Nathaniel Teich <nateich2@yahoo.com>; Kathleen and Mike Masterson <kcmasterson@gmaii.com>; Kelley Slewster <br /><kellsand@earthlink.net>; Faris Cassell <fcassell@comcast.net>; CW Murchison <cwmurchison@gmail.com>; Cathy <br />Johnson <cdjohnson617@msn.com>; John Curtis <jc65lotus @gmail.com>; Jamie Harper <harperj@uoregon.edu>; <br />WOSTMANN Jan (SMTP) <jw@efn.org>; Dick Ragatz <richard.ragatz@ragatzassociates.com>; Paul Conte <br /><paul.t.conte@gmail.com>; petercraycroft@me.com; Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> <br />Subjects Capital Hill PUD Hearing Date Timing <br />Hi Nick. Your Jan 2nd response to my question about the language in Carol Schirmer's 12/21/17 <br />email to you plus a timeout from the 120 day clock with a 70 day time out") was very <br />helpful. Thanks! <br />Your response prompted the following questions from one of the Response Committee members <br />On 8/29/17, the application was "forced complete" by the applicant. On 8//29/17 (at the time of this <br />"forced completion"), the application indicated "x" number of lots and "y" number of units, including a <br />specific number of "attached" unit possibilities. (These numbers had been changed from those <br />contained in the original 3/3/17 application.) <br />In November 2017, the applicant again changed this basic project data contained in the 8/29/17 <br />"forced complete" application to "x + 1" and "y + 2." <br />On March 7, 2018 (what we are assuming is the now revised hearing date), can the applicant again <br />change this data from a "forced complete" application to revise the number of lots (x) and the number <br />of units (y) and, potentially, the number of "attached" unit possibilities? <br />What is the purpose of and how does a "forced completion" protect the citizens against the applicant's <br />PUD? It appears that the "forced completion" is meaningless. It is very difficult for citizens to prepare <br />an appropriate response to these continuous major changes after a "forced completion" of an <br />application. It appears that the city needs a base time line in order to do a complete and thorough <br />application review to ensure that the applicant "conforms" to the engineering, geotechnical, hydrology, <br />safety, traffic, tree preservation and other PUD "requirements" of various and numerous city codes; <br />county codes; state laws and federal laws. How can / does the city attend a hearing (as I understand <br />it, the same as a court of law) if changes are made by the applicant (after a "forced competition" by <br />the applicant) the same day of the hearing; a week before the hearing; or even 30 days before the <br />hearing? <br />Bottom line as I read Nick's email (Nick ...i.e., your 112/18 email), based upon applicant's already <br />requested 170 extension days, if the applicant requests more than 75 additional extension days (i.e., <br />more than 245 total days of requested extensions), the applicant has to resubmit his application and <br />pay a new filing fee. Does the possible 75 additional extension days available start from the now <br />revised 3/7/18 hearing date or some other date? <br />Please 1) confirm that the applicant may request 75 additional extension days and what date would <br />mark the end of the 245 day maximum extension period; and, 2) please expand upon the parameters <br />and limitations of this process. <br />Thanks as usual for your assistance. <br />