HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-2025 - Appeal of Admin Decision - EmailedPage 1 of 3
KARL G. ANUTA
LAW OFFICE OF KARL G. ANUTA, P.C.
735 SW FIRST AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR
TRIAL ATTORNEY PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 E-MAIL
LICENSED IN (503) 827-0320
OREGON & WASHINGTON FACSIMILE (503) 386-2168
KGA@LOKGA.NET
COREY@LOKGA.NET
April 7, 2025
VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk, Renton WA
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
cityclerk@rentonwa.gov
RE: Appeal of Administrative Decision
Approving Building Permit B24004855
Dear Clerk:
This is an Appeal of a decision to approve a Building Permit. This Appeal is filed
on behalf of Lake Washington Working Families (“LWWF”), a coalition of King County
residents, activists and organizations that support sustainable growth and good jobs in
King County, while limiting impacts to climate change and our
natural environment.
LWWF has standing to appeal this decision as a party of record under RMC 4-8-
110(C)(1), because LWWF submitted written comments during the administrative review
of this decision.1
A check for $577 (specifically check #282) made out to City of Renton,
accompanies the paper copy of this Appeal. This appears to be the proper fee, per the
RMC 4-8-110(C)(4) and the published Renton Fee Schedule.
This Appeal is timely filed, as it has been submitted less than 14 days after the
City publicly posted a notice of this Permit being moved to “Approved” status. That
occurred on March 27, 2025. That was the first notice of any sort that a decision to
approve had been made on the Permit.2
1 See, Letter dated 10/22/2024 from my office to the City of Renton Community and Economic
Development Department, raising concerns about this application.
2 We are well aware that no Permit has yet been issued. We are also well aware that there has been no
formal Notice to our firm (or LWWF) via mail or electronic mail issued by your office, as specified in RMC
4-8-100(C)(2). We file this Appeal nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, just in case the Applicant
tries to contend later that either: (a) no formal Notice to LWWF was required; and/or (b) that it was the
decision to Approve (rather than a decision to Issue) the Permit that triggers the Appeal timeline.
Page 2 of 3
LWWF has identified the following legal deficiencies in the approval of this permit:
1. Lack of Required Site Plan Review
Under RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a), Site Plan Review is required for "all development"
in the UC-2 zone in which this project is located. RMC 4-11-040(U) defines
“development” to include "conversion,” "structural alteration," and “construction” and
“enlargement” of “any structure.”
The building at issue was formerly an electronics store. It is being converted into
a grocery store. Thus, there is a conversion occurring. Moreover, it appears that
approximately 500 micropiles will be installed and connected to bedrock to “support an
interior slab” and “provide additional support for the perimeter wall footings.”3
Retrofitting the entire foundation of the building under specifications provided by a
structural engineer is - by any rational definition - a structural alteration.
The addition of a concrete slab in the compactor area, a slab that appears to be
is integrated with or tied to the existing foundation, and the new exterior walls to screen
that area4 meet the definitions of enlargement and construction. The same is true of
closing off an existing ingress or exit onto Garden Ave N.5
In addition, because "[t]he proposed project is more than three hundred (300)
parking stalls," 6 RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(b)(v) also mandates Site Plan Review for this
project.
Because no Site Plan Review was completed for this application, despite the fact
that multiple criteria that trigger Site Plan Review are present in the development
application, the decision to approve the Building Permit without Site Plan Review was
unlawful. That decision is also contrary to City Staff’s prior pre-application review, which
recognized that Site Plan Review was necessary.
This project must meet all of Site Plan Decision Criteria in RMC 4-9-200(E),
including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Design Regulations, Reducing
Parking Impervious Areas, Access and Circulation, and Stormwater. LWWF requests
that the application be re-opened, and a full Site Plan Review process undertaken.
Since the project requires Site Plan Review, the Planning Division should notify
the Public per RMC 4-9-200(F)(5) once a complete application has been accepted, and
the City should open a public comment period on the application.
3 See, 9/04/2024 Letter from Keller North America including plans for the micropile retrofit, including
calculations for “structural loads” provided by the “project structural engineer.”
4 See, e.g., P_Structural_Construction_Plans_250206_v3, p. 3.
5 See e.g., P_Landscape_Construction_Plans_240920_V1, p. 2.
6 See, e.g., P_Civil_Construction_Plans_250102_v3, Sheet SP-01.
Page 3 of 3
2. Lack of Required SEPA Review
This project also requires SEPA Review under WAC Chapter 197. This project is
not categorically exempt under WAC 197-11-800(3). That exemption applies to work on
structures that involves “no material expansions or changes in use beyond that
previously existing.”
As outlined, the previous use of the building will change. And there will be
expansions and/or structural changes to the building. Revising the structural integrity of
the foundation, adding in a compactor slab, and altering street access to or exit from the
site, goes well beyond the “minor alteration” description in that rule section.
LWWF requests that a full SEPA review, with proper public notice and opportunity
to comment, be conducted by the City for this project.
Conclusion
Without Site Plan Review and an adequate SEPA process, Renton cannot
competently evaluate or approve this project. Public notice and input is needed to
assure that all impacts of the project are thoroughly documented, and any necessary
mitigation or alteration for those impacts is in place. That should have happened prior to
project or building Permit approval. Compliance in this way will ensure that a correct,
legally sufficient decision will result.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Karl G. Anuta
Karl G. Anuta
KGA/ev
Enclosure
cc:Client
Patrice Kent, City Atty – via email