HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-2024 - Citys Response 11-25-2024From:Sheila Madsen
To:Phil Olbrechts; Kelly Carner; Carner, Kelly
Cc:Cynthia Moya
Subject:RE: Response 11-25-2024
Date:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 4:01:05 PM
Importance:High
Good afternoon –
The City objects to the Reply dated November 25, 2024 filed in CODE 23-000293, and moves
to strike the evidence presented as irrelevant based on lack of foundation and insufficient
(RCW 34.05.452(1)). According to Washington State Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”), a Motion
for Reconsideration may be filed based on (among other things) “[n]ewly discovered evidence,
material for the party making the application, which the party could not with reasonable
diligence have discovered and produces at the trial.” (CR 59(a)(4)). Mr. Carner has not met
his burden.
Mr. Carner provided as evidence four unsworn and substantially identical statements,
including two from individuals that apparently share his last name. The statements are dated
after the City responded, but there is no indication that those statements could not have been
discovered and produced for the hearing. He also presented an unclear aerial photograph
showing a white rectangular object apparently dated from 2009. Similar aerial photographs are
commonly available online. None of the evidence was included or outlined in his initial motion
for reconsideration and should not be considered now.
Should the Hearing Examiner determine that Mr. Carner has met his burden for providing newly
discovered and material evidence, that evidence that should nonetheless be stricken for failure
to establish foundation for the witness statements, and irrelevant as to the photograph for not
being sufficiently clear to stand for the fact asserted.
Mr. Carner produced four unsworn and virtually identical statements without providing
foundation for who the individuals are, or how they came to the knowledge they are purporting
to provide. Presumably these individuals are to be considered “witnesses”, but the
statements presented do not establish personal knowledge nor are the statements made
under oath or affirmation (RCW 34.05.452(3) and Washington Rules of Evidence [“ER”] 602,
and 603). The City urges the Hearing Examiner to consider these hearsay and not admissible
(ER 802). As Mr. Carner has not asserted any of the witnesses are unavailable, ER 804
exception to the hearsay rule would not apply.
Similarly, Mr. Carner does not provide foundation for the photograph as being from the date
alleged nor showing the actual property location nor that the white rectangular shape is the
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
recreational vehicle at question. Even if the photograph can be determined to show a
recreational vehicle at the property under appeal here, it does not show with any certainty
whether the recreational vehicle is the one he purports it to be and therefore has no probative
value.
Given the lack of foundation, and lack of relevance, and the fact that the City has had no
opportunity to rebut the evidence the City respectfully moves to strike the evidence presented.
(see e.g., WAC 463-30-310 and RCW 34.05.452).
Thank you,
SHEILA MADSEN, Code Compliance Inspector
City of Renton // Development Services
Virtual Permit Center // Online Applications and Inspections
office 425-430-7236
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This message complies with Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56
From: Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:22 AM
To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>; Carner,
Kelly <kcarner@kingcounty.gov>; Sheila Madsen <SMadsen@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Response 11-25-2024
The Picture that is dated below clearly shows the Fifth wheel trailer existed. and the testimonies
included below disproves the City's argument also included below is Mr.Carners Response to the
City.