HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-059 - Report 02CITY JF RENTON
Denis Law, Mayor
June 18, 2008
Randy Morrison
Burien Nissan (Rainier Auto Sales Group)
16042 151 Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98148
Department of Community and
Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Subject: Rainier Auto Sales Event Temporary Use Permit
LUA08-058, TP
Dear Mr. Morrison:
The Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is
complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review.
You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your
application.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Roc e Timmons
As ciate Planner
cc: Wal-Mart Realty Management c/o Roy Ty / Owner(s)
1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98057
®Thispaperwr ins50%recyde materlal,30%poster Sumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Ll, AOS -os g
City of Renton DEVELOPMENTp
LAND USE PERMIT CITYOFFIENTT ING
JUN - 9 2008
MASTER APPLICATION RECEIVEC
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME: ' ?oy /y- eNCf4e117 ",,.W0.&v
Allgkl o is
ADDRESS:
7uz S • ul. 87X S7eee%
CITY: , ZIP:
3e^71Nk,//4 Ae 7 .2 �6
TELEPHONE NUMBER: yob—. 2J^3 - %iSv6
<Y-3S.zv
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: ?) ,QtO On
COMPANY (if a licable):
urre+! Ni,�soN wire.I�'T•
ADDRESS:
Goya /, z �qve sa. l '/
CITY:�efp /c M ZIP: O/7�
TELEPHONE NUMBER
i2-
CONTACT PERSON
NAME:
COMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
11)
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
/ i2.3vS 9/dt3 , ej2303 .90o7
S L00aio
EXISTING LAND USE(S):
AI%�• S,sr,r C/u
PROPOSED LAND USE(S): _
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
C-c
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PI AN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable):
EXISTING ZONING: CP
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
SITE AREA (in square feet): v
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROAD
,YVAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: ✓✓ /�
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE AjCCESS EASEMENTS:
AP
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): ;
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable):
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNIT /(if applicable):
b/
C:\Documenls end SettingsUIP_Owner\Local SettingsUemporary Intemel Files\Content.lE5\YFWV1P2B1tnastempp[ 1 ].doc
PI IECT INFO
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
A
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESID INITIAL
(if applicable): N
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL)
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): �/
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON -RESIDE TIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable):
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUI DINGS (if
applicable): 4
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE
NEW PROJECT ('If applicable):
RMATION (conti
PROJECT VALUE:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE
INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA
sq. ft.
❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD
sq. ft.
❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION
sq. ft.
❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES
sq. ft.
❑ WETLANDS
sq. ft.
I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
SITUATE IN THE �Oi_ QUARTER OF SECTIOND, TOWNSHIP, RANGE S IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for:
1. yZY> 3.
2. 4.
Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Namels) 0OW 10 Ro to I m m , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property
involved in this application or V tFleautftentzedrepresentative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing
statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that , Ce ���i. • T V,
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hslherRheir free and voluntaly act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
R \t\\\111{ n f _
(S furs of Owner/Representative) 4f/l
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
4
(Signature of Owner/Representative) YDJ''✓rN.cF.`kWA
Notary(Print)
My appointment expires: ;Q— \ q —y J
C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Owner\Local ScuinpUemporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\EG9S30rf�mmlempp[l].doc - 2 -
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RE ON
JUN - 9 2008
Burien Nissan (Rainier Automotive Group) RECEIVED
Project Narrative
Burien Nissan would like to obtain a temporary use permit to allow Burien Nissan and
the Sam's Club of Renton to hold an onsite Automobile Sale on the property of Sam's
Club, located at 901 S Grady Way, Renton, Wa, 98057.
The event will take place starting June 27`" through June 30a' .
Requesting the temporary permit to start on June 25d' with an end date of July 2 d. This
will allow for set up and tear down.
We will bring 100 cars into the lot using normal Sam's Club access currently being used
for normal use with no changes.
Improvement to lot is to erect a three sided tent 30'x 40'
The event will take place on the North end of Grady Way's Sam's Club parking lot. See
lot map for exact parking stalls to be used and tent location.
Hours of operation will be from 8:30 am to 10 pm on event days mentioned above.
There will be no security after 10 pm.
Contact person is Randy Morrison 206.349.3535 or 206.242.7070
2
To:
Randy Morrison
General Manager
Burien Nissan
16042 1" Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98148
From:
Michael L. Nonni
Division Manager
Sam's Club Auto Buying Program
13016 North Walton Blvd.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
JUN - 9 2008
RECEIVED
Subject:
Renton, Washington, Club 44835 Auto Event during month of June, 2008.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to state that Burien Nissan is part of a National Sam's Club Program that allows for
off -site events on our property at: 901 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington. The Dealer has
asked permission and it is granted by Sam's Club provided the Dealer has the required permits.
If there are any questions or concerns, they may be directed to my office at: 1-888-571-1557 or
a voice mail may be left at: 1-479-464-3930.
Michael L. Nonni
Division Manager
Sam's Club Auto Buying Program
ADATISING AGREEMAT
El
tM it
Direct
•
❑x
Lot Only
13016 N. Walton Blvd., Bentonville, Arkansas 72712 • P.O. Box 1760, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712
Phone # 1-800-346-5964 - Fax # 479-464-3942
Check the box that applies
Auto, Boat
This agreement made on June 6 , 2008 between Member Services, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation with its principle place of
a RV Program
business at P.O. Box 1760, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712, hereinafter referred to as "Agency", and "Advertiser"
doing business as:
Dealership: Burien Nissan
Contact I: Randy Morrison Fax:206-241-7973 Phone: 206.349.3535
Email:
rmorrison@burien�
Contact 2:
Fax: Phone:
Email:
Physical Address: 16042 1st Avenue South Website Address: wWW.rainierautogroup.com
City/State/Zip: Seattle Washinqton 98148
Vehicles Advertised ❑Only New ❑Only Pre -owned ❑X Both Nissan new and used
VdIEREAS, The AGENCY represents that it is in the business of marketing and distributing advertising for invitational sales and promotions, and, WHEREAS, AD-
VERTISER desires to obtain such advertising services from the AGENCY, and the AGENCY is willing to render such services on the terns hereinafter set forth.
Package Type: Package #1 Colors:
Postage Option: ❑1st Class Mail (additional fees apply)
Quantity: @ $—
Gift Certificates: $5.00 x Qty 100
SAM'S CLUB
$40.00
x Qty 100 =
Total
V.pF.
Deposit: A retainer in the sum of due upon consummation of this agreement
`` (this retainer is non-refundable if cancelled by ADVERTISER).
�G�y Ce Due:30 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT (Date) Now
$ 7,995.00
$ Included
$ Included
$ 7,995.00
$ < N/A
$ 7,995.00
If Contract is a Multi -Advertiser split (advertiser splits must add up to contract Tolal amount -All Advertiser's must sion contract)
Advertiser #1
Advertiser #1
Advertiser #1
Event Dates & Hours
6/26108 from 8:00AM
6127/08 from 8:OOAM
to 8:30PM
to 8:30PM
6/28/08
6/29108
Event Location (Please indicate what club if at dealership location)
❑X SAM'S CLUE# 4835 -Renton ❑ Dealership
from8:00AM to 8:30PM
from8:00AM to8:30PM
Address: 901 South Grady Way City Renton State WA Zip: 98055
Mailing List & Zipcodes
Center Zipcode Go Out Miles
City/County Permits and General Liability Insurance
The responsibility of securing/obtaining and supplying AGENCY a copy of all permits
and general liability insurance' applicable to this event is required by ADVERTISER
before printing of invitation. Failure to obtain said documents requires ADVERTISER
to sign a "Agency Release Form" supplied by AGENCY. ADVERTISER is still
responsible for getting and sending in permits and general liability insurance to
AGENCY before event can take place. *General Liability Insurance must have the
business at the event location named as the additional insured.
Fax all documents to: 479-271-7371 ADVERTISER _ (initials)
Miscellaneous #Mirror Tags150
#Reg. Forms 300 Ship materials to:
city: Randy Morrison at Dealership _
r,'04rx/ Al z:�sva �/J60clJ-
State: , -Hie ✓� I -
back
• ADVERTISING AGREEMENT CONTINUED
13016 N. Walton Blvd., Bentonville, Arkansas 72712 - P.O. Box 1760, Bentonville, Arkansas 72712 • Phone # 1-800-346-5964 • Fax # 479-4643942
Auto, Boat
& RV Program
• Contract is subject to cancellation by AGENCY if not completed within 6 months (with no refund of deposit).
• Fee is subject to change due to increase in postage or printing should dates be extended, by written agreement, past 90 days from date of contract.
• Substantial Performance: It is mutually agreed that, upon mailing of the invitations the AGENCY shall be considered to have substantially
performed this agreement.
• INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: AGENCY shall be independent contractor and not an employee of the ADVERTISER under this agreement.
• ADVERTISER agrees to supply AGENCY with local dealership name to be used with any marketing and distributed advertising for invitational
sales and promotions.
• This agreement supercedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof,
and no other agreement, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter of this agreement which is not contained herein shall be valid or binding.
The validity of this agreement and of any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereunder, shall be governed by
laws of the State of Arkansas.
• ADVERTISER is responsible for all charges incurred by either party if ADVERTISER cancels the event.
• ADVERTISER assumes sole responsibility for and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify AGENCY from any and all liability, costs, and expenses,
including expenses of defense, against any claims for damage or injury to any person occurring as a result or the conduct of this sales event. In this
regard, ADVERTISER represents that it carries general liability insurance with coverage limits of $50,000 per person and $1,000,000 aggregate for
each accident or injury.
• AGENCY will not be held responsible for early or late mail due to the U.S. Postal Service or due to a Force Majeure.
• It is agreed that any dispute between the parties arising under this contract shall be resolved by arbitration as provided in Arkansas Code annotated
16-108-201 etseq with any such arbitrafion proceeding to occur in Bentonville, Arkansas.
• AGENCY shall not be held liable for any sales tax that may apply to the sale or promotion in the advertisers state, county or city. Furthermore,
AGENCY shall not be held liable for any use tax, miscellaneous tax or other applicable taxes. It is agreed that the ADVERTISER is responsible for
any and all taxes that apply for their state.
• It is acknowledged by ADVERTISER that this agreement shall become effective only when approved by AGENCY at AGENCY'S office in
Bentonville, Arkansas, and the final approval of SAM'S CLUB Store Manager and SAM'S CLUB Corporate Office, AGENCY is not responsible
for DEALER'S/ADVERTISER'S outside advertising expense, regardless of the dale of cancellation.
• Advertiser is solely reponsible for any and all other advertising related expense(s) incurred prior to receiving all above stated approvals.
• All mail will be sent via Standard Class U.S. Postage unless otherwise noted and charged for on this agreement. AGENCY will not be held responsible
for early or late Standard Class mail deliveries or lost Standard Class mail. ADVERTISER will not be entitled to a refund, make-up sale or discount
on future sales events should the aforementioned occur.
• Advertiser is solely responsible for submitting any and all outside advertising to Agency for approval. Before going to prinffV/radio/etc.,
advertiser must allow up to one week for the approval proce�
/ r
Y: br•—615/08
— --- B -- —er --
dvertiser Signature -- Date Agency Regional Manager Signature Date
BY: BY:
Advertiser #2 Signature (ifapplicabfe) Date Agency Divisional Manager Signature Date
BY: Both Regional and Divisional Manager
Advertiser #3 Signature (if applicable) Date must sign for document to be valid.
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
Eml JUN - g 2008
RECEIVE[
4('
ABATEMENT AGREEMENT
JUN - 9 2008
TEMPORARY USE RECEIVED
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
I, (awn `/ molgz '1/V being the Applicant for the Temporary
Use Permit at the Location of:
,11�ti 9A us
Hereby authorize the City of Renton to summarily eliminate the Temporary Use and all evidence
of the use if it has not been removed as required by the terms of the permit. I also agree to
reimburse the City for any ex2ense incurred in mating this Temporary Use.
Signature: C
i
Print Name:
Date:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their fr and
purposes mentioned intheinstrument.
Dated: !/
hNiAl N/.SSt),vIJIW N/d/-
M, /4'V``9" A signed
ct f r the uses and
Notary Public i ` nd for the State of Washington
Notary (Print): _ _ T , 54
My appointment expires:
PW/DevServ/Forms/Planning/Tempuseabatemenl 8 01108
Release and a,*�emnification Agreemen..or Model Homes
This agreement is made by and between the City of Renton, Washington, a municipal corporation of the State
of Washington ("City") and ("Owners").
Recitals
The Owners own real property in the City legally described in Exhibit A, attached.
The Owners have submitted an application for building permit(s) and/or a Temporary Use Permit to construct
model homes on the real property prior to recording of a short plat or final plat. Since changes to the short plat
or final plat may be necessary after construction of the model homes rendering the homes illegal, there is some
risk in building the model homes.
In consideration of the inherent risks associated with the construction of buildings in advance of the recording of
the plat, the City requires the owner to execute an indemnification agreement prior to any model home
construction activities.
Agreement
The parties agree to the following:
1. The City authorizes the Owners to do the work as described in the Temporary Use Permit application
No. once building permits have been obtained.
2. The owners assume the risk that the model home(s) must be removed or reconfigured and therefore
release and discharge the City and its representatives from all known and unknown losses, claims,
damages or causes of actions which the owners have or may have relating to buildings or structures
authorized by the Temporary Use Permit.
3. As a condition of granting Owner permission to construct model homes, Owner agrees to indemnify,
defend and hold the City of Renton Harmless from any claims or liens that may be exerted against the
property as a result of construction of model homes and use of the unrecorded plat of
4. Owners understand and acknowledge that, should the model home construction not comply with the
proposed lot configuration of the final plat, that no variances to development standards for either the
lots or the homes may be granted as such a situation would be considered a "self-induced hardship".
5. Owners acknowledge that they understand that any construction begun prior to the recording of the final
plat must be in compliance with all City zoning and subdivision requirements (e.g. setbacks, lot
coverage, etc.) or removed prior to recording of the final plat. If the final plat is not recorded prior to the
expiration of the Temporary Use Permit, Owners acknowledge that the homes must be removed unless
complying with all applicable code requirements (e.g. one home per lot, etc.).
6. Applicant will also provide an Abatement Agreement and a security device acceptable to the City to
ensure removal of any structures not in compliance with City regulations at the time of expiration of the
Temporary Use Permit and understands construction of the model homes is at Owners' own risk.
7. The provisions of this agreement shall bind the parties, their legal heirs, representatives, successors
and assigns and shall expire upon the recording of the final plat of
I, (Print Name) , declare that I am (please check one) ❑ the owner of the
property involved in the application, ❑ the authorized representative to act for the property owner (if a
corporation, please attach proof of authorization to sign), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein
contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Owner
Owner
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of on the
__ day of 20_
(Signature of Notary Public)
PW/DevServ/Forms/Planninglrempuseabatement 9 01/08
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIV OF SUBMITTAL REQUI :MENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: jIj<(�ZLr �l ✓ �j<<I{5
2. Public Works Plan Review Section
3. Building Section DATE: I lL I C 0
4. Planning Section
Q:1WEB\P5MDEVSERViFormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xls 02108
PLANNING DIVISION 3
WAIVA OF SUBMITTAL REQUL _--MENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: NI����C" ( ci v Ill I es
2. Public Works Plan Review Section
3. Building Section DATE:
4. Planning Section
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
JUN - 9 2008
Q:1WEBIPWIDEVSERV1Fo"slPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.)ds RECEIVED "'08
E
Roy Ty
Club manager
Club 4835
901 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone:425-793-7443
FAX: 425-793-7932
E-Mail: Ityiils04835.usQsamsclub can
DEVELOPMENT F RNTON ING
JUN - 9 2008
RECEIVED
+Kaa Roy Ty
Club manager
Club 4835
901 S. Grady Way
Renton. WA 98057
Phone:425-793-7443
FAX:425-793-7932
E-Mail Ityoi.s04835. us®sarnsdub.corn
Printed: 06-09-2008
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA08-058
06/09/2008 02:30 PM
Total Payment: 100.00
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
Receipt Number:
Payee: BURIEN NISSAN
Trans Account Code Description Amount
------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------
5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 100.00
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
Payment Check 115294 100.00
Account Balances
Trans Account Code Description
3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee
5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees
5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers
5008 000.345.81,00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat
5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees
5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review
5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat
5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat
5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD
5014 000.345.81,00,0011 Grading & Filling Fees
5015 000,345,81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment
5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks
5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone
5018 000,345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt
5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev
5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval
5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence
5022 000.345.81,00,0019 Variance Fees
5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee
5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend
5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies
5941 000.341.50.00,0000 Maps (Taxable)
5954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits
5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage
5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax
Balance
Due
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
JUN - 9 2008
RECEIVED
R0803010
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
��Y o CITY )F RENTON
.0
City Clerk
Denis Law, Mayor Bonnie 1. Walton
\NrV
September 10, 2008
Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Re: Appeal to Council of Code Enforcement Officer Administrative Decision
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
At the regular Council meeting of September 8, 2008, the Renton City Council adopted
the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to dismiss the appeal
as referenced for lack of case or controversy and jurisdiction. -Copy of the report as
adopted is attached.
If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact rite.
Sincerely;
Bonnie I. Walton
cc: Mayor Denis Law
Council President Marcie Palmer
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Ronald Bergman, 2811 Dayton Ave. NE, Renton, WA 98056
1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-65 i 0 / FAX (425) 430-6516 R E
NTON
®Thisp3perp nteins5G%m le�matenal,30% AHEAD OF THE CURVE
cYc post consumer
September 8, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 280
along NE Sunset Blvd.; and the proposed project is well beneath that, at
approximately 26 dwelling units per acre, even with the concessions given
regarding the setbacks.
For these reasons, the Committee makes the following recommendations:
• That the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial
error of law in denying the Conditional Use Permit because the applicant
did meet the requisite criteria for a conditional use.
• That the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial
error of law in that denying the Site Plan in that it meets the criteria of the
City's Site Plan review and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and Land Use policies.
• Move to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/24/2008 and
approve the Site Plan and approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow a
height limit extension to 55 feet 4 inches for the elevator shaft only. This
approval shall be conditioned upon all the other recommendations set forth
in Section I, pages 21-22 of the City's Staff Report dated 5/27/2008.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR
IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Appeal: Nicholson Light Planning and Development Chair Parker represented a report regarding the
Trespass, AAD-08-059 Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal. Pursuant to a complaint received by Brad
Nicholson regarding an allegation of"light trespass," the City's Code
Enforcement Division reviewed the matter and found insufficient basis to issue
a citation for the alleged offense. Mr. Nicholson "appealed" this issue to the
Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner declined to hear the appeal, finding
no jurisdiction over alleged code enforcement violation, and insofar as any code
violations were criminal in nature, the proper venue would be in Renton
Municipal Court.
Mr. Nicholson subsequently "appealed" the decision by the Hearing Examiner
declining to hear this appeal. The Hearing Examiner found no jurisdiction over
this matter and the City Council only has authority to review the Hearing
Examiner's decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 OF.
Therefore, this Committee has no option other than to recommend that this
matter be dismissed for lack of case or controversy and jurisdiction. MOVED
BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Jay Leviton (Renton) announced that the Community in Schools of Renton
Citizen Comment: Leviton -
annual mentor celebration will be held at the Renton Senior Center at 5:30 p.m.
Community in Schools of
on 10/12/2008 and invited Council to attend. Mr. Leviton also thanked City
Renton
officials and staff on behalf of the Renton Chamber of Commerce for their
commitment to supporting the business community.
Citizen Comment: Peterson -
Doug Peterson (Renton), President, Valley View Homeowners' Association,
Valley View Mobile Home
stated that their mobile home park is a diverse, quiet, and safe community. He
Park
requested the City's help and guidance in preserving their homes.
Citizen Comment: Workman -
Bill Workman (Renton) stated that Valley View Mobile Home Park is a great
Valley View Mobile Home
place to live, and he has lived there for 17 years. He noted that the park may be
Park
closed (and redeveloped), and most of the homes in the park are too old to be
moved. He requested the City's cooperation in saving their homes.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 8, 2008
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
Date %� a008
BRAD NICHOLSON APPEAL OF CODE ENFORCEMENT DECISION
RMC 4-8-11 O(A)(2) Appeal of May 29, 2008 Notice by Code Enforcement
(Referred August 4, 2008)
Pursuant to a complaint received by Brad Nicholson regarding an allegation of "light
trespass," the City's Code Enforcement Division reviewed the matter and found
insufficient basis to issue a citation for the alleged offense. Nicholson "appealed" this
issue to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner declined to hear the appeal,
finding no jurisdiction over alleged code enforcement violation, and insofar as any code
violations were criminal in nature, the proper venue would be in Renton Municipal Court.
Nicholson subsequently "appealed" the decision by the Hearing Examiner declining to
hear this appeal. The Hearing Examiner found no jurisdiction over this matter, and the
City Council only has authority to review the Hearing Examiner's decision pursuant to
RMC 4-8-110(F).
Therefore, this Committee has no option other than to recommend to the full City
Council that this matter be dismissed for lack of case or controversy and jurisdiction.
GREG LOR, Member
cc: Alex Pietsch
Chip Vincent
Neil Watts
Ann Nielsen
Fred Kaufman
4, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 251
some of the existing roadways do not meet City of Renton standards, and street
upgrades will occur at the expense of new development. No other comments
were expressed.
Responding to Council inquiries, Ms. Mathias stated that the recommendation
that residents not be required to assume their proportional share of existing
outstanding debt is due to the fact that the debt is set to expire at the end of
2009 and the annexation will not be effective until late 2009. Mr. Pietsch added
that the Shamrock development was a King County demonstration project and
was authorized higher densities due to being a "green" development.
Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING.
CARRIED.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ACCEPT
THE l 0% NOTICE OF INTENT PETITION FOR THE SHAMROCK
ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF A 60%
DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX SPECIFYING THAT SIGNERS SUPPORT
FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA AND THAT SIGNERS
WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME THEIR PROPORTIONAL SHARE
OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED.
Mr. Pietsch announced that in keeping with Council's request, future fiscal
analysis reports will include an estimate of how many new full-time employees
would be required if the proposed annexation is adopted.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative
REPORT
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs
adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included:
• August 3 to 9 is Washington State Farmers Market Week, so come to the
Renton Farmers Market on Tuesday, August 5, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
to celebrate! There will be food, a raffle, and ideas on how to "go green" in
your daily life.
• The City of Renton is hosting "National Night Out" on Tuesday, August 5,
from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Cascade Plaza Shopping Center, located
at 17060 1 16th Ave. SE. There will be food, games, and fun party hoppers
for kids.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Council Meeting Minutes of
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 7/14/2008. Council concur.
7/14/2008
Council Meeting Minutes of
Approval of Council meeting minutes of 7/21/2008. Council concur.
7/21/2008
Court Case: Johnson, Court Case filed on behalf of Robert E. Johnson, by Foster Pepper, PLLC,
CRT-08-007 adding the City of Renton to an uncontested partition action. Refer to City
Attorney and Insurance Services.
Appeal: Nicholson Light (City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's letter regarding jurisdiction
Trespass, Nicholson, AAD-0 - for the Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal (AAD-08-059) by Brad Nicholson,
059 accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
251
C... OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA .SILL
Ala:
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of: August 4, 2008
Dept/Div/Board: AILS/City Clerk
Agenda Status
Staff Contact: Bonnie I. Walton
Consent ................ X
Public Hearing........
Subject:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's letter dated 6/16/2008
Correspondence.......
regarding jurisdiction for the Nicholson Light Trespass
Ordinance .............
Appeal
Resolution .............
(File No. LUA-08-059, AAD)
Old Business..........
New Business.........
Exhibits:
• City Clerk's letter (7/25/2008)
Study Sessions........
• Appeal to Council — Brad Nicholson (6/30/2008)
Information............
• Request for Reconsideration (7/l/08) & response (7/10/08)
• Appeal to Hearing Examiner (6/8/08) and response (6/16/08)
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept...........
Finance Dept........
Other ..................
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment........
Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget .... City Share Total Project...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the jurisdiction of the Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal
filed on 6/30/2008 by Brad Nicholson, accompanied by the required $75 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal.
cc: Jennifer Henning
Larry Warren
Rentonnedagnbill/ bh
i
♦/+
Denis Law, Mayor
�N.ro
July 25, 2008
CITY `IF RENTON
City Clerk
Bonnie 1. Walton
APPEAL FILED BY: Brad Nicholson, 2302 NE 28th St., Renton, WA 98056
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's letter dated 6/16/2008, regarding jurisdiction for appealing
a 5/29/2008, Code Enforcement decision. File No. LUA-08-059, AA-D.
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances; written appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision regarding the. Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal has been filed with the City
Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1 10F., the City Clerk shall notify all
parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to
support of their positions on the appeal only within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the
notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters to the
City Clerk office is 5:00 pm, Monday;, August 4,2008.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
August 21, 2008, in the 7th floor Council- Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, 98057. This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, however, it is not a
public hearing. 'It is a working session of the Planning& Development Committee. No new
testimony or evidence will b6 taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared
to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing
Examiner. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full'
Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits
of the appeal based upon the written -record previously established; Unless a showing.can be
made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held
by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the
City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Bonnie 1. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Attachment
1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 i ` E lr 1 O lr
This paw ooQ 6850% acycled material, 30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal
LUA-08-059, AAD
Parties of Record:
Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 281h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Ronald Bergman
2811 Dayton Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98056
`I vr mttly rON
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
OF HEAR EXAMINER'S DECISION/REC( IENDATION JUN 3 U 2008,
, I CRECEIVED
Q
ITi°FFICE
APPLICATION NAME r� )t eJh CA/ FILE NO.
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPE
Name:_
P/ alo lreg"ri
Name: /��
Address: Z 3 c 7_o(i E- rZ 7-
p
/k"�A� W,. 52d�Up6
Phone Numbern�z 2 i-- 0— ob� k
Email: 4j/eb-,P+
2009
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: _ -- -
Address:
Phone Number:
Email:
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as de//noted/ in the Examiner's Report)
No. L Error: W A-Jy l Q r�H? llti s Y i^a i u e G�eCI f/ 8sa /y
Correction:
Conclusions-
No.
Correction:
Other:
No. Error:
Correction:
<�- er
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other: tom' rttn IL /14Y r{�P e-el- /
Signature
7jf k&o Ah t;�oIso7i
Type/Printed Name
�-36-0"
Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV Chapter of the Renton Mu cipal Code, and Section 4-8-11OF, for specific appeal procedures.
r r r�.y „/a•�N C � >� i i .f/�• / v�G T!s Lud t✓c Al We,t 15 �zx
City of Renton Municipal C^ae; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Appe, 7,
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-11017: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested patty
aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examiner's written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982)
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-0501`2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may
remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the
application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10, Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
D t]I 1 Tl 7�7TlrT O (�'ON lent N.E. shiStreet
`iL/ 1 �l l.11Vl.. �Vl � Renton, Washington 98056
brad827 ,hotmail corn
(425)445-0658
June 30, 2008
City Council
Renton City Hall — 7t' Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision dated June 16, 2008
Dear City Council,
I have been having problems with an unreasonable light trespass that is interfering with the
enjoyment of my property and have been trying to get someone from the City to properly
interpret the code and address my concerns. Neil Watts did not return my telephone call. I
have a wife and an infant that are very disturbed by some very inconsiderate light trespassing
behaviors and even after I stated that I would pay for the corrections there has been nothing
done about it. The neighbor would suffer no monetary or environmental impacts, and has no
reason to illuminate my bedroom, bathroom, family room, and dining room.
I appealed the Jennifer Henning interpretation to the Hearing Examiner in a timely manner
and he refused jurisdiction over the matter based upon an error that it was only for the police
and code enforcement in Renton Municipal Court. The code gives the Examiner the
jurisdiction to review any administrative decision made regarding building and development
regulations and directs the Director to enforce remedies with regard to light trespass. Because
of another error, I received notice of his decision just over an hour before the expiration of the
appeal period for his decision. His office did not send his decision to the correct address.
Notwithstanding, I re- allege the substance of the original appeal, and appeal the examiners
decision dated June 16, 2008 as being clearly erroneous. It is my hope that you will be able to
provide some assistance in this matter so that the provisions with respect to 4-4-075 can be
given effect.
Brad Nicholson
CIT' OF RENTON
Denis Law, Mayor
July 10, 2008
Mr. Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 28`' Street
Renton, WA 98056
Re: RMC 4-8-110(A.)(2.) Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's May 29, 2008
Administrative decision to ignore the code and give permit to trespass.
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
CITY OF RENTON
JUL 1 1 2008
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration. The decision you are attempting to
appeal is not one based on the issuance of a permit. Section 4-4-075(D) provides the basis for the
interpretation and issuance of permits:
"During development permit review, the Responsible Official shall determine
compliance with the provisions of this Section. Conditions of approval may be
applied to achieve compliance. The Development Services Division Director or
designee shall enforce the provisions of this Section."
No permit review is taking place nor has one occurred within the reasonable past that would give
rise to an appeal in this matter. As the original letter of this office indicated this is now a code
enforcement issue and this office has no jurisdiction in this matter.
This office will note that you have filed a separate appeal of this matter to the City Council._ That
body will be able to consider your case based on existing laws and regulations.
If this office can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Denis Law, Mayor
Jay Covington, CAO
Lawrence Warren, City Attorney
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Neil Watts, Director Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515
This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30%postconsumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CGFVC
BRAD NICHOLSON
July 1, 2008
Mr, Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall — 7t' Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
2302 N.E. 2e Street
Renton, Washington 98056
brad827 �hotmail.com
(425)445-0658
RE: Request for reconsideration: Appeal of Administrative decision falling under the
jurisdiction of RMC 4-8-110 (E) 1. a.
Mr. Hearing Examiner,
I agree with you that criminal and tort type appeals are not properly before your office, there
are other jurisdictions for taking such actions that have merit like this one does. However the
City Council placed the regulations for remedy of light trespasses in the City's development
regulations and did not charge the police department with initiating enforcement of those
regulations, they charged the Director of Development services to do it. I have witnessed all
too often the Director, (or as in this case the apparent designee Jennifer Henning) making an
instant decision and zeroes in on one word or phrase of the code and ignores everything else.
This is not quality decision making and my appeal is right on the money. Code interpretations
should be made by reading the entire language leaving no provision absurd this is law. And by
finding out what is wrong before a decision is made. Decisions like this give the opportunity
to shed some light upon why I would be so critical of City decision making. The fact is that
code enforcement officer informed me that they had deferred to Jennifer Henning for a
construction of the code and a decision prior to being able to proceed with enforcement, and
that subsequent decision was not to enforce the code because Ms. Henning had stated that the
residential lights were decided to be "reasonable and not excessive" because they are
"residential type lights" Jennifer Henning is a Principle Planner in the Development Services
division of Renton and is evidently filling in for Neil Watts, I say this because he never
returned my calls and Donna Locher identified Ms. Henning. The code states at 4-4-075 (13.)
that "the standards of this section apply to remedy existing residential lighting" and directs us
to 1-3-4 A.1 l.c. (21). That section of the code requires the Director to enforce when the lights
are of "such an intensity so as to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment by the abutting
property" The word "shall" is used. Ms. Henning's interpretation being in error, caused
confusion in that the code enforcement officer believed and deferred that the condition could
not be `enforced as a nuisance because of her administrative construction was also reasonable.
Ms. Locher may be correct in that because as I previously identified the code is clear that the
Director is charged with the responsibility of initiating enforcement. There is a distinct
difference in being able to grant absolute power to decide whether a certain residential light
fixture is "reasonable" and allow it and/or whether it is "of such an intensity to unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment by the abutting property" She thinks she has the power to decide
without my having the ability to challenge because the burden placed on proving otherwise is
so cumbersome. However that discretion is not available when there is no rational basis for the
envelope of disturbing light. While reading the code it appears to be outright abuse to tell me
to "get some window blinds" The facts of this case are that there is absolutely no reason the
offensive light cannot be remedied and still the interpretation decision gets to stand. It is not
0 Page 2 July 1, 2008
necessary to have the lights shining also at my bedroom, there can be deflectors installed. I
had hoped for a finding that such a interpretation determination be considered to fall under the
category of "any administrative decision" according to 4-8-110 (E.) 1. a. if it is error, abusive,
and unreasonable or any or the criteria capable to reverse it. The code enforcement officer
could then move forward with some kind of enforcement action like I originally asked the
code enforcement officer to consider. The influence of the decision by Ms. Henning was just
too much for the code enforcement department to overcome and that is why it is appropriate
for your office to hold a hearing and make a decision on my appeal. Window blinds are not an
appropriate remedy according to a reading of the code that gives effect to all provisions. My
thinking is that if the Director designee had not made this decision we would have well
already been able to resolve all of this appeal and my concerns. However I question even my
own thniking while I can see that there are still dandelions which I complained about along the
edge of the property that are nearly up to my chest. Code enforcement can't figure out who
owns that property yet. Perhaps you can clarify your decision so that the appeal when decided
by the Cormcil will have all of the facts. Had you actually heard the issues in a Hearing, you
would have known that things like liability for the nuisance are moot because I have offered to
pay for all of it just to improve my situation, and that I would have contended that under the
code the pen -nit for the light needs to be revoked if that is not acceptable to the neighbor to
have me do the job of fixing it. I will still contend you are wrong if you decide this is a
decision that does not involve an appeal of an administrative decision. I am song to say so
because it leaves me quite disappointed in the City and give me no pleasure to say so. But I
am a parent now and I have a 20 month old child that needs to sleep in the area of the house
that is right directly across from the intensity next to our bedroom and he is complaining and I
am complaining because of it and the fact that I cant see my backyard at night nor am I able to
look out of the windows to see the night sky without a blare, something I enjoy doing. My
wife is 100% agreeing with everything said here and suffers as I do. All this occurs because of
a decision that a light fixture is "reasonable" by the director designee because it is a residential
type. The decision is wrong because there is no reason the lights can not be fixed so that they
shine only on the other property. It can not be reasonable under such circumstances. hn fact the
neighbor set off his car alarm at night for about three weeks after I identified my concerns to
hum. You should have a video of it. This is all so very disturbing. I am sorry to appeal your
decision before your having the opportunity to review the facts at a hearing but I only received
your decision in the mail about an hour before the deadline to appeal because the address you
had wrong so I appealed it to the City council. There appears to also be no reason why your
office could not consider this letter a request for reconsideration, an action that would also be
according to code. So it is, I request you reconsider your decision. My goal is to have
administrative decision making that will decide in accordance with the code that the lights are
capable to be deflected down and not into our bedroom windows and windows to our home
and it is not reasonable to decide otherwise. I wanted to try to be courteous and pursue
administrative remedies as a first resort. I ask that you consider what it might be like if you
were in my situation and I were you when you consider this letter. How would you decide to
respond then?
J
Brad Nicholson
Note regarding CD, labeled Nicholson Evidence Exhibits June 8, submitted with the
appeal:
A list of the files contained on the CD is attached, which includes three
photographs and a video.
Black and white copies of the photographs are attached.
CIV OF REN'TON
Denis Law, Mayor
June 16, 2008
Mr. Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 81" Street
Renton, WA 98056
Re: RMC 4-8-110(A.)(2.) Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's May 29, 2008
Administrative decision to ignore the code and give permit to trespass.
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
This office has reviewed your letter of June 8, 2008. This office has no jurisdiction in Code
Enforcement matters. Those matters are handled by Code Enforcement officers working in
concert with the Police Department. Any enforcement is then handled in Renton Municipal Court
and not by this office.
You might want to pursue private nuisance action if that is appropriate in this situation.
If this office can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Denis Law, Mayor
Jay Covington, CAO
Lawrence Warren, City Attorney
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Neil Watts, Director Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515
® This papercontalns 50% -yclaJ inaienal, 30°cpestmnsumei
RENT0NT.
A14HAD 0P IHS ,],._,..
BRAD NICHOLSON
June 8, 2008
Mr, Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall — 7 h Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
2302 N,E. 28 ' Street
Renton, Washington 98056
brad827@hotmail.com
(425)445-0658
I,X1' OF REN T ON 3
JUv 3 9 2008
RECENED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: RMC 4-8-I10(A.)(2.) Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's May 29, 2008
Administrative decision to ignore the code and give permit to trespass.
Mr. Hearing Examiner,
This appeal is timely, has standing, and is made upon the ground that the specific
administrative decision under appeal is inconsistent with the code and constitutes error and
abuse bthe City Official responsible for the decision. My wife, child, and I are very
disturbedy by a willful continuing trespass violation that is taking place on our property. The
City Enforcement Officer is refusing to do her job based upon a misinterpretation of the code
that is, in addition to ignoring plain and unambiguous requirements, repugnant to its purpose.
The misinterpretation of code was evidently performed by Jennifer Henning, and the decision
was made by Donna Locher. Who is responsible really doesn't matter to us the decision itself
is what is at issue here.
The code states at RMC 44-075 (D.): "The Development Services Division Director or
designee shall enforce the provisions of this section". What we would appreciate is for the
Director to simply require the perpetrators of a light trespass to comply by taking a few simple
steps respecting the code by shielding the direct and intense lights. The decision that is at issue
here, is the decision not to request or enforce the measure of shielding. Furthermore, all the
above occurred without the City ever actually observing the unconscious behaviors that are, in
addition to being plainly illegal, very disturbing behaviors we consider to be rude,
inconsiderate, and disrespectful from one Ronald Bergman of 2811 Dayton Avenue in
Renton .The way we see rt, the decision is very egregious considering the plain language and
simple and 'inexpensive steps available that would alleviate our concerns. It is clear the
neighbor is quite capable w take those steps and is aware of the violations, but refuses to make
any gflorts or action. This occurs wlule the Director Designee refuses to properly interpret the
code . It is damaging to the appearance of the City, a phrase I know the Examiner has
reviewed in the past.
' In the follow up conversation I had on June 5, 2008 @ 11:30 a.m. relating to my complaint of May 29,
2008@2:00 p.m with Donna Locher she stated that the lights are permissible in the opinion of the City because
they are residential type lights. She recommended getting some window blinds and then closing them to block the
offensive illumination that is disturbing my family. She stated that she and her co-workers made their decision
based upon their own discretion because they have no other way to do it. She recommended that neighbors solve
their problems on their own by talking it out, suggesting that I might convince the neighbors to turn the light off.
She indicated that nobody from the City has ever visited the site at night. The neighbors are aware of the
requirements of 4-4-075 RMC.
2 I have provided digital photography of the activity as evidence, and attest that they are true and correct depictions
of the illegal use-
3 During my discussion with Ms. Locher I identified the specific code provisions that require action by the City.
1 lkj u-fl.-'LC✓
• Page 2
June 8, 200A
The codes that are violated by the decision are contained 1-2-1 RMC and 4-4-075 RMC. One
Part that we must use to reverse the decision not to act is contained in RMC 4-4-075 (F.) and
states, "In any case, no use or activity shall cause light trespass beyond the boundaries of the
propedy lines". State laws, cite, In re the disciplinary action against Arthur Blauvelt III, 115
Wn. 2d 735 as well as 1-2-1 RMC regire the decisionmaker to use the ordinary dictionary
meaning of "words" of the code with their true meaning according to its lain lanpa e when
there is no specific definition provided. At issue here are the words "an shall' and "case"
and the teen "in any case" and can shed some light on the errors that have been made. The
word "shall" is already defined by the code and should need to entertain no construction so we
may turn to the words "any" and "case". In numerous dictionaries I have here on my shelves,
the meaning of the word "any' is very clear. "any" is defined in those dictionaries as follows,
"one or some or everyry or a 1 without specifications" and "one or some indiscriminately of
whatever kind". Similarly, the word "case" is clearly defined as it is also in those same
dictionary as follows, "a set of circumstances or conditions", and "the object of investigation
or consideration" further, "a suit in law or equity".
These definitions raise the issue that can resolve this case and it should be done in my favor -
there is no need for any litigation at all. Various arguments that can possibly arise may be
winners or losers, for example such as rebuttals asserting claims of collateral estoppel, laches,
collateral attacks on statements made, admissibility o Fevidence, or statements, hearings on
technicalities as to form or content but they are all irrelevant and unnecessary here because
light trespass is not allowed in "an case" In other wordst violations are allowed for no set of
conditions or circumstances the sub ect of consideration indiscriminate of whatever kind and
without specification might be available, "in any case". I am also disturbed that the person or
persons that made the decision did not attempt to observe the building lights or the disturbance
that is taking place and instead determined that I should install and use some window blinds if
I am disturbed. The interpretation could not be farther away from the code. The issue is the
building light that is disturbing its.
"Buildingg" is defined in the code as being a dwelling or "any part thereof', see ordinance
5221 6-14-2006. Proving the decision is wrong is statement in RMC 4-4-075 (E.) 1. that "All
building lights shall be directed onto the building itself or to the ground immediately abutting
it." It is my firm belief that it is not necessary to provide a dictionary definition for the word
"all" contained in the code. It is because the building lights are glaring directly into my
bedroom, bathroom, dining area, as well as the family room and not directed at the building or
ground like is supposed to be enforced in "any case' it. Even if the case is a loser of a case is
included in "any case" and therefore the lights need to be directed at the building and ground.
I wand to make clear I am not asking to abate or eliminate the rights of the neighbor or to tear
down their limits or ability to enjoy security in their property as they please. I am merely
asking that tfie substantial excess and unneeded envelope of intense projected light that
disturbs our environment by illuminating those rooms and our privacy be eliminated by
reasonable Director's / Designee enforcement of the code, as is required by the code .
I am asking that the Director's interpretation and subsequent decision observe facts already
found to be true by the City Council whereby trespass of this nature adversely affects the
value, utility and habitability of my property and specifically is causing substantial damage to
material elements of our environment and that habitability. We would like to enjoy the
environment that is intended to be protected by the code. We are suffering injury in fact
because of a bad decision.
The decision must be reversed.
Sincerely
Br d Nicholson
I have attached a sketch of the condition.
0�
X�
tv
V
Chapter 11
DEFINITIONS
CHAPTER GUIDE: Definitions for terms used throughout this Title are primarily grouped in
chapter 4-11 RMC. A few chapter -specific definitions can be found in individual chapters,
but are cross-referenced here.
This Chapter last amended by Ord. 5356, February 25, 2008.
For the purpose of this Title, the following words, terms, phrases and their derivations shall have
the meaning given herein, unless the context otherwise indicates.
4-11-010 DEFINITIONS A:
LIGHT DEFINITIONS: The following definitions are utilized in the Exterior Onsite Lighting
Regulations, RMC 4-4-075:
A. Cutoff: The point at which all light rays emitted by a light source are completely eliminated (cut
off) at a specific angle above the ground.
B. Cutoff Angle: The angle formed by a line drawn from the direction of light rays at the light
source and a line perpendicular to the ground from the light source, above which no light is
emitted.
C. Cutoff Type Luminaire: A unit of illumination with elements such as shields, reflectors, or
refractor panels that direct and cut off the light at a cut off angle less than ninety degrees (900).
D. Light : The shining of light produced by a light source beyond the boundaries of the
property on which it is located.
E. Lu {minaire: The complete lighting unit, including the lamp, the fixture, and other parts.
M
f
1111r Af _rReSPdss
earl 20aq yRrd
ZO
T� ro � f 1 Y1 t✓ t l ll t~ D'T�
lCG�irFd {'JTG{rt Cf(�-0ir
4-
Note regarding CD, labeled Nicholson Evidence Exhibits June 8, submitted with the
appeal:
A list of the files contained on the CD is attached, which includes three
photographs and a video.
Black and white copies of the photographs are attached.
July 25, 2008
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF KING )
BONNIE 1. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath,
deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 25th day of July, 2008, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed
in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all
parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Brad Nicholson of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation regarding the Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal (File No. LUA-08-059, AAD).
17,t, c ! J- GUQ- t 4,y
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
9 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 25th day of July, 2008.
Cynthi R. Moya
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing in Renton
My commission expires: 8/27/2010
CITY
)F RENTON
Denis Law, Mayor
July 25, 2008
APPEAL FILED BY:
City Clerk
Bonnie 1. Walton
Brad Nicholson, 2302 NE 28th St., Renton, WA 98056
RE_ Appeal of Hearing Examiner's letter dated 6/16/2008, regarding jurisdiction for appealing
a 5/29112008, Code Enforcement decision. File No. LUA-08-059, AAD.
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision regarding the Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal has been filed with the City
Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., the City Clerk shall notify all
parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to
support of their positions on the appeal_ only within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the
notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline forsubmissionof additional letters to the
City Clerk office is 5:00 pm; Monday, August 4, 2008.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday,
August 21, 2008, in the 7th floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, 98057. This Council C'ominittge meeting is open to the public, however, it is not a
public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee.. No new
testimony or evidence will be taken, However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared
to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing
Examiner, The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full
Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits
of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be
made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held
by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the
City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Attachment
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 R E N T O N
This a AHEAD OF THE CURVE
p perwntains 50 %recycled material. 30 %post consumer
Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal
LUA-08-059, AAD
Parties of Record:
Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 28(" Street
Renton, WA 98056
Ronald Bergman
2811 Dayton Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98056
C1Ti
Uf1 RFiNiTTON
�' � .� Denis Law, Mayor
July 10, 2008
Mr. Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 28'h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Re: RMC 4-8-110(A.)(2.) Appeal of Code Enforcement Officer's May 29, 2008
Administrative decision to ignore the code and give permit to trespass.
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
cirrol Gr!:?ors
1 1 2'CIQ, 8
t:�cC:t!Eu
This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration. The decision you are attempting to
appeal is not one based on the issuance of a permit. Section 4-4-075(D) provides the basis for the
interpretation and issuance of permits:
"During development permit review, the Responsible Official shall determine
compliance with the provisions of this Section. Conditions of approval may be
applied to achieve compliance. The Development Services Division Director or
designee shall enforce the provisions of this Section."
No permit review is taking place nor has one occurred within the reasonable past that would give
rise to an appeal in this matter. As the original letter of this office indicated this is now a code
enforcement issue and this office has no jurisdiction in this matter.
This office will note that you have filed a separate appeal of this matter to the City Council. That
body will be able to consider your case based on existing laws and regulations.
If this office can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
cc: Denis Law, Mayor
Jay Covington, CAO
Lawrence Warren, City Attorney
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Neil Watts, Director Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 R E t y A t 1 ��
G) WIID et LI .
p p..,ntaire--�i'/o reryclel maC r'a�30%poc ronsumei
CITY
7F RENTON
Denis Law, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Ann Nielsen, Asst. City AttorneyP�
RE: Appeal of Code Enforcement IssueBrad Nicholson
DATE: July 9, 2008
Office of the City Attorney
LawrenceJ. Warren
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L. Fortes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Shawn E. Arthur
On July 3, 2008, you sent a request to Neil Watts and the City Attorney's Office requesting input
regarding the appeal filed by Brad Nicholson for an alleged light trespass issue. This
memorandum is being sent on behalf of Neil Watts and the City Attorney's Office to provide
information and analysis regarding the issue.
FACTS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Mr. Nicholson has contacted the City to complain about what he believes is "light trespass"
emanating from his neighbor's light fixtures in violation of RMC 4-4-075. The City's Code
Enforcement Division conducted an investigation into the complaint but did not find any merit in
the allegation. Therefore, Code Compliance declined to issue an order to correct or a citation for
the alleged offense.
Mr. Nicholson subsequently filed an "appeal" to the Hearing Examiner stating that RMC 4-8-
110(A)(2) permits him to appeal the code interpretation decision made by the Director (here,
Neil Watts in his capacity as the supervisor of the Code Enforcement Division). After
consultation with the City Attorney's office, the Hearing Examiner issued a letter to Mr.
Nicholson on July 16, 2008. This letter explained that there was no basis to appeal in that the
Hearing Examiner had no jurisdiction over alleged code enforcement violations, and insofar as
any code violations were criminal in nature, the proper venue would be in Renton Municipal
Court.
Mr. Nicholson then simultaneously filed an "appeal" of this July 16, 2008 letter to the City
Council along with a request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. The "appeal" is
currently being held until the Hearing Examiner issues his reconsideration.
ANALYSIS
Although Mr. Nicholson relies on RMC 4-8-110(A)(2), it is RMC 4-8-110(E)(1)(a) which
governs appeal of administrative decision to the Hearing Examiner: "Any administrative
decisions made may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner..." However, this provision does
have limitations and a would-be appellant must show that he is an aggrieved party with an
ascertainable injury in fact to merit a review.
RMC 4-4-075 is a development regulation pertaining to exterior on site lighting. Under RMC 4-
4-075(E), "No use or activity shall cause light trespass beyond the boundaries of the property
lines."
Post Office Box 626 - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (425) 255-5474 R E N T O N
® This papercontains 50%recycled material, 30 % post wnsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Memo to Hearing Examiner
July 9, 2008
Page 2
RMC 4-4-075(D), gives Watts, as the Responsible Official, the authority to determine and
enforce compliance under this section. Mr. Nicholson points to this provision in advancing the
basis of his appeal — to challenge Watt's decision (i.e. finding no basis to cite/charge the
neighbor. However, he conveniently ignores the first part of that section which states,"During
the development permit review..." The review and decision regarding acceptable levels apply to
the open application. This commonly arises during a development permit process whereby an
applicant submits plans regarding the lighting fixtures for the intended structures. The City
acknowledges that if Mr. Nicholson applied for a development application and Watts reviewed
his lighting structures and found them to not comply with RMC 4-4-075, then Mr. Nicholson
would have a right to appeal that determination. (Ironically, there is anecdotal information that
Mr. Nicholson is responsible for having installed the light fixtures of which he now complains.)
However, that is not the situation here. There is no pending development regulation, and the
lighting fixtures at issue have been in existence for quite some time. Most importantly, Code
Enforcement investigated the allegation and concluded that the lights comply with the Code.
On a related front, the RMC has been criminalized. (See RMC 1-3-1.) As such, any established
violation of RMC 4-4-075(E) would be criminal in nature. The Code Enforcement Division has
been vested with the authority to investigate any alleged violation under Title 4. If Code
Enforcement finds that a violation has occurred, it will issue an order. to correct and if the
violation persists, is authorized to have a criminal citation issued through the Renton Police
Department. The discretion lies with the Code Enforcement/Police Department, and having
concluded that no violation exists, a third party (Nicholson) is not entitled to second guess or
mandate a review of that decision.
The following analogy better illustrates the situation:
A alleges a theft against B. The police investigate the matter, find that
there was no intent to deprive, and therefore, there is no basis to charge
B. A, then does not have a right to "appeal" that decision.
Mr. Nicholson is entitled to his opinion and has the authority to report what he believes to
be a violation under the RMC. However, he is not entitled to an automatic review of the
resulting decision, simply because it is contrary to his belief. As depicted in the analogy,
if every individual had the right to "appeal" any decision made by government officials
vested with that authority, the concept of police authority and discretion would cease to
exist.
Based on the analysis above, the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction to entertain this
appeal, and therefore, must dismiss Nicholson's appeal. To do so otherwise, would be
creating an open ended abuse of the administrative appeals system which clearly did not
contemplate conferring a right to second guess governmental discretionary acts.
cc: Chip Vincent
Neil Watts
Donna Lochner
BRAD N[CHOLSON
July 1, 2008
Mr. Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall — 7's Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
2302 N.E. 28`" Street
Renton, Washington 98056
brad827na hotmaiLcom
(425)445-0658
RE: Request for reconsideration: Appeal of Administrative decision falling under the
jurisdiction of RMC 4-8-110 (E) 1. a.
Mr. Hearing Examiner,
I agree with you that criminal and tort type appeals are not properly before your office, there
are other jurisdictions for taking such actions that have merit like this one does. However the
City Council placed the regulations for remedy of light trespasses in the City's development
regulations and did not charge the police department with initiating enforcement of those
regulations, they charged the Director of Development services to do it. I have witnessed all
too often the Director, (or as in this case the apparent designee Jennifer Henning) making an
instant decision and zeroes in on one word or phrase of the code and ignores everything else.
This is not quality decision making and my appeal is right on the money. Code interpretations
should be made by reading the entire language leaving no provision absurd this is law. And by
finding out what is wrong before a decision is made. Decisions like this give the opportunity
to shed some light upon why I would be so critical of City decision making. The fact is that
code enforcement officer informed me that they had deferred to Jennifer Henning for a
construction of the code and a decision prior to being able to proceed with enforcement, and
that subsequent decision was not to enforce the code because Ms. Henning had stated that the
residential lights were decided to be "reasonable and not excessive" because they are
"residential type lights" Jennifer Henning is a Principle Planner in the Development Services
division of Renton and is evidently filling in for Neil Watts, I say this because he never
returned my calls and Donna Locher identified Ms. Henning. The code states at 4-4-075 (B.)
that "the standards of this section apply to remedy existing residential lighting" and directs us
to 1-3-4 A.11.e. (21). That section of the code requires the Director to enforce when the lights
are of "such an intensity so as to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment by the abutting
property" The word "shall" is used. Ms. Henning's interpretation being in error, caused
confusion in that the code enforcement officer believed and deferred that the condition could
not be enforced as a nuisance because of her administrative construction was also reasonable.
Ms. Locher may be correct in that because as I previously identified the code is clear that the
Director is charged with the responsibility of initiating enforcement. There is a distinct
difference in being able to grant absolute power to decide whether a certain residential light
fixture is "reasonable" and allow it and/or whether it is "of such an intensity to unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment by the abutting property" She thinks she has the power to decide
without my having the ability to challenge because the burden placed on proving otherwise is
so cumbersome. However that discretion is not available when there is no rational basis for the
envelope of disturbing light. While reading the code it appears to be outright abuse to tell me
to "get some window blinds" The facts of this case are that there is absolutely no reason the
offensive light cannot be remedied and still the interpretation decision gets to stand. It is not
• Page July 1, 2008
necessary to have the lights shining also at my bedroom, there can be deflectors installed. I
had hoped for a finding that such a interpretation determination be considered to fall under the
category of "any administrative decision" according to 4-8-110 (E.) 1. a. if it is error, abusive,
and unreasonable or any or the criteria capable to reverse it. The code enforcement officer
could then move forward with some kind of enforcement action like I originally asked the
code enforcement officer to consider. The influence of the decision by Ms. Henning was just
too much for the code enforcement department to overcome and that is why it is appropriate
for your office to hold a hearing and make a decision on my appeal. Window blinds are not an
appropriate remedy according to a reading of the code that gives effect to all provisions. My
thinking is that if the Director designee had not made this decision we would have well
already been able to resolve all of this appeal and my concerns. However I question even my
own thinking while I can see that there are still dandelions which I complained about along the
edge of the property that are nearly up to my chest. Code enforcement can't figure out who
owns that property yet. Perhaps you can clarify your decision so that the appeal when decided
by the Council will have all of the facts. Had you actually heard the issues in a Hearing, you
would have known that things like liability for the nuisance are moot because I have offered to
pay for all of it just to improve my situation, and that I would have contended that under the
code the permit for the light needs to be revoked if that is not acceptable to the neighbor to
have me do the job of fixing it. I will still contend you are wrong if you decide this is a
decision that does not involve an appeal of an administrative decision. I am song to say so
because it leaves me quite disappointed in the City and give me no pleasure to say so. But I
am a parent now and I have a 20 month old child that needs to sleep in the area of the house
that is right directly across from the intensity next to our bedroom and he is complaining and I
am complaining because of it and the fact that I cant see my backyard at night nor am I able to
look out of the windows to see the night sky without a blare, something I enjoy doing. My
wife is 100% agreeing with everything said here and suffers as I do. All this occurs because of
a decision that a light fixture is "reasonable" by the director designee because it is a residential
type. The decision is wrong because there is no reason the lights can not be fixed so that they
shine only on the other property. It can not be reasonable under such circumstances. In fact the
neighbor set off his car alarm at night for about three weeks after I identified my concerns to
hum. You should have a video of it. This is all so very disturbing. I am sorry to appeal your
decision before your having the opportunity to review the facts at a hearing but I only received
your decision in the mail about an hour before the deadline to appeal because the address you
had wrong so I appealed it to the City council. There appears to also be no reason why your
office could not consider this letter a request for reconsideration, an action that would also be
according to code. So it is, I request you reconsider your decision. My goal is to have
administrative decision making that will decide in accordance with the code that the lights are
capable to be deflected down and not into our bedroom windows and windows to our home
and it is not reasonable to decide otherwise. I wanted to try to be courteous and pursue
administrative remedies as a first resort. I ask that you consider what it might be like if you
were in my situation and I were you when you consider this letter. How would you decide to
respond then?
Brad Nicholson
Note regarding CD, labeled Nicholson Evidence Exhibits June 8, submitted with the
appeal:
A list of the files contained on the CD is attached, which includes three
photographs and a video.
Black and white copies of the photographs are attached.
a.ITY )F r2eN -lr
'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN
OF HEARINv. EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECONiirIENDATION
RECEiVEJ
APPLICATION NAME/// // �(� ; CLERKS 4F=iCE
�� ( !� O L—r FILE NO.
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPEL /
Name: Zo Xrc9 / /
Address: Z 3 0 7_ Z W 7 �T
_key {zs-Lt W A , 910 S`6
Phone Number:��//�2! — S///f1 — L
Email: krg t",FZ %(f-16e Aw Q; A Gtr�rt
2009
REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Email-
2- SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as de/noted/ in the Examiner's Report)
No.Error: /9/L)Y' 0n9°iyl/it/Slraliuc GeG/1//8/yr /Yrli�I �e
la 1.)Z9 �d�l/ /illy
Correction: 66,4' eG- G[// eLY�/' f'O
Conclusion —
No.
Correction:
Other:
No. Error:
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recormnendation and grant the following relief:
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other: G'r�vt f /!i1//r e? 1 eu
7kfto N1 C%okcyJ -36-6r
tative Signature Type/Printed Name Date
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chaptelfi, of the Renton Mw 'cipat Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures.
G c.c-�.y a,Ja*-/P.�, C ty � ; .111; / !.�/A s; Git✓ s"✓C A/
City of Renton Municipal & Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Ann
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of
the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-11017: Appeals to City Council — Procedures
1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the
Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party
aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the
City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the Examiner's written report.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of
their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of
the notice of appeal.
4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the
City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or
recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of
appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982)
5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by
the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time
of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,
the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional
evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the
absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional
evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or
testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by
the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before
the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993)
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely
upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional
submissions by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner
on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the
record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it
may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the
decision of the Examiner accordingly.
8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050172 and F3, and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may
remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the
application.
9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of
the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982)
10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision
of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames
established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
BRAD NICHO �L.O7� � Rent n, E. 28 h Street
�.l L V Renton, Washington 98056
brad827, hotmail.com
(425)445-0658
June 30, 2008
City Council
Renton City Hall — 7t' Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98056
Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision dated June 16, 2008
Dear City Council,
I have been having problems with an unreasonable light trespass that is interfering with the
enjoyment of my property and have been trying to get someone from the City to properly
interpret the code and address my concerns. Neil Watts did not return my telephone call. I
have a wife and an infant that are very disturbed by some very inconsiderate light trespassing
behaviors and even after I stated that I would pay for the corrections there has been nothing
done about it. The neighbor would suffer no monetary or environmental impacts, and has no
reason to illuminate my bedroom, bathroom, family room, and dining room.
I appealed the Jennifer Henning interpretation to the Hearing Examiner in a timely manner
and he refused jurisdiction over the matter based upon an error that it was only for the police
and code enforcement in Renton Municipal Court. The code gives the Examiner the
jurisdiction to review any administrative decision made regarding building and development
regulations and directs the Director to enforce remedies with regard to light trespass. Because
of another error, I received notice of his decision just over an hour before the expiration of the
appeal period for his decision. His office did not send his decision to the correct address.
Notwithstanding, I re- allege the substance of the original appeal, and appeal the examiners
decision dated June 16, 2008 as being clearly erroneous. It is my hope that you will be able to
provide some assistance in this matter so that the provisions with respect to 4-4-075 can be
given effect.
Brad Nicholson
��Y o CITY OF RENTON Receipt 1154
O City Clerk Division
' + 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 7O
425-430-6510 Date J
❑ Cash ❑ Copy Fee
Check No. Z ❑ Appeal Fee
Description:
Funds Received From:
Namev� /i/'I�
Address Z 0 Z
City/Zip
❑ Notary Service
El
Amount $ 757c G
.TY
Cit, —lerk's Office Distribution List
_ * Appeal, Nicholson Light Trespass
LUA-08-059, AAD
July 25, 2008
1
Renton Reporter
1
City Attorney
Larry Warren
1
City Council *
Julia Medze 'an
1
CED Development Services
Alex Pietsch
1
Fire Dept/Fire Prevention
I. David Daniels
7
Planning Commission
Judith Subia
2
Parties of Record**
see attached list
1
PW/Administration
GreggZimmerman
5
PBPW/Development Services
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Stacy Tucker
Karyren Kittrick
Larry Mecklin
1
PBPW/Trans ortation Services
Peter Hahn
1
I PBPW/Utilities & Tech Services
Lys Hornsby
1
1 LUA-08-059
• *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only
Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal
LUA-08-059, AAD
Parties of Record:
Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 281" Street
Renton, WA 98056
Ronald Bergman
2811 Dayton Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98056
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Jennifer Henning
Subject: Re: Nicholson Appeal
>>> Jennifer Henning 7/16/2008 1:54:18 PM >>>
Bonnie,
The "parties" are:
Brad Nicholson
2302 NE 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
MID
Ronald Bergman
2811 Dayton Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98056
Then, of course, the usual staff and city attorney, etc.
We've pulled the file materials together; it's just not yet in the folder. We will bring it up to you as soon as
the folder is created. Thanks!