HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2024 - HEX email
Cynthia Moya
From:Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 9, 2024 9:20 AM
To:Kelly Carner
Cc:Sheila Madsen; Donna Locher; Cynthia Moya
Subject:Re: Renton/Carner Code Enforcement -- CODECASE# 23-000293 -- Additional
Opportunity for Comment
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.
Mr. Carner,
I was not intending to be condescending or belittling. I was doing the opposite and letting you know that any
misunderstanding of the deadlines was reasonable and understandable. I am trying to help ensure that you are given a
full opportunity to defend yourself. You have no obligation to submit a reply to the City's response.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:59 AM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. I do understand what was sent, In my field where i deal with legal documents on a daily
basis nothing is assumed , if it's not in writing it doesn't matter, Also your condescending and belittling comments are
uncalled for, and furthermore i sent you information prior to the 20th deadline, you trying shift the burden of prove to
me, to take the burden away from the City since they are unwilling to prove the evidence of their claim, this goes
against my constitutional rights is not happening the City is the accuser here, so from what i see the City missed the
deadline for response, and now is trying give itself more time to respond. Am I missing something?
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 9:52 PM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Carner,
In response to your email today your reply was extended to October 2, not the initial post hearing presentation of
your parking defense. As outlined in the emails setting the post-hearing briefing schedule, your initial presentation
was due september 20, the City's response September 27 and your reply to the City's response was due October
2. When I originally set up that briefing schedule I erroneously had your reply due before the City's response, which of
course wasn't possible for the City. The October 2 extension simply logically made your reply due after the City's
response. Lawyers would have understood what was going on since the presention/response/reply format is fairly
standard, but of course people who don't work with that kind of format 40 hours a week would not catch on. I
anticipated your very understandable misunderstanding and that's why I've accepted your 9/28 submission despite
being technically late and have further extended the response and reply deadlines. My primary goal here is to make a
fully informed decision on your defenses to the parking violation. The code gives you a couple potential outs that may
apply to your case and you of course should take full advantage of them if they apply.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 7:13 PM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m pretty sure you know it was extended to October 2nd when you sent the email stating that it was unless I’m
confused on what the October 2nd deadline was, since the wording said correction that would indicate you extended
it at that point, otherwise the response would have been sent earlier. Thank none the less for your email.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:48 PM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Carner,
I've been checking in with the City Clerk on the status of the briefing on the RMC 4-4-085D4
exceptions pertaining to your case. It doesn't appear that the deadlines set out in the email below have been
1
followed. Your argument on those defenses was due September 20, 2024. As far as I can ascertain from the City
Clerk, your argument on that issue (attached) didn't come in until September 28, 2024. It appears you might have
confused the October 2, 2024 reply deadline with the September 20, 2024 deadline for your initial
argument/evidence. Whatever the reason I don't see any significant prejudice to the City in accepting your late
filing. You have been diligently advocating your case and I don't think you'd intentionally miss a deadline. The City
of course could not submit a response to your submission by its September 27, 2024 deadline since your submission
didn't come in until September 28, 2024. For these reasons I'll extend the City response deadline to the attached
document to October 15, 2025. You can then file a reply to the City response by October 18, 2024.
Of course, if I have misconstrued the attachment as your RMC 4-4-085D4 exceptions response please
advise. Also, if you have any questions please feel free to ask.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:04 PM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Correction to reply deadline in email below -- Mr. Carner's reply would be due October 2, 2024.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:00 PM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Carner,
This email provides Mr. Carner an additional opportunity for comment on the four vehicle limit rule, RMC 4-4-
085D4. Additional opportunity is provided because Mr. Carner was not aware he had the burden of proof
to establish conformance to the exceptions to that rule.
In reviewing hearing testimony and post-hearing documents Mr. Carner is shown to express the understanding
that the City has the burden of proof in establishing exceptions to the four vehicle parking limit imposed by
RMC 4-4-085D4. Case law provides that the defendant has the burden of proof in proving affirmative
defenses and that statutory exceptions qualify as affirmative defenses when they don't negate an
element of the alleged violation. See Kastanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn. 2d 483, 493 (Wash.
1993).
RMC 4-4-085D4 provides two exceptions that are pertinent to Mr. Carner's defense. RMC 4-4-085D4a
authorizes more than four vehicles when there are more than four registered owners living on the
property with their vehicles parked on the property. RMC 4-4-085D4c authorizes more vehicles to the
extent that property has "more off-street parking stalls for the subject property based on the presence of lawfully
established structures and uses." It should be noted that for this latter "grandfather" exception, case law is also
clear that persons who wish to allege grandfather rights have the burden of proving them. Van Sant v. City of
Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641, 648 (1993).
If Mr. Carner would like to present evidence on the two exceptions authorized by 4-4-085D4, please
submit any such documentation to the parties to this email by 5 pm, September 20, 2024. The City may
provide a response by 5 pm September 27, 2024 and Mr. Carner may submit a reply by 5 pm September
25, 2024. If Mr. Carner wishes an opportunity for additional oral argument please make your request by
email to me cc'd to the other parties.
To establish any grandfathered rights Mr. Carner will need to know when RMC 4-4-085D4 was adopted
and amended by the City. The City's on-line code cites the ordinances adopting each section at the end
of each section. Those ordinances are also available on-line and provide the necessary information as
to dates of adoption. Mr. Carner should be able to get this information on his own. However, City staff
probably can get this information more quickly since they were involved in the adoption process. It is
requested that City staff provide Mr. Carner with copies of the ordinances that establish when RMC 4-4-
085D4 was adopted.
2