The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-18-2020 - City of Renton's Response to Downtown Emergency Service Center's Motion for Reconsideration CITY’S RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – Page 1 Renton City Attorney 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER IN RE THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR HEARING BY RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS, LLC AND KING COUNTY NO. CODE-20-000321 CITY OF RENTON’S RESPONSE TO DOWNTOWN EMERGENCY SERVICE CENTER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION The City of Renton (the “City”) respectfully submits this response to the Downtown Emergency Service Center’s (“DESC’s”) September 11, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration (“DESC’s Motion”) of the Hearing Examiner’s August 31, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision (“Decision”) regarding the Renton Red Lion Finding of Violation (“FOV”). DESC’s Motion does not justify modifying the Decision, and the City respectfully requests that DESC’s Motion be denied. II. RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION The Decision recognized that DESC chose to not request a hearing in response to the FOV, to not submit briefing in advance of the hearing, and to not present argument at the CITY’S RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – Page 2 Renton City Attorney 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hearing. See Decision at 20:1-21:21. Nevertheless, the Decision gave DESC three options: (1) to be bound to the Decision; (2) to be bound instead to the FOV; or (3) to seek reconsideration of the Decision. Decision at 20:1-6 The Decision limited the scope of DESC’s option to seek reconsideration under the third option, requiring DESC to make a showing that the “terms of this Decision would materially affect the ability of DESC to further the public health officers [sic] objectives of de-intensifying homeless shelters:” Due to the unusual circumstances of DESC’s limited participation, DESC is further authorized to request reconsideration and submit additional declarations to the extent that such evidence would address whether the terms of this Decision would materially affect the ability DESC to further the public health officers objectives of de-intensifying homeless shelters. Decision at 20:2-6.1 DESC’s Motion does not fall within the limited reconsideration scope called for by the Decision: it does not address how the Decision might “affect” (much less “materially affect”) DESC’s ability to de-intensify homeless shelters. Indeed, DESC submits no evidence as to what prevents it from relocating the residents of its shelter to a legally-zoned location where its residents can live safely and long-term or any evidence as to any hardship imposed by undergoing a City permitting process. A. DESC’s Motion Does Not Make a Showing that the Decision Would “Materially Affect” DESC’s Ability to Further the Objectives of De-intensifying Homeless Shelters. The Decision orders DESC to either cease operations and relocate its residents or apply for an unclassified use permit. In its motion, DESC never asserts that it is unable to or has made 1 The Decision later refers to requiring DESC to show that the Decision would “materially impair” its ability to operate a shelter. Decision at 21:11-13. CITY’S RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – Page 3 Renton City Attorney 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 efforts to relocate residents to an alternative safe location. Nor does it assert that applying for and pursuing an unclassified use permit would affect its ability to operate a deintensification shelter during the permitting process. These missing assertions are unsurprising; pursuant to the Decision, DESC can either immediately relocate its operations to a lawful location or maintain its full operations at the Red Lion property while it completes the unclassified use permitting process. Thus, DESC’s Motion simply does not respond to the Decision’s call for a showing that the Decision would “materially affect” DESC’s ability to operate a deintensifcation shelter. B. DESC’s Motion Reaffirms that DESC Should Either Relocate Its Residents or Apply for an Unclassified Use Permit. DESC’s true purpose in its motion is objecting to the Decision’s land use classification of the shelter. See DESC’s Motion at 2:2-5 (“The purpose of this Motion and the accompanying Declaration of Daniel Malone is to clarify the operations and services the DESC provides at the Red Lion Hotel to ensure that DESC can continue to implement the public health officer’s order to de-intensify homeless shelters”). Significantly, the City shares DESC’s view that the Decision overreaches by predicting the outcome of an unclassified use permit process. See City’s September 14, 2020 Motion for Limited Clarification. DESC’s and the City’s shared view that the Decision goes too far results from the record before the Hearing Examiner having been developed to support the singular and narrow zoning question at issue in the FOV: whether the deintensification shelter is a “Hotel” land use. The FOV hearing process was never meant to resolve what land use the deintensification shelter constitutes if it is not a “Hotel” land use. The resolution of that question, if DESC decides to request a determination from the City, is properly left to the City in the unclassified use permit process. During that process, DESC will have ample opportunity to provide City staff with CITY’S RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – Page 4 Renton City Attorney 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information about the nature of its operations and services, and the City will have its first opportunity to request such information – now five months (and counting) after DESC began operating in disregard for the City’s zoning laws. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, DESC’s Motion does not justify modifying the Decision, and the City respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner deny DESC’s Motion. Submitted this 18th day of September, 2020. By: /s/Shane Moloney Shane Moloney, WSBA #35433 City Attorney City of Renton Attachment: Declaration of Service CITY’S RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – Page 5 Renton City Attorney 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on September 18, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties listed below via the method indicated: Renton Hotel Investors, LLC: Sumeer Singla Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC ssingla@williamskastner.com [X] E-mail [ ] United States Mail [ ] Legal Messenger [ ] E-Service King County: Howard Schneiderman Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Howard.Schneiderman@kingcounty.gov Youn-Jung Kim Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jina.Kim@kingcounty.gov Lena Madden Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Lena.Madden@kingcounty.gov [X] E-mail [ ] United States Mail [ ] Legal Messenger [ ] E-Service CITY’S RESPONSE TO DESC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – Page 6 Renton City Attorney 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Phone: 425.430.6480 Fax: 425.430.6498 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DESC: Elaine L. Spencer Northwest Resource Law PLLC espencer@nwresourcelaw.com Lisa Chaiet Rahman Northwest Resource Law PLLC lrahman@nwresourcelaw.com [X] E-mail [ ] United States Mail [ ] Legal Messenger [ ] E-Service DATED this 18th day of September, 2020, at Maple Valley, Washington. /s/ Stephanie Rary Stephanie Rary, Paralegal