Development Commission - Special Meeting - 15 J · Tuesday, January 15, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board to Email the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2019 – Michael Brennan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2019 – Randolph Harrison Development Commission members and City 2020 – Melvin Morgan Council members from discussing the merit of 2020 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Jasmina Mihova of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2022 – Richard Sowa however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2022 – Richard Sanford Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2019 – Ryan Roeter Membership 2019 – Vacant The…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 26, 2018

packet pp.7–11

▶ Watch from 1:12 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission—Special Meeting MINUTES September 26, 2018 Pickering Room 1775 12th Ave. NW City Hall Northwest Issaquah, WA 98027 Commission Members Present Administration/Staff Present Richard Sowa, Chair Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan, Jr., Vice Chair Keith Niven , Economic and Dev. Services Dir. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present Richard Sanford Ray Liaw, Van Ness Feldman LLP Members Not Present/Excused Zachary Lell, City Attorney’s Office Randy Harrison Patrick Schneider , Foster Pepper PLLC Jasmina Milhova Tia Heim, Shelter Holdings Mark Rigos, Alt. Ryan Roeter, Alt. Nischitha Venkatesh, Alt.

Minutes of October 24, 2018

packet pp.13–16

▶ Watch from 2:13 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission—Special Meeting MINUTES October 24, 2018 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027 Commission Members Present Administration/Staff Present Richard Sowa, Chair Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan, Jr., Vice Chair Keith Niven, Economic and Dev. Services Dir. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present Richard Sanford Ray Liaw, Van Ness Feldman LLP Members Not Present/Excused Zachary Lell, City Attorney’s Office Randy Harrison Patrick Schneider, Foster Pepper PLLC Jasmina Milhova Tia Heim, Shelter Holdings Mark Rigos, Alt. Jeffrey Dunbar, City Attorney’s Office Ryan Roeter, Alt. Nischitha Venkatesh, Alt.

Minutes of November 29, 2018

packet pp.17–20

▶ Watch from 3:14 Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission—Special Meeting MINUTES November 29, 2018 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027 Commission Members Present Administration/Staff Present Richard Sowa, Chair Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan, Jr., Vice Chair Keith Niven, Economic and Dev. Services Dir. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present Richard Sanford Ray Liaw, Van Ness Feldman LLP Members Not Present/Excused Zachary Lell, City Attorney’s Office Randy Harrison Patrick Schneider, Foster Pepper PLLC Jasmina Milhova Tia Heim, Shelter Holdings Mark Rigos, Alt. Jeffrey Dunbar, City Attorney’s Office Ryan Roeter, Alt. Nischitha Venkatesh, Alt.

Minutes of December 5, 2018

packet pp.21–24

▶ Watch from 4:15 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission—Special Meeting MINUTES December 5, 2018 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027 Commission Members Present Administration/Staff Present Richard Sowa, Chair Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan, Jr., Vice Chair Keith Niven, Economic and Dev. Services Dir. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present Richard Sanford Ray Liaw, Van Ness Feldman LLP Members Not Present/Excused Zachary Lell, City Attorney’s Office Randy Harrison Patrick Schneider, Foster Pepper PLLC Jasmina Milhova Tia Heim, Shelter Holdings Mark Rigos, Alt. Jeffrey Dunbar, City Attorney’s Office Ryan Roeter, Alt. Nischitha Venkatesh, Alt.

Issaquah Highlands Retail (High Street Collection) Site Development Permit, Application No. SDP18-00001; PRJ17-00027 Issaquah Highlands Medical Office Administrative Site Development Permit, (Q)* Application No. ASDP18-00007; PRJ17- Issaquah Highlands Self-Storage Administrative Site Development Permit, (Q)* Application No. ASDP18-00006; PRJ17

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 5:16 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

The participants took a short break and resumed at 8:21 PM. Schneider referred to Exhibit S-1, the Notice of Application, specifically the map on page two. He questioned why and when the map was included in the application process. He asked when and how staff decided the client’s application was not vested to the plat application. Sloman referred to changes in the application made by Shelter, and also referred to Exhibit C-10.

4244 segments .txt ↗

0:25 ↗ all right

0:26 ↗ ready good evening ladies gentlemen i'd

0:29 ↗ like to welcome you

0:30 ↗ all to the public hearing for the

0:32 ↗ issaquah highlands retail

0:33 ↗ site development permit the issqawa

0:36 ↗ highlands medical office administrative

0:38 ↗ site development permit and the issaquah

0:40 ↗ islands self-storage administrative site

0:42 ↗ development permit before we get started

0:44 ↗ with our public hearing portion of the

0:46 ↗ meeting we have some

0:48 ↗ approval business that the commission

0:50 ↗ has to take care of we've got

0:51 ↗ four different minutes

0:55 ↗ nights of minutes that we have to prove

0:57 ↗ so i hope you've had a chance to read

0:59 ↗ through those

1:00 ↗ does anybody have any corrections or

1:02 ↗ edits that they'd like to

1:04 ↗ make note of

1:09 ↗ could i get a motion mr chairman move we

1:12 ↗ approve the minutes of the september 26

1:14 ↗ 2018. so i i

1:17 ↗ this may be out of order but i do have

1:19 ↗ to lodge an

1:20 ↗ objection to the very existence of the

1:22 ↗ minutes

1:24 ↗ as well as to their accuracy this is a

1:27 ↗ quasi-judicial

1:28 ↗ proceeding we have a court reporter

1:30 ↗ who's taking down

1:32 ↗ what was actually said the minutes are

1:35 ↗ someone's summary

1:36 ↗ of what that person thinks was and was

1:40 ↗ not as important

1:42 ↗ that kind of summary has no place in a

1:45 ↗ quasi-judicial proceeding and is simply

1:47 ↗ going to complicate

1:48 ↗ the record on appeal and i i object to

1:52 ↗ any entry if you are if you feel

1:54 ↗ compelled by

1:55 ↗ to enter minutes then i would encourage

1:58 ↗ you to have minutes that simply say

2:00 ↗ when we began when we ended who

2:01 ↗ testified

2:03 ↗ um and let it go at that but the content

2:05 ↗ of the testimony needs to be left to

2:07 ↗ the court reporter's transcript

2:14 ↗ meetings have always been quasi-judicial

2:17 ↗ these are the same kind of minutes we've

2:18 ↗ always

2:19 ↗ had taken and approved

2:22 ↗ seems to me that if there's a

2:27 ↗ question about the accuracy of the

2:28 ↗ minutes and we have the full transcript

2:31 ↗ that could be

2:32 ↗ corrected if somebody wanted to make an

2:34 ↗ argument

2:36 ↗ um based on the transcript so

2:39 ↗ i'm born to be honest with you at some

2:42 ↗ level

2:45 ↗ oh sorry so my point was

2:50 ↗ that if somebody were to

2:53 ↗ take issue with the contents of the

2:55 ↗ minutes we have a comprehensive

2:58 ↗ transcript of the proceedings that could

3:01 ↗ be referred to

3:02 ↗ for clarification

3:05 ↗ one question would be would the court

3:08 ↗ reporters

3:09 ↗ recording be part of the thing that

3:12 ↗ would go to a hearing examiner if it did

3:17 ↗ is that a question for me well

3:20 ↗ and forgive me to ask for this

3:22 ↗ clarification the court reporter has

3:24 ↗ been

3:24 ↗ at the request of applicant is that

3:26 ↗ correct or is this is this the cities i

3:28 ↗ i've not been made aware of that we have

3:31 ↗ uh

3:31 ↗ engaged the court reporter but the city

3:33 ↗ has been been getting copies of the

3:35 ↗ transcripts

3:36 ↗ okay so it's it's not it's it's

3:39 ↗ currently

3:40 ↗ something that applicant has requested

3:42 ↗ it could become a part of the record

3:43 ↗ if the parties were to submit it it's

3:45 ↗ not been submitted well there's been one

3:47 ↗ excerpt that's been submitted as a copy

3:49 ↗ of the record until such time

3:51 ↗ it's not been submitted as a copy of

3:53 ↗ your record that you're using to base

3:55 ↗ your

3:55 ↗ decision on but it certainly could be

3:57 ↗ entered into the record for such

3:59 ↗ purposes and

4:00 ↗ entered by the parties upon appeal

4:04 ↗ okay i'll speak louder

4:09 ↗ so would it kind of just another

4:11 ↗ question then on how we deal with the

4:12 ↗ minutes

4:13 ↗ and the record do we

4:17 ↗ um could we wait until we have reached a

4:20 ↗ conclusion of testimony and

4:22 ↗ of this proceedings and then decide what

4:25 ↗ goes into the record with respect to

4:27 ↗ minutes versus the

4:28 ↗ recording or is that the up to our

4:32 ↗ applicant in the city minutes that you

4:36 ↗ choose to adopt are the development

4:38 ↗ commission's

4:39 ↗ minutes you can choose to adopt those

4:43 ↗ tonight as written

4:45 ↗ or with amendments or corrections you

4:47 ↗ can also

4:48 ↗ decide to delay the adoption of those

4:50 ↗ minutes

4:52 ↗ unless there's some rule for the

4:54 ↗ development commission that i'm missing

4:57 ↗ but i don't see any reason why

5:00 ↗ you cannot delay or if that's something

5:03 ↗ that you would like to do

5:04 ↗ good i think that since we have

5:09 ↗ a a word for word record that can

5:11 ↗ correct anything that may be

5:13 ↗ amiss that's pointed out in the minutes

5:15 ↗ that we should go ahead and approve our

5:17 ↗ minutes that's

5:18 ↗ i agree with you that our our minutes

5:20 ↗ we've done quasi-judicial meetings

5:22 ↗ before and those

5:23 ↗ the minutes have not changed so i think

5:25 ↗ we ought to make a

5:26 ↗ make a decision on on the minutes

5:30 ↗ as submitted so the other question too i

5:34 ↗ guess we're going to be back here

5:35 ↗ tomorrow night

5:36 ↗ so we've got the ability to if

5:39 ↗ since this just came up and we weren't

5:41 ↗ aware of this is it something that would

5:44 ↗ be worthwhile looking into further on

5:47 ↗ your part for us

5:48 ↗ to see if there's an if there's

5:50 ↗ something where we would approve these

5:52 ↗ but also

5:53 ↗ that we would also incorporate i

5:55 ↗ reference

5:56 ↗ the other things well maybe try to

5:59 ↗ figure that out by tomorrow

6:00 ↗ yeah no i i i would be happy to look

6:02 ↗ into that to see like i said if i've

6:04 ↗ missed something that um i think that

6:05 ↗ would be advisable

6:07 ↗ to see if there'd be something you're

6:08 ↗ welcome to speak up i can't actually

6:10 ↗ hear you um if i'm not speaking loud

6:11 ↗ enough

6:12 ↗ um if you'd like yeah we can resume

6:16 ↗ with this conversation tomorrow we do

6:17 ↗ have executive session on the agenda so

6:19 ↗ we can

6:20 ↗ if you have any questions about that but

6:21 ↗ i can also probably just come back into

6:23 ↗ open session and

6:24 ↗ let you know if there's any reason

6:26 ↗ advisable

6:27 ↗ with respect to your internal rules or

6:30 ↗ the the city code with respect to

6:32 ↗ adoption or delay of adoption of the

6:34 ↗ minutes um in addition to the concern

6:36 ↗ the

6:37 ↗ question about the transcript and what

6:39 ↗ role that place

6:40 ↗ okay so i think that makes sense that we

6:42 ↗ defer consideration of the meeting

6:44 ↗ minutes

6:44 ↗ until our meeting tomorrow evening and

6:46 ↗ then give council an opportunity to look

6:49 ↗ at our rules and anything that might be

6:50 ↗ relevant to our

6:51 ↗ decision on adoption or not but let's do

6:54 ↗ that

6:55 ↗ [Music]

6:56 ↗ reference to transcripts as well right

7:00 ↗ let's do that let's we'll we'll postpone

7:02 ↗ the decision on the minutes until

7:03 ↗ tomorrow

7:04 ↗ tomorrow's meeting thank you

7:07 ↗ um with that uh mr lowell i think it's

7:10 ↗ turning it over to you i i have one more

7:12 ↗ preliminary matter i'm afraid um

7:16 ↗ it's it's how the record is being kept

7:18 ↗ um

7:20 ↗ my understanding from uh emails since

7:23 ↗ the last meeting is that ms sloman is

7:25 ↗ the official custodian of the record and

7:28 ↗ ms sloman is a witness um in

7:31 ↗ for one party in this matter and i think

7:33 ↗ the record needs to be kept by

7:36 ↗ someone who has a neutral position in

7:38 ↗ this

7:39 ↗ and i it's nothing against mrs sloman

7:41 ↗ personally but her position

7:42 ↗ in this in this case as a witness

7:47 ↗ i think precludes her from being the

7:48 ↗ official keeper of the record

7:51 ↗ and so i would ask that some other

7:52 ↗ arrangement be made for that

7:55 ↗ so it would seem like a fairly simple

7:57 ↗ process to designate somebody else

7:58 ↗ within the city that could

8:01 ↗ be the repository for that information

8:04 ↗ can we

8:04 ↗ i don't know who to talk to to do that

8:09 ↗ well it's i think it's if you would

8:12 ↗ agree that it needs to be someone who's

8:14 ↗ not an active witness in the

8:15 ↗ in the meeting then i think we can leave

8:17 ↗ it up to the city to find an appropriate

8:19 ↗ person understand we'll do that

8:20 ↗ okay thank you we'll do that thank you

8:24 ↗ right anything else uh not by way of

8:26 ↗ preliminary issues right

8:28 ↗ okay thank you mr law

8:32 ↗ mission uh i have two preliminary points

8:35 ↗ first i believe

8:36 ↗ as the city indicated at the

8:38 ↗ commencement of the

8:40 ↗ second to last proceeding that the

8:42 ↗ hearing examiner had

8:44 ↗ recently at that point denied and

8:46 ↗ dismissed the appeal

8:48 ↗ that had been filed by ihifc of the

8:51 ↗ september 2018 staff reports

8:55 ↗ underlying this proceeding since the

8:57 ↗ last time we met ihifc filed a motion

9:00 ↗ for reconsideration

9:02 ↗ of the hearing examiner's order and as

9:04 ↗ of yesterday the hearing examiner has

9:06 ↗ denied that motion

9:07 ↗ that's just again for purposes of the

9:09 ↗ record the second preliminary point

9:11 ↗ um concerns some evidence that had been

9:16 ↗ referred to by ms sloman in her redirect

9:19 ↗ testimony she had referred to some i

9:22 ↗ believe some processing charts that had

9:24 ↗ never been formally adopted by the city

9:27 ↗ uh and at the request of mr schneider uh

9:30 ↗ had agreed

9:31 ↗ or mr loman had agreed to provide those

9:32 ↗ documents to me and to then

9:34 ↗ provide them to mr schneider in advance

9:36 ↗ of tonight's proceeding

9:38 ↗ we have done that but for purposes of

9:40 ↗ making them an exhibit i would

9:41 ↗ respectfully ask for the opportunity to

9:43 ↗ briefly bring

9:44 ↗ ms sloman back to the stand in order to

9:46 ↗ introduce these materials and have them

9:49 ↗ made it an exhibit

9:52 ↗ and i would just note that they were

9:53 ↗ provided to me about three minutes

9:55 ↗ before the hearing began so i haven't

9:57 ↗ had time to review them

9:58 ↗ but they were technically before the

10:00 ↗ hearing

10:01 ↗ that's a good thing so yes

10:05 ↗ thank you i'd like to recall miss sloman

10:09 ↗ and i apologize to the commission i only

10:11 ↗ have one copy that i'll be submitting to

10:14 ↗ ms law leo

10:18 ↗ i would like to designate this as a city

10:20 ↗ exhibit c42 please

10:23 ↗ so i have them i have them

10:25 ↗ electronically

10:26 ↗ but they're in separate documents so you

10:28 ↗ have to tell me which one you want me to

10:30 ↗ pull up

10:31 ↗ very briefly mrs loman could you please

10:34 ↗ reaffirm that you continue to be under

10:35 ↗ oath

10:36 ↗ from your previous testimony i do thank

10:39 ↗ you could you briefly describe

10:41 ↗ the materials that are up on the screen

10:44 ↗ the um

10:46 ↗ processing chart from appendix l

10:49 ↗ everyone

10:49 ↗ tended to find very confusing because

10:53 ↗ it laid out

10:56 ↗ it laid out quite a bit of information

10:59 ↗ in a single chart

11:00 ↗ and so as a result

11:03 ↗ the city and port blakely developed

11:07 ↗ these they were never formally adopted

11:09 ↗ as mr l mentioned

11:13 ↗ but these were the charts that we used

11:15 ↗ to try and help applicants

11:16 ↗ understand i apologize i didn't silence

11:19 ↗ my phone

11:22 ↗ these are the charts that we use to try

11:24 ↗ and help applicants

11:25 ↗ understand the time frames and they were

11:28 ↗ the basis for

11:29 ↗ the i think it was exhibit

11:33 ↗ 37 or something like that that the city

11:36 ↗ showed where uh the timelines for

11:39 ↗ processing different permits

11:41 ↗ thank you and just just to clarify these

11:43 ↗ materials were never formally adopted

11:46 ↗ and therefore in your view don't have

11:48 ↗ binding regulatory effect right they

11:50 ↗ were just our understanding

11:52 ↗ and used by the master developer and

11:54 ↗ city to

11:55 ↗ explain it but we're not formally

11:57 ↗ adopted

11:58 ↗ thank you i have no further questions

12:00 ↗ okay

12:02 ↗ i have a couple uh ms sloman

12:06 ↗ that there are charts in here

12:10 ↗ that appear to be addressing the same

12:13 ↗ uh time frame for example i'm looking at

12:16 ↗ one

12:17 ↗ right now that talks about commercial

12:20 ↗ commission and council preliminary platt

12:24 ↗ but there are multiple versions of it

12:26 ↗ with different

12:27 ↗ time periods here's one that says 101

12:30 ↗ days here's one that says 117 days

12:34 ↗ so how did those time periods change

12:37 ↗ so i'm just i'm going to blow this up on

12:39 ↗ screen

12:40 ↗ i understand this is some so if you look

12:44 ↗ at the bottom

12:44 ↗ of the page there are different dates

12:48 ↗ [Music]

12:50 ↗ one this one's from one page is from 97

12:53 ↗ and a different page was the previous

12:57 ↗ page was from 2008 so in the process of

12:59 ↗ using these

13:00 ↗ we rechecked our math

13:04 ↗ added them up in a different way

13:07 ↗ and adjusted the dates based on that and

13:10 ↗ i have notes

13:11 ↗ on those different ways that we looked

13:14 ↗ at it

13:14 ↗ when we were working with applicants and

13:17 ↗ the

13:18 ↗ master developer well

13:21 ↗ so did you um

13:26 ↗ we have we have days in appendix l

13:29 ↗ these are obviously different days to

13:31 ↗ some extent

13:33 ↗ that were never adopted by the council

13:35 ↗ so did

13:36 ↗ you treat these as superseding what was

13:39 ↗ in exhibit l

13:40 ↗ no we treated these as a way of

13:44 ↗ unpacking the unwieldy chart that was in

13:47 ↗ appendix

13:48 ↗ l okay and the one we've been talking

13:50 ↗ about even if you take the longer one

13:52 ↗ the 117 days for

13:55 ↗ a preliminary plat

13:58 ↗ we're well over a year now

14:01 ↗ on shelter's preliminary plat aren't we

14:04 ↗ well it's been out for corrections for

14:06 ↗ almost a year oh really

14:09 ↗ it was out for corrections for almost a

14:10 ↗ year when did you send the first

14:12 ↗ correction notice

14:13 ↗ salomon in march and when did you get

14:16 ↗ the plat application the prior

14:17 ↗ august in august yes and you gave public

14:19 ↗ notice in december

14:21 ↗ yes

14:27 ↗ ms loman has there been any uh

14:31 ↗ staffing shortage in 2018 that would

14:34 ↗ have affected the processing of

14:37 ↗ belter's applications

14:40 ↗ uh not shortages no so when mr nevins

14:44 ↗ testified to the contrary he was

14:45 ↗ incorrect

14:47 ↗ there is still a lot of training going

14:49 ↗ on because we had

14:50 ↗ all new staff in 2017 none of whom

14:53 ↗ had either the institutional memory or

14:56 ↗ knowledge of code

14:58 ↗ that was necessary shelters applications

15:01 ↗ have all been assigned to the same

15:03 ↗ staffer throughout correct they were

15:05 ↗ assigned to the one senior planner yes

15:07 ↗ that's miss lin yes thank you that's all

15:21 ↗ we have we have one other matter

15:25 ↗ at the conclusion of mr nipp's testimony

15:28 ↗ um he was the last witness last time

15:32 ↗ after ms sloman introduced a number of

15:34 ↗ documents

15:34 ↗ and i asked him uh

15:37 ↗ questions about the um

15:42 ↗ exhibit which is in the record

15:46 ↗ as uh i think it's in the record twice

15:49 ↗ both as exhibit 40

15:51 ↗ well no it's in the records exhibit c41

15:54 ↗ the city's

15:55 ↗ 41 exhibit it's the november 22nd

15:59 ↗ 2017 letter from mr niven to mr ab

16:02 ↗ avalnauer abdel naur and

16:05 ↗ i asked mr niven whether

16:10 ↗ i can read the transcript if there's any

16:12 ↗ uh need to do so i asked mr niven

16:14 ↗ whether

16:15 ↗ uh or hadn't mr abdelnaur written that

16:18 ↗ letter and asked him to sign it and send

16:20 ↗ it back to mr abdulnaur

16:22 ↗ and mr niven testified he couldn't

16:24 ↗ remember so i now have an exhibit

16:27 ↗ which is the email to mr niven from mr

16:30 ↗ ab

16:31 ↗ abdelnower with a draft of the letter

16:33 ↗ asking him to prepare it and sign it and

16:36 ↗ i would offer that

16:37 ↗ as shelters exhibit 18.

17:00 ↗ if i'm happy just offering the exhibit

17:02 ↗ if mr evan wants to testify that's

17:05 ↗ fine as well

17:12 ↗ mr chairman we have not had an

17:15 ↗ opportunity to

17:16 ↗ discuss this with mr nibben i'd be happy

17:19 ↗ to do that

17:20 ↗ uh if you would give us a few minute

17:22 ↗ break or we can proceed with the

17:24 ↗ understanding that we do that on a

17:25 ↗ rebuttal

17:26 ↗ let's take a break thank you let's take

17:29 ↗ what do you need

17:30 ↗ five five minutes thank you let's take a

17:33 ↗ five minute break

17:35 ↗ [Applause]

17:38 ↗ yes exhibits

20:23 ↗ all right we're back in session thank

20:25 ↗ you mr chairman i'd like to briefly call

20:27 ↗ mr niven to clarify

20:28 ↗ and contextualize the document that was

20:30 ↗ just introduced by uh the applicant

20:33 ↗ yeah thank you mr nevin could you please

20:35 ↗ reaffirm

20:36 ↗ from your prior testimony that you

20:38 ↗ continue to be under oath

20:40 ↗ i'm still under oath thank you i'd like

20:42 ↗ to hand you

20:43 ↗ a copy of the document just handed out

20:46 ↗ by

20:46 ↗ mr schneider i believe this was

20:48 ↗ introduced as applicants exhibit 18.

20:55 ↗ thank you

21:04 ↗ and to refresh your recollection as mr

21:07 ↗ schneider indicated i believe in your

21:09 ↗ prior testimony

21:10 ↗ under questioning you could not recall

21:13 ↗ whether or not

21:15 ↗ mr and i'm going to have difficulty with

21:18 ↗ his name

21:19 ↗ abdel noir abner sent you a copy of the

21:22 ↗ letter in question as a draft with a

21:24 ↗ request

21:24 ↗ for you to sign it or whether you had

21:27 ↗ individually authored that document on

21:29 ↗ your own do you

21:30 ↗ call that line of questions okay well

21:32 ↗ now you've had an opportunity to review

21:34 ↗ the document

21:35 ↗ uh could you please expand upon your

21:37 ↗ previous answer sure

21:38 ↗ so um this is a letter

21:42 ↗ that came via email

21:44 ↗ [Music]

21:46 ↗ to me i was drafted by mr abdelnor

21:51 ↗ and it was the purpose

21:54 ↗ of it was to facilitate

21:57 ↗ a request that polygon northwest had

22:00 ↗ made of the city which was to

22:02 ↗ issue this status update on vesting

22:05 ↗ thank you mr nibben is it uncommon in

22:09 ↗ your experience

22:10 ↗ as a director to have

22:13 ↗ applicants or land use proponents send

22:16 ↗ documents to you

22:17 ↗ that have been pre-authored and asked

22:19 ↗ for you to sign them

22:21 ↗ on the contrary actually if if someone

22:24 ↗ wants

22:25 ↗ something from the city and they know

22:27 ↗ what they want

22:28 ↗ the easiest way to get to an outcome is

22:31 ↗ to ask them to draft it

22:32 ↗ initially so that moves the process

22:35 ↗ along a lot quicker and it's more

22:36 ↗ efficient for

22:37 ↗ us to have a document to start with

22:41 ↗ now we review it and make sure it's

22:45 ↗ it contains accurate information

22:48 ↗ and and represents the city's position

22:51 ↗ so

22:51 ↗ so just because it was authored by an

22:54 ↗ applicant doesn't mean

22:56 ↗ we just turn around and sign it it's

22:58 ↗ reviewed for

22:59 ↗ its purpose and accuracy so you do

23:01 ↗ independently review documents that are

23:03 ↗ ghost drafted for you by

23:05 ↗ third parties absolutely if my

23:08 ↗ signature's going on it i'm

23:09 ↗ i make sure i'm comfortable with its

23:11 ↗ contents thank you and i believe the

23:13 ↗ date of the email of mr

23:14 ↗ apple nor's uh a message to you was

23:17 ↗ november

23:18 ↗ 2017 uh it says november

23:21 ↗ 14th uh 2017. thank you approximately

23:24 ↗ how many emails do you get in

23:26 ↗ a daily basis it varies

23:29 ↗ um anywhere between 100 and 200 emails a

23:32 ↗ day

23:33 ↗ thank you i have no further questions

23:41 ↗ i should have pointed out that the

23:44 ↗ attachment has the draft letter has

23:47 ↗ today's date on it

23:49 ↗ that's because in the attachment to the

23:52 ↗ email it has a

23:54 ↗ field that prints out whatever date it's

23:56 ↗ printed on but

23:57 ↗ it is the attachment that accompanied

23:59 ↗ the november

24:00 ↗ 2017 email so mr

24:04 ↗ nevin so this letter

24:08 ↗ uh that you reviewed and signed

24:11 ↗ bases polygons vesting on the

24:14 ↗ affordable housing development agreement

24:16 ↗ correct

24:18 ↗ um so that letter if that's the

24:20 ↗ attachment to the email

24:22 ↗ then that would be the letter that mr

24:24 ↗ abdelnor sent me

24:25 ↗ um i don't know if this is the letter i

24:27 ↗ signed maybe it is maybe there's a

24:29 ↗ different version that i signed

24:30 ↗ yeah you you did uh tweak some of the

24:34 ↗ in particular the introduction but the

24:36 ↗ the substance of talking about vesting

24:38 ↗ is the same i'm happy to show you a copy

24:40 ↗ of the letter you signed

24:42 ↗ it is exhibit c41

24:53 ↗ [Applause]

24:58 ↗ thanks

25:12 ↗ oh

25:14 ↗ so why don't we look at exhibit c41 the

25:16 ↗ letter you actually signed

25:17 ↗ and it um

25:20 ↗ i submit you correct me if i'm wrong it

25:23 ↗ tracks the language in mr abdulner's

25:25 ↗ draft and says

25:27 ↗ the

25:37 ↗ refers to the new development agreement

25:39 ↗ to provide affordable housing units on

25:42 ↗ polygon-controlled property known as

25:44 ↗ westridge north

25:46 ↗ it goes on to say based on the terms of

25:48 ↗ the agreement

25:50 ↗ polygon is vested correct

25:53 ↗ that's an inaccurate paraphrase you you

25:55 ↗ correct me

25:59 ↗ that's correct okay and the affordable

26:03 ↗ housing agreement that we're talking

26:04 ↗ about here

26:05 ↗ is the one that was entered into

26:09 ↗ in september of 2017 correct it predated

26:12 ↗ this letter

26:15 ↗ um i don't have the it was the document

26:17 ↗ we were discussing at the end of the

26:19 ↗ last

26:20 ↗ development commission meeting

26:24 ↗ we were discussing two documents uh

26:27 ↗ there's

26:28 ↗ c-34 and maybe your council can help you

26:31 ↗ again

26:32 ↗ there's c-34 which is the affordable

26:34 ↗ housing development agreement

26:36 ↗ and then there's c33 which is

26:39 ↗ the developer sales agreement that you

26:42 ↗ and mrs loman have sometimes referred to

26:44 ↗ as a development agreement

26:46 ↗ so why don't we i want to call your

26:48 ↗ attention to the dates of those

26:50 ↗ documents

27:00 ↗ so again correct me if i'm wrong exhibit

27:02 ↗ c34

27:03 ↗ the affordable housing development

27:06 ↗ agreement referred to

27:07 ↗ in your letter to mr abdelnor

27:11 ↗ is dated the second signature is dated

27:13 ↗ september 18

27:15 ↗ 2017 correct

27:25 ↗ um i'm sorry so it it

27:30 ↗ so so the document was signed by the

27:32 ↗ mayor on september 18

27:34 ↗ 2017 yes yes okay

27:39 ↗ and the other document the developer

27:41 ↗ sales agreement

27:43 ↗ what is the date that it was signed

28:04 ↗ if you look at the third page of the

28:05 ↗ exhibit the first page of the developer

28:07 ↗ sales agreement

28:15 ↗ third page it's it's called page two

28:18 ↗ it's actually

28:18 ↗ the third page of the printout uh so

28:22 ↗ page two is dated the 27th day of

28:25 ↗ december 2017.

28:27 ↗ that was a month after your letter to mr

28:31 ↗ abdel noor saying that polygon was

28:33 ↗ vested correct

28:36 ↗ yes and you testified last time that the

28:39 ↗ development agreement c34

28:43 ↗ doesn't address vested rights correct

28:47 ↗ so

28:48 ↗ [Music]

28:51 ↗ uh i believe i connected those two

28:53 ↗ exhibits together

28:55 ↗ well i'm getting to that but right now

28:57 ↗ i'm just asking you agree

28:58 ↗ you have testified that the development

29:01 ↗ agreement from september

29:02 ↗ does not address vested rights correct

29:04 ↗ yes

29:06 ↗ and what you testified to last time is

29:09 ↗ that two sections of

29:10 ↗ the december document the one dealing

29:13 ↗ with

29:13 ↗ it being a covenant running with the

29:15 ↗ land section four

29:17 ↗ and then section five termination that

29:19 ↗ those two

29:21 ↗ sections together created a construct

29:23 ↗ and i think that was your word

29:25 ↗ for for vesting a polygon correct yes

29:28 ↗ but this document that you're saying

29:30 ↗ created the vesting was a month

29:32 ↗ after your letter to mr adler correct

29:37 ↗ the signing of it so

29:40 ↗ so

29:41 ↗ [Music]

29:46 ↗ so the council approved so if you look

29:48 ↗ at the recitals

29:50 ↗ under on exhibit 34 recital g

29:55 ↗ so the council had the hearings on these

29:59 ↗ agreements

30:00 ↗ in may and june of 17

30:04 ↗ well in advance of this letter that was

30:07 ↗ issued to mr abdelnor well

30:10 ↗ you're referring to binding g in exhibit

30:13 ↗ c34

30:15 ↗ the one that was signed in september and

30:18 ↗ is the development agreement

30:19 ↗ right right yes okay and it doesn't make

30:22 ↗ any mention of the developer sales

30:24 ↗ agreement does it

30:25 ↗ uh it does it actually refers to the

30:28 ↗ requirement

30:29 ↗ for 33 to happen

30:33 ↗ hey where's that

30:37 ↗ i will need to find it

31:16 ↗ uh

31:44 ↗ um

31:58 ↗ um

32:00 ↗ okay uh mr neville

32:06 ↗ please expedite this i think so

32:09 ↗ i was about to tell mr nibben i think

32:11 ↗ what he's looking for is at the top of

32:12 ↗ page three

32:17 ↗ yes it's subsection e i was almost there

32:20 ↗ sorry i'm a slow

32:21 ↗ reader subsection e

32:26 ↗ on page three okay and it why don't you

32:29 ↗ read the

32:29 ↗ first sentence of that to us the owners

32:34 ↗ in parens polygon northwest and the city

32:38 ↗ will execute and record an affordable

32:39 ↗ housing agreement pursuant to imc

32:43 ↗ 1821050

32:45 ↗ prior to september 30 2017 or as

32:48 ↗ otherwise approved by the director

32:51 ↗ but prior to issuing any building

32:52 ↗ permits

32:54 ↗ for any market townhouses in westridge

32:57 ↗ multi-family north

32:59 ↗ parents sea attachment two uh

33:02 ↗ or parcel d period okay so

33:07 ↗ in september the city

33:18 ↗ actually about two weeks before the date

33:21 ↗ in that subsection c

33:22 ↗ the city said or the

33:26 ↗ development agreement said the city

33:27 ↗ would execute and record an affordable

33:30 ↗ housing agreement

33:31 ↗ correct so that section

33:35 ↗ subsection e you said c i'm not sure if

33:38 ↗ you meant c

33:38 ↗ or e i meant e i apologize september

33:44 ↗ 30th or is otherwise approved by

33:46 ↗ the director that would be me so what

33:48 ↗ that told me was we expected it to be

33:50 ↗ able to be executed

33:52 ↗ by the end of september but there was

33:53 ↗ the ability for it to be potentially

33:55 ↗ later

33:56 ↗ if reasons called for it to be later

33:59 ↗ and so

34:04 ↗ the letter that mr abdelnor wrote and

34:07 ↗ that you sign

34:09 ↗ doesn't refer to the subsequent

34:14 ↗ agreement referred to in that paragraph

34:16 ↗ correct

34:18 ↗ developer sales agreement

34:34 ↗ it doesn't specifically identify

34:36 ↗ paragraph e

34:37 ↗ it references

34:41 ↗ an agreement to provide affordable

34:42 ↗ housing units on the property

34:45 ↗ which is what this document does

34:50 ↗ it says enter entered into past

34:54 ↗ again i'm back to c-41 it refers to

34:57 ↗ past tense entered into a development

35:00 ↗ agreement to provide affordable housing

35:02 ↗ and that is the september agreement

35:04 ↗ obviously not

35:05 ↗ the december one since december hadn't

35:08 ↗ come yet correct

35:40 ↗ so i'm gonna i'm gonna go back to the

35:43 ↗ letter i

35:43 ↗ actually signed which is c41

35:47 ↗ so what paragraph 2 says is

35:50 ↗ as referenced above the city of issaquah

35:52 ↗ and polygon

35:54 ↗ wlh comma llc entered into a new

35:58 ↗ development agreement in paren's

35:59 ↗ agreement

36:01 ↗ to provide affordable housing units on

36:04 ↗ polygon-controlled property known as

36:06 ↗ westridge north

36:08 ↗ the agreement was an outcome of the

36:10 ↗ ninth major amendment to the issaquah

36:12 ↗ highlands development agreement and the

36:14 ↗ first major amendment of the wash dot

36:16 ↗ part point tdr development agreement so

36:18 ↗ those are the references

36:23 ↗ okay no further questions mr ewan thank

36:25 ↗ you

37:03 ↗ so is there further testimony to be held

37:09 ↗ mr chairman and we would yield to the

37:11 ↗ applicant

37:12 ↗ okay then we're prepared to proceed i'm

37:15 ↗ going to

37:16 ↗ as did mr lal i'm going to give an

37:18 ↗ opening statement that burt

37:20 ↗ attempts to provide an overview of

37:24 ↗ the evidence and why we're presenting

37:25 ↗ the evidence you're going to receive

37:27 ↗ unfortunately we have a lot of

37:32 ↗ oh yes and uh

37:37 ↗ ms corey is going to put up on the

37:38 ↗ screen a powerpoint that has a few

37:41 ↗ slides that i'm going to use in my

37:42 ↗ opening statement

37:47 ↗ that's going to take a moment so i will

37:49 ↗ keep talking while

37:50 ↗ she does that um

37:55 ↗ the the evidence that we're presenting

37:57 ↗ so far is in these two boxes here on the

38:00 ↗ table so you can see we have a lot of

38:02 ↗ exhibits we're going to

38:04 ↗ be required by the circumstances we're

38:07 ↗ in

38:08 ↗ to tell you a detailed story

38:11 ↗ it's going to be presented primarily

38:14 ↗ initially by

38:15 ↗ tia heim who's been sitting next to us

38:17 ↗ at these hearings and who was the

38:19 ↗ applicant's representative

38:20 ↗ in dealing with the city you're also

38:23 ↗ going to hear

38:24 ↗ from patrick mullaney who

38:27 ↗ is was the attorney for shelter during

38:31 ↗ this process

38:32 ↗ and you're going to hear for gary young

38:34 ↗ who's been here for most of the hearings

38:35 ↗ and is here tonight and is

38:38 ↗ the principal of shelter

38:42 ↗ ms heim took careful notes of her

38:45 ↗ interactions with the city every time

38:48 ↗ there was a meeting she would go back to

38:50 ↗ the office and that same day or

38:52 ↗ at the latest the next day she would

38:53 ↗ make detailed notes

38:55 ↗ so the evidence that she's going to be

38:58 ↗ presenting about specific

39:00 ↗ things that were said at specific

39:02 ↗ meetings and in specific places it's all

39:04 ↗ based on contemporaneous

39:06 ↗ records of what happened it's not just

39:09 ↗ to be

39:09 ↗ from her memory and the story that

39:12 ↗ you're going to hear

39:13 ↗ based on the documents we're presenting

39:16 ↗ and on ms heim's testimony in particular

39:20 ↗ is a very different story than you've

39:22 ↗ heard so far

39:26 ↗ we're supposed to be a nation of laws

39:29 ↗ and if you all remember what you know

39:33 ↗ we were all supposed to learn in junior

39:35 ↗ high or high school

39:36 ↗ that means the legislative body enacts

39:39 ↗ the laws

39:40 ↗ the administrative or executive branch

39:43 ↗ of government enforces the laws

39:45 ↗ and the judicial branch interprets the

39:47 ↗ laws and what that means in the land use

39:49 ↗ context

39:50 ↗ is that the city council enacts

39:53 ↗ regulations the mayor

39:57 ↗ and the department heads are supposed to

39:59 ↗ implement those

40:00 ↗ regulations and then if things go wrong

40:03 ↗ we end up in a quasi-judicial or a

40:05 ↗ judicial proceeding as we have now but

40:08 ↗ the implementation

40:10 ↗ of the laws is supposed to be based on

40:12 ↗ the adopted laws

40:13 ↗ and not on the individual inclinations

40:17 ↗ of the people who happen to have a

40:19 ↗ position of authority

40:21 ↗ at a particular moment in time and it's

40:23 ↗ not supposed to be based on who

40:25 ↗ you know the current elected officials

40:27 ↗ like or dislike it's supposed to be

40:28 ↗ based

40:29 ↗ on the written regulations lawfully

40:32 ↗ adopted by the city council

40:38 ↗ that is not what happened in this case

40:40 ↗ and

40:41 ↗ we're it's unfortunate that we have to

40:43 ↗ tell this story

40:45 ↗ but we're going to be presenting a very

40:46 ↗ different story than you've heard

40:48 ↗ we're going to be presenting a story of

40:52 ↗ people who did not follow the

40:54 ↗ regulations

40:56 ↗ who treated shelter very differently

40:59 ↗ than it was treating other applicants

41:01 ↗ polygon just being

41:02 ↗ a prominent example of that and and

41:06 ↗ city officials who said one thing and

41:08 ↗ did another

41:10 ↗ and why is that relevant to the vested

41:11 ↗ rights well because the city has made it

41:14 ↗ relevant and because

41:15 ↗ courts give deference to government

41:18 ↗ officials

41:19 ↗ if they're acting in good faith and if

41:20 ↗ they're being consistent and if they're

41:22 ↗ acting as a matter of policy

41:24 ↗ i want to call your attention to

41:26 ↗ testimony that

41:27 ↗ mr lell got from miss sloman on the very

41:30 ↗ first night of the hearing

41:32 ↗ and i want i'm going to read this the

41:34 ↗ question and answer out it's very short

41:36 ↗ and i would like you to keep

41:37 ↗ this exchange in mind as you hear the

41:39 ↗ testimony we're going to present because

41:41 ↗ it'll explain why we are presenting

41:43 ↗ evidence to rebut this testimony

41:45 ↗ so this is on page 96 of the transcript

41:49 ↗ of our first hearing and it's a question

41:52 ↗ from mr lel to ms sloman question

41:54 ↗ in your dealings with ihifc did you act

41:57 ↗ consistently

41:58 ↗ honestly and in good faith answer i did

42:02 ↗ question did you ever deliberately

42:04 ↗ discriminate against ihifc

42:06 ↗ or otherwise deliberately target ihifc

42:10 ↗ for negative disparate treatment answer

42:13 ↗ absolutely not

42:14 ↗ question did you ever inform ihifc

42:17 ↗ that its asd application or sdp

42:21 ↗ applications were permanently vested

42:23 ↗ such that they would not be subject to

42:25 ↗ the replacement regulations

42:27 ↗ answer no

42:30 ↗ the city has asked you to accept the

42:33 ↗ fact that the city's

42:35 ↗ officials are acting in good faith and

42:38 ↗ is trying to create a record that

42:40 ↗ says a court should defer well

42:43 ↗ the record we're going to create shows

42:45 ↗ that we were being discriminated against

42:48 ↗ the regulations were not being followed

42:51 ↗ and that we were told repeatedly that we

42:53 ↗ were vested

42:54 ↗ now this concept of permanent vesting

42:56 ↗ that is in the passage i just quoted

42:58 ↗ from

42:59 ↗ from is a concept the city invented

43:02 ↗ for the purposes of this hearing there

43:05 ↗ is no such thing

43:06 ↗ as permanent vesting as opposed to some

43:08 ↗ other kind of vesting

43:10 ↗ we've we've had a vested rights doctrine

43:13 ↗ in this state since about 1956.

43:16 ↗ since the early 1970s there when land

43:19 ↗ use regulation

43:20 ↗ really took off when our environmental

43:22 ↗ laws were adopted like cepa

43:24 ↗ in the shoreline management act there

43:26 ↗ have been lots of vested rights cases

43:28 ↗ none of those cases has ever used the

43:30 ↗ phrase

43:31 ↗ permanent vesting the concept is

43:36 ↗ a tautology and by that i mean there is

43:39 ↗ no

43:40 ↗ investing is either permanent or it

43:41 ↗ doesn't exist in the first place and by

43:44 ↗ permanent we don't mean lasting forever

43:46 ↗ but we mean vested rights continue after

43:49 ↗ the regulations change

43:51 ↗ that is the purpose and meaning of

43:53 ↗ vested rights

43:54 ↗ if they're not permanent in that sense

43:57 ↗ then they never existed rights that go

43:59 ↗ away

44:00 ↗ when the legislation changes are not

44:03 ↗ vested rights

44:05 ↗ so i'm going to turn to the powerpoint

44:06 ↗ now and this is just a reminder of the

44:09 ↗ property we're talking about

44:11 ↗ up on the highlands the the 21 plus

44:13 ↗ acres owned by

44:15 ↗ hfc are a big l along

44:18 ↗ immediately adjacent to the undeveloped

44:20 ↗ brown

44:21 ↗ parcel immediately jason to the street

44:23 ↗ comes on down and makes a turn to the

44:25 ↗ left it's 21 acres it's

44:27 ↗ obviously a very very valuable

44:31 ↗ piece of property next slide please

44:35 ↗ so the city has told you the witnesses

44:38 ↗ have testified i think mr lel

44:40 ↗ said as much in his opening statement

44:42 ↗ that the city council could take away

44:44 ↗ the vested rights

44:46 ↗ even if they existed even if things were

44:49 ↗ mistakenly said

44:51 ↗ that hivc was vested the city council

44:53 ↗ had the authority to take away those

44:55 ↗ vested rights

44:56 ↗ this is a quote from a case decided in

44:59 ↗ may

45:00 ↗ of last year in the prison industrial

45:04 ↗ complex versus king county

45:06 ↗ and what is quoted is what

45:10 ↗ is is about as simple and

45:11 ↗ straightforward a principle as you'll

45:13 ↗ ever get in the law

45:14 ↗ legislation cannot be applied

45:16 ↗ retroactively where doing so would

45:18 ↗ affect

45:19 ↗ vested rights and then there's this the

45:21 ↗ string site is

45:22 ↗ all of the cases that the division one

45:24 ↗ of the court of appeals cited in may

45:26 ↗ for that statement and the statement

45:28 ↗ goes way back in time

45:30 ↗ you could find a lot older cases that

45:32 ↗ say that legislation cannot be applied

45:35 ↗ retroactively where doing so would

45:37 ↗ affect vested rights

45:39 ↗ the city council had no authority to

45:42 ↗ change and take away vested rights

45:45 ↗ invested rights only exist if in fact

45:48 ↗ they continue after the legislation

45:51 ↗ changes otherwise

45:53 ↗ they're not vested rights there's

45:54 ↗ something else next slide

45:57 ↗ so this is the section in the

45:59 ↗ development agreement that ms sloman

46:01 ↗ told the city council wasn't there

46:04 ↗ section 3.23

46:06 ↗ vesting after build out build out is the

46:08 ↗ 20-year period under the development

46:10 ↗ agreement when the regulations could not

46:12 ↗ change after build out

46:15 ↗ then it was up to the city council to

46:18 ↗ enact

46:18 ↗ new regulations they couldn't do so

46:21 ↗ during the build-out period

46:22 ↗ afterwards they could have done so right

46:24 ↗ away they could have waited another 20

46:26 ↗ years it was entirely up to the city

46:28 ↗ council's discretion

46:30 ↗ so the people who entered into the

46:32 ↗ vested rights agreement in 1996 made it

46:34 ↗ very clear

46:36 ↗ the development standards shall continue

46:37 ↗ to apply to all applications for

46:40 ↗ implementing approval submitted after

46:42 ↗ expiration of the build-out period

46:44 ↗ except either party may terminate this

46:46 ↗ agreement and the zoning and development

46:48 ↗ regulations may be modified as provided

46:50 ↗ in section 5.13

46:53 ↗ well the city will say that section .513

46:58 ↗ completely eviscerates what is in here

47:01 ↗ well

47:01 ↗ that's simply not the case it couldn't

47:03 ↗ do that even if

47:07 ↗ even if that's what it said but that's

47:08 ↗ not what it says

47:10 ↗ when you're reading legislation you have

47:13 ↗ to

47:14 ↗ whenever possible you have to read the

47:16 ↗ different parts

47:17 ↗ so they fit together and so you give

47:19 ↗ effect to all the parts one part doesn't

47:22 ↗ undermine or eviscerate another part and

47:24 ↗ section 5.13 simply

47:28 ↗ says that um you know the uh

47:31 ↗ it's called it's referred to as the

47:33 ↗ termination of the end of the

47:34 ↗ development agreement and it's entirely

47:36 ↗ consistent with this

47:37 ↗ the city is basically saying the last

47:39 ↗ sentence of 513

47:41 ↗ makes meaningless what's in 3.2

47:45 ↗ 3.23.2 and that's not the way statutes

47:48 ↗ are interpreted so the city's position

47:51 ↗ um to basically say that this doesn't

47:54 ↗ mean what it says

47:56 ↗ is not going to withstand scrutiny

47:58 ↗ either and this whole concept that the

48:00 ↗ city council could take away the vested

48:02 ↗ rights

48:02 ↗ is so contrary to law that

48:06 ↗ it's even hard to express frustration

48:10 ↗ and talking about it so next exhibit

48:13 ↗ please

48:13 ↗ so this is again ms sloman's slide that

48:16 ↗ she presented to the city council

48:19 ↗ on multiple occasions we've highlighted

48:21 ↗ the bullet or the diamond that says the

48:23 ↗ development agreement does not provide

48:25 ↗ regulations or guidance on besting or

48:27 ↗ projects well it does

48:28 ↗ and as as we just showed you

48:32 ↗ next slide

48:35 ↗ now this gets us to the west main issue

48:38 ↗ that you've heard about

48:39 ↗ west main is a case uh

48:43 ↗ it came out of the city of bellevue back

48:46 ↗ in the mid

48:47 ↗ and the city of bellevue basically

48:50 ↗ imposed

48:51 ↗ a lot of land use approval process

48:54 ↗ on an applicant before they could apply

48:56 ↗ for a building permit invest

48:59 ↗ and so they the city very clearly

49:01 ↗ intended to

49:02 ↗ you know do exactly what iskwa is doing

49:05 ↗ here

49:06 ↗ is give itself the authority to change

49:08 ↗ the regulations

49:09 ↗ after someone is vested or in

49:12 ↗ west maine's case to actually prevent

49:14 ↗ the investing in the first place by

49:16 ↗ submitting the building permit it went

49:17 ↗ all the way to the supreme court

49:19 ↗ and the supreme court said no because

49:22 ↗ vested rights are

49:23 ↗ constitutionally based they're based on

49:25 ↗ property rights and the city council

49:28 ↗ cannot simply

49:29 ↗ prevent someone from fixing the

49:31 ↗ regulations that apply to their property

49:33 ↗ it's a fundamental attribute of

49:35 ↗ property and the state of washington now

49:38 ↗ the city

49:39 ↗ regularly acknowledged not only

49:41 ↗ privately but publicly

49:44 ↗ that it was required by the west main

49:46 ↗ case to allow

49:48 ↗ applicants to vest when they commence

49:51 ↗ the land use process

49:52 ↗ that is on the

49:56 ↗ material that is given to applicants

49:57 ↗ that we've entered

49:59 ↗ into evidence where it clearly says you

50:01 ↗ need your land use approval

50:03 ↗ before you can even apply for a building

50:06 ↗ permit

50:06 ↗ so the city understood that's perfectly

50:09 ↗ lawful for the city to do but you can't

50:12 ↗ but the city then had the west main

50:13 ↗ problem so it agreed

50:15 ↗ that people vested when they applied for

50:17 ↗ the land use

50:18 ↗ approval and

50:21 ↗ that was the city's practice the

50:24 ↗ development agreement is

50:26 ↗ entirely consistent with that practice

50:28 ↗ it says you vest when you apply for the

50:30 ↗ implementing approvals

50:32 ↗ we vested pursuant to the language in

50:35 ↗ the development agreement

50:36 ↗ because we applied for implementing

50:38 ↗ approvals the

50:39 ↗ site development permit the

50:41 ↗ administrative site development permit

50:43 ↗ and the subdivision

50:45 ↗ we vested pursuant to the terms of the

50:47 ↗ development agreement

50:48 ↗ this this washington courts have said

50:50 ↗ clearly for decades

50:52 ↗ the legislative body could not take away

50:53 ↗ those rights

50:55 ↗ so you we've also heard from the city

50:58 ↗ that the development

50:59 ↗ agreement was just a contract and when

51:01 ↗ the contract expires

51:03 ↗ then the rights that were created by

51:06 ↗ that contract go away

51:08 ↗ well that may or may not be true lots of

51:10 ↗ rights created in a contract are

51:12 ↗ expressly made to continue after the

51:14 ↗ contract ends

51:15 ↗ but that is certainly not the case here

51:18 ↗ because this is not just your ordinary

51:20 ↗ development agreement this is not the

51:22 ↗ affordable housing development agreement

51:24 ↗ that we've been talking about with mr

51:26 ↗ niven this development agreement

51:28 ↗ actually created the land use

51:31 ↗ regulations that applied

51:33 ↗ in the issaquah highlands for 20-plus

51:36 ↗ years

51:37 ↗ without that development agreement there

51:39 ↗ would have been no land use regulations

51:41 ↗ in the issaquah highlands

51:43 ↗ if you looked at the city code the city

51:45 ↗ code said for development and

51:46 ↗ regulations look at the development

51:48 ↗ agreement

51:49 ↗ so to say that those this development

51:52 ↗ agreement was just a contract

51:54 ↗ is not the case state law says that a

51:57 ↗ development agreement is both

51:59 ↗ a contract and an exercise of the police

52:02 ↗ power

52:02 ↗ as an exercise of the police power it

52:05 ↗ was the development regulations that

52:06 ↗ were in place

52:08 ↗ that we our client ihifc

52:11 ↗ knew were going to expire and they made

52:14 ↗ a

52:15 ↗ so they were you know they they vested

52:18 ↗ and vested to this development agreement

52:21 ↗ is not only vesting to the regulations

52:23 ↗ because they were the only regulations

52:25 ↗ that were in place

52:26 ↗ it's also vesting to the mitigation

52:29 ↗ the development agreement is very clear

52:31 ↗ that one of the things you vest to

52:33 ↗ is mitigation we're talking tens of

52:36 ↗ millions of dollars of mitigation

52:39 ↗ that go with these vested rights and

52:41 ↗ that according to the city

52:42 ↗ have evaporated now mr nevin you know

52:45 ↗ testified well

52:46 ↗ we wanted to talk about mitigation and

52:48 ↗ the applicant didn't want to talk about

52:50 ↗ it well

52:50 ↗ you're going to hear very different

52:51 ↗ testimony from the applicant on that

52:53 ↗ issue

52:55 ↗ there are tens of millions of dollars at

52:57 ↗ stake here because the mitigation was

52:59 ↗ paid up front the infrastructure was

53:01 ↗ created up front

53:02 ↗ the studies the environmental review was

53:05 ↗ done up front and it was all done by

53:07 ↗ agreement between the city and the

53:09 ↗ applicant the the

53:10 ↗ 1996 development agreement for the

53:12 ↗ israel highlands is the poster child for

53:15 ↗ how the growth management act is

53:16 ↗ supposed to work

53:17 ↗ and it did work but it's not working now

53:22 ↗ because

53:22 ↗ there's been a change in policy within

53:24 ↗ the city

53:26 ↗ the current elected officials or some of

53:28 ↗ them at least don't

53:29 ↗ like what was in the development

53:31 ↗ agreement but their predecessors agreed

53:33 ↗ to

53:34 ↗ and so they have treated ih

53:37 ↗ ifc in the way that you're going to hear

53:38 ↗ about in this testimony

53:41 ↗ it's a very detailed story and it's a

53:43 ↗ story of

53:44 ↗ the city not acting in accordance with

53:46 ↗ the law not acting in accordance with

53:48 ↗ the regulations in the development

53:50 ↗ agreement

53:50 ↗ saying one thing and doing another and

53:52 ↗ treating similar situated people

53:55 ↗ differently so we are vested we're

53:58 ↗ vested as a matter of law

54:00 ↗ the facts will show that and the facts

54:02 ↗ will also show that the city's actions

54:03 ↗ here

54:05 ↗ take away any right to have its position

54:08 ↗ on any of this given any difference by

54:10 ↗ any reviewing body

54:13 ↗ and that's the conclusion to my opening

54:16 ↗ statement

54:16 ↗ and ms carray is going to proceed with

54:18 ↗ the questioning

54:22 ↗ mr chair since we're an hour in maybe

54:24 ↗ and we're going to start with

54:26 ↗ testimony maybe it would be a good point

54:27 ↗ to take a break just give everybody a

54:28 ↗ few minutes

54:29 ↗ and then back to it suggestion do we

54:32 ↗ want to take a

54:34 ↗ talk about the notes as well

54:37 ↗ okay if uh

54:40 ↗ people are winning let's take a ten

54:42 ↗ minute break and uh

54:44 ↗ you're ready to go

1:04:47 ↗ we have a bridge a bomb all right we're

1:04:50 ↗ back on there

1:04:50 ↗ so let's proceed uh i need to

1:04:54 ↗ correct one missed statement in my

1:04:56 ↗ opening statement

1:04:57 ↗ i the quote i read from the

1:05:01 ↗ question and answer with ms sloman i

1:05:04 ↗ said

1:05:05 ↗ said it was from the september hearing

1:05:07 ↗ it was actually from the november 29th

1:05:09 ↗ hearing the quote

1:05:10 ↗ was accurate but it was from the

1:05:12 ↗ november 29 hearing so

1:05:13 ↗ i wanted to correct the record on that

1:05:18 ↗ i'm good evening my name is jacqueline

1:05:19 ↗ carey i go by jackie

1:05:21 ↗ i'm co-counsel with pat schneider and

1:05:23 ↗ we'll be taking the direct testimony of

1:05:25 ↗ tia heim who's our

1:05:26 ↗ first witness um so tea if you come up

1:05:28 ↗ here please

1:05:35 ↗ and um our court reporter we please

1:05:37 ↗ swear her in

1:05:41 ↗ do you solemnly swear the testimony

1:05:43 ↗ you're about to give them this cause

1:05:45 ↗ it'll be the truth the whole truth and

1:05:46 ↗ nothing but the truth

1:05:48 ↗ i do

1:05:51 ↗ good evening miss heim um can i call you

1:05:54 ↗ tia

1:05:55 ↗ excellent so tia can you please

1:05:57 ↗ introduce yourself for the record um

1:05:59 ↗ where's your current employer

1:06:01 ↗ my name is tia heim and i work for

1:06:03 ↗ shelter holdings

1:06:04 ↗ and how long have you been working for

1:06:06 ↗ shelter uh i started working for shelter

1:06:09 ↗ in

1:06:09 ↗ april of 2015. will you describe your

1:06:12 ↗ professional experience before coming to

1:06:14 ↗ shelter

1:06:15 ↗ sure i am a real estate and land use

1:06:19 ↗ lawyer by training went to uc berkeley

1:06:22 ↗ for law school

1:06:23 ↗ spent about six years at perkins coui

1:06:26 ↗ in their real estate and land use

1:06:28 ↗ department um

1:06:29 ↗ then went in-house with dr horton

1:06:32 ↗ national homebuilder

1:06:34 ↗ as their in-house council and ran their

1:06:38 ↗ land development and entitlement

1:06:39 ↗ department for about eight eight and a

1:06:41 ↗ half years

1:06:42 ↗ and since you came to shelter in april

1:06:44 ↗ of 2015 what have been your roles there

1:06:48 ↗ i am part of the development team there

1:06:50 ↗ so i

1:06:51 ↗ i primarily focus on

1:06:55 ↗ land use and entitlement and permitting

1:06:57 ↗ issues on various projects

1:07:00 ↗ around the pacific northwest in addition

1:07:03 ↗ to

1:07:03 ↗ dealing with various legal issues

1:07:08 ↗ and have you been fairly involved in the

1:07:10 ↗ projects that we're talking about this

1:07:11 ↗ evening

1:07:12 ↗ yes i would say that i'm the primary

1:07:14 ↗ contact on all of the

1:07:16 ↗ the applications that we've talked about

1:07:18 ↗ and does that also include the plat

1:07:20 ↗ application that's not before us today

1:07:22 ↗ but

1:07:22 ↗ um is also pending it does

1:07:26 ↗ and i guess the same question for

1:07:27 ↗ there's an office application out there

1:07:28 ↗ too

1:07:29 ↗ yes okay just as a preliminary matter um

1:07:33 ↗ you have a binder in front of you

1:07:35 ↗ of some documents can you describe for

1:07:37 ↗ me what that is please

1:07:39 ↗ um this binder has my

1:07:43 ↗ notes that i took at various meetings

1:07:47 ↗ over the course of working in issaquah

1:07:51 ↗ so as a typical practice

1:07:55 ↗ after each meeting or during each

1:07:57 ↗ meeting i would take handwritten notes

1:07:58 ↗ and

1:07:59 ↗ after each meeting i would follow up by

1:08:04 ↗ typing them up and so was it fair to say

1:08:07 ↗ that it's your regular practice to

1:08:09 ↗ take these notes at all the meetings

1:08:10 ↗ that you go to yes

1:08:12 ↗ and you maintain them in the regular

1:08:14 ↗ course of business yes

1:08:16 ↗ and um the copies in front of you those

1:08:19 ↗ are copies exact copies of the notes

1:08:20 ↗ that you've been taking whether

1:08:21 ↗ handwritten or typed up afterwards

1:08:23 ↗ yes so we're going to be using ms heim's

1:08:26 ↗ notes throughout the course of this to

1:08:28 ↗ refresh her recollection

1:08:29 ↗ we're not offering them into the record

1:08:31 ↗ they're just here as a guide as she's

1:08:33 ↗ testifying because we'll be talking

1:08:34 ↗ about a lot of these meetings

1:08:38 ↗ so i'd like to start first by just

1:08:40 ↗ describing the property we've heard a

1:08:42 ↗ little bit about it from

1:08:44 ↗ the city's testimony but i'd like to

1:08:46 ↗ start from the beginning

1:08:47 ↗ so i put a figure up here on the screen

1:08:50 ↗ this would be

1:08:50 ↗ i believe exhibit s 19

1:08:56 ↗ for the record and we have copies of

1:08:59 ↗ that to distribute as well

1:09:04 ↗ so tia um can you just describe in

1:09:06 ↗ general

1:09:07 ↗ what what is ihifcs or shelters i'm

1:09:10 ↗ going to refer to them interchangeably

1:09:11 ↗ what does the property look like can you

1:09:13 ↗ just describe its size

1:09:15 ↗ yes so it is um about

1:09:18 ↗ a 21.5 acres and it runs along

1:09:22 ↗ nor along 9th avenue northeast and

1:09:25 ↗ northeast discovery drive it's sometimes

1:09:28 ↗ referred to

1:09:29 ↗ as as a backwards l-shaped property

1:09:33 ↗ and then the the property sort of inside

1:09:36 ↗ the l shape

1:09:36 ↗ is all owned by polygon which is a

1:09:39 ↗ separate entity

1:09:40 ↗ and that's where it's referring to the

1:09:42 ↗ future westridge development site

1:09:44 ↗ on the figure yes

1:09:55 ↗ and turning to this figure which would

1:09:58 ↗ be

1:09:59 ↗ s20 for the record

1:10:03 ↗ um and again we've got copies of that

1:10:04 ↗ one and i i have another one coming up

1:10:07 ↗ as well

1:10:08 ↗ that i'm just if pat's passing them out

1:10:10 ↗ at this time it'll be s21 it's another

1:10:12 ↗ figure similar to this

1:10:13 ↗ but tia can you describe what this is up

1:10:15 ↗ on the screen right now

1:10:17 ↗ uh yes so this map shows

1:10:22 ↗ our property and it labels

1:10:25 ↗ each of the blocks of our property so

1:10:28 ↗ if you start at the the north at the top

1:10:32 ↗ [Music]

1:10:34 ↗ the first label says high street

1:10:36 ↗ collection block

1:10:37 ↗ blocks a and b and that

1:10:40 ↗ would be those blocks were are covered

1:10:44 ↗ by

1:10:44 ↗ our retail sdp

1:10:48 ↗ moving down then you see high street

1:10:52 ↗ collection block c

1:10:55 ↗ and actually the north portion of block

1:10:58 ↗ c is also part of the retail

1:11:00 ↗ sdp application and

1:11:04 ↗ and then we have a preliminary land use

1:11:06 ↗ application for an

1:11:07 ↗ office building on the remaining portion

1:11:11 ↗ of block

1:11:12 ↗ c then the next label that you see

1:11:15 ↗ is high street collection block d and

1:11:18 ↗ block d

1:11:19 ↗ is the site of the medical office

1:11:21 ↗ building

1:11:23 ↗ asdp and then the last label there

1:11:27 ↗ is the high street collection block e

1:11:29 ↗ and a portion of block e

1:11:32 ↗ is the location of the storage

1:11:36 ↗ asdp thank you

1:11:50 ↗ all right so i put another figure up on

1:11:52 ↗ the screen which

1:11:53 ↗ be referring to as s21

1:11:57 ↗ tia what is this figure show

1:12:00 ↗ wait a minute we have it right now

1:12:07 ↗ this is s 21.

1:12:11 ↗ yes so

1:12:24 ↗ yes that's 20.

1:12:38 ↗ uh well for the time being we we will

1:12:42 ↗ do you mind if i provide you a copy if

1:12:44 ↗ we look for it in a moment

1:12:46 ↗ it's it's just a demonstrative figure um

1:12:50 ↗ so again this is s21

1:12:54 ↗ and we'll locate a copy of that in a

1:12:56 ↗ minute here but to continue on with

1:12:57 ↗ tia's testimony

1:12:59 ↗ tia can you describe what this is

1:13:01 ↗ showing

1:13:02 ↗ yeah this map shows

1:13:04 ↗ [Music]

1:13:06 ↗ both our projects

1:13:09 ↗ and it also labels the other

1:13:12 ↗ relevant projects that you may have

1:13:14 ↗ heard or will hear testimony

1:13:16 ↗ on so they are other active projects

1:13:20 ↗ or recent projects in issaquah highlands

1:13:24 ↗ so um starting up at the the northern

1:13:26 ↗ part there with block

1:13:28 ↗ 19 can you give me just a broad overview

1:13:30 ↗ of what that project is

1:13:32 ↗ block 19 is a multi-family

1:13:36 ↗ apartment project how about city surf

1:13:38 ↗ just south of that

1:13:40 ↗ city surf is an indoor wave park

1:13:44 ↗ and then moving over to the westridge

1:13:48 ↗ projects there's a handful of them

1:13:51 ↗ but maybe starting with westridge

1:13:54 ↗ westridge north single family is the

1:13:56 ↗ very top one

1:13:57 ↗ okay so westridge north single family

1:14:00 ↗ is a single-family plat

1:14:04 ↗ that is owned by polygon i think it's

1:14:07 ↗ somewhere around 72

1:14:10 ↗ single-family lots and it's adjacent to

1:14:13 ↗ a portion of our property then moving

1:14:16 ↗ down you've got

1:14:17 ↗ westridge townhomes north that

1:14:20 ↗ is a site development permit

1:14:24 ↗ that was approved for another polygon

1:14:26 ↗ project

1:14:27 ↗ that's adjacent to a portion of our

1:14:29 ↗ project

1:14:31 ↗ moving further down you have westridge

1:14:33 ↗ townhome

1:14:34 ↗ south another

1:14:36 ↗ [Music]

1:14:38 ↗ sdp townhome project adjacent to our

1:14:41 ↗ property

1:14:44 ↗ then you've also got westridge

1:14:47 ↗ affordable housing

1:14:49 ↗ which is another polygon project

1:14:52 ↗ i believe that one is an asdp because of

1:14:55 ↗ the the

1:14:56 ↗ size and the fact that it is vested to

1:14:59 ↗ the

1:15:00 ↗ development agreement then you've got

1:15:04 ↗ the city short plat which is

1:15:08 ↗ a piece that's owned by the city of

1:15:11 ↗ issaquah that they

1:15:13 ↗ were processing a short plot on

1:15:17 ↗ and you have the westridge single family

1:15:20 ↗ south which is another single family

1:15:22 ↗ plot which i believe at this point is

1:15:24 ↗ all built out and probably mostly sold

1:15:28 ↗ and then if i recall right track d up in

1:15:30 ↗ the corner there

1:15:33 ↗ how was that tied to the highlands so

1:15:35 ↗ track d

1:15:37 ↗ was part of the polygon

1:15:40 ↗ tdr deal so

1:15:44 ↗ they i think have the right to

1:15:47 ↗ purchase that tract for a dollar

1:15:51 ↗ in exchange for building additional

1:15:53 ↗ affordable housing

1:15:55 ↗ in um some of their town homes and

1:15:59 ↗ as the westridge affordable housing

1:16:01 ↗ project so the collection of all these

1:16:03 ↗ properties and and projects is this a

1:16:06 ↗ fair summary of the remaining

1:16:08 ↗ development in the highlands

1:16:10 ↗ yes

1:16:13 ↗ okay i'd like to move on now to

1:16:16 ↗ the staff reports that are the subject

1:16:19 ↗ of this hearing

1:16:20 ↗ um i believe that there's copies of the

1:16:23 ↗ staff reports in the record already but

1:16:24 ↗ not the

1:16:25 ↗ attachments that go with them so we were

1:16:27 ↗ going to offer in the full copies

1:16:29 ↗ so we have those at what would be

1:16:32 ↗ exhibits

1:16:33 ↗ uh s 22 23

1:16:36 ↗ and 24.

1:16:59 ↗ [Applause]

1:17:14 ↗ um

1:17:17 ↗ [Applause]

1:17:33 ↗ do i need a copy of it

1:17:42 ↗ okay

1:17:56 ↗ okay and then just as a preliminary

1:17:58 ↗ matter as we're going through we have

1:18:00 ↗ some exhibits that have already been

1:18:01 ↗ put into the record so the s exhibits

1:18:03 ↗ for shelter the sea exhibits for the

1:18:04 ↗ city

1:18:05 ↗ we've brought additional copies of those

1:18:07 ↗ this evening in case you

1:18:09 ↗ don't have a copy council for the city

1:18:10 ↗ or the development commission

1:18:13 ↗ um but i can pass those out as we go

1:18:16 ↗ or if you already have a copy i'll

1:18:17 ↗ refrain from doing that

1:18:23 ↗ okay thank you and

1:18:26 ↗ the development commission we don't have

1:18:28 ↗ copies for every single member but i can

1:18:30 ↗ provide another courtesy copy if that

1:18:31 ↗ would be helpful

1:18:32 ↗ that would be thank you

1:18:36 ↗ i'm going to turn now to what was

1:18:39 ↗ previously

1:18:40 ↗ marked as exhibit a6

1:18:44 ↗ which i believe is going to be now

1:18:45 ↗ referred to as s6 because we changed the

1:18:47 ↗ naming conventions for shelters exhibits

1:18:50 ↗ handing a copy to

1:18:52 ↗ tia of that and

1:18:56 ↗ another copy for the development

1:18:58 ↗ commission

1:19:01 ↗ can you explain what this document is

1:19:02 ↗ please

1:19:06 ↗ um i believe that this is a

1:19:09 ↗ document that was prepared by the city

1:19:12 ↗ that summarized

1:19:14 ↗ um some of the relevant dates with

1:19:16 ↗ respect to

1:19:17 ↗ our applications and um

1:19:21 ↗ we heard miss sloman and well and

1:19:23 ↗ director niven testify to this

1:19:25 ↗ um is it your understanding that this

1:19:27 ↗ was prepared by ms loman

1:19:29 ↗ yes and in general are

1:19:32 ↗ the application dates that are listed in

1:19:34 ↗ here so we have the preliminary

1:19:36 ↗ plot retail office medical office

1:19:38 ↗ storage

1:19:39 ↗ are those dates consistent with

1:19:42 ↗ the dates that you're aware of for

1:19:44 ↗ applications

1:19:46 ↗ um yes the submittal dates look right

1:19:50 ↗ the one thing that jumps out just

1:19:52 ↗ looking at this now

1:19:53 ↗ um is i don't believe that we received

1:19:57 ↗ preliminary plaque comments on

1:19:59 ↗ january 16th of 2018.

1:20:02 ↗ i don't think we received any comments

1:20:04 ↗ on our plot until march of

1:20:06 ↗ 2018. okay and we'll be going through

1:20:10 ↗ each of the applications in a little bit

1:20:11 ↗ more detail so we can correct any

1:20:14 ↗ differences

1:20:14 ↗ along the way um but

1:20:18 ↗ on this timeline um it has a variety of

1:20:22 ↗ of time frames and dates that

1:20:25 ↗ ms sloman represents in here would be

1:20:28 ↗ the date that you would have gotten

1:20:29 ↗ approval of various applications

1:20:31 ↗ so starting with the plat application it

1:20:33 ↗ says approval of

1:20:34 ↗ 11 approval would be on 11 26 of 2017.

1:20:38 ↗ where is the plot application at right

1:20:40 ↗ now in the process

1:20:42 ↗ um we are working on a revision we just

1:20:45 ↗ received comments

1:20:47 ↗ in the couple days before christmas and

1:20:49 ↗ so

1:20:50 ↗ we are working on on getting that

1:20:52 ↗ revised and resubmitted

1:20:55 ↗ but we had been going back and forth

1:20:58 ↗ with the city to try to get clarity as

1:21:01 ↗ to what regulations actually applied

1:21:03 ↗ and spent many many months waiting

1:21:06 ↗ for responses from the city

1:21:09 ↗ on things like what are the road

1:21:12 ↗ standards that apply to the plat which

1:21:14 ↗ is a pretty important

1:21:15 ↗ piece of how a plant lays out

1:21:23 ↗ and we'll we'll come back to the various

1:21:26 ↗ steps along with the way with the plot

1:21:28 ↗ so far but

1:21:30 ↗ needless to say that 11 26 state has not

1:21:32 ↗ been met is that

1:21:33 ↗ right right and then with the site

1:21:37 ↗ development permit

1:21:38 ↗ submitted for retail it shows an

1:21:40 ↗ approval date of march 14

1:21:43 ↗ 2017. um we're here today so

1:21:46 ↗ i'm going to assume that we haven't

1:21:49 ↗ gotten any sort of approval or

1:21:50 ↗ disapproval on our application

1:21:52 ↗ um how how has the sdp

1:21:56 ↗ permit for retail and for that matter

1:21:57 ↗ for the others that are listed below

1:22:01 ↗ how how was the timing for processing

1:22:04 ↗ those differed from what your

1:22:05 ↗ expectations were under the development

1:22:07 ↗ agreement just

1:22:08 ↗ in general it's been much much longer

1:22:11 ↗ than

1:22:12 ↗ than was anticipated by us based on the

1:22:14 ↗ development agreement

1:22:42 ↗ all right um switching gears for

1:22:45 ↗ [Applause]

1:22:47 ↗ from this exhibit um

1:22:50 ↗ i like to talk generally about the the

1:22:53 ↗ issue

1:22:55 ↗ that is central to this hearing which is

1:22:56 ↗ vesting um

1:22:58 ↗ tia what's your understanding of the

1:23:01 ↗ vesting doctrine

1:23:04 ↗ vesting basically means that the

1:23:08 ↗ an application is evaluated under the

1:23:11 ↗ regulations that are

1:23:12 ↗ in place at the time of complete

1:23:14 ↗ application

1:23:17 ↗ and so what is it what does it mean to

1:23:18 ↗ vest

1:23:21 ↗ it means that you you lock into the

1:23:24 ↗ regulations that are

1:23:25 ↗ in place at the time you prepare your

1:23:27 ↗ application

1:23:28 ↗ so from just a very practical standpoint

1:23:32 ↗ that makes sense because you know

1:23:35 ↗ applications are a combination

1:23:39 ↗ of lots of different consultants working

1:23:41 ↗ to

1:23:42 ↗ to provide information that then gets

1:23:45 ↗ assembled together into

1:23:46 ↗ an application and if the regulations

1:23:48 ↗ could change

1:23:49 ↗ in the time frame

1:23:54 ↗ then a developer wouldn't have any

1:23:56 ↗ ability to plan

1:23:57 ↗ for their property so it gives an

1:24:00 ↗ element of predictability

1:24:02 ↗ to permitting

1:24:09 ↗ have you ever heard of the concept of

1:24:11 ↗ permanent vesting

1:24:12 ↗ no the first time that i heard that term

1:24:15 ↗ was from mr lal in the context of this

1:24:17 ↗ hearing

1:24:18 ↗ how about the concept of being divested

1:24:22 ↗ no the only way that i

1:24:25 ↗ would am aware of that vesting

1:24:27 ↗ terminates would be

1:24:28 ↗ if the the permit or the permit

1:24:31 ↗ application

1:24:33 ↗ expired by its own terms

1:24:44 ↗ so next i'd like to introduce a new

1:24:47 ↗ exhibit

1:24:47 ↗ which will be exhibit s 25.

1:25:10 ↗ so

1:25:14 ↗ as just a note there's a single-sided

1:25:16 ↗ for the record and then the double-sided

1:25:24 ↗ council

1:25:43 ↗ so tia can you please describe um what

1:25:46 ↗ i've just placed in front of you as s-25

1:25:49 ↗ um it's the grand ridge annexation and

1:25:51 ↗ development agreement so it's

1:25:53 ↗ it's what we've been referring to in

1:25:55 ↗ this hearing

1:25:56 ↗ as the izakaya highlands development

1:25:58 ↗ agreement

1:25:59 ↗ and um if you could just flip through

1:26:02 ↗ there and

1:26:03 ↗ and double check this shouldn't be a

1:26:05 ↗ complete copy of the development

1:26:07 ↗ agreement but just

1:26:08 ↗ excerpts of the relevant portions that

1:26:09 ↗ we're dealing with in this hearing is

1:26:11 ↗ that

1:26:11 ↗ fair

1:26:20 ↗ yes

1:26:22 ↗ if you could turn um in that

1:26:24 ↗ [Applause]

1:26:26 ↗ exhibit to section 3.23

1:26:33 ↗ okay and what's the title of that

1:26:36 ↗ section

1:26:37 ↗ vesting of development standards and

1:26:39 ↗ mitigation

1:26:43 ↗ i'll give you just a second here to pull

1:26:44 ↗ this up on the screen so folks can

1:26:46 ↗ follow along

1:27:02 ↗ so

1:27:07 ↗ okay

1:27:15 ↗ so you explained a minute ago your

1:27:18 ↗ understanding of vesting under

1:27:20 ↗ washington law

1:27:24 ↗ how does this section 3.23

1:27:27 ↗ fit into your understanding of what

1:27:29 ↗ vesting means generally under washington

1:27:31 ↗ law

1:27:31 ↗ what is what does this section mean to

1:27:33 ↗ you

1:27:35 ↗ this section defines what implementing

1:27:38 ↗ approvals are

1:27:39 ↗ and and says that they vest to the

1:27:41 ↗ development standards which is a defined

1:27:43 ↗ term

1:27:44 ↗ um in in the development agreement

1:27:48 ↗ does it matter under this provision

1:27:50 ↗ whether some an application is submitted

1:27:52 ↗ before or after the build out period

1:27:55 ↗ as to whether it best no

1:28:01 ↗ and if you look at section 3.23

1:28:05 ↗ 0.2 after build out

1:28:09 ↗ you have that in front of you yes um

1:28:12 ↗ what does that section say it says the

1:28:16 ↗ development standards shall continue to

1:28:18 ↗ apply to all

1:28:19 ↗ applications for implementing approval

1:28:21 ↗ submitted

1:28:22 ↗ after expiration of the build-out period

1:28:24 ↗ except either party may terminate this

1:28:27 ↗ agreement

1:28:28 ↗ and the zoning and development

1:28:29 ↗ regulations may be modified

1:28:31 ↗ as provided in section 5.13

1:28:35 ↗ so have you ever understood this section

1:28:37 ↗ to

1:28:39 ↗ be in any way temporary or allow for

1:28:41 ↗ divesting of rights that have vested

1:28:43 ↗ under this

1:28:45 ↗ no it wouldn't make any sense if that

1:28:46 ↗ were what this

1:28:48 ↗ was interpreted to mean and why wouldn't

1:28:51 ↗ make any sense

1:28:53 ↗ because it's in a section that's titled

1:28:56 ↗ vesting of development standards and

1:28:58 ↗ mitigation

1:28:58 ↗ and it's talking about how to process

1:29:01 ↗ permits that come in

1:29:02 ↗ after the end of the build-out period

1:29:05 ↗ but prior to the termination of the

1:29:06 ↗ agreement

1:29:07 ↗ and it would make no sense to say that

1:29:10 ↗ they would be

1:29:11 ↗ that the development standards would

1:29:12 ↗ continue to apply

1:29:15 ↗ if then the end of it meant that

1:29:18 ↗ they don't continue to apply if the end

1:29:21 ↗ of that sentence meant that and it makes

1:29:24 ↗ a reference here to

1:29:25 ↗ section 5.13 let's turn to that section

1:29:36 ↗ please

1:29:46 ↗ uh what is 5.13

1:29:49 ↗ well what's it titled for starters it's

1:29:52 ↗ titled term

1:29:53 ↗ and what does this section talk about

1:29:57 ↗ it talks about how the development

1:29:59 ↗ agreement terminates

1:30:02 ↗ does this section have any bearing

1:30:04 ↗ whatsoever on vested rights

1:30:07 ↗ no

1:30:12 ↗ so the sections that i just went through

1:30:15 ↗ all

1:30:16 ↗ represent are referred to as development

1:30:18 ↗ standards under the development

1:30:19 ↗ agreement

1:30:20 ↗ would you agree with that

1:30:21 ↗ characterization yes

1:30:24 ↗ where the development is is it your

1:30:25 ↗ understanding that the development

1:30:27 ↗ standards

1:30:28 ↗ were the development regulations the gma

1:30:31 ↗ development regulations growth

1:30:32 ↗ management act that were in place

1:30:34 ↗ for the term of this development

1:30:35 ↗ agreement

1:30:37 ↗ yes because the code that applied

1:30:39 ↗ otherwise

1:30:42 ↗ basically just referenced the fact that

1:30:44 ↗ a

1:30:45 ↗ development agreement was required and

1:30:47 ↗ that that's where you would look for

1:30:48 ↗ development regulations

1:30:52 ↗ let's keep turning through this document

1:30:54 ↗ please to appendix

1:31:00 ↗ l

1:31:09 ↗ can i make one other comment on the sure

1:31:11 ↗ on 5.13

1:31:13 ↗ there's been some discussion about the

1:31:16 ↗ last sentence

1:31:20 ↗ where it says upon such a adoption

1:31:22 ↗ referring to replacement regulations

1:31:24 ↗ this agreement

1:31:25 ↗ shall terminate and thereafter the uga

1:31:27 ↗ portion of the property shall be

1:31:28 ↗ governed by the adopted

1:31:30 ↗ city zoning and related development

1:31:31 ↗ regulations

1:31:33 ↗ i've heard the city say that that

1:31:36 ↗ sentence

1:31:37 ↗ means that you toss out any vested

1:31:39 ↗ applications

1:31:40 ↗ and and even permits was their original

1:31:43 ↗ position um and i think that that's

1:31:47 ↗ a really a strange position for

1:31:50 ↗ for the city to take particularly

1:31:52 ↗ because any time

1:31:53 ↗ you adopt new regulations there's

1:31:55 ↗ usually a statement at the end that says

1:31:57 ↗ something

1:31:58 ↗ like you know after they're adopted

1:32:00 ↗ they'll apply

1:32:01 ↗ never would you would you then infer

1:32:03 ↗ that that meant

1:32:05 ↗ all vested applications are terminated

1:32:08 ↗ so

1:32:08 ↗ it just seemed out of context and

1:32:11 ↗ without

1:32:12 ↗ any precedence

1:32:16 ↗ thank you and so moving forward to

1:32:18 ↗ appendix l

1:32:20 ↗ um can you describe what the purpose of

1:32:23 ↗ appendix l is what does it provide for

1:32:26 ↗ um it it's titled city processing of

1:32:29 ↗ land use permits

1:32:31 ↗ so it shows the um both the process and

1:32:34 ↗ the time frames that apply to various

1:32:36 ↗ permits

1:32:37 ↗ under the development agreement and it

1:32:39 ↗ looks like you're looking at the

1:32:41 ↗ figure in appendix outlets appendix all

1:32:43 ↗ part one

1:32:44 ↗ yes and so under this

1:32:49 ↗ under this appendix l this flowchart can

1:32:51 ↗ you walk me through what the process

1:32:53 ↗ would be

1:32:54 ↗ for let's start with our plot

1:32:57 ↗ application

1:33:00 ↗ we talked a minute ago about the fact

1:33:01 ↗ that shelter has a plot application and

1:33:03 ↗ as well

1:33:05 ↗ if it were processed under the timelines

1:33:07 ↗ and requirements of appendix l what

1:33:09 ↗ would that look like

1:33:12 ↗ so for a preliminary plat

1:33:16 ↗ you follow the center column

1:33:20 ↗ i guess is how i'd refer to it so um

1:33:24 ↗ because the grand ridge commission or

1:33:26 ↗ the what's now the uvdc

1:33:29 ↗ makes a recommendation on a preliminary

1:33:31 ↗ plot

1:33:32 ↗ so if you follow that chart down it

1:33:35 ↗ notes that

1:33:36 ↗ a preliminary application is optional

1:33:40 ↗ and but that if you do submit one then

1:33:43 ↗ you should have your project feasibility

1:33:45 ↗ meeting

1:33:46 ↗ within 10 days which is also optional

1:33:51 ↗ the next box down is submit application

1:33:54 ↗ or request including sipa documentation

1:33:57 ↗ if any

1:33:59 ↗ then 10 days later you're supposed to

1:34:02 ↗ have a complete application decision

1:34:04 ↗ and the city should place the item on

1:34:06 ↗ the grand ridge commission

1:34:08 ↗ meeting agenda for 60 days later

1:34:12 ↗ then within 30 days of that complete

1:34:15 ↗ application decision

1:34:17 ↗ you're supposed to have an application

1:34:18 ↗ conference

1:34:21 ↗ within 14 days of that

1:34:26 ↗ you're supposed to have an

1:34:27 ↗ administrative recommendation the caveat

1:34:29 ↗ to that being if

1:34:30 ↗ additional information was requested or

1:34:33 ↗ provided

1:34:35 ↗ that time frame could could shift

1:34:37 ↗ slightly

1:34:39 ↗ after the administrative recommendation

1:34:43 ↗ you're supposed to go to grand ridge

1:34:47 ↗ commission

1:34:47 ↗ or now uvdc within 30 days

1:34:51 ↗ and then you get your recommendation

1:34:55 ↗ written within seven days of that

1:34:58 ↗ meeting

1:34:58 ↗ or hearing and from there

1:35:02 ↗ it would go to city council for approval

1:35:07 ↗ okay and going back up the timeline

1:35:09 ↗ chain just a little bit

1:35:13 ↗ you mentioned the one of the first steps

1:35:14 ↗ in here is submit preliminary

1:35:16 ↗ application and housing friends

1:35:18 ↗ optional did you submit a preliminary

1:35:21 ↗ application for

1:35:22 ↗ um for shelters plat we did but we were

1:35:26 ↗ told that it was not optional so you

1:35:29 ↗ were told that it was required for your

1:35:31 ↗ application yes is it

1:35:34 ↗ your understanding that it's required

1:35:36 ↗ under append excel

1:35:37 ↗ no it's not required by appendix l but

1:35:39 ↗ staff told us that it was required

1:35:42 ↗ by them and and also that a

1:35:45 ↗ collaboration meeting was required

1:35:48 ↗ before you could even have your

1:35:51 ↗ preliminary

1:35:53 ↗ application meeting so just to clarify

1:35:56 ↗ you had to go through

1:35:57 ↗ a collaboration meeting before you could

1:36:00 ↗ have

1:36:00 ↗ a preliminary application submitted

1:36:04 ↗ yes you had to have the collaboration

1:36:05 ↗ meeting first and then

1:36:08 ↗ initially we were told then we could

1:36:10 ↗ request our preliminary

1:36:12 ↗ application meeting after the

1:36:15 ↗ collaboration meeting we started to

1:36:17 ↗ request

1:36:17 ↗ that preliminary application meeting and

1:36:20 ↗ then we're told well no you can't

1:36:21 ↗ request that

1:36:22 ↗ until you submit a complete

1:36:27 ↗ preliminary land use application package

1:36:29 ↗ to the city

1:36:32 ↗ so we did that and then only after we

1:36:35 ↗ had submitted that application which was

1:36:37 ↗ quite substantial and costly

1:36:40 ↗ then we could request the the

1:36:42 ↗ preliminary application meeting

1:36:45 ↗ which was scheduled i think it was six

1:36:48 ↗ weeks out

1:36:49 ↗ at that point and we'll walk through the

1:36:52 ↗ specific dates of that in more detail

1:36:54 ↗ later

1:36:55 ↗ but um was were any of those steps

1:36:59 ↗ uh is it your understanding that any of

1:37:01 ↗ those steps are required by appendix

1:37:03 ↗ l no none of those steps are required by

1:37:05 ↗ appendix l

1:37:09 ↗ so then let's talk about the site

1:37:12 ↗ development permits that

1:37:14 ↗ and asdp's and sdp that you have in

1:37:17 ↗ process

1:37:18 ↗ can you do the same thing please and

1:37:20 ↗ walk me through the process that those

1:37:22 ↗ should be processed under under append

1:37:24 ↗ excel

1:37:25 ↗ sure so the site development permit

1:37:28 ↗ follows the same

1:37:29 ↗ um timing and uh

1:37:34 ↗ chain on the on this chart as the

1:37:37 ↗ preliminary plot so

1:37:38 ↗ it has the optional pre-op and

1:37:41 ↗ feasibility meeting

1:37:43 ↗ um and then do you want me to walk

1:37:45 ↗ through the time

1:37:47 ↗ to frames or is it follows that same

1:37:48 ↗ same process and is that just because

1:37:50 ↗ it's

1:37:51 ↗ for a site uh three acres or greater it

1:37:54 ↗ is the one difference that i would call

1:37:55 ↗ out is that i

1:37:56 ↗ i believe the commission actually makes

1:37:59 ↗ the decision

1:38:00 ↗ on the site development permit whereas

1:38:03 ↗ the

1:38:03 ↗ plat would go to council for decision

1:38:08 ↗ then the administrative site development

1:38:10 ↗ permits which

1:38:11 ↗ both the medical office

1:38:14 ↗ and the storage applications are

1:38:17 ↗ administrative

1:38:20 ↗ site development permits because they

1:38:22 ↗ are less than three acres in size

1:38:24 ↗ so that follows the first column on the

1:38:26 ↗ chart

1:38:29 ↗ so you can see that the

1:38:32 ↗ on that one the first step is submit

1:38:35 ↗ application um

1:38:38 ↗ and and it does not even note a pre-app

1:38:41 ↗ or project feasibility meeting is

1:38:43 ↗ optional

1:38:46 ↗ then within 10 days of submitting your

1:38:48 ↗ application

1:38:50 ↗ you need a complete application decision

1:38:52 ↗ from the city

1:38:54 ↗ and 21 within 21 days of that decision

1:38:57 ↗ you should have an application

1:38:58 ↗ conference with the city

1:39:01 ↗ within seven days there should be

1:39:04 ↗ administrative action

1:39:05 ↗ from the city and again the one caveat

1:39:09 ↗ to that would be

1:39:11 ↗ a a little bit of additional time could

1:39:14 ↗ be added if additional information

1:39:17 ↗ was provided by the applicant so on

1:39:20 ↗ on our administrative site development

1:39:23 ↗ permits we were required to have again a

1:39:25 ↗ collaborative meeting

1:39:27 ↗ and a preliminary land use application

1:39:30 ↗ meeting

1:39:32 ↗ despite the fact that the appendix l

1:39:34 ↗ doesn't

1:39:35 ↗ not only does it not require it it

1:39:37 ↗ doesn't even provide for it and

1:39:38 ↗ we pointed that out to the city but they

1:39:41 ↗ still insisted that that was the process

1:39:42 ↗ that they wanted to follow

1:39:52 ↗ i'd like to switch gears um a little bit

1:39:54 ↗ here

1:39:55 ↗ and actually before we dive into that we

1:39:57 ↗ have a couple more figures to put up

1:39:59 ↗ um just to give an overview

1:40:03 ↗ of what we're talking about this evening

1:40:36 ↗ this may be one as well if you don't

1:40:38 ↗ mind these are they're demonstrative

1:40:40 ↗ figures they're timelines that we've put

1:40:41 ↗ together that i have copies of them here

1:40:43 ↗ but in the interest of time if we can

1:40:44 ↗ find them maybe during a break and

1:40:46 ↗ provide them

1:40:46 ↗ if there's no objection to that

1:40:50 ↗ thank you um so starting with

1:40:53 ↗ uh this and this will be marked as

1:40:56 ↗ exhibit 20

1:40:58 ↗ 6-26 um

1:41:04 ↗ yeah can you describe this this first

1:41:06 ↗ slide it says plot application

1:41:12 ↗ yes can you hear me sorry it's kind of

1:41:15 ↗ hard to see the screen from here

1:41:19 ↗ this is a timeline that summarizes

1:41:23 ↗ some relevant dates with respect to our

1:41:26 ↗ plot application and its

1:41:28 ↗ processing will you please walk us

1:41:31 ↗ through

1:41:32 ↗ the the different time frames here so we

1:41:34 ↗ start with a binding

1:41:35 ↗ site plan request and we can talk about

1:41:37 ↗ each of these in more detail later

1:41:39 ↗ but um what in general is a binding site

1:41:42 ↗ plan what was that request for

1:41:44 ↗ so initially in january of 2017

1:41:48 ↗ we had wanted to do a binding site plan

1:41:51 ↗ for our property and so

1:41:55 ↗ in a meeting with director niven we

1:41:59 ↗ told him that that was what our plan was

1:42:04 ↗ his initial response was that we were

1:42:06 ↗ not allowed to do a binding site plan

1:42:08 ↗ under the development agreement

1:42:12 ↗ we pointed out that that it actually was

1:42:16 ↗ provided for in the development

1:42:17 ↗ agreement

1:42:18 ↗ and there was some back and forth on

1:42:20 ↗ that but

1:42:21 ↗ um he he really

1:42:24 ↗ pushed us towards wanting us wanting to

1:42:27 ↗ do a plot

1:42:28 ↗ rather than a binding site plan

1:42:31 ↗ at the the next step on there was the

1:42:33 ↗ collaborative meeting and i

1:42:34 ↗ can't totally read the date on there is

1:42:36 ↗ that

1:42:38 ↗ from here it reads 3 21 2017. okay so

1:42:42 ↗ in march we went in for a collaborative

1:42:45 ↗ meeting on

1:42:46 ↗ the binding site plan um at that meeting

1:42:49 ↗ there was additional discussion about

1:42:52 ↗ why a platt would be a better

1:42:56 ↗ mechanism for for us

1:43:01 ↗ under the development agreement and a

1:43:03 ↗ big part of that was the direction

1:43:05 ↗ that we received at that meeting from

1:43:07 ↗ director niven

1:43:08 ↗ about vesting and the way that he

1:43:10 ↗ described

1:43:11 ↗ the vesting of a platt would be that if

1:43:13 ↗ we submitted a plaid application

1:43:16 ↗ we would vest for five years

1:43:20 ↗ and then fro we would vest for another

1:43:23 ↗ five years from recording of the final

1:43:25 ↗ plot

1:43:26 ↗ and if we submit as long as we submitted

1:43:28 ↗ our sdp applications within that

1:43:30 ↗ five years after the recording of the

1:43:34 ↗ final plot then those sdp

1:43:36 ↗ applications would also be vested to the

1:43:38 ↗ development agreement

1:43:42 ↗ so that was the collaborative meeting so

1:43:45 ↗ based on that

1:43:46 ↗ we did move forward with the plat

1:43:49 ↗ that they had suggested so

1:43:53 ↗ as i referenced um just a little while

1:43:56 ↗ ago

1:43:56 ↗ we after the collaborative meeting

1:43:58 ↗ started asking for the pre-op meeting

1:44:02 ↗ and after several requests were told

1:44:04 ↗ well you have to do your

1:44:05 ↗ your preliminary land use application

1:44:08 ↗ package before you can request a date

1:44:11 ↗ so we started working on that

1:44:14 ↗ as soon as we got that direction

1:44:16 ↗ submitted that

1:44:18 ↗ on april is that 13th

1:44:22 ↗ april 13 2017. and

1:44:25 ↗ and then immediately requested the

1:44:28 ↗ preliminary application meeting that the

1:44:31 ↗ city

1:44:32 ↗ wanted us to have and so the soonest we

1:44:35 ↗ could get that meeting

1:44:36 ↗ was may 31st 2017

1:44:40 ↗ so we had the pre-op meeting on

1:44:43 ↗ that date and then

1:44:48 ↗ we had our plat application

1:44:51 ↗ submitted on august 1st 2017.

1:44:56 ↗ after that we kept asking for a complete

1:44:59 ↗ application determination

1:45:01 ↗ um because complete application has

1:45:07 ↗ significance to vesting and so

1:45:11 ↗ we kept asking for that and weren't

1:45:13 ↗ getting

1:45:14 ↗ didn't get it initially um finally got

1:45:17 ↗ it in

1:45:18 ↗ october of 2017

1:45:21 ↗ um but they back dated it to reflect

1:45:24 ↗ what

1:45:24 ↗ should have been the the correct

1:45:26 ↗ complete application date

1:45:27 ↗ which was august 11th 2017 10 days

1:45:31 ↗ after the application was submitted

1:45:36 ↗ and so a minute ago you said that you

1:45:38 ↗ you were requesting a complete

1:45:39 ↗ application determination but

1:45:41 ↗ weren't getting it why was that the case

1:45:45 ↗ um i'm not entirely sure we

1:45:48 ↗ we were requesting it from our planner

1:45:50 ↗ jean lynn

1:45:52 ↗ she did have there was some back and

1:45:54 ↗ forth between her and our consultant

1:45:56 ↗ dave katon

1:45:58 ↗ and she acknowledged that it was

1:46:00 ↗ complete but she just didn't have time

1:46:02 ↗ to

1:46:02 ↗ to write it up and so

1:46:06 ↗ after being prodded a few more times we

1:46:08 ↗ eventually got it

1:46:10 ↗ and so we'll talk about what's happened

1:46:12 ↗ since the complete application

1:46:13 ↗ determination in a little bit here um

1:46:18 ↗ but why you know we're here tonight for

1:46:20 ↗ staff reports that are for

1:46:22 ↗ the medical office building for retail

1:46:24 ↗ and for a storage

1:46:26 ↗ facility why is the plat so

1:46:29 ↗ important to all of this um

1:46:33 ↗ because there is

1:46:36 ↗ there are sort of two ways that that our

1:46:38 ↗ applications are vested

1:46:40 ↗ and one is through the applications

1:46:41 ↗ themselves

1:46:43 ↗ and the other is through the plat so

1:46:46 ↗ the plat vests you to

1:46:50 ↗ the the things that are shown on the

1:46:53 ↗ plat

1:46:54 ↗ or the uh so if there's building

1:46:56 ↗ footprints or if there are

1:46:58 ↗ is a development plan that's shown or

1:47:01 ↗ demonstrated

1:47:02 ↗ in the plat application materials then

1:47:04 ↗ you vest to that

1:47:06 ↗ um so that's

1:47:09 ↗ that's why the the plot is relevant to

1:47:12 ↗ this conversation has the city told

1:47:15 ↗ shelter what it's vested to in its plat

1:47:17 ↗ application

1:47:20 ↗ um not specifically

1:47:24 ↗ i mean you you've heard

1:47:27 ↗ director niven's testimony on that issue

1:47:31 ↗ um which quite frankly sort of confused

1:47:35 ↗ me as to why we're here at all given

1:47:37 ↗ what he said

1:47:38 ↗ which was he read from the april 4th

1:47:42 ↗ letter that he sent us which explained

1:47:45 ↗ what you vest

1:47:46 ↗ to under a platt and he

1:47:49 ↗ it specifically said that if building

1:47:52 ↗ footprints

1:47:54 ↗ or uh i can't remember the exact

1:47:56 ↗ terminology but the

1:47:57 ↗ if building footprints or a overall

1:47:59 ↗ development plan

1:48:00 ↗ were demonstrated in the plat then you

1:48:03 ↗ would vest to those

1:48:05 ↗ items our plat application clearly shows

1:48:09 ↗ building footprints

1:48:10 ↗ parking and it allocates the allowable

1:48:13 ↗ development on a block by block basis

1:48:16 ↗ and given that i

1:48:19 ↗ i just struggled to see how

1:48:22 ↗ how he then determined that we were not

1:48:25 ↗ vested

1:48:26 ↗ and and sent us here rather than

1:48:29 ↗ acknowledging

1:48:30 ↗ continuing to acknowledge that that our

1:48:32 ↗ vesting meant that our sdp

1:48:34 ↗ applications should be in front of the

1:48:36 ↗ ubdc like all of the other applications

1:48:38 ↗ in isoqua highlands

1:48:43 ↗ let's turn to the next slide in this

1:48:47 ↗ exhibit which is for the medical office

1:48:48 ↗ building sdp application

1:48:52 ↗ similar to what we did with the plant

1:48:53 ↗ application will you please walk me

1:48:55 ↗ through these different

1:48:57 ↗ time frames if you're having trouble

1:48:58 ↗ reading any of them just let me know and

1:49:00 ↗ i can read it off

1:49:02 ↗ sure yeah the the dates are a little bit

1:49:04 ↗ hard to read but we'll go with

1:49:05 ↗ 9 26 2017 we had

1:49:09 ↗ a collaborative meeting again

1:49:12 ↗ we knew that these were not required by

1:49:16 ↗ the development agreement but the city

1:49:19 ↗ was

1:49:19 ↗ telling us that we had to have both the

1:49:23 ↗ collaborative meeting

1:49:24 ↗ and the the pre-app meeting

1:49:29 ↗ at various stages on each of these

1:49:30 ↗ applications we asked to forego those

1:49:32 ↗ meetings

1:49:34 ↗ and we're told no and

1:49:37 ↗ further we're told that if the

1:49:42 ↗ if we didn't have a pre-op meeting that

1:49:44 ↗ the staff would have

1:49:45 ↗ no ability to ever deem our application

1:49:48 ↗ complete because it would be like it was

1:49:49 ↗ in a foreign language

1:49:51 ↗ which i felt it found particularly hard

1:49:54 ↗ to believe

1:49:55 ↗ but nonetheless we really wanted to get

1:49:57 ↗ our applications processed and

1:49:59 ↗ and we proceeded with the process that

1:50:03 ↗ the city was laying out for us

1:50:05 ↗ so we did the collaborative meeting on 9

1:50:08 ↗ 26

1:50:09 ↗ 2017 we had our

1:50:12 ↗ pre-op meeting on october 23

1:50:16 ↗ 2017

1:50:19 ↗ and we submitted our application

1:50:22 ↗ on november 21st 2017.

1:50:26 ↗ um sorry i think i misspoke the october

1:50:30 ↗ 23rd 2000

1:50:31 ↗ 2017 was when the preliminary

1:50:33 ↗ application was submitted

1:50:35 ↗ um the meeting the soonest date that

1:50:37 ↗ they would give us for

1:50:38 ↗ a pre-op meeting was

1:50:42 ↗ november 28 2017 so we

1:50:46 ↗ went ahead and submitted the full

1:50:49 ↗ asdp application prior to

1:50:52 ↗ the pre-op meeting

1:50:56 ↗ so going back to this the preliminary

1:50:58 ↗ application

1:50:59 ↗ and this is something that applies

1:51:01 ↗ across the asdps and sdps

1:51:05 ↗ what does that application look like is

1:51:07 ↗ that just a

1:51:08 ↗ preliminary you know site plan or is it

1:51:10 ↗ something more than that

1:51:12 ↗ um the preliminary land use application

1:51:14 ↗ in issaquah

1:51:15 ↗ i think the name is really misleading

1:51:17 ↗ because it's not what a pre-op is in

1:51:20 ↗ any other jurisdiction in which i've

1:51:21 ↗ worked and i've worked in a lot of

1:51:23 ↗ jurisdictions

1:51:25 ↗ in issaquah what they call a

1:51:27 ↗ collaborative meeting

1:51:28 ↗ is more similar to what a pre-op meeting

1:51:30 ↗ is in other jurisdictions so

1:51:33 ↗ to give you an example our our

1:51:35 ↗ preliminary land use

1:51:37 ↗ application packets for these sdps um

1:51:40 ↗ [Music]

1:51:41 ↗ in the range of thirty thousand dollars

1:51:43 ↗ worth of consultant work goes into them

1:51:45 ↗ so this is not a back of the napkin

1:51:47 ↗ sketch nobody's invested this is a lot

1:51:50 ↗ of work a lot of time and a lot of

1:51:52 ↗ effort goes into those application

1:51:54 ↗ packages

1:51:55 ↗ so the the outcome of that for the

1:51:57 ↗ preliminary application is it

1:51:59 ↗ fairly similar to what ends up being

1:52:01 ↗ submitted as the

1:52:02 ↗ actual application yes

1:52:08 ↗ and then down along the bottom here

1:52:10 ↗ there's some additional dates on this

1:52:12 ↗ timeline

1:52:14 ↗ starting with the one on november 22nd

1:52:16 ↗ 2017

1:52:17 ↗ it says director confirmed preliminary

1:52:19 ↗ application complete and vested

1:52:22 ↗ um and we'll we'll talk more about each

1:52:24 ↗ of these mile points along the way

1:52:26 ↗ um but can you describe what that was

1:52:29 ↗ yes so multiple times

1:52:33 ↗ in conversation director niven had told

1:52:36 ↗ us that

1:52:37 ↗ in issaquah as a general rule the

1:52:41 ↗ preliminary land use application was

1:52:43 ↗ deemed to be the vesting

1:52:44 ↗ event and and at one point he said i

1:52:47 ↗ just haven't gotten

1:52:48 ↗ around to writing it up yet but that

1:52:50 ↗ that is how the city

1:52:52 ↗ treats um vesting and

1:52:56 ↗ and so after having heard that multiple

1:53:00 ↗ times

1:53:01 ↗ um we asked him

1:53:05 ↗ to confirm that now that we had

1:53:07 ↗ preliminary land use applications which

1:53:09 ↗ had been deemed complete because the 10

1:53:11 ↗ days had passed

1:53:12 ↗ that those applications were

1:53:16 ↗ were all deemed complete invested to the

1:53:18 ↗ development agreement so i think you

1:53:20 ↗ have already seen in one of the exhibits

1:53:22 ↗ the email exchange between

1:53:24 ↗ director niven and myself where he

1:53:26 ↗ confirms that those

1:53:27 ↗ applications are vested

1:53:30 ↗ and then how about this next date on

1:53:33 ↗ march 15

1:53:34 ↗ 2018 says director's letter again

1:53:36 ↗ confirmed complete application

1:53:39 ↗ again we'll go into more detail but in

1:53:41 ↗ general what's that referring to

1:53:43 ↗ so that's referring to a letter

1:53:45 ↗ agreement

1:53:46 ↗ between um

1:53:47 ↗ [Music]

1:53:49 ↗ shelter or ihifc and the city

1:53:54 ↗ where they recognize that our

1:53:57 ↗ all of our sdp asdp applications

1:54:00 ↗ are complete

1:54:04 ↗ and then the next one on the timeline

1:54:05 ↗ there is april 4th 2018

1:54:08 ↗ says director's letter divesting

1:54:10 ↗ determination what's that referring to

1:54:13 ↗ so that was referring to a letter that

1:54:16 ↗ is i think also in the record already

1:54:19 ↗ that director niven wrote to us

1:54:21 ↗ on april 4th 2018

1:54:24 ↗ informing us that he had now decided

1:54:26 ↗ that our applications were

1:54:28 ↗ no longer vested

1:54:31 ↗ and then moving to september 17 2018

1:54:36 ↗ staff report containing directors

1:54:37 ↗ divesting determination

1:54:39 ↗ what's that referring to that's

1:54:41 ↗ referring to the staff reports that

1:54:43 ↗ came to this commission

1:54:48 ↗ so turning to the the next slide is for

1:54:50 ↗ the storage

1:54:51 ↗ asdp application um

1:54:55 ↗ and looking there at the bottom

1:54:58 ↗ um there's similar dates as before so we

1:55:01 ↗ don't need to go through the the bottom

1:55:03 ↗ part of this timeline but can you walk

1:55:05 ↗ us through the

1:55:06 ↗ the top of that timeline for the storage

1:55:08 ↗ application

1:55:09 ↗ sure on this one we had a collaborative

1:55:12 ↗ meeting

1:55:12 ↗ on october 24th 2017.

1:55:16 ↗ we submitted our preliminary land use

1:55:19 ↗ application

1:55:20 ↗ on december 1st 2017.

1:55:24 ↗ um we had our preliminary application

1:55:28 ↗ meeting on january 17

1:55:30 ↗ 2018. and we submitted a full

1:55:35 ↗ asdp application on

1:55:38 ↗ february 14 2018.

1:55:41 ↗ and for this application is there

1:55:44 ↗ anything different about

1:55:46 ↗ it that would change anything about what

1:55:47 ↗ you said compared to the medical office

1:55:49 ↗ building

1:55:50 ↗ application in terms of what's required

1:55:52 ↗ for collaborative meetings preliminary

1:55:54 ↗ application or do they follow the same

1:55:56 ↗ process should they have followed the

1:55:57 ↗ same process

1:55:59 ↗ they should have followed the same

1:56:00 ↗ process and so the collaborative meeting

1:56:03 ↗ and preliminary application and

1:56:05 ↗ preliminary application meeting those

1:56:06 ↗ things

1:56:07 ↗ it's your understanding they wouldn't be

1:56:09 ↗ required under appendix all

1:56:11 ↗ right they're not required under

1:56:12 ↗ appendix l and we

1:56:14 ↗ again had pointed this out and were told

1:56:17 ↗ that we needed to

1:56:18 ↗ to proceed with those if we wanted to

1:56:20 ↗ submit an application

1:56:24 ↗ and the next slide in this exhibit is

1:56:26 ↗ retail sdp

1:56:28 ↗ application and same thing i'll

1:56:31 ↗ represent that the the bottom of that

1:56:33 ↗ timeline is

1:56:34 ↗ is similar to what we've seen in the

1:56:35 ↗ other slides but if you could walk me

1:56:38 ↗ through

1:56:38 ↗ the top points for that the first date

1:56:41 ↗ on there is

1:56:42 ↗ october 3rd 2017. it's the collaborative

1:56:44 ↗ meeting

1:56:45 ↗ yeah so we had the collaborative meeting

1:56:48 ↗ on

1:56:48 ↗ that date then

1:56:52 ↗ we submitted the

1:56:55 ↗ preliminary application on

1:56:59 ↗ october 23 2017

1:57:04 ↗ we submitted the retail sdp application

1:57:09 ↗ on

1:57:10 ↗ november 22nd is is that's correct

1:57:13 ↗ november 22nd

1:57:14 ↗ 2017 is what it reads okay so then that

1:57:17 ↗ was the the retail sdp

1:57:18 ↗ application and we

1:57:22 ↗ the first available date that we were

1:57:23 ↗ given for preliminary

1:57:25 ↗ application meeting was december 5th

1:57:28 ↗ 2017.

1:57:34 ↗ and then the next slide on here

1:57:36 ↗ commercial office

1:57:37 ↗ bloxy sdp application um

1:57:41 ↗ again can you walk us through that top

1:57:42 ↗ part of the timeline

1:57:45 ↗ yes so collaborative meeting on october

1:57:48 ↗ 26

1:57:49 ↗ 2017 um

1:57:52 ↗ submitted the

1:57:56 ↗ preliminary i think that's the

1:57:59 ↗ preliminary land use application

1:58:01 ↗ on november i can't see the date

1:58:04 ↗ november 9th

1:58:05 ↗ 2017 2017 and then

1:58:09 ↗ had a preliminary application meeting on

1:58:12 ↗ december 12

1:58:18 ↗ 2017.

1:58:23 ↗ so we'll come back to each of these

1:58:26 ↗ in a lot more detail as we move along

1:58:29 ↗ this evening but i'd like to switch

1:58:32 ↗ gears now to talk a little bit about

1:58:34 ↗ um going back in time to the history of

1:58:38 ↗ this property with shelter

1:58:40 ↗ um so you said that you came to shelter

1:58:43 ↗ in april of

1:58:44 ↗ 2015 um but you've worked on this

1:58:46 ↗ project you know ever since that point

1:58:49 ↗ um so are you fairly familiar with

1:58:51 ↗ events that happened before april 2015

1:58:54 ↗ as well

1:58:55 ↗ yes generally

1:58:58 ↗ so can you describe the process of

1:59:02 ↗ shelter or ihifc particularly acquiring

1:59:05 ↗ this process

1:59:06 ↗ starting uh roughly back in october of

1:59:08 ↗ 2013.

1:59:10 ↗ yes so this this property

1:59:13 ↗ was part of 63 acres that was formerly

1:59:16 ↗ owned by microsoft

1:59:18 ↗ so in 2013

1:59:21 ↗ [Music]

1:59:24 ↗ an entity called issaquah highlands

1:59:26 ↗ investment fund

1:59:27 ↗ llc acquired the whole 63 acres from

1:59:31 ↗ microsoft

1:59:33 ↗ at that time

1:59:37 ↗ our founders of shelter

1:59:40 ↗ were also the owners of polygon homes

1:59:44 ↗ and so the the whole 63 acres was

1:59:49 ↗ acquired by one of their entities in

1:59:52 ↗ 2014

1:59:55 ↗ polygon homes was sold to william lyon

1:59:58 ↗ homes

2:00:00 ↗ which is a national home so in

2:00:02 ↗ connection with

2:00:03 ↗ that sale of polygon the property

2:00:07 ↗ was split and the 21 and a half acres

2:00:11 ↗ that

2:00:12 ↗ are our subject of our plat and our

2:00:15 ↗ applications

2:00:16 ↗ was retained by a shelter entity while

2:00:20 ↗ the rest of it

2:00:21 ↗ went to polygon and

2:00:24 ↗ has is in process of being developed by

2:00:26 ↗ polygon

2:00:27 ↗ and so when did ihif see

2:00:31 ↗ the subsidiary of shelter holdings

2:00:34 ↗ acquire

2:00:34 ↗ the property i believe it was in august

2:00:37 ↗ of 2014

2:00:39 ↗ and it was in connection with that sale

2:00:41 ↗ of polygon homes

2:00:44 ↗ when ihifc acquired the property

2:00:48 ↗ what were some of the the expectations

2:00:51 ↗ of what it was acquiring in that

2:00:52 ↗ transaction

2:00:53 ↗ what's some of the stuff that came with

2:00:54 ↗ it

2:00:56 ↗ well it acquired all of the entitlement

2:01:00 ↗ that had been purchased from microsoft

2:01:02 ↗ so

2:01:03 ↗ the the microsoft property had

2:01:08 ↗ roughly 1.2 million square feet of

2:01:11 ↗ commercial development under the

2:01:13 ↗ development agreement associated with

2:01:15 ↗ that property

2:01:17 ↗ so when the 63 acres were

2:01:20 ↗ divided into the 21 acres that ihifc

2:01:24 ↗ has and the polygon property all of the

2:01:26 ↗ development right and the entitlement

2:01:28 ↗ right went with

2:01:31 ↗ the went to shelter with with

2:01:34 ↗ our property the polygon property um

2:01:38 ↗ acquired separate development rights for

2:01:41 ↗ residential use

2:01:42 ↗ from port blakely who is the master

2:01:44 ↗ developer

2:01:46 ↗ and so that those entitlements is that

2:01:50 ↗ the same thing as allowable development

2:01:53 ↗ uh yes in part so so under the

2:01:56 ↗ development agreement

2:01:57 ↗ there was a defined term allowable

2:02:01 ↗ development

2:02:02 ↗ and the master developer

2:02:05 ↗ could allocate that out to

2:02:09 ↗ each parcel um pursuant to the

2:02:12 ↗ development agreement

2:02:13 ↗ and so i guess when when i talk about

2:02:16 ↗ entitlement i'm talking about

2:02:18 ↗ both the allowable development and all

2:02:21 ↗ of the other

2:02:22 ↗ rights under the development agreement

2:02:27 ↗ what are some of the other rights that

2:02:29 ↗ were part of that allowable development

2:02:32 ↗ so a big piece of it would be mitigation

2:02:35 ↗ so the the

2:02:36 ↗ and the fact that the environmental

2:02:39 ↗ review or cipa was already done

2:02:41 ↗ for all of the development in in the

2:02:43 ↗ highlands so

2:02:45 ↗ part of that meant that the

2:02:49 ↗ the master developer had provided

2:02:52 ↗ mitigation

2:02:54 ↗ up front to offset the impacts of the

2:02:57 ↗ total development under the development

2:02:59 ↗ agreement

2:03:00 ↗ so then when when they sold the

2:03:03 ↗ properties and the allowable development

2:03:07 ↗ and the development rights the purchase

2:03:10 ↗ prices

2:03:10 ↗ for those for those sales reflected that

2:03:14 ↗ the entitlement um went with it and that

2:03:17 ↗ included the mitigation that had already

2:03:19 ↗ been provided

2:03:21 ↗ and that's because you're receiving the

2:03:23 ↗ benefit of that mitigation that was

2:03:25 ↗ already provided

2:03:26 ↗ right so in other contexts you would pay

2:03:30 ↗ certain mitigation fees or impact fees

2:03:34 ↗ for development as each project moved

2:03:37 ↗ forward

2:03:38 ↗ in the case of issaquah highlands that

2:03:40 ↗ was all

2:03:41 ↗ provided up front so and

2:03:44 ↗ and there's some nuances to that that

2:03:46 ↗ there was some additional

2:03:48 ↗ development that was added in at a later

2:03:50 ↗ date not at the beginning and they paid

2:03:52 ↗ rather than paying zero for certain

2:03:54 ↗ impact fees there was a reduced amount

2:03:57 ↗ but as a general matter the

2:04:00 ↗ the mitigation and impact fees

2:04:04 ↗ were were already paid or already

2:04:06 ↗ provided

2:04:08 ↗ so the the each developer got the

2:04:10 ↗ benefit of of that

2:04:11 ↗ and paid for that as they purchased the

2:04:13 ↗ property

2:04:14 ↗ what sorts of things does mitigation

2:04:17 ↗ include can you just describe a couple

2:04:18 ↗ examples

2:04:20 ↗ sure the easiest examples to think about

2:04:22 ↗ are are the

2:04:23 ↗ infrastructure so roads and

2:04:26 ↗ and things like the fire station

2:04:30 ↗ and the water system and the sewer

2:04:32 ↗ system

2:04:33 ↗ that kind of thing how about the

2:04:36 ↗ the sipa process and any environmental

2:04:39 ↗ impact statements were that is that part

2:04:40 ↗ of mitigation that was done already

2:04:44 ↗ yeah so so when the master developer did

2:04:47 ↗ the development agreement they did a

2:04:48 ↗ full environmental impact statement

2:04:51 ↗ and so from a developer's perspective

2:04:54 ↗ there's value to having

2:04:55 ↗ already had your environmental review

2:04:58 ↗ conducted

2:04:59 ↗ because that's a piece of the the

2:05:02 ↗ otherwise part of the entitlement

2:05:04 ↗ process

2:05:06 ↗ when we were talking a little bit about

2:05:08 ↗ the timelines in

2:05:10 ↗ appendix l earlier how did the timelines

2:05:13 ↗ and processing

2:05:14 ↗ standards in the development agreement

2:05:16 ↗ tie into this

2:05:18 ↗ so one of the benefits of of being

2:05:21 ↗ under the development agreement was that

2:05:24 ↗ there was

2:05:24 ↗ an expedited process for review

2:05:28 ↗ of permits and so was that

2:05:31 ↗ part of the the benefit that came with

2:05:34 ↗ this property

2:05:35 ↗ absolutely so that's when i'm referring

2:05:37 ↗ to like the other

2:05:38 ↗ the other um portions of the development

2:05:41 ↗ agreement that

2:05:41 ↗ that would be a big one that is

2:05:43 ↗ important so i think as we've

2:05:45 ↗ walked through some of the stuff we've

2:05:47 ↗ touched on the entitlements

2:05:49 ↗ allowable development which is tied to

2:05:52 ↗ and similar to

2:05:53 ↗ entitlements mitigation the fact that

2:05:56 ↗ cipa and the environmental impact

2:05:57 ↗ statement had already been completed

2:06:00 ↗ the timelines and processing

2:06:01 ↗ requirements in the

2:06:03 ↗ development agreement um and then also

2:06:05 ↗ the the certain amount of develop of

2:06:07 ↗ allowable development that you were

2:06:08 ↗ describing those are kind of the the big

2:06:10 ↗ picture

2:06:11 ↗ benefits that came with this property

2:06:14 ↗ yes

2:06:19 ↗ so going back to allowable development

2:06:22 ↗ um you'd mentioned that when ihifc first

2:06:25 ↗ acquired the property it included

2:06:27 ↗ roughly 1.2 million square feet of

2:06:29 ↗ commercial entitlements is that

2:06:31 ↗ correct yes and so did

2:06:34 ↗ ihifc purchase additional entitlements

2:06:37 ↗ we did in 2015 i believe

2:06:41 ↗ at the end of 2015 we

2:06:45 ↗ acquired the remaining development

2:06:47 ↗ rights or allowable development that

2:06:49 ↗ port blakely the master developer

2:06:51 ↗ still held so that was roughly um

2:06:55 ↗ i think it was roughly 650 000-ish

2:06:58 ↗ square feet

2:07:00 ↗ of development 225

2:07:04 ↗ 250 of those square feet were

2:07:08 ↗ retail development and then there were

2:07:11 ↗ also three

2:07:12 ↗ residential units and

2:07:15 ↗ um just my notes indicate it was roughly

2:07:18 ↗ 2

2:07:19 ↗ 225 500 and retail square feet does that

2:07:22 ↗ sound

2:07:23 ↗ that sounds right yeah and 350 000 in

2:07:27 ↗ commercial square feet

2:07:28 ↗ yes and then the three units of

2:07:30 ↗ residential that you said

2:07:32 ↗ yes were you here for direct

2:07:36 ↗ director niven's testimony when he

2:07:37 ↗ stated that ihifc did not have

2:07:39 ↗ entitlement for residential uses on its

2:07:41 ↗ property yes

2:07:42 ↗ is that accurate no

2:07:53 ↗ after ihifc acquired the property um it

2:07:55 ↗ was

2:07:56 ↗ roughly in 2014 mid-2014

2:08:01 ↗ what did it start to do in order to

2:08:04 ↗ develop the property what steps was it

2:08:06 ↗ starting to take so i think starting

2:08:08 ↗ from ebay acquired the property but

2:08:11 ↗ but when they were um

2:08:14 ↗ in discussions with the previous owner

2:08:18 ↗ they came in and started conversations

2:08:20 ↗ with

2:08:21 ↗ the city

2:08:25 ↗ talking about both wanting to do the

2:08:27 ↗ residential like you're seeing

2:08:28 ↗ polygon is now doing

2:08:32 ↗ and also talking about the possibility

2:08:34 ↗ of doing

2:08:35 ↗ mixed use and other other uses on

2:08:38 ↗ the portion that shelter now owns

2:08:44 ↗ the the city

2:08:47 ↗ at some point or i think points is

2:08:50 ↗ probably the

2:08:51 ↗ most accurate way to to uh describe it

2:08:55 ↗ asks shelter

2:08:58 ↗ or polygon

2:09:02 ↗ to give or donate

2:09:06 ↗ or reserve portions of its

2:09:09 ↗ property for a potential college or

2:09:13 ↗ university site

2:09:14 ↗ that the city wanted to pursue

2:09:18 ↗ at various times i think that that

2:09:21 ↗ ranged from

2:09:22 ↗ an ask of 10 acres to an ask of up to 30

2:09:25 ↗ acres

2:09:26 ↗ and that the city felt like they should

2:09:28 ↗ get that

2:09:30 ↗ either for free or at below market rate

2:09:33 ↗ in exchange for allowing

2:09:37 ↗ other uses on the the ihifc

2:09:40 ↗ or or issaquah highlands investment fund

2:09:42 ↗ properties

2:09:44 ↗ what is your understanding of of how

2:09:47 ↗ that

2:09:48 ↗ um demand from the city turned out what

2:09:51 ↗ what did shelter do with that um i think

2:09:54 ↗ that there was

2:09:55 ↗ um a lot of back and forth uh and

2:09:58 ↗ and shelter really tried to

2:10:02 ↗ come to agreement with the city about

2:10:04 ↗ something that would work

2:10:06 ↗ um eventually

2:10:09 ↗ it became apparent that that

2:10:14 ↗ bringing a college campus to issaquah

2:10:15 ↗ highlands was not a viable use

2:10:18 ↗ and was not something that shelter was

2:10:22 ↗ comfortable moving forward with

2:10:26 ↗ and so in september of 2014

2:10:31 ↗ uh gary young and eric evans

2:10:34 ↗ of shelter delivered the message to the

2:10:38 ↗ city that that was

2:10:39 ↗ not something that that we were going to

2:10:41 ↗ be able to move forward with

2:10:43 ↗ and just a couple clarifying points

2:10:46 ↗ there so who is gary young

2:10:48 ↗ gary young is uh one of the

2:10:51 ↗ co-founders and owners of shelter

2:10:53 ↗ holdings and he's

2:10:54 ↗ with us here tonight yep he's sitting

2:10:55 ↗ right there in the audience

2:10:57 ↗ and how about eric evans who is he eric

2:10:59 ↗ evans um

2:11:00 ↗ is part of our development team at

2:11:02 ↗ shelter holdings

2:11:04 ↗ and you mentioned that these events were

2:11:05 ↗ taking place in 2014 so that was before

2:11:08 ↗ your time at shelter

2:11:10 ↗ but you have knowledge from

2:11:11 ↗ conversations with people and from being

2:11:13 ↗ in this position is that

2:11:14 ↗ fair correct so when i started with

2:11:17 ↗ shelter holdings and

2:11:18 ↗ and started working on this project

2:11:20 ↗ there was obviously a ton of history to

2:11:21 ↗ get up to speed on and so

2:11:24 ↗ i read through everything that we had as

2:11:27 ↗ far as notes and documents and

2:11:30 ↗ talked to everybody that had been

2:11:32 ↗ involved and and

2:11:33 ↗ have have specific notes from that

2:11:36 ↗ meeting on

2:11:37 ↗ on the in september when that message

2:11:40 ↗ was delivered

2:11:43 ↗ and what is your understanding of the

2:11:46 ↗ reaction from the city when shelters

2:11:48 ↗ said that

2:11:49 ↗ they couldn't be gifting or donating

2:11:52 ↗ property

2:11:53 ↗ um my understanding was that

2:11:58 ↗ director niven was very upset um

2:12:02 ↗ and so the the on behalf of the city at

2:12:06 ↗ that meeting it was director niven

2:12:08 ↗ bob harrison who was then city manager i

2:12:11 ↗ believe

2:12:12 ↗ um and then mayor fred butler

2:12:15 ↗ um and that that so my understanding was

2:12:19 ↗ that

2:12:19 ↗ that um bob harrison

2:12:22 ↗ and keith niven were were very

2:12:26 ↗ upset and angry at

2:12:29 ↗ gary moving forward in time um

2:12:34 ↗ what what happened after you came on or

2:12:37 ↗ i guess when you were coming into the

2:12:38 ↗ company in april of 2015

2:12:41 ↗ where were things at with development

2:12:43 ↗ plans

2:12:44 ↗ um so at that point

2:12:49 ↗ after that meeting delivering that

2:12:51 ↗ message i think

2:12:52 ↗ there was a time period where i didn't

2:12:56 ↗ feel

2:12:56 ↗ like any discussion with the city was

2:12:59 ↗ going to be productive

2:13:00 ↗ when i came on we were in the phase of

2:13:03 ↗ needing to reevaluate what could happen

2:13:06 ↗ on this property

2:13:07 ↗ we knew that that there had always been

2:13:11 ↗ talk of it being

2:13:12 ↗ office or an office campus because

2:13:14 ↗ microsoft had owned the property

2:13:18 ↗ but you know our our gut and real estate

2:13:22 ↗ knowledge was telling us that that's not

2:13:24 ↗ realistic here

2:13:26 ↗ so what we did was we

2:13:30 ↗ engaged experts to tell us what

2:13:33 ↗ look at look at all the uses that could

2:13:35 ↗ be here and tell us what

2:13:37 ↗ makes sense what's viable what what will

2:13:41 ↗ both be economically viable so that you

2:13:44 ↗ could actually build it

2:13:45 ↗ and would get market interest so we

2:13:48 ↗ hired

2:13:49 ↗ kinser partners who also has a

2:13:52 ↗ particular expertise

2:13:53 ↗ in locating

2:13:56 ↗ corporate headquarters and and helping

2:13:59 ↗ large companies plan

2:14:00 ↗ for their uh space needs and so we felt

2:14:04 ↗ like they were

2:14:05 ↗ particularly qualified to help us

2:14:07 ↗ evaluate whether that was a viable

2:14:09 ↗ option so we had them look at

2:14:11 ↗ office medical office

2:14:14 ↗ retail and residential uses and

2:14:18 ↗ and they prepared reports for us on

2:14:22 ↗ the projected market demand on our site

2:14:26 ↗ for each of those uses so we were really

2:14:29 ↗ in the phase of reevaluating at that

2:14:30 ↗ point when i came on we were

2:14:32 ↗ reevaluating what could happen here

2:14:34 ↗ and then how do we move that forward

2:14:39 ↗ do you do you recall what the outcome

2:14:41 ↗ was of that kinser study in terms of

2:14:43 ↗ what viable uses might be

2:14:46 ↗ yes so um and just going from memory

2:14:49 ↗ here the rough numbers

2:14:51 ↗ so there was definitely a huge demand

2:14:54 ↗ for residential which

2:14:55 ↗ everybody knew that there's lots of

2:14:56 ↗ demand there

2:14:58 ↗ and and then there

2:15:01 ↗ was also um

2:15:08 ↗ some demand so for when you get into

2:15:10 ↗ office

2:15:11 ↗ it was their their conclusion

2:15:14 ↗ was that that it was unlikely that it

2:15:17 ↗ would be a corporate

2:15:18 ↗ headquarters site given the fact that um

2:15:21 ↗ at that point in time you had expedia

2:15:24 ↗ announcing their move into downtown

2:15:26 ↗ seattle people were really pushing

2:15:28 ↗ as far as corporate headquarters go

2:15:29 ↗ people were pushing away from the

2:15:31 ↗ suburbs

2:15:32 ↗ into the the cities um

2:15:37 ↗ in large part because of attracting

2:15:40 ↗ workers and

2:15:41 ↗ and sort of trying to draw in the

2:15:43 ↗ millennial

2:15:44 ↗ um workforce so that corporate

2:15:46 ↗ headquarters was an

2:15:47 ↗ unlikely unlikely user

2:15:51 ↗ of our property they

2:15:55 ↗ the office market i think they looked at

2:15:57 ↗ the east side

2:15:59 ↗ office market over i think it was like a

2:16:02 ↗ 12 or 15 year period

2:16:04 ↗ and said there was like six and a half

2:16:07 ↗ million square feet of new office space

2:16:10 ↗ built in the greater east side

2:16:14 ↗ market and that when you looked at

2:16:15 ↗ issaquah

2:16:17 ↗ there was zero in that same time period

2:16:19 ↗ so what what that tells you

2:16:21 ↗ is either there's no demand or the cost

2:16:26 ↗ of construction just can't justify the

2:16:29 ↗ rents can't justify the cost of

2:16:30 ↗ construction

2:16:31 ↗ so they didn't feel like office was

2:16:34 ↗ going to be

2:16:37 ↗ a really likely use there and

2:16:41 ↗ i think the projections were you know by

2:16:43 ↗ 2040

2:16:45 ↗ making some sort of aggressive

2:16:48 ↗ assumptions

2:16:49 ↗ maybe you could get to 250 000 square

2:16:52 ↗ feet of office

2:16:53 ↗ but we were sitting there with 1.8

2:16:55 ↗ million square feet of development so

2:16:57 ↗ that didn't feel like a real

2:16:58 ↗ great number to really build a

2:17:02 ↗ strategy for redevelop for development

2:17:04 ↗ around

2:17:08 ↗ medical office is a subset of the office

2:17:11 ↗ market and it's a little bit different

2:17:13 ↗ and there you know was some demand for

2:17:16 ↗ it

2:17:16 ↗ particularly being near swedish hospital

2:17:20 ↗ so but again the numbers weren't high

2:17:23 ↗ as far as compared to the total maximum

2:17:26 ↗ development there

2:17:30 ↗ so after that time frame in and that was

2:17:33 ↗ in

2:17:34 ↗ 2015 roughly yeah um

2:17:37 ↗ did you start meeting with the city

2:17:39 ↗ again after that

2:17:41 ↗ we did i don't recall the exact dates

2:17:43 ↗ but um i think it was at the end

2:17:45 ↗ of uh 2015 in december of 2015 we

2:17:51 ↗ submitted

2:17:51 ↗ a request to the city for

2:17:55 ↗ either a development agreement or an

2:17:57 ↗ amendment to our development agreement

2:17:59 ↗ basically we were wanting to start

2:18:01 ↗ a discussion about you know we have this

2:18:03 ↗ really great piece of property

2:18:04 ↗ in the middle physical highlands and we

2:18:06 ↗ all need to figure out what makes sense

2:18:09 ↗ here and what's viable so you say a

2:18:13 ↗ development agreement or an extension so

2:18:15 ↗ that be a new development agreement or

2:18:16 ↗ an extension of the existing one

2:18:19 ↗ yeah either either one and was there any

2:18:21 ↗ concern at that time about

2:18:23 ↗ the vesting language or what vested

2:18:25 ↗ rights meant under the existing

2:18:26 ↗ development agreement for sequel

2:18:28 ↗ highlands

2:18:28 ↗ no not at all so what was what was the

2:18:32 ↗ the purpose behind maybe seeking an

2:18:34 ↗ extension

2:18:35 ↗ or thinking about a new development

2:18:37 ↗ agreement for shelters property

2:18:39 ↗ specifically

2:18:40 ↗ well we had 1.8 million square feet of

2:18:42 ↗ entitlement that was planned for

2:18:44 ↗ that site and market studies that were

2:18:49 ↗ not indicating enough demand for that in

2:18:52 ↗ the short term

2:18:53 ↗ unless we were converting to residential

2:18:56 ↗ so we were just you know taking

2:19:00 ↗ taking a a big picture long-term look at

2:19:03 ↗ the property and we thought that's what

2:19:05 ↗ made sense and we thought the city

2:19:07 ↗ would also think that makes sense to

2:19:10 ↗ collaboratively plan a large property

2:19:13 ↗ like this in the middle of a master plan

2:19:17 ↗ so it sounds like you started

2:19:19 ↗ discussions with the city maybe end of

2:19:21 ↗ 2015 early

2:19:22 ↗ 2016. um

2:19:27 ↗ let's talk a little bit about those

2:19:30 ↗ meetings

2:19:31 ↗ and um if you need to reference your

2:19:33 ↗ notes as we go along please feel free to

2:19:35 ↗ do so

2:19:36 ↗ okay um the first meeting that i want to

2:19:38 ↗ talk about is one that happened on

2:19:39 ↗ january 21st

2:19:41 ↗ 2016. um

2:19:44 ↗ can you describe for me what happened in

2:19:46 ↗ that meeting first of all

2:19:48 ↗ who attended that meeting mr chairman

2:19:50 ↗ can i please interject

2:19:52 ↗ my understanding is this the city was

2:19:54 ↗ going to be receiving copies of these

2:19:56 ↗ materials that you're referring to

2:19:57 ↗ throughout the presentation

2:19:58 ↗ is that still going to happen we're

2:20:00 ↗ providing copies of the exhibits for the

2:20:02 ↗ record but we're not proposing to submit

2:20:04 ↗ the meeting minutes as exhibits

2:20:07 ↗ thank you we would object to

2:20:11 ↗ the continued use of those materials if

2:20:12 ↗ they're not going to be made in

2:20:14 ↗ exhibits we will have nothing to refer

2:20:16 ↗ to apart from miss heim's

2:20:18 ↗ oral testimony if they'd like to submit

2:20:20 ↗ those materials into evidence we'd be

2:20:21 ↗ happy to review them there but we're

2:20:23 ↗ at a loss and disadvantage for purposes

2:20:26 ↗ of our understanding and

2:20:27 ↗ cross-examination

2:20:28 ↗ without actually having copies if i may

2:20:30 ↗ we have copies of them that we can share

2:20:33 ↗ we're not planning to make them exhibits

2:20:34 ↗ or introduce them into evidence but we

2:20:36 ↗ can share them with you if you would

2:20:38 ↗ like to reference them

2:20:39 ↗ good please thank you

2:20:53 ↗ yes yeah they might be in a slightly

2:20:55 ↗ different order than her notebook just

2:20:57 ↗ because i

2:20:58 ↗ flipped through to make sure they were

2:20:59 ↗ all there and i noticed that some were

2:21:00 ↗ slightly out of order

2:21:01 ↗ but this is the whole content of the

2:21:03 ↗ notification correct

2:21:06 ↗ um and i can give you a copy for

2:21:08 ↗ reference but these are not intended to

2:21:10 ↗ be part of the record

2:21:22 ↗ all right so let's turn first uh back to

2:21:25 ↗ that january 21st 2016 meeting

2:21:28 ↗ um asked about the attendees of that

2:21:31 ↗ meeting can you

2:21:32 ↗ please explain who was there yes so it

2:21:35 ↗ was

2:21:36 ↗ me and gary young and eric evans

2:21:40 ↗ from shelter holdings and it was

2:21:43 ↗ keith nibben on behalf of the city

2:21:46 ↗ and um so there's a lot of you know

2:21:48 ↗ detailed notes that you took

2:21:50 ↗ but um on page two of your notes you

2:21:54 ↗ talk about the kinser research so did

2:21:56 ↗ you

2:21:56 ↗ present the the research that you were

2:21:58 ↗ just describing to me to the city

2:22:01 ↗ we did i think we provided the um like

2:22:04 ↗ an executive summary page of

2:22:06 ↗ the the studies and then we also had the

2:22:09 ↗ full studies there with us

2:22:11 ↗ but they didn't keith didn't

2:22:14 ↗ seem particularly interested in

2:22:18 ↗ receiving that information

2:22:22 ↗ and so um what indications did you get

2:22:25 ↗ from

2:22:26 ↗ director nibben about how the city might

2:22:28 ↗ react to

2:22:29 ↗ to just the data that you were

2:22:31 ↗ presenting to them you mentioned maybe

2:22:32 ↗ not

2:22:33 ↗ too enthusiastic

2:22:36 ↗ did they indicate an intent to work with

2:22:38 ↗ staff going forward on this

2:22:44 ↗ on the market research or what do you

2:22:46 ↗ mean just on

2:22:47 ↗ on evaluating different development

2:22:49 ↗ proposals for this property

2:22:53 ↗ yeah at the initial meetings like this

2:22:56 ↗ one

2:22:56 ↗ there he was attempting to lay

2:22:59 ↗ out what the process would be if we

2:23:03 ↗ wanted to pursue

2:23:04 ↗ a development agreement or an extension

2:23:06 ↗ or an amendment or

2:23:07 ↗ whatever variation we landed on

2:23:12 ↗ and so did you also provide some

2:23:15 ↗ information on traffic

2:23:18 ↗ studies here it sounds like from your

2:23:20 ↗ notes it looks like transpo had done a

2:23:21 ↗ detailed analysis of traffic counts

2:23:27 ↗ yes um

2:23:33 ↗ and it's okay if you need a minute to

2:23:34 ↗ review your notes yeah sorry i'm just

2:23:36 ↗ reading through them trying to make sure

2:23:37 ↗ i remember this right um

2:23:39 ↗ so we we had had transpo look

2:23:43 ↗ at um

2:23:47 ↗ what shifting some of the commercial to

2:23:50 ↗ residential would do from a traffic

2:23:53 ↗ standpoint

2:23:56 ↗ and they had found that that generally

2:23:59 ↗ the infrastructure

2:24:00 ↗ was sufficient to support um a

2:24:03 ↗ conversion of some of that so we did

2:24:05 ↗ share that with

2:24:06 ↗ director niven and so moving on then

2:24:10 ↗ um the the next time

2:24:13 ↗ you met with the city was that um

2:24:17 ↗ about a month later on february 1st

2:24:19 ↗ 2016.

2:24:24 ↗ i'm sorry and that actually the timing

2:24:26 ↗ that i gave you would be wrong it was

2:24:28 ↗ actually pretty shortly after a few

2:24:29 ↗ weeks on february 1st of 2016.

2:24:32 ↗ right february 1st uh 2016

2:24:35 ↗ again gary eric and i met with keith

2:24:38 ↗ niven

2:24:40 ↗ and what in general was the purpose of

2:24:42 ↗ that meeting and

2:24:43 ↗ it's okay if you need a second to review

2:24:45 ↗ your notes before you answer

2:24:46 ↗ yeah it was follow-up on on the previous

2:24:49 ↗ meeting

2:24:50 ↗ um

2:24:54 ↗ so it was to continue to to work through

2:24:57 ↗ how do we

2:24:57 ↗ move um this project or

2:25:01 ↗ a development agreement some form of

2:25:03 ↗ development agreement forward

2:25:05 ↗ um looking at your notes here one two

2:25:08 ↗ three

2:25:09 ↗ four five bullet points down um

2:25:13 ↗ what did keith explain in terms of what

2:25:16 ↗ would happen

2:25:16 ↗ if if you did or didn't do a new

2:25:18 ↗ development agreement

2:25:20 ↗ um he

2:25:24 ↗ he basically said that if we didn't

2:25:27 ↗ extend or do a new development agreement

2:25:30 ↗ then when the development agreement

2:25:33 ↗ ended

2:25:34 ↗ that the city would give us a

2:25:36 ↗ traditional zoning designation for our

2:25:38 ↗ property

2:25:40 ↗ did he know what that was going to be no

2:25:43 ↗ he said he wasn't sure what that would

2:25:44 ↗ be

2:25:45 ↗ and but did that change anything about

2:25:47 ↗ what the development agreement said

2:25:49 ↗ about vested rights or how vesting

2:25:50 ↗ worked about the existing development

2:25:53 ↗ agreement

2:25:53 ↗ correct no not at all

2:25:57 ↗ all of these discussions were about

2:25:59 ↗ either future

2:26:01 ↗ amendments or new development agreement

2:26:03 ↗ and and really didn't impact

2:26:05 ↗ anything that was in the development

2:26:06 ↗ agreement currently and

2:26:08 ↗ we never had any concern that that that

2:26:11 ↗ was

2:26:12 ↗ at risk

2:26:15 ↗ and then it looks like a few weeks later

2:26:18 ↗ you met with the city again on february

2:26:21 ↗ 25th of 2016 is that correct

2:26:29 ↗ um yes february 25th 2016.

2:26:34 ↗ and who attended this meeting um

2:26:37 ↗ at this meeting it was again gary eric

2:26:40 ↗ and myself and this time keith brought

2:26:43 ↗ with him

2:26:44 ↗ emily moon and who is emily

2:26:48 ↗ moon what was her role at the city at

2:26:49 ↗ that time i think she

2:26:51 ↗ was assistant city administrator

2:26:56 ↗ and she was relatively new to the city

2:26:57 ↗ at that point i believe

2:27:01 ↗ um did did keith and i'm looking down at

2:27:04 ↗ the second bullet point here of your

2:27:05 ↗ notes did he

2:27:06 ↗ indicate anything about the progress on

2:27:09 ↗ your conversations with the city about

2:27:11 ↗ you know how you might go forward with

2:27:13 ↗ developing the property

2:27:16 ↗ yeah he acknowledged that we had quote

2:27:18 ↗ been held hostage at the starting gate

2:27:22 ↗ as he was struggling to figure out how

2:27:26 ↗ to get us to a point of having the

2:27:28 ↗ administration's support

2:27:31 ↗ so a lot of the discussion in the

2:27:32 ↗ initial meetings

2:27:34 ↗ sort of centered around what big thing

2:27:38 ↗ what public benefit could we provide

2:27:40 ↗ that would entice

2:27:42 ↗ council and the city administration to

2:27:44 ↗ support

2:27:45 ↗ um looking at a different plan for our

2:27:49 ↗ property

2:27:51 ↗ so he said that you'd been held hostage

2:27:53 ↗ at that time

2:27:55 ↗ but it sounds like from what you were

2:27:56 ↗ describing earlier that shelter had been

2:27:58 ↗ doing

2:27:59 ↗ quite a bit to try to figure out what to

2:28:00 ↗ do with its property by this point is

2:28:02 ↗ that

2:28:02 ↗ a fair summary yeah absolutely so we had

2:28:05 ↗ done

2:28:06 ↗ all of the research about what was

2:28:08 ↗ viable

2:28:09 ↗ and so now we were trying to figure out

2:28:11 ↗ how do you

2:28:13 ↗ get the city engaged and and get a

2:28:16 ↗ process in place for pursuing

2:28:21 ↗ some development that made made sense

2:28:27 ↗ so did keith um talk at all in that

2:28:29 ↗ meeting the february 25th

2:28:31 ↗ 2016 meeting about the need for public

2:28:35 ↗ support and what that might look like

2:28:38 ↗ um we did that was another element i

2:28:41 ↗ think that

2:28:41 ↗ that probably came up at multiple of the

2:28:44 ↗ early

2:28:45 ↗ meetings um and and what keith and

2:28:49 ↗ emily both encouraged us to do was that

2:28:51 ↗ if we wanted to pursue something that

2:28:54 ↗ was quote not the original vision for

2:28:56 ↗ the property

2:28:59 ↗ that we needed to go to the community

2:29:01 ↗ and get their input and get their

2:29:03 ↗ support

2:29:04 ↗ and that that was going to be a

2:29:06 ↗ necessary step

2:29:08 ↗ in any process

2:29:12 ↗ did shelter go out and get community

2:29:14 ↗ support or evaluate community support

2:29:16 ↗ we did so we did

2:29:21 ↗ extensive community outreach and support

2:29:23 ↗ initially

2:29:26 ↗ let's see it would have been in

2:29:31 ↗ 2017 i think may 2017

2:29:34 ↗ we had our first open house we hosted up

2:29:37 ↗ at blakely hall

2:29:38 ↗ and we brought all of our consultants

2:29:42 ↗ that had helped us do the research and

2:29:44 ↗ and planning on the viability

2:29:47 ↗ of different uses and we brought

2:29:51 ↗ our architecture and planning team and

2:29:54 ↗ our landscape architects

2:29:55 ↗ and we presented

2:29:59 ↗ the market data as far as what could be

2:30:01 ↗ supported up there

2:30:03 ↗ and then we asked the community to help

2:30:05 ↗ us give us their

2:30:07 ↗ feedback on what they wanted to see

2:30:11 ↗ in the middle of their community

2:30:14 ↗ and we got a ton of feedback

2:30:18 ↗ and then we took that feedback

2:30:22 ↗ and that market research and we went and

2:30:24 ↗ we developed

2:30:26 ↗ a plan for mixed-use development across

2:30:30 ↗ the 21 acres that

2:30:31 ↗ involved residential

2:30:35 ↗ over retail underground parking

2:30:39 ↗ additional parking for the park and ride

2:30:41 ↗ medical office

2:30:44 ↗ and some other commercial uses but it

2:30:47 ↗ did have a

2:30:48 ↗ large residential component to it so it

2:30:50 ↗ would involve

2:30:52 ↗ a fairly significant change in use

2:30:56 ↗ land use from what had been allocated

2:30:59 ↗ under the development

2:31:00 ↗ agreement so we had the initial meeting

2:31:02 ↗ the initial open house then we came back

2:31:04 ↗ with the plan and presented that and

2:31:06 ↗ took feedback there

2:31:08 ↗ and then we went the next step to have

2:31:11 ↗ focus groups where we again had our

2:31:13 ↗ consultants that were

2:31:15 ↗ experts in certain areas have

2:31:18 ↗ smaller group discussions with people

2:31:20 ↗ who self-selected to come

2:31:22 ↗ to help give us feedback on what was

2:31:25 ↗ important

2:31:26 ↗ to the community so a moment ago in your

2:31:30 ↗ explanation

2:31:30 ↗ um you mentioned a may 2017 date

2:31:33 ↗ with that given that we're in 2016 for

2:31:36 ↗ the

2:31:36 ↗ february meeting with the city was it

2:31:39 ↗ 2016 that that oh sorry it probably was

2:31:41 ↗ 2016.

2:31:43 ↗ so um okay so the the first meeting

2:31:45 ↗ would have been roughly may of 2016.

2:31:48 ↗ and then you had all this public

2:31:49 ↗ outreach to follow up yes

2:31:51 ↗ roughly how long did that process go on

2:31:53 ↗ for from february of 2016 to

2:31:56 ↗ um until early fall of 2016.

2:32:02 ↗ at which point we went back to the city

2:32:06 ↗ and and showed them our plan and

2:32:12 ↗ got feedback from the mayor and the

2:32:15 ↗ administration

2:32:16 ↗ that they were not interested in seeing

2:32:19 ↗ or hearing anything else about it and

2:32:21 ↗ that they felt that all the feedback

2:32:23 ↗ that we had received

2:32:24 ↗ was negative and we should just focus on

2:32:26 ↗ the uses that were allowed under the

2:32:28 ↗ development agreement because that was

2:32:30 ↗ those were the only things that they

2:32:31 ↗ were open to um

2:32:34 ↗ so obviously that was kind of a big blow

2:32:36 ↗ to

2:32:38 ↗ something that we had spent so much time

2:32:40 ↗ and so much energy

2:32:41 ↗ on but we took that

2:32:45 ↗ feedback and we did just that we

2:32:48 ↗ switched gears we said okay well

2:32:50 ↗ we don't there's not a market for 1.8

2:32:53 ↗ million square feet of commercial

2:32:54 ↗ anything

2:32:55 ↗ um but let's look at what we can do up

2:32:58 ↗ there with the

2:32:59 ↗ entitlement that we do have that's

2:33:01 ↗ consistent with the development

2:33:02 ↗ agreement

2:33:03 ↗ and that's what sort of launched the

2:33:07 ↗ plot followed by the site development

2:33:10 ↗ permits that

2:33:11 ↗ are in front of you

2:33:14 ↗ do you agree a minute ago you

2:33:16 ↗ characterized the response from the city

2:33:18 ↗ as saying that there wasn't

2:33:19 ↗ public support or the public wasn't

2:33:21 ↗ supportive i'm

2:33:22 ↗ paraphrasing do you agree with that

2:33:26 ↗ um i don't agree with the way that they

2:33:28 ↗ characterized it i think

2:33:31 ↗ for any signifi land use project of

2:33:35 ↗ significant size there's always

2:33:38 ↗ people on both sides and and the people

2:33:41 ↗ that show up

2:33:42 ↗ to the city to tell them what they think

2:33:44 ↗ are always the people that are opposed

2:33:46 ↗ so were there people opposed yeah there

2:33:48 ↗ were and were there people that

2:33:50 ↗ supported it

2:33:50 ↗ absolutely so i i don't think it's fair

2:33:53 ↗ to say that it was not supported by the

2:34:00 ↗ community

2:34:02 ↗ as a general matter for shelter is it

2:34:04 ↗ your experience that shelter

2:34:06 ↗ tries to get some community support and

2:34:08 ↗ fit its developments into the existing

2:34:10 ↗ community

2:34:12 ↗ absolutely out of all of the developers

2:34:15 ↗ that i've worked for

2:34:17 ↗ in my career or worked with in my career

2:34:21 ↗ the the influence the

2:34:26 ↗ importance of fitting into the community

2:34:29 ↗ and supporting the community that

2:34:30 ↗ shelter

2:34:31 ↗ places on its developments

2:34:34 ↗ is unparalleled no nobody else

2:34:38 ↗ spends the time and effort to engage

2:34:41 ↗ with the community

2:34:42 ↗ and support community organizations and

2:34:44 ↗ really

2:34:47 ↗ be an integral part of

2:34:50 ↗ a community in the way that shelter does

2:34:57 ↗ so after the february of 2016

2:35:00 ↗ meeting on the 25th um

2:35:04 ↗ it looks like you met with the city

2:35:05 ↗ again in may of 2016 may 18th

2:35:08 ↗ 2016. um do you recall who was at that

2:35:13 ↗ meeting so that meeting was

2:35:16 ↗ keith niven lucy sloman gary young eric

2:35:19 ↗ evans and myself

2:35:22 ↗ what was the purpose of that meeting

2:35:26 ↗ um let's see

2:35:31 ↗ well one of the purposes was to

2:35:38 ↗ the city wanted to brief us on

2:35:41 ↗ how they were going to approach the

2:35:46 ↗ end of the development agreement that

2:35:48 ↗ they were referring to as

2:35:50 ↗ end of days

2:35:54 ↗ if you turn to uh the last page of your

2:35:56 ↗ notes

2:35:57 ↗ um the second bullet point down

2:36:02 ↗ um can you explain what ms sloman said

2:36:06 ↗ in that meeting about

2:36:07 ↗ building on shelter's property

2:36:11 ↗ um sure so she told us that

2:36:14 ↗ building on our land was too easy and

2:36:18 ↗ that the staff was concerned that then

2:36:20 ↗ that would mean a delay in development

2:36:22 ↗ on the valley floor

2:36:24 ↗ and they still weren't seeing the

2:36:26 ↗ development within that

2:36:28 ↗ central area urban core

2:36:32 ↗ which was anticipated by the central

2:36:34 ↗ isoqua plan

2:36:36 ↗ and they didn't want to dilute the focus

2:36:38 ↗ on getting development

2:36:39 ↗ in that area of the city

2:36:43 ↗ so just to clarify geographically the

2:36:45 ↗ the highlands is kind of up on the

2:36:46 ↗ plateau area of issaquah

2:36:48 ↗ where is this valley floor and urban

2:36:50 ↗ course at the same area

2:36:53 ↗ yeah so the valley floor is i think

2:36:56 ↗ basically most of of issaquah that's not

2:36:59 ↗ up on a hill

2:36:59 ↗ if that makes sense

2:37:04 ↗ um director niven at this meeting did he

2:37:06 ↗ have anything to say about the

2:37:08 ↗ market research that shelter had done

2:37:12 ↗ um yeah he told us that he didn't care

2:37:14 ↗ about it and he didn't want to hear

2:37:15 ↗ anything else about it and so we

2:37:18 ↗ shouldn't bring it up again

2:37:33 ↗ so it looks like you met again shelter

2:37:35 ↗ med again with the city

2:37:36 ↗ in july of 2016 july 6 2016.

2:37:41 ↗ um who is at that meeting

2:37:44 ↗ at that meeting on july 6th of 2016

2:37:49 ↗ it was lucy sloman keith niven doug

2:37:51 ↗ schlepp

2:37:53 ↗ uh eric evans and myself who's doug

2:37:56 ↗ schlapp

2:37:57 ↗ um he is

2:38:01 ↗ the city engineer although i think he's

2:38:02 ↗ actually a consultant to the city

2:38:06 ↗ what was the purpose of this meeting

2:38:10 ↗ i think the primary purpose of the

2:38:11 ↗ meeting initially was to discuss these

2:38:14 ↗ easements so there are some old

2:38:15 ↗ stormwater easements that run across

2:38:19 ↗ uh our property and polygons that

2:38:23 ↗ aren't used anymore and so we were

2:38:25 ↗ talking about

2:38:28 ↗ what to do with those was sort of the

2:38:29 ↗ primary purpose but we also had

2:38:32 ↗ an update on where the city was at with

2:38:35 ↗ planning for the

2:38:36 ↗ eventual end of the development

2:38:38 ↗ agreement had any progress been made on

2:38:40 ↗ that planning

2:38:42 ↗ no at that meeting um

2:38:44 ↗ [Music]

2:38:45 ↗ lucy told us that no real progress had

2:38:47 ↗ been made

2:38:49 ↗ um on what the process was going to be

2:38:52 ↗ or what the zoning would look like

2:38:56 ↗ and um we heard earlier that you'd

2:38:58 ↗ started the public public outreach

2:39:00 ↗ efforts in

2:39:01 ↗ may of uh 2016. and so this meeting is

2:39:05 ↗ following after that

2:39:06 ↗ after this time had you continued that

2:39:08 ↗ public outreach is this roughly the time

2:39:10 ↗ frame that you were doing focus groups

2:39:11 ↗ and other things

2:39:13 ↗ yeah i don't remember the exact date

2:39:15 ↗ when we went back for the second

2:39:17 ↗ open house where we shared the plan

2:39:20 ↗ but it would have been around this date

2:39:22 ↗ possibly a little bit after

2:39:29 ↗ then you met with the city again it

2:39:31 ↗ looks like in

2:39:32 ↗ september on september 21st of 2016.

2:39:36 ↗ um who was at that meeting

2:39:40 ↗ um that meeting was keith niven lucy

2:39:42 ↗ sloman

2:39:44 ↗ patrick mullaney who is our outside

2:39:47 ↗ counsel on land use

2:39:50 ↗ excuse me um gary young eric evans and

2:39:54 ↗ myself

2:40:01 ↗ what did keith say about the the timing

2:40:04 ↗ of the existing development agreement

2:40:05 ↗ did he indicate what was going to happen

2:40:07 ↗ to it

2:40:12 ↗ um

2:40:18 ↗ i'm looking down um at the bottom of

2:40:21 ↗ page one there it looks like the last

2:40:22 ↗ bullet point

2:40:25 ↗ oh yeah so

2:40:28 ↗ as we continue to talk about their their

2:40:31 ↗ plan for ending the development

2:40:33 ↗ agreement

2:40:33 ↗ keith told us that they were going to

2:40:36 ↗ quote kill the development agreement

2:40:37 ↗ next year and that

2:40:40 ↗ that was a priority of the staff to ease

2:40:43 ↗ the administrative burden

2:40:44 ↗ of applying the development agreement

2:40:49 ↗ looking at page two here what did

2:40:52 ↗ keith have to say about mitigation

2:40:57 ↗ under the development agreement as as

2:40:59 ↗ the city was planning to kill the

2:41:00 ↗ development agreement

2:41:03 ↗ at that meeting he told us that

2:41:06 ↗ our mitigation would

2:41:09 ↗ quote evaporate and disappear

2:41:14 ↗ but then he kind of went on to

2:41:18 ↗ acknowledge that he knew that the city

2:41:21 ↗ couldn't really make landowners pay for

2:41:23 ↗ something that they had already paid for

2:41:26 ↗ so that they probably would need to

2:41:29 ↗ acknowledge some number of vested trips

2:41:33 ↗ in the overlay that they were planning

2:41:36 ↗ but then he said something about the

2:41:38 ↗ trips being directional only

2:41:42 ↗ which wasn't really clear to us what

2:41:44 ↗ that meant

2:41:45 ↗ um but the the overlay that he referred

2:41:48 ↗ to was at that point i think it was at

2:41:50 ↗ this meeting that they had introduced

2:41:52 ↗ the idea

2:41:53 ↗ that they had for the um new zoning that

2:41:56 ↗ they would eventually

2:41:57 ↗ adopt and it was to the the strategy

2:42:01 ↗ was to mimic the development agreement

2:42:04 ↗ was sort of the terminology that they

2:42:05 ↗ kept using

2:42:06 ↗ and that they would roll the allowable

2:42:09 ↗ development that each parcel had

2:42:12 ↗ into a an overlay that was parcel

2:42:15 ↗ specific

2:42:15 ↗ so that each parcel would have an

2:42:18 ↗ overlay that applied to it that

2:42:20 ↗ showed what the maximum allowable

2:42:22 ↗ development was on that parcel

2:42:25 ↗ so going back to this statement in your

2:42:28 ↗ notes it says the city

2:42:30 ↗ that keith director nibben had said the

2:42:32 ↗ city can't make

2:42:33 ↗ land owners pay again something that the

2:42:35 ↗ land owner has already paid for

2:42:37 ↗ is that correct yes

2:42:42 ↗ is it was directors nivin's statement

2:42:45 ↗ that your mitigation will evaporate and

2:42:47 ↗ disappear

2:42:47 ↗ consistent with your understanding of

2:42:49 ↗ what the development agreement requires

2:42:52 ↗ no is mitigation under the development

2:42:55 ↗ agreement

2:42:55 ↗ would do you understand it to mean um to

2:42:58 ↗ be part of what is vested with the

2:43:00 ↗ development agreement

2:43:01 ↗ yes the the development agreement is

2:43:04 ↗ very specific

2:43:05 ↗ that in its definition of development

2:43:07 ↗ standards to which you vest

2:43:09 ↗ it includes mitigation

2:43:13 ↗ so looking at page three of your notes

2:43:17 ↗ that looks like the fifth bullet point

2:43:19 ↗ down what was director nivin's

2:43:23 ↗ description of what would happen to

2:43:25 ↗ shelter's property in the in the city's

2:43:27 ↗ vision

2:43:31 ↗ um he said that he thought council was

2:43:35 ↗ invested in the commercial designation

2:43:37 ↗ for the property

2:43:38 ↗ and that if that if we didn't move

2:43:42 ↗ forward with that that the council

2:43:43 ↗ members were willing to let our property

2:43:44 ↗ sit undeveloped

2:43:46 ↗ until that vision could be accomplished

2:43:50 ↗ and in the context of the the

2:43:53 ↗ um the research that we had shared

2:43:59 ↗ that was him telling us that it was fine

2:44:01 ↗ with them to have it sit

2:44:03 ↗ till 2040 and beyond

2:44:11 ↗ and then going just a little bit further

2:44:14 ↗ down in your notes here

2:44:17 ↗ did the city staff indicate um

2:44:21 ↗ whether they would support shelter's

2:44:22 ↗ proposal for mixed-use development

2:44:27 ↗ um yes at this meeting

2:44:30 ↗ they told us or

2:44:33 ↗ keith told us that the staff does not

2:44:36 ↗ and will not support

2:44:38 ↗ our proposal for a mixed-use development

2:44:41 ↗ and then he went on to say that that was

2:44:42 ↗ in part because shelter had refused the

2:44:45 ↗ city's past

2:44:46 ↗ overture to tie up shelter's property

2:44:48 ↗ for five years while the city attempted

2:44:50 ↗ to market it to

2:44:51 ↗ a college or university

2:44:55 ↗ and he he sat there

2:44:58 ↗ and looked at gary and told him that

2:45:02 ↗ if he had just made a different decision

2:45:04 ↗ the five year period would be

2:45:06 ↗ running and the application would be

2:45:08 ↗ treated differently

2:45:10 ↗ it was really pretty a shocking

2:45:12 ↗ statement for me to hear

2:45:15 ↗ what when you refer to a five-year

2:45:17 ↗ period that would be running what's that

2:45:19 ↗ referencing it was referencing a request

2:45:22 ↗ that the city had made that

2:45:23 ↗ we grant them a five-year option

2:45:27 ↗ on the property to go try to look for

2:45:30 ↗ a institutional user

2:45:34 ↗ a college or university and they wanted

2:45:36 ↗ that option

2:45:38 ↗ at no cost and then an ultimate sale to

2:45:41 ↗ be at below market

2:45:42 ↗ below fair market value was that part of

2:45:44 ↗ the the package of

2:45:46 ↗ gifts or donations or various different

2:45:49 ↗ things that were being considered that

2:45:50 ↗ you mentioned earlier

2:45:51 ↗ yes

2:45:54 ↗ and just for further record um

2:45:58 ↗ will will you please uh read that bullet

2:46:01 ↗ point

2:46:02 ↗ into the record sure it says staff does

2:46:05 ↗ not and will not support shelter's

2:46:08 ↗ proposal for a mixed-use development

2:46:10 ↗ in part because shelter refused the

2:46:12 ↗ city's past overture

2:46:14 ↗ to tie up shelter's property for five

2:46:16 ↗ years while the city attempted to market

2:46:18 ↗ it to

2:46:19 ↗ an institutional user keith mentioned

2:46:21 ↗ that had shelter made a different

2:46:23 ↗ decision

2:46:24 ↗ the five-year period would have almost

2:46:26 ↗ run by now

2:46:27 ↗ and the the staff might have looked more

2:46:30 ↗ favorably on shelter's proposal

2:46:32 ↗ thank you

2:46:42 ↗ and then turning to page four of your

2:46:43 ↗ notes um the third bullet point down

2:46:46 ↗ will you just read that bullet point

2:46:47 ↗ into the record please

2:46:49 ↗ yes so it says patrick questioned what

2:46:53 ↗ will happen to projects vested

2:46:55 ↗ under the d.a meaning the development

2:46:57 ↗ agreement

2:46:59 ↗ keith said that if a project is vested

2:47:01 ↗ under the d.a

2:47:02 ↗ it will remain vested for the term of

2:47:04 ↗ the vesting permit

2:47:06 ↗ lucy pointed out that once zoning

2:47:07 ↗ changes the permits do not have to be

2:47:18 ↗ extended and keith never mentioned

2:47:21 ↗ anything about

2:47:22 ↗ divesting under the development

2:47:23 ↗ agreement in this meeting no not at all

2:47:26 ↗ anything about permanent investing

2:47:30 ↗ nope i hadn't heard that term until this

2:47:31 ↗ hearing

2:47:33 ↗ so is this description that you just

2:47:34 ↗ read that um

2:47:36 ↗ if a project is vested under the da will

2:47:38 ↗ remain vested for the term of the

2:47:40 ↗ vesting permit

2:47:41 ↗ is that consistent with your

2:47:43 ↗ understanding of the development

2:47:44 ↗ agreement and what it requires

2:47:46 ↗ yes

2:47:59 ↗ it looks like the next time that you met

2:48:01 ↗ with the city was

2:48:02 ↗ on october 27 2016.

2:48:08 ↗ who was at this meeting at the

2:48:12 ↗ october 27 2016 meeting it was gary

2:48:15 ↗ keith and myself

2:48:21 ↗ if you go down to roughly the middle of

2:48:24 ↗ the page

2:48:28 ↗ what did mr niven have to say about

2:48:31 ↗ development kind of the atmosphere of

2:48:33 ↗ development in the issaquah highlands at

2:48:34 ↗ that time

2:48:35 ↗ was the city supportive or

2:48:37 ↗ anti-development

2:48:42 ↗ at this point they were not supportive

2:48:46 ↗ of anything

2:48:49 ↗ other than what they always referred to

2:48:53 ↗ as the original vision

2:48:54 ↗ so commercial use of our site

2:48:59 ↗ [Music]

2:49:01 ↗ he keith told us that in the city

2:49:05 ↗ right now at that time anything that is

2:49:07 ↗ seen as supportive of development is

2:49:09 ↗ poison

2:49:10 ↗ and the city will not take any position

2:49:12 ↗ in support of development in this

2:49:14 ↗ environment

2:49:17 ↗ so be viewed as as poison to be tried to

2:49:20 ↗ try to develop your property at this

2:49:22 ↗ time

2:49:23 ↗ yes that's what he told us

2:49:29 ↗ council could i interrupt for a moment

2:49:31 ↗ we've been

2:49:32 ↗ going for a while would it be a

2:49:34 ↗ reasonable time to take a short break to

2:49:37 ↗ happy to take a break why don't we come

2:49:40 ↗ back in about 10 minutes

3:01:07 ↗ all right we're back in session i would

3:01:08 ↗ like to try to keep our constraint to

3:01:11 ↗ about 10 o'clock that's

3:01:12 ↗ kind of what our agreements were so if

3:01:14 ↗ we can do that that'd be great

3:01:16 ↗ sure i will try to watch the time and if

3:01:18 ↗ i start to overrun just flag me down

3:01:20 ↗ i'll do it all right so

3:01:24 ↗ um tia when um we paused for the break

3:01:27 ↗ we left off talking about

3:01:29 ↗ the october 27th 2016 meeting

3:01:33 ↗ um

3:01:40 ↗ turning to the the second page of your

3:01:42 ↗ notes there

3:01:44 ↗ it's actually at the very bottom of the

3:01:45 ↗ page what did director niven have

3:01:48 ↗ to say about your residential units

3:01:59 ↗ at that meeting he told us

3:02:02 ↗ that the three residential units

3:02:05 ↗ would evaporate because it would be too

3:02:08 ↗ complicated for him to try to figure out

3:02:10 ↗ how to allow them

3:02:12 ↗ when they were planning to restrict our

3:02:15 ↗ property so that it could not be

3:02:17 ↗ developed for residential use

3:02:22 ↗ and just just going back to something

3:02:24 ↗ that you had said before and to clarify

3:02:28 ↗ you had three residential units that

3:02:30 ↗ shelter had paid for

3:02:32 ↗ correct

3:02:41 ↗ turning to the the next time that you

3:02:44 ↗ met with the city

3:02:46 ↗ which i have is november 10th of 2016.

3:02:50 ↗ who attended this meeting this was

3:02:54 ↗ actually a little bit of a different

3:02:56 ↗ meeting we gary and i

3:02:59 ↗ had reached out to council members to

3:03:02 ↗ try to get them to

3:03:04 ↗ engage in conversation with us about

3:03:05 ↗ what they wanted to see

3:03:07 ↗ and what they're open to seeing on our

3:03:09 ↗ property so this meeting on november 10

3:03:11 ↗ 2016 was actually a meeting with

3:03:14 ↗ then council member mary lou polley and

3:03:17 ↗ council member mariah batisse

3:03:24 ↗ and just in general what did you discuss

3:03:27 ↗ in this meeting

3:03:32 ↗ um hang on just a second let me refresh

3:03:35 ↗ my memory

3:03:53 ↗ so i think what we discussed was our

3:03:57 ↗ mixed-use proposal that we had developed

3:03:59 ↗ with the community input

3:04:02 ↗ and then we talked about potential

3:04:07 ↗ avenues for moving forward with

3:04:08 ↗ development on

3:04:10 ↗ on our property

3:04:14 ↗ we were asking them for feedback

3:04:17 ↗ and you have here um about halfway down

3:04:20 ↗ the page

3:04:22 ↗ looks like the eighth bullet point down

3:04:25 ↗ um

3:04:26 ↗ you you have a your notes mention a

3:04:29 ↗ sense of

3:04:30 ↗ urgency um can you explain what you

3:04:33 ↗ meant by that sure so

3:04:36 ↗ um

3:04:37 ↗ [Music]

3:04:40 ↗ they had mentioned that the city has a

3:04:43 ↗ major bandwidth

3:04:44 ↗ issue as far as staff goes at that point

3:04:48 ↗ in time

3:04:49 ↗ because of the moratorium so i think at

3:04:52 ↗ that point the moratorium was relatively

3:04:53 ↗ new and they were developing the work

3:04:55 ↗ plan

3:04:56 ↗ to try to get out of the moratorium or

3:05:00 ↗ to develop the path out of the

3:05:01 ↗ moratorium um and

3:05:06 ↗ so from their perspective meaning

3:05:10 ↗ mary lou paulie and mariah batista's

3:05:11 ↗ perspective the staff

3:05:13 ↗ resources were rightly focused on more

3:05:16 ↗ moratorium related issues

3:05:18 ↗ and they had cited that as reason

3:05:21 ↗ for just not not dealing with our

3:05:24 ↗ property at that moment in time

3:05:26 ↗ so when i started talking about urgency

3:05:29 ↗ of the issue um

3:05:33 ↗ it was related to those comments that

3:05:35 ↗ they had made

3:05:36 ↗ and just so that there's the context in

3:05:39 ↗ our record

3:05:40 ↗ what was the moratorium that you're

3:05:41 ↗ referencing uh the city of izakawa had a

3:05:44 ↗ moratorium

3:05:46 ↗ on other portions of the city but it did

3:05:49 ↗ not apply in

3:05:50 ↗ any of the areas that were governed by

3:05:52 ↗ development agreements

3:05:56 ↗ and when you when you mention the need

3:05:58 ↗ to have more certainty

3:06:00 ↗ um in your notes did was there any

3:06:03 ↗ question at this time about

3:06:04 ↗ your vested rights under the development

3:06:06 ↗ agreement did this change anything about

3:06:08 ↗ your understanding of what the

3:06:09 ↗ development agreement meant

3:06:11 ↗ no not at all so no concern about vested

3:06:15 ↗ rights at this time

3:06:17 ↗ no no concern about vested rights

3:06:22 ↗ when you when i reference certainty i

3:06:24 ↗ think

3:06:25 ↗ um you know at this point we knew that

3:06:27 ↗ the development agreement would end

3:06:29 ↗ and that there would be replacement

3:06:31 ↗ regulations but at this point the city

3:06:33 ↗ had no

3:06:34 ↗ um no real

3:06:38 ↗ there were no draft replacement

3:06:39 ↗ regulations we didn't really know what

3:06:40 ↗ that meant

3:06:41 ↗ yet so when you're talking to

3:06:45 ↗ potential end users about coming to your

3:06:47 ↗ site or

3:06:48 ↗ signing a long-term lease or any of that

3:06:51 ↗ stuff

3:06:52 ↗ they want to know that you have the

3:06:53 ↗ ability to to perform and to develop

3:06:56 ↗ your property in the way that that

3:06:58 ↗ you're planning and anticipating

3:07:00 ↗ so when i reference needing certainty

3:07:02 ↗ that's

3:07:03 ↗ that's what i mean and this is before

3:07:05 ↗ you had submitted your

3:07:07 ↗ current applications that are pending

3:07:09 ↗ correct so you were exploring different

3:07:11 ↗ options at that time

3:07:22 ↗ right

3:07:28 ↗ and it looks like you met again with the

3:07:31 ↗ city

3:07:32 ↗ a couple days later

3:07:35 ↗ on november 14 2016.

3:07:38 ↗ who was at that meeting so that meeting

3:07:40 ↗ was

3:07:41 ↗ keith niven gary young patrick mullaney

3:07:44 ↗ and myself

3:07:59 ↗ if you could go one two three four

3:08:03 ↗ five bullet points down the page

3:08:06 ↗ will you read that fifth bullet point

3:08:07 ↗ please

3:08:10 ↗ uh it says keith went on to point out

3:08:12 ↗ that with vesting available under the

3:08:14 ↗ current da

3:08:16 ↗ which is which is a reference to the

3:08:18 ↗ development agreement

3:08:19 ↗ there is no gap between d.a and new

3:08:23 ↗ zoning

3:08:23 ↗ and that the moratorium work plan

3:08:25 ↗ indicates that the city will have lifted

3:08:27 ↗ the moratorium before the end

3:08:29 ↗ of da's and that the gap

3:08:32 ↗ is in quotations is that intended to be

3:08:35 ↗ a direct quote

3:08:36 ↗ yes

3:08:42 ↗ so what did you take that to mean that

3:08:44 ↗ there's no gap between the da and the

3:08:46 ↗ new zoning

3:08:49 ↗ we one of the ideas that we had

3:08:50 ↗ discussed with um

3:08:52 ↗ mary lou paulie and mariah batis was

3:08:55 ↗ just extend the development agreement as

3:08:57 ↗ is if if you don't feel like you have

3:09:00 ↗ the staff resources to do

3:09:02 ↗ any real planning on this now just to

3:09:04 ↗ extend it as is with respect to our

3:09:06 ↗ property you can still wrap it up and

3:09:08 ↗ terminate all the rest of

3:09:10 ↗ isoqua highlands if that's what you want

3:09:11 ↗ to do but let's just do a simple

3:09:13 ↗ amendment to

3:09:14 ↗ extend and it allows us to

3:09:19 ↗ just have some some additional

3:09:22 ↗ long-term certainty to point to for end

3:09:25 ↗ users

3:09:26 ↗ when you're we're trying to market the

3:09:29 ↗ property

3:09:30 ↗ and so um when

3:09:34 ↗ and and the council members had had a

3:09:37 ↗ somewhat positive reaction to that but

3:09:39 ↗ they said they needed to

3:09:40 ↗ get keith's take on it and when we

3:09:42 ↗ raised it with

3:09:43 ↗ keith he didn't like that idea at all

3:09:46 ↗ and so

3:09:47 ↗ this was him explaining to me why i

3:09:49 ↗ didn't need that

3:09:50 ↗ because all i had to do was use the

3:09:53 ↗ vesting provision under the development

3:09:56 ↗ agreement

3:09:58 ↗ if you used the investing provision

3:10:00 ↗ under the development agreement is

3:10:02 ↗ that what you're referring to as there's

3:10:03 ↗ no gap between the da and the new zoning

3:10:06 ↗ right and at this point again

3:10:10 ↗ they were they being the city were

3:10:14 ↗ telling us and everyone that the idea

3:10:16 ↗ was to mimic the development agreement

3:10:19 ↗ at the

3:10:19 ↗ end so it would basically be codifying

3:10:22 ↗ the regulations that were in the

3:10:24 ↗ development agreement

3:10:27 ↗ but did they end up actually doing that

3:10:29 ↗ in reality no

3:10:31 ↗ they significantly changed the the

3:10:32 ↗ regulations with respect to our property

3:10:35 ↗ and really should should that matter if

3:10:38 ↗ testing works the way that it was

3:10:40 ↗ intended to

3:10:41 ↗ not at all i mean investing means that

3:10:43 ↗ if you have an application that was

3:10:45 ↗ submitted

3:10:46 ↗ prior to the regulations going into

3:10:47 ↗ effect that you're vested to the old

3:10:50 ↗ regulations which in this case is are

3:10:52 ↗ the regulations under the development

3:10:54 ↗ agreement

3:10:55 ↗ because those were the only regulations

3:10:57 ↗ that existed

3:10:59 ↗ at that time at the time we submitted

3:11:00 ↗ the applications so using director

3:11:03 ↗ niven's language there'd be no gap

3:11:06 ↗ correct

3:11:11 ↗ and then going down a little bit further

3:11:12 ↗ in your notes um

3:11:15 ↗ did director nibben say anything about

3:11:17 ↗ um

3:11:18 ↗ how the vesting dates determined in

3:11:22 ↗ issaquah

3:11:24 ↗ yes so reading from my notes it says

3:11:27 ↗ keith said that the city attorney has

3:11:28 ↗ determined that in issaquah

3:11:30 ↗ the vesting date is pre-application date

3:11:33 ↗ not

3:11:34 ↗ complete application and then mentioned

3:11:37 ↗ that he

3:11:38 ↗ just hasn't gotten around to writing

3:11:40 ↗ that determination down yet

3:11:43 ↗ and so when i say when i reference not

3:11:46 ↗ complete application i don't mean that

3:11:47 ↗ the pre-application

3:11:48 ↗ is incomplete i just mean not the full

3:11:51 ↗ application

3:11:54 ↗ and so that pre-application date that's

3:11:57 ↗ the packet of the application packet

3:12:00 ↗ that you were talking about earlier that

3:12:02 ↗ is

3:12:02 ↗ more extensive in issaquah than in other

3:12:04 ↗ places right i think it's referred to as

3:12:06 ↗ the preliminary land use application

3:12:08 ↗ and that you described as essentially

3:12:10 ↗ equivalent to

3:12:11 ↗ doing a complete or a full land use

3:12:13 ↗ application

3:12:16 ↗ yes

3:12:27 ↗ and then um turning to

3:12:32 ↗ what would be the the third page of your

3:12:35 ↗ notes here

3:12:38 ↗ about five bullet points down um did

3:12:41 ↗ director niven have anything to say

3:12:42 ↗ about your

3:12:43 ↗ residential units of entitlement in this

3:12:45 ↗ meeting

3:12:53 ↗ um which bullet point were you

3:12:56 ↗ referencing

3:12:57 ↗ i'm looking at the third page of your

3:13:00 ↗ notes

3:13:02 ↗ bullet point

3:13:08 ↗ um at this meeting he told us that our

3:13:11 ↗ three residential units of entitlement

3:13:14 ↗ would either go away or be converted to

3:13:17 ↗ commercial use

3:13:18 ↗ because they can't allow any residential

3:13:20 ↗ in the zoning

3:13:24 ↗ is that something that you were

3:13:26 ↗ requesting for your residential

3:13:27 ↗ entitlement to go away

3:13:30 ↗ no the opposite we were insisting that

3:13:33 ↗ that

3:13:34 ↗ despite the fact that three residential

3:13:36 ↗ units is not a lot

3:13:38 ↗ that it was still an important aspect of

3:13:41 ↗ our entitlement to us and something that

3:13:42 ↗ we had paid value for

3:13:55 ↗ you'll have to bear with me i keep

3:13:56 ↗ getting locked out even though i'm

3:13:58 ↗ convinced

3:13:59 ↗ my password is right

3:14:16 ↗ okay so i'm going to bring up an exhibit

3:14:19 ↗ that

3:14:20 ↗ is already in the record um

3:14:23 ↗ at s14

3:14:37 ↗ and um let me grab a copy for

3:14:40 ↗ uti okay

3:14:49 ↗ or is it jackie are they over here

3:15:18 ↗ okay

3:15:21 ↗ right can you describe what s14

3:15:25 ↗ is this

3:15:28 ↗ is an entitlement

3:15:32 ↗ memo that was sent to

3:15:36 ↗ nick abdelnor of polygon and gary young

3:15:39 ↗ of shelter and it was from lucy sloman

3:15:42 ↗ at the city

3:15:44 ↗ and looking at that um

3:15:47 ↗ first paragraph there and actually

3:15:49 ↗ before we get to this point

3:15:51 ↗ what why in general is it do you

3:15:53 ↗ understand this to have been prepared

3:15:56 ↗ um so my understanding is that there are

3:15:59 ↗ um several iterations of this memo that

3:16:03 ↗ were drafted at various points in time

3:16:06 ↗ and that it attempts to summarize

3:16:12 ↗ how

3:16:15 ↗ different portions of entitlement

3:16:21 ↗ are allocated as between polygon and

3:16:24 ↗ shelter

3:16:25 ↗ and will be treated with respect to

3:16:28 ↗ development proposals going forward

3:16:31 ↗ if you flip to the very last page of

3:16:33 ↗ this

3:16:36 ↗ there's a signature block did

3:16:42 ↗ did anybody sign this excuse me

3:16:46 ↗ um yes this this particular version of

3:16:49 ↗ the memo is signed

3:16:51 ↗ as approved um by lucy sloman

3:16:55 ↗ did shelter holdings ever sign this we

3:16:58 ↗ did not

3:17:02 ↗ and going back to the first page of this

3:17:05 ↗ memo

3:17:07 ↗ and that first paragraph at the end

3:17:09 ↗ there um

3:17:14 ↗ it talks about the the second sentence

3:17:16 ↗ of that paragraph

3:17:17 ↗ talks about the fact that these

3:17:18 ↗ properties will be permitted under the

3:17:20 ↗ issaquah highlands development agreement

3:17:23 ↗ using using the following entitlement

3:17:25 ↗ assumptions and then it lists

3:17:27 ↗ some entitlement letters but then it

3:17:30 ↗ also states at the end they're

3:17:32 ↗ using vesting requirements summarized by

3:17:34 ↗ the dsd director keith niven

3:17:36 ↗ in a separate interpretation

3:17:40 ↗ you know what that separate

3:17:41 ↗ interpretation is or what's your

3:17:43 ↗ understanding of what that is

3:17:45 ↗ my understanding of what that is is the

3:17:48 ↗ march

3:17:49 ↗ 2017 letter

3:17:52 ↗ to nick abdelnor or polygon

3:17:56 ↗ regarding vesting when this

3:17:59 ↗ memo came out

3:18:03 ↗ we reviewed it and provided some

3:18:06 ↗ comments

3:18:07 ↗ to uh miss sloman and

3:18:10 ↗ one of our comments was a request for

3:18:12 ↗ that that

3:18:13 ↗ um separate vesting

3:18:18 ↗ how do they refer to it uh

3:18:22 ↗ separate interpretation um on vesting

3:18:24 ↗ and so we requested a copy of that

3:18:26 ↗ we didn't get a response from that but

3:18:29 ↗ the next

3:18:30 ↗ thing that we saw come out of the city

3:18:32 ↗ regarding vesting was that letter that

3:18:35 ↗ was

3:18:35 ↗ addressed to nick abdelnor and since our

3:18:38 ↗ property

3:18:39 ↗ was subject to all the same regulations

3:18:43 ↗ and pursue potentially pursuing the same

3:18:45 ↗ permits

3:18:48 ↗ our assumption has always been and

3:18:49 ↗ continues to be that that interpretation

3:18:51 ↗ applies to our property as well

3:18:54 ↗ so you just mentioned that you had asked

3:18:56 ↗ for a copy of keith

3:18:57 ↗ vesting requirements interpretation

3:19:01 ↗ are you aware that that others had also

3:19:04 ↗ asked for that interpretation around

3:19:05 ↗ that time

3:19:08 ↗ um i am aware that polygon

3:19:11 ↗ did so let's i'm going to grab another

3:19:15 ↗ exhibit which this one is going to be

3:19:18 ↗ new

3:19:19 ↗ um do you recall what number we left off

3:19:23 ↗ on last

3:19:26 ↗ 26 thank you so this would be 27.

3:19:44 ↗ record

3:20:07 ↗ and um so are you familiar with this

3:20:11 ↗ documented s27 describe for

3:20:14 ↗ for us what it is um

3:20:17 ↗ it is an email string between

3:20:23 ↗ john rosenthal and lucy sloman with

3:20:28 ↗ sharon petey copied on it

3:20:32 ↗ if you go down to the original message

3:20:34 ↗ on that first

3:20:35 ↗ page the december 6 2016 um

3:20:40 ↗ i'll represent that it indicates that uh

3:20:43 ↗ cycan

3:20:44 ↗ is the client of john rosenthal are you

3:20:47 ↗ familiar who is psych who

3:20:48 ↗ cycan is um i believe that cycan

3:20:54 ↗ is the owner or

3:20:57 ↗ associated with the city surf site

3:21:01 ↗ and then going back up to the top email

3:21:05 ↗ in this chain

3:21:06 ↗ the 12 6 2016 503

3:21:11 ↗ can you read what miss sloman told

3:21:15 ↗ john rosenthal about how

3:21:19 ↗ vesting development rights would be

3:21:21 ↗ addressed by the director yes

3:21:24 ↗ so her email to john rosenthal reads

3:21:27 ↗ besting of someone's development rights

3:21:29 ↗ under that agreement

3:21:33 ↗ which is referring to the issaquah

3:21:34 ↗ highlands development agreement

3:21:37 ↗ will be addressed in a document to be

3:21:39 ↗ prepared by the director of my

3:21:41 ↗ department

3:21:43 ↗ you want me to keep going no that's fine

3:21:49 ↗ so then a moment ago um you said that

3:21:53 ↗ this investing interpretation

3:21:58 ↗ was the march 27 2017

3:22:03 ↗ memo which i believe is already in the

3:22:05 ↗ record

3:22:06 ↗ at s13 let's pull that up

3:22:15 ↗ this is exhibit s13 i'm gonna grab a

3:22:18 ↗ copy for you ts

3:22:46 ↗ so

3:22:50 ↗ so we've discussed this memo um to

3:22:53 ↗ to some length in director niven's

3:22:55 ↗ testimony ms sloman's testimony

3:22:58 ↗ um we turn to the the very

3:23:02 ↗ last page and paragraph of this

3:23:05 ↗ um can you read that last

3:23:09 ↗ paragraph starting with requirements for

3:23:11 ↗ a complete sure

3:23:13 ↗ requirements for a complete application

3:23:15 ↗ necessary to vest are set forth by

3:23:17 ↗ municipal code

3:23:18 ↗ imc 18.01.050

3:23:24 ↗ c1 sets forth the requirements for

3:23:27 ↗ a complete application when an

3:23:29 ↗ application is submitted meeting those

3:23:31 ↗ requirements

3:23:32 ↗ the application is vested and would be

3:23:34 ↗ unaffected by any future changes in

3:23:37 ↗ zoning or development regulations

3:23:39 ↗ so long as the application remains

3:23:41 ↗ active and then in parens it has imc

3:23:45 ↗ [Music]

3:23:47 ↗ 18.04.220.d.2

3:23:49 ↗ this would include any changes

3:23:52 ↗ as a result of termination of the

3:23:54 ↗ issaquah highlands development agreement

3:24:01 ↗ is this vesting interpretation

3:24:04 ↗ consistent with your understanding of

3:24:05 ↗ the development agreement

3:24:10 ↗ yes

3:24:27 ↗ so you understood this to be the

3:24:29 ↗ entitlement memo that lucy's memo was

3:24:31 ↗ referencing and that both you

3:24:33 ↗ and then john rosenthal were asking for

3:24:37 ↗ yes because it's the only thing that we

3:24:39 ↗ ever saw that

3:24:41 ↗ gave an interpretation of vesting with

3:24:43 ↗ respect to projects in

3:24:45 ↗ isoqua highlands under the development

3:24:50 ↗ [Applause]

3:24:52 ↗ agreement

3:25:10 ↗ i think we're gonna this last exhibit

3:25:12 ↗ should just take a couple minutes and

3:25:13 ↗ then we'll end on this

3:25:14 ↗ note um given that it's 9 56.

3:25:18 ↗ thank you so this will be um exhibit

3:25:23 ↗ [Applause]

3:25:34 ↗ s28

3:25:49 ↗ tia will you please describe what um

3:25:52 ↗ this document is s28 yes

3:25:55 ↗ it is an email exchange between keith

3:25:58 ↗ niven and nick

3:25:59 ↗ abdelnor regarding investing in the

3:26:02 ↗ the march 27 2017 letter

3:26:06 ↗ and um just further records for

3:26:09 ↗ clarification because he came up both in

3:26:10 ↗ this and the the prior memo who is nick

3:26:13 ↗ abdelnor

3:26:15 ↗ he's an employee of polygon

3:26:19 ↗ homes or william william lyon homes

3:26:22 ↗ and i think he runs their entitlement

3:26:25 ↗ and what document is attached to this

3:26:28 ↗ email

3:26:30 ↗ s13 the march 27 2017 letter

3:26:37 ↗ will you please read um what nick

3:26:40 ↗ abdelnor had to say to keith niven

3:26:42 ↗ on june 29th of 2017

3:26:46 ↗ he wrote keith i know march was not long

3:26:48 ↗ ago

3:26:49 ↗ please confirm the attached letter

3:26:51 ↗ confirms both preliminary plat

3:26:53 ↗ and site development permit applications

3:26:55 ↗ when deemed complete

3:26:57 ↗ results in the applications being vested

3:26:59 ↗ by the city

3:27:00 ↗ and keith's response was yes

3:27:07 ↗ and again is this consistent with your

3:27:08 ↗ understanding of

3:27:10 ↗ the vesting requirements under the

3:27:12 ↗ development agreement

3:27:14 ↗ yes thank you

3:27:18 ↗ we can end on that note if you're ready

3:27:20 ↗ to end for the evening

3:27:21 ↗ i think we are i would like to

3:27:25 ↗ thank everybody for their participation

3:27:27 ↗ i think we'll

3:27:28 ↗ adjourn the meeting we'll get back here

3:27:30 ↗ meet again tomorrow

3:27:32 ↗ 6 30 and

3:27:36 ↗ start again consider ourselves adjourned

3:27:39 ↗ thank you thank you i want to see this

3:27:54 ↗ okay

3:28:06 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (1)

Administration/

Staff (1)

Richard Sowa, Chair Keith Niven, Econ. & Dev. Srvc. Dir. Mel Morgan, Vice Chair Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present: Richard Sanford Jeffrey Dunbar, City Attorney’s Office Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Tia Heim, Shelter Holdings Randy Harrison Zachary Lell, City Attorney’s Office Jasmina Mihova Ray Liaw, Van Ness Feldman, LLP Mark Rigos, Alternate Jackie Quarré, Foster Pepper PLLC Ryan Roeter, Alternate Patrick Schneider, Foster Pepper PLLC Nischitha Venkatesh, Alternate