• Print
  • |
  • |
  • PDF

Contact LeAnne

500 Broadway Street, Suite 400
Vancouver, WA 98660
T: 360.619.7002

LeAnne M. Bremer

Successfully challenged County’s assessment of back taxes, penalties and interest for alleged removal of property from the open space program in GG One, Inc. v. Clark County. The Board of Equalization found that the property conveyed to the County for wetland and storm water purposes was still open space and that the property owner was entitled to a tax refund.
Challenged the U.S. Forest Service's refusal to allow for a minor boundary line adjustment of two parcels in the Columbia River Gorge in GLW Ventures, LLC v. Department of Agriculture in federal court and before the Gorge Commission.
Successfully challenged the designation of Mill Pond as a regulated water body under the Shoreline Management Act before the Shoreline Hearings Board in Camaslakeland, LLC v. the Department of Ecology.
  • Prepared condominium documentation for a four tower mixed use development with an underground public parking garage, commercial and office space, apartments, and nested residential condominium units.
  • Prepared condominium documentation for several office, commercial and industrial buildings in Washington and Oregon.
  • Converted several apartment buildings and duplexes into condominiums.
  • Benchmark v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537, 972 P.2d 944 (1999), prior opinion adhered to, 103 Wn. App. 721 (2000), aff’d, 146 Wn.2d 685 (2002). The supreme court ruled that the City’s requirement for a developer to improve street frontage was unlawful. The key in that case was the fact that the developer would put few trips on the street that the City was requiring the developer to improve. There lacked the required connection between an impact of the development and the need for the public improvement.
  • Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005). The supreme court ruled that an environmental group’s challenge to golf course project was untimely under the Land Use Petition Act. The court found that not only did the environmental group not file an appeal in time after learning the project was going forward, but that filing a motion for reconsideration with the County, instead of court, was the wrong venue in which to challenge the permit.
  • Isla Verde v. City of Camas, 99 Wn. App. 127, 990 P.2d 429 (1999), aff’d, 146 Wn.2d 740 (2002). The supreme court ruled that the City’s requirement for a developer to set aside 30 percent of its land as open space as a condition of subdivision approval was unlawful. The court resolved an important issue that had yet to be firmly resolved in prior cases: that a Washington statute, RCW 82.020.020, prohibits governments from requiring developers to pay fee, dedicate land or make an improvement as a condition of a permit unless the condition directly mitigates an impact of the development. The court stated this statute applied even though the City would not take title to the open space.
Ongoing representation for a developer of a mixed use business park, consisting of a 374 acre master planned development for industrial use and office, retail, and residential space.
Assisted clients in developing sites in Clark County, Washington, for a medical clinic, professional office buildings, and retail businesses.
Assisted major company as local counsel in reviewing a purchase and sale agreement, lease, and other real estate documentation involved in the sale of its campus.
Drafted and negotiated many development agreements, covenants, and other contracts to facilitate new or revised development proposals for private and public projects.
Present projects to hearings examiners and local, regional, and state land use boards, and at times, when necessary, defend projects in courts.
Prepared, negotiated with staff, and obtained approval for all types of land use applications: comprehensive plan amendments, rezones, conditional use permits, site plan review applications, subdivisions, short plats, shoreline permits, development agreements, planning director interpretations, temporary use permits, habitat permits, and wetland permits.
Have won several contentious appeals for clients in which jurisdictions have denied the clients historic, buildable lots.
  • Drafted and advocated for local or state legislative amendments on behalf of clients or as volunteer members of committees to ensure good planning rules and regulations. Examples include proposed amendments to expand funding options for transportation benefit districts, to allow a school district partially located in a non-Growth Management Act county to collect impact fees, and to provide for a property tax exemption for school or college foundations.
  • Drafted ballot measure for light rail vote.
  • Drafted ballot measure for school district asking for advisory vote on whether school district should charge and collect school impact fees.
  • Assisted in drafting Employment Mixed Use Overlay ordinance in Ridgefield, Washington.
Developed form lease and assisted in negotiating leases with tenants on behalf of downtown Seattle building owner.
Represented clients in to changes to zoning and comprehensive plan amendments, including advocating for property to be included in urban growth area.
  • Assisted client in obtaining land use approval for biomass facility.
  • Represented energy client contesting requirement for Environmental Impact Statement. 
  • Assisted client in shoreline permitting and environmental review for expanded energy project in Anacortes, Washington.  
  • Secured regulatory exemption from shoreline management rules for cannabis business as a non-agricultural use.
  • Advised clients on whether cannabis business met local zoning regulations.
  • Obtained zoning amendment to allow cannabis business in commercial zone.
Assisted many clients in preserving vested rights for development projects and their immunity from later enacted land use control ordinances.