HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-071_Report 1CI V OF RENTON
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
July 3, 2007
Renton City Council
Renton City Hall
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, W A 98057
Re: Appeal of the Landing's Site Plan (LUA·06·071, SA·A)
Dear Council Members:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J, Kaufman
A review of the record reveals that the appellant did not withdraw the appeal of the Site Plan
when the settlement was reached.
The appellants did withdraw their appeals regarding Building Permits for some of the buildings
on the site covered by the Site Plan. The standing of the parties to appeal the Building Permits
was still in contention when the Building Permit appeals were withdrawn.
The fact that there was no clear withdrawal of the appeal meant that there was still an intact
decision on what aspects of the Site Plan did or did not comply with Code· more particularly·
were there "practical difficulties", a necessary circumstance, in complying with the various
regulations?
In addition, there was also a pending request to clarifY the decision from the City Attorney. That
request was not withdrawn.
This office was not left with any clear agreement of the parties. This office believed and
probably still believes that the matter was still open and that an answer was required. Therefore,
this office issued its letter of June 12, 2007, wherein this office explains why it found as it did and
clarified one or two issues.
This office hopes this letter helps to clarify the issues in this matter.
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
----,-O-sS-SO-u-th-Gr-a-dy-W-a-y-.-R-en-to-n-, w-as-hingt-o-n-9-g-0S-S-.-(4-2S-)-43-O'-6-S-'S----~
® This paper contains 50% recyded malenal, 30% postcoosumer
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
July is, Petitioner's response to standing motions due
July 24, Reply
July 25, Other dispositive motions for jurisdiction to be filed
August 4, Reply
August II, Final response on other dispositive jurisdictional
August 22 and 24, Oral Argument on the standing and jurisdictional issues
September II, 12, 13, Hearing dates
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
100 South Second Street
POBox 626 ~
Renton, W A 98057
J, J-oi.e -3lP--q <;;<I D {v-
"euck & Gordon ~/
2025 First Avenue, Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
500 Galland Building ..
1221 Second Avenue i(u;J-#
/ ",Seattle, WA 98101 (
I ~() Ie, -(q L-? i1 '-f r;;-
Bricklin N~DOld' LLP
1001 Fourt venue, Ste. 3303
Seattle, W 9 54
~OIt1-lo")'""J..-82.7 ~
LIt rtYl PoYte-r: _
~~~COtJ..U
ou::I--.. ., .
Zanetta Fontes
Ann Nielsen
Peter L. Buck (Alliance for the South End)
Duncan Green
Kristina Cerise, Land Use Planner
Jerome L. Hillis (Harvest Partners)a
T. Ryan Durkan
Karen Breckenridge
Claudia M. Newman 'CR.r.iessive Alliance
for a S~~able Southend)
For __ ~~ ____ -, __________ _
FromcOae (A)
Time __________ Date ___ _
Phone ____________________ _
TO:
Phone:
Fax Phone:
Cill of Renton
Mayor's Office
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Date:
FROM:
Phone: 425-430-6500
Fax Phone: 425-430-6523
SUBJECT~~J1t ~ Number of pages including cover sheet:
U'V .-"'V<'--\--.
I
(I
REMARKS: o Original to \JD Urgent o Reply o Please 0 For your
be mailed ASAP Comment review
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r .ec-~ L, J.~
J'\..G\;\..[ ---n u
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative
Site Plan Approval.
LUA-06-071, SA-A
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPEAL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
I. OVERVIEW
While appeals were still pending before the Renton Hearing Examiner regarding
Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, the parties to the appeals reached a
settlement of all claims. Accordingly, Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and
Brad Nicholson withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
decision, and stated their support for Applicant's position regarding the Site Plan. Upon
Appellants' withdrawal of their opposition to the Site Plan, all pending decisions should have
been withdrawn. However, despite the settlement, the Examiner did not withdraw his initial
decision on the Site Plan, but instead issued a second decision on the merits.
All parties are in agreement as to the Site Plan for The Landing, and all appeals have
been dismissed or withdrawn. There is no longer a case or controversy, and the matter is
moot. The decisions of the Hearing Examiner should therefore be withdrawn and vacated.
II. INTRODUCTION
Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Supplemental Notice of Appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant's Site Plan for The Landing. This
Supplemental Notice of Appeal is intended to supplement and be consolidated with
Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal filed with the Renton City Council. For the reasons stated
herein and in Applicant's June 5,2007 appeal, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 1 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
City Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below.
2 In the alternative, because the decisions of the Hearing Examiner represent substantial errors
3 in fact or law, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the
4 decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below.
5 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
6 On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
7 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the
8 "Site Plan Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Site Plan Decision affirmed the Director's
9 approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner
10 reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan,
II finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements.
12 On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the
13 Site Plan Decision. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (1) whether the
14 Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of
15 Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner'S Site Plan Decision was intended to require
16 removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C, along North 10th Street.l
17 On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
18 Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Site Plan Decision
19 requiring modifications to the Site Plan. On the same date, Applicant filed its Notice of
20 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision with the Renton City Council. On June 5, 2007,
21 Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson also filed a Request for
22 Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner.
23 Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration,
24 Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a
25 Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly,
26 on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's
27
28
I For reference purposes, a copy of the current Site Plan for The Landing is attached hereto as EXHmlT A.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 2 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
•
Site Plan Decision. Furthennore, Appellants stated that they did not oppose Applicant's
2 Request for Reconsideration. A copy of Appellants' withdrawal is attached hereto as
3 EXHIBIT B.
4 On June 12, 2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for
5 Reconsideration, as well as the City'S Request for Clarification (the "Reconsideration
6 Decision"). A copy of the Reconsideration Decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C.
7 Although the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that a settlement between
8 the parties had occurred, the Examiner did not withdraw his previous decision, but rather
9 proceeded to render a decision on the merits. First, the Reconsideration Decision clarified
10 that a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102 was not required. Reconsideration
II Decision, at 1. The Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas
12 south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of
13 North lOth Street in Quadrant B were not pennitted. Jd. Finally, the Examiner's
14 Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the
15 original Site Plan Decision. ld, at 3.
16 As set forth below, because the parties had reached a settlement and had dismissed or
17 withdrawn all pending appeals while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was still
18 pending, there was no longer a justiciable case or controversy, and the matter became moot.
19 Therefore, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision
20 should be withdrawn and vacated. In the alternative, as set forth in Applicant's June 5, 2007
21 appeal and Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, which documents are incorporated
22 herein by this reference, and as presented below, the Site Plan Decision and the
23 Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact or law, and those portions of the
24 decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan should be reversed.
25
26
27
28
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 30f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.s.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
IV. ARGUMENT
2 A. The Settlement between the Parties Rendered the Appeals Moot.
3 An administrative appeal invokes the exercise of quasi-judicial power. The exercise
4 of judicial power requires a justiciable case or controversy? Before jurisdiction can be
5 asserted, therefore, the hearing body must detennine whether the case is moot.l A case is
6 moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective relief.4 A settlement involving
7 all parties and all claims renders an action moot.5 This also applies when a case is settled
8 pending appeal. 6 When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a
9 case should be dismissed.7
10 Here, while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
11 Decision was still pending, the parties reached a settlement of all claims. Appellants thereby
12 withdrew their Request for Reconsideration, and stated their support for Applicant's Request
13 for Reconsideration. As soon as the parties had entered into the settlement agreement, and
14 Appellants had withdrawn all appeals or Requests for Reconsideration related to The Landing,
15 ajusticiable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter, and the matter became moot.
16 Because this matter was moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration
17 Decision are without effect, and should be vacated and withdrawn.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. The Examiner's Issuance of the Reconsideration Decision Despite the Settlement
Represents a Substantial Error in Fact or Law.
The absence of a justiciable case or controversy following the settlement between the
parties provides sufficient basis for the Council to withdraw and vacate the Examiner's
2 U.s. Const. Art. III, § 2.
3 See. e.g., Tasca Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986).
4 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tasca. 804 F.2d at 591 ("[CJourts
are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.").
'Tasca, 804 F.2d at 592, ciled by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass'n v. Mutual ofEnumclcrw Ins. Co.,
137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007).
'Id.
7 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001).
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 40f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decisions in this matter. In the alternative, the Council should reverse the decisions of the
Examiner because they contain substantial errors in fact or law.
First, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contains substantial errors in fact. The
Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement:
Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have
reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer
oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have
withdrawn their request for reconsideration.
Reconsideration Decision, at I. The Examiner again discussed the settlement at the
conclusion of the Reconsideration Decision:
Jd, at 3.
In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable
solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully
withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld.
It is unclear from the language of the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision whether
the full extent of the settlement between the parties was understood. The Examiner's
statement "where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars ... " suggests that
perhaps the Examiner believed that even with the settlement between the parties, Appellants
still maintained certain portions of their appeals. However, this is not the case. The parties
have fully settled all issues in this matter, and all pending appeals have been dismissed with
prejudice. Because the Examiner had already issued his Site Plan Decision at the time of the
settlement, in order for Appellants to nullify their original appeal of Applicant's Site Plan the
appropriate action was for Appellants to withdraw their Request for Reconsideration of the
Examiner's Site Plan Decision, which they did. Indeed, not only did Appellants withdraw
their Request for Reconsideration from further review, they specifically stated their support
for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, thus signifying their support for Applicant's
request that the Site Plan be restored to its original form. Therefore, to the extent the
Examiner failed to withdraw his Site Plan Decision due to a misperception regarding the full
extent of the settlement and Appellants' withdrawal of their appeals, this represents a
substantial error in fact, and should be reversed.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 5 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P. S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
In addition, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the
2 settlement of the parties, represents a substantial error in law. As discussed above, a
3 settlement of all claims between the parties renders an action moot as there is no longer a
4 justiciable case or controversy. 8 Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their Request for
5 Reconsideration, therefore, the correct action of the Examiner should have been to withdraw
6 or vacate the Site Plan Decision, thereby restoring the Site Plan to its original form. However,
7 the Examiner instead proceeded to issue the Reconsideration Decision despite the settlement,
8 not only reaffirming the Site Plan Decision but also requiring additional changes to the Site
9 Plan that were never requested by Appellants in their appeals.9 In so doing, the Examiner's
10 actions exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represented a
11 substantial error in law.
12 C.
13
The Examiner's Decisions Contain Substantial Errors in Fact.
1. The parking lots south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B are permitted by
the Renton Municipal Code, and were never contested by Appellants. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Examiner's Site Plan Decision stated: "The Director's decision is modified and
this office will deny the requested modification for ... the parking lots along N lOth Street."
Site Plan Decision, at 22. The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify whether this
modification denial related to the parking lot located south of North 10th Street in
Quadrant C. As the City suggested, this appeared to be the case as the Quadrant C parking lot
was the only parking lot "along N 10 th Street." However, the Examiner's Reconsideration
Decision came to a different conclusion:
This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park
Avenue along North 10 th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots
south of North lOth Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review
Update "A" (page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking
stalls located between:
, Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592.
9 See Part IV.C.l, below.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 6 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101 -2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Buildings 205 and 202
Buildings 202 and 20 I
Buildings 200 and 204
Reconsideration Decision, at I.
Applicant agrees with the Examiner's conclusion that the parking area located south of
North lOth Street in Quadrant C was covered by the stipulation between the parties.
However, to the extent the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requires the removal of any
parking lots or stalls at the north end of Quadrant)2, the Reconsideration Decision contains a
substantial error in fact. Examination of the Site Plan for The Landing demonstrates that
there are no parking stalls "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B. See EXHIBIT A. Indeed,
because there were no parking lots located along North 10th Street in Quadrant B, Applicant
never requested, nor did the Director ever grant, a modification to any particular code
requirements to permit the parking in this area of Quadrant B. The Examiner's "denial of the
modification" for these particular parking lots, when no modification was ever required or
granted, is therefore without basis.
Moreover, Appellants themselves never even claimed that the parking south of
North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code. A copy
of Appellants' exhibit depicting all of the alleged code violations, previously admitted as
Exhibit 8 at the Site Plan hearing before the Examiner, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D.
Those particular parking areas noted by the Examiner in his Reconsideration Decision contain
no symbols indicating alleged violations of the Renton Municipal Code.
The parking areas south of North lOth Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton
Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an
appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's required removal of these parking areas
represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed.
2. The Director properly granted modifICations to specific Site Plan criteria.
26 The Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also
27 contain substantial errors in fact by failing to uphold the Director's modifications for certain
28 portions of The Landing. Applicant hereby incorporates the arguments presented in
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 7 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P. S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.10 As presented therein, the
2 Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400,
3 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants B and C. In those
4 particular instances, numerous practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton
5 Municipal Code impractical. Furthermore, the current Site Plan for The Landing is consistent
6 with the overall intent and purpose of the Renton Municipal Code design standards, the
7 Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan. Accordingly, the Examiner's reversal of
8 specific modification approvals by the Director represents a substantial error in fact, and
9 should be reversed.
10 V. CONCLUSION
II For the reasons set forth herein and in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration,
12 Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council withdraw and vacate the
13 Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration Decision or, in the alternative, reverse
14 those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing.
15 Proposed Orders are attached.
16 DATED this ;2. I:, day of June, 2007.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
#355656 18449-004 7mfcO I !.doc 6/26/07
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
~/~.
rome . HI ., SBA #1704
T. Durkan, WSBA #11805
aren D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant
Harvest Partners
10 A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was previously submitted to lbe Renton City Council
as Exhibit A to Applicant's June 5, 2007 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 8 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
SeaHle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
:r
I " , ,
i ~ ,
Ir---! ~ , ~
Buc:k~
GOrdOnllP
Allnn)/:ys ill LilW
VIA FACSIMILE
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
June 6, 2007
2025 First Avenue. Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
206·382·9540
206·626·0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.com
Re: WITHDRAWAL OF APPELlANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Dear Ms. Walton:
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 0.C(5), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad
Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE) via facsimile transmittal:
• WITHDRAWAL OF APPELlANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson
regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative
Interpretation/Policy Decision.
Copies of this letter and the above referenced document will also be faxed to the
Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record.
Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner
Counsel of Record
y,lWPIASEISite Plan AppeaIII060607.doc
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
BEFORE THE I-IEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Alliance for South End (ASE) and
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------)
LUA-06-071, SA-A
WITHDRAWAL OF
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATION
Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby
withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Further,
Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest
Partners on June 5, 2007.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION - I Buck@Gordon LLP Y:IWPlASElSITE PLAN APPEALIP-
060607. WITHDRA WAL.RECONSIDERA TION.DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 913121·3140
(200) 362·9540
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
If
Dated this (() day of June, 2007.
BUCK & G~KJ.}\.VIf'I
B y:-,--.---.~IJ,~~;"J;;:;;'::=:U~::::
Peter L. Buc, S A #05060
Attorneys for Alliance for the South End
and Brad Nicholson
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION -2 Buck~ Gordon LLP Y:IWPlASElSITE PLAN APPEALIP-
060607.WITliDRA W AL.RECONSIDERA TION .DOC 2025 FirstA\lenut!, Suite 500
Stl8ttle. WA 93121·3140
(206) 382·9540
June 12, 2007
DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON
MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON
REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN
APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATIONIPOLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION APPROVALS
This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for
Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest
Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it
appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer
oppose fhe applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn fheir request for
reconsideration.
City's Request for Clarification
The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for
parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park
Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials.
Parking along North 10th Street
This office believes fhat the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North 10th Street.
This office was referring to the Parking lots soufh of North lOth Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to
Site Plan Review Update" A" (page 3 illustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located
between:
Buildings 205 and 202
Buildings 202 and 20 I
Buildings 200 and 204
Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North
The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration) required
a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply
solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design
aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building
102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would
allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the
placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue favade of Building 102 and Park Avenue.
The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an
unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor
would it injure the general public or other properties in fhe area. Approving a modification implements ):he
comprehensive plan by allowing the development ofthe 38-acre site wifh urban scale uses and generally
conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a
modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location.
Hearing Examiner D on
The Landing Appeals
June 12, 2007
Page 2
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration
The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had
originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue
North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The
Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that
would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation
that not mOre than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that
would have allowed parking in those locations.
Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North
The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park
Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian
traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no
pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk
along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next
the applicant argues that theft could or would occur if there was a second entrance on Park Avenue since
controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that
urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential
criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one
entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers
with comer stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores .....
such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have
more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not
make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any
practical difficulties, just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision.
Parking east of Park Avenue North
Parking west of Park Avenue North (more than 60 feet)
The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue
North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building 102, the truck delivery
driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location -it would provide
unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be
providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does
not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not
permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for
this urban, pedestrian-oriented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity
in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions.
Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to
parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses.
Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-oriented development
not cater particularly to the automobile driver.
Hearing Examiner I IOn
The Landing Appeals
June 12,2007
Page 3
Parking along North 10th west of Park
Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office
will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking
proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North 10th, like Park
Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design
criteria or code standards along this portion of North lOth west of Park.
As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other
code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking
elsewhere on the-subject site;' , •
In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant (page 7 of Applicant's Request) that the Examiner
recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of
the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's
words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter) but an urban center, which encourages
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for
Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North.
In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that
separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein
clarified or upheld.
If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to
the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007.
ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007.
TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the parties of record:
Zanetta Fontes
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
POBox 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Ave E
Seattle, WA 98102
Peter Buck
Buck & Gordon LLP
2025 First Ave, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Brad Nicholson
2811 Dayton Avenue
Renton, W A 98056
Jerome L. Hillis
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, W A 98101
Hearing Examiner D Ion
The Landing Appeals
June 12, 2007
Page 4
TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of June 2007 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Jay Covington, CAO
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Stan Engler, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration
must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling
that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on 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 make a written request for a review by the Examiner within
fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific
ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that
such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other
specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the
Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before
5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive
Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or
fmal processing of the fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting
covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)
communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This meaus that parties to a
land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the
proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and
members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in pUblic. This public communication
permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to
openly rebut the evidence. Any violation ofthis doctrine would result in the invalidation of the
request by the Court.
....-.-.. ",
Hearing Examiner I SlOn
The Landing Appeals
June 12, 2007
PageS
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as
well as Appeals to the City Council.
VIOLATIONS IN MODIFIED SITE PLAN* • FULL SITE PLAN from modification
submittal dated March 2, 2007
(approved March 13, 2007)
!
I RMC4-3-100.F1.b.1:
Street frontage
* RMC 4-3-1 00. FA. b:
Surface parking driveways.
"'I-<
* RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b
Adjacent to sidewalk.
* RMC 4-.2-, 2C E
T:0Ck !oadlnq areas
+ RMC 4-3-1 OO.F H.i:
Parking on rear or side of building.
• RMC 4-2-120.E:
Setbacks.
~\
~ HOl"'t;:\ge
.::.:\01,.)' 0
/ I;fllffl~i! Inlk ~~ iE iE iE ~~ iE ~ nlll~rt\~\"{~~\\~~ \
I" . ' = = = c...J '-""'''''-~ jp RTIl ,r.1 Illl Ifll~~1 ~ I ..
126.61( *Iq ~ ~~Wfa~·.~.~lb}l~~rD .. cP. ~L
140'
[PROPOSAL 1: WITHDRAW AND VACATE]
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
July 9, 2007
Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson
File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval
Referred to Planning and Development Committee on July 2, 2007
This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on
July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated
May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing
project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site
Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12,2007,
which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for
Clarification.
The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed
Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of
support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a
settlement agreement reached by the parties.
In light of the settlement reached by all parties and Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for
Reconsideration, the Committee recommends that the Council withdraw and vacate the decisions
of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the
attached Findings and Conclusions.
Terri Briere, Chair
Dan Clawson, Vice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member
cc: Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Lawrence J. Warren
•
FINDINGS
1. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public
Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately
572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site
within the Urban Center-North I (UC-NI) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's
Site Plan Approval").] The City had previously approved the master plan for The
Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the
adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit
corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan
Approval?
3. On February 22,2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the
Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan
Approval for lack of standing. J ASE did not appeal this decision.
4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval
(the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision,,).4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto.
However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of
The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such
elements.
5. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the
Examiner's Site Plan Decision.s
6. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site
Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.6 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants
1 See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan
Approval, dated August 31, 2006.
2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this
appeal, ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an Interpretation/Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On
February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr.
Nicholson appealed this dismissal.
3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22,2007, at 6.
'See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The
Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007.
S See City of Renton's Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007.
6 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.
filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in
the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.'
7. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration,
and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants
resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and
Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007,
Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.8
8. On June 12,2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's
Reconsideration Decision,,).9
CONCLUSIONS
From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions:
I. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be ajusticiable case or
controversy. JO
2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine
whether the case is moot." A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide
effective relief. '2
3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot. 13 This also
applies when a case is settled pending appeal. '4
7 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation,
dated June 5, 2007.
, See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions &
Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice
of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007.
9 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the
Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative interpretation/Policy Decision on
Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12,2007.
10 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2.
II See, e.g., Tasca Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986).
12 See, e.g, In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tasca, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are
without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.").
13 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.,
137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.\3 (2007).
14Id.
•
4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should
be dismissed. 15
5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for
Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The
action is moot.
6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's
Reconsideration Decision are without effect and should be withdrawn and vacated.
7. With the withdrawal and vacating of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the
Examiner's Reconsideration Decision, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the
Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto.
15 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd, 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001).
[PROPOSAL 2: REVERSE)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
July 9, 2007
Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson
File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval
Referred to Planning & Development Committee on July 2, 2007
This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on
July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated
May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing
project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site
Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12,2007,
which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for
Clarification.
The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed
Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of
support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a
settlement agreement reached by the parties.
Finding that substantial errors in fact or law exist in the record, the Committee recommends that
the Council reverse those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for
The Landing. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings
and Conclusions.
Terri Briere, Chair
Dan Clawson, Vice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member
ce: Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Lawrence J. Warren
FINDINGS
1. On August 17, 2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public
Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately
572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site
within the Urban Center-North 1 (UC-Nl) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's
Site Plan Approval"). I The City had previously approved the master plan for The
Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the
adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit
corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan
Approval.2 .
3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the
Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan
Approval for lack of standing.3 ASE did not appeal this decision.
4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval
(the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision,,)4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto.
However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of
The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such
elements.
5. In particular, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision required the following specific changes
to the current Site Plan for The Landing: (I) installation of an additional or alternative
entrance on the east side of Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North;5 (2) removal of
parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest
I See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan
Approval, dated August 31, 2006.
2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this
appeal, ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an 1nterpretation!Policy Decision made by the City of Renton. On
February 22,2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr.
Nicholson appealed this dismissal.
3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22, 2007, at 6.
4 See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The
Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007.
, !d, at 22.
•
comer of Quadrant C;6 and (3) removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of
Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North.7
6. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the
Examiner's Site Plan Decision.s The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify:
(1) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance
on the west side of Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was
intended to require removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C,
along North 10th Street.
7. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site
Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.9 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants
filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in
the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.1o
8. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration,
and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants
resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and
Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007,
Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for ReconsiderationY
9. On June 12,2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration, as well as the City'S Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's
Reconsideration Decision,,).!2
10. The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision clarified that a primary entrance on the west
side of Building 102 was not required.!) The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also
stated that although the parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were
permitted, the parking stalls located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not
'Id.
71d.
8 See City of Renton's Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007.
9 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.
10 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation,
dated June 5, 2007.
11 See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions &
Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice
of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007.
12 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the
Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative interpretation/Policy Decision on
Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12, 2007.
13 !d, at 1.
permitted.14 Finally, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's
Request for Reconsideration, upholding the Examiner's Site Plan Decision.1S
11. According to the Site Plan for The Landing, there are no parking stalls or parking lots
located "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B.16
12. Appellants never claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B
presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code.17
13. Numerous practical difficulties make the installation of an east-facing entrance on
Building 400 impractical at this time, including the orientation of the building toward the
pedestrian walkway to the north, security and loss prevention issues posed by requiring
two entrances, and the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the
design of Building 400.18
14. Numerous practical difficulties exist in designing a large urban retail center of The
Landing's scale and magnitude that can incorporate sufficient pedestrian-oriented
elements and yet also provide adequate parking within permissible proximity of the retail
tenants.19 Where practical difficulties required that parking be located along Park
Avenue North, the Site Plan for The Landing incorporates extensive landscaping and
pedestrian-oriented elements, providing a large buffer and significant screening between
Park Avenue North and the parking areas on either side?O
CONCLUSIONS
From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions:
1. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or
controversy.21
2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine
whether the case is moot. 22 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide
effective relief.23
14 Id.
" /d, at 2-3.
l6 See Site Plan for The Landing, attached as Exhibit A to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing
Examiner's Decision, dated June 25, 2007
17 See Appellants' exhibit depicting alleged code violations, attached as Exhibit D to Supplemental Notice of
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26,2007.
18 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5,2007.
19 Id.
'" Id.
21 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2.
22 See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986).
· " .
3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot.24 This also
applies when a case is settled pending appeal. 25
4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should
be dismissed.26
5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for
Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The
action is moot.
6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision,
despite the settlement of the parties, exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction,
and therefore represents a substantial error in law.
7. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton
Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of
an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision
requiring removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should
be reversed as to those portions of the decision.
8. Because practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton Municipal Code
impractical, the Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary
entrance of Building 400 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in
Quadrants B and C. By failing to uphold these modifications, the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact,
and should be reversed as to those portions of the decisions.
9. With the reversal of those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the
Examiner's Request for Reconsideration that represented substantial errors in fact or law,
the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and
subsequent modifications thereto.
10. To the extent not inconsistent with the Council's Findings and Conclusions herein, the
Council adopts the remaining findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner's Site
Plan Decision.
2l See, e,g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tosco, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C]ourts are
without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.").
24 Tosco, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.,
137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007).
" Id.
"Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001).
, ,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re;
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval.
No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ju L. Park, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson,
P,S" 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that
on the 26 th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct
copy of (1) Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; and (2) this
Certificate of Service to the following:
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
LawrenceJ, Warren
Zanetta Fontes
Warren Barber & Fontes, P,S,
100 South Second Street
Renton, WA 98057
Ross Radley
Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc, P ,S,
3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250
Seattle, W A 98102
Certificate of Service -Page 1 of 2
Renton City Council
clo Office of the Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Peter L. Buck
Buck & Gordon, LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206,623.7789
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
... " DATED this :z (" day of June, 2007.
#356249 18449'()04 7mvtOI !.doc 6125107
Certificate of Service -Page 2 of2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
Ju L. Park
Legal Assistant to Karen D. Breckenridge
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
SeaUle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 262007
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3', '1:0 f' #1 'n
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
In the Matter of the Appeal of LUA-06-071, SA-A
Brad Nicholson re: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPEAL
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
The Director's Administrative
Site Plan Approval.
I. OVERVIEW
While appeals were still pending before the Renton Hearing Examiner regarding
Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, the parties to the appeals reached a
settlement of all claims. Accordingly, Appellants Alliance for the South End CASE") and
Brad Nicholson withdrew their Request for Reconsideration ofthe Examiner's Site Plan
decision, and stated their support for Applicant's position regarding the Site Plan. Upon
Appellants' withdrawal of their opposition to the Site Plan, all pending decisions should have
been withdrawn. However, despite the settlement, the Examiner did not withdraw his initial
decision on the Site Plan, but instead issued a second decision on the merits.
All parties are in agreement as to the Site Plan for The Landing, and all appeals have
been dismissed or withdrawn. There is no longer a case or controversy, and the matter is
moot. The decisions of the Hearing Examiner should therefore be withdrawn and vacated.
II. INTRODUCTION
Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Supplemental Notice of Appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant's Site Plan for The Landing. This
Supplemental Notice of Appeal is intended to supplement and be consolidated with
Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal filed with the Renton City Council. For the reasons stated
herein and in Applicant's June 5, 2007 appeal, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page I of 8
ce. l.. t~ry' 11ilY>'r-e.'" J G.fy 1ffy
lII.d We, tfs bei :S.lGS DI.-{:'c:.t-c.r/
r--"--eo( ~;;.p..;,£-.-., rf-eC...Jf"J t:Xt:.Ul/ fU /'
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
City Council withdraw and vacate the decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below.
2 In the alternative, because the decisions of the Hearing Examiner represent substantial errors
3 in fact or law, Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the
4 decisions of the Hearing Examiner as set forth below.
5 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
6 On May 22,2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
7 issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the
8 "Site Plan Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Site Plan Decision affIrmed the Director's
9 approval of The Landing Site Plan, and modifIcations thereto, However, the Examiner
10 reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan,
II fInding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such elements.
12 On May 31,2007, the City fIled a Request for ClarifIcation regarding two issues in the
13 Site Plan Decision. The City'S Request for Clarification sought to clarify: (1) whether the
14 Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance on the west side of
15 Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require
16 removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C, along North 10th Street.1
17 On June 5, 2007, Applicant fIled a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
18 Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Site Plan Decision
19 requiring modifications to the Site Plan. On the same date, Applicant fIled its Notice of
20 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision with the Renton City Council. On June 5, 2007,
21 Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicholson also fIled a Request for
22 Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner.
23 Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration,
24 Applicant and Appellants resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a
25 Settlement Agreement and Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007, Accordingly,
26 on June 6, 2007, Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's
27
28
I For reference purposes, a copy of the current Site Plan for The Landing is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 20f8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
SeaUie WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745: fax 206.623.7789
Site Plan Decision. Furthermore, Appellants stated that they did not oppose Applicant's
2 Request for Reconsideration. A copy of Appellants' withdrawal is attached hereto as
3 EXHIBIT B.
4 On June 12,2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for
5 Reconsideration, as well as the City'S Request for Clarification (the "Reconsideration
6 Decision"). A copy of the Reconsideration Decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C.
7 Although the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that a settlement between
8 the parties had occurred, the Examiner did not withdraw his previous decision, but rather
9 proceeded to render a decision on the merits. First, the Reconsideration Decision clarified
10 that a primary entrance on the west side of Building 102 was not required. Reconsideration
I I Decision, at 1. The Reconsideration Decision also stated that although the parking areas
12 south of North 10th Street in Quadran! C were permitted, the parking stalls located south of
13 North 10th Street in Quadran! B were not permitted. ld. Finally, the Examiner's
14 Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, upholding the
15 original Site Plan Decision. ld, at 3.
16 As set forth below, because the parties had reached a settlement and had dismissed or
17 withdrawn all pending appeals while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was still
18 pending, there was no longer a justiciable case or controversy, and the matter became moot.
19 Therefore, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision
20 should be withdrawn and vacated. In the alternative, as set forth in Applicant's June 5, 2007
21 appeal and Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, which documents are incorporated
22 herein by this reference, and as presented below, the Site Plan Decision and the
23 Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact or law, and those portions of the
24 decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan should be reversed.
25
26
27
28
Supplemental No/ice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 3 0/8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seallie WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
IV. ARGUMENT
2 A. Tbe Settlement between tbe Parties Rendered tbe Appeals Moot.
3 An administrative appeal invokes the exercise of quasi-judicial power. The exercise
4 of judicial power requires a justiciable case or controversy? Before jurisdiction can be
5 asserted, therefore, the hearing body must determine whether the case is moot.3 A case is
6 moot where the hearing body can no longer provide effective reliee A settlement involving
7 all parties and all claims renders an action moot. 5 This also applies when a case is settled
8 pending appeal. 6 When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a
9 case should be dismissed.7
10 Here, while Applicant's Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
11 Decision was still pending, the parties reached a settlement of all claims, Appellants thereby
12 withdrew their Request for Reconsideration, and stated their support for Applicant's Request
13 for Reconsideration, As soon as the parties had entered into the settlement agreement, and
14 Appellants had withdrawn all appeals or Requests for Reconsideration related to The Landing,
15 a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter, and the matter became moot.
16 Because this matter was moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration
17 Decision are without effect, and should be vacated and withdrawn.
18 B. The Examiner's Issuance of the Reconsideration Decision Despite the Settlement
Represents a Substantial Error in Fact or Law. 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The absence of a justiciable case or controversy following the settlement between the
parties provides sufficient basis for the Council to withdraw and vacate the Examiner's
2 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2.
3 See, e.g., Tasca Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986).
4 See, e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tasca, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[C)ourts
are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.").
, Tasca, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co.,
137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007).
6 !d.
7 Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001).
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 40f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decisions in this matter. In the alternative, the Council should reverse the decisions of the
Examiner because they contain substantial errors in fact or law.
First, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contains substantial errors in fact. The
Reconsideration Decision acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement:
Since these various requests were received it appears that the parties have
reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer
oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have
withdrawn their request for reconsideration.
Reconsideration Decision, at 1. The Examiner again discussed the settlement at the
conclusion of the Reconsideration Decision:
!d, at 3.
In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable
solution to the issues that separated them but where the appeal was not fully
withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein clarified or upheld.
It is unclear from the language of the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision whether
the full extent of the settlement between the parties was understood. The Examiner's
statement "where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars ... " suggests that
perhaps the Examiner believed that even with the settlement between the parties, Appellants
still maintained certain portions of their appeals. However, this is not the case. The parties
have fully settled all issues in this matter, and all pending appeals have been dismissed with
prejudice. Because the Examiner had already issued his Site Plan Decision at the time of the
settlement, in order for Appellants to nullify their original appeal of Applicant's Site Plan the
appropriate action was for Appellants to withdraw their Request for Reconsideration ofthe
Examiner's Site Plan Decision, which they did. Indeed, not only did Appellants withdraw
their Request for Reconsideration from further review, they specifically stated their support
for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, thus signifying their support for Applicant's
request that the Site Plan be restored to its original form. Therefore, to the extent the
Examiner failed to withdraw his Site Plan Decision due to a misperception regarding the full
extent of the settlement and Appellants' withdrawal of their appeals, this represents a
substantial error in fact, and should be reversed.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 50f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON. P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
In addition, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision, despite the
2 settlement of the parties, represents a substantial error in law. As discussed above, a
3 settlement of all claims between the parties renders an action moot as there is no longer a
4 justiciable case or controversy.s Upon Appellants' withdrawal of their Request for
5 Reconsideration, therefore, the correct action of the Examiner should have been to withdraw
6 or vacate the Site Plan Decision, thereby restoring the Site Plan to its original form. However,
7 the Examiner instead proceeded to issue the Reconsideration Decision despite the settlement,
8 not only reaffirming the Site Plan Decision but also requiring additional changes to the Site
9 Plan that were never requested by Appellants in their appeals.9 In so doing, the Examiner's
10 actions exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, and therefore represented a
II substantial error in law.
12 C.
13
The Examiner's Decisions Contain Snbstantial Errors in Fact.
1. The parking lots south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B are permitted by
the Renton Municipal Code, and were never contested by Appellants. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Examiner's Site Plan Decision stated: "The Director's decision is modified and
this office will deny the requested modification for ... the parking lots along N loth Street."
Site Plan Decision, at 22. The City'S Request for Clarification sought to clarify whether this
modification denial related to the parking lot located south of North lOth Street in
Quadrant C. As the City suggested, this appeared to be the case as the Quadrant C parking lot
was the only parking lot "along N 10th Street." However, the Examiner's Reconsideration
Decision came to a different conclusion:
This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park
Avenue along North 10th Street. This office was referring to the Parking lots
south of North 10 th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to Site Plan Review
Update "A" (Page 3 Illustration) the parking in question would be parking
stalls located between:
8 Tasca, 804 F.2d at 592.
9 See Part IV .C.I, below.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision· Page 60f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avo
SoaHIe WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Buildings 205 and 202
Buildings 202 and 20 I
Buildings 200 and 204
Reconsideration Decision, at 1.
Applicant agrees with the Examiner's conclusion that the parking area located south of
North 10th Street in Quadrant C was covered by the stipulation between the parties.
However, to the extent the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision requires the removal of any
parking lots or stalls at the north end of Quadrant a, the Reconsideration Decision contains a
substantial error in fact. Examination of the Site Plan for The Landing demonstrates that
there are no parking stalls "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B. See EXHIBIT A. Indeed,
because there were no parking lots located along North 10th Street in Quadrant B, Applicant
never requested, nor did the Director ever grant, a modification to any particular code
requirements to permit the parking in this area of Quadrant B. The Examiner's "denial of the
modification" for these particular parking lots, when no modification was ever required or
granted, is therefore without basis.
Moreover, Appellants themselves never even claimed that the parking south of
North 10th Street in Quadrant B presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code. A copy
of Appellants' exhibit depicting all of the alleged code violations, previously admitted as
Exhibit 8 at the Site Plan hearing before the Examiner, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT D.
Those particular parking areas noted by the Examiner in his Reconsideration Decision contain
no symbols indicating alleged violations of the Renton Municipal Code.
The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton
Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of an
appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's required removal of these parking areas
represents a substantial error in fact, and should be reversed.
2. The Director properly granted modifications to specific Site Plan criteria.
26 The Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also
27 contain substantial errors in fact by failing to uphold the Director's modifications for certain
28 portions of The Landing. Applicant hereby incorporates the arguments presented in
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 70f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Gal/and Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.10 As presented therein, the
2 Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary entrance of Building 400,
3 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in Quadrants B and C. In those
4 particular instances, numerous practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton
S Municipal Code impractical. Furthermore, the current Site Plan for The Landing is consistent
6 with the overall intent and purpose of the Renton Municipal Code design standards, the
7 Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan. Accordingly, the Examiner's reversal of
8 specific modification approvals by the Director represents a substantial error in fact, and
9 should be reversed.
10 V. CONCLUSION
II For the reasons set forth herein and in Applicant's Request for Reconsideration,
12 Applicant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council withdraw and vacate the
13 Examiner's Site Plan Decision and Reconsideration Decision or, in the alternative, reverse
14 those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for The Landing.
15 Proposed Orders are attached.
16 DATED this ;2. {, day ofJune, 2007.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
#355656 18449'()04 7mfcOlI.doc 6126107
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
rome . HI ., SBA #1704
n Durkan, WSBA #11805
aren D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant
Harvest Partners
to A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration was previously submitted to the Renton City Council
as Exhibit A to Applicant's June 5, 2007 Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Supplemental Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 8 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Buck0 Gordon LLP
Allornl.:Y" ill L~w
VIA FACSIMILE
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
June 6,2007
2025 First Avenue. Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121~3140
206-382-9540
206-626-0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.com
Re: WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Dear Ms. Walton:
Pursuant to RMC 4-B-110.C(5), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad
Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE) via facsimile transmittal:
• WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson
regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative
Interpretation/Policy Decision.
Copies of this letter and the above referenced document will also be faxed to the
Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record.
Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner
Counsel of Record
Y:\WPIASE\Site Plan Appeal\I060607.doc
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Alliance for South End (ASE) and
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
---------------------------)
LUA-06-071, SA-A
WITHDRAWAL OF
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATION
Appellants Alliance for the South End (" ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby
withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Further,
Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest
Partners on June 5, 2007.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1 Buckeo Gordon cCP Y:\WPIASE\SITE PLAN APPEAL\?·
060607. WITfIDRA W AL RECONSIDERA TION.DOC 2025 Fi'~t Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 362-9540
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ir
Dated this 6 day of June, 2007.
BUCK&G
BY:-,--.--...--lJ,fI..),~?~;;;;::1AI~::::
Peter L. Buc, S A #05060
Attorneys for Alliance for the South End
and Brad Nicholson
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION -2 Buck0 Gordon llP Y;\WP\ASEISITE PLAN APPEALIP·
060607. WITHDRA WAL.RECONS IDERA TION. DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite SOO
Seattle, WA 98121·3140
(206)382-9540
Exhibit C
une 12, 2007
DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON
MATTERS OF THE APPEALS OF ASE AND BRAD NICHOLSON
REGARDING THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN
APPROVAL AND THE DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATIONIPOLICY DECISION ON BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION APPROVALS
This office has received a variety of requests regarding this matter. This office has received a Request for
Clarification from the City. It also has received two Requests for Reconsideration -one from the Harvest
Partners, the underlying applicant and one from the appellants. Since these various requests were received it
appears that the parties have reached a settlement of some of their appeal issues. The appellants no longer
oppose the applicant's request for reconsideration and appellants have withdrawn their request for
reconsideration.
City's Request for Clarification
The City sought clarification for two issues. The decision this office made denied the modifications for
parking lots along North 10th Street and for relief from having to provide a primary entrance along Park
Avenue North. The City seeks to clarify what was meant by these denials.
Parking along North lOth Street
This office believes that the stipulation governed any parking east of Park Avenue along North lOth Street.
This office was referring to the Parking lots south of North 10th Street west of Park Avenue. Referring to
Site Plan Review Update "A" (page 3 llIustration) the parking in question would be parking stalls located
between:
Buildings 205 and 202
Buildings 202 and 20 I
Buildings 200 and 204
Primary Entrances along Park Avenue North
The second issue was whether Building 102 (again, refer to Site Plan Update A, Page 3 illustration) required
a primary entrance along Park Avenue. The response is twofold. This office intended this denial to apply
solely to Building 400, west of Park. First, this office believed that the stipulation governed all design
aspects of Quadrant C except the tier of Parking along the eastern edge of Park in the location of Building
102. Second, if the stipulation did not govern this aspect of Building 102, then "practical difficulties" would
allow a modification to be granted for this "primary entrance" modification. The stipulation allows the
placement of a truck delivery driveway between the Park Avenue fao;:ade of Building 102 and Park Avenue.
The mixing of pedestrians and heavy truck traffic at a primary entrance in this location would create an
unsafe situation. Granting a modification would not otherwise affect public health, safety or welfare nor
would it injure the general public or other properties in the area. Approving a modification implements the
comprehensive plan by allowing the development of the 38-acre site with urban scale uses and generally
conforms to the purposes of the Code to allow primary entrances when practical but otherwise allow a
modification when it would be impractical or unsafe to require a primary entrance in a particular location.
Hearing Examiner D on
The Landing Appeals
June 12,2007
Page 2
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration
The applicant seeks reconsideration where the Hearing Examiner denied three modifications that had
originally been approved by the Director. The Examiner required a primary entrance in the Park Avenue
North facade of Building 400, denying a modification that would have eliminated that requirement. The
Examiner removed a tier of parking east of Park in the vicinity of Building 102 denying a modification that
would have allowed parking in that location. The Examiner required the applicant to abide by the limitation
that not more than 60 feet of parking be located north of Building 400, again, denying a modification that
would have allowed parking in those locations.
Primary Entrance for Building 400 along Park Avenue North
The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in providing an entrance for Building 400 along Park
Avenue and suggests that since there are industrial uses south of this area that there is little pedestrian
traffic. This does not appear to be a practical difficulty but would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no
pedestrian entrance is provided in this location there would be little to encourage new pedestrians to walk
along Park in this location, killing the supposed "pedestrian-oriented" aspect of Park in this location. Next
the applicant argues that theft could or would occur ifthere was a second entrance on Park Avenue since
controlled access to one point would be lost. This is a design consideration and this office believes that
urban design features override this issue. Urban design does bring with it certain levels of potential
criminality but that apparently has not stopped many urban stores or even malls from having more than one
entrance and possibly co-equal, if not primary entrances. Downtown Seattle has any number of retailers
with corner stores or block-wide stores with multiple entrances to encourage pedestrians. Even mall stores ,'.
such as Macy's at Northgate and Southcenter, Bed, Bath and Beyond at Southcenter and Nordstrom's have
more than one entrance. The fact that the applicant has created its own internal pedestrian path does not
make providing the one required by code difficult. The underlying record does not demonstrate any
practical difficulties,just design choices of the applicant. There is no reason to modify the original decision.
Parking east of Park Avenue North
Parking west of Park Avenue North (more than 60 feet)
The applicant has not provided any reason to modify the denial of parking along either side of Park Avenue
North. For the same reason, a primary entrance is not appropriate for Building 102, the truck delivery
driveway location and parking for passenger vehicles is not appropriate in this location -it would provide
unsafe pedestrian movements from cars to the shopping experience. The fact that the applicant may be
providing landscaping or even additional landscaping in other areas of the site or even along this street does
not create any practical difficulty that necessitates a modification to allow parking where it is otherwise not
permitted. Landscape strips between the parking and the sidewalks do not negate the code requirements for
this urban, pedestrian-<>riented street to not have parking along the corridor. There clearly was no ambiguity
in what was intended since the applicant sought modifications for these unambiguous code provisions.
Finally, the applicant's desire for additional parking does not create practical difficulties with regard to
parking. The site provides acres of open parking. Code provides a range of parking for particular uses.
Urban-scale development, traffic congestion, air pollution all demand that pedestrian-<>riented development
not cater particularly to the automobile driver.
Hearing Examiner Decision
The Landing Appeals
June 12, 2007
Page 3
Parking along North lOth west of Park
Since the clarification sought by the City may have unexpectedly caught the applicant by surprise, this office
will add that its arguments against the parking along Park Avenue North apply equally to the parking
proposed along the south side of North 10th Street between the buildings noted above. North lOth, like Park
Avenue is intended to be a pedestrian oriented street. There is no practical difficulty in meeting the design
criteria or code standards along this portion of North 10th west of Park.
As the original decision noted, if the reduction of parking hampers the development of the site due to other
code standards, the applicant may reduce the number of buildings or provide additional structured parking
elsewhere on the subject site;, , , , "
In conclusion, this office agrees with the applicant (page 7 of Applicant's Request) that the Examiner
recognized there are challenges to designing an URBAN shopping center but disagrees that there are all of
the challenges suggested by the applicant. The City's comprehensive plan is not seeking, in the applicant's
words, "a large retail center" (a la Northgate or Southcenter) but an urban center, which encourages
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED experiences. The are no practical difficulties in providing an entrance for
Building 400 along Park Avenue or abiding by Code that restricts parking along Park Avenue North.
In conclusion, this office congratulates the parties for reaching an amicable solution to the issues that
separated them but where the appeal was not fully withdrawn in certain particulars, the decision is herein
clarified or upheld.
If this office can provide any additional assistance please feel free to write. This decision can be appealed to
the City Council by paying the appropriate fee and filing an appeal in writing by June 26, 2007.
ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2007.
FRED J. KA MAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 12'h day of June 2007 to the parties of record:
Zanetta Fontes
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
PO Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Ave E
Seattle, WA 98102
Peter Buck
Buck & Gordon LLP
2025 First Ave, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Brad Nicholson
2811 Dayton Avenue
Renton, W A 98056
Jerome L. Hillis
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Hearing Examiner D on
The Landing Appeals
June 12, 2007
Page 4
TRANSMITTED THIS l2'h day of June 2007 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Jay Covington, CAO
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Stan Engler, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Conunission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil WaUs, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration
must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling
that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on 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 make a written request for a review by the Examiner within
fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific
ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that
such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other
specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the
Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before
5:00 p.m., June 26, 2007.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive
Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or
final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting
covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)
conununications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a
land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the
proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and
members of the City Council.
All conununications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication
permits all interested parties to know the contents of the conununication and would allow them to
openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the
request by the Court.
.... ".
Hearing Examiner Decision
The Landing Appeals
June 12, 2007
PageS
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as
well as Appeals to the City Council.
•
Exhibit D
VIOLATIONS IN MODIFIED SITE PLAN* • FULL SITE PLAN from modification
submittal dated March 2, 2007
(approved March 13, 2007)
& '::(, 1\)'(' L ',,' '-',r' ", c .. " • ..' '_" ,_,,"' J... _. ~)
1 P3f}(.I0Q DerWeen oUl~dlngs .g 5~(eet
I RMC4-3-100.F.1,b.i:
Street frontage,
* RMC 4-3-100,F.4,b:
Surface parking driveways.
/~/// ,.-..,\. .. ~'\. ... ~/ 1\.........J", \ \
~e
11 0\\(0 * RMC 4-3-100.E.3,b /' /'.~ "''''' ~'"::> L';:";,; r f":. I/V"'".../' I 'HI( I '" J
I ...... __ ",?P
Primary entrance
* RMC 4-3-100.E.2b:
Adjacent to sidewalk.
* RMC 4-2-120 E.
TrucK loading areas ! lifllffffiilifirk ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~!llIlfi\~\{~~'\~~ \
t I ~ -, "" "'" iib = '-""""-. ~ l RMC 4-3-100.F. 1.b.i: , .
Parking on rear or side of building. : 4Cf ~ ..
f1t:ss ~f·· ~ '" ... I """ ,." '" L .~ + RMC 4-2-120.E:
Setbacks,
~
[PROPOSAL 2: REVERSE]
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
July 9, 2007
Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson
File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval
Referred to Planning & Development Committee on July 2, 2007
CITY Of HEN roN
JUN 26 l[IVl
This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on
July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated
May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval ofthe Site Plan for The Landing
project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site
Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 12,2007,
which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City's Request for
Clarification.
The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed
Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of
support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a
settlement agreement reached by the parties.
Finding that substantial errors in fact or law exist in the record, the Committee recommends that
the Council reverse those portions of the decisions requiring modifications to the Site Plan for
The Landing. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the attached Findings
and Conclusions.
Terri Briere, Chair
Dan Clawson, Vice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member
cc: Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Lawrence J. Warren
FINDINGS
I. On August 17,2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public
Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately
572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site
within the Urban Center-North I (UC-NI) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's
Site Plan Approval,,).l The City had previously approved the master plan for The
Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the
adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit
corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan
Approval?
3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the
Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan
Approval for lack of standing. 3 ASE did not appeal this decision.
4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval
(the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision,,).4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto.
However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of
The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such
elements.
5. In particular, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision required the following specific changes
to the current Site Plan for The Landing: (I) installation of an additional or alternative
entrance on the east side of Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North;5 (2) removal of
parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, in the southwest
1 See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan
Approval, dated August 31, 2006.
2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31,2006. On the same date as this
appeal, ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an InterpretationIPolicy Decision made by the City of Renton. On
February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr.
Nicholson appealed this dismissal.
3 See Decision ofthe Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22,2007, at 6.
4 See Office ofthe Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The
Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22, 2007.
5/d, at 22.
comer of Quadrant C;6 and (3) removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of
Building 400 and west of Park Avenue North.7
6. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the
Examiner's Site Plan Decision8 The City's Request for Clarification sought to clarify:
(I) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was intended to require a primary entrance
on the west side of Building 102; and (2) whether the Examiner's Site Plan Decision was
intended to require removal of the parking area in the northeast comer of Quadrant C,
along North 10th Street.
7. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site
Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.9 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants
filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in
the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. 10
8. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration,
and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants
resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and
Release dated for reference purposes June 5,2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007,
Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.ll
9. On June 12,2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's
Reconsideration Decision"). 12
10. The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision clarified that a primary entrance on the west
side of Building 102 was not required.13 The Examiner's Reconsideration Decision also
stated that although the parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant C were
permitted, the parking stalls located south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B were not
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 See City of Renton's Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007.
9 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.
10 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation,
dated June 5, 2007.
11 See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions &
Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit B to Supplemental Notice
of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007.
12 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the
Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative InterpretationIPolicy Decision on
Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12,2007.
13 Id, at 1.
pennitted.14 Finally, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision denied Applicant's
Request for Reconsideration, upholding the Examiner's Site Plan Decision. IS
II. According to the Site Plan for The Landing, there are no parking stalls or parking lots
located "along North 10th Street" in Quadrant B.16
12. Appellants never claimed that the parking south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B
presented a violation of the Renton Municipal Code.17
13. Numerous practical difficulties make the installation of an east-facing entrance on
Building 400 impractical at this time, including the orientation of the building toward the
pedestrian walkway to the north, security and loss prevention issues posed by requiring
two entrances, and the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the
design of Building 400.18
14. Numerous practical difficulties exist in designing a large urban retail center of The
Landing's scale and magnitude that can incorporate sufficient pedestrian-oriented
elements and yet also provide adequate parking within pennissible proximity of the retail
tenants.19 Where practical difficulties required that parking be located along Park
A venue North, the Site Plan for The Landing incorporates extensive landscaping and
pedestrian-oriented elements, providing a large buffer and significant screening between
Park Avenue North and the parking areas on either side.2o
CONCLUSIONS
From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions:
I. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or
controversy.21
2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must detennine
whether the case is moot. 22 A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide
effective relief.23
14 Id.
15 Id, at 2-3.
16 See Site Plan for The Landing, attached as Exhibit A to Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing
Examiner's Decision, dated June 25, 2007
17 See Appellants' exhibit depicting alleged code violations, attached as Exhibit D to Supplemental Notice of
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007.
" See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5, 2007.
19 ld.
20 Id.
21 U.S. Const. Art. Ill, § 2.
22 See, e.g., Tosca Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (lOth Cir. 1986).
3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot 24 This also
applies when a case is settled pending appeal.25
4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should
be dismissed.26
5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for
Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The
action is moot.
6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's issuance of the Reconsideration Decision,
despite the settlement of the panies, exceeded the scope of his authority and jurisdiction,
and therefore represents a substantial error in law.
7. The parking areas south of North 10th Street in Quadrant B comply with the Renton
Municipal Code, were never the subject of a modification, and were never the subject of
an appeal by Appellants. Accordingly, the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision
requiring removal of these parking areas represents a substantial error in fact, and should
be reversed as to those portions of the decision.
8. Because practical difficulties rendered strict application of the Renton Municipal Code
impractical, the Director properly approved the modifications related to the primary
entrance of Building 400 and the parking areas located along Park Avenue North in
Quadrants Band C. By failing to uphold these modifications, the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision and the Examiner's Reconsideration Decision contain substantial errors in fact,
and should be reversed as to those portions of the decisions.
9. With the reversal of those portions of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the
Examiner's Request for Reconsideration that represented substantial errors in fact or law,
the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the Director's original Site Plan Approval, and
subsequent modifications thereto.
10. To the extent not inconsistent with the Council's Findings and Conclusions herein, the
Council adopts the remaining findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner's Site
Plan Decision.
23 See. e.g., In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tasca, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[CJourts are
without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.").
24 Tasca, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas al Harbour Pointe Owners Ass'n v. Mutual afEnumclaw Ins. Co.,
137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007).
25 Id.
26 Snahomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001).
[PROPOSAL 1 : WITHDRAW AND VACATE]
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
July 9, 2007
Appeals by Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson
File No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
Re: Director's administrative Site Plan approval
Referred to Planning and Development Committee on July 2, 2007
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 26t007
RECEIVED
CITY ClERK'S OFFICE
?: '10 I'r"I 15
This appeal came before the Planning and Development Committee (the "Committee") on
July 5, 2007. The Committee reviewed the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated
May 22, 2007, which decision affirmed the Director's approval of the Site Plan for The Landing
project but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in The Landing Site
Plan. The Committee also reviewed the decision ofthe Hearing Examiner dated June 12,2007,
which denied Applicant's Request for Reconsideration and responded to the City'S Request for
Clarification.
The Committee reviewed the file, including the briefs therein. The Committee also reviewed
Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for Reconsideration and Appellants' statement of
support for Applicant Harvest Partners' Request for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to a
settlement agreement reached by the parties.
In light of the settlement reached by all parties and Appellants' Withdrawal of their Request for
Reconsideration, the Committee recommends that the Council withdraw and vacate the decisions
of the Hearing Examiner. The Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the
attached Findings and Conclusions.
Terri Briere, Chair
Dan Clawson, Vice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member
cc: Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Lawrence 1. Warren
FINDINGS
1. On August 17,2006, the City of Renton Department of Planning, Building and Public
Works issued a decision approving the Site Plan for The Landing, an approximately
572,700-square foot commercial/retail development to be constructed on a 38.22-acre site
within the Urban Center-North 1 (UC-NI) zone in Renton, Washington (the "Director's
Site Plan Approval").' The City had previously approved the master plan for The
Landing project, and determined that The Landing project was consistent with the
adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
2. On August 31, 2006, "Alliance for South End" ("ASE"), a Washington nonprofit
corporation, and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") filed appeals of the Director's Site Plan
Approval.2
3. On February 22, 2007, following a hearing on standing and other jurisdictional issues, the
Hearing Examiner issued a decision dismissing ASE's appeal of the Director's Site Plan
Approval for lack of standing. 3 ASE did not appeal this decision.
4. On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Mr. Nicholson's appeal of the Director's Site Plan Approval
(the "Examiner's Site Plan Decision,,).4 In nearly all respects, the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision affirmed the Director's Site Plan Approval, and modifications thereto.
However, the Examiner reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements of
The Landing Site Plan, finding that there were not "practical difficulties" permitting such
elements.
5. On May 31, 2007, the City filed a Request for Clarification regarding two issues in the
Examiner's Site Plan Decision.s
6. On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Examiner's Site
Plan Decision requiring modifications to the Site Plan.6 Also on June 5, 2007, Appellants
I See Director's Site Plan Approval, attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan
Approval, dated August 31. 2006.
2 See Notice of Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval, dated August 31, 2006. On the same date as this
appeal. ASE and Mr. Nicholson also appealed an InterpretationIPolicy Decision made by the City of Renton. On
February 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Neither ASE nor Mr.
Nicholson appealed this dismissal.
3 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, dated February 22,2007, at 6.
4 See Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation on The
Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits, dated May 22,2007.
, See City of Renton's Request for Clarification, dated May 31, 2007.
6 See Applicant's Request for Reconsideration, dated June 5,2007.
filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, alleging various errors in
the Examiner's Site Plan Decision 7
7. Subsequent to the filing of Applicant's and Appellants' Requests for Reconsideration,
and while the Requests for Reconsideration were still pending, Applicant and Appellants
resolved this matter through a settlement, memorialized in a Settlement Agreement and
Release dated for reference purposes June 5, 2007. Accordingly, on June 6, 2007,
Appellants withdrew their Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Site Plan
Decision, and stated their support for Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.s
8. On June 12,2007, the Examiner issued a decision regarding Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration, as well as the City's Request for Clarification (the "Examiner's
Reconsideration Decision,,).9
CONCLUSIONS
From these Findings, the Committee adopts the following Conclusions:
1. For the Examiner to exercise quasi-judicial power, there must be a justiciable case or
controversy. 10
2. Before the Examiner can assume jurisdiction, therefore, the Examiner must determine
whether the case is moot. I I A case is moot where the hearing body can no longer provide
effective relief. 12
3. A settlement involving all parties and all claims renders an action moot. J3 This also
applies when a case is settled pending appeal. 14
7 See Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation,
dated June 5, 2007.
'See Withdrawal of Appellants' Request for Reconsideration of Examiner's Findings, Conclusions &
Recommendation, dated June 6, 2007, and accompanying cover letter, attached as Exhibit 8 to Supplemental Notice
of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated June 26, 2007.
9 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson Regarding the
Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and the Director's Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision on
Building Permit Application Approvals, dated June 12,2007.
10 U.S. Const Art 1Il, § 2.
11 See, e.g., Tasca Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cif. 1986).
12 See, e.g., In re Marriage a/Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004); see also Tasca, 804 F.2d at 591 ("[Clourts are
without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them").
13 Tasca, 804 F.2d at 592, cited by Villas at Harbour Pointe Owners Ass 'n v. Mutual 0/ Enumclaw Ins. Co.,
137 Wn.App. 751, 761 n.13 (2007).
14 Id.
4. When only moot questions are involved, no case or controversy exists, and a case should
be dismissed.15
5. Upon settlement between the parties and withdrawal of Appellant's Request for
Reconsideration, a justiciable case or controversy no longer existed in this matter. The
action is moot.
6. Because this matter is moot, the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the Examiner's
Reconsideration Decision are without effect and should be withdrawn and vacated.
7. With the withdrawal and vacating of the Examiner's Site Plan Decision and the
Examiner's Reconsideration Decision, the Landing Site Plan shall be subject to the
Director's original Site Plan Approval, and subsequent modifications thereto.
1S Snohomish County v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd, 108 Wn.App. 781, 787 (2001).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 2 I) '1007
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval.
No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ju L. Park, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson,
P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second i\ venue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that
on the 26 th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct
copy of (1) Supplemental Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; and (2) this
Certificate of Service to the following:
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
LawrenceJ. Warren
Zanetta Fontes
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
100 South Second Street
Renton, W A 98057
Ross Radley
Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S.
3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250
Seattle, W A 98102
Certificate of Service -Page 1 of2
Renton City Council
clo Office of the Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Peter L. Buck
Buck & Gordon, LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P. S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seatlle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-tl..
DATED this :2 c. day of June, 2007.
#356249 18449·004 7mvtOILdoc 6/25107
Certificate of Service -Page 2 of 2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
Ju L. Park
Legal Assistant to Karen D. Breckenridge
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
SOD Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Buck0 Gordon LLP
Attorneys at Law
VIA FACSIMILE
Ms, Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
June 6, 2007
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
206-382-9540
206-626-0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.com
Re: WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Dear Ms. Walton:
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.C(5), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad
Nicholson and Alliance for South End (AS E) via facsimile transmittal:
• WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson
regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative
Interpretation/Policy Decision.
Copies of this letter and the above referenced document will also be faxed to the
Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record,
Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner
Counsel of Record
Y:\WP\ASE\Site Plan Appeal\I060607.doc
-.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Alliance for South End (ASE) and
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
---------------------------)
LUA-06-071, SA-A
WITHDRAWAL OF
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATION
Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby
withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Further,
Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest
Partners on June 5, 2007.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION -1 Buck(,!l Gordon LLP Y:IWPIASElSITE PLAN APPEALIP·
060607 WITHDRAWAL RECONSIDERATION .DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite sao
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0."" "'" 611::, of J~, 2007.
BUCK & GORD('i)N
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2
Y:\WP\ASE\SITE PLAN APPEALIP-
060607. WITHDRAWALRECONSIDERA TION.DOC
Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Alliance for South End CASE) and
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------)
LUA-06-071, SA-A
WITHDRAWAL OF
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDA nON
Appellants Alliance for the South End ("ASE") and Brad Nicolson hereby
withdraw their above titled Request for Reconsideration, filed on June 5, 2007. Further,
Appellants do not oppose the Request for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Harvest
Partners on June 5, 2007.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERA nON - 1 Buck~ Gordon LLP Y,IWPIASEISlTE PLAN APPEALIP-
060607.W1THDRAWALRECONSIDERATION DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
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
j):
Dated this 6 day of June, 2007.
BUCK & G"KIJ'""N
By: Pe~re-r·L-.Bn~uc~,~S~A~#0~5~0;6;0~~~
Attorneys for Alliance for the South End
and Brad Nicholson
WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERA nON -2 Buck~ Gordon LLP Y:IWPIASEISITE PLAN APPEALIP-
060607.WITHDRA WAL.RECONSIDERA TIONDOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 052007
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative
Site Plan Approval.
LUA-06-071, SA-A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERA nON
I. INTRODUCTION
Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100,G(4), Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly,
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the
"Decision"), In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The
Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto, However, the Examiner reversed the Director's
approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not
sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements, In particular, the
Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing I :
I The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarify that the Decision
26 did not also require the installation ofa primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102, nor did it
require removal of parking stalls at the north end or Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North, Applicant hereby
27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did
require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along 10th Avenue North,
28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference
the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification,
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 1 of 8 0 RIG I N A L
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P,S,
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
208,623.1745; fax 208.623.7789
• Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of
2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at
3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section.
4
5
6
7
• Removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue
North, in the southwest corner of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at
paragraph 2 of "Decision" section.
• Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and
8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also
9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section.
10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the
11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the
12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to
13 RMC 4-8-100.G(4).
14 Ill. ARGUMENT
15 A. Additional Entrance to Building 400
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following:
Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front
entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a fa~ade where other
shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an
interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting
aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing
another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park
Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances
but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex
and the complex should not turn its "back" on Park Avenue.
Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45.
The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative
entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at
paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the
installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 2 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON. P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing
2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such
3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along
4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase
5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail
6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the
7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail
8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing
9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control
10 the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having
II two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality
12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second
13 entrance area.
14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant,
15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north,
16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the
17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site.
18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the
19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16,
20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to
21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan
22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the
23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Jd. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian
24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south
25 side of Quadrants Band C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The
26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the
27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk.
28
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 3 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTlN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a
2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45.
3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to
4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of
5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of
6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk
7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with
8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than
9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project.
loIn addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to
11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly
12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fa<;ade of Building 400 will be the
13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in
14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the
15 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park
16 Avenue North and Building 400. Id. Over ten feet oflandscaping is provided between
17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided
18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. Id. With these pedestrian-oriented elements
19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding
20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue
21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue
22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second
23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park
24 Avenue North. Id. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store
25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North.
26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of
27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the
28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 4 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore,
2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering
3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace, Applicant therefore
4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a
5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400.
6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in
The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and
all but 60 feet ofthe strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400.
Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between
Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted:
The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway
serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues.,. There is no reason that
makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to
screen the access drive and the additional parking.
Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west
of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated:
This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along
Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or
vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and
replaced by landscaping,
Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8.
As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue
North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The
Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical
considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center.
The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking
stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping
and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and
providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas,
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 5 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented
2 amenities: (I) a row oflandscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in
3 width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian
4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second
5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this
6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park
7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102.
8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the
9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping
10 and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as
II EXHIBIT A.3
12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton
13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians
14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the
15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look
16 or function ofthe development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the
17 success of the retail center.
18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between
19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even
20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code
21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage
22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access."
23 RMC 4-3-100.F.l.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park
24
25
26
27
28
2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east ofthe parking area north of Building 400 is
approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west
of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area
to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted
as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing.
J This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site
Plan was submitted. See. e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 6 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745: fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Avenue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by"
the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width.
Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms
of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the
Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required
for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North,
and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large
buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications
was appropriate.
Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical
difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in
adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail
center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large
part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly
important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily
industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the
proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for
prospective tenants before they commit to a site.
The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain
to require some modifications:
It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that
it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre
site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director
was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant
those requests ifin the overall scheme of things, the development
accomplished the City's goals for this area -redevelopment at an urban scale
of substantially underutilized property ... It may not be possible to meet every
objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one
still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses.
Decision, p, 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was
presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long-
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 7 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Sealtle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
"
term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract
2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle
3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract
4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that
5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the
6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking
7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in
8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements
9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that
10 the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised.
11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to
12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount of pedestrian-
13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's
14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and
15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces,
16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be
17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park
18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's
Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan
modifications.
DATED this May of June, 2007.
#354789 18449-004 7h901!.doc 6/05/07
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 8 of 8
HILLIS ON,P.S.
BY'o--'.
rom6 L. Hillis, SBA # 1704
<:f:'Ryan Durkan, WSBA #11805
Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant
Harvest Partners
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 981 0 1-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval.
No.LUA-06-071, SA-A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Gina C. Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson,
P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that
on the 5 th day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct
copy of (1) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; (2) Applicant's Requestfor
Reconsideration; and (3) this Certificate of Service to the following:
Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
LawrenceJ. Warren
Zanetta Fontes
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
100 South Second Street
Renton, WA 98057
Ross Radley
Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S.
3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250
Seattle, W A 98102
Certificate of Service -Page 1 of 2
Office of the Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Peter L. Buck
Buck & Gordon, LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
OR!GINAL 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seatlle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this ~n day of June, 2007.
#354995 18449-004 71wzOll.doc 6105/07
Certificate of Service -Page 2 of 2
HILLIS CLARK. MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
GinaC. Pan
Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seallle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ReNTON
OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA TION .JUN 052007
APPUCATION NAME The Landing -Master Site Plan FILE NO L~.fflli~M:[j)A-A
. f1zrR~'S €Jffl);..E
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recomme~dati<fnl6{tht.:::.
May 22 07 Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated , 20 __ .
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY):
Name: __ Ht!iailrQy~eLSS.J;t_P~ai!Jr(lt;.l!nli:e.I:r.as _____ _ Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
Address: 8214 Westchester Drive, 11650
Dallas, TX 75225
Address: 1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone Number: ___________ _ Phone Number: (206) 623-1745
Email: ______________ _ Email: ___________________ _
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: (See attached Notice
Finding of Fact: (please designate. number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) of Appeal)
No. __ Error. _____________________________________________________ _
Correction: ________________________________ _
Conclusious:
No. Error. ____________________________________ __
Correction: _____________________________ _
Other:
No. __ Error: ______________________________ _
Correction: __________________________ __
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
(Attach explanation, if desired) (See Attached Notice
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:
Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:
Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
Other:
TypeJPrinted Name
of Appeal)
r-).-O;Z
Date
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative
Site Plan Approval.
LUA-06-071, SA-A
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION
Applicant Harvest Partners hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's Decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing, and
requests a stay of this appeal pending the outcome of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration
to the Hearing Examiner.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the
"Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The
Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's
approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not
sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements.
On June 5, 2007, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner, requesting that the Examiner reconsider those portions of the Decision requiring
modifications to the Site Plan. A copy of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 1 of 2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
SeaHle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. REQUEST FOR STAY
Upon issuance of a decision by the Hearing Examiner, the Renton Municipal Code
permits interested persons to file Requests for Reconsideration to the Examiner within
fourteen days of the decision. RMC 4-8-100.0.4. The Renton Municipal Code also permits
interested parties aggrieved by the Examiner's decision to file appeals to the Renton City
Council, also within fourteen days of the Examiner's decision. RMC 4-8-11O.E.8. There is
no provision in the Renton Municipal Code stating that the deadline for appeals to City
Council is tolled while a Request for Reconsideration is pending. Therefore, Applicant is
filing this Notice of Appeal simultaneously with its Request for Reconsideration in order to
comply with the fourteen-day deadlines for each. However, in light of the fact that the
Decision remains under review of the Examiner pursuant to the Request for Reconsideration,
Applicant respectfully requests that all action on this appeal be stayed pending the outcome of
the Request for Reconsideration. Depending upon the outcome of the Request for
Reconsideration, Applicant may wish to withdraw this appeal entirely, file a new appeal of
the Examiner's decision on the Request for Reconsideration, or rest upon the arguments
already made in the Request for Reconsideration and incorporated herein.
DATED this )f'1--day of June, 2007.
#354953 18449-004 71vtOI !.doc 6105/07
Notice of Appeal of
Hearing Examiner's Decision -Page 2 of 2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
/
/
By
Jer me Lillis, WSBA # 1704
T R urkan, WSBA #11805
Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant
Harvest Partners
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative
Site Plan ApprovaL
LVA-06-071, SA-A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100_0(4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly,
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 22, 2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the
"Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The
Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's
approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not
sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements_ In particular, the
Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing I :
I The City of Renton has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarifY that the Decision
26 did not also require the installation of a primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102, nor did it
require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby
27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did
require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along lOth Avenue North,
28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference
the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 10f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
SOO Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
• Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of
2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at
3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section.
4
5
6
7
• Removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue
North, in the southwest comer of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at
paragraph 2 of "Decision" section.
• Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and
8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also
9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section.
10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the
11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the
12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to
13 RMC 4-8-100.0(4).
14 III. ARGUMENT
15 A. Additional Entrance to Building 400
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following:
Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front
entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a fa~ade where other
shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an
interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting
aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing
another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park
Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances
but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex
and the complex should not tum its "back" on Park Avenue.
Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45.
The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative
entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at
paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the
installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 2 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
SeaW. WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
1 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing
2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such
3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along
4 Park A venue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park A venue North will increase
5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail
6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the
7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail
8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing
9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control
10 the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having
II two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality
12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second
\3 entrance area.
14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant,
15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north,
16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the
17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site.
18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the
19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16,
20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to
21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan
22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the
23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian
24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south
25 side of Quadrants Band C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The
26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the
27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk.
28
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 30f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
1 As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a
2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, Decision, p, 18, paragraph 45.
3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to
4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of
5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of
6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk
7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with
8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than
9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project.
loin addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to
11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly
12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fayade of Building 400 will be the
13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in
14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the
15 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park
16 Avenue North and Building 400. [d. Over ten feet oflandscaping is provided between
17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided
18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. [d. With these pedestrian-oriented elements
19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding
20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue
21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue
22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second
23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park
24 Avenue North. [d. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store
25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North.
26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of
27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the
28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 4 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthermore,
2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering
3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore
4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a
5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400.
6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North
7
8
9
10
II
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in
The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and
all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400.
Decision, p, 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between
Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted:
The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway
serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues", There is no reason that
makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to
screen the access drive and the additional parking.
Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west
of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated:
This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along
Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or
vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and
replaced by landscaping.
Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8.
As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue
North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The
Landing. Furthermore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical
considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center.
The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking
stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping
and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and
providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 5 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian·oriented
amenities: (I) a row oflandscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in
width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian
sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second
row oflandscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North, In total, this
landscapinglsidewalkllandscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park
Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102.
For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the
parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping
and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT A.3
The landscaping and sidewalks along Park A venue North already exceed Renton
Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians
traveling north or south along Park A venue. The additional landscaping required by the
Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look
or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the
success of the retail center.
Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between
the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even
required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code
states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage
measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off·street parking and vehicular access."
RMC 4-3-IOO.F.l.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park
2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is
approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west
of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area
to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted
as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing.
, This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site
Plan was submitted. See, e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 60f8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
· 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
26
27
28
Avenue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by"
the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width,
Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms
of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the
Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required
for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North,
and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large
buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications
was appropriate.
Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical
difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in
adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail
center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large
part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly
important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily
industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the
proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for
prospective tenants before they commit to a site,
The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain
to require some modifications:
It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that
it may not comport with every guideline found in Code. The fact that a 38-acre
site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director
was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant
those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development
accomplished the City's goals for this area -redevelopment at an urban scale
of substantially underutilized property, , ,It may not be possible to meet every
objective in a time span oftwo to three years on an area of this size and one
still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses,
Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was
presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long-
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 7 of8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
term vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract
2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle
3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas_ In order to attract
4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that
5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the
6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking
7 stalls near to Park A venue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in
8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements
9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that
10 the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised.
II The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to
12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount of pedestrian-
13 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's
14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and
15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces.
16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be
17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park
18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's
Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan
modifications.
DATED this May of June, 2007.
#354789 18449·004 71.901 !.doc 6/05107
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 8 of8
HILLIS ON,P.S.
B ~
rome 1. Hillis, SBA # 1704
ltlyan Durkan, WSBA # 11805
Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant
Harvest Partners
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
208.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative
Site Plan Approval.
LUA-06-07l, SA-A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERA nON
I. INTRODUCTION
Applicant Harvest Partners brings this Request for Reconsideration pursuant to Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-1 OO.G( 4). Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider specific portions of the decision, and modify the decision accordingly.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 22,2007, following a hearing on the merits, the Renton Hearing Examiner
issued a decision regarding Applicant Harvest Partners' Site Plan for The Landing project (the
"Decision"). In nearly all respects, the Decision affirmed the Director's approval of The
Landing Site Plan, and modifications thereto. However, the Examiner reversed the Director's
approval of certain specific elements of The Landing Site Plan, finding that there was not
sufficient evidence of "practical difficulties" permitting such elements_ In particular, the
Decision requires the following specific changes to the current Site Plan for The Landing I :
I The City of Rent on has filed a Request for Clarification with the Examiner, to clarify that the Decision
26 did not also require the installation of a primary entrance facing Park Avenue North on Building 102, nor did it
require removal of parking stalls at the north end of Quadrant C along 10th Avenue North. Applicant hereby
27 joins in the City's Request for Clarification. Furthermore, should the Examiner determine that the Decision did
require a Building 102 entrance facing Park Avenue North, or the removal of parking along 10th Avenue North,
28 Applicant hereby requests reconsideration of those changes to the Site Plan and incorporates by this reference
the arguments presented by the City in the Request for Clarification.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 1 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
SeaHle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
• Installation of an additional or alternative entrance on the east side of
2 Building 400, fronting Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at
3 paragraph 3 of "Decision" section.
4
5
6
7
• Removal of parking stalls located between Building 102 and Park Avenue
North, in the southwest corner of Quadrant C. See Decision, p. 22, at
paragraph 2 of "Decision" section.
• Removal of all but 60 feet of parking stalls located north of Building 400 and
8 west of Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8; see also
9 Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section.
10 As presented below, the Examiner's Decision as to these specific elements, and the
11 Examiner's finding that there were not practical difficulties requiring such elements in the
12 Site Plan, reflect an error in fact or judgment and therefore require reconsideration pursuant to
13 RMC 4-8-100.G(4).
14 III. ARGUMENT
15 A. Additional Entrance to Building 400
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the "Findings" section of the Decision, the Examiner states the following:
Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front
entrance along Park Avenue. While an entrance along a fa9ade where other
shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice design feature for an
interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting
aspect of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing
another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park
Avenue ... Not every shop is obviously amenable to having multiple entrances
but an inviting pedestrian presence is supposed to be a feature of this complex
and the complex should not turn its "back" on Park Avenue.
Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45.
The Examiner's Decision therefore appears to require an additional or alternative
entrance on the east side of Building 400, facing Park Avenue North. See Decision, p. 22, at
paragraph 3 of "Decision" section. However, numerous practical difficulties make the
installation of a primary entrance in this location inappropriate in this context.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 2 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
1 First, given the existing industrial uses on the property to the south of The Landing
2 site, there is currently very little, if any, pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North. At such
3 time as the property to the south is redeveloped with retail uses, and as additional infill along
4 Park Avenue North is completed, the pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue North will increase
5 substantially. Until that time, however, having a second primary entrance in a large retail
6 store such as that planned for Building 400, without significant pedestrian traffic to use the
7 second entrance, would likely pose serious security and loss prevention issues. The retail
8 store would be unable to locate its single point of sale with the entrance/exit, thus increasing
9 the risk of stolen merchandise. Where two entrances are required, the store's ability to control
10 the flow of merchandise would be compromised. In addition to the security issues, having
11 two entrances could lead to confusion to the customer and a significant loss of functionality
12 within the store, as valuable shelf, storage, and display space would be lost to the second
13 entrance area.
14 Due to the practical difficulties with having two entrances to Building 400, Applicant,
15 in consultation with the City, designed Building 400 with its primary entrance facing north,
16 toward the pedestrian walk and the customer parking. This design was consistent with the
17 City's vision presented in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Conceptual Plan for the site.
18 As the Examiner noted in the Decision, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that the
19 redevelopment of District One would be phased over a 30-year period. Decision, p. 16,
20 paragraph 40. Recognizing that the surrounding industrial uses would make it difficult to
21 achieve urban intensities upfront, both the Comprehensive Plan and the Conceptual Plan
22 called for the incorporation of pedestrian-oriented features within the development to aid the
23 transition to an urban mixed-use district. Id. The Conceptual Plan depicted a pedestrian
24 connector, running in an east to west direction and connecting the buildings along the south
25 side of Quadrants B and C. Decision, p. 13, paragraph 29. Applicant's design for The
26 Landing incorporates this key pedestrian corridor, and the building entrances for all of the
27 buildings, including Building 400, were therefore designed to front the pedestrian walk.
28
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 3 of8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
As the Examiner acknowledged, the north-facing entrance on Building 400 presents a
2 nice design feature for an interrelated shopping complex. Decision, p. 18, paragraph 45.
3 Were the entrance of Building 400 to face east rather than north, customers attempting to
4 walk from store to store in Quadrant B would be required to walk east for the entire width of
5 Building 400, then south for a distance, before reaching the entrance. The orientation of
6 Building 400's entrance toward the heart of The Landing site and the pedestrian walk
7 therefore presents the most practical, pedestrian-oriented design at this time, is consistent with
8 the City's vision in the Conceptual Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and enhances rather than
9 hinders the overall cohesiveness and pedestrian friendliness of The Landing project.
loIn addition, Applicant has incorporated several elements into its design to
11 accommodate the eventual transition of Park Avenue North into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly
12 street. First, the materials and details used for the east fas;ade of Building 400 will be the
13 same materials and details as used on the north side of the building, so there is no reduction in
14 quality or appearance. See "Update A" plans for Building 400, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the
15 Site Plan hearing. In addition, Applicant's Site Plan includes a wide sidewalk between Park
16 Avenue North and Building 400. [d. Over ten feet oflandscaping is provided between
17 Building 400 and the sidewalk, and additional landscaping with street trees is provided
18 between the sidewalk and Park Avenue North. [d. With these pedestrian-oriented elements
19 incorporated into the current design for Building 400, Building 400 and its surrounding
20 landscaping will present an attractive, inviting addition to the streetscape of Park Avenue
21 North. Furthermore, if and when the long-term vision of pedestrian traffic along Park Avenue
22 North comes to fruition, such that market conditions create a demand and desire for a second
23 entrance, Building 400 has been designed to incorporate an exit-only door facing Park
24 Avenue North. [d. At that time, the exit could be converted into an entrance and the store
25 reconfigured to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Park Avenue North.
26 Given the numerous pedestrian-oriented elements already built into the design of
27 Building 400, and since the primary pedestrian flow is along the pedestrian walkway on the
28 north side of the building, the Examiner's requirement for a second entrance along Park
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 40f8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seatlle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Avenue North does not enhance the pedestrian oriented nature of the project. Furthennore,
2 the requirement of a second entrance is unsafe and impractical at this time, thus hindering
3 rather than bolstering the opportunity for a successful retail marketplace. Applicant therefore
4 respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be modified to remove the requirement of a
5 primary entrance on the east side of Building 400.
6 B. Removal of Parking Along Park Avenue North
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Examiner's Decision also requires the removal of two specific parking areas in
The Landing Site Plan -the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North, and
all but 60 feet of the strip of parking west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400.
Decision, p. 22, at paragraph 2 of "Decision" section. In discussing the parking area between
Building 102 and Park Avenue North, the Examiner noted:
The parking stalls located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the roadway
serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues ... There is no reason that
makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to
screen the access drive and the additional parking.
Decision, p. 18, paragraph 44. In discussing the parking area north of Building 400 and west
of Park Avenue North, the Examiner stated:
This office cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along
Park north of Building 400 to 'not more than 60 feet' occupied by parking or
vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or removed and
replaced by landscaping.
Decision, p. 21, paragraph 8.
As detailed below, the Examiner's requirement for landscaping between Park Avenue
North and the parking areas has already been addressed in the existing Site Plan for The
Landing. Furthennore, the design and location of these parking areas were driven by practical
considerations, including market demands and the objective of a successful retail center.
The Examiner's discussion of each of these parking areas states that these parking
stalls could be replaced by landscaping. However, there are already significant landscaping
and pedestrian-oriented elements incorporated into the design, serving as a large buffer and
providing adequate screening between Park Avenue North and the subject parking areas.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 5 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
Both of the subject parking areas are separated from the street by several pedestrian-oriented
2 amenities: (1) a row oflandscaping measuring at least nine feet and up to eighteen feet in
3 width,2 all resting atop a landscape berm measuring at least two feet in height; (2) a pedestrian
4 sidewalk with enhanced paving, measuring approximately ten feet in width; and (3) a second
5 row of landscaping with street trees directly adjacent to Park Avenue North. In total, this
6 landscaping/sidewalk/landscaping buffer measures over 19 feet in the area west of Park
7 Avenue North, and over 28 feet in the area between Park Avenue North and Building 102.
8 For the Examiner's convenience, and to better visualize the significant separation of the
9 parking areas from the street, a copy of the original landscape plan depicting the landscaping
10 and sidewalks between Park Avenue North and the parking areas is attached hereto as
11 EXHIBIT A.3
12 The landscaping and sidewalks along Park Avenue North already exceed Renton
13 Municipal Code requirements and provide an inviting pedestrian connection for pedestrians
14 traveling north or south along Park Avenue. The additional landscaping required by the
15 Examiner's Decision, and the resulting loss of parking, will not positively influence the look
16 or function of the development, and will instead have an overall negative effect upon the
17 success of the retail center.
18 Interestingly, given the existing landscaping and pedestrian-oriented features between
19 the parking lot north of Building 400 and Park Avenue North, Applicant was likely not even
20 required to obtain a modification from the Director for this area. The Renton Municipal Code
21 states that on pedestrian-oriented streets, "No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage
22 measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access."
23 RMC 4-3-IOO.F.l.b.i. Here, in no place is the street frontage along the west side of Park
24
25
26
27
28
2 The landscaping planned for the area directly east of the parking area north of Building 400 is
approximately nine feet wide from parking area to sidewalk. The landscaping planned for the area directly west
of the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North is at least eighteen feet wide from parking area
to sidewalk. See Landscape Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also "Update A" landscape plans, admitted
as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing.
3 This exhibit is provided for illustrative purposes. Specific dimensions may have changed since this Site
Plan was submitted. See. e.g., "Update A" landscape plans, admitted as Exhibit 5 in the Site Plan hearing.
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 6 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Avenue North "occupied by" off-street parking. Rather, the street frontage is "occupied by"
the adjacent landscaping and sidewalk, measuring approximately 20 feet in width.
Recognizing, however, that the Renton Municipal Code might be deemed ambiguous in terms
of what "occupied by" meant, Applicant requested and received a modification from the
Director to permit the parking area north of 400. To the extent a modification was required
for this parking area, and for the parking area between Building 102 and Park Avenue North,
and in light of the extensive screening and landscaping already provided to ensure a large
buffer between the parking areas and the street, the Director's approval of these modifications
was appropriate.
Furthermore, the Director's modifications were also proper given the practical
difficulties of compliance with the code while still providing a sufficient number of stalls in
adequate proximity to the retail tenants. As is the case with the development of any retail
center of this size and magnitude, Applicant's design for The Landing is and must be in large
part driven by what the market demands. This ability to attract tenants is particularly
important where, as here, the site is formerly unoccupied and is still surrounded by primarily
industrial uses. The specific numbers of stalls provided for the tenants' use, as well as the
proximity of those stalls to the buildings themselves, are often key considerations for
prospective tenants before they commit to a site.
The Examiner has acknowledged that a project of this scale and magnitude is certain
to require some modifications:
It would be or is too easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that
it may not comport with every guideline found in Code_ The fact that a 38-acre
site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the Director
was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant
those requests if in the overall scheme of things, the development
accomplished the City's goals for this area -redevelopment at an urban scale
of substantially underutilized property ... It may not be possible to meet every
objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one
still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses.
Decision, p. 17, paragraph 41. As the Examiner appears to recognize, Applicant was
presented with the challenge of designing a large retail center to conform to the City's long-
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 7 of 8
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
tenn vision and guidelines, and yet still incorporate appropriate design elements to attract
2 tenants for this initial phase. An example of Applicant's and the City's attempt to straddle
3 these sometimes conflicting demands exists with the subject parking areas. In order to attract
4 prominent, established tenants to the site, Applicant sought to provide a design that
5 incorporated pedestrian-oriented elements, and also accommodated the parking needs of the
6 incoming tenants. Recognizing that the parking demands of the tenants required parking
7 stalls near to Park Avenue North until such time as structured parking can be incorporated in
8 these areas, Applicant designed extensive landscaping and pedestrian-oriented elements
9 adjacent to Park Avenue North to ensure that the parking was appropriately screened and that
10 the pedestrian-oriented nature of the development was not compromised.
11 The Examiner's Decision requiring removal of these shared parking stalls fails to
12 recognize that Applicant's design already provides an appropriate amount of pedestrian-
I3 oriented elements and screening along Park Avenue North. Moreover, the Examiner's
14 Decision will have a significant impact on the success of the tenants in the nearby areas and
15 will negatively impact Applicant's ability to lease these spaces.
16 For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner's Decision be
17 modified to strike the required removal of the parking stalls between Building 102 and Park
18 Avenue North, and the parking stalls west of Park Avenue North and north of Building 400.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant requests modification of the Examiner's
Decision to reverse the Examiner's denial of the Director's approval of Site Plan
modifications.
DATED this rday of June, 2007.
#354789 18449·004 71r901 !.doc 6/05/07
Applicant's Request
for Reconsideration -Page 8 of 8
HIL:1~ARK MARTIN ~ P
B ~l ~
ON,P.S.
rom€ L. Hillis, SBA # 1704
~yan Durkan, WSBA # 11805
Karen D. Breckenridge, WSBA #36666
Attorneys for Applicant
Harvest Partners
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
SeaUle WA 98101·2925
206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the Matter of the Appeal of
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval.
No.LUA-06-071, SA-A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Gina C. Pan, am a legal assistant for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson,
P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. I hereby certify that
on the SIb day of June 2007, I caused to be delivered via legal messenger a true and correct
copy of (1) Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; (2) Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration; and (3) this Certificate of Service to the following:
Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Lawrence]. Warren
Zanetta Fontes
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
100 South Second Street
Renton, W A 98057
Ross Radley
Law Offices of Ross Radley, Inc. P.S.
3316 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 250
Seattle, WA 98102
Certificate of Service -Page 1 of 2
Office of the Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Peter L. Buck
Buck & Gordon, LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
COpy
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101·2925
; 206.623.1745; 18x206.623.7789
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this -:}h day of June, 2007.
#354995 18449·004 7lwzOl!.doc 6/05/07
Certificate a/Service -Page 2 0/2
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
Gina C. Pan
Legal Assistant to T. Ryan Durkan
HILLIS CLARK MAR TIN &
PETERSON, P.S.
500 Galland Building. 1221 Second Ave
Seattle WA 98101-2925
206.623.1745; tax 206.623.7789
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
425-430-6510
Receipt N~ 0882
Date (P /sjZO07
o Cash
~heckNo. 91)7' Y
&/I'a/ 10
o Copy Fee 0 Notary Service )s;( Appeal Fee 0 ________ _
Description: GUr7C/! of LvA-Ob-rill, S,-f-A
Funds Received From:
Name JlCJ11 P ,
Address SOD ft,flL./.-ff,J !)v:fL-O...crt/ b
City/Zip 1(..2.-1 XD.rY7?{ rir/f
SeyHlej wI! ~~I D( -2 <?c <)
Buc:k~ Gordon LLP
Attorneys at Law
VIA FACSIMILE
Ms, Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
June 5, 2007
2025 First Avenue, Suite SOD
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
206-382-9540
206-626-0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.com
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 0 6 2007
Re: APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Dear Ms, Walton:
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110,C(5), we submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad
Nicholson and Alliance for South End (ASE) via facsimile transmittal:
• APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
These documents are filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson
regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's Administrative
Interpretation/Policy Decision.
Copies of this letter and the above referenced documents will also be faxed to the
Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record.
Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner
Counsel of Record
Y:\WP\ASE\Site Plan Appeal\I021307.doc
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Alliance for South End (ASE) and
Brad Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Site Plan
Approval
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------)
LUA-06-071, SA-A
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
For the reasons outlined below, Appellants Brad Nicolson and Alliance for the
South End ("ASE") (collectively "Appellants") respectfully request that the Hearing
Examiner reconsider his Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation dated May 22,
2007 ("Examiner's Decision") regarding the Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval
for The Landing. The Examiner'S Decision is ambiguous, not supported by substantial
evidence, and based on erroneous procedures, errors of fact and/or law, erroneous
interpretations offact and/or law, and errors of judgment.
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
y,\WPIASEISITE PLAN APPEALIP·060507.MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.DG.REVISEDI425HRS.DOC Buck€! Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
1 II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
2 The Examiner's Decision erroneously affirmed in part the Director's Site Plan
3 Decision, denied in part Appellants' appeal, and failed to remand the Director's
4 Administrative Site Plan Approval for The Landing. The Examiner's findings and
5 conclusions are erroneous for reasons that include the following:
6 A. Erroneous Findings.
7 Finding NO.7. The Examiner erroneously found that "Code specifically permits
8 administrative approval of Site Plan proposals that had a public hearing and public
9 comment for a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS had sufficient information regarding
10 the scale, types of spaces, uses and general form of improvements." Additionally, the
II Examiner failed to find that the EIS did not contain sufficient information regarding the
12 scale, types of spaces, uses and general form of improvements. The Examiner erroneously
13 found that "[t]he public hearing and published Boeing EIS satisfy the criteria listed for
14 'exemption' from additional public hearings."
15 Finding No. 21. The Examiner erroneously found that the design for The Landing
16 is "pedestrian-centric."
17 Finding Nos. 25-27. The Examiner erroneously found that The Landing's creation
18 of 8 jobs/acre is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy LU-271 ("Support uses that
19 sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre ... ")
20 Finding No. 29. The Examiner erroneously found that the Site Plan is consistent
21 with the Conceptual Plan approved by City Council. The graphic referenced by the
22 Examiner is not part of the Conceptual Plan approved by City Council. The Examiner fails
23 to discuss non-graphical elements of the Conceptual Plan.
24 Finding No. 31. The Examiner erroneously found that "[t]here is a practical
25 difficulty in providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
y,IWPIASEISITE PLAN APPEALIP·060507.MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.DG.REVISEDI425HRS.DOC Buck(;ll Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
I possibly create a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery trucks."
2 33. The Examiner erroneously found that a stipulation regarding Quadrant C removes
3 from review all issues except for "one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of
4 an access driveway."
5 Finding No. 35. The Examiner correctly found that the ERC makes the
6 determination regarding whether there are "significant unresolved concerns" but failed to
7 find that the Director never referred this matter to the ERC for such a determination.
8 Finding No. 40. The Examiner erroneously found that "[t]he overall proposal is
9 certainly compatible with most of the aims of the City as envisioned in its Comprehensive
10 Plan."
II Finding No. 41. The Examiner erroneously found that the modifications approved
12 by the Director "appear geared toward allowing current development to veer from strict
13 guidelines and they are GUIDELINES." The RMC clearly distinguishes between
14 guidelines and minimum standards. The Examiner also erroneously found that
15 "employment can be expanded with redevelopment." The mere possibility of
16 redevelopment or expanded employment does not satisfy Comprehensive Plan policy LU-
17 271: "Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50
18 employees per gross acre ... " (emphasis added).
19 Finding No. 42. The Examiner found that "[t]he appellant may complain oflarge,
20 convenient parking lots but code does not prohibit them" but failed to find that the
21 Applicant impermissibly prioritized such parking lots over pedestrian-oriented streets and
22 the Director had illegally approved code modifications based on this impermissible
23 prioritization.
24 Finding No. 45. The Examiner correctly found that "there is no practical difficulty
25 in providing another entrance along the pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue"
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
y,IWPIASElSITE PLAN APPEALIP-060507.MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.DG.REVISEDI425HRS.IJOC Buck0 Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121 "3140
(206)382-9540
1 but failed to find that the requirement to provide a primary entrance along Park Avenue
2 specifically applies to Building 102.
3 Finding Nos. 47-48. The Examiner erroneously found that "[t]he Director's
4 narrative discussion found in the staff report is sufficient." Even assuming, arguendo, that
5 the Director was not required to make findings supported by evidence in the record, the
6 Examiner is required to make such findings and failed to do so. In numerous respects, the
7 Examiner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. For example,
8 there is no evidence in the record explaining how the parties' stipulation presents a
9 practical difficulty in requiring Building 102 to have a primary entrance along Park
10 Avenue.
11 Finding No. 49. The Examiner erroneously found that "[t]his office has not been
12 convinced by any of the evidence or testimony that ASE should be granted standing in this
13 matter for the appeal of the update that was combined with the initial appeal of the
14 Landing Site Plan." The Examiner did not request briefing or argument on the issue of
15 standing in ASE's appeal of the modification approval issued on March 13, 2007. The
16 Examiner's decision to dismiss ASE' s appeal of the modification approval is not
17 supported by substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to evidence
18 regarding ASE's amended bylaws as of March 13, 2007.
19 B. Erroneous Conclusions:
20 Conclusion No.4. The Examiner erroneously concluded that "the record, the files,
21 applications, reviews and reports contained in the record would allow this office to avoid a
22 remand."
23 Conclusion No.6. The Examiner erroneously concluded that there is no need for a
24 remand to address issues such as "whether the proposal is compatible with the
25 comprehensive plan, whether it comports with the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan,
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
Y:\WPIASElSITE PLAN APPEALIP-060507.MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.DG.REVISEDl425HRS.DOC Buck0 Gordon LLP
2025 Fir!.tAvenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
1206) 382-9540
..
1 whether a public hearing was required and whether the Director appropriately reviewed
2 and approved the various modifications."
3 Conclusion No.7. The Examiner correctly concluded that "[tJhere was no
4 determination that there were 'substantially unresolved' issues" but failed to find that the
5 ERC should have been given an opportunity to make such a determination. The Examiner
6 erroneously concluded that "[tJhere were no traffic-related issues nor any stormwater or
7 water pollution issues that would jeopardize regional waters."
8 Conclusion No.8. The Examiner correctly concluded that "the Director did not
9 reach the correct decision on some of the modifications requested since there does not
10 appear to be evidence that 'practical difficulties' precluded complying with Code."
II However, the Examiner erroneously concluded "there is no need to remand these matters
12 for any review" and failed to find that the requirement to provide a primary entrance along
13 Park Avenue specifically applies to Building 102.
14 Conclusion No.9. The Examiner erroneously concluded that "[tJhe narrative form
IS of the staff report appears to meet the" formal findings standards of the Renton Code, that
16 "the Director has the authority under various provisions to modify both the provisions of
17 the general Title as well as the Minimum Standards if appropriate" and that a public
18 hearing was not required.
19 Conclusion 10. The Examiner erroneously concluded that the Director's Report
20 "does not need to follow any particular form", that it "provides sufficient details", and that
21 "[tJhe nature of the Director's report does not fail because formal findings were not
22 included."
23 Conclusion No. II. The Examiner erroneously concluded that a "public hearing
24 was not required."
25
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
Y;IWPIASEISITE PLAN APPEALIP·060507 MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.DG.REVISEDl425HRS.DOC Bucke Gordon LLP
2025 Fir5t Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
'.
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
Conclusion No. 12. The Examiner erroneously concluded that "comprehensive
plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report .
"
Conclusion No. 13. The examiner erroneously concluded that The Landing Site
Plan meets "employment goals" and that "[n]o contractual requirements or covenants are
needed."
Conclusion No. 14. The Examiner erroneously concluded that the Applicant
reasonably placed loading docks within The Landing Site Plan.
Conclusion No. 16. The Examiner erroneously concluded that denying certain
modifications "will not substantially alter the Site Plan" and that the Director
"appropriately justified them and approved them."
III. RELIEF REQUESTED
For the reasons stated above, the Appellants respectfuJly request that the Examiner
reconsider his March 22 Decision and remand the Director's Administrative Site Plan
Appeal for The Land~ the Director.
Dated thisJ:5 day of June, 2007.
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
Y:IWPIASElSITE PLAN APPEALIP.Q60507.MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.DG.REVISEDl425HRS.DOC Buck0 Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 9812'1-3140
(206) 382-9540
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
In the Matter of the Appeals of
Alliance for the South End (ASE) and Brad
Nicholson re:
The Director's Administrative Plan Approval
And
The Director's Administrative Interpretation!
Policy Decision
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. LUA-06-07l, SA-A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on June 5, 2007, I served the foregoing and this
APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXAMINER'S
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION and this CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE via the matter shown to the following:
Mr. Fred Kaufinan
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor
Renton, W A 98055
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1
Y:\WP\ASE\cERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE.021407.DOC
Mr. Jerome Hillis
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Buck0 Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382·9S4D
: .
1 Ms. Ryan Durkan
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
2 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
3
4
5
6
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Ms. Zanetta Fontes
7 Renton City Attorney
Warren, Barber, & Fontes
8 100 S. Second Street
Renton, W A 98057
9
10
11
12
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
Renton City Attorney
Warren, Barber, & Fontes
100 S. Second Street
Renton, W A 98057
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Ross Radley
Attorney at Law
Pocock Memorial Rowing Center
3316 Fuhrman Avenue E., #250
Seattle, WA 98102
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
13
14
Subscribed to under penalty of peIjury under the laws of the State of Washington
this 5 th day of June, 2007 in Seattle, Washington.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 2
Y:\WP\ASFCERTrFlCATE OF SERVICE.021407.00C
4okM~ Lynn'eM. Overlie
Buck 191 Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
Buc::k~
Gordon LLP
MS. BONNIE WALTON
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RENTON
1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98055
11,1,,1,,1, II", ,1,1, ,I ,I" ,II, I
"" .
II1II II Iii 'i i ill", III i" I II III" I, ii" I ,I i Ii iii II ill I 'i I
--------------------------------------------------------------
..
CiTY OF RENTON
MAY .~ 1 2007
RECEiVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFiCE
Httl1ri lJd/i/erec/
2
3
4
5
6 BEFORE TIIE HEARING EXAMINER OF TIIE CITY OF RENTON
7
8
9 In re the matter of the Appeal the city of
10 Renton's Request for Clarification and this
11 Certificate of Mailing of Brad Nicholson,
No. LUA-06-071, SA-A
CITY OF
12 RENTON'S
\3 Re: The Director's Administrative Site Plan
14 Approval
REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION
15
16
17
18 COMES now the city of Renton, by and through its attorney, Zanetta L.
19 Fontes, and requests a Clarification of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated May
20
21 22, 2007, (hereinafter "Decision") the city of Renton's Request for Clarification and
22 this Certificate of Mailing
23
24
LINQUIRIES
25 Renton seeks Clarification in two particulars.
26
1. PARKING LOTS ALONG lOTI! STREET
27
28 The Hearing Examiner's Decision says, in the second paragraph of the
29
30
"Decision" on page 22: "The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny
the requested modification for '" the parking lots along N 1 d h Street."
City of Renton's Request for
Clarification - 1
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTFS, P S.
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ph: 425-255-8678 Fx: 425-255-5474
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Renton is interpreting this language to relate to the north east corner of
Quadrant C as that is the only parking fronting on N lOth Street. (See, the following
exhibits from the hearing: Exhibit 4 (Site Plan), page 10; Exhibit 3 (Binder), Exhibit D
to tab 20; and Exhibit 8). However, the Stipulation of the parties (Exhibit 3 (Binder),
tab 20) refers to the "Vested Developments" of Target as including the parking in
Quadrant C (except for the parking in the southwest corner of Quadrant C,
immediately east of Park and west of an access driveway for delivery trucks). Exhibit
D to tab 20 in the Binder (Exhibit 3 in the hearing) shows the Vested Developments;
and the parking along N 10th is included in those "Vested Developments."
The Hearing Examiner acknowledged this aspect of the Stipulation in
Paragraph (Par.) 20 of the Findings on page (pg.) 20 of the Decision where he wrote:
"Quadrant C, the future home of a Target Store, is subject to a separate stipulation by
the parties and other than parking located adjacent to Park at its extreme southwest
corner is not part of this appeal due to the stipulation." The Hearing Examiner also
observed, in Par.33, of the Findings on pg. 14 of the Decision: "A stipulation
regarding Quadrant C removes from review most of the issues raised by the appellant
for that Quadrant but one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of an
access driveway is still subject to the appeal."
As Renton staff is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the limitations
imposed on this development, Renton is asking the Hearing Examiner to clarify the
30 sentence from his "Decision." Was it the Hearing Examiner's intent, despite the
City of Renton's Request for
Clarification - 2
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTES, P S.
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ph, 425-255-8678 F" 425-255-5474
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stipulation of the parties, to reduce the parking that fronts on N 10fh Street, which is in
the northeast comer of Quadrant C?
2. PRIMARY ENTRANCE
Under the section entitled "Decision" (on page 22 of the Decision) the
Examiner wrote: "The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the
requested modification that would remove the requirement that a primary entrance be
located on the pedestrian oriented street." Renton is interpreting this language to
apply to building 400, which lies west of Park Ave. N. and in the southeast comer of
Quadrant B.I (See, Exhibit 5 (Update "A"), page 3.) Renton has not interpreted the
Examiner's decision to relate to Building 102, which lies near the city of Renton's
Request for Clarification and this Certificate of Mailing the southwest comer of
Quadrant C.
As was clear from the positions taken by the parties at the motions hearing on
the Building Permit Appeals, there is some confusion regarding the Examiner's intent
in the quoted language. Also, as city staff is charged with the enforcement of the
requirement, some clarification is required.
Renton interprets the language to relate to Building 400 based on the language
and tenor of the following excerpts from Hearing Examiner's Decision.
I Building 400 was the subject of an amendment to the Site Plan (Update" A"), bringing the building
out to abut PaIk Ave. N. Previously, there was a smaller building (407) planned for that location and it
(the smaller building) was proposed to be setback from Palk to allow paJking between the building and
Palk. (See, Exhibit 3 from the hearing (Binder), tab 19 (p/BIPW Report and Decision), page A-002
(which is the third page after the staff report».
City of Renton's Request for
Clarification - 3
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTFS, P 5.
P.O. Box 626
Renton,. WA 98057
Ph, 425.25&-8678 F" 425.255.5474
..
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
• Par. 22, on page 12 says, in pertinent part: "Forcing large delivery trucks into
the midst of passenger vehicles is not always satisfYing in terms of circulation
and safety."
• Par. 23, page 12, says: "The applicant sought modifications that would allow
loading docks near the street at the Logan location and also loading docks
along N 8th while also moving building fa~des along N 8th to be setback
further from the street than permitted."
• Par. 31, page 14, says, in pertinent part: "There is a practical difficulty in
providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or
possibly create a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery
trucks. Therefore, increasing the distance between the sidewalk/street and
buildings where loading docks are provided along N 8th Street and possibly
Logan is appropriate and reasonable."
20 • Par. 44, page 18, says, in pertinent part: "Quadrant C provides only limited
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
appeal issues, The parties have allowed through stipulation the building to be
setback from Park,,2
• Par. 8 ("Conclusions"), which carries over to page 21, says, in pertinent part:
"The modification for the building in the southeast comer of Quadrant B3 is
denied and the building shall have a primary entrance along Park."
2 The building in this context is Building 102.
3 The building described is Building 400. See, Exhibit 5, Update "A", page 3.
City of Renton's Request for
Clarification - 4
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTES, p.s.
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ph: 425-255-8678 Fx: 425-255-5474
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
\3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Not only does the language of paragraph 8 of the Conclusions make it clear that
the Examiner was referring to Building 400, when requiring a primary entrance facing
Park, but the tenor of the other quoted sections makes it clear as well. Building 102 is
setback from Park due to the need for drive through access for large trucks to get to
the loading docks for Target and the other buildings along N 8th and east of Park
(Quadrant C)4 From Renton's perspective, the Examiner acknowledged the safety
issue, and concomitant impracticality, related to mixing pedestrian traffic crossing this
kind of thoroughfare for large delivery trucks.
II. RELIEF REQUESTED
Renton respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner review the exhibits
referenced herein and clarifY:
1) whether it was his intent to deny the requested modification for parking
along N 10th, in the northeast comer of Quadrant C, and
2) whether it was his intent to require a "primary entrance" facing Park
Avenue North the city of Renton's Request for Clarification and this
Certificate of Mailing for Building 102 as well as Building 400.
/II
/II
/II
4 The parties have stipulated to this drive aisle.
City of Renton's Request for
Clarification - 5
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTES, P 5.
P.O. Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ph: 425-255-8678 Fx: 425-255-5474
, . . .....
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
to
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Dated this 31st day of May, 2007
City of Renton's Request for
Clarification - 6
L. Fontes, WSBA 9604
orney for City of Renton
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTFB, P E_
P_O_ Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
Ph; 425-255-8678 Foe 425-255-5474
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 3 1 2007
RECEIVED
CiTY CLERK'S 0F"'C~
2
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
8
9
10
[[ In re the matter of the Appeals of Brad
[2 Nicholson re:
13
[4 The Director's Administrative Site Plan
[5 Approval, and, The Director's
16 Administrative InterpretationIPolicy
[7 Decision
18
[9
Case No.: No. LUA-06-071,SA-A
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
20 I hereby certify that, on this date, I caused to be placed in the U.S. Mail,
2[ postage pre-paid, the city of Renton's Request for Clarification and this
22
23 Certificate of Mailing, to:
24 1.
25
Mr. Jerome Hillis
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
26
27
28
29
30
Seattle, W A 98101-2925
2. Mr. Peter Buck
BUCK & GORDON, LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Certificate of Mailing - 1
WARREN, BARBER, & FONTES, P.S.
P.O. Box 626
Renton. W A 98057
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3. Mr. Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Ave. E.
Seattle, W A 98102
Further, I certify that on this date, I caused to be delivered to Bonnie
Walton, City Clerk, by personal delivery, the city of Renton's Request for
Clarification and this Certificate of Mailing.
Dated this 31 st day of May, 2007.
Certificate of Mailing - 2
BY:~~
Carolann Hughes ~
Legal Assistant to Zanetta
Fontes
WARREN. BARBER. & FONTES, P.S.
P.O. Box 626
Renton.. WA 98057
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of King )
Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 22nd day of May 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed
envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to
the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Signature:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this zzJ day Of_~yUf-.J'-'.IJ(.1..lfr--~' 2007.
Application, Petition or Case No.:
Notary ublic III and for State of Washington
Residi gat k ~ , therein.
The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits
LUA 06-071, SA-A
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
~~-11---~_
I
:
--.:-.~~--I ----~~ ~~ ~--t-] ----
.
f .'U) "
!dw l-!rt;uJ " p'h
U '\f'-.. . 1\ " QMA 5~1 vl/J
.1h 1~ cl
~
, . ~
Minntes
APPELLANT:
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits
File No.: LUA 06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
Thefollowing minutes are a summary of the march 27, 2007 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow appeal file containing the Exhibit No.2: All documents that predate this appeal
original documents.
Exhibit No.3: Binder with 20 tabs from Zanetta Exhibit No.4: July 21, 2006 site plan review package
Fontes with associated stipulations
Exhibit No.5: Updates A, B, C, and D that have been Exhibit No.6: Summary of Updates to the Site Plan,
referred to and the parties have agreed to all of them. when they were submitted and when they were
approved
Exhibit No.7: Sections of the Renton Comprehensive Exhibit No.8: Violations in the Modified Site Plan
Plan, District I.
Exhibit No.9: Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement Exhibit No. 10: Lakeshore Landing Planned Action
(Tab 20 in Binder) dated 11/812004
Exhibit No. 11: City of Renton Co ·b .... Il.L...k. .... . .Exkibit No. 12: Page 79 of Exhibit 4
iJ:l ,.-
Exhibit No. 13: Packet from Harvest Partners
The Landing Site Plan I,~uring on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 2
Zanetta Fontes, Attorney for the City of Renton stated that they had presented two stipulations and a binder of
stipulated documents as Exhibits. Additionally they had agreed amongst themselves that they are not likely to
call witnesses, they did want to make sure that Mr. Watts was available in case the Examiner had any questions
of him during the course of the hearing. In that light, Mr. Buck on behalf ofMr. Nicholson has indicated that he
may also call a witness, it might be best to swear in those witnesses now and save time later.
The Examiner stated that yesterday an appeal of an update came in and it was stipulated that it be joined with
today's matter since it is an update of the site plan and is subject to this administrative appeal hearing.
Ms. Fontes agreed that there has been a stipulation that would indicate that the updates are being rolled into this
hearing for judicial economy. However, it appears that Mr. Nicholson has submitted his appeal on that update
in an effort to preserve that appeal.
The Examiner further commented that the appeal was filed on behalf of Mr. Nicholson and ASE. ASE had been
dismissed on the site plan but they still may appeal the modification, they may not be able to appeal the first site
plan but can appeal the second site plan. He was not ready to grant them standing based on this stipulation.
Mr. Buck stated that the site plan appeal was filed in late August or early September, since that time there have
been four modifications applied for and granted to that initial site plan. The last two of those were in March of
2007. It is appropriate for the modifications to be before the Examiner so that he has the current site plan before
him. One ofthe four should be appealed and the changes should be before the Examiner.
With regard to parties there is an ASE , members are in control, the citizens are the directors. It is fine with
them that the respondents can o~ect to standing, it may not be overly relevant.
Mr. Hillis stated that he agrees with what has been said, for the record, they do want to renew the motion to
dismiss the appeals based upon the lack of standing of ASE and Mr. Nicholson. They would rely on their prior
briefs and arguments and not submit any new material with regard to that.
Secondly, he received a 45-page brief yesterday from Mr. Buck's office, they would like to have an opportunity
to respond to that and would request that they have 10 days in which to do so.
Ms. Fontes agreed with respect to reserving the right to object to ASE standing on the new appeal, they would
join and ask for the opportunity to do a post-hearing brief.
Mr. Buck stated that he had no objection to post-hearing briefs, which would possibly wrap into the fact that the
Examiner would need and want more time. They would want to file a brief on issues raised today that have not
been heard previously.
Mr. Hillis suggested that there be an agreement on briefing.
He further stated that they have stipulated to the authenticity of the exhibits that have been presented, they have
not stipulated to their relevancy. They have also stipulated that they would not call witnesses but would make
Mr. Watts available to answer any questions that the Examiner might have, a third stipulation was that Update
A, which they have appealed as of Friday, is being combined with this appeal today.
Mr. Buck stated that one of the exhibits they wanted to stipulate to today was the application for the Master
Plan. He would like to see before the end of this hearing today that the City would identify what exactly was the
Master Plan application, they would like that to be part of the record.
The Landing Site Plan Hea"ng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 3
Ms. Fontes stated that staff has gone through the records, they have tagged things, however she was not sure if
that was the most efficient way to define what was part ofthe Master Plan application or if it should be copied
for all parties. It can be taken care of today.
Mr. Buck stated that a pre-hearing brief was presented today to the parties that discussed the issues that seem
most important. There appears to be a disconnect between what the City of Renton wanted to do with this
project and the project that Harvest Partners wants to do. The City and Boeing sought a certain kind of
development, that plan is still in place. There is a development agreement, there is a conceptual plan, there is a
comprehensive plan and development regulations. There has not been a public hearing that would change any
of those strategies. Then in 2006, the Landing Development came to Harvest and Harvest had in mind a project
that certainly made sense to them, but it does not fit the previous strategies and plans and those plans do not fit
this situation. At some point changes could have been made to the development agreements, the conceptual
plan, the comprehensive plan and the development regulations, but the City has not done that. Renton's code,
Section 4-9-200.E1b, requires that there must be conformance with existing land use regulations for a site plan
to be approved. One ofthe broader sections has to do with urban design regulations, Section 4-3-100. In order
to get site plan approval there has to be explicit conformance to the intent and mandatory elements of the design
guidelines.
The brief presented today shows the deviation between the regulations and what Harvest wants to build. He
further discussed the issues of parking between buildings and public streets, which the regulations say cannot be
done. Building 102 shows two rows of parking to the west of the building. That should not be allowed
according to the regulations. Building 400 just across the street; the original plan showed the building narrower
and with parking next to the street, that has since been changed and shows that a building can be built up to the
street just as it is required. Moving buildings could cause gaps, modifications can be seen on the other side of
Park, Buildings 406 and 407 have a gap, that is not a flaw that the developer cannot fix. There are numerous
examples in their brief where disconnects can be seen between code sections and what is being presented today.
Buildings located on designated pedestrian streets should be located adjacent to the sidewalk.
No more than 60 feet of street frontage should be parking along a pedestrian designated street. In the area north
of Building 400 there is more than 60 feet; N lOti' Street, west of Park combined with the area around Building
400 totals more than 60 feet. The main issue that Mr. Nicholson is most concerned about is Buildings 101 and
102 and the area to the west.
In Quadrant C there is no challenge on the extent of parking on the east side of Park or the south side of lOth.
The parking on the west side of Park between BUildings 203 and 400 is being challenged as well as along N 10"'
Street. Building 400 should face Park Avenue with an entrance on that side. The parking north of that building
should be removed or reduced to less than 60 feet.
Building 102 should be moved to the sidewalk and eliminate all parking.
They are alleging no violations as to treatment of buildings, rather they are talking about buildings fronting on
pedestrian streets, no parking between buildings and pedestrian oriented streets, no more than 60 feet of
entrances or parking accumulatively along pedestrian oriented streets. There seems to be no soft exceptions to
these issues.
There are no objections to the parking to the east afPark Avenue that lies north of Building 102. They do object
to the parking to the west of Building 102, and object to the main entrance facing north rather than onto the
street. There are some objections to setbacks of Buildings 101 and 102 from North 8"' Street (Code 4-2-120.E)
and the truck loading areas to the south of Buildings 101 and 102.
The Landing Site Plan Hearing on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 4
Quadrant A has a truck loading area off of Logan Avenue (Code 4-2-120.E) between Buildings 300 and 301 that
should not be there. Quadrant Band C has truck loading violations as well, along N 8th Street. In Quadrant B
some additional setbacks, code says that setbacks shall be five feet in this zone and the setbacks with the latest
modification at Buildings 406 and 403 appear to have increased. In addition, west of Building 404 there is a
setback greater than five feet.
Along the south side ofN 10 th there is surface parking violations (Code 4-3-100.F4b).
Referring to Exhibit D under Tab 20 in the notebook, there is a crosshatch area that has been excluded from the
settlement, it appears some of the hatches did not copy to the row of parking on Park Avenue. There are similar
extensions of hash lines in the boxes, they arc drawn in the same angle as the ones on the building. An original
needs to be found and clarified as to what was actually stipulated.
The conceptual plan (Tab I in Binder) does not seem to have a provision in the code that applies to this zone
that states, in an overall site plan as this, the Director can make what modifications he wants to make. There are
modification procedures and criteria that apply to minor adjustments.
The Examiner stated that he had a letter from Mr. Hillis that cited that code provision.
Mr. Buck continued that Mr. Green would address the conceptual plan.
Duncan Green of Buck and Gordon, stated that they will get an original copy and see where the crosshatch areas
actually are, second, they will look at the code and compare the code violations, assuming that these are code
violations, and anything that is within the crosshatched area that is a code violation, they are requesting remedy
on. If it is outside the crosshatched area they are not asking for anything.
There are requirements in site plan review regulations that state site plans must be consistent with the conceptual
plan that has been approved by City Council. Some of the violations seem to be limited to small areas of the site
plan, iflooked at in the context of the conceptual plan and all of the public process that happened, these
violations add up to a lot. They depart drastically from what was adopted, approved and sold to the public.
There are two key sources of authority that require site plans to be consistent with the approved conceptual plan,
first RMC 4-9-200.E3a states that the plan must conform to the approved conceptual plan required by the
development agreement for the subarea in question. Second the 2003 Development Agreement for the subarea
between Boeing and the City of Renton, which is Tab 3 in the binder, provides that Renton will evaluate all
subsequent permit applications within the sub-districts based on consistency with the approved conceptual plan.
The October 18, 2004 Committee of the Whole report (Tab 7 in binder) the last page under this tab, the last
sentence was read into the record.
The current site plans appear to be inconsistent with the conceptual plan in a number of ways. First it is not
consistent with the urban guidelines, this is where the importance of the urban guidelines in this district come
into light. There is an October 14,2004 memorandum (Tab 6 in the binder) "Center Oak pledges to design its
project consistent with the revised urban center guidelines that are currently before you and anticipated to be
adopted shortly." By adopting this plan, the City Council will provide Center Oak with a set of parameters
within which it can develop its project while maintaining a high minimum level of development and insuring
high quality design. The Landing does not do that.
Another public document that confirms that the urban design guidelines were emphasized in the public process
is a public information handout dated November 8, 2004, titled Lakeshore Landing Planned Action (Tab 6 in
binder).
The Landing Site Plan Heaung on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May22,2007
Page 5
The Examiner stated that a conceptual plan or concept is not a blueprint to put up a building, it's a vision
statement of what they would like to see in that area. It does not show placement of each building and where all
parking spots would be, it's a concept but not perfect. It may not work when actually put in place.
Mr. Green agreed with the Examiner, there is the conceptual plan with not a lot of detail, then you have a master
plan with more detail and the site plan that has yet more detail. Each one has to be consistent with the previous
one. There is some flexibility between the conceptual plan and the site plan. This project is not consistent with
the spirit of the conceptual plan.
However, pedestrian oriented streets, this was emphasized in the development agreement, in the comprehensive
plan, in the development regulations and when the Landing came in, that requirement was ignored.
Requirements triggered by pedestrian oriented streets were not triggered; in fact the City has stated that there are
no pedestrian oriented streets. Park Avenue is fronted by more than 60 feet of parking and there are large
format retailers and lots of parking. The Landing does not have the diverse mix or uses that the conceptual plan
talked about, instead there are no mixed uses or residential in the northeastern quadrant by itself, no mixed use
in this site plan, it appears to be purely retail. The site plan exceeds the big box retail that's talked about in the
conceptual plan. There should have been a detailed consistency analysis performed to make sure that site plan
was consistent with the conceptual plan.
The Examiner asked for a clarification of "big box retail", it appears to be Target, Wal-Mart but is it the
downtown Nordstrom store?
Mr. Green stated that there are categories, up to 50,000 is large format, 50,000-10,000 is medium and then down
to small format. Big box would be in the 50,000+ zone.
The conceptual plan stated that 20% of the retail would be in small-scale format (less than 10,000 square feet),
looking at the proposed site plan it appears that there is a significantly smaller amount of the small-scale retail.
The Examiner stated again that this is a conceptual plan, if the percentages were different does that make it
violate the plan as a concept?
Mr. Green stated it may not require invalidation of the whole site plan, the math should have been done. The
conceptual plan talked about 2,646 direct jobs and 622 indirect jobs and now they are saying about 350
employees would work on the site. The director should have to go back and do the homework.
Jerrv Hillis, representing Harvest Partners, stated the appellants have claimed that the site plan approval
conflicts with various land use regulations, the City of Renton's code, and that the site plan approval needs to be
put in its proper context.
The site plan is not the end of the road, it is the initial development scheme of the site. This process will occur
over a number of years. This site plan is an initial development plan, not a final development. The
comprehensive plan for the City of Renton anticipates development of this area over a number of years.
The 2003 concept plan also articulated this vision for the site. He read a portion of that document (Tab I of the
binder). The idea was that this would be developed over a long period of time, recognizing that that is what the
comprehensive plan for the City required.
He then showed the Center Oaks conceptual plan (Exhibit 10) this plan refers to final retail build outs. Potential
tenants may include a large format retailer, a specialty grocery market, a movie theater and a mix of high quality
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 6
national, regional and local specialty tenants and restaurants. On the map he pointed out setbacks along Park.
There are no stores up to the street and this is the plan that Mr. Green would like the Landing to comply with
literally.
A concept plan is just that a concept plan. The Director concluded in the site plan decision that the overall
concept of the Landing as now proposed meets the concept plan in terms of the overall intent of that concept
plan, which was to create a retail center on this site. There is no mention of offices in this first stage, no mention
of those kinds of uses, but a big mention of the fact that the initial planning is going to be different than the final
development plan might be, all consistent with the City of Renton code.
Nowhere is there a requirement that states that the original development plan for the site must meet all the
planning goals for the area. What they do require is that the plan be set up in such a way that over the long-term
the goals of the comprehensive plan will be met.
The comprehensive plan for the Urban Center North is divided into several categories, the introduction, the
overall comprehensive plan for centers, Urban Center North land use designation, and the vision for District 1,
which this site is part of. The comprehensive plan is a broad statement of community goals, objectives and
policies that direct the orderly development of the site. It is anticipated that national retailers will locate to the
site. He continued reading what the Urban Centers, both North and Downtown, intentions and long range plans
were designed to include. The Urban Center North land use designation states UCN policies will provide a
blueprint for the transition of land over the next thirty years. LU-271 talks about the Urban Center as a whole
and support uses that sustain minimum set employee levels. LU-284 allows phasing plans for mixed-use
projects, LU-285 considers placement of parking areas in initial development plans to facilitate later in-fill plans
and higher density.
There is a supply of under-utilized land north ofNE 8th
, which creates a redevelopment opportunity for a first
phase development in District One. However, the industrial character ofthe surrounding development
properties both within District Two to the west and the preliminary industrial area to the east will make it
difficult to achieve true urban intensities in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall vision
for the District contemplates much more than a series of low-rise structures and large parking lots. It is
important that this initial development facilitates later stages of investment as the neighborhood matures and
property values increase. The vision allows for early stages of open parking lots but they should be handled in
such a way as to allow for infill to occur over a period of time.
There was a vision and that was that this was going to be a difficult area to develop, but it was going to be an
area that the City saw developing over thirty years and they wanted to make sure that the initial development
plan was done in such a way that future development could occur to further meet the goals of the comprehensive
plan. The Director's decision finds that the site plan does meet the overall intent ofthe comprehensive plan. No
urban plan can occur overnight, an initial layout has to anticipate future development. The Director's plan for
this site was that the anticipation for future development be considered while planning this project.
On the original site plan, in the north area along Park it is fully developed, the blank area on the east side of Park
is a residential area, which is not part of this application. There is a cinema and entertainment to the north. The
area along the north side of what will become lO"' is fully developed for the initial plan. The Director was
concerned about having all the retail on the north and wanted it spread out, which is what happened. The
emphasis was then on the southern end, with the intent to create a pedestrian environment, which is not easy to
do given the site. A major walkway was proposed through the site along the southern end, which would allow
the retail uses to abut that. The advantage is having the big parking lots to the north, which allows for future
infill so that future retail can also be along that pedestrian corridor. There is a pedestrian link that runs through
the middle of the site as well, there is another pedestrian link that goes from Quadrant A down through Quadrant
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22,2007
Page 7
D to 8th • The area in Quadrant D to the right of the pedestrian link is an open market place for outdoor events,
which are described in the plan.
The urban development scheme is heading down Park, eventually infill opportunities are provided along Park to
fulfill that part of the vision. The concept plan shows an even greater pedestrian atmosphere along Park in the
initial stages than ever was shown in the concept plans.
The issue was raised regarding small shops, in the development summary there is far more than 20% of the retail
area that are small shops as opposed to the anchors and junior anchors.
The initial stages of the development were looked at with the potential for better infill and build out. Harvest
Partners submitted a chart showing that approximately 125,000 square feet of additional development can occur
on this property over the next 20 years. This site plan does meet the criteria that are required for a site plan in
this code. (RMC 4-9-200.E) Under this section is states that creativity and innovation should not be discouraged
and that is precisely what has been going on with the applicant and the development of this plan.
The appellant asserts that there are several aspects of the plan that conflict with existing land use regulations.
The code anticipates that a site plan may have conflicts with specific design and development regulations. The
code provides that the Director can allow modification of design regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-100(L) and
that the Director has authority to modify development standards pursuant to RMC 4-8-070(C)10.
The following are violations that were submitted by the appellant: (I) Parking between buildings and streets,
the parking between Building 102 and Park Avenue has been stipulated to, but it is vague at this time. The
parking north of the Target store is off the table at this point. Parking west of Building 102, the Director granted
a modification (p.IO, Site Plan Review). The alley driveway is vested, between Building 102 and Park, it is not
going to be moved. (2) The code requires no more than 60' of street frontage along a pedestrian oriented street.
There is more than 60 feet of frontage along the west sidc of Park. Again, the Director granted a modification
for this requirement. Between Building 400 and Building 203 there is a parking lot immediately adjacent to
Park, which is an infill area. Parking areas have been consolidated for future infill along with ingress/egress
from the property. (3) Parking, driveways and pedestrian oriented streets, the Director granted a modification
from this requirement (Site Plan Decision, pgs. 12 and 13) Parking areas are located mid block and consolidated
to allow future infill. Consolidation of parking areas also allows for consolidation of access points providing
access to the central area rather than requiring multiple access points. The Director wanted to limit access to
Logan because Logan is a high visibili:r street, so where does that leave access from Quadrant B? Obviously,
those accesses will have to be along 10 and Park Ave. The access has been limited from Quadrant B onto Park
and three accesses off of 10th
• (4) To have another entrance on Park at this time would be impractical, this is not
pedestrian heavy at this time. To change the entrance of Building 400 to face Park makes no sense in the overall
development scheme and so the Director granted a modification. (Page 4 of update). Building 102 in Quadrant
C does not allow for the entrance to be moved to Park, the driveway was vested. The Director granted a
modification from that requirement. (Site Plan Decision, pg. 10) Creating a gap between these buildings would
disturb the pedestrian atmosphere that was being created. (5) Truckload areas are generally located along 8'h
and one along Logan. The site plan shows that the area of the loading docks is totally screened, that is what the
code requires and what the Director found. (Original site plan, pg. 14) (6) Setbacks of five feet along a street.
The purpose of this requirement was to emphasize urban character and maximize pedestrian activity and
minimize automobile use within the district. The Director granted a modification (update A pgs. 3 and 4) due to
the walkway just north ofthese buildings makes this a pedestrian corridor. There is a walkway through the site
consistent with what the plan requires.
The Director is not required by code to make specific findings for each modification. The Director's decision
articulates the criteria for granting a modification, the reason why the modifications on this site made sense and
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 8
concludes that this relevant criterion has been met. The cases cited by appellants required specific findings of
fact and did not deal with administrative determinations similar to these in the Renton code. The appellant has
the burden to show that the criteria have not been met and the Director's decision is erroneous. In rendering his
decision, the code directs the Director to consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guide lines
and to encourage creative design and alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design regulations. That
has been done in this case.
It was requested that the Director's decision to approve the site plan with modifications be upheld.
Zanetta Fontes provided three handouts of code provision, a discrete page out of Exhibit 4 (page 79) was
marked Exhibit 12, and a packet of information from Harvest Partners that was marked as Exhibit 13.
As briefed in the appeals for the master plan, planned actions are very unique, the planning is done up front in
the hopes that once the SEP A has been done and certain guidelines have been articulated and approved by the
City, that creative developers would take advantage ofthe fact that much ofthe work has already been done.
The fact that this is a planned action will dictate some of the processes about the lack of which the appellant
complains. One of Mr. Nicholson's complaints is that there was no public hearing. (Page 9-62, 3'" page in
Zanetta's handout) Regarding Renton Code 4-9-200.D I, the second sentence of sub a where it states, "that when
a master plan is approved, subsequent site plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved
administratively without a public hearing." The master plan had been approved prior to the site plan in this case
and so no hearing was required. A hearing before a Hearing Examiner is not required if public hearings have
been held where public comments were solicited on the proposed plan action ordinance; if the Environmental
Impact Statement for the planned action reviewed preliminary conceptual plans which provided the public and
decision makers with sufficient detail regarding the scale of improvements, the quantity of the various types of
spaces to be provided, the use to which the structures would be put and the bulk and general form of the
improvements.
Mr. Nicholson further says that the ERC needed to make a determination and relying on code provision 4-9-
200.G9, it seems that the appellant has overlooked an appropriate section, sub8. Section 8 states that a
consistency review should be conducted, and it was, by the zoning administrator for proposals submitted under
the authority of an adopted planned action ordinance.
The question of the Hearing Examiner's authority, Code provision 4-8-110.E, A and C states that any
administrative decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, and further states that the Examiner shall
have all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular appeal
is concerned. The Examiner has the power to remand as well as to do what the Examiner thinks needs to be
done, if he feels that changes need to be made.
Regarding findings, Mr. Green stated that a finding had to be made on each and every point, there is nothing in
the code that requires that, there is nothing that requires a written finding made by the Director. The Director
did find that there was compliance with the code or he would not have granted the modifications in the first
place. The code further states that when applying the provisions of Title 4 the requirements shall be liberally
construed in favor of the governing body.
Moving on to the parking areas of Quadrant B and the buildings to the south, there is a pedestrian walkway.
The median strip on Park, going east to west from Quadrant B to Quadrant C there is a median strip where the
pedestrian walkway would cut across Park. That median strip was called for in the concept plan in Exhibit 10.
The pedestrian walkway continues eastward in front of Buildings 102, 101 and the Target Building (Building
100). The pedestrian walkway requirement has been met.
The Landing Site Plan Heuung on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 9
The screening plan as it relates to the east side of the south end, there is ample screening of trees along the south
border of the parcel that is on N 8'" Street. The code does not say that it must be a fence or si§.ht obscuring
fence, it just calls for screening and there is screening. The screening continues on along N 8' Street. There is
considerable landscaping along Park as well, from 8'" all the way up to Logan including that area where there is
parking frontage between Building 203 and 400 on the west side of Park.
Building 102 located at the northeast corner of Park and 8"', argument was made regarding moving this building
over, there is however, a driveway just northwest of Building 102 and trucks must come in or go out from that
location to make a one-way through on this drive in order to travel between 8'" and Park. There has to be
enough room for the truck to pass.
The question is, is what is before the Examiner reasonable, was what the Director did reasonable, was it
substantial error to grant the modifications considering the practicalities facing the applicant. The applicant
needs to prove that it was substantial error. It was not.
The purpose statement says that the overall mix and intensity of uses within the Urban Center North Zones will
develop over time, consequently decisions made in early phases of redevelopment will need to take into
consideration the potential for further infill and intensification of uses, that is what the Director did. The District
is intended to attract new retail, office and technology related uses that co-exist with airplane manufacturing in
the short run, but provide a standard of development that stimulates further investment and transition of uses in
the longer term. Everything contemplates a long-term development. It does not have to be done overnight.
Planned actions allow the planning to be up front. In the Comprehensive Plan words such as "maintaining
zoning", "supporting uses" and the like, those are in the present tense, not future tense. The policy is to
maintain the zoning so that it would create capacity for employment. There do not need to be obstacles for good
creative development, this is an excellent development, it is consistent with the conceptual plan and planned
action ordinance. The Lakeshore Landing has better pictures that have helped in terms of what was
contemplated by the City and those are the types of development that are going into this plan. It was asked that
the Examiner not remand this matter but uphold the decision of the Director.
Mr. Buck stated that Ms. Fontes said the test for the Director was whether this was reasonable, that is not the
test. The test is whether it is lawful, not reasonable.
It is suggested that it is not reasonable for Buildings 403, 404, etc., to require loading docks to be on the street,
that may be, but that is what the City of Renton codes say. The Council adopted the laws and the Examiner
should not be invited to decide that the Council was wrong. Harvest Partners seem to have gotten it wrong, it
doesn't matter how expensive it would be to change something, if it is wrong, they need to make the changes.
In the area close to Building 102, the only thing that is missing is an agreement by Council as to what Exhibit D
actually had. Did it include the areas in red along the edges of the property, or not. There is an exhibit that was
attached to a settlement agreement, they will find out what it is and it will be given to the Examiner.
The Examiner stated that neither side could stipulate to ignore an Ordinance. Until the Exhibit is produced and
looked at, nothing can be done.
Mr. Buck stated that on Exhibit D it states that the cross hatching is not intended to preclude the installation of
curb, sidewalk or landscaping of those areas. A copy of that exhibit will be given to the Examiner.
Ms. Fontes stated that (4-2-120.E) page 2-130.3 of the City Code says that parking, docking and loading areas
for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets.
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 10
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: 19 pm.
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellant, Brad Nicholson, hereinafter appellant, filed an initial appeal of an administrative decision
approving a Site Plan for a project called The Landing. The applicant for The Landing is Harvest
Partners (hereinafter Harvest). The appellant also filed an appeal of a proposed and approved change to
the Site Plan. The parties agreed to consolidate the two appeals. (See below for ASE's standing on the
second appeal)
2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The person filing the appeal lives in the City of Renton and
commutes past the subject site and uses public facilities and bodies of water near the subject site
inc1 uding Lake Washington.
3. The subject site is approximately 38.22 acres. The total building area will be 572,700 square feet. The
property is bounded generally by N 8th Street on the south, Logan Avenue N on the west and north,
North 10th Street on the north and Garden Avenue N on the east. Park Avenue N runs through the site
from south to north while N 10th Street runs through the site east to west, west of Park, and bounds the
site on the north east of Park.
4. The Staff Report dated August 17, 2006, was incorporated by reference and adopted by this decision.
Where this office differs from the staff report, Findings and Conclusions will spell out those differences.
5. The Planned Action Ordinance was approved by the City Council after a public hearing was opened on
November 8, 2004.
6. A Master Plan was approved on the subject site under a separate file (LUA05-136) dated May 19,2006.
It was found consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance dated November 15, 2004 where the Planned
Action determination was dated May 12, 2006.
7. Code specifically permits administrative approval of Site Plan proposals that had a public hearing and
public comment for a Planned Action Ordinance and an EIS had sufficient information regarding the
scale, types of spaces, uses and general fonn of the improvements. (Section 4-9-200.D.I.a). The
appellant's objection that the original public hearing was not timely enough is not supported by Code.
Administrative review is allowed when there was an original public hearing. The public hearing and
published Boeing EIS satisfy the criteria listed for "exemption" from additional public hearings. It
appears that the intent of the process was to eliminate duplicative reviews and prOvide some level of
confidence that once an approval was granted, project proponents would not be required to jump
through successive hoops and potentially changing standards or even political cycles or politicians.
8. The original site plan was submitted on July 21, 2006 and approved by the City on August 17, 2006 in
the aforementioned Staff Report.
9. The applicant subsequently requested approval of four (4) changes or updates as they are now called.
The Landing Site Plan He<lfmg on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 11
10. The Landing project site is located within District C of the Urban Center Design Overlay. The overall
intent of the district is to consider individual merit and consider the minimum design standards while
encouraging creative design alternatives.
II. The applicant received approval of an Administrative Site Plan for the construction of an approximately
572,700 square foot commercial/retail development with a 12-screen cinema. The proposed
development would be constructed on the 38.22-acre site located within the Urban Center -North I
(UC-NI) zoning designation. Proposed site improvements would consist of the various buildings,
parking features, landscaping, utilities and stormwater. Special design standards apply for the zoning.
The structures are proposed to range in height from approximately 30 to 45 feet. The parking provided
would be a mix of structured and surface parking. A four level parking garage is proposed that would
provide 675 parking stalls. There would be 1,955 surface parking stalls.
12. The applicant has subsequently submitted a series of four (4) updates or changes to the approved Site
Plan. The updates have been labeled alphabetically, A, B, C and D. For purposes of this appeal, the
parties agreed to stipulate that the current Site Plan proposal reflects the original site plan as amended or
"updated" by these submissions while only the first two updates had been formally appealed. The
stipulations were intended to have an administrative review of the proposal as it now stands.
13. Update A was submitted on December 29,2006 and was approved by the City on March 13, 2007. It
resulted in a reconfiguration and change in building design to the 400 series of buildings and
particularly the fact that Building 400 now abuts Park Avenue rather than having it setback from Park.
The update also connects Entertainment Boulevard to North 8th Street via a pedestrian walkway.
14. Update B was submitted on March 13,2007 and was approved by the City on March 19,2007. It
resulted in revisions to Building 301, a parking garage building.
15. Update C was submitted on February 5, 2007 and was approved by the City on February 8 and 15,2007.
It resulted in an increase in the size of Building 201 (formerly 104) and a decrease in size in Building
203 (formerly 108) and changes to parking and service areas around Buildings 201, 203 and 202
(formerly Building 105).
16. Update D was submitted on February 13,2007 and was approved by the City on March 7, 2007. It
resulted in an increase in size for Building 102 (formerly Building 202) and change in facade and entries
to Buildings 102 and 101 (formerly Building 201).
17. The Site Plan at this review (after the Updates) contains more than a dozen structures. Some of the
structures contain separately numbered buildings attached to one another spread over three quadrants.
The fourth quadrant in the northeast comer of the area is not part of the current review process.
18. Quadrant A is at the northwest comer of the site bounded by Logan Avenue on the west and north and
by Park and N 10th on the east and south respectively. Its main components are a 14-screen cinema and
parking garage located along Logan. There are other attached and detached retail buildings south of
those buildings. The parking garage and cinema are oriented such that the fronts of the buildings would
face Entertainment Boulevard an internal street that is generally south of and parallels Logan Avenue.
19. Quadrant B is in the southwest comer, south of Quadrant A. Quadrant B is bounded by Logan on the
west, N I ath on the north, Park on the cast and N 8th on the south. It will have a series of retail
buildings generally fronting along N 10th, a large interior surface parking lot and a series of buildings
arrayed between an east-west pedestrian walkway (north of the buildings) and N 8th street (south of the
The Landing Site Plan HeaDng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 12
buildings). This southern tier of buildings will be oriented to the north and the internal pedestrian
walkway.
20. Quadrant C is located in the southeast corner of the site. It is bounded by Park on the west, N 10th on
the north, Garden on the east and 8th on the south. This quadrant contains retail buildings at its
northwest comer (park and N lOth) and a larger retail complex aligned along the south of the site, near
and adjacent to N 8th Street. Quadrant C, the future home of a Target Store, is subject to a separate
stipulation by the parties and other than parking located adjacent to Park at its extreme southwest comer
is not part of this appeal due to the stipulation.
21. Quadrant A is mostly structures including the cinema, parking garage and smaller buildings and is
divided by an internal east-west street. The applicant seems to have taken a design approach to create a
ring of development around a central surface parking lot in Quadrant B with buildings' access from
pedestrian paths along the south and north. The pedestrian-centric nature of the design does create
issues with vehicle access to the site or sub-sites within the complex. Quadrant C is east of Park and has
a major anchor in the Target Store. The parties have stipulated to a number of issues regarding
Quadrant C and the Target complex leaving the only appeal issue for Quadrant C, the parking located
immediately east of Park and west of the service road or driveway.
22. Issues similar to the Quadrant B parking lot arise with providing loading docks or bays for the various
retail or other businesses in the complex. Forcing large delivery trucks into the midst of passenger
vehicles is not always satisfYing in tenns of circulation and safety. The applicant has placed the loading
docks at the perimeter of the site near Logan (between the parking garage and cinema) and along N 8th
(between Park and Logan) and that resulted in building facades being moved away from the street or
sidewalks in some locations. The plans show landscaping in these areas to screen the loading areas
from the streets.
23. The applicant sought modifications that would allow loading docks near the street at the Logan location
and also loading docks along N 8th while also moving building facades along N 8th to be setback
further from the street than pennitted.
24. Staff found on Page 19 of the Staff Report that the proposed site plan results in an urban design concept
through the provision of pedestrian-oriented spaces, pedestrian pathways and links to sidewalks around
the site. The project is internally consistent with similar facade treatments, building materials and
pavement links. There are coordinated design elements including container plantings, seat walls, tree
grates, awning and benches.
25. The appellant suggested that the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan's employment
objectives of 50 employees per gross acre whereas the subject proposal would create approximately 350
jobs or 8/acre. The comprehensive plan's objectives are predicated on build-out. The center of the site
could be developed with offices and the overall density of employment could change. Urban areas of
downtown Seattle, Bellevue and even downtown Renton are a mix of scale and therefore, density. The
infill anticipated over the next 30 years may increase the employment opportunities.
26. The comprehensive plan at Page IX-42/43 of the Plan states:
"Urban Center North Land Use Designation Purpose Statement: The purpose
of the UC-N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and
commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria
adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 13
is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban
Center-Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. In
addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including
remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories,
retail integrated into pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban-
scale, mixed-use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will
generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity
for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is
expected to complement the Urban Center-Downtown. UC-N policies will provide
a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic. urban
mixed-use district."
And at Page IX-43:
"Policy LU-27I. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels
of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre
within the entire Urban Center."
27. Those provisions do not apply solely to the Landing site or immediate vicinity but include the Urban
Center, which is the entire downtown Renton area and not just the urban center NORTH locale. This
office does not believe that the appellant has demonstrated that this office should second guess the
timing, phasing, market forces and City's determination about this proposal. The appellant has not
shown that the current plan is unreasonable in terms of a 30-year time line. There are many goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan and not all of them are attainable immediately. The
comprehensive plan also acknowledges that redevelopment of the site is and will be constrained
somewhat by the industrial character of surrounding development. This office agrees with the statement
in Mr. Radley's Post Hearing Brief at Page 3: "it is certainly true no site plan can be consistent with
every policy and principle of early large planning efforts ... "
28. Referencing that brief further, this office does not agree with the second part of that sentence "when
there have been as many modifications as there have been in the Landing Site Plan, it is legitimate to
examine exactly how inconsistent the site plan is from previous planning efforts." The project is very
large and the number of modifications does not seem extreme when considering the size and scale of the
proposal. It includes approximately 23 retail or commercial spaces. It is spread out on 38.22 acres. It
includes a parking structure with 675 stalls, and 1,955 surface parking stalls. It spans or crosses four (4)
city streets. Some ofthe modifications address similar issues or design details such as placing parking
between the building and pedestrian streets or a building exceeding the minimum setback. So two
modifications actually apply to one facet of the design.
29. The appellant complains that the site plan does not correspond with the approved conceptual plan. The
appellant strenuously argues that the current, what some might term, "concrete proposal" is not a true,
laborious, carbon copy of the original concept plan or conceptual proposal. The objection is misplaced.
The definition of a "concept" is that it is an abstract or generic idea. A conceptual plan is not a blue
print. The conceptual plan is not a detailed proposal but provides a framework or basis for more
concrete decision making. The site plan mirrors the conceptual plan in a number of particulars. The
parking is located in the interior of the site, buildings, in the main, front the street or streets, there is an
east-west pedestrian connector immediately north of the tier of buildings along N 8th Street and there is
a north-south pedestrian connector in both the conceptual and site plans. The concrete proposal, that is
the current Site Plan, does in fact flesh out the concepts. But it may even deviate in some manner from
the concept. As noted, the concept is not a precise plan. Both the conceptual and the concrete show the
The Landing Site Plan He~.ng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May22,2007
Page 14
property bisected east and west by Park Avenue and north and south by 10th Street. Both conceptual
and concrete show tiers of buildings alongside Park Avenue but also driveways, parking lots and large
interior parking lots. Both concept and concrete show an east to west pedestrian passage north of the
southern tier of buildings and both show a similar pedestrian passage running south to north in the
western portion of the site.
30. There are no minimum front, side yard, side yard along street or rear yard setbacks required by code.
There is a maximum 5-foot front yard and side yard along street setback. This maximum setback is
intended to draw buildings up toward the sidewalk and provide a pedestrian-oriented experience. The
Director determined in an earlier administrative decision that while the UC-NI Zone did not allow these
setbacks to be increased by Site Plan review, other zones did allow such alteration and, therefore, for
consistency, Site Plan alteration was appropriate and would be permitted. In the current review the
Director found that the maximum setback could be increased and approved an increase. Since the
Director has authority to approve a range of modifications, it is not necessary to use this authority to
approve proposed modifications.
31. The Director also has the ability to grant modifications from the minimum standards. That ability could
be used in the current case and will be employed by this office where appropriate. There is a practical
difficulty in providing loading docks that either do not interfere with pedestrian areas or possibly create
a complicated mix of passenger vehicles and larger delivery trucks. Therefore, increasing the distance
between the sidewalk/street and buildings where loading docks are provided along N 8th Street and
possibly Logan is appropriate and reasonable. Staff noted that these areas are landscaped and the Site
Plan (Pages 78179 of site plan) shows landscaping is intended in these areas and staff required
supplementation (Page 14 of staff report).
32. Logan Avenue is considered a high visibility street and access to it has been limited to maintain its
arterial functions and gateway aspect. This had led the applicant to place driveways along N lOth, which
is a pedestrian oriented street. The minimum design standards "prohibit driveways" along pedestrian
oriented streets.
33. Originally, the buildings located both east and west of the southern end of Park Avenue N would have a
parking area with two rows of parking located between the buildings and the sidewalk. An update
removed the parking along the west side of Park and moved that building closer to the street. A
stipulation regarding Quadrant C removes from review most of the issues raised by the appellant for that
Quadrant but one tier of parking immediately east of Park and west of an access driveway is still subject
to the appeal.
34. The appellant noted that the building located northeast of the intersection of 8th and Logan does not
front on the street and is setback too much. Logan is a curving street at this location and the facade is
straight which creates the additional setback. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty and it
appears that either landscaping or a modest change in the facade could be used to fill in this location.
Curving the building might not create the most practical building internally but it is not difficult to
accomplish. But iflandscaping is permitted the applicant can either provide landscaping in this area or
change the facade.
35. The appellant suggests that a public hearing is required on the Site Plan since there are "unresolved
concerns" but the code language is more exacting referring to them as "significant unresolved
concerns." (emphasis supplied). This office has no doubt that the appellant Mr. Nicholson has
unresolved concerns. There may even be others who have unresolved concerns. In a project of this
scale there are possibly quite a few unresolved concerns by any number of people. Those concerns have
The Landing Site Plan HeaHng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 15
to be significant. Some peoples' concems may remain unresolved. That does neither tarnish the overall
proposal nor mean it is subject to a public hearing. The ERe makes that decision and not any appellant
or "concemee!" There are probably a number of concerns about this project that never will be resolved.
Few land use decisions make everyone happy and unconcerned.
36. Access would be primarily from N lOt" Street or Park Avenue N. Access onto Logan Avenue N has
been minimized due to its classification as a High Visibility Street. The modification would allow N
lOth to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street.
37. As noted the Director can allow modifications from the Title (4-9-250.D.2) as well as the minimum
standards (4-3-100.L). In none of the cases would approval of the modification have a detrimental
impact on other properties or the general public. The modifications allow driveways on pedestrian-
oriented streets, facades to be setback from the street to accommodate loading docks and more than 60
feet of interruptions to the pedestrian-oriented streetscape. None of these modifications would
adversely affect other property and they are not going to have an overall public detriment. The
modifications are all modest -allowing driveways to enter interior parking lots even if they occasionally
cross pedestrian-oriented streets is not inherently dangerous. The curving, feature-rich N lOth Street will
calm traffic flow making turning movements less problematic. Moving building facades off the street to
accommodate landscaped-screened loading docks is also not inherently harmful. The modifications are
not allowing taller buildings, which might create shadow or shading effects making pedestrian-oriented
streets less hospitable. The deviations (modifications) have been designed into the project and the entire
project appears to demonstrate high quality design. Again, N lOth has curves, a rotary, paving details
and landscaping all intended to create a coherent design and favade treatment. Allowing the driveways
permits the applicant to emphasize the interior pedestrian paths and avoids cutting those with vehicle
access.
38. Staff has stated that N 10th Street and Park Avenue N are pedestrian-oriented streets. They note that the
buildings fronting on N 10th Street between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N, and the north portion
of Park Avenue N (buildings 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, lOS, 106, 107, 108, 109, 302, 303, 304, and 306)
would have pedestrian-oriented facades and would contain pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses.
The sidewalk widths along N 10th Street vary, but are no less than 12 feet. Entry canopies and building
mounted weather protection are proposed and would also add to the pedestrian friendly environment.
(Building numbers may have been changed since the original report). Staff notes further that the
building along the west side of Park A venue N has been reconfigured to provide retail store fronts
facing Park Avenue N. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaping is proposed where the surface parking
area would abut a public right-of-way. (Page II staff report)
39. The staff report states: "The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would be off ofN
10th Street, Park Avenue N, Logan Avenue N, N 8th Street, and Garden Avenue N. The intent of
prohibiting driveway access to surface parking lots was to maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted
sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, or eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The
location of the surface parking lots at mid block and the consolidation of the surface parking areas to
allow for further structured parking and retail development requires that some access to the parking lot
be provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets (N 10th between Logan Avenue N and Park Avenue N)
and Park Avenue N. The consolidation of the surface parking areas also allows for consolidation of the
access points to the parking lot as access is provided to a central area as opposed to several
decentralized parking lots that would each require access. Due to the consolidation of the surface
parking areas, which would facilitate the future construction of structured parking and retail
development, into the center of the project site and the consolidation of access points to the parking area
staff concurs that driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots is unavoidable." With those
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 16
considerations, staffreconnnended approval of a modification to the vehicular access requirements to
permit the proposed driveway access points onto pedestrian-oriented streets.
40. The comprehensive plan has a number of objectives for redeveloping the area where the proposal is
located. Those policies recognize the surrounding industrial uses will limit development potential for a
while and also that redevelopment may be phased and may occur over an approximately 30-year time
frame:
"The current supply of under utilized land north ofN. 8"' Street creates an
immediate redevelopment opportunity for a first phase of development in
District One. However, the industrial character of the surrounding developed
properties, both within District Two to the west and the Employment Area-
Industrial area to the east, will make it difficult to achieve true urban intensities
in District One at the beginning of this transition. The overall Vision for the
District contemplates much more than a series oflow-rise structures with large
parking lots. Therefore, it is important that this initial development facilitates
later stages of investment as thc neighborhood matures and property values
increase. It is also critical that the early-stage vision for District One sets the
stage for high-quality redevelopment in District Two."
"Vision -District One
The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing
large-scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses.
Initial development may be characterized by large-format, low-rise buildings
sunounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian-
oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center-North evolves, the buildings
of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures.
Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the
urbanization of the District.
Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a
destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use,
urban scale office and technical center with supporting connnercial retail uses. It is hoped
that over time these patterns wiJI blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district.
In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail
center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially
may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building units,
eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to
pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks
and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub-regional or regional
market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support
other businesses in the area. While large-format ("big-box") retail stores anchor development,
they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the
smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers."
(Page IX-46)
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 17
In other words, any proposal including the current proposal is not envisioned as the total end product.
There has to be a start to redeveloping the area and any initial project might not fulfill all the objectives
at this time. The overall proposal is certainly compatible with most of the aims of the City as
envisioned in its comprehensive plan.
41. As a whole, the project appears to work and the modifications requested and approved appear geared
toward allowing current development to veer from the strict guidelines and they are GUIDELINES, so
that the initial development can occur now while not thwarting redevelopment or new development of
the interior spaces with structured parking or more compact urban design features. It would be or is too
easy to shoot objections at a 38-acre project and find that it may not comport with every guideline found
in Code. The fact that a 38-acre site may not fit every guideline or minimum standard was why the
Director was apparently given the power to review modification requests and grant those requests if in
the overall scheme of things, the development accomplished the City's goals for this area-
redevelopment at an urban scale of substantially underutilized property but recognizing that the City's
goals for this area may not be entirely fruitful this year or next year and not within even the first decade.
The redevelopment and build-out of this area was projected to take a few decades. Parking lots and
interior open spaces are eventually anticipated to be developed. The journey is expected to take a while
and code writers and the City Council even expected a few missteps might be found in its ordinances,
providing a flexible method of allowing modifications to those regulations. The project as a whole is
compatible with the overall objectives, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It leads to
redevelopment of this area with a well-designed, coherent project that allows internal growth
opportunities for redevelopment over the next 30 years. It adds retail and commercial uses, it creates
pedestrian oriented corridors, it will be linked to residential components and it allows the continued
function of the Boeing and Paccar industrial uses. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than
adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of
policies and while the proposal might miss some aspects it meets others. The open center of the site,
now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's
objectives. Similarly, employment can be expanded with redevelopment. It may not be possible to
meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an area of this size and one still subject to
neighboring heavy industrial uses.
42. The appellant objected to the large interior parking lots: "This is because the Applicant designed a
project that prioritized large, allegedly "convenient" parking lots over the "pedestrian-orients streets"
that are mandated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan, approved Conceptual Plans, and development
regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC or "Code"). (Buck, Page 2 Post-Hearing Reply
Brief). The appellant may complain of large, convenient parking lots but code does not prohibit them.
What code prohibits are parking or lots between buildings and streets or too much frontage taken up by
parking. The examples shown in the Code show larger, interior parking lots. The Conceptual Plan that
the appellants allege the current Site Plan does not follow also showed larger interior parking lots. The
real questions are not whether the lots are too large but whether some parking is in the wrong location,
were modifications granted by the Director authorized by Code and were they appropriately reviewed,
reasons demonstrated and granted?
43. The appellant suggests that the applicant created their own hardship by designing a project that does not
conform to regulations. Hardship is not the standard for a modification. The modification criteria are
not as demanding as those for a variance. There does not need to be a hardship and there is no concern
about creating undue precedent as there are for reviewing a variance. None of the remaining criteria are
as compelling as those required to grant a variance. Note the use of the terms or phrases "practical
difficulties" and "impractical" in the modification criteria. Something impractical can justify a
modification. The Director was not dealing with a "variance" where the applicant has to show undue
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 18
hardship that deprives the applicant of reasonable use. Given an over 10 acre block, access needs to be
provided in more than one location or else there would be practical difficulties for access. Loading
docks need to be located somewhere on site and not impractically interfere with general pedestrian
traffic or passenger vehicles. The Director used the appropriate standard in allowing modifications to
access along N lOth and loading docks along Logan and N 8 th •
44. Quadrant C provides only limited appeal issues. The parties have allowed through stipulation the
building to be setback from Park. The parking stans located on the east side of Park, adjacent to the
roadway serving the proposed Target store, raise some issues. Is there some physical limitation or
"practical difficulty" that requires parking when the guidelines do not allow it? There is no reason that
makes compliance with code impractical. Landscaping can be provided to screen the access drive and
the additional parking. This office has to find that while it may be "wasted" space that can boost the
parking complement of the proposal, there is no practical difficulty in omitting that parking. It can be
given over to landscaping, seating, decorative art or a combination of those uses. No practical difficulty
requires a modification to anow parking in this area where none is permitted.
45. Similarly, this office can find no practical difficulty in providing a front entrance along Park Avenue.
While an entrance along a facade where other shops or buildings have their entrance would be a nice
design feature for an interrelated shopping complex, unless this office has missed some limiting aspect
of the applicant's plans, there is no practical difficulty in providing another entrance along the
pedestrian-oriented street, that is, Park Avenue. It is a design feature or detail that anows entrances to
be oriented toward the interior ofthis complex. How pedestrian oriented will Park be if the facade
facing Park is closed, routing pedestrians either far to the north or far to the south and then around to the
west to gain access to a pedestrian oriented urban, shopping complex. Not every shop is obviously
amenable to having multiple entrances but an inviting pedestrian presence is suppose to be a feature of
this complex and the complex should not (urn its "back" on Park Avenue.
46. There appear to be two standards that apply to pedestrian oriented streets. Section 4-3-100.F.4.b.ii
indicates that surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets while 4-3-
100.F.l.b.i.a suggests no more than 60 feet can serve vehicular access. In any event, the Director had to
weigh the tradeoffs of interrupting Logan A venue with vehicular access or N 10th with vehicular access.
The Quadrant C block is large, at least 10 acres, and contains a large interior parking lot. The interior
parking lots can provide redevelopment potential as suggested by the comprehensive plan. The interior
parking can also potentially house structured parking and that is permitted to have access along
pedestrian-oriented streets. Providing access to the interior parking on this large Quadrant and not have
access along either Park or N 10th presents practical difficulties. The modification will allow
development of a well-designed complex that provides pedestrian-oriented internal walkways that
connect to pedestrian-oriented streets. In a perfect world there may be other methods of developing this
site and the appellant may prefer some other design features but that does not show that the current
design is inappropriate under the comprehensive plan. The small rotary, curving street and pedestrian
crossings ofN 10th Street should convey (0 drivers that pedestrians prevail and should be safe. A
modification that allows the access along N 10th Street will not injure or create adverse impacts to other
property. It conforms to the intent ofthe Code to redevelop this area with high quality development and
to encourage pedestrians and a few driveways will not offset those benefits. On a complex that faces
the public on an sides, the project does its best to meet the requirements for parking to be on the "side
and/or rear of a building" as required by Code. Further justification is that the driveways along N 10th
will also limit impacts to Logan, a high visibility street. In other words, the modification to allow
access to the surface parking from pedestrian oriented streets is appropriate and was appropriately
approved. Allowing access along a pedestrian-oriented street and allowing more than 60 feet does not
appear to create any injury to other properties. It will not create any unsafe conditions although it will
The Landing Site Plan Heaung on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 19
require more pedestrian vigilance. It allows the eventual redevelopment of the interior areas in
compliance with the comprehensive plan's 30-year time frame. Notice, also, that the Code does appear
to permit parking garages to have driveways along a pedestrian-oriented street. Therefore, it would not
be that much of a stretch to allow surface lots access across such a street if there were practical
difficulties in achieving a well-designed project while sparing Logan Avenue and Park Avenue from
driveway intersections. And it would be no less safe than access to a parking garage.
47. The decision criteria for both a Site Plan and Modification use the terms "finding" and "find." Those
terms are not as rigorous as those required by the Hearing Examiner language found in Code. In
addition, notice the language in the next sentence "These criteria also provide a frame of reference ... but
are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation." On occasion, when explaining land use law
to laymen, this office has tried explaining that in many (most) areas of the law one does not ask a
question such as whether something is "appropriate" or does it "discourage creativity. " Or "Does this
plat meet the public use and interest or is it APPROPRIATE?" Rarely in the law does one make value
judgments such as those examples. The language quoted above seems particularly clear -that the
"criteria ... are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation."
48. Notice the much more specific requirements in the language governing Hearing Examiner decisions and
Council action. "[F]indings from the record and conclusions" as opposed to the less rigorous "find" or
"findings" asked of planners who are not asked to provide judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. It would
appear that the Director and other planning professionals exercise professional judgment when
reviewing applications but are not held to a judicial standard in producing an analysis and decision on a
proposal. The Director's narrative discussion found in the staff report is sufficient. The Director's
decision has in most areas sufficient information and recitation of facts about a project and its impacts to
comport with the "fmd[ings]" specified by Code.
49. This office has not been convinced by any of the evidence or testimony that ASE should be granted
standing in this matter for the appeal of the update that was combined with the initial appeal of the
Landing Site Plan. The previous decision on ASE 's standing on the initial appeal remains applicable to
this second appeal.
50. Attached to the back of this report are the Code Sections that apply to various portions of this decision.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error,
or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-
8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified and
affirmed as indicated below.
2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the
facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts
and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966).
3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily
substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. In this
case, this office will exercise authority that gives it the powers of the underlying body to overturn,
The Landing Site Plan He"ring on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 20
modify and supplement the staff report. This office does not believe a remand is necessary as in most
particulars the staff report and Director's decision is more than adequate but the appellant has
demonstrated that the Director erred in granting some of the requested modifications.
4. The appellant urges that the malter be remanded to the Director and staff. Is a remand the only option
or even necessary in this case? Or is there sufficient information in the record for the examiner to either
agree that the Director made the correct decision or decisions Or rectify an error? This office believes
that the record, the files, applications, reviews and reports contained in the record would allow this
office to avoid a remand. A remand would be appropriate if there were grievous errors or omissions in
the underlying decision. This office does not find grievous errors that require substantial additional fact
finding by the City. The errors that were made can be rectified by denying modifications for parking
along Park and N 10th Street and supplementing the staff report as was done in the above Findings.
5. This office can review the project and correct some of the errors, supplement the findings in others and
affirm other parts of the decision without a remand. This office retains the authority of the "office from
whom the appeal is taken." (4-8-110.E.l.c.)
6. While there have been challenges about whether the proposal is compatible with the comprehensive
plan, whether it comports with the Conceptual Plan and the Master Plan, whether a public hearing was
required and whether the Director appropriately reviewed and approved the various modifications, those
issues can be resolved without a need to remand the malter or malters for further review. First, this
office as noted finds that the overall Site Plan is compatible with the objectives, goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. The Director did not err and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the
decisions on those malters were clearly erroneous. As noted, there are a large number of objectives and
the proposal complies with many of them as shown in the original staff report. The goals are also not
necessarily attainable immediately but the comprehensive plan provided a long-range view of Renton
and 30 years provides additional opportunities for additional employment and more dense development.
7. Code does not require endless or repeated or even one additional public hearing when one was held.
There was a public hearing on the Planned Action Ordinance. The Planned Action was found
appropriate at that time and the proposal continued to evolve in a manner that reflects the premises of
the both the Planned Action and the Conceptual Plan. There was no determination that there were
"substantially unresolved" issues and those that may be unacceptable to the appellant do not appear to
be substantial. The appellant certainly did not show any clearly erroneous decisions that cannot be
rectified in this review and that demand a remand. None of the issues involved go to the heart of the
injuries that the appellant used to show standing. There were no traffic-related issues nor any storm
water or water pollution issues that would jeopardize regional waters. The modifications objected to do
not address either of those issues.
8. This office has to conclude that the Director did not reach the correct decision on some ofthe
modifications requested since there does not appear to be evidence that "practical difficulties" precluded
complying with Code. In those cases, this office will simply deny the modifications since this office has
the power of the official whose decision is being challenged. There is no need to remand these malters
for any further review. The modifications that allow parking east of Park at the southwest comer of
Quadrant C and west of Park (north of Building 400) and along Logan are denied. There do not appear
to be any "practical difficulties" in providing a "primary entrance" along Park Avenue, the facing street.
This complex should not turn its back on the pedestrian oriented street since there should not be a
"back" on a pedestrian oriented street. While the applicant has created an internal pedestrian orientation
for much of this complex, it sits adjacent to Park Avenue and should welcome pedestrians who happen
to be walking along Park. There do not appear to be any practical difficulties in providing the primary
The Landing Site Plan He"nng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 21
entrance or even, possibly, co-equal entrance. It is merely a design decision. The modification should
have been denied. This office will, therefore, exercise its authority under code and deny the
modification. The modification for the building in the southeast comer of Quadrant B is denied and the
building shall have a primary entrance along Park. The modification that would allow the building
located in the southwest comer of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback is denied. This office
cannot find any practical difficulties on limiting the curb area along Park north of Building 400 to "not
more than 60 feet" occupied by parking or vehicular access. The parking certainly can be moved or
removed and replaced by landscaping. The potential infill development would not be hampered by
landscaping or seating in this area. Landscaping can be replaced by new structures.
9. In other areas such as whether formal findings are required, whether a public hearing was required and
whether the Director has the authority to approve modifications in the Urban Design Regulations
Overlay District (4-9-250) and the minimum standards of the design regulations (4-3-100.L) the
appellant has not demonstrated that the Director made errors. The narrative form of the staff report
appears to meet the standards of Code and the Director has the authority under various provisions to
modify both the provisions of the general Title as well as the Minimum Standards if appropriate.
10. The nature of the Director's report does not fail because formal findings were not included. The
Director's report provides reference to code sections, history of the project, zoning and comprehensive
plan designations, background information and a discussion of the proposal and how it meets various
code provisions. The Code contains different language specifYing the requirements for a report from the
City Council and Hearing Examiner decisions than it does for those of the Development Services
reports. As has been noted, there are different review standards when the Council and Examiner issue
quasi-judicial decisions than there are for Staff Reports or those made by the Director. The Director is
not making judicial decisions but providing a readable report that shows how a project complies with a
variety of code provisions, also providing details about treatment materials and trim details, sometimes
detailing landscaping species, paving materials, and similar information. It does need to show how
certain proposals such as modifications comply with code but it does not need to follow any particular
form. The report provides sufficient details and the appellant has not demonstrated error.
II. A Public hearing was not required. There was the public hearing and other prerequisites required to
allow Administrative review. While those hearings may have been a couple of years ago, the entire
Planned Action Ordinance and Master Plan process is intended to give developers and neighbors some
assurances that there will not be endless reviews and re-reviews of proposals. There needs to be some
finality so that people can make economic commitments and expect that "monkey wrenches" will not be
tossed into the mix a year or two down the line on larger scale projects such as this one. As noted, there
may be some unresolved issues in the appellant's mind and even the minds of other persons but those
are not necessarily significant and they may never be resolved to those persons' satisfaction. That does
not mean more public hearings are required.
12. The comprehensive plan compatibility is more than adequately discussed on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff
report (August 17, 2006). There is a laundry list of policies and while the proposal might miss some
aspects, it meets most others. The open center of the site, now dedicated to parking can be redeveloped
over the 30-year time span suggested by the City's objectives. Employment can be expanded with
redevelopment. It may not be possible to meet every objective in a time span of two to three years on an
area of this size and one still subject to neighboring heavy industrial uses.
13. The phasing and 30 year timeframe does not req uire immediate fiuition of employment goals. No
contractual requirements or covenants are needed. Frankly, 30 years is a long time. Thinking back 30
years, 1970 or so, few would have predicted that this land would be for sale by Boeing, Boeing would
The Landing Site Plan Heu .. ng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 22
be retreating to the lake and Boeing might cease most of its Renton operations. The project meets many
of the comprehensive plan's objectives and goals. It is probably not an easy process redeveloping 38
acres and doing it all in one, rather expensive, "fell-swoop."
14. The loading docks have to be somewhere for a complex of this size and it would appear reasonable to
place them along a street that does not promote pedestrian access. It certainly is better than in the midst
of the complex where they would not only introduce larger trucks to a passenger car environment but
also introduce trucks and loading docks to the pedestrian oriented south tier of shops and buildings. The
Director mentioned the smooth flow of pedestrians along the south portion of Quadrant B in his review.
15. There are practical difficulties gaining access to the interior parking lots that serve the north, west and
south buildings of this large 38-acre complex. So access along N 10th Street appears reasonable given
the fact that Logan is a heavily traveled arterial. It is also a high visibility street where access to parking
lots should be limited so that there are fewer turning movements to interfere with arterial flow. In
addition, the block is large and access to the parking from the north helps drivers get to and from the
complex from more than just one surrounding street. The street is well landscaped, contains decorative
paving, a roundabout and other features to enhance the 10th corridor. The street ties the north and south
quadrants together. It does not detract from neighboring uses, presents a coherent plan and allows the
development of this site in a manner compatible with the comprehensive plan. The additional frontage
given to driveways or parking is not detrimental to the overall plan.
16. In conclusion, while the appellant has shown not all of the modifications were entirely appropriate,
denying them will not substantially alter the Site Plan, and, frankly, approving them would not
significantly detract from the overall plan either. It is just that under code, there did not seem to be
practical difficulties that would have allowed them. The other approved modifications, also, quite
frankly, do not appear to detract in any way from what appears to be a coherent, well-designed initial
plan for redeveloping 38 fallow acres. The Director, possibly supplemented by the additional findings
in this report, appropriately justified them and approved them as the Director found that the proposed
Site Plan complies with the comprehensive plan, the Planned Action Ordinance, the Conceptual Plan
and the Master Plan. Would it be possible to redesign the project -clearly. Might there even be ways
to make it better -maybe. Are changes necessary to the overall plan -no.
DECISION:
The decision affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification for the parking
lots on the east side of Park Avenue North that was not covered by the parties' stipulation for Quadrant
C, the parking lot on the west side of Park and the parking lots along N 10th Street. Landscaping, street
furniture or other uses compatible with the Design Standards may be installed in the place of the
proposed parking.
The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would
remove the requirement that a primary entrance be located on the pedestrian oriented street.
The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would
allow the building at the southwest comer of Quadrant B to exceed the maximum setback.
The Director's decision is modified and this office will deny the requested modification that would
allow the parking to exceed more than 60 feet of curb length.
The Landing Site Plan He~nng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 23
If the loss of parking affects the parking complement of the overall Site Plan, the applicant as code
permits, may increase the height of the parking structure, remove a retail component or coordinate with
the City other methods to provide sufficient parking as required by Code.
The Director's decision is modified as indicated in the above conclusions wherein this decision
supplements or supplants the Director's decision for the remaining modifications that were requested.
In all other particulars, the Director's decisions are affirmed and the appeal is denied.
ORDERED THIS 22 nd day of May 2007.
FREDJ. MAN
HEARING INER
TRANSMITTED THIS 22 nd day of May 2007 to the parties of record:
Jill Ding
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Duncan Green
Buck & Gordon
2025 First Ave., Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Ross Radley
Attorney at Law
3316 Fuhrman Ave E
Seattle, W A 98102
Zanetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton
Jerome L. Hillis
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P .S.
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
Brad Nicholson
2811 Dayton Avenue
Renton, W A 98056
TRANSMITTED THIS 22 nd day of May 2007 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker S tan Engler, Fire
Peter Buck
Buck & Gordon
2025 First Ave., Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Karen Breckenridge
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
King County Journal
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 24
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m" June 5. 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on 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 make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 5, 2007.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the reqnirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
execnted Covenants will be reqnired prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
The Landing Site Plan He"nng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 25
CODE PROVISIONS
The following Code Sections apply to various portions of this decision. This office has emphasized with a
double-underline the particular text in a section that is applicable to the decision.
Design Criteria Code Provisions
4-3-100.E.3.b
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building
entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
b. Minimum Standards for District 'C':
1. On pedestrian-oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on
the facade facing the street.
4-3-100.E.l.b.ii.a
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to
improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
4-3-100.F.4.b
b. Minimum Standards for District 'C':
1. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non-pedestrian-
oriented streets when available.
11. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets.
111. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility
streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet
as measured horizontally along the street.
F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center; incorporate various modes of
transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from
vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of
parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages,
without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking
lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
I. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in
back of buildings.
Parking along street 4-3-100.E.2.b
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian
pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage
siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space;
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 26
enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate
transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for
residential uses located near the street.
b. Minimum Standards for District 'C:
I. Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented
facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a).
Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian-
oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the
building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited.
11. Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses.
111. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they
feature a pedestrian-oriented facade.
IV. Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential
buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum often feet (10') and feature
substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-
3-100E7b).
v. Ifbuildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial
landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten
feet (lO') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c).
c. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C:
1. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural
light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open
space (except parking areas).
11. Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level
for residents' privacy.
b. Minimum Standards for District' C:
1. On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street
parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to
the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access.
11. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall
feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking
Lot Design Standards.
4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULA TrONS:
A PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Section is to:
I. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and
Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to:
a, Maintain and protect property values;
b, Enhance the general appearance of the City;
c. Encourage creativity in building and site design;
d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and
e. Consider the individual merits of proposals.
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May22,2007
Page 27
4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center -North (District 'C') that ensure
design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive
Plan Vision for its Urban Center -North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses
in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that
encourages use throughout by pedestrians.
5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of "big-box retail" as defined in RMC 4-11-
180, Definitions.
6. Establish two categories of regulations: (aj "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines"
that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in detennining if the
proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Urban Center Design Overlay area,
specific minimum standards and guidelines may apply to all three districts, or certain districts only
(Districts 'A', 'B', or 'C'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029,11-24-03; Ord, 5124,2-7-2005)
Criteria for Site Plan Review
4-9-200.E
"E DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS:
The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets
Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this
Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a
site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation."
Criteria for Hearing Examiner, Council and Planning Decisions
4-8-100,G:
"I. Standard Decision Time and Notification Procedure: Unless the time is extended pursuant to this Section,
within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional infonnation
pursuant to this Chapter, the Examiner shall render a written decision, including findings from the record and
conclusions therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the
applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting notice of the decision. The person mailing the
decision, together with the supporting documents, shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard fonn, and the
affidavit shall become a part of the record of the proceedings. In the case of applications requiring City Council
approval, the Examiner shall file his decision with the City Council members individually at the expiration of
the appeal period for the decision."
"K. COUNCIL ACTION:
I. Council Action Requires Minutes and Findings of Fact: Any application requiring action by the City Council
shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the
Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its
action. II
4-9-200.E.I.b "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the pronosal
meets the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and subsection F of this
Section, as applicable, These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but
are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation"
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 28
4-9-200.E "In. rendering a decision, the Director wil) consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will
consider the overall intent of the of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design
alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations."
Hearing Examiner Authority
4-8-110.
"E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000)
1. Applicability and Authority:
c Authority: To that end the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the aopeal
is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned"
Criteria for Modifications from Code
4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES:
A PURPOSES:
3. Modifications: To modifY a Code requirement when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying
out the provisions of this Title when a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code
impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992)
D MODIFICATION PROCEDURES:
1. Application Time and Decision Authority: Modification from standards, either in whole or in part, shall
be subject to review and decision by the PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department upon submittal in
writing of jurisdiction for such modification. (Amd. Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999)
2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of
this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she
shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and
purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the
modification is in confonnity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification:
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed
modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives;
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment;
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity;
d. Confonns to the intent and purpose of the Code;
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Ord.
5100,11-1-2004)
.~'
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 29
4-9-250.D(2)
"2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of
this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first
find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the
governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity
with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification:"
Criteria for Modifications from Minimum Standards
Modifications 4-8-070.C.10.vi
C PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE:
Authority: The PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator or his/her designee shall review and act
on the following:
10. Modifications:
"also 4-3-100.L
VI. Modifications to development standards in the Center Village
Residential Bonus District and the Urban Desi gn Regulation Overlav
District;
L. MODIFICA nON OF MINIMUM STANDARDS:
1. The Director of the Development Services Division shall have the authority to modifY the minimum
standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions ofRMC 4-9-250D, Modification
Procedures, and the following requirements;
a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections
E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations;
b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard;
c. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a
whole;
d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and
e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent
streets and/or pathways.
2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this
Section are limited to the following circumstances:
a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry
and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or
b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public
sidewalk; or
c. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated
walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005)
Criteria for Public Hearings on Site Plans
Public hearing required:
The Landing Site Plan Heanng on Merits
File No.: LUA-06-071, SA-A
May 22, 2007
Page 30
D CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED:
In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or Site Plan Review should be conducted concurrently
with any other required hearing, such as rezone or subdivision, if the details of the development are
sufficiently defined to permit adequate review. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be
required in the following cases:
1. Master Plans:
a. All Master Plans proposed or required per subsection B of this Section, Master Plan Review,
Applicability. Where a Master Plan is approved. subsequent Site Plans submitted for future
phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing.
b. Exception for Planned Actions: A hearing before the Hearing Examiner is not required ifboth
of the following criteria are met:
1. One or more public hearings were held where public comment was solicited on the
proposed Planned Action Ordinance, and
11. The environmental impact statement for the planned action reviewed preliminarY
=ptual plans for the site which provided the public and decision-makers with
sufficient detail regarding the scale of the proposed improvements, the quantity of the
various types of spaces to be provided, the use to which the structure wiII be put, and
the bulk and general form ofthe improvements.
"2. Site Plan Review:
a. Significant Environmental Concerns Remain: The Environmental Review Committee
determines that based on departmental comments or public input there are significant
unresolved concerns that are raised by the proposal; or
b. Large Project Scale: The proposed project is more than:
1. One hundred (100) semi-attached or attached residential units; or
11. One hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the
IL or CO Zones or other zones in the Employment Area Valley (EA V) land use
designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B); or
111. Twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of gross floor area (nonresidential) in the
CN, CD, CA, CV, or CO Zones outside the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use
designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B); or
IV. Four (4) stories or sixty feet (60') in height; or
v. Three hundred (300) parking stalls; or
v!. Ten (10) acres in size ofproject area.
c. Commercial or industrial property lies adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-l, R-4, R-8 and R-IO
Zones.
(Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4802,10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5028,
11-24-2003)"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 10 2007
RECEIVED
C!TV (;l.~R.K'S OFfrCE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON c--'
In the Matter of Appeals of
Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad
Nicholson re:
The Building Pennit Application
Approvals and the Director's
Administrative InterpretationIPolicy
Decision
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
----------------------------)
NO. LUA-06-071-SA-A
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S
RESONSE TO APPLICANT'S
AND CITY'S MOTIONS TO
DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT
APPEALS
15 I. RELIEF REQUESTED
16 Appellant Brad Nicholson asks the Hearing Examiner to deny the Applicant's and City's
17 motions to dismiss Appellant's appeal of the Building Pennit Approvals for Buildings 101, 102,
18 and 200.
19 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
20 Brad Nicholson is a lifelong citizen of Renton. He owns property and lives near The
21 Landing project site, regularly commutes through the area, plans to shop and utilize pedestrian
22 amenities on the site after construction is completed, and is concerned with the effect the
23 Landing will have on traffic and water quality, among other things. As a citizen concerned with
24 the well-being of his city and community, Nicholson has been following the development of The
25 Landing project site and has actively sought to ensure this development took place according to
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS - 1
ORIGINAL
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323-4044
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
proper procedures and standards.
Nicholson has challenged actions relating to The Landing since as early as 2003, and
after finding himself overwhelmed by the superior resources available to the City and the
developers, he met with attorney Peter Buck regarding the formation of a nonprofit to represent
citizens concerned about the Landing Project and the integrity of the City's land use planning
process. As a result of these discussions, ASE was incorporated in May of 2006. Accordingly,
ASE appealed the Master Plan Approval and Planned Action Determination for The Landing in
May and June of 2006, but these were dismissed for lack of standing because the Hearing
Examiner found ASE's bylaws did not give any member of ASE to control the appeal.! ASE
then adopted several Amended Bylaws to provide its members with sufficient control over the
appeals.
On August 31, 2006, ASE appealed the City's site plan approval for The Landing, and
Nicholson joined in this appeal as an individual appellant. The Hearing Examiner found that
while ASE did not have standing to challenge the site plan approval, Nicholson met the standing
requirements because he alleged facts indicating he would be harmed by the improprieties
involved in the project:
It seems clear that Nicholson has a strong belief that the approved
Site Plan violates City policies and/or Code provisions. He argues
that allowing it to go forward will harm him either due to being a
badly designed project that does not meet code or one that may
create severe traffic problems adversely affecting him or cause
stormwater problems with water bodies he alleges he uses.2
ASE and Nicholson filed their appeals of the Building Permit Approvals for Buildings 101 and
1 See Decision of Ihe Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction Brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Progressive Alliance for a Sustainable Southend (PASS),
September 5, 2006.
2 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction Brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, February 22, 2007.
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS - 2
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323-4044
1 102 on December II, 2006 and on March 13, 2007, they filed their appeals of the Building
2 Permit Approval for Building 200.
3 III. ARGUMENT
4 A. Brad Nicholson Has Individual Standing.
5 2. RMC Requirements for Standing in Appeals of Staff-Approved Building Permits.
6 Building permit approvals are appealable to the Hearing Examiner as non-environmental
7 administrative decisions. See RMC 4-8-070.H.l.a (Hearing Examiner Authority).3 Under RMC
8 4-8-100.E(3)(b), such administrative decisions may be appealed "by any person aggrieved."
9 RMC 4-11-010 defInes "aggrieved party as any person seeking to protect something "arguably
10 within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee
11 in question." Moreover, an aggrieved party "must allege an 'injury in fact,' i.e., that he or she
12 will be specifIcally and perceptibly harmed by the propped action. Id.
13 Thus, in order to satisfy the standing requirements of RMC 4-8-070.H.l.a, Nicholson need only
14 (1) seek to protect interests that are "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or
15 regulated" by the laws at issue and (2) "allege an 'injury in fact.'" See RMC 4-11-010; RMC 4-
16 8-100.E(3)(b). The interests Nicholson seeks to protect need not be indisputable, or even clearly,
17 within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the laws at issue. See RMC 4-11-010. Nor
18 is he required to demonstrate an actual injury in fact, only allege one.
19 2. Nicholson is Aggrieved by the Building Permit Approvals.
20 The Examiner has previously found Nicholson has standing to challenge both the Site
21 Plan for The Landing and the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Boeing
22 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone action. In denying the Applicant's and City's
23 motions to dismiss Nicholson's Site Plan Appeal, the Examiner observed "[ilt would be
24
25
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS - 3
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323-4044
1 inconsistent to now find he did not have standing when the actual development, the Site Plan in
2 contention, was being reviewed.,,4
3 This reasoning applies with full force to appeals of City approvals for building permits
4 authorizing physical implementation of the Site Plan. Because Nicholson has standing to appeal
5 the Site Plan due to harms from nonconformities and impacts associated with The Landing, he
6 necessarily has standing to appeal building permit decisions that improperly attempt to
7 implement an illegal Site Plan while on appeal.
8 (a) Zone of interests.
9 Nicholson is seeking to protect interests squarely within the zone of interests protected
10 and regulated by the laws at issue in this appeal, including the City's Site Development Plan
11 Review (SDPR) regulations, the International Building Code, the City's Permit Classification
12 regulations, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Renton's SEPA ordinance.
13 SDPR regulations. SDPR regulations directly link building permit review to the Site
14 Plan review process by requiring building permits to be issued only after a reviewing official has
15 approved the site plan application and stating building permits must be issued in compliance with
16 the approved site plan. (RMC 4-9-200.B.2). Moreover, City departments and other agencies
17 with an interest in the application reserve the right to comment on such requirements as exact
18 dimensions, specifications or any other requirement specifically detailed in the Code (RMC 4-9-
19 200.K), evincing an intent to subject building permits to continuing review.
20 Nicholson's claims regarding illegal setbacks, surface parking driveways on pedestrian-
21 oriented streets, and street frontage occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access, precisely
22 the type of "exact dimensions" and "specifications" RMC 4-9-200.0(5) is intended to regulate
23
24 3 See a/so RMC 4-8-080.G (Land Use Permit Procedures -Type I); RMC 4-8-080.H (Type 1-Land Use
Permits); RMC 4-8-110E.1.a (Appeals to Examiner of Administrative Decisions and Environmental
25 Determinations).
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS - 4
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323-4044
1 throughout the building permit process.
2 International Building Code (IBC). A building permit is void if issued in violation of
3 any provision of the RMC, even if those provisions were also addressed at an earlier stage of
4 project review. IBC, § 105.4, adopted by reference in RMC 4-5-050.
5 The IBC is designed to "establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health,
6 safety and general welfare.,,5 The !BC thus encompasses a broad zone of interest in the
7 enforcement of "any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction."
8 By filing these appeals, Nicholson is seeking to vindicate his interest in the enforcement of
9 setbacks, pedestrian-friendly design regulations, and adequate Site Plan and environmental
10 review for the benefit of his community.
11 SEPA and Renton's SEPA ordinance. Nicholson is also seeking to protect interests
12 regulated and protected by SEPA. In particular, proper processing of the Building Permit
13 Approvals would have resulted in a public hearing and an opportunity to address unanalyzed
14 impacts. Structures premised on the City's antiquated environmental analysis will contribute to
15 continued stormwater and traffic. Moreover, because Renton's SEPA ordinance makes it a
16 continuing responsibility for the City to assure "safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and
17 culturally pleasing surroundings," Nicholson's allegations regarding The Landing's automobile-
18 centric design fall within the zone of interest of assuring safe and aesthetically pleasing
19 surroundings. RMC 4-9-070.A. The Landing would be a safer and more pleasant development
20 for citizens like Brad Nicholson if Buildings 100, 101, and 200 had been designed according to
21 the pedestrian-oriented design adopted by the City.
22 Permit Classification regulations. Finally, Nicholson's claims of procedural injury fall
23
24 4 See Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Matters of Standing and Jurisdiction Brought by Attorneys for
Alliance for Alliance for South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson, an Individual, February 22, 2007, p. 5.
25 5 IBC, Section 101.3.
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS - 5
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323-4044
1 within the zone of interests for the City's Permit Classification regulations (RMC 4-8-080).
2 Nicholson has alleged the City's processing of building permits for The Landing violate RMC 4-
3 8-080 because the Examiner, not the Director, was the appropriate official to review and take
4 action on the permits. The City's improper processing not only denied Nicholson the opportunity
5 to have the building permits reviewed by the Examiner, but also denied Nicholson the
6 opportunity for a public hearing. As an active citizen of Renton, Nicholson is seeking to protect
7 his interest in this site as well as his interest in the integrity of the City'S permit review process.
8 (b) Inj ury in fact.
9 Requiring injury in fact as the Applicant and City propose is particularly troublesome under the
10 facts of this case. As the author mentioned in his oral argument on standing before the Hearing
11 Examiner, if the Examiner accepts the Applicant's and City'S approach, a project of this nature
12 would be immune from any appeal. This site is a former industrial site, which of course has no
13 residents in the nearby vicinity. It is bordered on the West by Lake Washington and on the East
14 by 1-405. The topography is such that as one travels east from 1-405, there are extremely steep
15 hills which are not suitable for residential development.
16 The closest residents are sometimes almost one mile away. The irony of the Applicant's
17 and City's reasoning is this project, which will be one of the largest developments in Renton and
18 will impact the entire City, should be granted immunity from review by interested and affected
19 community members simply because of geographical isolation from residents.
20 Appropriately, Washington courts routinely grant standing to appellants alleging specific
21 harms resulting from proximity to a development site, including harms resulting from building
22 permits. Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap County, 92 Wn.App. 816, 829-30, 965 P.2d 636
23 (1998) (granting standing to citizens group living within proximity of large development without
24 forcing them to present evidence of a concrete, specific injury); Asche v. Bloomquist, 132
25 Wn.App. 784, 133 P.3d 475 (2006). Like the appellants in Suquamish Indian Tribe, Brad
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS -6
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323-4044
, ,
1 Nicholson alleges multiple injuries arising from his proximity to the structures approved by the
2 Building Permit Approvals, including adverse traffic impacts. As Suquamish Indian Tribe
3 makes explicitly clear, Nicholson is not required, for standing purposes, to present any concrete
4 evidence of a particular injury at this point. Because he has alleged injuries resulting from the
5 Site Plan, which the Building Permits physically authorize to be implemented, he has standing to
6 appeal these decisions.
7 IV. CONCLUSION
8 For the reasons presented herein, Appellant Nicholson respectfully request the Examiner deny
9 the Applicant's and City's motions to dismiss.
10
11 DATED this 7th Day of May, 2007
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPELLANT NICHOLSON'S RESPONSE
TO APPLICANT'S AND CITY'S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUILDING PERMIT APPEALS· 7
ROSS RADLEY, WSBA #4972
Associated Attorney for Appellant
Nicholson
Law Offices of Ross Radley
3316 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98102
206-323-3800 Fax: 206-323·4044
Zanetla Fontes
Ann Nielsen
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
POBox 626
Renton, W A 98057
Peter Buck
Buck & Gordon
2025 First Avenue, Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98121
C 'Y OF RENTON
Jerome L. Hillis
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P .S.
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Ross Radley
Attorney at Law
3316 Fuhrman Ave E
Seattle, W A 98102
Re: Appeal of the Building Permit application for Buildings 101 and 102
In the Landing's Site Plan (LUA-06-071, SA-A)
Dear Counsel:
Please be advised that as previously agreed among the parties, the Pre-Hearing Conference in
the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. If the parties
could please provide each other and this office with their appropriate motions for the above
referenced matter by Tnesday, April!7, 2007 that would make better use of our time at the Pre-
Conference Hearing the following week. Please bring your calendars so that we may set a date
for the hearing.
The pre-hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City
Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Sincerely,
-od~~
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
----,O-s-s-So-u-th-O-rad-y-W-ay---R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-8-05-5---(4-2-5)-4-3~O--65-'-5----~ * This paper corotalns 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
HeMP
HILLIS
CLARK
MARTIN &
PETERSON
law offt'ce,/
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
March 13, 2007
Re: Appeal o/the Building Permit Application/or
Buildings 101 and 102 In The Landing's Site Plan (LUA-06-071. SA-A)
Dear Mr. Examiner:
I am writing in response to your letter of March 5, 2007, regarding scheduling a
date for the pre-hearing conference on the above matter. I am available April 24th.
Please let me know ifI can be of further assistance.
JLH:kkh
E-Mail: JLH@hcmp.com
cc: Zanetta Fontes
Peter Buck
Ross Radley
#349377 18449·004 7hkxOII.doc
.,........-
TIT MERITAS
LAW rlRMS WORLDWIDE
Very truly yours,
Jerome 1. Hillis
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington
98101-2925
phone 206.623.1745
fax 206.623.7789
www.hcmp.com
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION
Zanetta Fontes
Ann Nielsen
Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
PO Box 626
Renton, W A 98057
Peter Buck
Buck & Gordon
2025 First Avenue, Ste. 500
Seattle, WA 98121
C 'Y OF RENTON
Jerome L. Hillis
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S.
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Ross Radley
Attorney at Law
3316 Fuhrman Ave E
Seattle, W A 98 \02
Re: Appeal of the Building Permit application for Buildings 101 and 102
In the Landing's Site Plan (LUA·06·071, SA·A)
Dear Counsel:
This office has received an appeal of the approval of a Building Permit application for Buildings
101 and 102 in the Landing's Site Plan.
The appeal was filed on behalf of the Alliance for the South End (ASE) and Brad Nicholson.
This office has to take note of the fact that in two prior appeals, the City, applicant and the
appellants have sought a pre·hearing conference in which to assert the parties have standing or do
not have standing. It would seem likely that such a request will again occur.
Given the fact that the appeals were filed with the City Clerk almost three months ago but were
retained there for two months this office would like to schedule a pre·hearing conference. April
17 and 24 are currently available for a hearing at 9:00 am. Please come to an agreement on the
date and let this office know as soon as possible.
If the parties can settle the standing issue or the appeal itself, please feel free to do so and advise
this office of your settlement.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Sincerely,
;I~( c\-\;(>-~--'"--" -
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
----10-5-5-So-u-th-Gra-d-y-W-ay-.-R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-g-(0-n-9-8-05-5-.-(4-2-5)-4-3-0.-65-'-5----~
AHEAD· OF THE CURVE
Buck@
Gordon LLP
Al \orlll'V'> .1\ Ld\\
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
March 1, 2007
Re: Notice of Supplemental Detail for Building Permit Appeal
Dear Ms. Walton:
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3 1 40
206-382-9540
206-626-0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.com
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 0 1 2007
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3: 5'1 f!1l
II/a l1!Jt iLjt2/ tOtlfl~r
We submit the following on behalf of appellants Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South
End (ASE):
• Notice of Supplemental Detail for Appeal of Building Permit Application Approval
This document is filed in the Matter of the Appeals of ASE and Brad Nicholson regarding the
Building Permit Application Approval for Buildings 101 and 102.
Copies of this letter and the above referenced documents will also be delivered to the
Hearing Examiner and all counsel of record.
Cc: Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner
Counsel of Record
Y:IWP\ASEIBUIlding Permltsl1030107.doc
v~ truly youl\~J:'--...-t.~'--_
Duncan M. Greene
•
1
2
3
4
5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
6 AND/OR
7 BEFORE THE PLANNING/BUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the Matter of the Appeals of )
)
Alliance for South End (ASE) and )
Brad Nicholson re: )
)
The Building Permit Application Approval for )
Buildings 101 and 102 )
)
B060540
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL
DETAIL FOR APPEAL OF
BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION APPROVAL
The Alliance for South End (AS E) and Brad Nicholson ("Appellants") hereby file
this Notice of Supplemental Detail for their Appeal of the Building Permit Application
Approval for the structures designated as Buildings 101 and 102 in The Landing's Site
Plan, which was issued by the City's Development Services staff on or about November
28, 2006 (the "Approval").
In their Notice of Appeal filed on December 11, 2006, Appellants alleged that the
Approval was based on substantial errors in law and/or fact, including multiple violations
of the City's Site Development Plan Review (SDPR) Ordinance. The Notice of Appeal
included one example of how the Approval violated the SDPR Ordinance. This Notice of
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL FOR
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVAL - 1
Y:IWPIASEIBUlLDING PERMITSINOTlCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL
030107.DOC
Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
(206)382·9540
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
Supplemental Detail provides an additional and particularly striking example of the
Approval's violations of the SDPR Ordinance. This is, of course, just one more example.
On August 31, 2006, Appellants filed an appeal of the Administrative Site Plan
Approval for The Landing issued by the City's Development Services Director on August
17,2006, and a related appeal of the InterpretationIPolicy Decision issued by the City'S
Development Services Director on July 17, 2006.1 These appeals are currently pending
before the Hearing Examiner. The Approval of building permits for Buildings 101 and
102 was issued in November of 2006, while these appeals were still pending.
The City's issuance of building permits while Appellants' Site Plan appeal is
pending constitutes an immediate and ongoing procedural violation of the SDPR
Ordinance. RMC 4-9-200.K provides that H[b ]uilding permits shall not be issued until the
appeal period for an approved site development plan has expired." The policy behind this
provision is obvious and eminently sensible: building permits should not be issued until
all appeals have been exhausted. Otherwise, construction may commence on structures
that will ultimately be found to be illegal.
} Sf
Dated this -I--day of March, 2006.
By: Pe·~t~~.~B~uc~k¥,~VV~S"'B~A~#~05~0~6~0-----
Attorneys for Alliance for the South End
and Brad Nicholson
1 See appeal statements and related pleadings, under Site Plan Appeal and Appeal of Administrative
InterpretationIPolicy Decision (LUA-06-071, SA-A).
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL FOR
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVAL - 2
Y:\WPIASEIBUILDING PERMITS\NOTlCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL
030107.DOC
Buck~ Gordon LLP
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 382-9540
I
2
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
8 In the Matter of the Appeals of )
)
9 Alliance for South End (ASE) re: ) NO. B060540
)
10 The Director's Administrative Decision ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Designating The Landing Master Plan )
II Application a Planned Action )
)
12 The Director's Master Site Plan Approval )
) 13 --------------)
Alliance for South End (ASE) and )
14 Brad Nicholson re: )
)
15 The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval)
and interpretation/Policy Decision )
16 )
17 I hereby certify that, on March I, 2007, I caused to be served the foregoing NOTICE OF
18 SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL FOR APPEAL OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
19 APPROVAL, and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by hand delivery to:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor
Renton, W A 98055
D
D • D
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I
Mr. Jerome Hillis
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
D
D • D
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Buck@Gordon LLP
Y;IWPIASElSITE PLAN APPEALICERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.2007.DOC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 382-9540
•
I Ms. Ryan Durkan
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
2 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
3
4
5
6
o
o
II o
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Ms. Zanetta Fontes
7 Renton City Attorney
Warren, Barber, & Fontes
8 100 S. Second Street
Renton, W A 98057
9
10
11
o o
II o
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
Renton City Attorney
Warren, Barber, & Fontes
100 S. Second Street
Renton, W A 98057
o o
II o
Via Facsimile
Via Email
Via Hand Delivery
Via U.S. Mail
12 Subscribed to under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington this 2nd day
13 of March, 2007 in Seattle, Washington.
14
15
~ .. /1.J k ~ ... :.\'.' ( .," '\ . (IL~",-
t:eMOVertie
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 2 Buck~Gordon LLP
Y:IWPIASElSITE PLAN APPEALICERTlFICATE OF SERVICE,2007,DQC 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 382·9540
..
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 2007
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
~ Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
Appeal Filed by Buck & Gordon on December II, 2006;
Notice of Appeal of Building Permit Application Approval; B060540,
Attached please find copy of an appeal to "Hearing Examiner of the City of Renton and/or
Before the PBPW Administrator", regarding building permit application approval B060540.
This appeal was filed by Buck & Gordon, LLP, Attorneys At Law on December 11, 2006.
Upon receipt of one original and two copies of the appeal documents, along with two $75 appeal
fee checks, the City Attorney office was contacted. I was advised to hold the documents, and
subsequently advised to write a letter regarding the filing of two appeal fees. Copy of my letter
dated 12/21106 to Buck and Gordon is attached.
To date no response has been received from Buck and Gordon office regarding the 12/21106
letter, or the second $75 check. Since December I have periodically checked with the City
Attorney office regarding this matter. On Friday, Feb. 9, 2007, Assistant City Attorney Fontes
advised that one of the appeal checks be deposited and the appeal document be forwarded to the
Hearing Examiner. Copy is herewith attached.
I continue to hold the other $75 appeal fee check awaiting further instructions. IfI can provide
additional information, please feel free to contact me.
bw
Attachment
December 21, 2006
Mr. Duncan Greene
Buck & Gordon
2025 First Ave. Suite 500
Seattle, W A 98121
CI' (OF RENTON
City Clerk
Bonnie I. Walton
Re: Notice of Appeal of Building Permit Application Approval
Dear Mr. Greene:
On December 11,2006, you had my office served with two copies of the Notice of
Appeal of Building Permit Application Approval and 2 separate checks in the amount of
$75. You had called and informed me that you were sending the two Notices of Appeal
and the two checks because you were not sure whether there was an appeal to the Hearing
Examiner as well as an appeal to the Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Director, or his
designee.
I waited to check with the Planning/Building/Public Works staffto help me determine
where the appeal should be routed. Unfortunately, the inclement weather caused a delay
in getting the help I needed. However, we have checked RMC 4-8-080G and the chart
found there. Building permits are appealed to the Hearing Examiner.
In light of this information, I am writing to ask you what you want me to do with your
second check and second Notice of Appeal. Please let me know.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
-l-OS-S-S-o-uth-O-ra-d-Y-W-ay--R-e-n-to-n,-W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-S-0-S7---(4-2-S-) 4-3-0--6-SI-0-/-FAX--(4-2-S)-4-30---6S-1-6-~ * This papercontslns 50<'10 recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
J ... •
121
OiEotDATE
12/11106
. "'"""'"
,of Renton
City of Renton -1864_1 -Appeal Filing
CITY OF RENTON
DEC 111005
RECEIVED
CITY ClERK'S OFFICE
TOTALS'" Gross:
2<125 First Avenue,. SLiite 500
~e, Washington 98121-11'-
(206) 382-9$40
CHECK
""""' . ~ "'0U<n0N
75.00 75.00
75.00 Oed: 0.00 Net: 75.00
·--fr1F,<"\§_~:",ttllry:;; t+~Ii-l
BAHKOI"..utaUCA I
WA
19-2-1'2$0 !
DATE
,i/1'i06
'"""
32046
I • .. -
·-*"':$15.00 I
PAY
TO""
OfIDE.
... SEVENTY -PlvE'lI. 001100 OOLI.AAS {;l
OF: City of Renton
--------.------
3UCK & GORDON LLP
DATE ~
510 City of Renlon
12111/06 City of Renton -1864.1 -Appeal Filing
OEo;OATE
12111/06 TOTALS'" Gross:
"""" .
75.00 Oed:
"''''
121''006
CHECK
I
I
j
• I
i
---L
32047
_ 0<0U<n0N
75.00 75.00
CfTY OF RENTON
DEC 1 11006
RECElV£D
CfTY Cl£RK'S QFfICf.
0,00 Net
'""" 321147
75.00
-""'$15.ll0
1
I
PAY
ll> TliE
ORDER
••• SEVENTY-FIVE & 001100 OOLLAAS {;l
OF: city of-Renton I
J
~~---"j
j ."
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
425-430-6510
o Cash I
li;[ Check No. 3 '2-0 ~ V
•
Receipt N~ 0773
Date 2/r171Jo 7
o Copy Fee 0 Notary Service o Appeal Fee 0 ________ _
.' Buck~ Gordon LLP
l\ttorneV5 <It Low
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
January 26, 2007
Re: Appeal Fees for Appeals Filed August 31,2006
Dear Ms. Walton:
2025 First A'Jcnue, SUite 500
Seattle, WA 98121-3140
206-382-9540
206·626·0675 Fax
www.buckgordon.::::orn
Appellants Alliance for South End (AS E) Brad Nicholson, by and through their attorneys,
Buck & Gordon LLP, submit the enclosed appeal fees 'for the Appeals of ASE and Brad
Nicholson regarding The Director's Administrative Site Plan Approval and The Director's
Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision, filed on August 31,2006.
We submitted and you accepted two checks for $75 when we filed notices of those
appeals, one for each appeal notice.
These third and fourth checks are submitted under protest. The Renton MuniCipal Code
does not require such fees, for the reasons discussed in the response brief filed today with the
Hearing Examiner. By submitting these fees, ASE and Mr. Nicholson do not waive any claims or
arguments in these or any other appeals.
A copy of this letter has been transmitted Via! il to all counsel of record.
vel' tr ""'--II "--'VI
Pet r
Enclosures
cc: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
CUI.." (I( uUHUUN LLP
DATE DESCRIPTION
510 City of Renton
01/25/07 City of Renton -1864.1
CHECK DATE CONTROL NUMBER
01/25/07 32212 I TOTALS" Gross:
Buck9
GOrdOnLLP
Atlorneys at Law
2025 First Avenue, Suite sao
Seattle, Washington 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
CHECK
INVOICE#" AMOUNT DEDUCTION
75.00
75.00 Oed: 0.00 Net:
BANK OF AMERICA
WA
19-2·1250
DATE CHECK
01/25/07 32212
PAY
TO THE
••• SEVENTY-FIVE & 00/100 DOLLARS
3221
NET AMOUNT
75.00
75.00
3221;
AMOUNT
·····$75.00
•
,
CHECK DATE CONTROL NUMBER
01/25/07 32211 I TOTALS" GroSS:
Bucko GoraonllP
Attorneys at Law
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, Washington 98121-3140
(206) 382-9540
75.00 Oed: 0.00 Net:
BANK OF AMERICA
WA
19-2-1250
DATE CHECK
01/25/07 32211
75.00
32211
AMOUNT
*****$75.00
,
~ ,
" ~
PAY
roTHE
)RDER
*** SEVENTY-FIVE & 00/100 DOLLARS 6l
I
)F: City of Renton
11'0:1 2 210 loll' I: 10 25000021,1: 101;:100
~
!
~
--~~~-~~
100511' _______ ._ _ ___ J