FOLLOWUP: Luna Park Café owner argues his sign-citation appeal

IMG_3658

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

It was the shortest hearing we’ve ever covered in the city Hearing Examiner‘s windowless chambers on the 40th floor of the Municipal Tower downtown: 25 minutes.

The owner of Luna Park Café and two SDOT public-space-management employees faced deputy Hearing Examiner Anne Watanabe there on Thursday afternoon. At issue – as first reported here last Sunday – was the $500 citation Bennett received for having an A-frame sign (since removed) at Avalon and Harbor, half a block from his restaurant. He appealed the citation, and a hearing was set.

Representing SDOT: Katie Kowalczyk and Jason Johnson.

Representing Bennett: Himself.

Johnson, an inspector for the public-space-management division, started with the backstory:

A complaint was received on January 14th not just about LPC’s sign, but a variety of other signs at Harbor/Avalon, under the West Seattle Bridge. A week later, Johnson said, “We sent a warning to the multiple businesses that had signs at that location, saying they were not in compliance with our portable-sign policy and asking them to remove the signs.” In early March, another complaint was received, and another warning sent to businesses that still had signs there – Johnson noted signs were still there for Luna Park and Cycle University (both nearby businesses), “so I followed it up with a citation on March 29th to Luna Park Café and Cycle University for the infraction.”

The sections of the Seattle Municipal Code that the SDOT reps said applied are 15.91, 15.04 – “permits for using the right of way” – and 15.12, sign regulations, which Kowalczyk said in turn points to a section of rules under the Department of Construction and Inspections (formerly Planning and Development).

Deputy Examiner Watanabe asked for more details on the specific part of city code stating “one sign adjacent to the business.”

Johnson read from not only that rule but also other stipulations including that signs cannot interfere with pedestrian mobility, impair access to driveways or sidewalks or fire hydrants, can’t be placed on any corner, must leave at least 5′ of pedestrian pathway, can’t be chained to light poles, can’t include streamers, balloons, banners, or “similar movable objects,” and the list went on.

Back to the timeline: SDOT sent Bennett a second warning on March 11th, also attempting to contact his business directly, sending e-mail and leaving voice mail “re-stating the policy.”

Offered the chance to question the SDOT reps, Bennett referred to a photo in the city file showing signs at Harbor/Avalon. They said every business with a sign there got a warning; when they went back, anyone who hadn’t removed the signs got a second warning; and then, if the sign was still there, a citation.

Next, it was Bennett’s turn to make his case:

“I guess the problem started with all these apartment buildings built all over Seattle – spending millions of dollars – spending money to put A-boards all over Seattle … I noticed coming off the exit where my sign has sat for years, there were a lot of signs … they’re poorly made, and I noticed that, and it inspired me to make sure my sign was always clean and placed up against the pillar, not in the way …”

He mentioned seeing signs in West Seattle for apartments as far away as Ballard. “So when I got my warning, I assumed that was the problem, not MY sign … I assumed that’s what the problem was and they were cracking down on that. … I’ve owned a small business in Seattle for more than 40 years,” and he’s worked with SDOT before. “So that’s why I didn’t move it.” But he also acknowledged, “On the other hand, I’ve worked with DPD before, and I know that when you get a complaint, you have to follow through on that.”

Bennett continued: “I don’t think this is the place to complain about policy, though I think this policy is wrong … I think if you own a small business on Avalon Way, that within the block you’re on, you should be able to have A-boards to direct people coming off the freeway to your restaurant.” His interest in signage there dates back to a time when he said bridge construction turned Avalon Way “into a dead end.”

His biggest beef: “A $500 fine to a small business is excessive,” especially considering city leadership has said it’s trying to find ways to support small business. “I think the policy is wrong; as a small business, the city should support small business and do what they can to make small businesses survive. I don’t think small businesses can afford … to pay $500 … I don’t want to pay $500 … I would like the court to dismiss this. I did remove my sign, reluctantly.”

Kowalczyk: “So you’re asking it to be dismissed because the fine is too expensive?”

Bennett: “What I’d really like is to change the rule so I can put my sign back.”

Watanabe asked for clarification on the fine amount. Kowalczyk said it was a $500 fine for “making use of the right of way without a permit. In most other cases, it’s a $250 fine.

Watanabe asked for the SDOT managers to provide a specific code citation before she makes a ruling within the next week or so. She also says that since Bennett has removed his sign, “there’s some mitigation I can consider. .. I realize there was a history of warnings (but) that was a good-sized bite for a small business.”

P.S. Not familiar with what the Hearing Examiner does? This guide explains it in detail.

45 Replies to "FOLLOWUP: Luna Park Café owner argues his sign-citation appeal"

  • West Seattle Hipster May 20, 2016 (11:45 am)

    I thought he presented his case very well, I hope common sense prevails.


    if not, I will be happy to help pay the fine.  If that’s not allowed I will be spending much more money at Luna Park in the future.

  • Mr. X May 20, 2016 (12:15 pm)

    If the city can’t fine small businesses these types of fines, how will we fund critical initiatives like buying more Pronto bikes that no one rides, or letting Hollywood millionaires pay $25 per day to close down the viaduct to film cultural treasures like “Shades of Grey 2”??? 

    • Jonny May 20, 2016 (12:48 pm)

      Why use that whiny argument?  You can do research and know that fines like these don’t fund any vital services to any community, so why argue against this kind of enforcement through fallacy logic?  This is the reason why politicians win because we get lost in the muck of the argument rather than just making people accountable for legislative idiocracys.  

      So I guess the real question would be; can the code be changed and who do we pressure in the state legislator to fix these ridiculous fines and policy practices?  Thats the next step not some partisan battle on govt failings.  

    • Chemist May 20, 2016 (2:56 pm)

      ..or pay DPD violation inspectors for the time spent in visiting the street corner (at least once to confirm the violation and two other visits to confirm each non-compliance with the warning and looking up/sending unanswered messages to the offender via e-mail and phone number contacts for the business featured on the offending sign.

  • Chemist May 20, 2016 (12:45 pm)

    If there’s an intention to comply with the law in the future (as evidenced by removing the sign now) then they could probably reduce the fine and everyone would be happy. Personally, I think A frame sign rules have been covered by the media sporadically and there’s not much in the way of plausible deniability for someone who’s had one for decades, saying these warnings were sent about another person’s signage. The warnings I’ve gotten for sidwalks and vegetation have a phone number to call for clarification and threaten the coming fines of “up to X”.

    If we’re going to change the law, I think the signs should have a “permit number” printed on them that could be able to be “looked up” on the DPD/whatever website.

  • KBear May 20, 2016 (1:01 pm)

    Good grief! He knew he was breaking the law, and he was warned before he was fined. This is not some poor small business being excessively punished by the city. He earned that fine fair and square, and he should pay it. 

    • clulessinws May 20, 2016 (6:39 pm)

      Zactly. I didn’t find any reason or persuasive evidence/arguments to his case. You don’t get a break the law or get to do what you want because you’re not new to WS.

  • Jissy May 20, 2016 (1:13 pm)

    Well I for one don’t recall reading in the first story that he’d received TWO warnings.  I would think one would suffice for most.  And it’s on him that he ASS U ME D it was about all the other signs except his.  Bad and expensive assumption.  Sorry, bu I say he pays the fine.

    • WSB May 20, 2016 (1:20 pm)

      Yes, we quoted the SDOT spokesperson in our first story that citations are issued after two warnings. And John Bennett mentioned warnings, plural.

  • Terri May 20, 2016 (1:17 pm)

    Cry me a river. He wants free advertising for his restaurant at the expense of the community. (Bennett: “What I’d really like is to change the rule so I can put my sign back.”) Honestly, it’s not that hard to find Luna Park Cafe on a map or Google or GPS … even those flying by the seat of their pants have a 50-50 chance of making the correct turn.

  • T Rex May 20, 2016 (1:28 pm)

    Mr. X, great statement especially about the movie!

     The fact that he stated he is a “small business” owner is really not the case, take a look at his website, he is very successful businessman. I would hardly call owning several buildings in the area and Georgetown a small business. I could be wrong though.

    However, he needs to man up and pay the darn fine, he was warned. Pretty cut and dry.

  • cjboffoli May 20, 2016 (1:30 pm)

    I can’t recall once in my life that I’ve ever patronized a business because of an A-frame sign.  I seriously doubt these things make one bit of difference to potential customers, beyond adding to visual clutter.

    I’m all for supporting small businesses, but with that said I’m more inclined to support a business that complies with the law as opposed to one that expects to use the public right of way as free advertising space and then – when notified by the city (twice) that they’re in violation of the law – takes absolutely no action and then shows up expecting an exception to be made.   It seems to me that everyone asking for an exception to be made for them is an insidious disease that significantly bogs down our government.  If you think the law is unfair or stupid, then work to change it. Otherwise, follow the rules.
  • JanS May 20, 2016 (1:31 pm)

    two warnings, ASSuming it’s not about you…with TWO warnings.  This man has been in business for 40 years. This man is wealthy, makes plenty of money from his very popular restaurant. I am a sole proprietor of a very, very small business…I work from my home. Someone once complained (on purpose, they were trying to “get” me, sadly) about something that I was doing that I didn’t realize was not exactly kosher. I got a warning, I fixed it. My fine would have been $150. It was a petty complaint…but I fixed it…talk about hitting a business where it hurts. Pay the fine!  I didn’t have to.

  • west seattle neighbor May 20, 2016 (1:33 pm)

    He should pay it.  His business seems to be successful and he received prior warnings.  If he wants to change the rules then he should have made an effort to do so prior to receiving this citation.  I am a small business owner and also don’t agree by some of the rules, however you should not have such a sense of entitlement that you would think that the rules that were put in place do not apply to you.  Some of these rules were put in place to avoid the abuse of advertising in our public spaces.  I feel these rules should be enforced on a more regular basis as it’s been getting out of hand in some cases.

  • Diane May 20, 2016 (1:48 pm)

    I don’t understand why this business alone is being cited and with such a steep fine, when nearly every sidewalk and nearly every corner of WS has TONS of these A-frame signs, for all kinds of businesses, especially all the over-priced luxury apts; why aren’t they getting cited for illegal signage?

    • WSB May 20, 2016 (2:08 pm)

      It’s on a complaint basis. Somebody complained about a clump of signage at this corner earlier this year. All the businesses on the signs were sent warnings, SDOT said. Some didn’t remove the signs; they got second warnings. If still there, then, citations were sent, apparently to Luna Park Cafe and Cycle U – who also is just about half a block away (in the other direction). I only heard about their citation in the hearing yesterday and haven’t had time to ask them if they paid it or are challenging it – I don’t see anything on the appeal hearing docket, where I found this in the first place. – TR

    • jason May 20, 2016 (2:22 pm)

      Just because everyone else is breaking the law (and not being cited), does not give this business owner the right to do so.  And we wonder why the next generation is growing up with such a sense of entitlement.

  • The same rules apply to everyone May 20, 2016 (2:16 pm)

    Owning a small business does not exempt anyone from the law. I’ve known small business owners who did comply with the rules on A-frame signs (and complained about it, a lot), and if a business gets away with not obeying the same rules, then it creates an unfair advantage for them over businesses that do.

    So fair is fair, but what makes me unsympathetic is this: Bennett got two warnings and assumed they were both for someone else even though they were sent to directly his business? I don’t buy that, I call that willful non-compliance.

  • Morris May 20, 2016 (2:25 pm)

    They were kind enough to warn him – he needs to pay the full $500 fine.

  • Mikekey May 20, 2016 (3:01 pm)

    You broke the law, pay the price.  If you want to work to change the law, then do so, but breaking it isn’t going to help.  If you get the fine dismissed, I will no longer support your business.

    • Howard May 20, 2016 (9:59 pm)

      Yawn. 

  • Admoral Mom May 20, 2016 (3:12 pm)

    I was in his shoes a couple of years ago and as soon as I got a call from DPD I picked up my sign. End of the story.

    if you are not willing to comply you should be willing and responsible to pay.

  • dsa May 20, 2016 (4:04 pm)

    What about the big permanent sign he has a few feet from where the A board was?  Is that permitted?  It sucks.

  • Sevenless May 20, 2016 (4:18 pm)

    I’d still like to know who owns/controls the “Welcome to Luna Park” sign in the landscaping behind where those A-frames were located (visible in this Google Street View image).  That’s also on city property and advertises the glass blowing shop, along with mentioning dining.

    • boogs May 20, 2016 (4:47 pm)

      That neighborhood is known as Luna Park because back in the day there was an amusement park bearing the same name down at Anchor Park. It’s a historic part of West Seattle.

      • Dougie May 21, 2016 (2:42 pm)

        Sorry, Boogs.  That neighborhood was never known as Luna Park until after Bennett opened his cafe.  

  • Diane May 20, 2016 (4:32 pm)

    so is this SDOT or DPD or who; and where do we complain about illegal signs?  being “complaint based only” seems ridiculous; if SDOT/DPD/whoever is in charge, if they really cared, they could just get a big truck and round up all the 1,000’s of signs on nearly every sidewalk and corner of WS, and contact the owners on the signs with fines; on the other ridiculous hand, posting flyers is LEGAL and has gone all the way to the supreme court, and yet mysterious someones constantly rip down LEGAL flyers off posts; stop it

  • John H. May 20, 2016 (4:45 pm)

    If you had multiple warnings and you can’t afford the fine, then don’t complain about the amount. If you are a small business that can’t afford to break the law, then don’t break it. Fines that hurt are meant to dissuade potentially repeating the offense by the guilty, but also to dissuade others from committing the same offense. You don’t agree with the law or the fine amount and want to change it that’s OK with me, but that doesn’t get you out of paying the penalty now.

  • thee May 20, 2016 (5:00 pm)

    sorry pal, do the crime, pay the fine. 

    these signs are visual pollution and a blight.  

  • S May 20, 2016 (5:14 pm)

    I got a speeding ticket last year and I was speeding, but I thought speeding laws were for other people. I mean, I’ve been speeding for 27 years. I can’t afford to pay it because I’m not some big corporation. Who do I talk to to get my refund?

  • dsa May 20, 2016 (5:19 pm)

    Good job Sevenless,  that sign  Luna Park sign was still there a few hours ago.  You’d think the city would see it too. 

  • Gatewooder May 20, 2016 (6:29 pm)

    Meanwhile there are at least three A-Boards on Harbor Ave.  just a block away from where the Alki Cafe sign in question was positioned.  

    • WSB May 20, 2016 (6:55 pm)

      A-boards themselves are not illegal in Seattle. But there’s a long list of rules including that if other rules don’t preclude it, you can have one, adjacent to your business. I think what you’re showing is one for ActivSpace, right by the building, no?

      • Gatewooder May 20, 2016 (7:25 pm)

        Correct.  That is the Spokane viaduct in the background of the photo, next to which the Luna Park A-board was located (I accidentally had typed in Alki Café under the photo).  Not sure of the specific rules governing the placement these particular ones, but I can say that they are far more obtrusive than the Luna Park sign because they are located on the main trail linking WS to the rest of the city.  They are blocking a very active right of way, unlike the Luna Park Café sign which was positioned away from most pedestrian or bicycle traffic.

  • TheKing May 20, 2016 (6:52 pm)

    In the pecking order of crime, I’m so glad we are putting those small business signs close to the top. Good work SPD. Way to prioritize. Haha. OMG

    • WSB May 20, 2016 (6:54 pm)

      SPD had no involvement in this. It’s SDOT. And to some degree, the city planning department, formerly known as DPD but now DCI.

  • dsa May 20, 2016 (7:16 pm)

    Bloogs, Is the glass blowing historic too?  They too are advertising permanently on city property.

  • TheKing May 20, 2016 (8:23 pm)

    Sorry for the SPD comment, I need to proofread before publishing, my phone has learned SPD over SDOT. ;)

  • WS Wanderer May 21, 2016 (9:09 am)

    Unless you know firsthand, I wouldn’t assume that just because the restaurant is popular that this man is “wealthy.”

    It would be interesting to know the intentions of the person(s) who complained. Was it meant for all the new buildings or the 2 small businesses that got included in the sweep.

    I say give him (and other small businesses) a break and let them promote themselves. 

  • Lonnie May 21, 2016 (10:02 am)

    If this law is truly going to be fairly enforced, it needs to be enforced on all including the weekend real estate “Open House” sandwich boards.

  • JustTheFacts May 21, 2016 (10:37 am)

    “Small business” is a subjective term.  John Bennett is a small businessman compared to Amazon or Microsoft, but he is not small.   Luna Park Cafe is only a small piece of his real estate holdings. Check out his website http://www.johnbennettproperties.com, and look at the Buildings Owned tab. There are 20 something parcels of commercial property.   

  • LanceR May 22, 2016 (10:54 pm)

    You know what they say. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.

    Fines are generally not designed to be net profit sensitive or employee size based.  So the fact this business is a small business is a non-starter for me.  If I get a speeding ticket, the officer is going to write the ticket based on how much over the limit I was going, not based on my W-2.

    Don’t like the code, then work with the city to get it off the books.  Don’t think it’s fair because mega-million dollar apartments are abusing this too, then work with the city to penalize them harder.

  • HelperMonkey May 25, 2016 (8:23 am)

    does anyone want to tell “Psychic Readings by Kelly” to pick her sign up off of California Ave? Miles away from her office? Or do you think…dun dun dun…she already knows? 

    • JanS May 27, 2016 (5:15 pm)

      two thumbs up …lol

  • Maynard May 27, 2016 (4:05 pm)

    How ’bout taking those A boards down to the 99 on ramp to cover up the potholes. btw…outstanding shakes and a good juke box at the L.P. (not an advertisement, please…no fine)

Sorry, comment time is over.