HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2025 - City of Renton's Motion to Dismiss - Untimely Appeal
Motion to Dismiss – Page 1
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON
AUGUSTO ARRIAGA, Governing Person;
AND
ION RENTON, LLC, a Washington Limited
Liability Company
Appellant(s),
v.
CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal
corporation
Respondent.
NOS.
CODE23-000667 and
CODE24-000670
CITY OF RENTON’S MOTION TO
DISMISS – UNTIMELY APPEAL
The City respectfully requests the Hearing Examiner deny and dismiss the appeal by ION
Renton, LLC (“ION”), dated October 15, 2025. The appeal was filed by ION with the City
Clerk, more than 15 days after the notice being appealed was received by ION. As a result, the
appeal is untimely. Accordingly, RMC 1-10-5.B.1 requires dismissal of the appeal.
Motion to Dismiss – Page 2
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For efficiency and expediency, the basis for this motion is focused on the Hearing
Examiner’s lack of jurisdiction to consider the appeal due to it being untimely. If the Hearing
Examiner does not grant this motion, the City will separately move to dismiss the appeal as
substantively meritless. Due to the seriousness of the underlying violations, the City requests
prompt consideration of its jurisdictional motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ion’s appeal arises out of a June 4, 2025, Voluntary Correction Agreement (“VCA”) in
which ION Renton, LLC (“ION”) admitted to the underlying violations found by the City to
have occurred in a January 10, 2025 Notice of Violation. See Exhibit 1 and 2 to Declaration of
Patrice Kent in Support of Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction (“Kent Decl.”).
Voluntary correction agreements are a tool allowed for in the Renton Municipal Code
(RMC) Section 1-10-4, and available for use only when a person in control of a violation party
agrees not to contest the existence of underlying violations, but commits to correcting them.
RMC 1-10-4.C.1; see also Kent Decl., Exhibit 1 (page 6, Party Statements paragraph 1).
By entering the VCA, ION agreed to and waived any right to contest that the violations
constituted a nuisance. Id.
Unfortunately, after the VCA was entered, the nuisance conditions on the property
continued to worsen. On September 18, 2025, the City issued a 48-hour notice and opportunity
to cure violations (“48-hour Notice”), as was contemplated as a first formal step in enforcing
Motion to Dismiss – Page 3
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
non-compliance with the VCA. See Kent Decl., Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 1 (“Corrective Action,
paragraph 5(c) (Dispute Resolution paragraph 1).
After determining ION failed to cure the violations as required by the 48-hour Notice, the
City issued a Notice of Agreement Violation (NAV) as contemplated in the Dispute Resolution
section of the VCA. See Kent Decl., at Exhibit 4.
The NAV was sent by the City via email and USPS certified mail on September 26, 2025. See
Kent Decl., Exhibits 5 and 6. The USPS website shows delivery of the certified NAV delivered
on September 29, 2025, at 11:20 am. See Kent Decl., at Exhibit 6 p 2 (“left with individual”).
On October 15, 2025, the City issued a Fifth Notice of Violation, further documenting the
increasing number of violations on the property and reinitiating the accrual of fines. See Kent
Decl., at Exhibit 7. ION did not appeal that Fifth Notice of Violation (or any prior notices of
violation).
On October 15, 2025, ION sent by email to Gina Estep, CED Administrator, the appeal
of the NAV that is the subject of this motion. See Kent Decl., at Exhibit 8. The appeal was
received by Ms. Estep after the RMC-imposed and VCA-agreed 15-day appeal period. ION later
sent its appeal to the City Clerk, where it was received on October 21, 2025. See Kent Decl., at
Exhibit 9.
Motion to Dismiss – Page 4
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPLICABLE LAW AND ARGUMENT
The VCA states: “Owner may appeal the NAV to the Hearing Examiner within 15
calendar days of receipt, per RMC 1-10-5.” See Kent Decl., at Exhibit 1 (Dispute Resolution
section, page 4, paragraph 2).
RMC 1-10-5.B.1 allows an owner to request a hearing to challenge a notice or order, but
“such request for a hearing must be filed and filed with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days.”
RMC 1-10-5.B.1 further requires that “[a]ny request for a hearing that is not timely filed with the
City …shall be denied.”
The NAV was properly provided by both email and USPS certified mail. Kent Decl., at
Exhibits 5 and 6.
The appeal language included with the NAV reflects the City’s standard appeal language,
and notes that the appeal must be received by the Clerk’s office within 15 days of the date of the
NAV. Id., at Exhibit 4 (p.8).
ION received the notice on both September 26 (email) and September 29 (certified mail).
If we assume the later date started the appeal period, the deadline for filing an appeal with the
City Clerk was 15 days after September 29, or October 14. ION missed this deadline.
Code enforcement decisions qualify as land use decision under Land Use Petition Act
(LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW. See RCW 36.70C.020(2)(c). The filing of LUPA appeals for
land use decisions is governed by RCW 36.70C.040(2). That statute provides that a “land use
petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed…” The
Motion to Dismiss – Page 5
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
City’s NOV appeal filing requirement reflects this language in providing that “[a]ny request for a
hearing that is not timely filed with the City...” shall be denied. RMC 1-10-5B1.
Washington courts have consistently held that the procedural requirements of LUPA
must be strictly met before the superior court's jurisdiction may be properly invoked. See, e.g.,
Durland v. San Juan County, 182 Wn.2d 55, 67, 340 P.3d 191 (2014) ("[W]e require strict
compliance with LUPA's bar against untimely or improperly served petitions."); RST P'ship v.
Chelan County, 9 Wn.App. 2d 169, 175, 442 P.3d 623 (2019) ("The petitioner must strictly meet
the procedural LUPA requirements before properly invoking a trial court's appellate jurisdiction
under the act."); Citizens to Pres. Pioneer Park, LLC v. City of Mercer Island, 106 Wn.App.
461, 467, 24 P.3d 1079 (2001) ("The procedural requirements of the Land Use Petition Act
(LUPA) have to be strictly met before a trial court's appellate jurisdiction under the Act is
properly invoked.").
LUPA case law also makes clear that its strict construction only applies to jurisdictional
requirements such as filing deadlines. “While courts have strictly construed the timing and
parties that must be served in a LUPA proceeding, the courts have not elevated other procedural
requirements to a ‘jurisdictional threshold.’” Prosser Hill Coalition v. Spokane County, 176
Wash. App. 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). Like the timing requirements for the filing of LUPA
appeals, the timing requirements for administrative appeals of the NAV are jurisdictional and
must be strictly construed.
The only potential grounds for relief from filing deadlines that have been recognized
under LUPA has been equitable tolling where untimeliness is essentially attributable to
Motion to Dismiss – Page 6
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
misdirection from the decision-making county or city. Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153
Wn. App. 366 (2009). In this instance Renton directed the NAV according to the VCA.
CONCLUSION
Because the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal, the City
requests the Hearing Examiner to find that the appeal was untimely and not properly filed with
the City Clerk, and dismiss the appeal without need for any review or hearing on the merits.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 13th day of November 2025.
CITY OF RENTON:
By:/s/M. Patrice Kent
M. Patrice Kent, WSBA #42460
Attorney for City of Renton
Motion to Dismiss – Page 7
Renton City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: 425.430.6480
Fax: 425.430.6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on
November 13, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
listed below via email and US Postal Service:
Plaintiff:
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Ian Morrison
McCullough Hill, PLLC
701 5th Ave, Ste 6600
Seattle, WA 98104
EMAIL: imorrison@mhseattle.com
ION Renton LLC
c/o AAA Management LLC
1450 Frazee Rd., Ste 409
San Diego, CA 92108
Augusto Arriaga, Governing Person
ION Renton, LLC
1450 Frazee Rd., Ste 409
San Diego, CA 91208
EMAIL: augusto@diamond-electronics.com
Chris Kelly, Construction Manager
AAA Management
1450 Frazee Rd., Ste 409
San Diego, CA 91208
EMAIL: ckelly@aaamanagementllc.com
DATED this 13th day of November 2025, at Renton, Washington.
Melissa Carasa, Legal Analyst