City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC

FILED
JANUARY 25, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
CITY OF UNION GAP, a municipal )
corporation of the State of Washington, ) No. 34740-1-III
)
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) PUBLISHED OPINION
PRINTING PRESS PROPERTIES, )
L.L.C., a Limited Liability Corporation )
registered and doing business in )
Washington State, )
)
Respondent. )
FEARING, C.J. — Plaintiff city of Union Gap and defendant Printing Press
Properties, LLC, (Printing Press) scrimmage as to whether Printing Press may cut a curb
and gain direct access to a major arterial from its land. The trial court granted Printing
Press summary judgment and denied Union Gap an injunction to prohibit the access.
Because Printing Press signed a development agreement granting Union Gap the
prerogative to deny direct access to the arterial, we reverse and grant judgment to Union
Gap.
FACTS
This lawsuit concerns Printing Press’ access to Valley Mall Boulevard, a new
arterial, whose centerline often serves as the boundary between the cities of Yakima and
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
Union Gap. Union Gap, the original Yakima City, lies to the south of Yakima. The
boulevard runs east-west and connects Interstate 82 and the Yakima Air Terminal,
Yakima’s principal airport. Union Gap designed, constructed, and maintains the
boulevard.
Printing Press owns commercial property abutting Valley Mall Boulevard and
adjacent to the boulevard’s intersection with Longfibre Road. All of Printing Press’ land
now lies within the Yakima City limits and north of the boulevard. Railroad tracks run
north and south and lay directly east of Printing Press’ land. As part of the boulevard
improvement, Union Gap constructed a bridge over the tracks.
Printing Press seeks to build direct access from its property to Valley Mall
Boulevard. It labels this access as a “driveway.” The city of Union Gap, citing safety
concerns, denied Printing Press’ application to create the driveway. Instead of appealing
Union Gap’s denial of access, Printing Press withdrew its application and submitted the
same proposal to the city of Yakima, which proposal Yakima approved. With this suit,
Union Gap seeks to permanently enjoin Printing Press from cutting the boulevard curb
such that a constructed driveway permits access on to the boulevard.
Before construction of Valley Mall Boulevard, Longfibre Road provided ingress
and egress to Printing Press’ land via Washington Avenue, a major east-west arterial to
the north of the boulevard. Printing Press’ land abuts Longfibre Road. Longfibre Road
still connects Printing Press’ land to Washington Avenue and now connects the land to
2
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
the boulevard. Printing Press assigned some of its land to Lowe’s Home Improvement
for a store. Printing Press and Lowe’s seek direct access to the boulevard.
Before commencing construction for Valley Mall Boulevard, Union Gap adopted
city Ordinance 2123 to govern use of the future boulevard. The ordinance intended to
provide coordinated standards for permitting access to the boulevard and to confirm that
the access rights of abutting landowners are subordinate to the public’s right and interest
in a safe and efficient arterial system. UNION GAP MUNICIPAL CODE (UGMC) 9.34.010.
Union Gap Ordinance 2123 designated the boulevard as a “controlled access arterial” and
permits driveway access to the boulevard only “when other alternatives such as an
abutting public street or internal access road are not possible for access.” UGMC
9.34.060(a).
Union Gap possesses authority to condemn property outside its jurisdiction. RCW
8.12.030; In re Petition of City of Long Beach, 119 Wn. App. 628, 634, 82 P.3d 259(2004). Nevertheless, to anticipatorily quell Yakima residents’ concerns about Union
Gap’s control along Valley Mall Boulevard on Yakima’s side of the road, Union Gap and
Yakima, on March 8, 2001, entered an interlocal agreement. The two had planned the
boulevard since the late 1990s. The agreement in part reads:
This Interlocal Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF
YAKIMA, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter “Yakima,” and
the CITY OF UNION GAP, a Washington municipal corporation,
hereinafter “Union Gap,” each being duly authorized and acting under the
3
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
laws of the State of Washington, pursuant to authority vested in each by the
Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW Chapter 39.34, as follows:
1. Union Gap is involved in the development of a project known as
the “Valley Mall Boulevard Extension,” which is an effort to purchase right
of way and construct an extension of Valley Mall Boulevard from its
present location near the I-82 Interchange in Union Gap to the Yakima Air
Terminal, some distance to the West. Yakima supports this project and has
allocated $590,000.00 of federal highway safety funds for the project. The
Valley Mall Boulevard project is a cooperative venture between the
Washington State Department of Transportation, the City of Yakima, the
City of Union Gap, and Yakima County. The project is of major
significance to the entire region as it would provide an important direct link
between the air terminal and the I-82 freeway.
2. Union Gap Ordinance No. 2271 authorized the Union Gap City
Attorney to initiate condemnation proceedings for acquisition of the
necessary right of way in Yakima County Superior Court Cause No. 01-2-
00041-1.
3. In the course of the hearing required for adjudication of use and
necessity of this project, some land owners have argued that the Property
sought to be condemned is located within the boundaries of the City of
Yakima and not within the boundaries of the City of Union Gap. . . .
4. The parties hereto are authorized by RCW 39.34.030 to exercise
their powers of condemnation jointly, and for that purpose, the City of
Yakima herewith assigns to the City of Union Gap all of its authority and
attendant ability to condemn the Property for the Valley Mall Boulevard
Project, as described in Exhibit A. For these purposes, the City of Union
Gap may act on behalf of the City of Yakima, in its place and stead, in the
negotiation for, condemnation and acquisition of the Property located
within the boundaries of the City of Yakima.
5. As partial consideration for this joint undertaking, Union Gap
shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold Yakima harmless from and
against any and all claims, demands, losses, liens, liabilities, penalties,
fines, lawsuits, and other proceedings and costs and expenses (including
attorney’s fees and disbursements), which accrue to or are incurred by
Yakima on or after execution of this Interlocal Agreement and arise directly
or indirectly from or out of, relate to, or in any way are connected with
(1) The eminent domain proceedings or any related actions
contemplated by this Interlocal Agreement.
4
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
(2) Challenges concerning the legal authority to enter into or
implement this lnterlocal Agreement or the ordinance authorizing
condemnation.
....
(5) The design, construction, reconstruction, installation,
repair, maintenance, operation, alteration, or modification of the Valley
Mall Boulevard street and transportation improvements (or other public
improvements) on the property . . . .
....
7. Yakima and Union Gap agree that this Interlocal Agreement shall
have an indefinite duration and cannot be terminated unless both parties
consent in writing to such termination.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 249-51. Yakima passed and adopted the interlocal agreement as a
city ordinance on March 6, 2001.
In a declaration in support of Printing Press’ summary judgment motion, Yakima
City Attorney Jeff Cutter expounded on Yakima’s view of the agreement. Although
Cutter interpreted the agreement to authorize Union Gap to act as Yakima’s agent, he
declared that the:
Interlocal Agreement simply authorized Union Gap to act on behalf
of Yakima with respect to the condemnation of properties located within
Yakima jurisdiction. Union Gap acted as “agent” for City of Yakima. It
did not change municipal boundaries, relinquish jurisdictional authority or
otherwise modify land use authority with respect to properties lying within
the City of Yakima.
CP at 1046. Jeff Cutter challenged Union Gap’s claim that Yakima assigned Union Gap
the former’s “regulatory authority to regulate the Boulevard.” CP at 963.
To facilitate the Valley Mall Boulevard project after signing the interlocal
agreement, Union Gap procured the needed land through a combination of voluntary
5
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
purchases and condemnation proceedings. Around 2000 and before signing the interlocal
agreement, Union Gap contacted Printing Press to acquire a strip of the southern portion
of its land to lengthen the boulevard to the west. Although some Yakima residents
contested Union Gap’s authority to condemn land located in Yakima, Printing Press did
not. Printing Press’ land then rested in both Yakima and Union Gap.
During negotiations for the purchase of Printing Press’ land, Union Gap paid
Printing Press $750 to conduct an appraisal of the needed 95,377 square feet of land.
Printing Press’ appraisal acknowledged that immediate access to its land “is by Longfibre
Road which is a satisfactory two lane rural road,” and that “[w]hen Valley Mall
Boulevard is completed, immediate access [to the boulevard] may not be enhanced due
[to] the rise of [a] bridge over the railroad tracks.” CP at 324. Printing Press denies that
this appraisal language contemplated Union Gap’s acquisition of Printing Press’ access
rights to the boulevard.
Printing Press’ appraisal valued the portion of 95,377 square feet of property to be
taken by Union Gap for Valley Mall Boulevard at $125,600. Union Gap ultimately
purchased the plot from Printing Press for $45,000. According to Printing Press, it
donated the difference between the purchase price and the value of the property to the
boulevard project. As part of the transfer, Printing Press required Union Gap to sign a
“Donee Acknowledgment,” that recognized that Union Gap acquired all of Printing
Press’ “right, title or interest in the property by quitclaim deed.” CP at 239.
6
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
On March 19, 2001, Printing Press executed a quitclaim deed to a narrow strip of
land for use as part of Valley Mall Boulevard in favor of Union Gap. The deed read, in
relevant part:
Valley Mall Boulevard Extension
The Grantor, Printing Press Properties, LLC, a Washington Limited
Liability Company, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN and No/100
—($10.00)—Dollars, and other valuable consideration, conveys and
quitclaims to the City of Union Gap, a Municipal Corporation of the State
of Washington, the following described real estate, and any after acquired
interest therein, situated in Yakima County, in the State of Washington, to
the same extent and purpose as if the rights herein granted had been—
acquired under Eminent Domain statutes of the State of Washington.
CP at 394. The transfer included only a small portion of Printing Press’ parcel. Printing
Press reserved no easement or other interest in the transferred land. Nevertheless, Jay
Sentz, managing member of Printing Press, declares that the deed did not transfer access
rights to the boulevard. He characterizes the deed as only transferring a right of way to
Union Gap. UGMC 9.34.030(b) recognizes that “every owner of property which abuts a
controlled access arterial has the right to reasonable access to that roadway.” Printing
Press continued to own land immediately abutting the purchased land and north of Valley
Mall Boulevard.
The city of Union Gap commenced construction of Valley Mall Boulevard
following the acquisition of all needed land, and Union Gap remained the lead agency on
all project phases. The total cost of the boulevard project was $21.5 million. Union Gap
7
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
contributed seven percent of the total project cost. Most funding came from the federal
government. The city of Yakima contends it served as the certification acceptance
agency for the project and that its duties as this agency included review and approval of
all project designs, plans, specifications, utility and railroad agreements, consulting and
engineering agreements, construction estimates, award and execution of construction
contracts, and construction administration. Union Gap claims it entered all agreements
regarding the design and construction of the arterial road.
Valley Mall Boulevard now constitutes a completed four-lane “Intermodal
Connector” providing vital access between Interstate 82, lying east of Union Gap and
Yakima, and the commercial, industrial and agricultural businesses to the west of the
cities of Yakima and Union Gap. The boulevard extends 3.3 miles with a half mile
section of its centerline aligned with the boundary between Union Gap and Yakima. The
speed limit on the boulevard is 40 m.p.h. Union Gap pays all bills for street lighting.
Union Gap performs boulevard striping, sweeping, maintenance, vegetation control, and
snow and ice control. The Union Gap Police Department responds to calls for
emergencies on the boulevard.
In 2006, the city of Union Gap approached Printing Press Properties to participate
in a partnership to improve the Valley Mall Boulevard and Longfibre Road intersection.
The two entities, along with Clary Properties, LLC, an owner of land to the west of
Longfibre Road, reached a development agreement, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170, to
8
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
recondition the intersection. Before the entry of the agreement, a wedge-shaped portion
of Printing Press’ land rested within the municipal boundaries of the city of Union Gap,
with the remaining larger portion of Printing Press’ parcel within the boundaries of the
city of Yakima. We refer to the area formerly inside Union Gap limits as “the wedge.”
We refer to the remaining larger portion as the “eastern portion.” Although the boundary
between the two cities generally runs east and west, the boundary along Longfibre Road
then turned and ran north and south. The wedge lies immediately to the east of Longfibre
Road. We will refer to all of Printing Press land, in other words, both the wedge and the
eastern portion, as the “entire tract.” The property constitutes one tax parcel. Other than
the wedge formerly resting in Union Gap, no reason existed to distinguish the wedge
from the eastern portion of the land. Exhibit B, attached to the development agreement,
assists in identifying and understanding the layout of Printing Press’ land, Valley Mall
Boulevard, Longfibre Road, and the Clary land. We attach the exhibit to this opinion.
We also attach two overhead photographs of the area.
Yakima and Union Gap agreed to adjust the municipal boundaries so that all of the
Printing Press’ property would sit within the boundaries of the city of Yakima. In other
words, Yakima, with the permission of Union Gap, annexed the wedge. Union Gap and
Printing Press agreed to extend Longfibre Road farther south to provide greater access to
Printing Press’ land and to add utilities in the improved area.
9
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
On February 28, 2008, the city of Union Gap and Printing Press entered a
development agreement to consummate the understanding with regard to improvement of
the Longfibre Road and Valley Mall Boulevard intersection. A major question on appeal
is whether the development agreement covers only the wedge formerly within Union Gap
or Printing Press’ entire tract. The recording cover sheet for the agreement contains a
“legal description, abbreviated form” that reads:
Legal Description (abbreviated form: i.e. lot, blk., plat or S.T.R.
quarter/quarter)
SE1/4 SW1/4 SE1/4 S. 31, T 13N, R. 18 EWM
Additional legal is on page _____
Assessor’s Property Tax/Parcel Account Number
191331-44004
CP at 602. The first page of the development agreement contains the following block:
Grantors: (1) PRINTING PRESS PROPERTIES, LLC
Grantee: (1) CITY OF UNION GAP
Abbreviated Legal Description: SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S31, TI3N, R18 EWM
Complete legal description is attached as Exhibit A to this document.
Assessor’s Tax Parcel ID Nos.: 191331-44004
CP at 603. Exhibit A attached to the development agreement reads:
Exhibit “A”
That part of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the
southeast quarter of Section 31, Township 13 North, Range 18 East W.M.,
lying westerly of the city limits of Yakima, Washington.
10
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
CP at 612 (emphasis added). The property to the west of the Yakima limits is the wedge.
The body of the agreement declares:
RECITALS
A. Whereas, the City of Union Gap, in partnership with the Yakima
County Development Association (YCDA), is seeking to facilitate the
development of commercial and light industrial-zoned property in the
vicinity of Ahtanum Road, Valley Mall Boulevard and Longfibre Road;
and
B. Whereas, as a part of this process the City has applied for and
received grant and loan funds to implement a multi-phase strategy of road,
water and intersection improvements (“Phase 2 Road Improvements”) to
serve commercial and light industrial zoned properties; and
C. Whereas, Bud Clary Toyota of Yakima (“Clary”) and PPI
[Printing Press Properties] are owners of real property located at the
intersection of Valley Mall Boulevard and Longfibre Road and intend to
develop such properties (the “Subject Properties”); and
D. Whereas, the development of the subject Properties is facilitated
by the extension of Longfibre Road and significant community benefits are
derived from the further development of a traffic grid system, extension of
public water services and potential employment and tax revenues derived
from development;
E. Whereas, the parties to this Agreement desire to establish a
framework, to the extent authorized by state law, in order to integrate and
expedite the timely review, approval and construction of the proposed
private development and supporting public improvements.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the parties hereby agree as
follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Proposed Private Development. PPI owns or controls certain real
properties located in the City of Union Gap, commonly known as the PPI
site, legally described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. It is the intent of PPI to sell and/or develop the
subject property with commercial or light industrial land uses consistent
with applicable municipal development standards.
2. Amendment of Municipal Boundaries. The PPI property is
currently subject to split jurisdiction between City of Yakima and City of
Union Gap. The approximate location of the current municipal boundary is
11
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
set forth on attached Exhibit B. . . . It is agreed that the entire PPI parcel
will be incorporated into the City of Yakima. All of the road right-of-way
improvements for Longfibre Road as it extends north from Valley Mall
Boulevard shall be within the jurisdiction of the City of Union Gap.
3. Participation in Phase 2 Road Improvement. PPI shall participate
in Longfibre Road Phase 2 Road Improvements as follows:
a. PPI shall dedicate to the City such right-of-way and
slope/drainage easements that may be required to extend Longfibre Road as
depicted in Exhibit C. . . . In general terms the right-of-way will include
the following:
i. The improvements will include street, sidewalk, lighting and storm
drainage. . . .
ii. Accommodation of intersection improvements and signalization
equipment including turn lanes necessary on Longfibre Road at the
intersection with Valley Mall Boulevard.
....
c. PPI shall incorporate the following access management
requirements into all site development plans:
i. PPI acknowledges that provisions of UGMC Chapter 9.34 may
prohibit direct access to Valley Mall Boulevard. Any access to the property
from Valley Mall Boulevard shall be subject to municipal review and
conditioning at time of project permit application.
CP at 603-05 (emphasis added). The parties’ dispute focuses on subsection 3.c.i. of the
agreement. We will alternatively refer to this subsection as the “access subsection” or
“subsection i.” The development agreement continues in section 3.c:
ii. The centerline of the southerly most access point from the PPI
property to Longfibre Road shall be no closer than 200-feet from the south
property line to the subject property.
iii. Additional access points to Longfibre Road shall be a minimum
of 200-feet apart as measured centerline to centerline and must be
coordinated with access points on the west side of Longfibre Road, unless
otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
d. PPI will be responsible for and shall contribute its identified share
of the costs associated with the construction of the Phase 2 Road
Improvements, such estimate of project funding set forth on Exhibit D. PPI
12
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
shall not be responsible for any portion of the improvement costs for
extension of the City of Union Gap water main or intersection
improvements (including traffic signal improvements) to Longfibre
Road/Valley Mall Boulevard. . . .
....
4. SIED Grant and Loan Funds. City has applied for and received a
grant of up [to] $278,000 and loan of up to $278,000 from the Yakima
County Supporting Investments in Economic Development (SIED) Board
to assist in the financing of Phase 2 - Longfibre Road Improvement
Projects. . . . Such improvements include approximately 600 linear foot
arterial road extension north from Valley Mall Boulevard . . . ; intersection
improvements and traffic signals at Valley Mall Boulevard and Longfibre
Road . . . ; and water main extension (approximately 1300 LF) along the
east side of the Clary property . . . . These improvements subject to
conditions and provided that:
a. City shall design, build, construct, and maintain the improvements
associated with the extension of Longfibre Road and the extension of the
City water main in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SIED
Contract . . . .
....
c. The City shall consult with PPI prior to taking the following
actions:
i. the approval of the plans and specifications for Schedule A of the
SIED funded improvements and,
ii. Approval of the lowest responsible bid for Schedule A
improvements.
....
d. . . .
iv. Except as set forth above, PPI shall have no responsibility for
costs, expenses or charges with respect to Phase 2—Longfibre Road
Improvement Projects
e. PPI shall, within thirty (30) days following written request by the
City, make a cash payment to the City for the down payment portion of the
SIED funded improvements of $10,493. The failure to perform may result
in the suspension or termination of any or all SIED funded activities.
....
8. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that any lawsuit is instituted by
either party to this Agreement arising out of or pertaining to this
Agreement, including any appeals and collateral actions relative to such
13
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
lawsuit, the substantially prevailing party as determined by the court shall
be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and
all costs and expenses incurred relative to such lawsuit from the
substantially nonprevailing party, in addition to such other relief as may be
awarded.
....
13. Reservation of City Authority. As required by RCW
36.70B.170(4), and notwithstanding the terms of this Agreement, Union
Gap reserves the right to establish and impose new or different regulations
or to impose new mitigating measures to the extent required to address a
serious threat to public health or safety.
CP at 605-08. Printing Press contends that the development agreement does not cover
the eastern portion of its land. Union Gap claims it would not have executed the
development agreement and participated in the extension of Longfibre Road and the
improvements along Longfibre Road without the development agreement covering all of
Printing Press’ land.
In the fall of 2012, a Lowe’s store proposed to move its retail location from Union
Gap to Yakima. Printing Press believes that Union Gap has retaliated to render Lowe’s
move costly, such as thwarting access from the store directly to Valley Mall Boulevard.
Union Gap does not deny the tax implications stemming from Lowe’s change in
locations, but denies any reprisal.
Printing Press and Lowe’s entered into a contract under which Lowe’s constructed
a new retail store, whose footprint lies inside both the wedge and the eastern portion of
the land. Under Printing Press’ agreement with Lowe’s, if Printing Press secures a permit
for direct access of a driveway onto the boulevard, within five years of Lowe’s opening
14
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
business, Lowe’s will reimburse Printing Press for all driveway construction and
permitting costs up to $170,000. Printing Press thereafter commenced steps to gain direct
access to Valley Mall Boulevard.
Consistent with the development agreement, Printing Press Properties submitted
permit applications to the city of Union Gap in early 2015 to construct a driveway with
access onto Valley Mall Boulevard. Union Gap describes its review of that application
with a declaration from the Union Gap Director of Public Works & Community
Development Dennis Henne, who testified:
Union Gap spent significant time reviewing this application and
meeting with consultants to determine whether it would be safe to grant this
permit and whether it met applicable highway requirements. For instance,
Union Gap consulted with HLA Engineering and Land Surveying regarding
safety concerns over sight, distance, and speed, and ultimately determined
that the proposed project did not meet generally acceptable design practices
for an Intermodal Connector and was unsafe. The American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO) Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, provide guidance to the
designer by referencing a range of values for critical dimensions. The
manual recommends a minimum sight distance for passing decisions on a
designed 45 [m.p.h.] Rural and Urban Arterial to be 1625 (ft), more than
double the sight distance of the proposed [Printing Press Properties]
driveway.
CP at 240-41.
Union Gap worries about low or short sightlines on the boulevard due to
undulations in the road caused by the bridge over the train tracks. Union Gap claims
drivers on the boulevard that would slow or stop at Lowe’s driveway could cause rear-
15
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
end collisions and traffic congestion. Printing Press disputes the safety concerns about
access to its land from Valley Mall Boulevard and criticizes Union Gap Public Works
Director Dennis Henne for lacking a professional engineer’s license.
On August 25, 2015, Union Gap sent Printing Press a letter denying the access
permit application. On September 15, 2015, Printing Press submitted a letter to Union
Gap withdrawing its application. Printing Press chose not to appeal and subsequently
submitted another application to the city of Yakima.
The city of Yakima approved two permits for Printing Press. The first permit
authorizes excavation for the proposed driveway and demolition of existing boulevard
improvements, including sidewalks and curbing. Yakima also issued an engineering
permit to construct the driveway. Printing Press then dedicated an easement on its land to
the public for the driveway. Yakima officials did not share the safety concerns expressed
by Union Gap about Printing Press’ land’s access to Valley Mall Boulevard.
Union Gap notified Printing Press in writing that Union Gap, not Yakima,
controlled access to the boulevard and that Printing Press lacked authority to construct
the driveway. Nonetheless, Printing Press started construction, but stopped short of
cutting curbs or sidewalks and accessing the boulevard.
PROCEDURE
Union Gap filed suit against Printing Press to obtain an injunction precluding
Printing Press from cutting curbing along Valley Mall Boulevard and building a driveway
16
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
to access the boulevard. Union Gap asserted a cause of action for breach of the
development agreement. Union Gap alleged that a Washington city may control real
property it owns and a private party cannot force a city to allow direct access to a road the
city owns when: (1) the private landowner lacked access to the road before the city
improved the road, (2) the private landowner signed a contract that prohibited direct
access onto the road, (3) the city provided, at great expense, alternative access to the
private land from an adjacent public road, and (4) the city purchased the land, on which
the road sits, in fee title from the private landowner. In response, Printing Press
emphasized that its land lies entirely inside the jurisdiction of the city of Yakima and
Yakima holds authority to determine access from the north of the boulevard. Printing
Press also contended that Union Gap’s failure to appeal, under the Land Use Petition Act
(LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, the city of Yakima’s approval of the grade and access
permits to construct the driveway bars this suit as untimely.
Union Gap and Printing Press filed cross-motions for summary judgment. By its
motion, Union Gap requested an order declaring that Printing Press lacked a legal right to
open an access driveway from its property to Valley Mall Boulevard. Union Gap also
sought an injunction precluding Printing Press from cutting the curb along the boulevard.
Printing Press, by its summary judgment motion, sought dismissal of all of Union Gap’s
claims.
17
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
The trial court granted Printing Press’ motion. The trial court concluded that
Union Gap could not regulate outside its jurisdiction and that the development agreement
covered only the wedge. Pursuant to the parties’ contract, the trial court granted Printing
Press reasonable attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under familiar principles of summary judgment jurisprudence, this reviewing
court reviews an order for summary judgment de novo. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358,
370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). We must determine whether “‘the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Parkin v. Colocousis, 53 Wn. App. 649, 653,
769 P.2d 326 (1989) (quoting CR 56(C)). Both parties sought summary judgment before
the trial court. Neither party contends disputed facts preclude a grant of summary
judgment.
Land Use Petition Act
Printing Press asks that this court deny review of the merits of the city of Union
Gap’s appeal. Printing Press observes that Union Gap failed to appeal the city of
Yakima’s decision to issue permits for the driveway, and, thus, Printing Press asserts that
Washington’s LUPA bars this suit. Because of the nature of Union Gap’s suit, we
disagree.
18
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
LUPA pertains to judicial review of all land use decisions with some exceptions
noted in the statute. RCW 36.70C.010-.030; Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904,
916, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). In enacting LUPA in 1995, the Washington Legislature
determined that LUPA “shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use
decisions,” with certain specific exceptions. RCW 36.70C.030(1); Chelan County v.
Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d at 917 (emphasis and footnote omitted).
LUPA bars a land use petition, and the court may not grant review of the petition
unless the petitioner files the petition with the court within twenty-one days of the
issuance of the land use decision. RCW 36.70C.040(3); Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wn.
App. 784, 799, 133 P.3d 475 (2006). LUPA’s statute of limitations begins to run on the
date an agency issues a land use decision, and even illegal decisions must be challenged
in a timely, appropriate manner. Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 407-
08, 120 P.3d 56 (2005). Union Gap never filed an appeal, let alone a timely appeal, of
the permits issued by Yakima to Printing Press.
We agree that the city of Yakima’s issuance to Printing Press of the excavation
and engineering permits constituted land use decisions. A “land use decision” includes:
a final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with
the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those
with authority to hear appeals, on:
(a) An application for a project permit or other governmental
approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed,
modified, sold, transferred, or used . . . .
....
19
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
(c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating
the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real
property.
RCW 36.70C.020(2) (emphasis added). We hold, however, that LUPA does not control
Union Gap’s suit.
The city of Union Gap does not directly challenge the issuance of the permits by
Yakima. Union Gap instead seeks to enforce its contract rights. If a cause of action
arises independently of the relevant land use petition, the claim is not barred. Asche v.
Bloomquist, 132 Wn. App. at 800 (2006). Claims that do not depend on the validity of a
land use decision are not barred. Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wn. App. at 800.
Printing Press labels Union Gap’s suit “a collateral attack” on a land use decision.
Printing Press claims that the current lawsuit would be unnecessary but for the issuance
of the permits. According to Printing Press, barring Union Gap’s suit as untimely would
serve LUPA’s and Washington’s stated policy of favoring administrative finality in land
use decisions. Samuel’s Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440, 458,
54 P.3d 1194 (2002).
Printing Press contends that Holder v. City of Vancouver, 136 Wn. App. 104, 147
P.3d 641 (2006) and Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wn. App. 784 (2006) compel a conclusion
that Union Gap’s litigation arises directly from the permits issued by the city of Yakima
and thereby LUPA controls. In Asche, a neighboring property owner failed to file a
LUPA appeal related to the issuance of a county building permit for residential
20
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
construction on an adjoining property. Printing Press emphasizes that the court, in Asche,
recognized the interests of an adjacent property owner and determined that injunctive
relief was available through a LUPA appeal. Nevertheless, we distinguish Asche because
the neighboring property owner challenged the issuance of the permit on the basis that the
county violated its zoning code when issuing the permit. The property owner did not
assert any right under a contract or independent of the county code.
In Holder v. City of Vancouver, a property owner challenged the city of
Vancouver’s hearing examiner’s order holding that he violated a city ordinance by
parking and storing vehicles on unimproved surfaces. The court refused to entertain the
suit because the property owner abandoned any claim under LUPA and LUPA controlled
the challenge to the hearing examiner’s decision.
Woods View II, LLC v. Kitsap County, 188 Wn. App. 1, 352 P.3d 807 (2015) bears
more relevance to Union Gap’s suit. A developer alleged that Kitsap County negligently
delayed the issuance of building permits. The county argued that its permitting actions
could be challenged only under LUPA and the developer’s failure to appeal under LUPA
barred the suit. This court agreed with the developer that LUPA did not bar its action
because it sought monetary compensation rather than a modification of a land use
decision.
If Union Gap limited its claims to an argument that the city of Yakima lacked
authority to issue the permits to Printing Press or that Yakima violated its code when
21
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
issuing the permits, we might agree with Printing Press. Nevertheless, Union Gap’s suit
rises independently of the Yakima permits. Union Gap relies on its contract with Printing
Press, which contract the parties entered outside of and before the city of Yakima’s
permit issuances. If Printing Press started construction on the driveway in the absence of
any permit, Union Gap would have filed this same suit alleging breach of contract under
the parties’ development agreement. Printing Press contravenes the intent of LUPA by
using the act as an excuse to shirk its contractual obligations under the development
agreement with Union Gap.
Printing Press underscores that Union Gap seeks to enjoin the exercise of the
rights granted by the Yakima permits. Nevertheless, Union Gap does not seek to enjoin
enjoyment of the permits because of any fault in the issuance of the permits, but because
Printing Press’ claimed rights coincide with the rights Printing Press surrendered under
the development agreement.
We analogize to a hypothetical situation under which a neighborhood contains
restrictive covenants prohibiting the harboring of large commercial animals. Harry
Smith, who resides in the neighborhood, seeks and obtains a variance to the city zoning
code, which variance permits his building of a cow pen. Smith intends to raise beef cattle
for sale to others. Smith’s neighbor, Betty Ross, does not appeal the issuance of the city
permit. Instead Ross sues Smith for violating the restrictive covenants. LUPA should
22
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
not bar the enforcement of private agreements concerning the use of land. Ross does not
challenge the city’s authority to issue the permit.
The Development Agreement
We now address the merits of city of Union Gap’s appeal. Union Gap asserts
numerous arguments. Union Gap contends that Printing Press would breach the
development agreement by cutting access to Valley Mall Boulevard from its land. Union
Gap maintains that, apart from the development agreement, it possesses authority as the
landowner, under which the boulevard runs, to preclude access to the boulevard. Union
Gap posits that the deed from Printing Press to the city reserved no access rights or
easement allowing entrance to the boulevard. Union Gap argues that the city of Yakima
assigned Union Gap the right to control access to the boulevard even from property
located inside the city limits of Yakima.
In response to Union Gap’s appeal, Printing Press contends that Union Gap lacks
regulatory authority to preclude access to the boulevard. Printing Press also argues that
any prohibition contained in the development agreement to access Valley Mall Boulevard
concerned only the wedge and not the eastern portion. Printing Press wishes to place the
access point to Valley Mall Boulevard inside the eastern portion. Printing Press also
contends that any prohibition on access to the boulevard is precatory, not mandatory, in
nature. Printing Press furthermore argues that the development agreement could not
apply to its property because a city may only enter a development agreement for land
23
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
inside its city limits. Finally, Printing Press asserts that, as an abutting landowner, it is
entitled to access to West Valley Mall Boulevard and the city of Yakima authoritatively
granted it access.
We hold that the development agreement between the city of Union Gap and
Printing Press precludes Printing Press direct access to the boulevard. Therefore, we do
not address Union Gap’s other contentions.
Union Gap and Printing Press signed a development agreement seven years after
Printing Press conveyed the subject land to Union Gap for Valley Mall Boulevard.
Union Gap contends that the agreement grants it the prerogative to deny access to the
boulevard from Printing Press land. We repeat the access subsection or subsection i that
controls the appeal:
i. PPI acknowledges that provisions of UGMC Chapter 9.34 may
prohibit direct access to Valley Mall Boulevard. Any access to the
property from Valley Mall Boulevard shall be subject to municipal review
and conditioning at time of project permit application.
CP at 605 (emphasis added). Union Gap further contends that section i encompasses
Printing Press’ entire tract.
Printing Press argues that the parties intended the development agreement,
particularly the access subsection, to govern only the wedge portion originally located
within Union Gap City limits. Printing Press also contends that the language of the
access subsection portends the possibility of granting of some access because the word
24
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
“may,” preceding the word “prohibit,” does not afford unlimited control. Printing Press
contends the word “may” recognizes some uncertainty as to whether Union Gap has legal
authority to deny access to Valley Mall Boulevard outside its jurisdiction and that, in fact,
Union Gap lacks such authority.
Our task is to discern the intent of the parties to the development agreement.
Kelley v. Tonda, 198 Wn. App. 303, 311, 393 P.3d 824 (2017). This task entails our
selecting principles of contract construction that helps us best discern the intent of the
parties rather than imposing a preferable outcome. Neither party asks us to construe the
contract against the other party on the basis that the other party drafted the language.
Neither party forwards any conversations during the negotiations or drafting of the
agreement that would assist in construing the contract.
Union Gap alleges it would never have entered into the development agreement,
nor have ameliorated Longfibre Road, if it knew that Printing Press intended to disregard
the contract and construct the driveway over Union Gap’s objection. We find this
testimony unhelpful because Union Gap provides no evidence that it stated this
understanding to Printing Press. We do not consider a party’s unexpressed subjective
intent. Grant County Port District No. 9 v. Washington Tire Corp., 187 Wn. App. 222,
233, 349 P.3d 889 (2015).
We principally rely on three principles of contractual interpretation. First, a court
will view the contract as a whole, interpreting particular language in the context of other
25
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
contract provisions. Viking Bank v. Firgrove Commons 3, LLC, 183 Wn. App. 706, 713,
334 P.3d 116 (2014). Second, courts must read each contract as an average person would
read it without giving it strained or forced meaning. Mid-Century Insurance Co. v.
Henault, 128 Wn.2d 207, 213, 905 P.2d 379 (1995). Third, we consider the actions of
the parties subsequent to the signing of the contract as evidence of intent at the time of
signing. Higgins v. Stafford, 123 Wn.2d 160, 165, 866 P.2d 31 (1994); In re Estate of
Wimberley, 186 Wn. App. 475, 505, 349 P.3d 11 (2015).
We first decide if the access subsection covers the entire tract, including the
eastern portion. The development agreement employs various terms when mentioning
Printing Press’ real estate. The ever changing words both complicate our inquiry and
provide clues in answering this question.
The recording cover sheet does not use any term for Printing Press’ land other than
“legal description, abbreviated form.” CP at 403. The legal description on the cover
sheet presumably describes the entire tract. The first page of the development agreement
also contains no term for the land and repeats the same abbreviated legal description.
Nevertheless, the first page adds the sentence: “Complete legal description is attached as
Exhibit A to this document.” CP at 404. Then, to Printing Press’ advantage, Exhibit A
reads:
That part of the: southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the
southeast quarter of Section 31, Township 13 North, Range 18 East W.M.,
lying westerly of the city limits of Yakima, Washington.
26
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
CP at 413 (emphasis added). The wedge was then Printing Press’ only property west of
the Yakima limits.
Printing Press astutely argues that the attached legal description shows the intent
to limit coverage of all provisions of the development agreement to the wedge,
particularly when the cover page refers to this legal description as the “complete”
description. Nevertheless, the first page of the agreement does not explicitly limit all of
the terms of the development agreement to a select portion of Printing Press’ land or, in
its body, define any term related to the land as limited to the wedge. For this reason and
because the development agreement loosely employs terms related to Printing Press’
land, we disagree with Printing Press.
The introductory paragraph to the development agreement indicates that the
parties entered the agreement for the purposes of establishing standards for “development
of PPI [Printing Press] property.” CP at 404. The agreement nowhere expressly defines
“PPI” property. No evidence suggests that Printing Press only sought to develop the
wedge. Instead, the wedge and the eastern portion are not distinct tracts and constitute
one tax parcel. Lowe’s use of both the wedge and the eastern portion hints that Printing
Press sought, at the time of the development agreement, to develop its entire tract.
Recitals paragraphs C and D reads:
C. Whereas, Bud Clary Toyota of Yakima (“Clary”) and PPI are
owners of real property located at the intersection of Valley Mall Boulevard
27
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
and Longfibre Road and intend to develop such properties (the “Subject
Properties”); and
D. Whereas, the development of the Subject Properties is facilitated
by the extension of Longfibre Road and significant community benefits are
derived from the further development of a traffic grid system, extension of
public water services and potential employment and tax revenues derived
from development;
CP at 405. Finally, the development agreement imposes a term for property in quotation
marks. The “subject properties” consists of the land owned by Clary and Printing Press
at the intersection of Longfibre Road and Valley Mall Boulevard that the respective
landowners intend to develop. Although the wedge is closer than the eastern portion to
the proposed intersection of Longfibre Road and Valley Mall Boulevard, the entire tract
constituted one unified parcel when the parties signed the development agreement. The
eastern portion also constitutes land owned by Printing Press at the intersection, when we
consider Printing Press’ property as a whole. More importantly, as already indicated,
Printing Press intended to develop its entire tract.
Paragraph one of the body of the agreement declares:
1. Proposed Private Development. PPI owns or controls certain real
properties located in the City of Union Gap, commonly known as the PPI
site, legally described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. It is the intent of PPI to sell and/or develop the
subject property with commercial or light industrial land uses consistent
with applicable municipal development standards.
CP at 405 (emphasis added). Again, Exhibit A legally describes only the wedge. But we
note that paragraph one refers to the wedge as the PPI “site,” not the “property,” a
28
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
nomenclature that suggests that “property,” when used in the agreement includes land
more than the wedge. The second sentence in paragraph one could be read to imply that
the word “site” coincides in meaning with the word “subject property.” Nevertheless,
PPI intended to develop the eastern portion for commercial uses. Lowe’s is a commercial
use.
We move to paragraph 2 of the agreement, which reads:
2. Amendment of Municipal Boundaries. The PPI property is
currently subject to split jurisdiction between City of Yakima and City of
Union Gap. The approximate location of the current municipal boundary is
set forth on attached Exhibit B. . . . It is agreed that the entire PPI parcel
will be incorporated into the City of Yakima. All of the road right-of-way
improvements for Longfibre Road as it extends north from Valley Mall
Boulevard shall be within the jurisdiction of the City of Union Gap.
CP at 405 (emphasis added). This paragraph strongly intimates that the term “property”
includes the entire tract and the development agreement covers the entire tract. The first
sentence mentions that the “PPI property” lies in both the city of Yakima and the city of
Union Gap. At the time of the development agreement, only the eastern portion lay
inside Yakima. In the third sentence, the term “parcel” is used for the first time. The
paragraph does not refer to the PPI “site” as described in Exhibit A. The parties agree, in
the third sentence, to place the “entire PPI parcel” inside the jurisdiction of Yakima.
Thus, the agreement necessarily addresses the status of Printing Press’ entire tract.
Important to our ruling is Exhibit B to the development agreement. The exhibit is
a map of the area. The map imposes the label “PPI Property” inside the eastern portion.
29
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
This label establishes an intent to consider PPI’s property, for purposes of the
development agreement, as the entire tract.
We come now to the critical subsection 3, which declares:
c. PPI shall incorporate the following access management
requirements into all site development plans:
i. PPI acknowledges that provisions of UGMC Chapter 9.34 may
prohibit direct access to Valley Mall Boulevard. Any access to the property
from Valley Mall Boulevard shall be subject to municipal review and
conditioning at time of project permit application.
CP at 406 (emphasis added). The first sentence recognizes the potential of no direct
access to Valley Mall Boulevard. The language does not suggest any section of the entire
tract automatically receives direct access. If the parties wished the access subsection to
deny access only from the wedge, the parties could have referred to “the PPI site
described on Exhibit A” as it did in paragraph one of the agreement. According to the
second sentence, Union Gap must approve “any access to the property from Valley Mall
Boulevard.” CP at 406 (emphasis added). Throughout the development agreement, the
term “property” typically refers to the entire tract. Exhibit B particularly labels the east
land as “PPI Property.” Conceivably “municipal review” in the last paragraph could refer
to review by the city of Yakima, but we consider such a construction strained since the
first sentence already refers to that portion of the Union Gap Municipal Code establishing
Union Gap’s review of plans for access to an arterial.
The remainder of section 3c of the development agreement details access points
30
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
from “PPI Property” to Longfibre Road. No language in the development agreement
discloses details for any access to Valley Mall Boulevard. If Printing Press retained some
right to direct access to Valley Mall Boulevard, one might expect the parties to delineate
that important right, together with the particulars of the right, in the development
agreement.
Other reasons bolster our decision that the development agreement precluded
direct access from the eastern portion to Valley Mall Boulevard without a permit from
Union Gap. The eastern portion lies closer to the bridge over the railroad tracks than the
wedge. More reason exists to deny access from the eastern portion. Printing Press has
not forwarded any reason to permit access to Valley Mall Boulevard from the eastern
portion, but not the wedge.
The development agreement’s principal, if not sole, purpose was to improve
access to Printing Press’ entire tract by improving Longfibre Road. Opening another
portion of the entire tract to access Valley Mall Boulevard conflicts with this purpose.
Finally, in construing the development agreement, we note that Printing Press first
applied to Union Gap for a permit allowing direct access to Valley Mall Boulevard before
Printing Press sought a permit from the city of Yakima. Thus, as illustrated by its
subsequent actions, Printing Press also read the development agreement to apply to its
entire tract, not only the wedge.
We next examine whether access subsection, subsection 3.c.i., otherwise permits
31
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
Union Gap to deny Printing Press’ eastern portion access to Valley Mall Boulevard.
According to Printing Press, the development agreement simply recognizes that UGMC
Chapter 9.34 “may prohibit” direct access to Valley Mall Boulevard. CP at 605.
Whether in fact the Union Gap Municipal Code actually can prohibit access is a different
question. The phrase “may prohibit” only acknowledges the possibility of Union Gap’s
ability to prohibit access and to determine whether that possibility can come into fruition
requires an examination as to the powers of Union Gap to act outside its jurisdiction.
The only law cited by Printing Press for the proposition that Union Gap cannot
extend the provisions of its municipal code to land in the city of Yakima is Washington
Constitution article XI, § 11. Article XI, § 11 declares:
Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its
limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in
conflict with general laws.
Printing Press cites no case decided under the constitutional provision, let alone a case
that suggests that Union Gap violates this constitutional section under the appealed
circumstances.
We observe that Union Gap does not seek to impose its municipal code on land
outside its city limits without permission from the landholder. By signing the
development agreement and for valuable consideration, Printing Press consented to the
application of the code provisions. In this sense, Union Gap and Printing Press merely
incorporated by reference the standards of the municipal code as part of the contract
32
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
terms. Union Gap does not seek to enforce a regulation outside its limits. The city
instead seeks to enforce a contractual term. Printing Press cites no case that precludes a
city and a landowner outside the city limits from contracting to apply a municipal code
section to the contracting relationship.
Wilson v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 69 Wn.2d 148, 417 P.2d 632 (1966)
minimally supports our position. Mountlake Terrace adopted a city ordinance
authorizing the insertion of a fluoride chemical into the city’s potable water supply. A.P.
Wilson and others resided outside the city limits. Nevertheless, due to a connection in
pipes between the city’s water system and the water district system that served Wilson
and his neighbors, residents outside city limits would also receive fluoridated water.
Wilson and others sued and alleged that the city sought to exercise its police power over
land outside city limits. The Supreme Court disagreed. The court noted that the city did
not exercise its police power over land outside city limits, but instead the fluoridation
resulted from a contract between the city and the water district. Wilson’s receipt of
fluoridated water was incidental to the city’s exercise of its police power in furnishing
fluoridated water to its inhabitants.
Union Gap’s prohibition of cuts along Valley Mall Boulevard results from a
contract with Printing Press, not necessarily the assertion of police power jurisdiction
outside city limits. Union Gap seeks to exercise its police power over Valley Mall
Boulevard, a major thoroughfare that passes in part through its city limits. Printing Press’
33
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
inability to gain direct access to the arterial is incidental to Union Gap’s promotion of
public safety of its residents and others traversing the boulevard.
Finally, Printing Press argues that Union Gap lacked statutory authority to enter
the development agreement, at least to the extent the agreement covers the eastern portion
of land. Printing Press relies on RCW 36.70B.170, the statute that authorizes a city to
enter a development agreement. The statute reads, in pertinent part:
A local government may enter into a development agreement with a
person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction.
A city may enter into a development agreement for real property outside its
boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.
RCW 36.70B.170(1). Printing Press highlights that its eastern portion lies outside city
limits.
Printing Press’ argument ignores some critical facts. First, at the time of the
execution of the development agreement, its property lay in part inside the city limits of
Union Gap. Yakima later annexed the wedge, which was not a distinct parcel at the time
Printing Press signed the agreement. Printing Press cites no law supporting a conclusion
that a city cannot enter into a development agreement that covers an entire tract of land,
part of which lies within city limits and part which lies outside city limits. Printing Press
cites no legal authority that the development agreement, or a paragraph thereof, becomes
void if the property leaves the city limits after execution of the agreement.
34
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
REMEDY
As part of its summary judgment motion, Union Gap requested that the trial court
enter a declaration that Printing Press would violate the development agreement by
building the driveway and an injunction enjoining Printing Press from constructing the
driveway on its land. Because the trial court granted Printing Press a summary judgment
dismissing Union Gap’s complaint, the trial court did not address any remedies. Union
Gap asks for injunctive and declaratory relief on appeal. In its responding appeal brief,
Printing Press does not address Union Gap’s request for an injunction or declaratory
order.
Under Washington’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, chapter 7.24 RCW, the
court may enter a declaratory order when there is a justiciable controversy: (1) which is
an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from
a possible, dormant, hypothetical, speculative, or moot disagreement, (2) between parties
having genuine and opposing interests, (3) which involves interests that must be direct
and substantial, rather than potential, theoretical, abstract or academic, and (4) a judicial
determination of which will be final and conclusive. Diversified Industries Development
Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wn.2d 811, 815, 514 P.2d 137 (1973). We conclude that this lawsuit
presents an actual, present and existing dispute between Union Gap and Printing Press
regarding Valley Mall Boulevard access. The parties hold genuine and opposing
interests, which are direct and substantial, regarding the partial demolition of the curb
35
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
along Valley Mall Boulevard. The cut in the curb and resulting traffic would damage
Union Gap’s property and conflict with Union Gap’s plans and safety concerns. Any
judicial determination of the parties’ rights and obligations under the development
agreement will be final and conclusive.
Under RCW 7.24.080, a court possesses authority, in a declaratory judgment
action, to issue further relief in addition to entering a declaratory judgment. That relief
includes a permanent injunction. Ronken v. Board of County Commissioners of
Snohomish County, 89 Wn.2d 304, 311, 572 P.2d 1 (1977). A court may issue a
permanent injunction to prevent a trespass. Hedlund v. White, 67 Wn. App. 409, 418,
836 P.2d 250 (1992). An injunction is appropriate to prevent damage to real property.
Vander Vate v. Watson, 19 Wn.2d 68, 71, 140 P.2d 964 (1943). We agree with Union
Gap that the law affords it declaratory and injunctive relief.
Union Gap seeks a prohibition against Printing Press constructing its driveway.
We modify this request. Printing Press may build whatever driveway it wishes on its
land consistent with Yakima’s regulations. But Printing Press may not cut the curb or
sidewalks along Valley Mall Boulevard or gain direct access from its land to the
boulevard.
ATTORNEY FEES
The development agreement affords the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees
and costs. The trial court awarded Printing Press reasonable attorney fees and costs on
36
No. 34740-1-III
City of Union Gap v. Printing Press Properties, LLC
entry of the summary judgment order favoring Printing Press. We reverse the award of
reasonable attorney fees and costs to Printing Press. We grant Union Gap reasonable
attorney fees and costs on appeal and for fees incurred before the superior court.
CONCLUSIONS
We reverse the summary judgment order favo~ing Printing Press and grant
judgment to Union Gap on its contract claim. We remand to the superior court to enter
an injunction precluding Printing Press from cutting the curb or sidewalks of Valley Mall
Boulevard or gaining direct access from its land to the boulevard. We also remand to the
superior court to determine the amount in reasonable attorney fees and costs to be
awarded Union Gap as the prevailing party and for fees incurred at both the trial court
and appeals court level.
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, J.
37
I• L,•-.!. ~ -.: T_.-.!_•_1; 1:--:_ .
I• ~I: 1_: ... ::..J ~ I.:' J ~ • •eo•••• .. ,c ,............ TID ,. •••Y 1,ea
-<
.'? :i :,.1:':r. r. c;. ,: , • ·: 1 .
,,
~ "
~ ••-J +. +• t-• t-.. I-- (-1-1 -I I -,
• • .... •
4'011
r;n
'-I \ •
r,.... 1 " •2407
~ ' :z \ ·1~!1
,.-
"'"\. _\•J '"..L. 1. LL 1_ \ _I_ \ J ~ _1_ ... _T_\ r,• 1• 1,,,~ ,,,.ff., Union Gap
~ -- --,- I -1-1-, m '
0 •' v1.i_•_!_-J _•.!_·_f I- -'•Ir.~ _1 .. • :,. (:
- - -~T
1
§ I JI-=~ ;J '1.: L• .L "_l .: 1..: J r J.:". l • .J.. ~ - I_I .J .., '-,;
1-1 .. / ' . - . . - . - , - , - . ~ - M - T • PPP/Doug3s
.:z ~ • 1 •1 O I • 1 .. I ,- I • I • • .. !,... -
j fr.,. 80
3 231)2
,,.
'"'" >--3
CD .... i
\l'· C.,,,.,,,<