okay all right we'll have further like you said we still got another gonna meet again and i guess
another gonna meet again
you know you'll be able to provide anything you will need all right i think this thank you thank
you can i tell you something in the new system in the eclipse that we don't have to describe
everything we just warehouse distribution and trucking and transportation terminal
we write only what do we apply we don't have to disturb like in old application we do not
I understand. You don't have to say it's distribution of sneakers or distribution of, you know, that wasn't my question, but okay, I understand. And in terms of the plans, you know, I am referencing plans that are stamped by which, you know, have a permit.
I'm putting plans up on my screen right now.
These plans are dated 4-20, I'm going to enlarge them, 4-20-20.
They're stamped by streets April 29-20.
And in the bottom left-hand corner, there's 15 sheets of them.
Is that an approval?
stamp? No, I stamp like previous and the later one. I don't exactly remember which was that
because it's so hard to read. That's not clear in the screen. But it's a stamp of approval by LNI,
correct? Yeah. And then after this also, another plans was uploaded. So you're saying these are
not the final approved plans? These are not the final approved plans? I cannot say like that
because the screen is so small, it's so hard to tell you.
When was that?
5-11-20.
No, that is another
amended one.
If it was, yeah.
Try this.
Unfortunately, this one I have, which I thought was one of the ones for Mr. Reuter,
is a little hard to make out in this scan.
if i could stop my share for a minute i'd like to actually pull up the plans that we received
from mr reuter via email would that be okay for the board to make sure we're looking at the same
plans?
Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to represent to the board that these are the plans that I received via email from Mr. Reuter.
Mr. Hall, these are also dated 5-11-20. These are dated 5-11-20. Does that seem correct to you?
one second maybe i'll find it here hi jeffrey can you please in one minute please
maybe i could find it here yeah i need to go to the this application number and find the
what are you doing right now you're pulling up eclipse yeah can i do
um go to go to your eclipses windows maybe i have to play that right
yes i didn't want to close but if it is possible
then i can see the screen
Then I can see the screen.
And Mr. Hall, what are you doing right now?
You're looking on Eclipse?
Yes, please.
I guess this is the benefit of doing this really clear one, one, one, one, one, zero, five, four, five.
Thank you.
Just so the record is clear, I'm sure Mr.
you won't object uh mr hall who are you speaking with yes who's helping you with
i'm uh jeffrey tan plans examiner oh hi jeffrey okay just wanted to make sure that the record's
clear that she's getting some assistance from some from jeffrey tan to presumably share her
screen or look at stuff that that's all go ahead yeah um so she uh you guys are requesting her to
share the eclipse plan right now uh actually i just wanted to confirm that the eclipse plan
is the one that i have up that is the one dated that was stamped approved five or twenty yeah my
this is the 114 i stem 114 21 that's not the same one which you are showing to me i have 5 11 20.
it's not the same the last one is 114 21.
on. I believe, again, maybe, again, I think, David, you won't have a problem. Charlie, I think
he's asking, with respect to the plans that were originally approved, not the amended plans from
January, which, by the way, were never appealed. But the, but he's talking about are the plans
uh previously approved are those same ones wait wait wait hold on a second is i'm appealing
the permit and the plans that go with the permits whether or not right regardless of the date of
the plans and so these are the plans that you forwarded to me to us that said these are the
approved plans with the permits sam meyer steel joins in the permit that was the permit that was
appealed yes not not amended stuff that that was take that was uh didn't become a reality until
uh january after your appeal no no but if these hold on a second i mean i'm gonna object now
because it doesn't matter if you i don't believe you can amend a by right permit i mean look it
It doesn't matter. I don't care. You can go look and say whatever you want.
I'm just trying to find the plans that go with the permits.
This entire line of questioning is utterly irrelevant. It is utterly irrelevant.
They have taken appeals from the issuance of use permits.
They are claiming that the uses are not permitted at this property.
It is a legal argument. The permit says what it says.
What Ms. DeHall looked at at this point is essentially irrelevant.
You have uses that are on a permit that we issued, that the city issued. That's what's on appeal. They're saying that we can't issue those permits. That's the entire thing. Nobody's disputing what's on the permits.
what was submitted at this point is basically irrelevant this is just a complete waste of time
no actually and i object to that characterization i'm not in the practice of wasting the board's
time so i will say that again it very much has to do with the permit because it has to do with
what was actually applied for the language of the permit is one thing what was actually applied for
what was represented to LNI, what was represented to this exam.
what was represented to LNI, what was represented to this exam, it is absolutely not relevant at
all. Just because, listen, you are required under the administrative code and under the language of
the permit to accurately describe and represent what is being applied for both in all the materials
that you submit. It's in the codes, it's on the permits, it's everywhere. We all know it. And the
problem is one of part of our cases here is that what was represented to lni and to this examiner
is not what is really happening here it's not really what was proposed again they can call it
a duck and the examiner unfortunately takes what they say without any additional information
because i don't you know we can we'll get into this too as far as what their responsibility and
obligation is i don't think mr hall did anything wrong necessarily in respect to the principal
use in what was stated to her. But the reason that we're getting into this is just that fact.
There are other details regarding the materials and what was submitted that might have resulted
in this permit also not being issued by right. The question is, what was applied for, what was
represented to L&I, and what was the permit that was issued? And this is all extremely relevant to
that because if she wasn't provided accurate information she can't do her job and she can't
issue a proper permit or make sure that the permit is properly reviewed as required by the code
we already have here a permit that talks about a retail use which is not permitted in i2 whether
it's accessory or not doesn't matter whether it's principal or accessory now you're getting into
argument what you're no longer responding to my objection you're getting into argument no i
i'm not i am i'm giving you the grounds and the basis we all have what you're giving you the reason
i'm giving you the an example of the reason for this line of questioning
excuse me the permit is defective the permit is defective that's our application that's our
thing can i interrupt for one minute mr orfanides if they applied for a duck and were given a permit
for a duck and you're saying that the use is not a duck then isn't that a matter they don't have a
permit for that isn't that an enforcement issue not an error on l and i's part yes they are only
able to operate within the parameters of the permit that they were given um and as far as
the retail sales issue i was hoping that um mr hall could clarify in in fact for warehouse and
distribution, aren't accessory retail sales permitted as incidental to the warehouse and
distribution use or the wholesale and distribution use? I would just like her to clarify when she
said that retail is not permitted, was she referring to retail as a primary use or will she
acknowledge that in certain circumstances, industrial uses such as wholesale sales and
and distribution specifically do allow incidental retail sales.
The language of the permit is not, number one,
we cannot get into the legal argument of whether incidental is permitted
when it's not permitted as a principle or accessory use.
I understand. I'm not trying to make an argument here.
I just meant if she could clarify, because she did state that retail sales aren't permitted, and I just wanted some clarification on whether she was referring to retail sales as a principal use, or if she was saying that retail sales are never in any circumstances permitted as an accessory use in an industrial district.
Thank you.
i don't know if she realizes that's a question is that a question for mr hall
well let me again if someone could just at some point in your questioning clarify that with
mr hall thank you i mean i thought i did i did ask that question and i thought she answered it
um she did and i just wanted to be certain that her answer meant that she was saying she said
that retail sales are not permitted and i'd like her to um further clarify whether she was saying
retail sales in any circumstances, or was she saying that retail sales as a principle
use, just so that we understand, so that the board understands her answer?
What I was thinking, originally, it was not like, it was not an issue for the retail.
After the civic design, they make determination, but that doesn't mean that they have the retail sale.
After the shipping design, they make determination, but that doesn't mean that they have the
Because the retail sale also, if they apply for the retail sale, they have to go to the zoning board, but they never apply for the retail sale.
As per the civic design notification, that doesn't mean that they will comply for the retail, because retail is not applied, never ever.
I put the notification only for the retail sale, as per the civic design notification.
that means if they apply in future some other thing they don't have to go for the civic design
they can go for the variance because they never apply for the retail sale i don't think they are
applying for the retail sale too that is not the permit for the retail sale that is for the
documentation after the civic design notification because they changed the plan that's why that's
the notification they want to put on the permit language that's why i put on the permit language
that doesn't mean that they don't sell retail retail is not applied at all thank you mr hall
i mean the permit says what it says i mean i mean i mean um we can deal with this we can deal with
this at a later time well also i think if i might uh the board can take the equivalent i guess of
judicial notice of what is permitted uh in wholesale distribution and storage use categories so under
14-601 sub mine sub d uh incidental retail sales are permitted uh for in distribution facilities
so it's i mean the code says what it says again somebody's recollection of what the code says is
kind of again a route like a lot of this is irrelevant the code says what it says and it
is permitted well no mr hall just said well no we're i mean now mr reuter is testifying so no i'm
asking i am asking the board to take please i'm asking the board to take judicial notice of what
the code says that but we're not you can bring that up at another point right now we're not
evidence it's a it's a it's a code it's what this board is bound by the question was directed to
mr hall though and she said it's not permitted she says retail sales is not permitted and required
trip to the zoning board. But if it is incidental, that is a different story.
I'm telling you another thing. Auto repair shop is not permitted on the north far overlay district,
but as per definition of the trucking and transportation termination, they can have
the minor repair. That means they can have repair if they don't do the retail auto repair shop.
that means like they can have the incidental but they cannot have the main retail they cannot have
the main auto repair sub that's the whole content is that only accessory and incidental they can do
it not for the for the public i mean mr hall is there a difference between incidental and
accessory in the zoning code i mean accessory it's clear that the code is it not that accessory
uses and all it's very maybe it's the same but i don't know the definition but accessory and
incidentally i'm going to object here again he's asking mr hall about her opinions about things
again we have a permit application permit application materials that were submitted a
permit was issued i i i'm she's this is really infuriating members of the board she's an examiner
Her job is to interpret and apply the zoning, the zoning code in her job as a zoning plans examiner.
She's the one who reviewed this application.
She is the one who interpreted the application, interpreted a code and issued the permits.
And that is her job.
Exactly. And the permit that was issued is is basically that is the exemplification of what her interpretation was.
We have the right to examine her and find out what the process was and what her reasoning was, what her interpretations were in issuing that permit, because we are questioning, unfortunately, those interpretations, particularly given the language of the permit.
And some of those interpretations, again, I'm going to state, maybe based upon the fact that it wasn't made clear to her, even though certain words were used that are permitted in I2, the reality of the situation is that they were not uses that are permitted in I2.
And again, if she's going to write accessory retail sales, well, the code is extremely clear that if it's not permitted as a principal use, it's not permitted as an accessory use.
No, I'll object. That's not the correct law. Plus, it's arguing.
Let's get to the testimony. I will be presenting rebuttal witnesses that will describe what each
So let's get to the testimony. I will be presenting rebuttal witness.
and every use aspect is. So we don't have to speculate. We'll hear the testimony. And what
introduced this whole line of inquiry was a speculative question by Mr. Orphanides that said
successor users may or may not use it for retail. And she said, well, if it's retail,
it should go to the board. But then she said if it's accessory or incidental, which it is in our
particular application, which is all that's really in controversy here, it's fine. And if somebody
wants to bring a box back, they go to the business office. And that's what we're going to be
presenting. It's not a retail business by any stretch of the imagination. So I would just say
that we need to get the testimony on from all the witnesses so we know exactly what the facts are
and not what somebody knew or thought or can't remember.
We're going to have the facts in the record.
Let's deal with that.
Well, and in terms of accessory, I can ask her if she's writing a permit that says accessory.
Is she familiar with Section 14604, which I've now put up on the screen?
Ms. DeHall applies the zoning code.
Mr. Hall, 14604-1B states, unless otherwise expressly stated, accessory uses and structures are subject to the same regulations that apply to principal uses and structures.
You're aware of that section of the zoning code, correct?
okay and is that the reason why when you stated to me earlier when i asked the question before
all this these other statements by council that you said retail sales as an accessory use is
not permitted in i2 correct they are not applying for the retail just like the
you see not the retails you see the incidental to the warehouse distribution so you're saying
it's your test is that it's not accessory despite the your language in the permit that it's incidental
correct this is incidental but retail is just not like the detail incidental
i put the language how should be designed decided that's why i put the same language
but actually it's not the written scene the language in your permit
All right. But the language in your permit says accessories. So somebody could, an examiner or somebody could interpret that to mean that accessory retail is permitted at this site because that's in the use permit, correct?
Okay. Now, I want to keep, try to keep moving here. So in terms of the plans and what Mr. Reuter stated, you know, we,
There were two permits that at some point were posted at the property.
And there are the permits, you know, had photographs, you know, whether they were permitted in compliance with the code is another question, not for this examiner.
But there are the permits that we've attached to our exhibit, included in our exhibit book.
Mr. Reuter provided plans and those same permits to us via email last week.
These plans that I have up right now, which appear to be different than the ones that I have in my exhibit book, which I'm going to amend my exhibit book to include these, if these are the approved plans that go with those two permits.
but now i'm hearing that there may be an amended permit or amended plans that are different that
were approved after the permits that they relate to which i'm not sure how that could happen