HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 59 - 09-18-2020 - COR - Response to Downtown Emergency Service Center's Motion for ReconsiderationITEM NO. 59
HEX-000716
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
HEX-000717
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.
HEX-000718
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
HEX-000719
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
HEX-000720
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
HEX-000721
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
HEX-000722