HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-1-2023 - City email RE_ Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-pdx.FID4777904]From:Patrice Kent
To:Calvert, Maren L.; Phil Olbrechts
Cc:Katzaroff, Kenneth; Blythe Phillips; McKee, Lisa D.; Schunk, Andrea K.; Wilson-McNerney, Julie;
dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex Morganroth; Andrew Van Gordon; Angelea Weihs; Brianne Bannwarth; Clark
Close; Cynthia Moya; Jason Seth; Jennifer Cisneros; Jill Ding; Judith Subia; Margarette Bravo; Matthew Herrera;
Nathan Janders; Robert Shuey; Shane Moloney; Vanessa Dolbee
Subject:RE: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-pdx.FID4777904]
Date:Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:55:39 PM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good afternoon Mr. Hearing Examiner, et al–
The City has no objections with respect to the draft pre-hearing order schedule. The City requests
clarification on the following:
Paragraph B appears to be using language for a reconsideration template referencing a party
not in this case (Mr. Plotnikov). The City presumes your intent was to maintain the Exhibit
and Witness lists requirements, and to reference the current appeal and parties.
Paragraph F: the City presumes the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss for both appeals is due
on Friday August 4, 2023. This is based on the City’s interpretation that the Deferral Appeal
for Outlot 1, not related to undergrounding requirements, will continue on this schedule (see
next bullet point).
Paragraph G denies the motion for a stay, and appears to consolidate any appeal of
undergrounding of utility lines related to the Outlot 1 (Grady Way) (Deferral 23001823) and
security deferral decision with an anticipated modification application.
Is the City correct in its interpretation, and if so will this proceeding continue to
consider any street improvements aside from the utility undergrounding?
Regards,
Patrice
M. PATRICE KEnT | Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton | 1055 S. Grady Way | Renton WA 98057
pkent@Rentonwa.gov | (425) 430-6482
COnFIDEnTIALITY nOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re-transmit, or otherwise
disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail. Also, please notify the sender that you have
received this e-mail in error.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Please be advised the City of Renton is required to comply with the Public Disclosure Act Chapter 42.56 RCW. This
act establishes a strong state mandate in favor of disclosure of public records. As such, the information you submit to the City via email,
including personal information, may ultimately be subject to disclosure as a public record.
From: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Blythe
Phillips <BPhillips@Rentonwa.gov>; McKee, Lisa D. <LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Schunk, Andrea K.
<ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-Mcnerney@schwabe.com>;
dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van Gordon
<AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>; Brianne Bannwarth
<BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya
<CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros
<JCisneros@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia
<JSubia@Rentonwa.gov>; Margarette Bravo <MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera
<MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; nathan Janders <nJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey
<RShuey@Rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney <SMoloney@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: RE: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-pdx.FID4777904]
Mr. Examiner,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond.
Page 2 lines 15 and 16 state: “The parties are required to exchange witness and exhibit lists for Mr.
Plotnikov’s motion for reconsideration per the schedule below.” We think this sentence does not
refer to the instant appeals as there is no motion for reconsideration pending before the Examiner.
We understand your instruction that The Home Depot’s motion for a stay was denied. Page 3 lines
7-9 also state: “Consequently, the issue of whether Home Depot must underground the power
lines and the amount of security for the associated deferral will be considered outside the scope of
this appeal and assigned to the modification request review and appeal process.” Does that mean
“the issue of whether Home Depot must underground the power lines and the amount of security
for the associated deferral,” which is the issue presented in appeal DEF23001823 (“Outlot 1”), will
not be heard on this proposed schedule? If not, will appeal DEF23001823 be heard on a different
schedule or stayed? (The cover sheet of the Draft Pre-hearing Order also recites only appeal
number DEF23001824.)
On page 3 lines 1-3, we understand you are requesting a supplemental motion to dismiss in appeal
DEF23001824 (Outlot 2/Talbot). Are you also asking for a supplemental motion to dismiss in appeal
DEF23001823 (Outlot 1/Grady) (assuming it is not stayed)?
Thank you,
Maren
Maren Calvert
Shareholder
Pronouns: she, her, hers
(360) 597-0804
mcalvert@schwabe.com
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 12:58 PM
To: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>
Cc: Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>; Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Blythe
Phillips <BPhillips@rentonwa.gov>; McKee, Lisa D. <LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Schunk, Andrea K.
<ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-Mcnerney@schwabe.com>;
dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van Gordon
<AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@rentonwa.gov>; Brianne Bannwarth
<BBannwarth@rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close <CClose@rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya
<CMoya@rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros
<JCisneros@rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia <JSubia@rentonwa.gov>;
Margarette Bravo <MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@rentonwa.gov>;
nathan Janders <nJanders@rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey <RShuey@rentonwa.gov>; Shane
Moloney <SMoloney@rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-pdx.FID4777904]
Attached is a revised pre-hearing motion. Paragraphs F-H are fairly self-explanatory. Since
the revisions are substantial, the parties can have another opportunity to comment by next
Tuesday, 8/1/23 if there are still any concerns.
It is understood that Home Depot is asking for additional time, not less. However, I want the
record to be clear that there are no problems with the appeals process taking as long as it has.
If the October hearing date is too far out for any party, please advise and I will see what I can
do to shorten the deadlines.
The revised order gives the City an opportunity to supplement its motion to dismiss. There is
at least one very significant piece of information that both parties appear to have overlooked
on the issue of FOF No. 4F of the Home Depot Final Decision. Most of the language from
FOF No. 4 referenced in the appeal as binding on the parties was stricken in the Final Decision
on Reconsideration. The following sentences were stricken from the Final Decision under
Paragraph 3 of the Reconsideration decision:
The SEPA review did not impose any off-site traffic mitigation or impose any fees.
SEPA mitigation was limited to requiring frontage improvements along Grady Way.
It may also be of use for the parties to understand that the last paragraph of FOF No. 4,
referencing I-Line improvements, was copied verbatim from Page 42 of the staff report.
Finally, it may also be of use to see how the findings can be functionally interpreted to meet
review criteria. The first sentence of FOF No. 4, that traffic impacts are adequately mitigated,
is the finding necessary to establish compliance with review criteria. The following two
paragraphs of that Finding are a summary of the background information used to make the
finding that impacts are adequately mitigated. The summary was based upon pages 6-7 of
the ERC (SEPA) report and the quoted page 42 language from the staff report. It appears that
the stricken language above incorrectly characterized Grady frontage improvements as SEPA
mitigation. Since no SEPA mitigation measure was adopted requiring frontage improvements
on Talbot or Grady, it doesn't appear that frontage improvements were required under SEPA.
It is up to the parties to argue whether a summary of background information can be used to
set mitigation requirements. In any case, the significance of the FOF No. 4 background
information appears to be largely nullified by the fact that the most pertinent parts to the
appeal were stricken by the reconsideration decision.
To complete the record on the City's motion to dismiss, the City is requested to submit the
approved building permit construction plans it references in its motion with the Talbot
improvements highlighted and any other documentation showing that Talbot frontage
improvements were made a condition of building permit approval. Additional clarification on
when the permit was approved and what the permit covered is also requested.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 4:30 PM Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com> wrote:
Mr. Hearing Examiner,
At the risk of beating a dead horse, The Home Depot (THD) would like to make the following
observations.
1. The City did not take a firm position or issue a decision on the frontage improvements until
April 2023. When it did, THD objected. The City responded that THD’s only option was to request
a deferral – which THD did. Since then, THD has been working with the city to find a way to
address the modification request in a timely and appropriate fashion.
2. While nexus and proportionality analyses might be complicated in some contexts, this is not
the first time the parties have thought about or debated this issue. In fact, the parties and the
Examiner debated this issue, in some respects, a year ago. The modification request will not raise
new issues or new considerations. It is essentially the same thing the parties will be briefing
during the deferral appeal related to Outlot 1.
3. THD requested a stay to allow the City more time to address the modification request. The City
opposed such a stay.
4. THD would not object to adjusting the schedule to allow more time, but logistically and
administratively, there is no reason for these issues to be addressed by the Examiner separately.
If the Examiner would prefer THD file a motion to consolidate, THD can certainly do so.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Maren
Maren Calvert
Shareholder
Pronouns: she, her, hers
(360) 597-0804
mcalvert@schwabe.com
From: Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 4:04 PM
To: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>; Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Blythe Phillips <BPhillips@Rentonwa.gov>;
McKee, Lisa D. <LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Schunk, Andrea K. <ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-
Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-Mcnerney@schwabe.com>; dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex
Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van Gordon
<AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>; Brianne Bannwarth
<BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya
<CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros
<JCisneros@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia
<JSubia@Rentonwa.gov>; Margarette Bravo <MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera
<MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; nathan Janders <nJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey
<RShuey@Rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney <SMoloney@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: RE: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-PDX.FID4777904]
Good afternoon Mr. Hearing Examiner –
The City appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft scheduling order.
With respect to the draft order, the City respectfully requests five rather than the two
business days to Reply to the Response to the Motion to Dismiss. The Home Depot (THD)
will have had the Motion to Dismiss for nearly a full month by the time their Response is
due, and in the interest of equity the City requests additional time to reply.
With respect to THD request to accommodate an anticipated modification request and
related appeal in the instant Schedule, the City objects to its inclusion to the extent it
requires an extremely expedited response from the City.
THD has had nearly a full year ago to apply for a modification and has delayed doing so.
Despite this, THD now requests accommodating a possible modification (“Deadline to file a
Modification Request (if any)”), with a requirement that the City then provide a decision
within 21 calendar days of receipt of whatever THD submits. The modified schedule
requested by THD will not accommodate a reasonable opportunity to review and reach a
decision on any modification request submitted by THD.
The City has not seen a proposed modification request. The City cannot predict whether a
possible submittal on the proposed date will be complete for review. Given the
complexities of nexus and proportionality analyses, the City anticipates a need for
communication with THD to verify and clarify the grounds for modification.
RCW 36.70B.070(1) provides the City up to 28 days to determine whether an application is
complete, and RCW 36.70B.080(1) allows up to 120 days to issue a decision. While the
City does not anticipate needing the full time permitted by statute to review any
modification application and supporting information, without seeing that application it is
impossible to determine what a reasonable review period may be.
With respect to THD public records responses, the City will continue to respond in a timely
and comprehensive manner in compliance with the law.
The City’s proposed amendment to THD response is as follows:
8/4/23 – Deadline to File Modification Request (if any)
8/4/23 - Response to City Motion to Dismiss.
8/8/23 -08/11/2023 Reply to Motion to Dismiss
8/18/23 – Deadline to file other prehearing motions
8/25/23 – Deadline to publish staff report regarding Modification Request
9/1/23 - Response to other prehearing motions
9/5/23 - Replies to other prehearing motions
9/8/23 – Deadline to appeal Modification Request (if any)
9/19/23 Witness and Exhibit Lists due, along with exchange of exhibits.
9/22/23 Rebuttal Witness/Exhibit List along with rebuttal exhibits
9/26/23 Virtual Appeal hearing, 9 am, (Deferral Decisions) (Outlot 1, Outlot 2,
Modification Decision (if any))
Thank you for your consideration –
Patrice
M. PATRICE KEnT | Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton | 1055 S. Grady Way | Renton WA 98057
pkent@Rentonwa.gov | (425) 430-6482
COnFIDEnTIALITY nOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re-transmit, or
otherwise disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail. Also, please notify the sender that
you have received this e-mail in error.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Please be advised the City of Renton is required to comply with the Public Disclosure Act Chapter 42.56 RCW.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
This act establishes a strong state mandate in favor of disclosure of public records. As such, the information you submit to the City via
email, including personal information, may ultimately be subject to disclosure as a public record.
From: Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:15 PM
To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Blythe Phillips <BPhillips@Rentonwa.gov>;
McKee, Lisa D. <LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Schunk, Andrea K. <ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-
Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-Mcnerney@schwabe.com>; dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex
Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van Gordon
<AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>; Brianne Bannwarth
<BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya
<CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros
<JCisneros@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia
<JSubia@Rentonwa.gov>; Margarette Bravo <MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera
<MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; nathan Janders <nJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey
<RShuey@Rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney <SMoloney@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>
Subject: RE: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-PDX.FID4777904]
Mr. Examiner,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to your draft scheduling order.
The Home Depot appreciates the haste with which the Examiner is proceeding. As
previously mentioned, The Home Depot is planning to submit a modification request to the
City in accordance with condition of approval 34 (“COA 34”) of the Hearing Examiner’s
previous Final Decision, approving The Home Depot’s site plan. COA 34 states:
“The undergrounding of power lines pursuant to RMC 4-6-090 has not yet been addressed
in the staff recommended conditions of approval or the staff report. At hearing, the parties
have agreed to defer resolution of the issue pending further assessment of the applicability
of RMC 4-6-090. Applicant’s legal counsel has also raised the issue of Dolan
proportionality, which staff may also have to further assess. At hearing the parties also
agreed to subject any disagreement on the underground issue to hearing examiner appeal.
As recommended by staff, if the parties cannot mutually agree on whether power lines
should be undergrounded, the Applicant shall put its position in the form of a modification
request and the resulting staff decision shall be subject to hearing examiner appeal.”
Final Decision at pages 21 line 23 to page 22 line 3 (21:23-22:3). Given that the essence of
The Home Depot’s appeal related to Grady Way (Outlot 1) is based upon the ongoing
dispute a to the Nollan and Dolan constitutional requirement for proportionality and nexus,
the modification request and the appeal regarding Outlot 1 are intimately, and inextricably,
related. The questions presented in each are the same.
Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, The Home Depot
respectfully requests that the Pre-hearing Order accommodate the inevitable appeal on The
Home Depot’s modification request. We do not think adding an appeal of the modification
request to the pre-hearing schedule will introduce any new issues or argument, and thus, it
should not delay the schedule or prejudice any party. The modification request (and its
appeal) will simply tee-up the question presented in the Outlot 1 appeal, in a succinct
format.
The Home Depot has also submitted public records requests related to the instant appeals.
If the responses to those requests are timely produced, The Home Depot is unlikely to need
to conduct discovery during the appeal proceedings. If timely productions are not
forthcoming, The Home Depot may file a motion to compel production of public
records/approval to conduct discovery at or before the time indicated in the draft scheduling
order for “other motions.”
Given the issues discussed above, The Home Depot proposes the pre-hearing schedule
could be adjusted as follows:
8/4/23 – Deadline to File Modification Request (if any)
8/4/23 - Response to City Motion to Dismiss.
8/8/23 - Reply to Motion to Dismiss
8/18/23 – Deadline to file other prehearing motions
8/25/23 – Deadline to publish staff report regarding Modification Request
9/1/23 - Response to other prehearing motions
9/5/23 - Replies to other prehearing motions
9/8/23 – Deadline to appeal Modification Request (if any)
9/19/23 Witness and Exhibit Lists due, along with exchange of exhibits.
9/22/23 Rebuttal Witness/Exhibit List along with rebuttal exhibits
9/26/23 Virtual Appeal hearing, 9 am, (Outlot 1, Outlot 2, Modification Decision (if any)).
In addition, it appears there is some extraneous language in the draft order on page 2 lines
15 and 16 regarding a motion for reconsideration, which the Examiner may want to remove
or modify.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Maren
Maren Calvert
Shareholder
Pronouns: she, her, hers
(360) 597-0804
mcalvert@schwabe.com
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; Blythe Phillips <BPhillips@rentonwa.gov>;
McKee, Lisa D. <LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>; Schunk,
Andrea K. <ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-
Mcnerney@schwabe.com>; dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex Morganroth
<AMorganroth@rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van Gordon <AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea
Weihs <AWeihs@rentonwa.gov>; Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close
<CClose@rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth
<JSeth@rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros <JCisneros@rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding
<JDing@rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia <JSubia@rentonwa.gov>; Margarette Bravo
<MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@rentonwa.gov>; nathan Janders
<nJanders@rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey <RShuey@rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney
<SMoloney@rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-PDX.FID4777904]
Draft prehearing order attached. Please let me know if you agree with dates (and waive any
rights to speedier appeal date) and also any additional email addresses you'd like added to
the distribution list. Please respond by 5 pm, 7/26/23.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:47 AM Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Good morning –
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts – Thank you for the reminder regarding filing procedures. I will not
make that error again.
Ken – Thank you for sending the update.
Regards,
Patrice
M. PATRICE KEnT | Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton | 1055 S. Grady Way | Renton WA 98057
pkent@Rentonwa.gov | (425) 430-6482
COnFIDEnTIALITY nOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may include privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient, or believe you have received this e-mail in error, please do not copy, print, forward, re-transmit, or
otherwise disseminate this e-mail, its contents, or any of its attachments. Please delete this e-mail. Also, please notify the sender
that you have received this e-mail in error.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Please be advised the City of Renton is required to comply with the Public Disclosure Act Chapter 42.56
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or
open attachments unless you know the content is safe.
RCW. This act establishes a strong state mandate in favor of disclosure of public records. As such, the information you submit to
the City via email, including personal information, may ultimately be subject to disclosure as a public record.
From: Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:44 AM
To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; Blythe Phillips <BPhillips@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: McKee, Lisa D. <LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>;
Schunk, Andrea K. <ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-
Mcnerney@schwabe.com>; dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex Morganroth
<AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van Gordon <AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea
Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>; Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Clark
Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth
<JSeth@Rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros <JCisneros@Rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding
<JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia <JSubia@Rentonwa.gov>; Margarette Bravo
<MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; nathan Janders
<nJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey
<RShuey@Rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney <SMoloney@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee
<VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: RE: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824) [IWOV-PDX.FID4777904]
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts –
We continue to attempt to resolve the dispute and have identified a potential path forward. To
that end, we are anticipating filing a motion to stay, or other similar motion, for both appeals in
the next few days. It may be or may not be joined by the City pending additional discussion
later this afternoon.
Best,
Ken
Kenneth Katzaroff
Shareholder
D: (206) 405-1985
kkatzaroff@schwabe.com
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:15 AM
To: Blythe Phillips <BPhillips@rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com>; McKee, Lisa D.
<LMcKee@schwabe.com>; Calvert, Maren L. <MCalvert@schwabe.com>; Schunk, Andrea K.
<ASchunk@SCHWABE.com>; Wilson-Mcnerney, Julie <JWilson-Mcnerney@schwabe.com>;
dzoldak@larsandersen.com; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@rentonwa.gov>; Andrew Van
Gordon <AVanGordon@rentonwa.gov>; Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@rentonwa.gov>; Brianne
Bannwarth <BBannwarth@rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close <CClose@rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya
<CMoya@rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer Cisneros
<JCisneros@rentonwa.gov>; Jill Ding <JDing@rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia
<JSubia@rentonwa.gov>; Margarette Bravo <MBravo@rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera
<MHerrera@rentonwa.gov>; nathan Janders <nJanders@rentonwa.gov>; Patrice Kent
<PKent@rentonwa.gov>; Robert Shuey <RShuey@rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney
<SMoloney@rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Appeal of CED Deferrals (DEF 23001823; DEF 23001824)
Good morning. As far as I can tell it appears that the parties are out of settlement
negotiations and we need a scheduling order. I also found out today that embedded in
the City's "response" is a motion to dismiss. For future reference I ask the city to make its
motions separate from its prehearing briefing so that I'm made aware of the need to set
response and reply dates. I will distribute a draft prehearing order later today.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 4:25 PM Blythe Phillips <BPhillips@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon,
On behalf of Sr. City Attorney M. Patrice Kent representing the City in the above-titled
action, attached is the City’s response to the Home Depot Appeals of Deferral for
Outlots 1 and 2 under LUA 21-000542.
Hard copies have been placed in the mail to Kenneth Katzaroff, counsel for the
Appellant, The Home Depot. Declarations of Service are also attached.
Please let me know if you have any difficulty opening the attachments.
Thank you,
Blythe PhilliPs
Senior Paralegal
Renton City Attorney
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
Direct Line: (425) 430-6493 | Fax: (425) 430-6498
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privilegedand/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient.Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding withoutexpress permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intendedrecipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privilegedand/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient.Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without expresspermission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender and delete all copies.
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privilegedand/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient.Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without expresspermission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender and delete all copies.
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privilegedand/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Anyreview, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without expresspermission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender and delete all copies.