HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-24-2025 - CoR REPLY to ION RESPONSE (12.24.2025)
City’s Reply– 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 REPLY TO
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
DISMISS – UNTIMELY APPEAL
In its Response to the City’s Motion to Dismiss (“Response”), Appellant ION Renton,
LLC (”ION”) asserts they did not in fact submit an appeal of the Notice of Agreement Violation
(“NAV”), and instead actually submitted an appeal to the 5th Notice of Violation and Order to
Correct (“5th NOV”) (see, e.g., Response p.1, lines 20 -23 and p.3 lines 14-15); in the alternative,
City’s Reply– 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
ION mistakenly filed an appeal to the NAV but intended to file an appeal to the 5th NOV (see
e.g., Response p. 3, lines 4-6 and Kelly Dec. ¶ 7).
ION claims that the City’s objection is a question of form over substance (Response, p 4
lines 9-11), and that the two appeal forms are “materially identical except for the caption line and
the page numbering.” (Response p 3, lines 24-25)
Having a clear administrative record as to what is being appealed is a critical substantive
necessity to determine the scope and jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner’s authority to decide
the appeal. Allowing correction of a misidentified appeal risks undermining the purpose and
intent of strict jurisdiction appeal deadlines to ensure clarity of when decisions become final.
The NAV appeal that ION executed and submitted (Declaration of M. Patrice Kent in
Support of Respondent City of Renton’s Motion to Dismiss. Exhibit 9) – on a City-generated
form - clearly identifies the title “Voluntary Correction Agreement” as the case being appealed,
as well as the “resumption of Daily Fines” in the amount of $23,300.00 per day and again
referencing “Notice of Agreement Violation” as the source of the appeal. As noted in the City’s
initial Motion, and reiterated here, the appeal as submitted is for a contract dispute of an
agreement entered into under the RMC 1-3-3 and RMC 1-10-4 (Kent Decl. Exhibit 4)
Instead, the 5th NOV to which ION is now claiming to have filed an appeal has a notice
(Kent Decl., Exhibit 7 page 16) – also on a City-generated form – that identifies the case
numbers, but with Daily Fines attributable to the 5th Notice &Order in the amount of $50,200.00.
Those violations and related appeal are materially and substantively different in that it relates to
City’s Reply– 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
updated findings of violation of the building and maintenance codes, rather than the violation of
a contractual voluntary correction agreement.
The appeal of a notice of violation or of a violation of a contract are two very different
types of appeals. A hearing on whether the NAV was violated would be focused on whether the
contractual agreement that served as a basis for suspending fines was violated, while the appeal
of a notice of violation is limited to consideration of whether the condition of the property on the
date of the notice violate the Renton Municipal Code and whether the prospective fines created
by that notice (not past notices) are appropriate.
Since ION has stated (see e.g., Response p.1, lines 20 -23 and p.3 lines 14-15) that the
NAV was not appealed, the terms of the VCA are irrelevant and any violation or fine that was
found to exist or imposed prior to the date of the 5th NOV is final and not subject to appeal. See
RMC 1-10-5.B.1 and 5 (“1. ...Any request for a hearing that is not timely filed with the City in
accordance with this section shall be denied. ... 5. Final Determination. If no hearing is timely
requested, the CCI’s determination of the Violation is deemed final, and costs and/or Fines
become due.”); and see RMC 1-10-5.C.3 (“Scope of Hearing: The scope of the hearing is limited
to the conditions of the property on the date listed on the Notice of Violation. Re-litigation of
previously imposed costs and/or Fines is prohibited.”). Accordingly, any appeal of the 5th
NOV should not be a window to reopen and question previous violations and fines that were not
appealed. An appeal of a new notice of violation must be limited only to addressing the
conditions of the property on the date of the new violation – without any relitigation of the VCA
violation or previously assessed fines that were not timely appealed.
City’s Reply– 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
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Based upon ION’s assertion/admission that it did not intend to appeal the NAV, the City requests
the Hearing Examiner enter an order granting the City’s motion to dismiss the submitted appeal
of the NAV with findings that such appeal was not timely made and the City’s issued NAV is
therefore fully binding upon ION without right to further appeal. For avoidance of doubt, this
should include a finding consistent with RMC 1-10-5.B and C that the fines that accrued up until
the date of the VCA and the fines that resumed upon the date of the NAV up until the issuance of
the 5th NOV are final, due, and owing.
To the extent the Hearing Examiner accepts ION’s assertion that its October 15 request
for hearing preserved its right to appeal the 5th NOV the City respectfully requests the record and
basis of the appeal be ordered to be limited to an appeal of conditions of the property as they
existed on October 15, 2025 and new fines imposed in the 5th NOV. The scope of appeal should
be limited so as not to question the past findings of violations and fines that ION failed to timely
appeal.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 24rd day of December 2025.
CITY OF RENTON:
By:/s/M. Patrice Kent
M. Patrice Kent, WSBA #42460
Attorney for City of Renton
City’s Reply– 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
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on
December 24, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
listed below via email:
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 24rd day of December, 2025, at Renton, Washington.
/s/ M. Patrice Kent _______
M. Patrice Kent, Sr. Assistant City Attorney