HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 15 - 08-05-2020 - KC - Hearing BriefITEM NO. 15
HEX-000123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 1
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In re the matter of the Appeal by
Renton Hotel Investors, LLC,
Downtown Emergency Services Center,
King County
Appellants.
Case No. CODE20-000321
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to his statutory authority and consistent with established public health practice to
limit the spread of a highly contagious disease, King County’s Local Health Officer Dr. Jeffrey
Duchin ordered the de-intensification of homeless shelters. Following Dr. Duchin’s order, in April
2020 King County transferred clients of a homeless shelter operated by the nonprofit organization
Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC) to a hotel in Renton. On June 30, 2020 Renton
issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) alleging violations of its zoning code and the lack of a business
license for the hotel use. The FOV seeks to prevent King County from temporarily housing
homeless shelter clients as part of its county-wide strategy to mitigate community spread of a highly
HEX-000124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 2
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
infectious, deadly virus during a global pandemic. For the reasons outlined below, Appellants
respectfully request the Hearing Examiner to find that no violations have occurred and dismiss the
Finding of Violation.
II. FACTS
On February 29, 2020, Governor Inslee proclaimed a public health state of emergency in
Washington due to COVID-19. Days later, on March 1, 2020, the King County Executive
proclaimed a county public health emergency, authorizing the county to exercise emergency powers
enumerated in RCW 35.52.070(2), including entering into contracts and incurring obligations
necessary to combat the public health threat. On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization
declared a state of pandemic due to COVID-19. Two days later, President Trump declared a
National Emergency due to COVID-19. Declaration of Jeffrey Duchin (“Duchin Dec.”) Attachment
A at p. 1.
Since the governor’s initial proclamation, state and local governments have been battling a
public health crisis without modern precedent. With no known cure, effective treatment or vaccine
available anytime soon, prevention and mitigation of disease spread has been a critical component
of the crisis response. To date, the governor, local jurisdictions and public health officials have
issued numerous orders to slow community spread of the deadly virus and avoid overwhelming
hospitals and health care facilities. Orders limiting business operations and gatherings of people,
restricting visits to long-term care facilities, maintaining physical distancing and wearing face
coverings are just some of the measures currently in effect.
On March 31, 2020 King County’s Local Health Officer Dr. Jeffrey Duchin issued an order
to “de-intensify or reduce the density of existing homelessness shelters” to reduce community
spread of COVID-19. Duchin Dec. Attachment A at p. 3. Preventing and reducing outbreaks
HEX-000125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 3
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
among people in congregate settings such as homeless shelters, jails and long-term care facilities is
critical to controlling community spread of COVID-19. Duchin Dec. at p. 2, ¶ 11. Individuals in
homeless shelters are at higher risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19. Declaration of Nancy
Sugg (“Sugg Dec.”) at pp. 2- 3, ¶¶ 8-12. They are severely hampered in their ability to follow public
health guidelines by maintaining physical distancing and practicing safe hygiene, and face other
barriers and challenges that increase their risk of becoming critically ill. Sugg Dec. at pp. 3-5, ¶¶ 13-
22.
Implementing Dr. Duchin’s shelter de-intensification order, King County officials secured
temporary safe alternative housing for the most vulnerable shelter residents, leasing hotel rooms, a
practice likewise implemented by jurisdictions throughout the country. Amended Declaration of
Leo Flor (“Amended Flor Dec”). Attachment A at pp. 5-9. Shelter de-intensification is a “crucial
component” of the county’s COVID-19 response and recommended by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Duchin Dec. at p. 4, ¶ 21. King County secured the use of hotels in
Bellevue, SeaTac, Seattle and the Red Lion in Renton as part of its regional COVID-19 emergency
response. Amended Flor Dec. Attachment A at p. 8; Declaration of Bryan Hague (“ Hague Dec.”) at
p. 4, ¶¶ 27-29.
King County entered into a lease agreement with the owners of the Red Lion to temporarily
place DESC’s main shelter clients. The shelter’s population is medically very vulnerable, a large
percentage are disabled, and many have mental health conditions. The shelter accepts homeless
individuals upon discharge from area hospitals and jails as well as first responder referrals.
Amended Declaration of Dan Malone (“Amended Malone Dec.”) at pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 8-14. Given the
level of their chronic needs, DESC’s clients are provided with medical, behavioral and other social
services by a dedicated staff as well as medical professionals. Amended Malone Dec. at p. 3, ¶ 15.
HEX-000126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 4
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
DESC has operated its main shelter in downtown Seattle since 1979 but receives clients from
throughout King County and serves as a regional resource within the county-wide crisis care
system. Amended Malone Dec. at p. 2, ¶ 7; p. 3, ¶¶ 17-19.
King County went to great lengths to find a hotel suitable for the homeless shelter
population, including DESC’s main shelter clients. Given considerations such as location, size, cost
and owner willingness, options were very limited. Hague Dec. at pp. 2-4, ¶¶ 9-28. The Red Lion
was the only hotel within the county that met the necessary criteria with owners willing to
accommodate homeless individuals. Amended Flor Dec. at pp. 4-5, ¶¶ 20-24; Bath Dec. at p. 1, ¶ 8.
The shelter clients moved into the hotel in early April and have all tested negative for
COVID-19 since. DESC’s staff followed to efficiently provide continuity of care. Amended Flor
Dec. at p. 5-7, ¶¶25, 32, 38. Likewise, University of Washington Medicine is providing medical
care for the residents at the Red Lion, as it did previously at DESC’s main shelter. Sugg Dec. at p. 2,
5-6.
Providing DESC’s clients with private accommodations has not only helped to control the
spread of COVID-19, it has also led to significant improvements in clients’ medical and mental
health. Amended Malone Dec. Attachment B; Declaration of Sam McKnight (“McKnight Dec.”) at
pp. 2-5, ¶¶ 6-17; 26-35.
III. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON
1. Amended Declaration of Dan Malone, Executive Director of Downtown Emergency
Services Center, with attachments
2. Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, King County Local Health Officer, with attachments
3. Amended Declaration of Leo Flor, Director of King County Department of Community
and Human Services, with attachment
4. Declaration of Dayabir Bath
5. Declaration of Youn-Jung Kim, with attachment
6. Declaration of Dr. Nancy Sugg, Medical Director – Pioneer Square Clinic and
Downtown Homeless Programs
HEX-000127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 5
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
7. Declaration of Bryan Hague, King County Real Estate Services Manager
8. Declaration of Jody Rauch, Advanced Practice Nurse Specialist, Healthcare for the
Homeless Network of Seattle and King County Public Health
9. Declaration of Sam McKnight, Shelter Program Manager, Downtown Emergency
Services Center
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Use of the Red Lion to Temporarily House DESC’s Clients to Implement King
County’s De-Intensification Strategy is Consistent with Hotel Use as Defined in the Renton
Municipal Code.
The FOV alleges that King County’s use of the Red Lion exceeds the defined use of a
hotel” under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). The RMC defines a hotel as follows:
A building or portion thereof designed or used for transient rental for sleeping
purposes. Hotel structures are at least two (2) stories in height, with lodging space
above the first floor. Lodging space may also be located on the first floor. Individual
rooms are typically accessed from a common hallway. A central kitchen and dining
room and accessory shops and services catering to the general public may be
provided. Not included in this definition are multi-family dwellings, bed and
breakfasts, or motels.
RMC 4-11-080. In particular, the FOV alleges that the duration of stay exceeded “transient rental
for sleeping purposes” because the temporary hotel accommodations have been in place since April
2020. The RMC does not define “transient” or limit the duration of temporary rental
accommodations.
No Washington case has analyzed the length of stay at a hotel deemed to exceed a “transient
rental” period. However, other jurisdictions have analyzed this issue in the context of landlord
tenant law and provides a useful comparison. In Bourque v. Morris, 190 Conn. 364, 460 A.2d 1251
1983), the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a guest’s three-month stay at a hotel paid for by
the city with no other housing options available was a transient occupancy rather than a tenant with
protections against evictions. The court noted that the guest knew he was staying in a hotel and,
HEX-000128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 6
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
even though it was the city which made arrangements for the room, there was no evidence that the
parties could reasonably expect that the city would pay for the room indefinitely. Id. at 369-70.
Similar to Bourque, here the use of the Red Lion is an extraordinary and temporary measure
that King County hopes to continue only during the COVID-19 epidemic. Amended Flor Dec. at p.
7, ¶39. Likewise, the DESC’s clients understand it’s a temporary arrangement and efforts to find
permanent housing continue. Amended Malone Dec. at p. 7, ¶ 54. The Red Lion hotel has also
previously rented rooms in the past for several weeks to several months without any objection from
the City. Bath Dec. at p. 3, ¶ 18.
The FOV also alleged that the use exceeds “sleeping purposes” of a hotel use because
DESC staff is on-site and medical care and other social services are being provided. Washington
case law is again limited in guidance. However, Michigan appellate court found homeless
individuals staying at a YMCA to be hotel guests rather than tenants even with on-site services
available. Ann Arbor Tenants Union v. Ann Arbor YMCA, 229 Mich. App. 431, 581 N.W.2d 794
1998). Thus, the presence of DESC staff and the provision of other services are not dispositive of
whether use is a hotel. In fact the code’s definition itself contemplates that a hotel use may include
a] central kitchen and dining room and accessory shops and services catering to the general
public….” It is difficult to discern a meaningful distinction between the services being provided to
DESC’s clients at the Red Lion with shops and services available to the general public.
Furthermore, the on-site provision of medical care and social services helps mitigate the impacts to
the local community and furthers the objective of reducing community spread of COVID-19. Sugg
Dec. at p. 2, ¶ 6
The FOV also contends that the use is a “ de-intensification shelter” rather than a hotel and
that such use is not a recognized land use under the Renton Code. However, “de-intensification” is a
HEX-000129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 7
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
public health strategy to slow the spread of contagious diseases. Duchin Dec. p. 4, ¶¶ 21-28. By its
nature it is triggered by a need to contain infectious diseases such as COVID-19, and not a use
category for zoning purposes. The use, which is temporary accommodations provided through the
rental of hotel rooms, implements this strategy. Sugg Dec. p. 5, ¶ 25 (“Shelter de-intensification is a
critical and necessary tool to protect this population and to control the spread of COVID-19
throughout the community…”). By moving DESC’s main shelter clients to the Red Lion, the county
has so far avoided a potentially dire scenario while also protecting the broader community
effectively. Sugg Dec. p. 6, ¶ 28. In fact a DESC client tested positive for COVID-19 around the
time of the move to the Red Lion. Without de-intensifying the main shelter, the disease likely would
have spread quickly. Amended Malone Dec. at 7, ¶ 49. Residents at other congregate shelters have
not fared as well. Amended Malone Dec. at p. 9, ¶66.
B. State Public Health and Emergency Authority Preempts Application of Renton’s Zoning
Code to Force King County to Move DESC’s Clients from The Red Lion.
Local health officers derive their powers from Article 11, § 11 of the Washington
Constitution:
Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such
local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.
See Spokane County Health Dist. v. Brockett, 120 Wn.2d 140, 147-48, 839 P.2d 324 (1992). State
law grants local health officers exceptionally broad authority to act to protect the public health.
Among those, RCW 70.05.070 broadly mandates, without limitation, that the local health officer
shall:
2) Take such action as is necessary to maintain health and sanitation supervision
over the territory within his or her jurisdiction;
3) Control and prevent the spread of any dangerous, contagious or infectious
diseases that may occur within his or her jurisdiction; …
HEX-000130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 8
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
9) Take such measures as he or she deems necessary in order to promote the public
health ….
In addition to the authority under RCW 70.05.070, a local health officer, when necessary, may
institute disease control and containment control measures, including isolation and quarantine
measures he or she deems necessary based on professional judgment. See WAC 246-100-036(3). A
local health officer’s orders are subject to enforcement which include criminal prosecution. See
RCW 70.05.120(4); WAC 246- 100-070.
The Washington Supreme Court has long recognized a local health officer’s broad authority
to protect the public from contagious diseases. See Brown v. Pierce County, 28 Wn. 345, 68 P. 872
1902); State ex rel. McBride v. Superior Court, 103 Wash. 409, 174 P. 973 (1918). In Brown, an
eminent domain case where the city of Tacoma, through its health officers, “appropriated” private
property without consent to house smallpox patients, the only issue was the measure of damages for
the taking. Brown, 28 Wn. at 347-48. No dispute existed as to the authority to seize the private
property; as the Court noted, the parties “do not question the right of [health officers] in the quick
exercise of their extraordinary powers in relation to the preservation of the public health, to seize
and use the property for the purpose for which it was used.” Id. at 348-49. Brown demonstrates the
expansive nature of local health officers’ authority when acting to contain infectious disease.
More recently, in Spokane County Health Dist. v. Brockett, supra, the Washington Supreme
Court considered a health district’s needle exchange program to curb the spread of HIV. The
program’s opponents argued that the needle exchange violated a state criminal statute prohibiting
distribution of drug paraphernalia because hypodermic needles were included in the definition of
drug paraphernalia”. Spokane County Health Dist., 20 Wn.2d at 147. The Court ruled that the
HEX-000131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 9
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
needle exchange program was a valid public health measure which preempted the drug
paraphernalia statute.
Because protecting and preserving the health of its citizens from disease is an
important governmental function, public health statutes and the actions of local
health boards implementing those statutes are liberally construed…The legislatively
delegated power to cities and health boards to control contagious diseases gives
them extraordinary power which might be unreasonable in another context…
Indeed, we have said the subject matter and expediency of public health disease
prevention measures are ‘beyond judicial control, except as they may violate some
constitutional right guaranteed to defendants.’
Id. at 149 (internal citations omitted). Brockett recognized the power of the local health district to
act to control disease within its jurisdiction, over the opposition of officials and agencies. The Court
held that the constitutional grant of authority to local health officials to make and enforce rules and
regulations may prevail over other statutes, so long as the local regulations do not conflict with other
public health statutes. Id. at 148.
During an epidemic, the City’s ordinary authority to enforce its zoning regulations is
subordinate to the Local Health Officer’s authority to control the spread of an infectious disease.
The City’s enforcement action here would impermissibly conflict with the Local Health Officer’s
authority under state law to take necessary action to slow the spread of COVID-19. “Municipal
police power is as extensive as that of the legislature, so long as the subject matter is local and the
regulation does not conflict with general laws.” State v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 162, 165, 615
P.2d 461 (1980) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). A local regulation conflicts with general law if
it permits what state law forbids or forbids what state law permits. Cannabis Action Coalition v.
City of Kent, 180 Wn. App. 455, 482, 322 P.3d 1246 (2014).
Here the subject matter, the COVID-19 epidemic, is not local to the City of Renton and the
King County public health department’s jurisdiction is county-wide. See KCC 2.35A.010.
HEX-000132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 10
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
Enhanced isolation, quarantine, and de-intensification practices are all vital components of the
county, state and national strategy to slow the spread of COVID-19. Duchin Dec. Attachment A.
Application of Renton’s zoning code here irreconcilably conflicts with the mandates of the Local
Health Officer’s order, and it is therefore preempted. See Brown v. City of Yakima, 116 Wn.2d 556,
561, 807 P.2d 353 (1991) (a city’s ordinance “must yield” to state law “if a conflict exists such that
the two cannot be harmonized”) (citation omitted).
The Hearing Examiner can avoid such an irreconcilable conflict by finding that the DESC
clients’ use of the Red Lion is a hotel use contemplated by Renton’s code. In a similar zoning code
challenge by the City of Kent for the county’s use a motel for isolation and quarantine purposes, a
King County Superior Court judge found that the authority to regulate dangerous, contagious or
infectious diseases rests solely with the Local Health Officer. Declaration of Youn-Jung Kim (“Kim
Dec.”) Attachment A. While the superior court’s order does not bind Renton, Judge Shah’s
reasoning is sound and the Hearing Examiner is urged to give it weight.
C. The Use of the Red Lion Hotel to De-intensify a Homeless Shelter During a Pandemic Does
Not Impermissibly Infringe on Renton’s Enforcement of its Zoning Code.
Over one hundred years ago the U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally declared the strong
deference given to state and local governments to enact and enforce measures to combat public
health emergencies, even if such laws infringe on constitutionally protected interests. See Jacobson
v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24-28 (1905). In upholding a mandatory
vaccination law during a smallpox epidemic, the Supreme Court concluded that the infringement
upon an individual’s liberty was justified as the statute was necessary to protect the public from the
smallpox epidemic and was not applied in an unreasonable manner. Id. at 27-28. The Court
HEX-000133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 11
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
reasoned that “the liberty secured by the Constitution…does not import an absolute right in each
person to be at all times in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Id. at 26.
Jacobson remains good law and courts throughout the country deciding numerous
challenges to COVID-19 related public health emergency measures have uniformly relied on it as
the framework to review such measures. See, e.g., Givens v. Newsom, No. 220CV00852JAMCKD,
2020 WL 2307224, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2020) (denying TRO request to enjoin enforcement of
state’s pandemic restrictions to allow political demonstrations and church services); Altman v.
County of Santa Clara, No. 20-CV-02180-JST, 2020 WL 2850291, at *6-8 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020)
upholding state’s Stay-At-Home order requiring non-essential businesses to temporarily cease
operations, restricting sales on firearms and ammunition); Bannister v. Ige, No. CV 20-00305 JAO-
RT, 2020 WL 4209225, at *4 (D. Haw. July 22, 2020) (denying preliminary injunction to enjoin
enforcement of Hawaii’s mandatory 14-day quarantine for all persons entering the state). The Court
in In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 786 (5th Cir. 2020) explained the narrow circumstances where such
public health measures may be found unlawful under Jacobson:
The bottom line is this: when faced with a society-threatening epidemic, a state may
implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights so long as the
measures have at least some “real or substantial relation” to the public health crisis
and are not “beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the
fundamental law.” Courts may ask whether the state’s emergency measures lack
basic exceptions for “extreme cases,” and whether the measures are pretextual—that
is, arbitrary or oppressive. At the same time, however, courts may not second-guess
the wisdom or efficacy of the measures.
In re Abbott, 954 F.3d at 784-85 (internal citations omitted).
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington recently relied on Jacobson
to deny a request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Governor Inslee’s COVID-
19 emergency proclamation that required non-essential businesses to temporarily shut down. See
HEX-000134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 12
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
Slidewaters, LLC v. Washington Dep’t of Labor, No. 2:20-CV-0210-TOR, 2020 WL 3979661 (E.D.
Wash. July 14, 2020). The plaintiff, a family-owned water park in Lake Chelan, who was forced to
shut down as a result of the order, challenged the Governor’s order, arguing it violated its
substantive due process rights. Id. at *2. The Court concluded that “so long as a public health law is
reasonable and not overly broad or unequally applied, it is permissible even when it infringes on
other protected interests.” Id. at *4 (citing Jacobson, supra). Applying Jacobson, the Court found
any such infringement was justified by the “ongoing public health emergency caused by COVID-
19” even if the infringement was of a constitutionally protected interest. Id at *5. The Court further
explained that “[i]t is not the Court’s role to second-guess the reasoned public health decisions of
other branches of government.” Id.
The City of Renton has not directly challenged the Local Health Officer’s order, however,
the City’s issuance of a zoning violation against the County essentially seeks to enjoin
implementation of the order with respect to the Red Lion Hotel. Jacobson’s principles squarely
apply, and the end result should be no different here. While the County maintains the use of the
hotel complies with the City’s zoning code, even if the use does not comply, under Jacobson the
Health Officer’s authority to implement the County’s shelter “de-intensification” strategy during the
COVID-19 pandemic justifies any temporary infringement on the City’s ability to enforce its zoning
laws.
In addition to the clear legal framework for recognizing the Local Health Officer’s superior
authority in matters of public health, important public policy considerations support reaching the
same conclusion. A finding that results in the removal of DESC’s shelter clients from the Red Lion
hotel will undermine the Local Health Officer’s efforts to protect the public from a deadly virus
with no known cure or vaccine to date. Measures intended to reduce community spread of the virus
HEX-000135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 13
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
by temporarily moving people out of crowded shelters would be rendered ineffective if local
jurisdictions could invoke their zoning ordinances to prevent such measures from being fully
implemented. King County is not suggesting that the Local Health Officer’s authority is without
limits, but such limits have not been exceeded here.
D. No Business License is Required for the Use of the Red Lion Hotel for De-intensification
Purposes.
The FOV also cites the lack of a business license as a code violation. However, the hotel is
operated pursuant to its business license. Bath Dec. at p. 3, ¶ 18. Renting rooms to people
experiencing homelessness is a hotel use permitted under Renton’s zoning code and therefore no
other business license is needed. Furthermore, under the plain language of Renton’s business
licenses code, no license would be required of DESC or King County here. The code defines
business entity” as “any person or persons engaged in activities for profit including, but not limited
to, any business, business enterprise, company, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship
required to be licensed and/or registered in the State of Washington or any other state.” RMC 5-1-
1.C. That definition plainly does not apply to King County or DESC as neither is engaged in
activities for profit” through their de-intensification measures. Thus, the City’s FOV for failure to
obtain a business license should be dismissed.
V. CONCLUSION
King County’s Local Health Officer ordered measures to control the spread of COVID-19 in
a particularly vulnerable population and protect public health. The United States Supreme Court has
long recognized the necessity of enforcing such orders during a public health emergency, even
where some infringement of rights may occur. As the foregoing demonstrates, the Finding of
HEX-000136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 14
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
Violation cannot be used to impede the Local Health Officer’s authority during such a crucial time
and should be dismissed.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2020.
DANIEL T. SATTERBERG
King County Prosecuting Attorney
By: s/ Howard Schneiderman
HOWARD SCHNEIDERMAN, WSBA #19252
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
By: s/ Youn-Jung Kim
YOUN-JUNG KIM, WSBA #23516
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
By: s/ Lena Madden
Lena Madden, WSBA # 41246
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Attorneys for King County
HEX-000137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
KING COUNTY’S HEARING BRIEF - 15
Daniel T. Satterberg, Prosecuting Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
W400 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206) 477-1120/FAX (206) 296-0191
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND E-SERVICE
I declare under penalty of the perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on
August 5, 2020, I caused the foregoing documents to be electronically filed with the Hearing
Examiner for the City of Renton by email to cityclerk@rentonwa.gov, as well as served upon the
following parties at the email address listed below:
Chip Vincent, Administrator
Dept. of Community & Economic
Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
cvincent@rentonwa.gov
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall – 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
Sumeer Singla
Williams Kastner
601 Union Street, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2380
ssingla@williamskastner.com
Leslie Clark
Alex Tuttle
Shane Moloney
Stephanie Rary
Senior Assistant Attorneys, City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
lclark@rentonwa.gov
atuttle@rentonwa.gov
smoloney@rentonwa.gov
srary@rentonwa.gov
Daniel Malone
Executive Director
515 Third Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
dmalone@desc.org
DATED this 5th day of August, 2020
s/ Monica Erickson__________
MONICA ERICKSON, Legal Assistant
King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
HEX-000138