Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTow Appeal -- Suciu decision - 2018 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc BEFORE the HEARING EXAMINER for the CITY of RENTON VEHICLE IMPOUND APPEAL DECISION FILE NUMBER: 17-11852 APPELLANT: Remus Suciu 1924 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 RESPONDENT: Renton Police Department IMPOUND LOCATION: 2100 Block of NE 20th St. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Appeal Denied; No refund due. DATE OF DECISION: January 19, 2018 Summary Remus Suciu appeals the impound of his commercial truck on September 22, 2017 for violation of RMC 10- 10-13A, which prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles over 12,000 pounds in weight on City right of way rear residential structures in residential zones. The appeal is denied and no refund is due for the impound. Mr. Suciu did not contest the facts of his case but rather contests that RMC 10-10-13A applies to his commercial vehicle. He argues that more specific restrictions on the parking of commercial vehicles authorize the parking of his vehicle. More directly, he notes that RMC 10-10-12 prohibits the parking of trailers and all buses and trucks over one ton in weight during daylight hours in the SR-1, R-1 through R-4, T and G zones. Mr. Suciu argues that since his vehicle was parked in an R-8 zone that by implication under RMC 10-10-12 he is authorized to park in the R-8 zone since RMC 10-10-12 doesn’t apply to that zone. Vehicle Impound Appeal Page 2 of 7 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc Similarly, he notes that RMC 10-10-13(C) prohibits the parking commercial vehicles over 12,000 pounds in weight during daylight hours within 500 feet of residential dwellings while1 running their engines or other noise generating equipment for more than ten consecutive minutes within any two-hour period. Mr. Suciu asserts that since his truck didn’t violate RMC 10-10-13(C), by implication his parking was legal. At the hearing, Mr. Suciu’s counsel appropriately noted that a basic rule of statutory construction is that no words should be treated as mere surplusage. When possible, statutes should be construed so that no clause, sentence, or word is made superfluous, void, or insignificant; however, in special cases the court can ignore statutory language that appears to be surplusage when necessary for a proper understanding of the provision. State v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation, 1 Wash.App.2d 288, 299 (2018). Statutes are construed as a whole to harmonize and give effect to all provisions when possible. State v. Polk, 187 Wn. App. 380 (2015). Ironically, it is Mr. Suciu’s interpretation that runs afoul of this rule of construction. Mr. Suciu’s interpretation arguably2 renders RMC 10-10-13(A) superfluous and meaningless. Mr. Suciu doesn’t contest the fact that taken alone, RMC 10-10-13(A) prohibits the parking of his truck on NE 20th Street. Instead, he essentially argues that RMC 10-10-13(A) is superfluous, by asserting that its clearly applicable language should be disregarded because more specific limitations on commercial truck parking don’t apply to his impound. The more specific code provisions cited by Mr. Suciu (10-10-12 and 10-10-13(C) as identified above) can be easily and rationally harmonized with RMC 10-10-13A such that each can be fully applied without any implied limitations. In point of fact, RMC 10-10-13A simply provides another specific situation where truck parking is not authorized and the impound under appeal squarely meets the standards of that situation. There are two differences between RMC 10-10-13(A) and 10-10-13(C): (1) 10-10-13(A) requires all buildings on the same side of the block as the truck to be residences while 10-10-13(C) only requires one residence to be within 500 feet of the truck; and (2) the truck in 10-10-13(C) has to be operating its engine or making some other noise for more than 10 minutes every two hours while no such noise restriction applied to trucks covered by 10-10-13(A). The lower number of residences serving as a threshold for prohibited parking in RMC 10-10-13(C) is perfectly logical – if a truck makes noise, the number of proximate residences that triggers prohibited parking are reduced to account for the greater impacts caused by the noise. RCW 10-10-13(A) is similarly harmonized with RMC 10-10-12 – in that provision, trucks of any weight over a ton (as opposed to trucks over 12,000 pounds by RMC 10-101-13(A)) are prohibited in specified zones that don’t include the R8 zone in which Mr. Suciu’s vehicle was located. Such a distinction is 1 RMC 10-10-13(C) actually prohibits the parking 12,000 plus pound commercial vehicles within 500 feet of a residence “and permit” the vehicle to be operated for more than ten minutes in any two-hour period. This could be read as prohibiting parking within 500 feet “or” operating the vehicle for more than ten minutes in any two-hour period. However, construing the prohibition as a disjunctive would lead to the result that operating a 12,000 plus pound truck for more than ten minutes anywhere in the City is prohibited, whether parked or travelling, which is clearly absurd. 2 At one point in his testimony Mr. Suciu suggested that the R8 zone doesn’t qualify as a residential zone for purposes of RMC 10- 10-13(A). If this is his position, then 10-10-13(A) would arguably still have some meaning as applied to other residential zones. However, trying to characterize a zone designated as “Residential 8” that expressly authorizes residential development as a non- residential zone is highly dubious. Setting this strained position aside, if Mr. Suciu were to prevail in his position that RMC 10- 10-12 and 10-10-13( C) by implication authorize parking his vehicle on 20th St, it is difficult to conceive of any circumstance in which 10-10-13A would apply that isn’t already covered by the City’s other parking restrictions. Vehicle Impound Appeal Page 3 of 7 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc perfectly logical as well. As testified by Mr. Suciu, the R8 zone is arguably characterized by more intense development than the districts subject to RMC 10-10-12. As more sensitive districts, trucks of any weight are likely to create greater adverse impacts in those zones whereas for the R8 zone the prohibition is limited to trucks over 12,000 pounds since the uses in that district are less sensitive. Given that there is ample basis to harmonize RMC 10-10-12 and RMC 10-10-13(C) with RMC 10-10-13(A) without impliedly excluding Mr. Suciu’s vehicle from RMC 10-10-13(A), and also given that it is uncontested that the Suciu vehicle clearly meets all of the RMC 10-1013(A) criteria, it is concluded that the impound was proper and no impound fees are due. Testimony Officer Judd, City of Renton Traffic Sergeant for three years, noted that the area of the impound has been subject to constant complaints. Leading up to the 9/22 impound the City had received several complaints. A police officer spoke to Mr. Suciu to impress upon him the problems with parking on 20th. On 9/22 he observed the semi-tractor and trailer and a few cars parked along the north side of 20th across from Mr. Suciu’s residence. Mr. Suciu had been talked to about this on several occasions. He had been warned and cited. The structures that surround the parking space are houses. Mr. Suciu was cited with 10-10-13A. The impounded truck weighed in excess of 12,000 pounds as shown by the webpage for the Cascadia truck, which his of similar size and is listed as weighing 65,000 pounds. Officer Judd cited the vehicle on 9/22 and gave the citation to the tow truck driver. The truck was parked on city right of way. In cross-examination, Officer Judd did not recollect whether he had handed Mr. Suciu a copy of RMC parking standards. Officer Judd stated that complaints about the vehicles came in through a text box on the City’s website. They come through as an email form. The complaints have been coming in for years. Officer Judd doesn’t recall if a complaint came in on the morning of the impound or not. The tow truck operator got into the truck with a key. In summary, Officer Judd drove to the impound location, observed the violation, called dispatch, dispatch called the tow truck company, the tow truck company impounded the vehicle. It wasn’t any more pre-arranged than that. Officer Karlewicz testified he had been aware of the prior interactions with Mr. Suciu. On September 11 dispatch had been apprised of a complaint with the truck. So on 9/11 he decided to go to the impound site to cite the truck again. Mr. Suciu came out and he talked to Mr. Suciu about the vehicle being illegally parked and it being an on-going problem with multiple warnings. Mr. Suciu said he had won other hearings about the truck, but that was for a different violation on private property. Officer Karlewicz explained to Mr. Suciu that parking the truck on the right of way was illegal and it would be towed if the violations continued. Mr. Suciu agreed to park his vehicle on his driveway. On 9/22 after the impound, Mr. Suciu went to City Hall to complain about the impound. In cross-examination, Officer Karlewicz didn’t know the zoning except that it’s zoned residential. Remus Suciu testified he was not warned of the impound. The zoning for his area is R8. Mr. Suciu received Ex. 17 when he met with Officer Karlewicz. Officer Karlewicz was not interested in Mr. Suciu’s Vehicle Impound Appeal Page 4 of 7 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc interpretation of RMC 10-10-13A. Subsection A had been highlighted when he received Ex. 17. In applying subsection A, the City is ignoring the other subsections. Mr. Suciu knows as a contractor that when trucks are unloading materials for construction they are allowed to park on a public street that day. Subsection C says you can park from 9-6. The only restriction is for noise to not disturb residences. If you’re not making any noise, you can park. 10-10-12 states that it’s unlawful to park in any specific zoning districts, which doesn’t include R8. In a prior code violation action he had been handed a copy of 10-10-12 instead of 10-10-13A and it wasn’t until recently he discovered that 10-10-12 doesn’t apply to him because R-8 is not listed in that section. He has received a prior ticket for parking on the road. He is a contractor and has built projects in Renton. He knows R8 is for commercial use. You can park school buses in the R8 zone. There are schools near the impound site in the R8 zone. You can’t have schools in the other residential zones. That’s why R8 isn’t included in 10-10-12. In cross-examination, Mr. Suciu confirmed that he had received a prior citation for parking a truck on 20th in March 2017. He paid for that ticket and didn’t contest it because he was out of town and didn’t have time to do so. His street is four lanes wide, about 40 feet wide. The vehicle was parked about 100 feet from his residence, across the street. In redirect, Mr. Suciu noted that the parking ticket received on the day of impound was dismissed. Mr. Suciu reiterated that the Renton police officers were not interested in hearing his interpretation of 10-10-13. In closing, Alex Tuttle noted that the 9/22 ticket was dismissed because the officer didn’t attach his report to the ticket. 10-10-13A is very clear about not parking commercial trucks in all residential zones. 10-10-12 is limited to specific residential zones, but that’s not the section cited for the impound. 10-10-12 doesn’t state it’s legal to park in all unlisted residential zones. Mr. Tuttle requested that no attorney fees be assigned. Mr. De Silva noted that it’s a basic tenant of statutory construction that words, phrases and entire sections cannot be ignored when interpreting an ordinance. The city is ignoring 10-10-12 and other parking regulations. Parking of commercial trucks in the R8 zone isn’t prohibited and the complaining neighbors should be advised of this. It’s also very strange that the tow truck operator had a key to the truck. Mr. De Silva is also not asking for attorney fees. Exhibits The following documents are admitted into the record: 1. November 1, 2017 hearing scheduling letter from City of Renton to Mr. Suciu. 2. Notice of Appearance of Theodore D. Silva dated October 5, 2017 3. Demand of the Defendant for Discovery dated October 5, 2017 4. Letter from Seth to Silva re discovery response dated October 11, 2017 5. September 27, 2017 hearing scheduling letter from Renton to Suciu 6. Vehicle Impound Inventory 7. Police Report Case No. 17-11852 8. Web page identifying weight of Cascadia truck 9. Exemption log. Vehicle Impound Appeal Page 5 of 7 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc 10. Impound Vehicle Hearing Request 11. Receipt for impound 12. Customer receipt for $722.270 13. Right of redemption 14. Supplemental police report narrative dated 9/22/17 15. Google aerial map of impound location 16. Two parking citations with court dockets 17. RMC 10-10-13A with highlights 18. Three 8x11 photographs of impound location, 20th St. 19. 11/8/17 Dismissal of Citation No. PR0005862 (9/22/17 10-10-13A violation). FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. The hearing examiner held a hearing on the appeal on December 12, 2017 at the Renton City Hall City Council Chambers. Substantive: 2. On September 22, 2017 a commercial truck, WA Lic 52640RP, weighing over 12,000 pounds was parked on the right of way of the 2100 block of NE 20th St in Renton, WA. The vehicle is owned by Remus Suciu. The truck was impounded on September 22, 2017 for being parked in violation of RMC 10-10-13(A). 3. As shown in the aerial photograph, Ex. 15 and as testified by Officer Judd, all buildings on both sides of the block in which the commercial truck was parked on September 22, 2017 are residences. 4. Mr. Suciu had received ample prior notice that he could not park his vehicle on NE 20th St. He had received a citation for doing so in March 2017. A Renton police officer had also advised him prior to the September 22, 2017 impound that such parking was illegal and that his vehicle would be impounded if he continued to park on NE 20th St. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3 The Examiner is legally required to decide this appeal within the framework created by the following principles: Authority 3 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. Vehicle Impound Appeal Page 6 of 7 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc Owners of impounded vehicles may appeal to the Examiner. The Examiner makes a final decision within 30 days of the close of the hearing which is subject to the right of reconsideration and appeal to Superior Court. [RMC 10-5-4 et seq.] The Examiner is required to “determine whether the impoundment, and/or towing, and/or storage fees charged were proper …. Should the Hearing Examiner determine that the towing and/or storage fees charged were not proper, then the Hearing Examiner shall determine the proper amount ….” [RMC 10-5-7E] “If the impoundment is found proper, the expense of the hearing shall be assessed as a civil penalty against the owner of the vehicle impounded.” [RMC 10-5-7F] “If the impound is not found proper the owner of the vehicle shall bear no costs, and the City shall refund to the owner the cost of towing and storage.” [RMC 10- 5-7G] “Nothing in [Chapter 10-5 RMC] shall be construed to prevent the Hearing Examiner exercising discretion in assessing penalties, costs or arranging time payments if justice so requires.” [RMC 10-5-7I] Standard of Review The standard of review is preponderance of the evidence. The City has the burden to prove that the impound was proper. [RMC 10-5-7C] The Appellant has the burden to prove that the towing and/or storage fees charged were not proper. [RMC 10-5-7D] Scope of Consideration The Examiner has considered: all of the evidence and testimony; applicable adopted laws and ordinances; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. RMC 10-10-13(A) authorizes the towing of: “any commercially licensed or any vehicle over twelve thousand (12,000) pounds gross vehicle weight on any public right-of-way in which all of the adjacent structures are occupied as residential dwellings. Adjacent structures shall mean those structures on the same side of the right-of-way as the area for parking and within the same block.” As determined in Finding of Fact No. 2-4 in this decision, Mr. Suciu parked a commercial vehicle weighing over 12,000 pounds in the right of way of NE 20th St. on September 22, 2017. All structures on the same side of the block in which the truck was parked are occupied as residential dwellings. All of these facts were uncontested and supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record. RMC 10-10-13(A) is not rendered inapplicable by implication due to RMC 10-10-12 or 10- 10-13(C) as argued by Mr. Suciu as outlined in the Testimony section of this decision, for the reasons identified in the Summary section of this Decision. Since Mr. Suciu’s commercial truck was clearly parked in violation of RMC 10-10-13(A) on September 22, 2017, the impound on that date was proper and no refund of impound fees is merited. Vehicle Impound Appeal Page 7 of 7 c:\users\phil\onedrive\documents\renton\tow appeal -- suciu.doc DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the testimony and evidence submitted at the open record hearing, the appeal is DENIED. The Appellant is not entitled to a refund of any impound fees. Decision issued January 19, 2017. Hearing Examiner NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION “Any interested person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may” file a request/motion for reconsideration with “the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. The [request/motion for reconsideration] shall set forth the specific errors relied upon.” [RMC 4-8-100G4] Any request/motion for reconsideration shall be addressed to the Renton Hearing Examiner and filed with the City Clerk. See RMC 4-8-100G4 for additional information and requirements regarding reconsideration. NOTICE of RIGHT of APPEAL This Decision (or if reconsideration is timely requested, the Examiner’s Decision after reconsideration) is final subject to the right of the appeal to Superior Court.