 5W 7th Street
Puyallup, WA 98371
Renton, WA 98057
Menton School District
Attn: Stewart Shusterman
300 SW 7th Street
Renton, WA 98057
MC��S��,}��ET� U® ��
�i�if',a�l�
!'I
1i c�t rfe4eiaFA4l�iA4�l i
1-EQ�6�i]411i64elRY i i "
Denis1� O y
Mayorr _
r
City Clerk -Bonnie I_Walton
May 18, 2012
Talis Abolins
Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC
317 South Meridian
P.O. Box 488
Puyallup, WA 98371
Re: Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands
Building Permits 7293, 7301, 7300 & 7291
Dear Talis Abolins:
The appeal hearing you have requested in the above referenced matter will be heard by the
Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the
Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057.
If you have any questions, please email meat bwalton@rentonwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
EncL Notice of Appeal
cc: Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon 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 1 Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
Cynthia Moya
From: Bonnie Walton
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 5:03 PM
To: Cynthia Moya
Subject: FW: Appeal of Building Permits Requirements - Galloway at the Highlands
Attachments: appeal galloway permits imp fee.pdf
From: Bonnie Walton
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:19 AM
To: Larry Warren; Neil R. Watts
Subject: RE: Appeal of Building Permits Requirements - Galloway at the Highlands
Attached is copy of the appeal. (Note that they used Phil Oibrecht's name in the address, so assumed they were told
they could appeal to the HE.)
Regarding jurisdiction for the appeal, I find no agreements on file between the City and the RSD regarding collection of
impact fees. I only find the City ordinance imposing the fees.
Let me know how you would like me to proceed and/or respond on this. The $250 appeal fee was collected, too.
Thanks.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk, x6502
From: Larry Warren
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Neil R. Watts; Bonnie Walton
Cc: Clarice Martin; Adriann Alexander; Cynthia Maya; Chip Vincent; Larry Meckling; Garmon Newsom
Subject: RE: Appeal of Building Permits Requirements - Galloway at the Highlands
No. The last time I tried to find an attorney with the District, 1 was told by the Superintendent that the only attorney on
staff was the HR director. So, they must use retained counsel. Grace Yuan helped draft the original school impact
ordinance but that was for Issaquah. Her name has popped up with Renton from time to time_
You are correct that the real party in interest is the School District, not the city.
The legal issue is whether a school impact fee is a development regulation under the vested rights doctrine.
By the way, I haven't seen a copy of the appeal.
From: Neil R. Watts
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:04 AM
To: Bonnie Walton
Cc: Clarice Martin; Adriann Alexander; Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren; Chip Vincent; Larry Meckling
Subject: RE: Appeal of Building Permits Requirements - Galloway at the Highlands
Bonnie
These are building permits, so there is no project file associated with them. We (Adriann) will get copies of the building
permits and fee sheets to you.
The appeal is on the school impact fees for these building permits, which may be a school district concern, not the City.
suggest not scheduling the appeal hearing until the school district can be contacted for their input.
.Larry=the appeal is on the paymen chool impact fees at time of building pe .. This was an older project, with the
site plan and preliminary plat approved prior to adoption of the RSD impact fees. The project changed hands, and the
eventual buyers of the properties failed to include possible school impact fee in their value assessment prior to
purchase. They are contending the fees are not appropriate since they were not part of the land use decision for the
project. They picked up their building permits a week ago, with protest letters regarding the code required payment of
the school impact fees. Do you have a legal contact with the RSD?
Neil
From: Bonnie Walton
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:20 AM
To: Neil R. Watts
Cc: Clarice Martin; Adriann Alexander; Cynthia Moya
Subject: Appeal of Building Permits Requirements - Galloway at the Highlands
I am in receipt of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner of four building permits for the Galloway at the Highlands
development (PP -06-138; FP -07-128) contesting the impact fee charges.
In order to process this appeal, I am going to need the file and the full documentation regarding this matter. Can you
provide? The permits he has referred to are:
CP07292, CP07293, CP07300 & CP07301.
As soon as I track down the file and determine who all needs to be included in the distribution, then I will forward a copy
of the appeal document filed and work with Phil to schedule a Hearing date.
Thanks.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk, x6502
COMBINATION
BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
Cpo1?,I'-)—
CIT, LF RENTON pyD)C10^71
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 96457
Phone: (425) 4307200
www.rentonwa.gov
ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE PROVIDED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION
Property Address: 3800 NE 3RD PLACE - RENTON (Phase 3A, Building 4, Unit 28)Zip Code: 96059
2. Tax Assessor Number: 2690100120 Prior Building Permit # CP07292
3. Building Information:
Square Footage: Finished:1,637 sf Unfinished: Garage 332 sf Lot Size 1,278 sf
Site Coverage %55% Building Height40 ft Story Count Flood Zone (YIN) N
4. Property Owner: Galloway at the Highlands I Phone:
6.
6.
Street Address: PO Box 1204 City/State: Puyallup, WA I Zip: 98371
Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Plumbing Contractor: TBD
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
7. Mechanical Contractor: TBD
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
B. Electrical Contractor: TBD
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Phone:
Phone:
Phone:
9. Contact Person: Abbey Road Group. (Gil Hulsmann) Daytime Phone: 253-435-3699
Email Address: gil.hulsmann@abbeyroadgroup_com Fax Number: 253-446-3159
1 certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of
the City of Renton will be met. l understand that this application is valid for six months from the application date. If a permit
is not issued during this time period, the application will become void. This application does not constitute a permit to work.
Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is
hereby rendered that no work is to be done except as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes_
Work in public rights-of-way and/or utility easements is not authorized under this application
C;IF C 111r E 1
Applicant Signature: F y� : 5
Q:weblpwldevserylformslbuiIdinglComboApp.doe MM Rev 04/10
�i
CITY OF _-�NTON
Combination Permit
Permit Number:
CP07292
Permission is hereby given to do the following described work,
according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans
and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance
with the Ordinances of the City of menton.
Nature of Work:
CONSTRUCT LOT 12 GALLOWAY TOWNHOME
Job Address:
3800 NE 3RD PL
Owner:
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS I
PO BOX 1204
PUYALLUP, WA 98371
Tenant:
LOT #12 GALLOWAY PLAT
Contractor:
BRC FAMILY LLC
Contractor License BRCFAFL901QQ
PO BOX 731310
Contractor Phone 253-881-3035
PUYALLUP, WA
City License 34045
98373
Const Lender:
Other Information:
Date of Issue 0 412 012 0 1 2
UBC Type of Construction VB
Date of Expiration 10/17/2012
Building Height 0
Construction Value 134,610.89
Story Count 0
Parcel Number 2690100120
Building Sq. Ft. 1969
Dwelling Count 1
Occupancy Group 7
I hereby certify that no work is to be done except
as described above and in approved plans, and that
work is to conform to Renton codes and
ordinances.
5ubjcct to compliance with the Ordinances of the
City of Renton and information filed herewith
permit is granted.
Applicant X Ll
Building Official
BD3214a 12100 bh
Punted: 05-04-2012
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07292
Payment Made: 08/28/2007 04:01 PM Receipt Number:
Total Payment: 1,015.56 Payee: PHAM PROPERTY
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Trans Account Code Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
5035 000.000000.007.345 Plan Check Fee 1,01.5.56
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
----------- ----------------------------------- ---------------
Payment Check #5359 1,015.56
Account Balances
Trans Account Code Description Balance Due
3020
007-322.10.00.020
NREC Energy Code Fee
.00
3021
303.000000.020.345
Park Mitigation Fee
.00
4069
427.000000.018.388
Spec Util Connect Stormw
.00
5001
000.000000.007-322
Building Permit Fee
.00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School Impact
.00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
R0704539
w CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Printed: 05-04-2012
Payment Made
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07292
04/20/2012 02:04 PM
Total Payment: 7,898.14
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Receipt Number: R1201794
Payee: GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LLC
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
------
5001
------------------
000.000000.007.322
-------------------------------
Building Permit Fee
----------------
1,348.00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
75.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
150.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
150.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
-139.36
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
4.50
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
315.50
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee 5,994.50
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
Payment Check 1086 7,898.14
Account Balances
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
3020
------------------
007.322.10.00.020
------------------------------
NREC Energy Code Fee
---------------
.00
3021
303.000000.020.345
Park Mitigation Fee
.00
4069
427.000000.018.388
Spec Util Connect Stormw
.00
5003
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
-00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School Impact
.00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
COMBINATION
BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
c fa -736 I
CITY OF RENTON
b-7o7Ct�_
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton VITA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7200
www.rentonwa.gov
ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE PROVIDED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION
1. Property Address. 3808 NE 3RD PLACE - RENTON (Phase 3A, Building 4, Unit 26)Zip Code: 98059
2. Tax Assessor Number: 2690100100 Prior Building Permit * CP07301
3. Building Information:
Square Footage: Finished: 1,997 sf Unfinished: Garage 390 sf Lot Size 1,276 sf
Site Coverage % 68 % Building Height40 ft Story Count 3 Flood Zone (YIN) N
4. Property Owner: Galloway at the Highlands I Phone:
5
6.
7
Street Address: PO Box 1204
City/State- Puyallup, WA Zip: 98371
Contractor: T13D Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Plumbing Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Mechanical Contractor: TBD phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
8. Electrical Contractor: TBD
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Phone:
9. Contact Person: Abbey Road Group (Gil Hulsmann) Daytime Phone: 253-435-3699
Email Address: gil.hulsmann@abbeyroadgroup.com _ Fax Number: 253-446-3159
1 certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of
the City of Renton will be met. I understand that this application is valid for six months from the application date. If a permit
is not issued during this time period, the application will become void_ This application does not constitute a permit to work.
Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is
hereby rendered that no work is to be done except as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes,
Work in public rights-of-way and/or utility easements is not authorized under this application.
Applicant Signature: �,,,,� Date:
ON
Q-.w&pMdevservlformslbui I di ng\ComboApp_doc CITY OF n V
�ECEI VED Rev 04/10
MAY 2 4 2011
n
CITY OF RENTON
Combination Permit
Permit Number: CP07301
Permission is hereby given to do the following described work,
according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans
and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton.
Nature of Work:
CONSTRUCT LOT 10 GALLOWAY TOWNHOME
Job Address:
Owner:
Tenant
Contractor:
3808 NE 3RD PL
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS I
PO BOX 1204
PUYALLUP, WA 98371
GALLOWAY LOT #10
BRC FAMILY LLC
PO BOX 731310
PUYALLUP, WA
98373
Const Lender:
Contractor License
Contractor Phone
City License
BRCFAFL901QQ
253-881-3035
34045
Other information:
Date of Issue
04/20/2012
UBC Type of Construction VR
Date of Expiration
10/17/2012
Building I Ieight 0
Construction Value
163,859.95
Story Count 0
Parcel Number
2690100100
Building Sq. Ft. 2387
Dwelling Count 1
Occupancy Group 7
I hereby certify that no work is to be done except Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the
as described above and in approved plans, and that City of Renton and information filed herewith
work is to conform to Renton codes and permit is granted_
ordinances.
coop my
Applicant X
Building Official
BD3214a 12/00 bh
Printed: 05-04-2012
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07301
08/28/2007 04:01 PM
Total Payment: 1,032.98
Receipt Number:
Payee: PHAM PROPERTY
Current Payment Made to the Fallowing Items:
Trans Account Code Description Amount
--------- ------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------
5035 000.000000.007.345 Plan Check Fee 1,032.98
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
---------- -------- --------------------------- ---------------
Payment Check #5359 1,032.98
Account Balances
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
4069
------------------
427.000000.018.388
------------------------------
Spec Util Connect Stormw
---------------
.00
5001
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
.00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School Impact
.00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School. Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
R0704539
A . r .
Printed: 05-04-2012
Payment Made:
71TY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07301
04/20/2012 02:06 PM
Total Payment: 8,201.32
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Receipt Number: R1201794
Payee: GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LLC
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
5001
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
1,542.30
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
75.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
150.00
5034
000.000000.007-322
Mechanical Permit Fee
150.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
-30.48
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
4.50
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
315.50
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee 5,994.50
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
Payment Check 1086 8,201.32
Account Balances
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
4069
------------------
427.000000.018.388
------------------------------
Spec Util Connect Stormw
-------_--_--_-___
.00
5001
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
.00
5004
000-000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000-000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School Impact
-00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
COMBINATION
BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
CPo-;-ct3
CITY OF RENTON
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 96057
Phone: (425) 430-7200
www.rentonwa.gov
ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE PROVIDED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION
1. Property Address; 3812 NE 3RD PLACE - RENTON (Phase 3A, Building 4, Unit 25 Zip Code: 98059
2. Tax Assessor Number, 2690100090
3. Building Information:
Prior Building Permit # CP07293
Square Footage: Finished: 1,968 sf Unfinished: Garage 300 sf Lot Size 1,467 sf
Site Coverage % 58% Building Height40 ft Story Count 3 Flood Zone (YIN) N
4.
5
6.
7.
6.
Property Owner: Galloway at the Highlands I Phone:
Street Address: PO Box 1204 City/State: Puyallup, WA Zip: 98371
Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Plumbing Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Mechanical Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License ## (Required):
Electrical Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
9. Contact Person: Abbey Road Group (Gil Hulsmann) ' Daytime Phone: 253-435-3699
Email Address: gil.hulsmenn@abbeyroadgroup.com Fax Number: 253-446-3959
I certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of
the City of Renton will be met- I understand that this application is valid for six months from the application date. If a permit
is not issued during this time period, the application will become void. This application does not constitute a permit to work.
Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is
hereby rendered that no work is to be done except as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes.
Work in public rights-of-way and/or utility easements is not authorized under this application.
Applicant Signature: "' ��" w _ �' ��5�_ k�, K_--- Da : CIT.
h!. & o
Q,weblpwldevsevlformslbui l di nglComboApp, doc
MAY 2 4 � ail Rev 04110
D1
CITY OF RENTON
Combination Permit
Permit Number: CP07293
Permission is hereby given to do the following described work,
according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans
and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton.
Nature of Work:
Job Address:
Owner
Tenant
Contractor:
CONSTRUCT LOT 9 GALLOWAY TOWNHOME
3812 NE 3RD PL
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS I
PO BOX 1204
PUYALLUP, WA 98371
LOT #9 GALLOWAY PLAT
BRC FAMILY LLC
PO BOX 731310
PUYALLUP, WA
98373
Const Lender:
Other Information:
Date of Issue
Date of Expiration
Construction Value
Parcel Number
Contractor License BRCFAFL901QQ
Contractor Phone 253-881-3035
City License 34045
04120/2012 UBC Type of Construction
10/17/2012 Building Height
161,613.90 Story Count
2690100090 Building Sq. Ft.
Dwelling Count
Occupancy Group
hereby certify that no work is to be done except
as described above and in approved plans, and that
work is to conform to Renton codes and
ordinances.
VB
0
0
2358
1
7
Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the
City of Renton and information filed herewith
permit is granted.
Applicant XCtfi1Ll
Building Official
BD3214a 12100 bh
Printed: 05-04-2012
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
9055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07293
08/28/2007 04:01 PM
Total Payment: 1,015.56
Current Payment Made to the Fallowing items:
Receipt Number:
Payee: PHAM PROPERTY
Trans Account Code Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
5035 000.000000.007.345 Plan Check Fee 1,015.56
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
Payment Check #5359 1,015.56
Account Balances
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
4069
------------------
427.000000.018.388
------------------------------
Spec Util Connect Stormw
---------------
.00
5001
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
.00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School Impact
.00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
R0704539
Printed: 05-04-2012
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07293
04/20/2012 02:05 PM
Total Payment: 8,196.63
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Receipt Number: R1201794
Payee: GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LLC
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
------
5001
------------------
000.000000.007.322
------------------------------
Building Permit Fee
----------------
1,528.90
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
75.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
150.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
150.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
-21.77
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
4.50
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
315.50
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee 5,994.50
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------
Payment Check 1086
Account Balances
8,196.63
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
4069
------------------
427.000000.018.388
------------------------------
Spec Util Connect Stormw
---------------
.00
5001
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
.00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000-000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School Impact
.00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
V
COMBINATION
BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
rP0130
g7rZ) 6 � 0' � 5'CITY
OF REfVTON
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98457
Phone: (425) 430-7200
www.rentonwa.gov
ALL REQUIRED ITEMS MUST BE PROVIDED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION
1. Property Address: 3804 NE 3RD PLACE - RENTON (Phase 3A, Building 4, Unit 27)Zip Code: 98059
2. Tax Assessor Number: 2690100110
3. Building Information:
Prior Building Permit # CP07300
Square Footage: Finished: 1,997 sf Unfinished: Garage 390 sf Lot Size 1,275 sf
Site Coverage % 68 % Building Height40 ft Story Count 3 Flood Zone (YIN)±L_
4. Property Owner:. Galloway at the Highlands 1 Phone:
Street Address: PO Box 1204 City/State: Puyallup, WA Zip: 98371
5. Contractor: TBD
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Phone:
6. Plumbing Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
7. Mechanical Contractor: TBD Phone:
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
5. Electrical Contractor: TBD
State Contractor's License # (Required):
City of Renton Business License # (Required):
Phone:
9. Contact Person: Abbey Road Group (Gil Hulsmann) Daytime Phone, 253-435-3699
Email Address: gil.hulsmann@abbeyroadgroup.com Fax Number: 253-446-3159
i certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of
the City of Renton will be met. I understand that this application is valid for six months from the application date. If a permit
is not issued during this time period, the application will become void. This application does not constitute a permit to work.
Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is
hereby rendered that no work is to be done except as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes_
Work in public rights-of-way and/or utility easements is not authorized under this application.
CITY OF RENT011
Applicant Signature: P� E C 1MWE F �i
r
Q:weblpMdevserv�formslbui Idi ng\ComboApp.doc
MAY 2 4 2011
GUILDIINU IDIVISION
Rev 04/10
CITY OF RENTON
-- Combination Permit
Permit Number: CP07300
Permission is hereby given to do the following described work,
according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans
and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton.
Nature of Work:
Job Address:
Owner:
Tenant
Contractor:
CONSTRUCT LOT 11 GALLOWAY TOWNHOME
3804 NE 3RD PL
GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS I
PO BOX 1204
PUYALLUP, WA 98371
GALLOWAY LOT #11
BRC FAMILY LLC Contractor License BRCFAFL901QQ
PO BOX 731310 Contractor Phone 253-881-3035
PUYALLUP, WA City License 34045
98373
Const Lender:
Other Information:
Date of Issue
04/20/2012
UBC Type of Construction VB
Date of Expiration
10/17/2012
Building Height 0
Construction Value
163,859.95
Story Count 0
Parcel Number
2690100110
Building Sq. Ft. 2387
Dwelling Count 1
Occupancy Group 7
I hereby certify that no work is to be done except
as described above and in approved plans, and that
work is to conform to Renton codes and
ordinances.
Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the
City of Renton and information filed herewith
permit is granted.
Applicant X
Building Official
BD3214a 12100 hh
Printed: OS -04-2012
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07300
04/20/2012 02:05 PM
Total Payment: 8,201.32
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Receipt Number: R1201794
Payee: GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LLC
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
------
5001
------------------
000.000000.007.322
------------------------------
Building Permit Fee
----------------
1,542.30
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
75.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
150.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
150.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
-30.48
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
4.50
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
315.50
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee 5,994.50
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
---------- -------- --------------------------- ---------------
Payment Check 1086 8,201.32
Account Balances
Trans
Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------
4069
------------------
427.000000.018.388
--------------------------------
Spec Util Connect Stormw
---------------
.00
5001
000.000000.007.322
Building Permit Fee
.00
5004
000.000000.007.322
Electrical Permit Fee
.00
5033
000.000000.007.322
Plumbing Permit Fee
.00
5034
000.000000.007.322
Mechanical Permit Fee
.00
5035
000.000000.007.345
Plan Check Fee
.00
5042
000.000000.000.237
Building Code Fee
.00
5043
000.000000.000.237
Issaquah School. Impact
.00
5945
000.000000.007.341
School Admin Fee
.00
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee .00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
Printed: 05-04-2012
Payment Made
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Combo Building Permit
RECEIPT
Permit#: CP07300
04/20/2012 02:05 PM
Total Payment: 8,201.32
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Trans Account Code Description
5001 000.000000.007.322 Building Permit Fee
5004 000.000000.007.322 Electrical. Permit Fee
5033 000.000000.007.322 Plumbing Permit Fee
5034 000.000000.007.322 Mechanical Permit Fee
5035 000.000000.007.345 Plan Check Fee
5042 000.0000D0.000.237 Building Code Fee
5945 000.000000.007.341 School Admin Fee
Receipt Number: R1201794
Payee: GALLOWAY AT THE HIGHLANDS LLC
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
---------- -------- ---------------------------- ---------------
Payment Check 1086 8,201.32
Account Balances
Trans Account Code Description
4069 427.000000.018.388 Spec Util Connect Stormw
5001 000.000000.007.322 Building Permit Fee
5004 000.000000.007.322 Electrical Permit Fee
5033 000.000000.007.322 Plumbing Permit Fee
5034 000.000000.007.322 Mechanical Permit Fee
5035 000.000000.007.345 Plan Check Fee
5042 000.000000.000.237 Building Code Fee
5043 000.000000.000.237 Issaquah School Impact
5945 000.000000.007.341 School Admin Fee
5947 000.000000.000.237 Renton School Impact Fee
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
Amount
1,542.30
75.00
x.50.00
150.00
-30.48
4.50
315.50
5,994.50
Balance Due
.00
.00
.00
.ao
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Carr ell, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
317 S0 UfHI 111:..R11)IAN I P()_ 15()X iS8 1 016!
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TalisA@cdb-1aw_com
Phil A. Jlbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728
Renton, WA 98057
Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL
FAX: (253) 845-4941
WEBSITE: x%-ww.cdh-1aw.com
April 27, 2012
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3`d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
ATTORNEYS
1WBIAl D.(:ANII'SI;].L�;19fit,-3Uuf1;.
TALIs M. Al OIAN;S'
110LI. IS 11.B_%RN 1: t-1', P.S. `
til'IT] IFN A. BURNT IAM
RRYCI,; 11. DILLli, P.S.
I IILLARY V I IOLIME's
til 11NNO N R. JONFS
DI-A30R +1 A, PUK( E:LL
DANIEL. W. SMIT] I
JERLMY M. SW;1NN
c1r (J Ii_ NSIi1.
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SLISAN BOAT. 1,110
C" OF RENTON
MAY 02 2
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1l:.3,? 0. M.
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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:
Campkll,Ddle,Bamctt&Smirli,P.L.L.C. APROM NS10N:U.IIK1111;1)I.1A311TlYf:ONIPANYIN( I.[:I)IM;,\PR(111-SSIk)KAi.41'.xViCI,0-AP( )RA 11c1K
Phil .A. Olbrechts
April 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,
1-12-2004). A copy of the applicable ordinance is attached.
The Galloway project received preliminary approval on March 8, 2007. At that time,
there were no school impact fees for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the
property, representatives of Galloway Heights I, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the
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. 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.
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.
Campbell,!>ille,}3amett&5mirh,P.].1.C. ��rn<n•i_������nr.i.inmi�s��.�n��iirivc,�hmnn,Warta.�`nn;c:.�+rRt.7n:4����;�r,srrtvrcrcuapvit,t�nr7�
Phil .A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -3-
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 Lincoln Shiloh
Associates, Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation
omitted).
We expect 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.
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
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel.
C:ampbell,IAle, Kimett&Smith, l'.1.1.C. I�trtc�r sst�r:,v.i��rrn:urs:v�tirrYcx�hn,�vvrr�c��i�ir�c;nrt�cn _SSro rv.sr��vrc:r.c:cnzi�c�rtnrxry
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -4-
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,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
Tails M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Enclosures
Cc: Client
LOATAUHMM111artels, lonathariZalloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22827-0091CCity of Renton 4-13-12.doex
(:amphell,I)ille,Bamett&5snith,P.]_I.(:. I APROIr.SSIOuv.tlntrrF=nt3nt3rrm CUlmnuvTNOJ-rDT NC.APROiT'-�,SIONA].SIIIVic:I;C:OIU�ORIVI]ON
Amends ORD 5317
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. _ 549 2 Amended by ORO 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND 53,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No, 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,495; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title W (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,110 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
1
t
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
WHEREAS, the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2009 — 2013-2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase in the
impact fee for new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi -family units to $3,266;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Note 5 of subsection 4-1-160D, Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No, 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to talcc into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally. The City council establishes the following fees:
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-1607, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
Single-
Multi -Family
Family Fee
Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah
$5,495.00
Not
School
Applicable,
District
Kent School
$5,304.00
$3,266.00
District
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-1607, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
V
M-DINANCE NO. 5442
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
I. The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the
City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Issaquah School District No, 411 2007 Capital Facilities Plan;
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 — 2012-2013 Capital
Facilities Plan.
2_ On an annual basis; the District shall submit the following materials to the
City:
1. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan;
2. An annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in pari by impact fees.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage; approval and
five (5) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January '2009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of Januar-y , 2009.
Denis Law, Mayor
3
ORDINANTCENO. 5442
Approved as to form:
Lawrence I Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 1/16/2009 ( summary )
ORD. l 526:12? 11108 : scr
4
Galloway at the Highlands
Po Bax 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 4 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 �UILDlNG DtVISION
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
9 3812 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100090 CP07293
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,196.63 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07293 $8,196.63
Please note that eve 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.
That you. Please ontact ""' if you have any questions.
Jon t rt
G loway of th Hi lands.
(253)606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
1kbartels@coulcast.net
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
C17Y of RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
10 3808 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100100 CP07301
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07301 $8,201.32
Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our projeot, 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 Nvith 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.
Tl you. Pleas contact ne if you have any questions:
hRll
alloway of a Highlands.
(253) 606-4439
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
'It aileis@coiiicast.net
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
C1TY of RENTaN
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way DUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Pees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02,070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building .Permit #
11 3804 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100110 CP07300
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07300 $8,201.32
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 Dope to
achieve a fair resolution of tho impact fee dispute.
A formal notice of appeal on f c impact fee issue will be filed in the near future.
Th you. Pleas cont' t me if you have any questions:
Jot ran ai e
G loway of th 14i lands.
(253)606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
ikbartels a,conicast.net
Galloway at the Highlands
Po Box 1204
Puyallup, SVA 98371
CITY OF PENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 U 2012
DevcIopmeat Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Pertnit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
12 3800 NE 3RD PLACI, 2690100120 CP07292
Dean City of Renton:
Enclosed is our clieck for $7,898.14 which represents the Building Permit fee and tho school impact fees
assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5 53 2, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit pees
CP07292 $7,898.14
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 ort 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 fec issue will be filed in the near future.
Tho lc you. Plea a contact me if you have any questions;
Jo ran ar s
Galloway a he iiglrlands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels conrcast.net
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
NTS 425-430-6510
Receipt
Date
El Cash r El Copy Fee 0 Notary Service
EdCheck No. El Appeal Fee ❑
A
Description: c
-11,
Funds Received From: Amount
Name
Address
City/Zip
City $w0sign&ure
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT
97576
DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# AMOUNT DEDUCTION_ NETAMOUNT
917 City of Renton
04/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels 250.00 250.00
RECEIVED
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
CHECK DATE I CONTROL NUMBER
04/27/12 97576 1 TOTALS ► Gross: 250.00 Ded: 0.00 Net: 250.00
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT
Vendor: 917 City of Renton
Date Description Invoice #
04/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels
C"hec.k T)atP f hark # Crncc Amt
04/27/12
97576 250.00
97576
Amount Disc Net Amt
250.04 250.00
Disc Amt Net Amt
0.00 254.00
L1445HGNI 3956779
T
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CPO 7301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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:
Carnpbe)L Di11e, Barnett & Smith, P.I J. -C. I A PiZO r-sSOMM.1.1=,n I_XAKn_rry (IOMI?AN-Y IN(I.L:I)rN(, A PRorr-cSIoN-Ar.sr-.RVICr Corux)RA-IION
t
Campbell, Dille, Barnett
A7 roxly> Ys
Smith, P.L.L.C.
}iOB1 - T la. CAMII) kH.1.0906-2()0)
TAUS ,M. ABOLINS
1-1OLLIS H.BARNF:1-17, P.S.*
Attorticvs at Law
STEPHEN A,BURNHAAS
,tK«o.i�Erxilr�nw-zo�l
BRYCEH.DILl ,R; .
HILLARY A. HOINF_S
317 SOUTH MElk] DIAN I ]IO- BOX 481 � 1'UY.kLLLT WASHING'1.ON 98371-01 4
ti1LA�'�1NON R. JONES
S1LANN NA. JONESPURC,1,1.
DAN IF-1.. W. S';VI1"1
JERFMY M. SWANN
* or C01ZNsr_i.
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513 FAX- (253) 845-4941
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TahsA@cdb-law.com WEBSITE: www.cdb-1aw.com
SUSAN BOAT, LPO
April 27, 2012
MAY 02 201c
Phil A. Olbreclits
Hearing Examiner
RECEfbEp
CITY Cf r RK'3 NF1 fcf_
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728
Renton, WA 98057
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CPO 7301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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:
Carnpbe)L Di11e, Barnett & Smith, P.I J. -C. I A PiZO r-sSOMM.1.1=,n I_XAKn_rry (IOMI?AN-Y IN(I.L:I)rN(, A PRorr-cSIoN-Ar.sr-.RVICr Corux)RA-IION
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 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,
there were no school impact fees for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the
property, representatives of Galloway Heights I, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the
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. 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.
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.
C2rTbe41)k Barnett & Smith, P.L1.C. I A PRCff-�S1(DNAL rrMMMr � unau mY aWPAW rraCr UmTNc A rmor•F'�,,ioha.i.SFxvr(F ❑--)RPORATION
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -3-
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 Lincoln Shiloh
Associates Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation
omitted).
We expect 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.
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 1, 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
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel.
CwTyL-e,Lh➢e,Bamem&Sr=th,Y.1.LC. I APROF --s IONM-fjn,nU-)LL�Bu COWANYma.UnrniGnrRoFi7";TONnI_srxvrcrt:()RPO K]lC)N
Phil A. Qlbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -4-
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,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
Talis M. Abolins
IMS
Enclosures
Cc: Client
IADATAOD HHBIMIBartels, Jonathan%Galloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22$27.0091Mty of Renton 4-1342.doex
Ga b 4 D7lc, Razr" & Snud-� RLLG I .a Puol-Essfot+ver.t MLED LIA IU -n GD AN V TNCI tmuae n rxRarF4stawu SERVIC owtrot ATION
Amends ORD 5317
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5442 Amended by ORO 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND $3,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title 1V (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith the City of Renton .has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for,each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,495; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,110 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
1
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
WHEREAS; the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2009 -- 2013-2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase in the
impact fee far new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi -family units to $3,266,
NO'"', THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Note 5 of subsection 4-1-160D, Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No, 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to take into account Iocal conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally. The City council establishes the following fees:
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-160J, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
Single-
Multi -Family
Family Fee
Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah
$5,495.00
Not
School
Applicable,
District
Kent School
$5,304.00
$3,266.00
District
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-160J, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
ORDINANCE N0. 5442
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
1. The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the
City as part of the Capita] Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
a. The Issaquah School District No. 4112007 Capital Facilities Plan;
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 — 2012-2013 Capital
Facilities Plan,
2_ On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the
City:
1. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilitics Plan;
2. An armual report on the School Tmpact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
SECTION LII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage; approval and
five (5) days after its publication,
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January , 2009,
Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of January '2009.
)p JAd,4, f, I ,,,
Derus Law, Mayor
3
ORDINIANCE 170. 5442
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 1 /16.12009— (summary)
ORD.] 526:12/11/08 _scr
4
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, VSA 95371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Tee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
9 3812 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100090 CP07293
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,196.63 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07293 $8,196.63
Please note that Nye 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 wilt be filed in the near future.
'fl
ha you. Please ,,,tact me if you have any questions:
Jon Il 't
G la y of th Hi lands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1244
Puyallup, WA 98371
ikbar(r,is@coineast.net coineast.net
Gallaway at the Highlands
Pa Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY U R ENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee 1 School Jmpact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
10 3808 NE 3RD PJ,ACE 2640100100 CP07301
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07301 $8,201,32
Please note that Nye 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 ]lope 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.
;allo
you.P/oHi610,ltds,
cact e if you have any questions:
7
hanway ofa
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Boaz: 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels&onlcast.nel
Galloway at the Highlands
Pry Sox 1204
Puyallup, SVA 98371
GTTYOF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton,
Development Services Division APR 2 0 2012
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot 4 Unit # Address Parcel # Building Perinit 4
11 3804 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100110 CP07300
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 whielr represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees
assessed by the City pursuant to tate Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amcnded by Ordinance
5532, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07300 $8,201.32
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.
Th you. Pleas coma t me if you have any questions:
Ja an a e
G loway of th Hi lands.
(253) 606-4939
P.Q. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartelsgcomcast.net
Gallaway at the Highlands
Pa Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee f School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
12 3800 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100120 CP07292
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $7,898.14 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Perinit Fees
CP07292 $7,898.14
Please note that we have a disagreement on the appJication of the school iinpact fees to our project, and
are therefore paying these fees under protest, in older to get permits for our development, pursuant to
RCW 82.02.0711(4).
We look for -ward to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but hope to
achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute.
A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future.
Tha >,k you. Plea 8 contact no if you have any questions;
J you'
r s
alloway o tic l4iglrlairds.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels@comcast.net
y
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
+
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6510
El Cash c—f -- ---7 1
q, Check No. I i "( 40
Description:
0 Copy Fee
El Appeal Fee
Receipt
Date
El Notary Service
El
j2 -
Funds Received From Amount !$ - - - . -- -
Name
"z i
Address
City/Zip
City $tqj�Signaure
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
Campbell, Dille, Barnett
CD
& Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
P -L rs D Campbe311.19UG-_'.000)
377S01TI"}1M1:WD1A\ R().B0'<498 I YUY!1}.I:l)I',VUASHJ\GI() 1)83;1-Ui64
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513 FAX: (253) 845-4941
SENDER'S E-MAIL: dsmith@cdb-law.com WEBSITE: www,cdb-law.com
04/30/2012 14,31 #458 P.001/013
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
ATTORNEYS
RC}BERTI-). CAMPBELL (1906-2000)
TNLIS M ABOLIN,'S
HOLLIS 1-1 BA tNCIT, P.S.*
tir£;PHEN A. BUltNHAM
RRYCI: A D1LL.L:, P.S.
IIILLIRY A HOLMf::S
SHANNON R.JONES
DEBORAH A. PURCELL
Di%NIEL W. SMITH
JEREMY \4. SWANN
* (Y' COUNS7.2.
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT. I -YO
DATE: April 30, 2412 CLIENT MATTER. Galloway at the Highlands
NUMBER OF PAGES: (INCLUDING COYER PAGE):
TO: Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
FAX NO.: 1-425-430-6523 — Hearing Examiner
1-425-430-6516 — City Clerk
FROM: Talis M. Abolins
COMMENTS: Notice of Appeal
IF YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTIES RECEIVING THIS MATERIAL, PLEASE CALL (253)
848-3513.
WARNING: Unless otherwise indicated, the information contained in this facsimile message is
information protected by the Attorney -Client and/or Attorney -Work Product Privileges. It is
intended only for the individual named above, and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this
having been sent by facsimile. If the reader of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the name recipient, is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the
original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. We will promptly
reimburse you for the telephone and postage expense.
Camp6eli, I>ille, Barnett & Smith, I�-}�1.,-�. ; rl PROE=C�ION,11. Li2�i1TTf.7] iJn[3FI.IlY C.f�I+iYA1Vl' IN{:f_UDINCx 1 PROI'�FSSIDN.�I.S]'iRVICT. CQI[F'URA'CiUN
From -Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
Campbell, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
317 tiC?UTH NIEFUNA;N I P0.130'<488 1'L;Yr1L.Ll 1! W'ASH1 r'C 1'L7\ �)4,�71-[I1Cra
TELEPHONE: (253) 948-3513 FAX: (253) 845-4941
SENDER'S E-MAIL: Talis.;�@cdb-law.com WEBSITE: www.cdb-law.com
April 27, 2012
Phil A. 01brechts
Hearing Examiner
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728
Renton, WA 98057
04130/2012 14:31 #458 P.0021013
Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3`d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
Dear Mr. Olbreehts:
ATTORNEYS
R,)BERTD.(-:Ai%-IRRVL1.;1906-2k0o)
.1. ALIS M. P301 -INS
HDi.LIS H.BAILNL'IT,
BRYCLI 11. DILLL, ]'.S.
E-IELI_ARY A. HO NIE`S
SHANNON R JONLS
DEBO L.ALH A. PURCELL
DANIEZ-W. SMITH
IEREMY M. SWANN
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SLISAN BOAT, LPO
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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, i]ille f3amett8c Smith, l'.3 _I C. ! :� ritc�rr tslo�:u.I.rn� f;r� t�.ni�s7.r �° e:c�titr,v�� INCJ EUIN(-: A PnOIT--_�,SIONAL SERVICI rCC RPORMION,
Fron:Gampbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14,31 #458 P.0031013
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 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, 4.1.150E(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,
there were no school impact fees for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the
property, representatives of Galloway Heights I, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the
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. 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.I.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.
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,
C_.ampbdi, DIP, BaaiT m & Sauth, 11.1 1.C. I A PRcxf-stiloN.Aj.1.wrrf.7-) uA II riY (I)MPAI n' iNa J-T)TNG A PROTT157O N V .S(=RV1C F`,C 0RPCXiA-1X)N
From:CampbeH , Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14:31 #458 P.0041013
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -3-
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 Lincoln Shiloh
Associates, Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist_, 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation
omitted).
We expect 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.
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 1, 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
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel,
Campbelll-Ac,Bametr&5mith,l�1.J,C. I.n rt¢C�rrssrov,v.rl�irrmr.v snnvC[r ,�*arra.���r+ nnRc�t� siai,v.st v�[t=.cx��rc�x,�nc
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14;31 #456 P,0051013
Phi! A. 4lbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -4-
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,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
}
Talis M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Enclosures
Cc: Client
I OATAl171HHB\M\Bartels, Jonathan\Galloway at the Highlands -School Impact Fees 22827.009\CCity of Renton 4.13-12.docx
� .""'t'be�, I}f�C, Ba<r7Ctt $C Sm[tl� 1�.1�..G ; A i'ROi-'�:SIONAI.I.Ii4tiFi:D I.IAAIIIIY CYht1PAl*iYI,�If1,LT}WG A YAt]FE_S'it(7NAf-��V1C:C; CCTiiPC)RA'tTC7?�
From -.Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454841 04/3012012 14:32 #458 P.0061013
Amends ORD 5317
CITY OF RENTON, WASErNGTON
ORDINTANCENO. 5442 Amended by ORD 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND $3,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration aad Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No, 4250 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith; the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,495; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretoforc collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,110 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family Unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/3012012 14:32 #458 P.007/013
ORDINANICE NO. 5442
WHEREAS, the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2009 — 2013-20I4 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase in the
impact fee for new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi -family units to $3,266;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOTS ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Note 5 of subsection 4-1-160D, Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington,-' is hereby amended to
read as follows:
S. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of new, housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally. The City council establishes the following fees:
SECTION 111z. Subsection 4-1-1603, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
Single-
Multi -Family
Family Fee
Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah
55,495.00
Not
School
Applicable,
District
Kent School
$5,304,U0
$3,266.00
District
SECTION 111z. Subsection 4-1-1603, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
2
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04130/2012 14:32 #458 P.008/013
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
of General Ordinances of the Cite of Renton, Washington?" is hereby amended to read as
follow -s:
1, The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the
City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Issaquah School District No. 411 2007 Capital Facilities Plan;
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 -- 2012-2013 Capital
Facilities Pian.
2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the
City -
1. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan;
2. An annual report an the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees,
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and
five (5) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January '2009,
�C7�'i�.rt tri 4 l cJ 3
Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of January 2009,
Denis Law, Mayor
3
Fram:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
Approved as to farm:
Lawrence J. 'Xarren, City Attorney
Date of Publication- 1/1612009 (summary)
ORD, 1526:12!1 1108:scr
4
0413012012 14:32 #456 P,0091013
Fran:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14:32 #458 P.010/013
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF AENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton,
Development Services Division APR 2 0 2M
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Buildin& Permit #
9 3812 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100090 CP07293
Deal' City of Renton -
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,196.63 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Pennit Fees
CP07293 $8,196.63
Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school iinpact 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 itie successful completion of our project, but hope to
achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute.
A fon-nal notice of appeal on the Impact fee issue will be filed in the near future.
T
ar�yoc Please orrtactme if you lave any questions:
n•t
G loway of th Hi lairds.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
j lcbartels[�comcast.net
From -Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 041`3012012 14:32 #458 P.011/013
Galloway at the Highlands
P4 Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Perinit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuaut to RCW 82.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Pennit #
10 3808 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100100 CP07301
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07301 $8,201.32
Please note that we have a disagreeiuerit 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 82.02.470(4).
We look forward to working with the City on flie srtccessful 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 iii the near future.
P
ou. Pleascntacte if you have any questions:
W of
a Hielslands_
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box I204
Puyallup, Wks, 9837.1
ikbaitels@corncast.net
From:Gampbell, DH le, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14:32 #458 P.0121013
Gallaway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CIiYOF RENTON
RECEIVE=D
City of Renton, APR 0 2�ti2
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02,070(4)
Lot # Emit # Address Parcel # Builfii& Permit #
11 3804 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100110 CP07300
Dear City of Renton.
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 vvhich represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees
assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.16011(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5532, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07300 $8,201.32
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 aider 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 Dope 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.
T9iiin
you. Pleas coma 'me if you have any questions.,
Jo
e
Gvay of th H' elands.
(253)506-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
Martels.. omeastmet
From:Campbeli, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04130/2012 14:33 #458 P.0131013
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
C17YOF RENTON
RECEIVECI
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2412
Development Services Division
1055 Sorrth Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Petznit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted urrder protest pursuant to RCW $2.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
12 3800 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100120 CP07292
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for 57,898.14 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07292 $7,898.14
Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school irnpact fees to our project, and
are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuatrt 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 near future.
Tha rk your.&Pleapactme ifyou have any questions:
r ranGa1lo1vayords.
(253)606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
' k a -lei r t.ne
T Jou,nal ; L-,.30, 2V2 2.36FM ] X
1) City c` R e r t c r MLyzr
2)
TXle
Date
Time
Destira: Cr
Mace
TX:iRe
'age
Result
User Name
Nc,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No v. 19.
20PM
HMA -CA -10a5
G3T:SM
0 41"
2
OK
0776
2' PM
HMA -GA -108'5
G3T=SM
042"
'. 2
OK
;775
Ncv.21.
4:50PM
HMA -CA -1085
C3TLSM
1 24"
4
OK
C7l1
Dec. 2.
1:15PM
2D6 694 5360
C3TESM
0"27"
4
OK
0789
Dec. 9.
11
24AM
Fax Server
03TSM
1"2.7"
_. 2
OK
0796
J-. 'S.
09PM
FaxNow Answering
G3TFSM
1"22"
D. 7
OK
0812
Jan -23.
4=4BPM
HMA -CA -10B5
C3TLSM
120'
3
OK
0816
4:53FM
HMA -CA -1085
G3T=5M
1. 26"
3
OK
0818
4,56FM
HMA -CA -1095
G3TFSM
1"26
' 3
OK
0617
Feb. 2.
10:
11 AM
HMA -CA -1085
C3T=SM
0"53"
?. 3
OK
0825
10:18AM
HMA -CA -1095
C3T=SM
0-53"
P. 3
OK
0826
Feb. 22.
3:02PM
PAC -MAIN
GSTSM
2.40"
6
OK
0834
5:43PM
1 847 865 5113
G3TFSM:
0 15"
1
OK
0$35
Mar. 7.
12:07PM
847-295-7634 L.96KXP4
63TSM
8"10"
15
OK
0850
Mar. 27.
2:58FM
BAC -MAIN
C3TSM
1"28"
3
OK
0859
5
20P
Delta Air Lines
G3T=SM
1"03"
6
OK
0862
Ma r. 30-
3:46PM
HMA -CA --1035
G3TFSM
"09"
P. 2
OK
0864
4 RX I',
File
Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time
Sender
Mede
RXt're
Cage
Result
User 1Name
Na,
No v. 22.
1:54PM
425 262 0071
03R=D
Q 40"
1
OK
0779
Nov. 25.
11:0SAW
G3RLS
C"'9"
° 1
OK
0791
No v. 28.
11:07AM
206 367 4051
G3R1)
546"
8
OK
0783
11:16AM
206 367 4')P1
03RD
5"3c"
P. 8
OK
0135
12'12PM
2083565790
G 3 R E D
137'
-- 4
OK
0737
Dec. 6.
11:54AM
G3R=S
C"'9"
°. 1
OK
0791
De c. 14.
7:04AM
6506556633
C3RLD
2 102"
P. e
OK
0793
Dec. 19.
6:23AM
2083565790
03RED
C'34"
0 1
OK
0795
Dec. 20.
11
:05AM
G3RLS
C 19'
°. 1
OK
0798
De c. 2fi.
4:29uM
FAX'T COMM
G3R=S
027"
1
OK
0800
Dec. 29.
1C:e5AM
G3R=S
34"
'. 2
OK
0803
Jar. 9.
S:97AM
FAX=T COMM
03RES
38"
' 1
UK
0805
11
1OAM
G3RES
C" 18"
_, 1
O{
0807
Jan. 11.
5:e
-/AM
202 708 9936
G3R.S
0 e.4"
OK
6810
.1a a_19.
9
05AM
G3R=S
4'40"
-. 1
OK
OS'^M_
Jan.25.
11
1 9A
G3R=S
015"
1
OK
0320
Jan. 26.
9
57A
208?565790
G3R=D
0"33"
'. 1
OK
0322
Feb. 9.
12:09PM
G3RES
0 1P'
1
OK
0830
Fe b. 2C.
11
3"AM
C-3R=S
0-18"
1
OK
0833
Feb. 27.
6'13AM
6506556633
G3RF5
4"27"
3
OK
0838
3,31PM
4252264095
G3RED
1"15"
'. 5
OK
0840
Feb.29.
5:34PM
SEA QFC ..1VIL RiGH-S
C3R7S
0'29'
2
OK
0845
Mar. 1.
11
13AM
G3RES
C. 18"
1
OK
0847
Ma r. 12.
2
1 4A
G3RFS
020'
1
OK
0852
Mer. 19.
1C:50AM
G3R=S
0 42"
F. 1
OK
0854
11:02AM
G3R.S
G 18"
1
OK
0856
Mar. 22.
:07AM
G3RES
0" 19'
- "
OK
0858
Ma r. 27.
4:51PM
niversa:
G3RLS
G 37'
OK
0861
Aar. 4.
1
02A
G3R=S
C"".9"
?
OK
0856
Apr.11,
11:02AM
G3RFS
0"`9'
',
OK
0868
Apr.18.
11:06AM
G3RES
020'
° 1
OK
0E 75
Apr.24.
11:02AM.
G3RLS
C '6,
1
OK
0060
Apr,30.
2:34
PP!
2538454941
G3RED
2""7"
F. 1 ;
UK
0836
TX Ccun= D00615
# : Batch
M Memory
S Standard
. Reriuctinn
C RX Notice Req.
L3 =older
C Corfldertlal
L Send ater
_ Qetal
H Stored/D. Servcr
A RX Ncti - e
RX Court 00059e-
3 Trans`.er
� PoewarCing
F Fine
� LAN -=ax
Ma i 1
P SER Cece
ECM
U Sure Fine
+ De1ive•y
-7: I0 -=AX
Frcr:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
Campbell, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Laity
:31.ISOUI'1 I MERID AN I P(}. 130(4,H k 1>1.iY.11.f.I � 1vASElI rC'1C7N'1 #�'%t-Olh•
TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513 FAX: (253) 845-4941
SENDER'S E-MAIL; dsmithQcdb-law_com WEBSITE; www.cdb-law.com
DATE: April 30, 2012
04130!2012 14:33 #459 P.0011013
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
—TTORNEYS
ROBL'RT D. C:AMI'IIL:'.LI, (1906-2000)
TALIS M. ABOUNS
1 [OLLIS KBARI`1:IT, RS,
STkiPJIEN A. BURNHAM
BRYCI" I -f. 0ILLE, Y.S. .
HILLARY A. HOLMES
SHANNON R. JONES
DUBORAIi A. PURCEI,L
DANIEL W. SMITH
IERL:MY M. SWANN
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT,1.PU
CLIENT MATTER: Galloway at the Highlands
NUMBER OF PAGES: (INCLUDING COVER PAGE):
TO: Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
FAX NO.: 1-425-430-6523 — Hearing Examiner
1-425-430-6516 — City Clerk
FROM: Talis M. Abolins
COMMENTS: Notice of Appeal
CITY OF RENTON
APR 3 0 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
IF YOU HAVE. ANY DIFFICULTIES RECEIVING THIS MATERIAL, PLEASE CALL (253)
848-3513.
WARNING: Unless otherwise indicated, the information contained in this facsimile message is
information protected by the Attorney -Client and/or Attorney -Work Product Privileges. It is
intended only for the individual named above, and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this
having been sent by facsimile. If the reader of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the .name recipient, is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the
original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. We will promptly
reimburse you for the telephone and postage expense.
Campbell, Dille, Bamett & Sraid), P1.LC. IA PROF G5510NnL1.[L iIZ7 l� 1 IAISII..FIY CC?h3I'AhfY ilVC1.L'171ttiL: h VRC7ti SSIC7N/sf.51 x4lCF:l:bftl'UAA'IlU V
From:CampbpEl, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
Campuell, Dille, Barnett
JD & Smith, RL.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
3.1" S0UTH X1FJt[DIA\ j I'.O. 1lOX 4188 I 1'L'Y,A[_I.;["-[? ur'1SHIN(., ]'ON 951371.(1161
TELEPHONE. (253) 848-3513 FAX; (253) 8454941
SENDER'S E-MAIL: T,&EsAQcdb-law.com WEBSITE: www.cdb-law.com
April 27,2012
Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Care of City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728
Renton, WA 98057
04130/2012 14,34 #459 P.0021013
Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3`d Place — Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690I00110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
—TTORNEY5
ROBERT D- CAA1NB1;1,L {1906-100)
'1'.11,1* N1..1BOLINS
HOLLIS H-RARNJ Yl% N.S.'
1'LJ'tiLl, A. N1JMNI-TAM
BRYCE H. DILL[,% N.S.
HILL 1RY A. 1101AM S,
sJ 1AI NON R. JONES
D1-'B0F-MI A. PURCELL
DAN11':L W. SMITH
f L -RL MY M. SWANN
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN Boni, Jago
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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, Dale, Bamett&Smith, 11.1..1_C. { AI)RU•isSSIONAJ.I.1M-rr..D?.Ahn.1'JYC:CIN[IIANYINC3.tF)ItiC;,SPR()IT�kglONA[,ST�RVIU':(:UAPC)1{A7TC)N
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/3012012 14:35 #459 P.0031013
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 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,
there were no school impact fees for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the
property, representatives of Galloway Heights 1, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the
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, 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.
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.
(;ampixl),1]illr,FSamettBcSmirh,Y.1.]_C. f nI�RU�Ft'�'tcxv.+�t.r]t�m��771]nt�trr[YrbMl��lnn�it��r3���rvr,nr�Un:�[U�:,v.sr�vurc:cxtrC7RnnUt�
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14.35 #459 P.0041013
Phil A. 01brechts
April 27, 2012
Page -3-
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
Iiability 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 Lincoln Shiloh
Associates Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App, 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation
omitted).
We expect 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.
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 adapting
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
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claire of equitable estoppel.
c���,z��u�,t�cc&s�a�,l�.f.r.r.. nrRc�rr��r�or�,u.iaamrnr.�nanr�Yccx�mnt��vivc:s�.Jnr?:l:,tirnc7rr_1��or�:�r.si:av�r�;to�tr�cx:n•non:
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14 36 #459 P.0051013
Phil A. albrechts
April 23, 2012
Page -4-
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,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
fj`� � 4
Talis M. Abool`i'Ijns
TMA/mal
Enclosures
Cc: Client
1ADATA\D1,F1HB\NMarte1s. Jonathan\Gaftway at the Highlands - School impact Fees 22R27.0091CCity of Menton 4-13-12.docx
Campbell,I)ille,Banett&5mit1,11J—I.0 IAPRi3f1;55IC3NAi.li\f17F�71.111HAFIYGC�Q'iLVSTNC1U171�1CAPRUtTSSIUNN.SI�tVICTCORi'(JRAiIUN
From:Campbefl, Dille, and Barnett
2538454941 04/3012012 14;37 #459 P.006/013
Arnends ORD 5317
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINTANCE NO. 5442 Amended by ORD 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO,
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHLNGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT 55,495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT 55,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND $3,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title 1V (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton;" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
single-family homes to $5,495; and
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title N (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,110 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
i
Frcm:Campbeli, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04/30/2012 14:37 #489 P.0071013
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
WHEREAS, the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2009 -- 2013-2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase in the
impact fee for new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi-farnily units to $3,266;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DOTS ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS -
SECTION I. Note S of subsection 4-1-160D, Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington*" is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to take into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally. The City council establishes the following fees:
SECTION 11, Subsection 4-1-1607, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No, 4260 entitled "Code
2
Single-
Multi -Family
Family Fee
Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah
55,495.00
Not
School
Applicable.
District
Kent School
$5,304,00
$3,266.00
District
i
SECTION 11, Subsection 4-1-1607, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Administration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No, 4260 entitled "Code
2
From;Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 04130/2012 1418 #459 P.0081013
ORDINANCE N4. 5442
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as
fO1lOW5:
I. The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the
City as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
a, The Issaquah School District No, 411 2007 Capital Facilities Plan;
L The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 — 2012-2013 Capital
Facilities Placa.
2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the
City:
I . The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan;
2, An annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
SECTION 1II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage; approval and
five (S) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January )2009,
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of January , 2009,
)p 1A.1 -A, - 1.1 /-,
Dens Law. Mayor
4
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 1/16/2002 ( summary)
ORD_ 1526:12/11/08:scr
4
04/3012012 1418 #459 P.009/013
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941 0413012012 14:38 #459 P.0101013
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APS D ��'�
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady way
Renton, WA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject: Permit Fee/ School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Building Permit #
9 3812 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100090 CP07293
Dear City of Reuton,
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,196.63 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Perrait # Permit Fees
CP07293 $8,196.63
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 iinpact fee issue will be filed iii the near fixture.
Tha you. ple"r
e ontact me if you have any questions:
.loll r
G loway of th Hi ands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Sox 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels0corncast.net
Frcm:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 253$454941
0413012012 14:39 #459 P.0111C13
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 95371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUll_DINO DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Pees submitted under protest puI'suant to RCW 82.02,070(4)_
trot # Unit 9 Address Parcel # Building Permit #
10 3808 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100100 CP07301
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201,32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
permit # Permit Fees
CF07301 $8,201.32
Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and
vi -e therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get pennits for our development, pursuaut to
RCW 82.02.070(4).
We look foiward to working with the City on the suceessfitl coluplatioz>< of our praject, Gut hope to
achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute.
A fvz•mal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be fled in the n"r fulure.
yo" ie Pleas contact ne if you have any questions;
azx
Alloway of e Highlands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallap, WA 98371
ikhdels@comcast.net
From:Campbell, Dille, and Barnett 2538454941
04/30/2012 1419 #459 P.0121013
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371.
047Y OF MENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR $ 0 2Q12
Development Services Division
1455 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject: Permit Fee ! School impact Fees subniifted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02,070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Ptu-cel # 13uildin Pertnit #
11 3804 NE 3RD PLACE
Dear City of Renton:
2690100110 CP07300
Enclosed is our check for $ 5,201.32 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Pertnit # Permit Fees
CP07300 $8,201.32
Please note that we have a disagreement on die 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 mir project, but !tope 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.
Tlt yo►►, Pleas costa t the if you have any questions:
Jot tan a►
G Ioway of th Hi Hands. '
(253) 606.4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
jkbartels@acomcast. ►tet
From:Gampbell, DAH e, and Barnett 2538454941 x413012012 14:39 #459 P.013/013
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITYOF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 D 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee 1 School Tnnpact Fees submitted under protest purstiant to RCW 82.02.070(4)
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # B uIldina Permit #
12 3800 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100120 CP07292
Dear City of Renton;
Enclosed is our clieck for $7,898.14 which represents the Building Penn it 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, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Fees
CP07292 $7,898.14
Please note that wo have a disagreement an 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 ►vorkirng 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,
Th kyou. Plea a contact ane if you have any questions:
J n r s
Galloway o re Highlands•
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
j kbartelsRoonjeast.1jet
Campbell, Dille, Barnett
& Smith, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
317`.- l0UTH,N1EIZJI)IAN I PO) BO: iM I PU1'AJ.L.L1:�Vt1SHJ�G'l(7\1�J8?%1-01(i/
TELEPHONE, (253) 848-3513
SENDER'S E-MAIL: TalisA@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: www,cdb-law.coln
April 27, 2012
Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL
Galloway at the Highlands
City of Renton -- NE 3rd Place – Lots 9, 10, 11, 12
Building Permits: CP07293 (Parcel 2690100090)
CP07301 (Parcel 2690100100)
CP07300 (Parcel 2690100110)
CP07292 (Parcel 2690100120
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
ATTORNEYS
ROBL11'1- D f JVPBLLL (1900,-2(11)17)
TA -US M. ABOLINS
HOLLIS H.11ARN1--y1,, I'.S.'"
s'J'HPHEN A. BURNHANI
BRYCE J I. DILLE, P.S.
HILLARY A. H OLMES
SHANNON R. )ONLS
DHBORAH A. PURCELL
DANIEL W. SMITH
XRLMY M. SWANN
* OF COLNSF-J.
ESCROW DEPARTMENT
SUSAN BOAT, L130
CI YOF REATON
MAY 0 2 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
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 7293, 7301, 7300 and 7292. With this correspondence we are
submitting the $250 appeal fee.
A series of additional Galloway permits will present the same issues for appeal.
Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(0), my client requests permission to consolidate review of
all these permits, so the issues can be efficiently resolved in a single review process.
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:
— — �1 �R Lu rn _
Campbell, DiHe, B=er & SR]1til, Pl.I.e. I A PROFESSIONAL I IMITFD I-FABUrry COMPANY INO. DING; A PROnSgONA1_ SGRVILT CORPORATI ON
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 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,
there were no school impact fees for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the
property, representatives of Galloway Heights I, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the
Ordinance and the impact fee schedule as a part of the due diligence process. In fact, it was a
City official (Craig BrunelI) who specifically pointed out the protections of this vesting provision
in a meeting with Mike Bauer. 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 Ianguage, 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.
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.
SPK LVe, f3aMCtt & srrub% 1)i1.C. I A PRoT:FMO AL'-nmM LUAB7]-7yCOMPANY n CJI[ DING A PRC) rssroNnI_s-3rVICF. C)ORpoR,nIIOM
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -3-
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, Valle 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 Lincoln Shiloh
Associates, Ltd, v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation
omitted).
We expect 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.
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 1, LLC relied upon the City's language in Section 2(E)
the Ianguage 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
needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject
to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel.
Ca Pbd,T3,i]e,B=M&5mnh,PJJ.C.I nracxrSsrC)NnJ.rrnffrnuABarr CDN6ANY iaJJDTNGAPnorrssIONnr.9mvrCFooprcxtnncx�
Phil A. Olbrechts
April 27, 2012
Page -4-
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,
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C.
Talis M. Abolins
TMA/mal
Enclosures
Cc: Client
IADATAIDIHHBIMIBanels, ]onathan\Galloway at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22827.00MCity of Renton 4-13-12.docx
C -a pbc. DJTe,Bamett&Smitl-�P.LLC I APROFF-MONV-UM FDLIAHR]iYCONIPANY1NQ,t1DNGAPRQI=ESSiCINALSl7tNnC-CoRpORARON
-- -.-.- r.���, ...___, —. . ...........y r.. .vnI11G I.7 HI LPkVV Vr-Nr- PkL HLLUUN I
97576
CATS CESGRlPiIDN CHECK
INVDCE # AMOUNT DEDNCTION NET AMOUNT
917 City of Renton
04/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels 250.00 250.00
CHECK [DATE I CONTROL NUMBER
04/27/12 97576 TOTALS OGross
Campbell. Dille, Hamm
& smith. P.L.L.C.
Allorae�s ar Law
317 Solna, Meridien
P.O. Eox 488
Puyallup, L4A 99171-0164
{ 2s 1 E48-3513 DATE
04/27/12
*** TWO HUNDRED FIFTY & 001100 DOLLARS
CrIYOF REh'TON
MAY 0 2 2012
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
250.00 Ded: 0.00 Net: 250.00
COLUMBIA STATE BANK
4226 SOUTH MERIDIAN
PUYALLUP. WA 96373
34$27n251
PAY
TCS THE
OF: City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton WA 98055
97576
m
CHECK AMOUNT °
97576 ****$250.00
I"C19?S?611ff I:i2S1082?21:?DD01j0L40Lv
CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT
Vendor: 917 City of Renton
Date Description Invoice #
04/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels
Check D t
97576
Amount Disc Net Amt
250.00 250.00
a e Check #
Gross Amt
Disc Amt
Net Amt
04127112 97576
250.00
0.00
250.00
I idd sur_An �arcr..,
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO, 5442
Amends ORD 5317
Amended by ORD 5514
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER I, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,
OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMEN'T REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.
4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,495
PER NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; SETTING THE IMPACT FEE AT $5,304 PER NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND 53,266 PER NEW MULTI -FAMILY HOME IN THE
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF RENTON.
WHEREAS, under section 4-I-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No
4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton;" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Issaquah School District
an impact fee of $6,021 for each new single-family home built within the District's boundaries,
and
WHEREAS, the Issaquah School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008 Capital Facilities Plan,
single-family homes to $5,495; and
which includes an decrease in the impact fee for new
WHEREAS, under section 4-1-160 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the reaps and reports adopted in conjunction
therewith, the City of Renton has heretofore collected on behalf of the Kent School District an
impact fee of $5,I I0 for each new single-family home and $3,146 per new multi -family unit
built within the District's boundaries; and
I
ORDINANCE N0. 5442
WHEREAS, the Kent School District requested that the City of Renton adopt the
District's 2008-2009 2013-2014 Capital Facilities Plan, which recommends an increase ill the
impact fee for new single-family homes to $5,304 and an increase in the impact fee for new
multi -family units to $3,266;
NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Note 5 of subsection 4-1-160D, Fee Calculations, of Chapter 1,
Administration and Enforcement; of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the Cite of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. The City Council may adjust the fee calculated under this subsection, as it
sees fit, to takc into account local conditions such as, but not limited to, price
differentials throughout the District in the cost of new housing, school occupancy
levels, and the percent of the District's Capital Facilities Budget, which will be
expended locally. The City council establishes the following fees:
Single- Multi -Family
Family Fee Fee Amount
Amount
Issaquah $5,495.00 Not
School Applicable.
District
Kent School $5,304.00 $3,266.00
District
SECTION II. Subsection 4-1-160J, Adoption of the District Capital Facilities
Plan and Submission of the Annual Updates and Report and Data, of Chapter 1, Admit,.istration
and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
of General Ordinances of the City of Renton. Washington," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
1. The following capital facilities plans are hereby adopted by reference by the
City as Part of the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Issaquah School District No. 4112007 Capital Facilities Plan,
b. The Kent School District No. 415 2007-2008 — 2012_201; Capital
Facilities Plan.
2. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the
City:
1. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan;
2. An annual report on the School Irnpact Pee Account, showing the source
and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public
improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and
five (S) days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of January } 2004
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12 th day of January 2009
14k -
Deers Law, Mayor
K
ORDINANCE NO. 5442
Approved as to form:
0. _rr�
Law7-ence I Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: r nna (summary)
ORD, 1526.12 1 1 /08:scr
4
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, 'VSA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
City of Renton,
RECEIVED
Development Services Division APR 2 0 2012
1055 South Gnady Way
Renton!, WA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW $2,42.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Buildin Permit 4
9 3812 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100090 CP07293
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,196.63 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 amcnded by Ordinance
5532, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Dees
CP07293 $8,196.63
Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school itttpact 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 oar the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future.
Tho yon. Please ontaot nie if you have any questions:
Jo
G lotvay of 'th Hilands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
Martels coinca .net
Galloway at the Highlands
PO Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
MY OF PENTON
RECEIVED
City ofRento11, APR 2 0 2012
Development Set -vices Division
1055 South Grady Way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject: Permit Fee 1 School Impact pees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot ## Unit # Address Parcel # Bui . Iding permit #
10 3808 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100100 CP0730I
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201,32 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees
assessed by the City pill-sualit to the Renton Mwiicipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5532, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit 4 Permit Fees
CP07301 $8,201.32
Please note that Nve have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and
air, therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get pernnits for 0111• 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,
Tl yoii. Pleas contact ne if you have any questions:
flit
ailoiway of a Highlands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 99371
jkbartels Q,comcastmel
Galloway at the Highlands
Po Box 1204
Puyallup, 'LATA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
City of Renton, R E C E I V E D
Development Services Division APR 2 0 2012
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject: Permit Fee / Selxool Impact Pees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel # Diii1ding Permit #
---------------
11 3804 NE 3RD PLACE 2690100110 CP07300
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $ 8,201.32 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school iinpact fees
assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinancc
5532, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Pennit # Permit Fees
CP07300 $8,201.32
Please note that we have a disagreement oil 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 successf"I coinpletiojx 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.
Thaak yon. Pleasp conte t me if you have any questions:
Jo yen ai e
G Iaway of th Hi lands.
(253) 606-4939
P.O. Dox I204
Puyallup, WA 98371
']cbartels mcast.net
Galloway at the Highlands
PQ Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
CITY OF RENTON
RECEIVED
City of Renton, APR 2 0 2012
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady way BUILDING DIVISION
Renton, WA 98057
Subject; Permit Fee! School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4).
Lot # Unit # Address Parcel 4 Building Permit #
12 3800 NE 3RD PLAC1; 269010012.0 CP07292
Dear City of Renton:
Enclosed is our check for $7,898.14 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees
assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.I60E(2) (as amended by Ordinance
5532, Marc 8, 2010).
Building
Permit # Permit Nees
CP07292 $7,898.14
Please note that Nve have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to ail" project, and
are tllerefore paying these fees under protest, in 01-dcr to get permits for our development, pursuarlt to
RCW 82.02.070(4).
We look fomard to working with the City oil 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 nnpact fee issue will be filed in the near future.
The lk yau.&he
act me if you have any questions;
7 pan
Galloway olds.
(253) 606-4939
P.O, Box 1204
Puyallup, WA 98371
ikbartels@gqlllcast.net