HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity's Answer CITY OF RENTON
OCT 22 2014
1 RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
2
3
4
5
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
6
RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat )
7 )
Preliminary Plat ) CITY'S ANSWER
8 LUA13-000642
ON RECONSIDERATION
9 ) REQUEST BY APPLICANT
10
INTRODUCTION
11
12 This Vuecrest Plat application primarily revolves around a dispute as to
13 whether on extra-long, dead end street should be allowed. The Examiner decided that
14 it should not be allowed.
15 The Request for Reconsideration (Reconsideration) raises three basic points,
16
each of which is without merit. The Examiner should refuse to reconsider his decision,
17
except to rephrase Condition 13.
18
ARGUMENT
19
20 The three points will be rephrased as responses to the Reconsideration.
21 1. The Examiner used the Correct Criteria in Denying the Waiver.
22 The Reconsideration argues that the Examiner erred in denying a Waiver
23 under RMC 4-9-250.C.5, and that the Examiner should have used the variance procedure
24
under
25
Y
City's Answer to Applicant's U ��j Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-1 ♦ 414 1055 South Grady y Wa Y
ORIGINAL Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
��NT� Fax: (425)430-6498
1 RMC 4-9-250.8. However, variances are applicable to only certain land use regulations
2 4-9-250 B.1, none of which are street standards. This point was made in the Examiner's
3
decision footnote 3 at page 27. But even if there was a variance available both waiver
4
and variance criteria require a finding that there will be no detriment to the public
5
6 welfare, 4-9-250.B.5.b for variances and 4-9-250.C.5.e for waiver, a fact that was not
7 established by the Applicant. The Reconsideration also refers to the "modification
8 provisions "(page 4 at line 3 citing to 4-9-250.C.) but modification is dealt with in
9 subsection 4-8-250.1), again noted in Examiner decision in footnote 3 at page 27, as
10
unavailing and requires a finding that public safety is met.
11
2. The Examiner Should Not Give Greater Weight to Testimony of the Applicant's
12 Expert than that of the Fire Chief.
13 The Reconsideration incorrectly states, in several spots,that there is
14
unrefuted testimony that the variance criteria had been met, (page 2, line 2;page 5,
15
line 21). These assertions, of necessity, emphasize testimony about lack of detriment to
16
17 public welfare. They were, of course, refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson about
18 concerns of greater response time and potentially blocked access in case of fire or
19 natural disaster, summarized in the Examiner's decision at page 8. In fact, Chief
20 Peterson's early opposition to this plat was recently reinforced by a wildfire, in the city,
21 that blocked egress for citizens from their homes down a long, dead end access road.
22
(Examiner's decision pg. 8)
23
Further,the City has a strongly stated policy against long, dead end roads
24
25 expressed in RMC 4-6-060.H. The policy is clear under RMC 4-6-060.H.2 that any dead
end street over 700 feet in length requires two mean vcc and fire sprinklers for all
City's Answer to Applicant's �j� Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-2 + ea + 1055 South Grady Way
..0 Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430- 0
��1Vri+0 648Fax: (425)430-6498
1 houses beyond 500 feet. The only exception to that policy is for waiver of the
2 turnaround to be ranted b the CED Administrator with
g y approval of the Fire &
3
Emergency Services. There is no provision for waiver of the limitations of the length of
4
the dead end street. There is also no room for an expert witness to argue that the
5
6 policy, so clearly enunciated, can be ignored because in the expert's opinion "there
7 would be no material detriment to public safety." (Reconsideration, pg. 6, lines 6, 7).
8 That opinion not only contradicts City policy but also recent experience from the
9 wildfire. It is-also refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson, one of the City
10
Administrators charged with enforcing and interpreting the code section in question.
11
There is also no reason shown in the Reconsideration why the Examiner
12
13 should change his opinion that Chief Peterson's testimony was more persuasive than
14 the expert, Mr.Anderson. The failure to state a reason to re-examine credibility alone,
15 should be.enough to carry the day for the City.
16 3. Public Safety Should Not be Compromised by Changing Staff Positions.
17 The essence of this dead end road conflict is public safety. The Examiner is
18
asked, because of conflicting staff messages, to ignore public safety, City policy and
19
State policy and grant a waiver of code that limits the length of the dead end street.
20
21 The Examiner is asked to ignore by implication, RCW 58.17.110(1) (a)that each plat to
22 be approved, must provide appropriate streets and RCW 58.17.110(1) (b)that the plat
23 would be in the public interest. The Examiner is without jurisdiction to do.
24 The Reconsideration advances an estoppel argument without so stating. That
25 is unsurprising because estoppel generally does not run against the State or its
Y
City's Answer to Applicant's �j �� Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-3 +
1055 South Grady Way
..0 Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
��'NT� Fax: (425)430-6498
1 subdivisions, such as the City. Estate of Hambelton v. Department of Revenue_
2 Wn.2d. October, 2014 . Estoppel( ) is even more inappropriate if public safety is
3
clearly implicated, as in this case.
4
5 Applicant can hardly act surprised by Chief Peterson's position. He opposed
6 the plat by letter dated August 15, 2013, and only conditionally withdrew it by letter
7 dated October 7, 2013. He did not state that he would approve the road length if the
8 plat stayed the same. And, subsequently,the Chief's fears were vindicated not only by a
9 wildfire incident in the City but undoubtedly by the OSO landslide.
10
And, applicant knew by State law and City code that approval of the extra
11
length dead end road was not within the power of the mid-level staff. The ultimate
12
13 approval had to come from the Examiner and the Examiner's authority could not be
14 fettered by staff statements. And Applicant should have been aware that any variance,
15 waiver or modification of the road length had to be granted by the CED Administrator in
16 consultation with the Fire and Emergency Services or the Examiner, as the case may be.
17 No statement of mid-level staff can remove the authority of the Examiner and City
18
Administrators to make decisions about this dead end road and the plat itself.
19
The Reconsideration does acknowledge that the applicant was on notice of
20
21 Chief Peterson's opposition to the extra-long, dead end street. But it does not
22 acknowledge that the platting process often involves opposition on one or more aspects
23 of the plat that are ultimately resolved. And such was the case here. Concerns about
24 drainage and set-backs from steep slopes were resolved. The applicant doesn't claim to
25 be naive about the give and take of the process. This preliminary plat has been
Y
City's Answer to Applicant's � �� Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration-4 ♦ ♦ 1055 South Grady Way
..0 Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
��NTO Fax: (425)430-6498
1 approved in all respects, with conditions. Once the condition of providing a secondary
2 means of access has been met the plat may proceed. It may not be timely today, but
3
may be tomorrow.
4
MODIFIED CONDITION 13
5
6 The City agrees that Condition 13 can be modified to provide the applicant
7 with more flexibility in providing a secondary means of access. But, that condition
8 should not be limited to access by fire and emergency services vehicles only; it should
9 also state that the secondary access must be a fully improved road section so that it
10
would provide an acceptable road surface for egress for citizens in an emergency.
11
Otherwise, the road will never be built to standards as the "final link" development will
12
13 have legal access to developed City streets that are nearby and will not trigger the City's
14 dead end road limitations and thus would not require the later developer to bring
15 Applicants secondary means of access to City standards. There would remain, only an
16 emergency access road, not a completed standard street section.
17 Alternatively, if the Examiner is not willing to modify the conditions as
18
proposed, then the original condition should remain.
19
CONCLUSION
20
21 For the reasons stated,the Reconsideration should be denied, but Condition
22 13 modified as stated above.
23 DATED THISJ2- day of October, 2014.
24
25
awrence J. War , WSBA#5853
Renton Ci o
City's Answer to Applicant's (j� Renton City Attorney
a%
Request for Reconsideration-5 1055 South Grady Way♦ Renton,WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425)430-6480
��N�O Fax: (425)430-6498