## Facts

- A 26.71-acre parcel in Redmond, Washington was zoned light industrial since 1964.
- Valley View Industrial Park formed in 1978 to develop the parcel as an industrial park.
- In September 1978, Valley View submitted a site plan and a building-permit application for one of twelve planned buildings; the City sought additional information over time, which Valley View provided.
- In early 1979, Valley View filed four more building-permit applications, for a total of five.
- In June 1979, the City adopted a revised zoning code that rezoned the parcel from light industrial to agricultural use.
- The City refused to allow the industrial-park development to proceed and later denied Valley View’s request to rezone the property back to light industrial.
- Valley View sued seeking mandamus to require review under the former zoning, a declaration of an unconstitutional taking, and damages and attorney’s fees; the trial court ordered processing under light industrial zoning but denied damages, and the City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Valley View acquired vested rights to have its five building-permit applications processed under the light-industrial zoning in effect when filed, despite the later rezoning.
2. Whether the City could apply the later agricultural zoning to Valley View’s project as a valid exercise of police power.
3. Whether the City’s rezoning and refusal to process under the former zoning constituted an unconstitutional taking requiring damages and attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment requiring the City to process the five permit applications under the light-industrial zoning in effect when the applications were filed.
- The court held Valley View’s rights vested upon filing permit applications that complied with then-existing zoning and building regulations, and City-caused delays did not defeat vesting.
- The court rejected the City’s attempt to use the subsequent agricultural rezoning to bar the already-filed project applications.
- The court affirmed denial of interim damages and denied attorney’s fees, concluding the circumstances did not establish a compensable taking.

## Legal Principles

- In Washington, a developer’s zoning rights vest when a complete building-permit application that complies with existing zoning and building regulations is filed; subsequent zoning changes generally do not apply to that application.
- Municipal land-use regulation under police power must bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or welfare, but cannot be applied to extinguish rights that have already vested.
- A determination that vested rights were violated does not itself establish a compensable taking; takings liability requires a separate showing of sufficiently severe and lasting interference, and permitting delay within a reasonable period may not support monetary compensation.

## Conclusion

Because Valley View filed five code-compliant building-permit applications before the rezoning, it was entitled to have those applications processed under the earlier light-industrial zoning, and the City could not apply the later agricultural classification to defeat that entitlement; however, the court found no compensable taking and therefore affirmed denial of damages and attorney’s fees.


Valley View Indus. Park v. City of Redmond, 733 P.2d 182 (Wash. 1987)