As of 1 o’clock this afternoon, the testimony’s over, and paperwork is what’s next in the fight over what can be built on the big front lawn of the landmark Satterlee House (the “Painted Lady” at 4866 Beach Drive, photo above). The city called one last “rebuttal witness” this afternoon — someone who almost wasn’t called to testify, as the city legal team explained while closing hearing-room proceedings with an official protest following the testimony:

Previously:
-Former owner David Satterlee testified March 5th (WSB coverage here)
-Full day of testimony March 10th (coverage here)
-Full day of testimony last Thursday (morning coverage here; afternoon coverage here)
-Testimony last Friday morning (coverage here)
-Testimony yesterday afternoon (coverage here)

The final witness was real-estate agent A.C. Braddock, who said she has been property owner William Conner‘s listing agent for almost two years. Her testimony this afternoon involved offers made on the house and/or its subdivided front lawn.

One offer, described as having been made last year by a “Ms. Rhodes” (might not be the right spelling — paperwork is not available to courtroom observers), was for the entire site — the house and the three potential building lots. Why did she make the offer, city lawyer Eleanore Baxendale asked. “Well – she could afford it,” Braddock began, adding that the potential purchaser “really wanted to live in West Seattle and enjoyed the house and property.” She said the potential buyer was not interested in building on the lawn immediately, if at all.

So why did the offer fall through? She “disapproved” the inspection, Braddock explained, because of the condition of the Satterlee House itself (major settling, as described in testimony earlier in the hearing). And so, Braddock said, “the deal died.”

Also last year, a firm identified in testimony as Trend Development made an offer, specifically because it was interested in developing the property. That deal fell through, Braddock testified, because the company watched some of the Landmarks Board-related proceedings involving Conner’s proposal for three 3,000-ish-square-foot homes — the board’s eventual rejection of the plan is what Conner is challenging in this case — and realized it would be more than a matter of just buying land to build on.

Braddock described one other purchase offer that didn’t go through — one for the Satterlee House only, in July of 2006. The problem with that one, she said, was that Conner accepted it with a contingency for his lawyer to review it, because “the buyer wanted to use a nontypical lending source.” The lawyer advised Conner, after that review, that “he could be in a bad situation if he moved forward” — so the offer was allowed to expire.

Under subsequent questioning by Conner’s lawyer Richard Hill, Braddock testified that Trend Development is still interested in the property — “they would buy the land if the Conner homes were approved” by the city, which has jurisdiction since the Satterlee House and its site were designated in the early ’80s for protection as an official city landmark.

Now, to the protest. Once the testimony was complete, Baxendale explained that the city hadn’t called Braddock previously because they had asked for documents related to the offers on the Satterlee House and/or its buildable lots, and,she said, had been told the documents didn’t exist. No “We asked Mr. Hill to contact Ms. Braddock for purchase agreements, disclosure agreements,” she said. And those documents only materialized when the city continued pressing for them.

“It puts us (the city) in a difficult position,” Baxendale said. “We now have the documents, and they have been admitted (as evidence). However, it’s not good practice for the city only to get them at the end of this case. It would have been useful for our experts (the witnesses who testified on the economics of the case) to have had them, but because the documents hadn’t been produced, we hadn’t been interested in talking to (Braddock) until now — there was nothing to talk about. So I want to register the city’s great displeasure and frustration.”

Hearing examiner Sue Tanner turned to Conner’s lawyer Hill, who, if you had been watching him for days as we have, you might have expected to see burst forth at this point with spirited self-defense. Instead, he was almost contrite. “Frankly, I share the frustration,” he said. “Discovery in this case [the two sides asking each other to disclose and produce evidence] was informal … I did make a good-faith effort to contact Mr. Conner [about the requested documents],” but, Hill went on to explain, Conner apparently couldn’t find the documents, or couldn’t find them until an assistant of his stepped in to help. He went on to say, “I think all the city requests for documents were fair … I was trying to get a hold of Ms. Braddock while she was getting married and on her honeymoon in the past few weeks, maybe the e-mails and voice mails got lost … It was a difficult situation; I do understand the city’s concern.”

That’s all well and good, Baxendale replied, but she wasn’t buying it all: “I don’t believe he (Hill) was following up,” she said to Tanner. “The documents that clarify why sales transactions weren’t going through would have helped us present a cleaner case to the Hearing Examiner about how transactions were affected” by the situation involving the Landmarks Board.

Tanner noted that her office doesn’t have much “sanctioning authority” in a case like this, so she will do her best to consider all the documents that have been entered, as she makes her decision.

The timetable of what’s next was laid out today as follows: Both sides will present briefs summarizing their case by March 28. Any replies to those summaries will be due April 11th. Tanner says she will have a decision by April 28th. At the start of the hearing, she said that her ruling is the city’s final word on the matter, and any further challenges would have to come via court action.