Title: Hass v. City of Kirkland

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

78 Wn.2d 929 (1971) 481 P.2d 9 ROBERT HASS, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF KIRKLAND, Respondent.[*] No. 41332. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. February 18, 1971. Cole & Nelson, by Richard C. Nelson, for appellant. Ralph I. Thomas, for respondent. WRIGHT, J. The appellant, Robert Hass, the owner of lakefront property, is seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, City of Kirkland, to issue a building permit for a 34-unit apartment building. The respondent has refused to issue the permit on the grounds that the proposed structure would violate section 6.4, chapter 6, of ordinance No. 1140 of the city of Kirkland. This section was originally enacted by the Kirkland city council on March 7, 1966, as ordinance No. 1028 and reads as follows: In December of 1965, the appellant commenced correspondence with the respondent regarding the construction of a 34-unit apartment building originating on dry land and extending out over Lake Washington. The portion of the building extending over the water was to be constructed on a pier supported by pilings. On March 7, 1966, the respondent adopted the land use classification to be known as R3-W, which would not apply to the appellant's proposed apartment if he filed his application for a building permit prior to the effective date of the R3-W classification. Ogden v. Bellevue, 45 Wn.2d 492, 275 P.2d 899 (1954); Hull v. Hunt, 53 Wn.2d 125, 331 P.2d 856 (1958). This the appellant did. However, on the same day the R3-W classification was adopted, ordinance No. 1028 was adopted as a fire protection ordinance. Ordinance No. 1028 took effect prior to appellant's application for a building permit. Appellant contends that this was an invalid attempt to destroy his vested right to a building permit. However, ordinance No. 1028 did take effect before the building permit had been applied for and ordinance No. 1140 is now in existence with the same limitation. [1] Even if, arguendo, the appellant had a vested right to a building permit, this right would have been extinguished through the exercise of the respondent's police power in enacting ordinance No. 1140. We held in Seattle v. Hinckley, 40 Wash. 468, 471, 82 P. 747 (1905) that: [2] Municipalities derive their authority to enact ordinances in furtherance of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare from Const. art. 11, § 11, which provides: Of this constitutional grant of authority, we, in Detamore v. Hindley, 83 Wash. 322, 326, 145 P. 462 (1915), said: [3] It is well settled that the enactment of reasonable ordinances regarding the protection of the lives and safety of persons, as well as the protection of property against fire, is within the police power of a municipality. Everett v. Unsworth, 54 Wn.2d 760, 344 P.2d 728 (1959); 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 24.457, 446-447 (1968 ed.). Kirkland, Washington is a third class city and under RCW 35.24.290 shall have the power: [4, 5] The appellant contends the 250-foot restriction contained in city of Kirkland ordinance No. 1140 is not reasonably related to fire protection, and therefore, constitutes an unreasonable burden upon appellant's right to use *933 his land. Appellant argues the arbitrary and capricious aspect of ordinance No. 1140 is the point from which the 250-foot restriction is measured, "from an improved public street or alley," and that he has provided equal or better fire access and hydrants than required by ordinance No. 1140. However, the choice of establishing one requirement rather than some other alternative, is within the province of the legislative authority. Seattle v. Hill, 72 Wn.2d 786, 435 P.2d 692 (1967); State ex rel. Bolen v. Seattle, 61 Wn.2d 196, 377 P.2d 454 (1963). Since any ordinance regularly enacted is presumed to be constitutional and valid, Spokane v. Carlson, 73 Wn.2d 76, 436 P.2d 454 (1968); Petstel, Inc. v. King County, 77 Wn.2d 144, 459 P.2d 937 (1969), the burden of proving unreasonableness is upon the appellant. This burden has not been met. In the instant case, the stated intent of the respondent was to provide waterfront residents with fire protection by limiting construction to 250 feet from an abutting street or alley. Such is a reasonable exercise of the respondent's police power. [6] The test to be applied in determining the reasonableness in the exercise of police power is clearly set forth in Petstel, Inc. v. King County, supra: In applying this test, we find that ordinances No. 1028 and No. 1140 being reasonably related to fire protection are valid. The judgment is affirmed. ALL CONCUR. [*] Reported in 481 P.2d 9.