TO: Mike Stevens, Planning Manager

FROM: Pete Rogalsky, Public Works Director

John Deskins, Traffic Engineer

Jason Reathaford, Engineering Technician IV

DATE: March 10, 2021

SUBJECT: Ladera Preliminary Plat – Additional Information in Response to March 8,

2021 Public Hearing

The public hearing on Monday introduced some testimony that calls for responses from

the Public Works Department. The responses below are organized by the source of the

testimony.

Public Comments

RMC Chapter 12.02.070 – Testimony contended that the addition of trips generated by

the Ladera subdivision would create non-compliance with this section of the municipal

code as the traffic volume using Country Ridge Drive, currently classified as a local

street, would exceed the traffic volume used to describe the character of a local street.

Chapter 12.02 – Street Functional Classification Plan is not intended to regulate the

volume of traffic on any given street, but to describe a structure used to plan the street

system and in some cases to prioritize improvements to streets. Country Ridge Drive,

in its present condition, likely warrants consideration for reclassification to a minor

collector. If the Ladera project is completed it will certainly qualify and function as a

collector street. The City’s improvement standards for local streets and minor collectors

are identical, so reclassification of this street has no bearing on the improvement

standard that would conform to City standards.

City Responsibility for Improvements to Country Ridge Drive – Testimony suggested

that the City assume responsibility for retrofitting Country Ridge Drive to current City

standards, specifically to add curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Mike Stevens, Ladera Post-Hearing Input March 10, 2021

Page 2

The City very rarely makes this type of improvement, whether it be through dedication of

City funds or through grant funding. Throughout its history the City has received public

streets through land development that do not conform to existing standards. The vast

majority of those streets remain in the condition they were originally dedicated in, with

the City maintaining them for continued service. The City’s grant-funded street

improvement program follows the criteria issued by the grant sources, which prioritize

higher classification routes for improvements. In the past the City partnered with

property owners to use the Local Improvement District process to improve public streets

with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. This process remains available.

Applicant Comments

The applicant submitted written responses to proposed conditions of approval and

addressed some of them in their hearing testimony. The responses below are

organized by the numbers assigned to the conditions.

No. 15 – The applicant contested the improvement standards for the required

Secondary Emergency Vehicle Access.

The referenced improvement standards are published in the Public Works Departments

Development Guidelines document on the City’s web site and have been consistently

applied over time. To our knowledge they are consistent with the Fire Marshal’s

standards and should be maintained. Public Works will defer to the Fire Marshal’s

determination of the appropriate standards.

No. 18 – The applicant seeks to apply a non-standard design for the sidewalks

recommended by the Traffic Impact Analysis. The applicant also seeks to allow

reopening of the Traffic Impact Analysis in the event of another project that mitigates trip

generation by this project.

Richland Municipal Code Chapter 12.10.035 requires construction of curbs, gutters and

sidewalks meeting City standards when a street segment is improved. The intersection

will be serving significantly more vehicular traffic and doing so through more vehicle

lanes, making pedestrian use of shoulders less comfortable and safe. As the

applicant’s traffic study correctly identified there will be a need to upgrade the

pedestrian facilities. The City’s standards for pedestrian facilities, as noted in the code

reference, are concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

Public Works is aware of only one other project that could potentially divert trips from

within Country Ridge. This is a project on the east boundary of Country Ridge that

could result in a connection to Lariat Street, thus providing another outlet to trips

generated in Country Ridge. This outlet would be quite far removed from the Ladera

Mike Stevens, Ladera Post-Hearing Input March 10, 2021

Page 3

project and very unlikely to attract trips generated by the Ladera project or even any

substantial number of trips from Country Ridge as a whole. This potential project has

not generated an application to the City. If it were to occur Public Works staff believes

its impact to be similar to the Dallas Road connection evaluated as part of this project’s

Traffic Impact Analysis. For these reasons Public Works prefers to retain the condition

as written.

No. 21 – The applicant seeks to modify this proposed condition to eliminate sidewalk on

one side of Lamont Street by application of City Standard street section ST14 because

the street will include driveways on only one side.

Public Works proposes sidewalks on both sides because of direct usable lot frontages

on both sides of this street which will clearly generate pedestrian activity. Public Works

supports the use of 27-foot wide local street on Lamont Street because of site

topography constraints and the elimination of driveways on the north side of the street.

City standard street section ST14 is most often authorized on hillside development

where lot grading creates tall slopes on one side of the street that eliminates the normal

pedestrian demand on one side of the street. That condition isn’t reflected here.

No. 22 – The applicant seeks to clarify that ADA compliance is not required on

driveways on private property, but only on the public sidewalks. This will be

accomplished by inserting the word “entrance” after the word “driveway” in the proposed

condition.

Public Works accepts this suggestion as the ADA compliance requirement applies to

sidewalks and crosswalks in the public right of way.

No. 25 – The applicant seeks to clarify that on-street parking will be allowed on one side

of the 27-foot wide streets in the subdivision.

Public Works supports this request and the applicant’s proposed clarifying restatement

of the condition.

No. 30 – The applicant seeks to clarify that this condition will not result in water

pipelines being extended to the south plat boundary or to Tracts A, B, or C.

Public Works supports adding this clarity. The water pipeline shall be extended to the

west plat boundary.

No. 31 – The applicant seeks to shift the burden of water system analysis to

demonstrate adequate fire flow to the City and claims this condition is in conflict with

condition no. 29.

Mike Stevens, Ladera Post-Hearing Input March 10, 2021

Page 4

The responsibility for demonstrating adequate fire flow is a standard development

requirement and should remain as stated. The City has and will cooperate with the

developer by engaging its water system model on the developer’s behalf, subject to the

developer paying the costs of the analysis. There is no conflict with condition no. 29, as

no. 29 only proposes one method of achieving compliance with the fire flow

requirement.

No. 38 – The applicant seeks the deletion of this condition as redundant and in conflict

with other conditions.

Public Works supports the applicant’s request.

No. 41 – The applicant seeks relief from a condition that a storm retention facility “not

adversely impact neighboring properties.

Public works proposes this condition to establish a requirement that the developer work

with the City to mitigate possible ongoing objections to the appearance of the public

storm drainage facility. In some developments the location of these facilities is

prominent in the development. City standard maintenance of these facilities is to do

minimal brush trimming to eliminate nuisance or fire safety concerns. If the developer

proposes to locate the storm facilities in a prominent location the City may require

landscaping and/or ongoing maintenance by a homeowner’s association. Public Works

proposes to retain the condition.

No. 43 – The applicant seeks relief from this condition in favor of published standards

such as the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and the municipal code.

Public Works suggests replacing this condition with the requirement that the project

shall comply with Richland Municipal Code Chapter 16.06.

No. 52 – The applicant seeks the same clarity sought for condition no. 25.

Public Works supports the clarity sought as described above.

No. 63 – The applicant seeks the same clarity sought for condition no. 15.

Public Works responds consistent with no. 15 above.

DATE: March 15, 2021 TO: Gary McLean, Hearing Examiner FROM: Mike Stevens, Planning Manager RE: S2020-103 Preliminary Plat of Ladera During the March 8, 2021 public hearing for the Preliminary Plat of Ladera, Hearing Examiner McLean requested that the Planning Department investigate whether any pre-application meeting or development application records exist in relationship to the subject property for the following individuals:

1. Michael Gibbon, 3900 Strawberry Lane, Richland, WA 99352 2. Rakesh Malhan, 1121 Stallion Place, Richland, WA 99352

After carefully researching the available City records, there was found to be no records matching either individual and the subject property outside of their current comments for the proposed Preliminary Plat of Ladera. Furthermore, staff called Mr. Gibbon the day after the public hearing and he confirmed that no such records would exist for him as he had never attended a formal pre-application meeting nor did he ever submit an application to develop the subject property. Staff attempted to reach Mr. Malhan the day after the hearing as well, but he did not respond to staff’s attempt to reach him.

CITY OF RICHLAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

625 Swift Boulevard Richland, WA 99352

Telephone (509) 942-7794 Fax (509) 942-7764

1

ONeill, Shane

From: Dave Banks <dbanks57@charter.net>Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:24 PMTo: ONeill, ShaneCc: Rogalsky, Pete; Stevens, Mike; James CarmodySubject: S2020-103 & EA2020-132 Preliminary Plat of Ladera

Shane, I had trouble with the Zoom Software working on my computer during the meeting but did watch it on TV. I would like to comment on one issue that was discussed many times during the meeting concerning the large increase in traffic. Many Country Ridge residents expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians on County Ridge Drive (CRD) with the potential large increase in traffic from the proposed subdivision Ladera. The traffic engineer representing the developer and author of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not appear that concerned about the traffic impact to the majority of CRD. He was mostly focused on the traffic on the CRD/Keene interchange and installation of a sidewalks on CRD between Keene and Foxtrot. After the meeting, I reviewed the TIA and notice that almost all the focus of the TIA was on the CRD/Keene interchange. The only mention I found for the lack of sidewalks on CRD was in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Access section. There are only two paragraphs that discuss the CRD and the lack of side walks. In my opinion, as a retired PE, he down plays the lack of sidewalks as an issue. In the first paragraph, he states that earlier phases on CRD do not have sidewalks, but fails to mention that all of CRD below the KID canal does not have sidewalks which is the majority (~80%) of CRD. In the other paragraph, it is stated that the traffic volumes on CRD are relatively low but increase while approaching Keene, increasing the need for sidewalks. The traffic volumes on CRD above Foxtrot are not that low for residential road (posted 25 MPH) and will double if Ladera is built. Based on my observations, the most dangerous part of CRD is starting from the KID canal down to the Foxtrot interchange (~0.65 mile). This is the part with no sidewalks and is a long down hill section which increases the likelihood of speeding. I would estimate that the majority of the vehicles travel between 35-50 MPH in the lower half of CRD. Therefore, in the TIA, I question the recommendation of only installing sidewalks on the last ~200 ft of CRD because of more vehicles in that section. What engineering method was used to determine this conclusion? If a method was used why was it not applied to the rest of CRD. It makes more sense to me that the section of CRD were people drive the fastest would need sidewalks the most. Not at the end when vehicles have greatly reduced their speed to be preparing to stop. School buses pick up and drop off children on CRD during the busy traffic times. Why was that issue not

2

evaluated in the TIA? When the trash or recycles are picked up once or twice a week along CRD, the containers are obstructing the walkway along the side of the road which pedestrians use. See attached photo. The TIA needs to be revised to included a complete and thorough review of CRD to determine if it can safely handle the doubling of traffic on the majority of this residential road (25 MPH). In addition, increased noise to the CRD residents should be looked at since it degrades our subdivision. Current residential roads should not be collector arterial road for a new large subdivision above it. Below is another additional reason for a compete review of CRD. During the meeting one of the residents discussed a zoning change on a country ridge lot that changed it from SAG to R-12. The zoning change allowed them to convert an one acre lot to two 1/2 acre lots. Below is several paragraphs from that zone change File No. Z2018-101. Here, the existing lot is just over one-acre in size, and a large home already occupies the southern portion of the lot. The existing SAG zone for the area requires lots to be at least one-acre, although there are several lots in the subdivision that are about 1∕2 acre in size, as the result of subdivision and short-plat approvals granted in the late 1990’s, shortly after the original plat was recorded. The underlying subdivision is completely inconsistent with city codes and development standards for residential development, because it does not have curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. This special circumstance appears to have been based, in large part, on the belief that large lots, with fewer homes, and privately-managed open-spaces, generates lower demand for sidewalks and other public improvements. Several recent plat applications in other areas of the city have directed attention to the Country Ridge and Country Home Estates subdivisions, the site of the lot in question, trying to avoid including public improvements on their, usually much-more-dense, subdivision proposals. This circumstance is worth consideration here, because the pending rezone is for the express purpose of enabling the applicant to short-plat the existing lot, to create two buildable lots. If the council approves this redone, it should include a finding that such approval should should not serve as a precedent for any future rezoning or platting decision that might be inconsistent with long-standing city development standards that require full, curb gutter, and sidewalks as part of any residential development. The only basis to approve this application is if the Council finds that one additional lot will not adversely contribute to traffic or pedestrian demand in the existing neighborhood, among other things; and, an appropriate Property Use and Development Agreement, in a form as approved by the City Attorney, should be required to ensure that the rezone cannot be used as a basis to divide the property into more than 2 lots total. How could the City of Richland be concerned about several more lots in Country Ridge Subdivision in 2018 and 3 years later they are ready to approve 106 R-10/12 lots. Regards, David E. Banks 1110 Country Ridge Drive

3

4

SSR INVESTMENTS, LLC

Richard Henderson, Sidney Litchfield, Stephen Tatro 15 March 2021 Mr. Gary McLean Hearing Examiner Subject: Public Comments on Ladera Development SSR Investments is comprised of the 3 individuals listed above. We are the landowners for the 60 acres under consideration for purchase by Pahlisch Homes for the Ladera Development. In some regards we could be considered part of the Applicant Team but in other regards we have slightly different interests. We listened with interest at the various comments provided by the various parties and would like to add our opinion on the issues under consideration. It seems that all the comments boil down to 5 major issues. We would like to present our opinion on each of those. To start, it should be no surprise that development is to occur on the property west of Strawberry Lane. A sewer line and access road were installed many years ago in anticipation of future development between Strawberry Lane and Dallas Road. Issue 1 – Concern about excessive traffic on Country Ridge Road The development along and adjacent to Country Ridge Road has been a phased approach resulting in a somewhat sprawling layout of houses funneling all traffic to a single choke point at Keene Road. Concern about adverse traffic and possible remedy should have been addressed long before now. The concerns about traffic expressed during the meeting seem to be highly biased with the position that any traffic increase poses a danger to children and implies that only no development would be acceptable. Instead, well-considered data should be the gage for evaluating traffic effects. Such consideration has been done by PBS Engineering in collaboration with city traffic engineers. Yes, traffic volume will increase with this proposal, but the conclusions by experts are that it will not do so beyond a safe level. Any argument to the contrary should be addressed using equally unbiased data. The City is requiring a signaled intersection modification for ingress and egress to and from the development at Keene Road. This somewhat heavy-handed solution addresses the impact of development traffic on Keene Road. It also addresses the risk to current development traffic posed by the ever-increasing traffic on Keene Road. We think the project is bearing a greater burned of this project cost than it

2

should. Also consider that SSR had no role in the traffic study and resulting requirements. Issue 2 – Concern about High Density Housing The Ladera Development proposed a housing density higher than that in the various developments along Country Ridge Road. The difference in housing density is not the real issue. The issue should be if the housing density is in conflict with county/city zoning requirements and other codes and statues dictating lot sizes and housing size and type. We can only assume the fact the City is in agreement with the geometry of the development and that the geometry meets the appropriate requirements. The fact that said geometry is objectionable to local residents is not really a factor provided that all legal and code requirements are met. Interestingly, a development exists southwest and adjacent to the Country Ridge Development that is higher density housing. This development was likely also objectionable to residents but since traffic did not travel through the development, residents may have had little say in that development. Ultimately this issue boils down to traffic impacts through the affected development and not housing density. Issue 3 – Drainage and other Utilities Several comments were raised regarding inadequate stormwater drainage and one comment on possible defective sewage system. We rely on the City to approve sewage systems that work and interface correctly. Since this was designed and implemented years ago, it seems unlikely the proposed system will overwhelm the system. Again, the City review of this issue should be a clear indicator on what is adequate the what the effects of this development will be on the system. Stormwater drainage and surface runoff is unlikely to have any effect on Strawberry Lane and existing development to the east. This appears to be a non-issue. Issue 4 – Environmental Habitat The project effects on the local environment were considered and documented. It was reviewed by the local fish and wildlife representative. In fact, all his recommendations were incorporated into the project. This appears to be a non-issue at this point. Issue 5 – Emergency Access It is always curious when safety requirements are used to block development. There is no designated Secondary Emergency Vehicle Access (SEVA) to the Country Ridge complex. All emergency vehicle access is via Keene Road only. Now with the

3

addition of 100 homes a SEVA is now required. An access road exists to Dallas road that appears to be intended to serve this purpose. However, one property owner along that route is reluctant to grant the necessary easement. This is presumably to force any future development to be at his desired housing density. Thank you for considering these comments. SSR Investments, LLC

1

ONeill, Shane

From: Brian Cable <briancable@hotmail.com>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 4:48 PMTo: ONeill, ShaneCc: James Carmody; chadhatfield@gmail.comSubject: Declarations for Preliminary Plat of Ladera Hearing RecordAttachments: Communication Regarding Potential Perjury by City.pdf; City of Richland

Declaration03152021161438.pdf; Declaration Chad Hatfield.pdf

Shane,  Due to some serious concerns I have regarding what I believe were material misstatements made under oath during the public hearing, I am submitting the attached Declarations and a chain of emails that I ask be entered into the public record for this matter.    I understand the Hearing Examiner only wanted members of the public to submit comments that were unable to attend the public hearing, but in light of the fact that I believe Mr. Stevens made false and/or misleading statements on the record and questioned my integrity in the process, I am compelled to submit the attached information to make sure the record reflects that my statements regarding my conversation with him were accurate.    Thank you,  Brian Cable 

Declaration

STATE OF WASHINGTONCOUNTY OFBENTON

The undersigned, Brian Cable, hereby declare under-penatty of perjury according to tho laws of

the Statc of Washington that the following is true and correct:

1. I am over the age of 18 and am a resident of the State of \ilashin$on' I have personal

t"""l.Og. "f

,he iacts herein, and, if called as a witness' could testify completely thereto'

2. I suffer no legal disabilities and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below '

3. I had a telephone conversation with Mikc Stevcns of the City of Richland on February ll'2021 and took conarnpo.o** notes of that conversation' a copy of which is attached to this

Declaration as Exhibit A.

3. During my conversation on February I 1, Mike Stevens told me that the City of Richland had an

informal agreement with the Country Ridge HOA's to not allow development of the ladera parcels

without itJown separat€ access road to Dallas Road'

Executed this l5th day of March,202l

Brian Cable

|-2-t- lc ,-)1 rt.o< d'kq-.r

- 1a- oQ 9e' fL* t--,

o. tlo /+,-ru-

I uil'Ic?Cfq- .+-

2.1,.r- *-*, L P., <

( ,-. +. c- I . "<..r - E^n ,t-. o4'.1 r*-,(- /!\,4,- ,- D.t-r ^-t- .YsaJ 2.a

!L NJ-L

* p",lb - ,- i.c

Y - Sl oa,-l- taz

-1.--/-c r<- ,, <tJ\\yrlr,r.

7J.c

.(oq O - .'ct.-,t

STATE OF WASHINGTONCOUNTY OF BENTON

The undersigned, Kim Alison Cable, hereby declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws

of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct:

1. I am over the age of 18 and am a resident of the State of Washington' I have personal

fnorut.Og. of the iacs herein, and, if called as a witness, could testify completely thereto'

2. I suffer no legal disabilities and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below '

3. On February ll,?-V2l,my husband, Brian Cable, camo to me and said he had just spoken to

Mike Steuens at the City of Richland. He said Mr' Stevens acknowledged that the city had an

informal agreement with the Country Ridge HOA's that thcy would not allow development of the

Ladera parcels without its own access road to Dallas Road'

Executed this 15th day of March' 2021

Declaration

mAl ison Ca le

From:Brian Cable <briancable@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 8:46 PM To:Kintzley, Heather <hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Cc:James Carmody <Carmody@mftlaw.com>; Stevens, Mike <mstevens@ci.richland.wa.us>; Jensen, Kerwin <kjensen@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Subject:Re: Public Hearing for Ladera Heather, Just a final point of clarification. I never said there was a written agreement, in fact, my written comment provides exactly what Mr. Stevens said, that there was an informal agreement (which I assume was communicated verbally or via email) to not allow development of the land without its own separate access. Agreements do not have to be in writing and I don't think anyone has said a written agreement existed here. I suppose we may need to request documents to see if there is any official city record to acknowledge this informal agreement. Mr. Stevens should choose his words much more carefully in the future, although I do believe he was honest in my conversation with him. This feels as though we have been misled or the city is simply shifting its position to avoid potential liability. I have a hard time understanding why Mr. Stevens would offer the words he offered to me if in fact he meant to convey the sentiment you describe in your email since they are totally different. This is the head of your planning department, so I would think he understands the importance of how he characterizes things like this. No need to go back and forth on this further, I will proceed with the understanding that you will not supplement or clarify the record on this point. Thanks again for all your time and sorry for the extra work. Brian

From:Kintzley, Heather <hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 7:16 PM To:Brian Cable <briancable@hotmail.com> Cc:James Carmody <Carmody@mftlaw.com>; Stevens, Mike <mstevens@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>; Jensen, Kerwin <kjensen@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Subject:RE: Public Hearing for LaderaBrian, I appreciate your position below. It is not my intent to put words in Mr. Stevens’ mouth. However, in my conversation with him on the same topic, I did not come away with the same

understanding you apparently did that there was such an agreement. In fact, there is no “agreement” as that term is used to describe a written contract, and I think it’s clear that we can all agree to that. As stated in my previous email, it may very well be true that residents of Country Ridge and/or city staff believed future development of the surrounding property was unlikely based on existing development challenges referenced by Public Works Director Rogalsky during his testimony. My understanding is that this was what Mr. Stevens understood the “agreement” to be … all parties acknowledging that future development was highly unlikely. However, this does not translate into a legally recognized agreement that development would never occur. Development regulations change all the time, making things possible or prohibited based on the nature of the change. The City cannot contract around such things, and staff knows that. The City does not intend to supplement the record with a statement that there is an agreement with the Country Ridge HOA not to allow development of the surrounding property because the City’s position is that there is no such agreement. It sounds like the HOA built a sufficient record at the HE hearing to preserve the issue for appeal, although I’m hopeful we don’t find ourselves there. Hearing Examiner McLean is also at liberty to ask any supplement questions he deems appropriate, and was clear during the hearing that he is not bound by anything that maybe was said 10 years ago. Further, the City is checking records to verify whether any applications or preapplication meetings occurred which would definitively articulate an official position of the City on the matter. I do not expect that any such records exist, but the City is committed to doing its due diligence to answer that question for the hearing examiner. Respectfully,

Heather Kintzley City Attorney 625 Swift Blvd., MS-07 | Richland, WA 99352 (509) 942-7385

From:Brian Cable <briancable@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 5:35 PM To:Kintzley, Heather <hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Cc:James Carmody <Carmody@mftlaw.com>; Stevens, Mike <mstevens@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>; Jensen, Kerwin <kjensen@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Subject:Re: Public Hearing for Ladera Heather, Thankyoufortheresponse.Idisagreewithyouranalysis,butdoagreeaprosecutorwouldprobablynotwanttopursuesomethinglikethis.ThatdoesnotchangethefactthatwehavetodebatethephrasingandwordstodetermineifMr.Stevenscommittedperjury.

Mr.StevenstoldmethecityhadanagreementwiththeCountryRidgeHOA'stonotallowdevelopmentoftheLaderaparcelsunlessithaditsownaccessroadtoDallasroad.Thatcertainlysoundedlikehehadfirst-handknowledgethatpeoplehadspokentopeopleinthecityaboutthisagreement.Thisdoesnotrequirethathebetheonethatwasapartytotheconversation,thequestionwaswhetherheknewthatthoseconversationshadhappened,andbasedonmyconversationwithMr.Stevens,heclearlydidandtoldmeso.Hedidnotsay,hey,therewasthisrumorthattheremayhavebeenanagreementwiththecity....Hedefinitivelystatedthecitydidhaveanagreementandtheonlywayhewouldknowthatisbecausesomeonetoldhimthoseconversationsorcommunicationsoccurred. Asyouknow,lawyerscanargueoverjustaboutanything.Iamnotlookingtodothat.Iamjusthopingourcityofficialswillbeashonestandtransparentaspossible.Evenifyoubelieveyoucanarguethathedidnotcommitperjury,orthataprosecutorwouldnotpursuesuchanallegation,IwouldexpectthecitytowanttomakesureitdidnotmisleadtheHearingExaminerormembersofthepublic(especiallysincealotofpeoplehavecontactedmeraisingthesameconcern). IamstrugglingtounderstandwhyMr.Stevenswouldnotprovideaclarificationfortherecord.Thisprocesshasnotprovidedmembersofthepublicwithalotofconfidenceinitscityandtherefusaltoclarifyatbestmisleadingstatementsjustmakesthisworse.IaskthatyoureconsiderandhaveMr.StevensprovideawrittenstatementthathewasawarethatthecitydidhaveaninformalagreementwithourHOAtonotallowdevelopmentwithoutitsownaccessroad.Thisdoesn'thavetobedonetocorrectamisstatement,butcanbeprovidedintheinterestofcompletetransparencyanddisclosure. Ifthisisyourfinalposition,Iwillhavetotakesomeadditionalactiononthis,soletmeknow. Asalways,Iappreciateyourtime. Brian

From:Kintzley,Heather<hkintzley@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>Sent:Friday,March12,202111:19PMTo:briancable@hotmail.com<briancable@hotmail.com>Cc:Stevens,Mike<mstevens@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>;Carmody@mftlaw.com<Carmody@mftlaw.com>;Jensen,Kerwin<kjensen@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US>Subject:RE:PublicHearingforLadera Brian – I am addressing your concerns on behalf of Planning Manager Mike Stevens. For your benefit, I have taken the liberty of transcribing the relevant portions of testimony from the Hearing Examiner meeting on March 8, 2021. From my review of the testimony, I disagree with

you that there is any cause to believe that Mr. Stevens committed perjury. I have instructed Mr. Stevens that there is no basis to take any further action. You claim below that you believe Mr. Stevens “committed perjury under oath by saying [he] never told [you] that the city had an agreement with our HOA to not allow development of the Ladera parcels without its own access road to Dallas.” Upon review of the testimony, this was not a statement made by Mr. Stevens. Instead, Mr. Stevens was asked “how do you respond to the line of questions you just heard me throw out there?” As a former litigator, I find this question to be unartfully phrased, and certainly one that would never support prosecution for perjury, but I understand it in the context of a public hearing. The actual underlying question was whether Mr. Rogalsky (and impliedly, Mr. Stevens) had any “first-hand knowledgethat people spoke to people about such agreements?” This question, taken in context, is focused on the purported “making of the deal” approximately 10 years prior, to which each answered no. Secondarily, the Hearing Examiner inquired whether either of them had ever sat down with a developer to discuss developing the 20 acres with a connection to Dallas Road and never going through the Country Ridge neighborhood. Mr. Rogalsky and Mr. Stevens each responded in the negative. Finally, both were asked whether “anyone on your staffhad done such a thing” (again, focused on the purported “making of the deal” approximately 10 years prior), to which they both replied no. There is no dishonesty in these answers. Mr. Stevens has no first-hand knowledge of any such purported agreement, nor is he personally aware that anyone on his staff ever made statements to Country Ridge residents or possible developers regarding development of the surrounding property. Mr. Stevens has only been with the City for about 2.5 years, and is not responsible for all urban legend that circulates throughout the city. Whether or not residents of Country Ridge or city staff believed future development of the surrounding property was unlikely based on existing development challenges, the fact remains that there is no written agreement addressing this issue, and no actionable implied contract. Mr. Stevens answered the questions asked, which is what was required of him under oath. Respectfully,

Heather Kintzley City Attorney 625 Swift Blvd., MS-07 | Richland, WA 99352 (509) 942-7385

From:Brian Cable <briancable@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:26 AM To:Stevens, Mike <mstevens@CI.RICHLAND.WA.US> Cc:James Carmody <Carmody@mftlaw.com> Subject:Public Hearing for Ladera

Mike, Iamwritingyoutoexpresssignificantconcernoversomethingyousaidunderoathattheendofthepublicmeetingandamrequestingyoutakeimmediateactiontocorrecttherecord. Attheendofthemeeting,theHearingExaminerstatedthatyournamehadbeenusedinthepubliccommentsandhewantedtogiveyouanopportunitytorespond.Hestatedthatinthepubliccomments,peoplesaidthatthecityhadanagreementwiththeCountryRidgeHOA'stonotallowdevelopmentoftheLaderaparcelswithoutprovidingitsownaccessroadtoDallas.Healsoraisedthepublicconcernthattheyhadinquiredwiththecityastothedevelopmentofthoseparcelsandweretoldtheycouldnotbedividedand/oranydevelopmentwouldhavetoincludearoadtoDallas.HeaskedbothyouandPeteifyouwereawareofeitherofthoseitems. YoustatedthatyouconcurredwithPeteRogalsky,whosaidhewasnotawareofanything,whichincludedthecityhavingsomesortofagreementwithourHOA'sasreferencedaboveandinmypubliccommentatthehearingandpreviouslysubmittedwrittencomment.AsIamsureyouremember,IcalledyouonFebruary11andIdetailedthatconversationinmywrittencommentandsummarizeditinmypubliccommentatthehearing.ItookcontemporaneousnotesaswespokeandalsoconveyedthedetailsofourconversationtobothmywifeandChadHatfieldimmediatelyafterIhungupwithyou.Iamcertainastowhatyousaidandbelievemywrittenandpubliccommentsatthehearingareaccurate. IbelieveyoucommittedperjuryunderoathbysayingyounevertoldmethatthecityhadanagreementwithourHOAtonotallowdevelopmentoftheLaderaparcelswithoutitsownaccessroadtoDallas.Iwasshockedanddisappointedthatyouwoulddothisandputyourselfatpersonalandprofessionalriskinadditiontoputtingmyintegrityinquestion.Iamhopingyouwerejusttiredandconfusedanddidnotrealizewhatyouweresaying.IwatchedthehearingtwoadditionaltimesanditiscleartomethatyoudidessentiallysaywedidnothavetheconversationIsaidwehad. Asyouknow,Iamanattorneyandamboundbyethicaldutiesinadditiontobeingsworninduringtestimony.AstheHearingExaminerstated,attorneyscanlosetheirlawlicenseovertheirfailuretobehonestinfrontofthetribunal.IamnotwillingtoletthisissuegoandputmylawlicenseatriskbyallowingyoutostatethatIperjuredmyselfunderoath,sincetheoppositeistrue. IdirectyoutoRCW9A.72,whichoutlinesthestatelawonPerjuryandInterferencewithOfficialProceedings.Dependingonthenatureofthemisstatement,thiscanbeaclassBfelonytoagrossmisdemeanor.Iamnotlookingtocauseyoupersonalorprofessionalharmandamraisingthisnowtogiveyouanopportunitytoretractandcorrecttherecord.UnderRCW9A.72.060,ifyouretractyourstatementinthecourseofthesameproceedingitwasmade,beforethemisstatementsubstantiallyaffectstheproceeding,youcancleanseyourselfofthisviolationoflaw.SincetherecordwaskeptopenuntilMondayat5pm,youhavetimetosubmitawrittenstatementcorrectingthismisrepresentation.

PleaseletmeknowhowyouaregoingtoproceedsoIknowifIneedtotakefurtheractiononthisissue.Ifyouareinagreementthatyouwillissueawrittenstatementthatretractsandcorrectsyourmisstatementandhavethatenteredintotheofficialrecord,IwouldalsolikeacopyofthatlettersoIcandistributeittothemembersofthepublicthatIknowwereatthathearing. Iappreciateyourpromptattentiontothisveryseriousmatter. Bestregards, BrianCable

Disclaimer: Emails and attachments sent to or from the City of Richland are public records subject to release under the Washington Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Sender and Recipient have no expectation of privacy in emails transmitted to or from the City of Richland.

This email and its attachments are public documents that may contain confidential attorney-client privileged and/or work product information. If you received this communication in error, please notify me by responding to this email, and immediately delete and/or destroy all electronic, hard copy and any other forms of the record. Non-privileged emails and attachments are subject to release under the Washington Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW.