Document Redmond_doc_590a00c380

CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF REDMOND IN RE: APPEAL OF MONICA CATUNDA, ET AL. OF THE MARCH 2, 2018 CLEAR AND GRADE PERMIT CGP-2018-01368 NO. LAND-2018-00317 CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION The City of Redmond’s motion to dismiss should be denied. The City contends that Ms. Catunda has missed the deadline for appealing the March 2, 2018 clear and grade permit. But Ms. Catunda is not appealing the City’s decision to issue the March 2 clear and grade permit. On the contrary, Ms. Catunda agrees that obtaining the clear and grade permit was a required step in the City’s process for approving the removal of the Idylwood Park cottonwoods. However, the clear and grade permit, while necessary, was not sufficient. Under the Redmond Municipal Code (RMC) and Redmond Zoning Code (RZC), the City was also required to obtain a tree removal permit and a shoreline conditional use permit. The City’s decision to cut the trees without these required permits is the actual subject of Ms. Catunda’s appeal. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 Ms. Catunda has obtained documents through the Public Records Act indicating the City knew, at a minimum, that a tree removal permit was required. The City actually applied for a tree removal permit, but a tree removal permit was never issued. The City began cutting cottonwoods on March 19 without a tree removal permit. That date — not the date of the clear and grade permit — marked the date of the City’s final permit decision. Ms. Catunda’s March 27 appeal is therefore timely. II. FACTS The City’s timeline of events in its motion to dismiss omits several key events that show that a tree removal permit — not just a clear and grade permit — was necessary to remove the cottonwoods. In an email dated September 7, 2017, Steven Fisher, a manager at the Department of Planning and Community, emailed Karen Haluza, director of the department, regarding the Idylwood Park trees. The title of the email was “Tree Removal Permits – Exceptions.” In his email, Mr. Fisher, cited RZC 21.72.090 (the tree protection code) and talked about the procedures for obtaining one of the exceptions to the usual tree removal permit requirement. Decl. of Alex Sidles, ¶ 10, Ex. A. An email chain from December 21, 2017 through January 24, 2018 between assistant city planner Sabrina Gassaway and parks employee Chris Tolonen (a certified arborist) discussed the Idylwood Park trees. Mr. Tolonen asked Ms. Gassaway what format he should submit a “Tree Removal Permit Application” for the trees; Ms. Gassaway replied a month later asking if Mr. Tolonen had completed a “tree removal application” for the cottonwoods; Mr. Tolonen replied that he had not and asked if he needed to write out each tree to be removed on the “Application for Removal Permit.” Sidles Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. B. On January 18, 2018, Mr. Tolonen sent an email to Sandi Hain of Bartlett Tree Experts, discussing the removal of the cottonwoods. In the January 18 email, Mr. Tolonen told Ms. Hain that ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 3 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 “Tree removal permits will be handled by myself [meaning by Mr. Tolonen].” Sidles Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. C. An email chain from February 6 to 7, 2018 between park operations manager David Tuchek, Ms. Gassaway, and Mr. Tolonen further discussed the tree removal permit. The subject line of this chain was “Idylwood Park Tree Removals – Tree Removal Permit.” Mr. Tuchek asked whether Ms. Gassaway had generated a tree removal permit; Ms. Gassaway replied that she had not yet received the permit application from Mr. Tolonen; Mr. Tuchek instructed Mr. Tolonen to “work with Sabrina to secure a tree removal permit for this work;” Mr. Tolonen replied that he had sent out a permit application by inter-office mail but would submit a new permit application that afternoon. Sidles Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. D. On February 8, 2018, Mr. Tolonen submitted an application for a tree removal permit. Sidles Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. E, E-1. At no time during these exchanges was there any discussion of the need for a clear and grade permit, or any indication that a clear and grade permit could substitute for a tree removal permit. The permit application Mr. Tolonen submitted on February 8 was a tree removal permit application, not a clear and grade permit application. The first mention of a clear and grade permit appears in an email chain from February 23 to 26, 2018, between Mr. Tuchek and Jeff Dendy, an engineer in the City’s public works department. In this email chain, Mr. Dendy requested a site plan showing which trees would be cut down and an arborist report justifying the cutting decision; Mr. Tuchek promised to supply the information. Sidles Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. F. This email appears to be a reference to a clear and grade permit application dated February 21, 2018. Sidles Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. G. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 The clear and grade permit was issued March 2, 2018. Mot. at 3. It is unknown what ever became of Mr. Tolonen’s February 8 tree removal permit application. It appears never to have been granted or denied. Thus, rather than obtain a tree removal permit from the Department of Planning and Community issued by Ms. Gassaway, the City only ever obtained a clear and grade permit from the Department of Public Works issued by Mr. Dendy. III. ARGUMENT A. Ms. Catunda Needs Additional Discovery to Oppose the City’s Motion. The hearing examiner’s prehearing order of April 24, 2018 says, “It is understood that in response to the City's motion, the Appellants may argue that they need completed public records disclosure to effectively respond. Should such an argument prevail, the schedule agreed to herein would be adjusted.” Ms. Catunda requires the completed public records to respond and asks the hearing examiner to adjust the schedule for that reason. Ms. Catunda received her first batch of records, consisting of 126 files, on May 11. Sidles Decl., ¶ 4. Nine hundred more files were provided late in the day on May 17, after the City had already filed its motion to dismiss. Sidles Decl., ¶ 5. However, there is not enough time to review 900 files before the May 21 deadline for this opposition. Sidles Decl., ¶ 8. In addition, more documents have yet to be produced; the next batch will not come until May 22. Sidles Decl., ¶ 7. The final batch is not expected until mid-June at the earliest. Sidles Decl., ¶ 3. As a result of this slow process, Ms. Catunda and her attorney have only been able to review a small fraction of the documents relevant to this appeal. However, what little review Ms. Catunda has been able to conduct casts doubt on the factual claims the City makes in its motion to dismiss. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 5 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 In its motion to dismiss, the City relies heavily on Mr. Tuchek’s description of the City’s decision-making process, especially regarding the all-important questions of what permits were required and when the permits were applied for and granted. Mot. at 2. However, as demonstrated in our recital of the facts, the few public records Ms. Catunda has so far received paint a very different picture than Mr. Tuchek’s declaration. In his declaration, Mr. Tuchek did not say a word about the stalled tree removal permit application, even though he had been personally involved with that permit application since at least February and had, in fact, been prodding Mr. Tolonen to hurry up with the processing of the tree removal permit. Mr. Tuchek’s declaration did not identify the date when he decided the trees could be cut without the tree removal permit he had previously believed necessary, yet that decision is precisely the one Ms. Catunda is appealing. This is a self-serving omission. Ms. Catunda’s only chance to overcome such omissions is to examine the public records in their entirety. In a superior court case, Ms. Catunda would have the opportunity to submit interrogatories, requests for production, to staffers like Mr. Tuchek, asking him what other permit applications and when the decision was made that the tree removal permit application would be denied. Here, however, Ms. Catunda must depend on the City’s public disclosure process to learn the facts regarding the City’s permitting decisions. Ms. Catunda must be given time to review all the public records before she can adequately respond to the City’s motion to dismiss. It is unfair to allow the City to rely on a self- serving omission by its staff (who already possess all the facts) while Ms. Catunda must grope in the darkness to determine what decisions the staff made and when. The City’s motion to dismiss relies on an incomplete, misleading statement of the facts. This illustrates is the importance for Ms. Catunda to be able to contest the City’s account of the permitting ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 6 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 process on an equal footing. The hearing examiner should delay ruling on the motion to dismiss until the public record disclosures are complete and Ms. Catunda has had an opportunity to learn the same facts the City has had all along. B. A Tree Removal Permit Was Required, Not Just a Clear and Grade Permit. The City’s motion to dismiss erroneously treats a tree removal permit as replaceable by a clear and grade permit when eleven or more trees are proposed to be cut. Mot. at 4. The plain language of RZC 21.72, the tree protection code, indicates this is incorrect. The tree protection code’s section on permits begins with an unequivocal requirement that cutting an exceptional tree or stand of trees requires a tree removal permit: Except as provided in RCZ 21.72.030, Exemptions, any person who desires to cut down or remove any significant tree or any stand of trees, or who desires to conduct grading activities on a site that will result in the removal of trees, must first obtain a permit to do so from the Administrator as provided in this section. RZC 21.72.020.A (emphasis supplied). Other than the exemptions in RZC 21.72.030 (which the City has not sought to invoke in this case), there are no other exceptions to the requirement that any person must obtain a tree removal permit prior to cutting any significant tree or trees. RZC 21.72.020.A does not set a cap on the maximum number of trees that trigger the requirement — it says any trees trigger the requirement. The tree protection code goes on to the provide the following: The owners of undeveloped lots for which no land use application is pending must obtain a permit prior to removing any significant tree(s) or stands of trees on the lot. Removal of 11 or more significant trees requires clearing and grading approval, in accordance with RMC Chapter 15.24, Clearing, Grading and Stormwater Management. RZC 21.72.020.C. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 7 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 Nowhere in RZC 21.72.020.C does it say that a clear and grade permit takes the place of the required tree removal permit. Instead, it says that all landowners must obtain tree removal permits to remove any significant trees or stand of trees, and those landowners who own undeveloped lots and are cutting eleven or more significant trees must also obtain a clear and grade permit. It makes sense that the code would impose two different permit requirements that must both be met, because tree removal permits are very different from clear and grade permits. Tree removal permits may only be granted if the applicant follows the strict “tree protection standards” of RZC 21.72.060 and the “tree replacement” rules of RZC 21.72.080. RZC 21.72.050.A. These standards and rules, in turn, require protection for landmark trees; minimum canopy retention requirements; preservation of trees in critical areas and native growth protection areas buffers; and detailed vegetation replacement and mitigation plans. RZC 21.72.060, 070. The purpose of all this, as the tree protection code states, is to “avoid the removal of stands of trees and significant trees in order to maintain the quality of Redmond’s urban environment” and “preserve the aesthetic, ecological, and economic benefits of forests and tree-covered areas.” RZC 21.72.010. By contrast, a clear and grade permit imposes none of these protections for trees. Instead, the focus of the stormwater code (the source of the clear and grade permit requirement) is to “safeguard life, property, public health, and general welfare; minimize water quality degradation; prevent excessive sedimentation of or erosion by surface waters; and prevent the creation of public nuisances such as fouling of surface or groundwater.” RMC 15.24.010. The stormwater code does list “preserving trees” as one of its additional goals, but it lacks the comprehensive, tree-by-tree protection requirements of the tree protection code. The focus of the stormwater code is on trees as guardians of water quality, whereas the focus of the tree protection code is on trees as valuable in their own right. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 8 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 This reading of the law is consistent with the City’s reading evinced by the numerous emails cited in our recital of facts: Half a dozen City staffers were all convinced that a tree removal permit was necessary, with some staffers even citing to the tree protection code. Now, however, the City advances a new reading of the tree protection code, in which a tree removal permit is only required until more than eleven significant trees are being removed, in which case no tree removal permit is required. This new reading would mean the more significant trees get cut, the less tree protection is required. The City’s new reading of the tree protection code is not entitled to deference, because it is not a matter of established City policy. On the contrary, the record establishes that all of the City’s staffers believed a tree removal permit was necessary. See Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 814-815, 828 P.2d 549 (1992) (no deference afforded to an agency interpretation advanced for the first time during litigation).1 The City’s new reading makes a mockery of the tree protection code and should be rejected, because it considers the stormwater code to be a replacement for the tree protection code, when it fact, the stormwater code is actually a complement to the tree protection code. See Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n., 169 Wn.2d 516, 243 P.3d 1283 (“Plain meaning is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole”) (emphasis added). The tree protection code and the stormwater code are not interchangeable, as the City proposes. They impose different requirements, are issued by different departments, and serve different policy purposes. The correct reading of the law is that all significant trees require a tree removal permit (to minimize impact to Redmond’s tree canopy and aesthetics), and in addition, when eleven or more 1 If the City argues that it does have an established policy of requiring only clear and grade permits, Ms. Catunda would need additional time to obtain public records to evaluate this claim. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 significant trees are being removed, a clear and grade permit is also required (to minimize impact to Redmond’s water quality). C. The Clear and Grade Permit Decision Did Not Start the Appeal Clock on the Tree Removal Permit Decision. Because the tree removal permit was a separate requirement from the clear and grade permit, the decision to issue the clear and grade permit did not start the appeal clock on the still-pending decision regarding the tree removal permit. In Samuel’s Furniture, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002), the Supreme Court held that when the issuance of one permit is a pre-condition for the issuance of a second permit, the decision to issue the second permit but not issue the first permit starts the appeal clock on both the issued permit and the non-issued permit. Because the two permits in Samuel’s Furniture were required to be issued sequentially, the decision to issue only the second permit constituted a de facto decision not to issue the first permit. Here, by contrast, the two permits are not sequentially linked. Although a clear and grade permit and a tree removal permit are both required, there is nothing in the RZC or RMC requiring one to be issued before the other. The City could have issued the tree removal permit first and then issued the clear and grade permit—and, in fact, the City submitted its tree removal permit application weeks before it submitted its clear and grade permit application. But the City was also free to issue the clear and grade permit first and then issue the tree removal permit. Neither permit decision by itself constituted a de facto decision regarding the other permit. As will be discussed below, the appeal clock on the clear and grade permit started March 2, the date the permit decision was published. But the tree removal permit decision was never published. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 The decision not to issue the tree removal permit only became final on March 19, when the trees began to be cut. D. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Was Also Required. A shoreline permit is required for “development” along the lake. RZC 21.68.0200.C.2. As the City admits, part of the definition of development under the Shoreline Management Act is “any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters…at any state of water level.” Mot. at 6; RCW 90.58.030(3). In an email dated March 8, 2018, City recreation program manager Jeff Hagen emailed Mr. Tuchek and Ms. Kluver saying that the City of Redmond’s Sammamish rowing program classes might have to be delayed or canceled due to the tree removal project. Sidles Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. H. In a City of Redmond video depicting a previous cottonwood tree felling in Idylwood Park, dated August 11, 2017, a cottonwood close to shore is shown dramatically crashing into Lake Sammamish after being cut with a chainsaw. Sidles Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. I. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 11 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 The email regarding the delayed or canceled rowing classes and the video showing the lakeside cottonwood toppling into the water indicate that the City’s tree removal program is indeed a “project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters.” It therefore constitutes development under the City’s own definition of the term. Under RZC 21.68.200.C.2, development within the shoreline jurisdiction (which the City does not dispute includes the site of these cottonwoods) requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance Permit unless specifically exempted from obtaining such a permit. No such permit has been issued, nor has any letter of exemption been issued. The cutting of the cottonwoods constitutes unpermitted, unlawful shoreline development. E. Ms. Catunda’s Appeal Is Timely, Because the Required Permit Decisions Were Still Pending When the Trees Began to Be Cut. Although the Redmond Code does not define a “land use decision,” the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) does. Under LUPA, a land use decision is “a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on: An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law…” RCW 36.70C.020(2)(a) (emphasis added). The date of a land use decision is “three days after a written decision is mailed by the local jurisdiction, or, if not mailed, the date of which the location jurisdiction provides notice that a written decision is publicly available.” RCW 36.70C.040(4). As demonstrated in our recital of facts above, there is still a pending permit application for a tree removal permit. The City has never issued a written decision regarding that application, nor published any written notice regarding that application. Properly speaking, under LUPA, no land use ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 12 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 decision about the tree removal permit application has been made. Likewise, there has never been a shoreline permit decision. However, beginning on March 19, the cottonwoods that were the subject of the pending tree removal permit application began to be cut. On that date, the City’s “decision” regarding the tree removal permit application — though still not a written decision — became final as a matter of practical effect. The same is true of the shoreline permit decision — no written decision or letter of exemption was issued, so the decision only became final on March 19 with the first cutting of the trees. Prior to that date, the City could still have decided to issue the required permits and comply with the relevant tree protection and shoreline critical areas regulations. After that date, the City committed irrevocably to proceed without the permits in violation of the law. The decision to issue or deny a tree removal permit is a type I decision. RZC 21.76.050.C. The decision to issue or deny a shoreline substantial development permit is a type II decision. Id. The decision to issue or deny a shoreline conditional use permit is a type III decision. Id. All of these decisions were made, for all practical purposes, on March 19. Type I and II decisions have a 14-day appeal deadline. RZC 21.76.060.I.2.c. Type III decisions must be made in the first instance by the hearing examiner. RZC 21.68.200.c.6.c. The appeal deadline for the tree removal permit and shoreline permit decisions was, therefore, April 2. Because there is still a pending tree removal permit application and a failure to submit a shoreline permit application, the City’s final decision on permitting did not occur on March 2, the date of the clear and grade permit; nor on March 8, the date of the SEPA exemption finding. Instead, the City’s final decision on permitting occurred on March 19, when it actually began cutting the trees. ---PAGE BREAK--- CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 13 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 Ms. Catunda could not have appealed the tree removal permit and shoreline permit earlier than she did, because the City itself had not made a decision about the permits until March 19. Ms. Catunda’s March 27 appeal is well within the 14-day appeal window for type I and II decisions, and the hearing examiner has the authority to make type III decisions in the first instance without an appeal deadline. Therefore, this appeal is timely. IV. CONCLUSION This is not an appeal of a clear and grade permit decision. It is an appeal of a tree removal permit decision and a shoreline permit decision. The tree removal and shoreline permits were required in addition to the clear and grade permit. Because no written decision was made regarding the required permits, the City’s decisions on the permits only became final when the trees began to be cut. Ms. Catunda’s appeal was filed within the 14-day appeal deadline for the tree removal and shoreline permit decisions. The City’s motion to dismiss should, therefore, be denied. Dated this 21st day of May, 2018. Respectfully submitted, BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP By: Alex Sidles, WSBA No. 52832 Attorney for Monica Catunda ---PAGE BREAK--- DECLARATION OF ALEX SIDLES - 1 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF REDMOND In the Matter of the Appeal of Monica Catunda, et al. Of the March 2, 2018 Clear and Grade Permit CGD-2018-01368 Allowing the Removal of 30 Cottonwood Trees from Idylwood Beach Park in Redmond NO. LAND-2018-00317 Idylwood Beach Park Tree Removal Appeal DECLARATION OF ALEX SIDLES IN SUPPORT OF CATUNDA’S OPPOSITION TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL I, ALEX SIDLES, declare as follows: 1. I am the attorney for Monica Catunda, et al., in this appeal. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge. 2. On April 3, 2018, I submitted a public records request to the City of Redmond for documents relating to the cutting of cottonwoods at Idylwood Park. My purpose in submitting this request was to obtain “discovery” for Ms. Catunda’s appeal, which she had filed pro se on March 27. 3. The City assigned my request number W006339-040318. On April 20, City staffer Alli (no last name given) emailed me with an estimate that my records request would be completed by mid-June, although Alli emphasized this was only a tentative estimate. ---PAGE BREAK--- DECLARATION OF ALEX SIDLES - 2 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 4. On May 4, 2018, City staffer Sara Smith emailed to tell me that the first batch of records was ready. However, she required payment either in-person or by mailed-in check. My office mailed the check on May 8, and the City processed the check on May 11 and made the responsive documents available for download. I downloaded the responsive documents and reviewed them on May 11. There were approximately 126 files in this first batch. 5. On May 14—after the City had already filed its motion to dismiss, and after I had already begun drafting Ms. Catunda’s opposition to the motion—Ms. Smith emailed me again to tell me that two more batches of documents were ready. Again, we were required to pay by check. My office mailed the check on May 14, and on the afternoon of May 17, the City made the documents available for download. I downloaded the documents on May 18 and began reviewing them. There were approximately 906 files in total in these two batches. 6. Also on May 17, Ms. Smith emailed me yet again, telling me that yet another batch would be ready on May 22. 7. By the end of the day on May 18, I still had not completed my review of the 900 documents in the second and third installments. And I had not received the invoice for the May 22 installment, much less the responsive documents themselves. 8. My opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss is due May 21. I do not have time to complete my review of the 900 documents in the second and third installments before my opposition is due, and even if I did, there would still be more documents on their way beginning on May 22. 9. Although my review of the documents is incomplete, what documents I have reviewed demonstrate that the City is aware that a tree removal permit was necessary, even though a tree removal permit was never issued. Documents that provide evidence of this claim are below: ---PAGE BREAK--- DECLARATION OF ALEX SIDLES - 3 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email dated September 7, 2017 between Steve Fisher and Karen Haluza, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 17. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email chain dated December 21, 2017 through January 24, 2018 between Chris Tolonen and Sabrina Gassaway, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email dated January 18, 2018 from Chris Tolonen, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an email chain dated February 6 through 7, 2018 between David Tuchek, Sabrina Gassaway, and Chris Tolonen, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an email chain dated January 23 through February 8, 2018 between multiple City employees, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. Exhibit E-1 is the tree removal permit application attached to the last email in the Exhibit E email chain. 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an email chain dated February 23 through 26, 2018 between Jeff Dendy and David Tuchek, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a clear and grade permit application dated February 21, 2018 from David Tuchek, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. ---PAGE BREAK--- DECLARATION OF ALEX SIDLES - 4 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98101 Tel. (206) 264-8600 Fax. (206) 264-9300 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 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an email dated March 8, 2018 from Jeff Hagen, which I received as part of my public records request installment on May 11. 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a screenshot I took on my computer on May 15, 2018. The screenshot captures a still image from a video that depicts a cottonwood falling into a lake. The video was provided to me on May 11, 2018 in response to my public records request for information about cottonwoods at Idylwood Park. The video has the file name, “20170811_084251.mp4.” Given the filename and the context in which it was provided to me, I believe the video depicts a cottonwood being cut down at Idylwood Park in 2017. 19. Given the numerous documents I have already received regarding the need for a tree removal permit, I expect that more documents providing evidence of the City’s permitting process will likely appear in future installments. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 18th day of May, 2018, at Seattle, Washington. ALEX SIDLES ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit A September 7 2017 Fisher email ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 5:05 PM To: Karen Haluza Cc: Steve Fischer Subject: Tree Removal Permits - Exceptions Karen The code allows for landmark trees (trees greater than 30” in diameter) to be removed if they meet the exception criteria outlined in RZC 21.72.090. The City’s decision (approval/denial) of an exception request is noted in a letter back to the applicant. These requests can come to the City as part of a land use application or from a single family homeowner who wishes to remove a tree. In the past, the former director has signed these letters and on occasion I have signed them if he was not available. The code states that a “request for any exception shall be submitted in writing by the property owner for consideration by the Administrator, and shall accompany the application for a permit reviewed under this section. The written request shall fully state all substantiating facts and evidence pertinent to the exception request, and include supporting maps or plans. The Administrator may also require the recommendation of a certified arborist in reviewing an exception request.” The code states that the Administrator is the Planning Director or their designated representative. How do you want to proceed….do you wish to review and sign off on all tree exceptions? Steven Fischer Manager, Development Review City of Redmond – Development Services Center 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit B December 21 to Jan 24 Gassaway emails ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Sabrina Gassaway Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:20 PM To: Christopher Tolonen Subject: RE: Idylwood Trees Hello Chris, Sorry about that. Thank you for pointing that out. You can fill out the application but not that the list of trees are attached. Save paper and time! If you could please include a map showing the trees removed that would be great. Best Regards, S abrinaGassaw ay Assistant Planner I City of Redmond 425.556.2463I [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.redmond.gov 15670 NE 85th St I PO Box 97010 I MS 2SPL I Redmond, WA 98073-9710 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:Christopher Tolonen S ent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:14 PM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Trees Hi Sabrina, No I have not. My question below highlighted in yellow still remains. Do you need them all written out again even though you have the spreadsheet with all the trees listed. Can I simply fill out the header on the Application for Removal Permit and say see attached for tree list? Tell me what you need. Thanks, Chris From:Sabrina Gassaway S ent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 8:15 AM T o:Christopher Tolonen <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Trees Hello Chris, I apologize for the delay. Have you completed a tree removal application for the Cottonwood Removal? ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Best Regards, S abrinaGassaw ay Assistant Planner I City of Redmond 425.556.2463I [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.redmond.gov 15670 NE 85th St I PO Box 97010 I MS 2SPL I Redmond, WA 98073-9710 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:Christopher Tolonen S ent:Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:23 AM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:Idylwood Trees Hi Sabrina, I wanted to touch base with you as we move forward in planning to remove the trees at Idylwood. You mentioned you wanted to see Director and/or Mayoral approval to remove the trees, which I asked for and my manager, Dave Tuchek said this should have been communicated to you through your Director. Let me know if this is not the case or if you still need information on this from me/Parks. See the attached narrative on Tree Risk at Idylwood. I believe I already sent you the spreadsheet of the 30 trees. My question now is, in what format would you like me to proceed with a Tree Removal Permit Application for these trees? Thanks, Chris ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit C January 18 2018 Tolonen email ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Christopher Tolonen Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:31 AM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: City of Redmond Cottonwood Removal Attachments: Idylwood Scope of Work 2018.docx; Idylwood Contract Cottonwoods Tree List 2018.xlsx; Idylwood northeast corner.jpg; Idylwood Lower Bridge Grove 2.jpg; Idylwood South Beach Grove.jpg Hi Sandi, Thank you for taking a look at this job where the City of Redmond is planning on removing (30) cottonwood trees at Idylwood park. Please find the attached:  Scope of Work  Tree List  Location Pictures We are flexible with the date of completion. March 2nd was simply our original goal. Tree removal permits will be handled by myself. Trees are marked with red paint on the “backside” on the stump. I am available to meet on site at your convenience. Thank you for your potential bid, Chris Tolonen Redmond Park Operations [PHONE REDACTED] ISA Certified Arborist #PN-2777A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit D February 6 and 7 Gassaway emails ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Christopher Tolonen Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 7:29 AM To: Sabrina Gassaway Subject: FW: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Sabrina, I sent the Permit Application packet out to you that day, the 24th, through interoffice mail. Can you please double check, otherwise I will send another packet out this afternoon. Thanks, Chris From:David Tuchek S ent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:42 PM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Christopher Tolonen <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Teresa Kluver <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Hi Chris, Please work with Sabrina to secure a tree removal permit for this work. Thanks, Dave Tuchek Park Operations Manager │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ 18120 NE 76th St. │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 From:Sabrina Gassaway S ent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:38 PM T o:David Tuchek <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Hello David, I have been in contact with Christopher Tolonen and have yet to receive the permit to process the request. My last correspondence with Chris was on the 24th of last month. Best Regards, S abrinaGassaw ay Assistant Planner I City of Redmond 425.556.2463I [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.redmond.gov 15670 NE 85th St I PO Box 97010 I MS 2SPL I Redmond, WA 98073-9710 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:David Tuchek S ent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:09 PM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Hi Sabrina, Have you generated a tree removal permit for this tree removal work yet? Please let me know, thanks! Dave Tuchek Park Operations Manager │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ 18120 NE 76th St. │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit E January 23 to February 8 multiple employees email chain ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Christopher Tolonen Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:33 AM To: Sabrina Gassaway Cc: David Tuchek Subject: Idylwood Tree Removal Permit Application Attachments: Idylwood Permit Application.pdf Sabrina, See attached. Chris Tolonen Lead Maintenance Worker│City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ 18120 NE 76th St.│ Redmond, WA 98073 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:David Tuchek S ent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:42 PM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Christopher Tolonen <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Teresa Kluver <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Hi Chris, Please work with Sabrina to secure a tree removal permit for this work. Thanks, Dave Tuchek Park Operations Manager │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ 18120 NE 76th St. │ Redmond, WA 98052 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:Sabrina Gassaway S ent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:38 PM T o:David Tuchek <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Hello David, I have been in contact with Christopher Tolonen and have yet to receive the permit to process the request. My last correspondence with Chris was on the 24th of last month. Best Regards, S abrinaGassaw ay Assistant Planner I City of Redmond 425.556.2463I [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.redmond.gov 15670 NE 85th St I PO Box 97010 I MS 2SPL I Redmond, WA 98073-9710 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:David Tuchek S ent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:09 PM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals - Tree Removal Permit Hi Sabrina, Have you generated a tree removal permit for this tree removal work yet? Please let me know, thanks! ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Dave Tuchek Park Operations Manager │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ 18120 NE 76th St. │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:Sabrina Gassaway S ent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 8:10 AM T o:John Marchione <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Maxine Whattam <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Tuchek <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Teresa Kluver <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Removals Thank you Mr. Mayor. I will get right on this. Best Regards, S abrinaGassaw ay Assistant Planner I City of Redmond 425.556.2463I [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.redmond.gov 15670 NE 85th St I PO Box 97010 I MS 2SPL I Redmond, WA 98073-9710 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:John Marchione S ent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 5:28 PM T o:Sabrina Gassaway <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Maxine Whattam <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Tuchek <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Teresa Kluver <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:Idylwood Park Tree Removals Sabrina, There was a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Department to remove 30 Cottonwood trees at Idylwood Park. I have reviewed this recommendation with department directors from Parks ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 and Recreation, Planning, and Public Works on November 6, 2017, and December 11, 2017. In addition, information on the removal and replanting plan was shared with the Parks and Human Services Council Committee on Tuesday, January 2, 2018. Please accept this memo as confirmation of approval of the removal of these trees based on tree health, species, defects, and location. Thank you, John John Marchione Mayor │ City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] I [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: 4NEX │ 15670 NE 85th St │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit E-1 Idylwood Tree Removal Permit Application (attachment to email from Exhibit E) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit F February 23 to 26 2018 Dendy emails ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Jeff Dendy Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:07 PM To: Cathy Beam Cc: Steve Fischer Subject: FW: Idylwood Park Tree Cutting Clear & Grade Permit - CIVPLAN-2018-00194 Attachments: Idylwood Tree Risk Management 2017.xlsx; Idylwood 3 with text.png Cathy: The City of Redmond Parks Department (Teresa) has asked me to review and approve a Clear & Grade Permit to cut some hazardous trees at Idylwood Park. Attached are the listing of trees to be cut and a plan showing location. The location is near the Lake. Will a Shorelines Permit be needed also? Steven: Parks do not have a formal arborist report, but did document the result of an inspection in the attached spreadsheet. I expect Development Services will not require an arborist report, or ask that a Planner be assigned to this C & G application as a reviewer. Let me know if you think otherwise. Development Engineering will not assign an inspector to this tree cutting permit. We are confident that City of Redmond Parks will cut the right trees. Jeff Dendy -2890 From:Teresa Kluver S ent:Monday, February 26, 2018 11:44 AM T o:Jeff Dendy <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Christopher Tolonen <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Tuchek <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Cutting Clear & Grade Permit - CIVPLAN-2018-00194 Jeff, Attached are requested documents. Erosion and sedimentation control will be achieved through:  Leaving all stumps and roots intact. All work will be above the soil line. The tree stumps will be treated to prevent regrowth, but no disturbance to the root zones is expected.  Extensive replanting efforts will follow the tree removals. This will: o Stabilize existing soils o Protect and encourage regrowth of desirable plant species o Provide greater plant diversity contributing to healthier ecosystem ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Let us know if you need any additional information. Teresa Kluver Park Operations Supervisor│City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ PO Box 97010 │ Redmond, WA 98073-9710 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:David Tuchek S ent:Monday, February 26, 2018 11:22 AM T o:Jeff Dendy <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Teresa Kluver <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Christopher Tolonen <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:RE: Idylwood Park Tree Cutting Clear & Grade Permit Hello Jeff, We will provide you the additional requested information. Thanks for assisting us with this project. Dave Tuchek Park Operations Manager │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: MOCPK │ 18120 NE 76th St. │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From:Jeff Dendy S ent:Friday, February 23, 2018 10:52 AM T o:David Tuchek <[EMAIL REDACTED]> S ubject:Idylwood Park Tree Cutting Clear & Grade Permit David: I’ve been assigned to your C & G Permit for tree cutting at Idylwood Park. The project has been assigned the plan case number of CIVPLAN-2018-00194. There is no fee for the permit. Besides the application form I will need a site plan showing which trees are to be cut and which are to remain. Also need a copy of the arborist report describing why the trees need to come down. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Include a short description of how erosion / sedimentation control will be accomplished. Our files hold 11-inch by 17- inch sheets OK for site plans, although a full sized sheet is accepted too. Call with questions. Jeff Dendy, PE Senior Engineer Development Engineering [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit G February 21 2018 clear and grade application ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit H March 8 2018 Sammamish rowing email ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Alex Sidles From: Jeff Hagen Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:25 PM To: David Tuchek; Teresa Kluver Subject: Sammamish Rowing Program Importance: High Hi Dave & Teresa, Scott V. mentioned we should reach out to you about the Sammamish Rowing program, and concerns with the tree removal project at Idylwood. W ithS cottfor11am tomorrow sow eneedtomake morning. All scheduled classes for Idylwood have been full with substantial waiting lists for some time now. It’s actually a substantial amount of revenue, and I would like to brainstorm potential solutions rather than canceling or delaying this program. Below is a map of the park. Is there an area for storage that will work until the tree removal project is completed? Please call me if it’s better to discuss options for a solution. Thanks, Jeff Hagen Recreation Program Manager │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: CCPK │ 6505 176th Avenue NE │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit I Screenshot from video 20170811_084251 ---PAGE BREAK---