Development Commission - Special Meeting - 05 F · Tuesday, February 5, 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 January 15, 2019

packet pp.7–9

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-15-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 PM Council Chambers January 15, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Minutes of January 16, 2019

packet pp.11–14

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 01-16-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

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

Open packet at p.23 ↗

2949 segments .txt ↗

0:18 ↗ all right all right like to welcome you

0:22 ↗ all to public hearing for the SK

0:25 ↗ Highlands retail the ESCO highlands

0:27 ↗ medical office administrative site

0:29 ↗ development permit and the Isco island

0:31 ↗ self storage administrative site

0:33 ↗ development permit appreciate your being

0:37 ↗ here we've got a few administrative

0:39 ↗ things we need to take care of first one

0:42 ↗ is you know our the the discussions are

0:45 ↗ being recorded and we need to make sure

0:48 ↗ that we speak loud enough so that our

0:49 ↗ recorder can hear that we're to not do

0:53 ↗ that so please make sure you're well

0:55 ↗ heard I'd also like to remind everybody

0:58 ↗ that we're trying to keep the notion of

1:00 ↗ it within an hour you know talk talk for

1:03 ↗ about an hour and then we need a little

1:04 ↗ break and then we'll get back you've

1:06 ↗ done real well at that so I appreciate

1:07 ↗ that and we have some minutes from

1:09 ↗ January 15th or January 15th it's not

1:14 ↗ right our previous minutes we need that

1:25 ↗ would be the minutes from the special

1:27 ↗ what says January 15th it is January

1:30 ↗ 15th so and 16th so I get a motion for

1:35 ↗ us to chair move we approved the

1:36 ↗ Minnesota January 15 2009 teen meeting

1:39 ↗ second moved and seconded does anybody

1:43 ↗ have comments on those can we get a

1:46 ↗ motion you have to prove that I got it

1:51 ↗ I'm not with you

1:54 ↗ closing brain I guess so all those in

1:56 ↗ favor of approving it say aye aye

1:58 ↗ opposed motions pre-approved in an

2:02 ↗ unanimously about the January 16th

2:06 ↗ [Music]

2:10 ↗ how about the January 16th meaning

2:13 ↗ minutes mr. chair move we approved the

2:16 ↗ January 16th 2019 minutes okay all those

2:22 ↗ in favor any discussion all those in

2:25 ↗ favor of proving those minutes please

2:27 ↗ say aye

2:27 ↗ aye opposed motion carries

2:31 ↗ better okay thanks please remind us we

2:34 ↗ we don't mean for it to be difficult for

2:37 ↗ you to hear so well we might need

2:39 ↗ reminded so with that I think we're

2:43 ↗ ready to begin mr. Lowe would you start

2:46 ↗ us off mr. chairman

2:49 ↗ next to see everyone I believe that we

2:51 ↗ are in the middle of miss Hines direct

2:53 ↗ examination and I would yield the floor

2:55 ↗ to miss quarrei

2:57 ↗ that's correct and so I would like to

2:59 ↗ recall Tia hi

3:11 ↗ and Tia you were sworn in before you

3:14 ↗ began your last round of testimony do

3:17 ↗ you acknowledge that you're still sworn

3:18 ↗ in and testifying under oath today I do

3:21 ↗ so I'd like to begin this evening by

3:25 ↗ kind of taking a step back and reminding

3:28 ↗ us where we're at you had been walking

3:31 ↗ us through a chronology before with your

3:33 ↗ testimony and so can you just again

3:36 ↗ high-level walk us through the five

3:39 ↗ different applications and four

3:40 ↗ different projects that shelter has

3:42 ↗ before the city right now sure we first

3:46 ↗ have the platon which takes the 21 acres

3:50 ↗ and divides it up into five blocks and

3:53 ↗ ten Lots and then we have a retail site

3:58 ↗ development permit application which

4:01 ↗ covers about two and a half of the

4:02 ↗ blocks or five Lots

4:05 ↗ we have an office I guess that one's a

4:10 ↗ site development permit preliminary land

4:12 ↗ use application we have a medical office

4:17 ↗ administrative site development permit

4:19 ↗ application and we have a storage

4:24 ↗ facility administrative site development

4:27 ↗ permit application when we're talking

4:30 ↗ about those different applications and

4:31 ↗ are we talking about one building or a

4:34 ↗ couple buildings what does it look like

4:36 ↗ overall so on the site development and

4:41 ↗ administrative site development permit

4:42 ↗ applications they are let's see three of

4:48 ↗ them just have a single building on each

4:51 ↗ one with the retail one is significantly

4:53 ↗ different in that respect and that

4:55 ↗ involves multiple buildings I think

4:58 ↗ there's a around 11 although I'm not

5:00 ↗ certain on that number that are included

5:03 ↗ in that site development permit

5:04 ↗ application for the retail project it's

5:07 ↗ a short process to put together those

5:09 ↗ applications no it's not it's it's a

5:12 ↗ very involved process of both pulling

5:17 ↗ together all the materials that the city

5:18 ↗ requires but also planning

5:20 ↗ out particularly the retail development

5:23 ↗ in a way that makes sense and will be

5:26 ↗ functional for the community and for the

5:29 ↗ the end users and the the people who at

5:31 ↗ least space in the center and the same

5:34 ↗ goes for the other applications it's

5:36 ↗ just a little bit less involved when

5:39 ↗ there's a single building as compared to

5:41 ↗ multiple buildings so I'd like to dive

5:45 ↗ back in to kind of the chronology of

5:48 ↗ things that we were going through and

5:49 ↗ where we left off in your last evening

5:51 ↗ of testimony and there was I think we

5:56 ↗ had left off roughly in the timeframe of

5:58 ↗ beginning of 2017 does that sound about

6:02 ↗ right sure

6:03 ↗ okay and so if we could turn to a new

6:09 ↗ exhibit in the record I'll pull it up

6:12 ↗ again on the screen for the Commission

6:32 ↗ well this will be I think 40 here

6:37 ↗ already a checker make sure we're on the

6:39 ↗ right number this would be s 43

6:52 ↗ Oh Pat that's my body it does 42 is

7:12 ↗ there a copy in here or am I gonna get

7:14 ↗ one from that I'll need it back from Pat

7:19 ↗ hi I need one of those copies back all

7:35 ↗ right yeah okay can you describe what

7:39 ↗ this document is at s 42 please yes this

7:47 ↗ is a letter from our outside counsel

7:52 ↗ Patrick Mulaney to Keith's Nibin and it

8:01 ↗ was requesting authorization for city

8:04 ↗ staff just to begin the process of

8:06 ↗ negotiating an amendment to the

8:08 ↗ development agreement to allow for 3 to

8:12 ↗ 5-year extension as applied to our

8:14 ↗ property can you describe why shelter

8:18 ↗ provided this letter yeah so there were

8:27 ↗ always a lot of different ideas and and

8:30 ↗ discussion going around about what would

8:33 ↗ happen with our property in in January

8:36 ↗ of 2017 we had received the message loud

8:40 ↗ and clear from the mayor and the

8:42 ↗ administration that they did not want to

8:46 ↗ talk about any proposal that had

8:47 ↗ residential involved in in a mixed-use

8:50 ↗ proposal for our property and had

8:53 ↗ instead instructed us to go do something

8:55 ↗ that was consistent with the development

8:57 ↗ agreement so at this point in time

9:00 ↗ that's what we were we were starting to

9:02 ↗ do and it made sense

9:05 ↗ to ask for an extension if what they

9:08 ↗ wanted was consistency with the

9:10 ↗ development agreement to just extend it

9:12 ↗ out to give a little bit more time on on

9:16 ↗ the existing development agreement was

9:17 ↗ there any concern that there would be an

9:20 ↗ expiration and it would affect your

9:21 ↗ vested rights at that point no not at

9:24 ↗ all we didn't have any we didn't have

9:28 ↗ any concern that the the vesting

9:30 ↗ provisions under the the development

9:32 ↗ agreement as it existed at that point in

9:35 ↗ time wouldn't be honored or followed and

9:39 ↗ so what would be the the purpose of the

9:42 ↗ extension just to allow more time and a

9:45 ↗ leisurely pace or something else yeah I

9:47 ↗ mean the the development capacity that

9:51 ↗ we had under the development agreement

9:54 ↗ and and have under under the development

9:57 ↗ agreement is 1.8 million square feet and

10:00 ↗ and 1.8 million square feet of any type

10:04 ↗ of development is something that you

10:05 ↗ want to plan carefully and be able to

10:08 ↗ implement correctly over a period of

10:12 ↗ time so you know we thought that this

10:14 ↗ was a step towards trying to work

10:16 ↗ collaboratively with the city to plan

10:18 ↗ what they were asking us to do on that

10:21 ↗ property and if I recall correctly last

10:25 ↗ time even talked a little bit about the

10:26 ↗ community outreach efforts that shelter

10:28 ↗ had done in the past yes is that correct

10:32 ↗ yes and so would that play into going

10:36 ↗ forward to in terms of the timing and

10:38 ↗ what you might be involved in yeah we

10:40 ↗ always like to solicit the input of the

10:43 ↗ community and have the ability to

10:46 ↗ incorporate that as we move forward with

10:49 ↗ with our projects the other piece is as

10:52 ↗ you talk to sort of end users whether

10:56 ↗ that be somebody who's going to purchase

10:57 ↗ a piece of the property from you or

10:59 ↗ lease a building they want to know not

11:05 ↗ only an application that you submit now

11:08 ↗ is that going to be honored which of

11:10 ↗ course it would be under under

11:12 ↗ fasting rules but they also want to know

11:14 ↗ the long-term plan for for property

11:16 ↗ around them so we saw this as a as a

11:18 ↗ step that could be positive for for the

11:21 ↗ city for the end-user and for us and so

11:32 ↗ this letter you had mentioned goes

11:34 ↗ through some of the market outreach that

11:36 ↗ that shelter had done in the past and so

11:40 ↗ and even said that you know this was

11:42 ↗ there was a change essentially and in

11:45 ↗ looking at different development

11:47 ↗ proposals

11:49 ↗ you also mentioned though a minute ago

11:51 ↗ about a shift from residential but it

11:53 ↗ did shelter have residential allowable

11:56 ↗ development at the property yes we do

11:59 ↗ have three residential units but the the

12:02 ↗ previous I guess I wouldn't even call it

12:06 ↗ a proposal because there was never

12:07 ↗ formal application but the the idea that

12:09 ↗ we had been exploring with the community

12:11 ↗ was a true mixed-use community that had

12:14 ↗ a significant amount of residential over

12:18 ↗ in the form of apartments or

12:19 ↗ condominiums over retail development and

12:23 ↗ with some medical office and office

12:25 ↗ mixed in as well I'd like to turn now to

12:31 ↗ the meeting minutes that we had started

12:37 ↗ to talk about at our last hearing with

12:40 ↗ you and there's a binder in front of you

12:43 ↗ that should have those meeting minutes

12:45 ↗ yes just for councils for the city

12:49 ↗ nothing has changed about the binders

12:51 ↗ are the same as what you had before miss

12:58 ↗ quarry just to clarify the meeting

13:01 ↗ minute binder that you referring to is

13:03 ↗ that miss Hinds notes yes thank you yes

13:06 ↗ yep it's it's the notes that we

13:08 ↗ introduced and that we have been using

13:10 ↗ along the way with her testimony last

13:12 ↗ time thank you for that clarification so

13:18 ↗ if you could turn in that binder to the

13:22 ↗ January 17th 2017 meeting

13:47 ↗ January 17th yes

13:52 ↗ what was the well first of all who

13:54 ↗ attended that meeting that meeting was

13:57 ↗ Keith Niven Gary Young Patrick Mulaney

14:00 ↗ and me and what do you recall was the

14:04 ↗ purpose of this meeting I believe this

14:11 ↗ was a follow-up to the letter exhibit

14:17 ↗ s42 that we were just speaking about so

14:28 ↗ as a follow-up to that letter and what

14:30 ↗ what did you start discussing in that

14:31 ↗ meeting at the beginning of the meeting

14:38 ↗ keith indicated that he didn't think we

14:40 ↗ had legal standing to request a

14:42 ↗ development agreement extension and so

14:51 ↗ we talked about that some he asked

14:53 ↗ Patrick to give him more information on

14:56 ↗ that was that information eventually

14:59 ↗ provided yes and so is that if she kind

15:02 ↗ of put to rest as things move forward I

15:04 ↗ thought so although they think it came

15:06 ↗ up one or two other times and and was

15:08 ↗ responded to both by our attorneys and

15:10 ↗ also by port Blakely indicating that we

15:14 ↗ do have standing to amend the

15:16 ↗ development agreement with respect to

15:17 ↗ our property and other related issues so

15:22 ↗ down there in your notes it looks like

15:24 ↗ it's seven seven bullet points down the

15:29 ↗ page can you explain what you meant in

15:34 ↗ the notes where it says that Keith

15:37 ↗ indicated that he was really hoping that

15:38 ↗ Patrick would take the first crack at

15:40 ↗ I'd done it

15:41 ↗ what's vested from the DA and what needs

15:42 ↗ to be incorporated into new zoning and

15:45 ↗ I'm paraphrasing there yeah I think what

15:48 ↗ that note was referring to was there was

15:51 ↗ discussion and I think we heard Patrick

15:54 ↗ Mulaney testify about this that there

15:57 ↗ was discussion about what should carry

16:02 ↗ over from the development agreement

16:04 ↗ regardless of whether there was

16:06 ↗ applications pending so there was

16:08 ↗ certain a certain amount of mitigation

16:11 ↗ and other things that were provided

16:13 ↗ under the development agreement in

16:15 ↗ exchange for allowable development

16:17 ↗ rights and so there had been ongoing

16:20 ↗ discussion when we had met with with

16:22 ↗ Keith in various meetings about how some

16:25 ↗ of those items in Keith's view should be

16:28 ↗ carried over and reflected in the zoning

16:31 ↗ so I think that note was indicating that

16:34 ↗ Keith asked if we would have Patrick go

16:39 ↗ through the development agreement and

16:40 ↗ identify what should be carried over did

16:43 ↗ Patrick eventually do that he did and I

16:46 ↗ think

17:00 ↗ should be best 20

17:09 ↗ still looking at s29 one of the existing

17:13 ↗ exhibits in the record is is that the

17:15 ↗ response that Patrick provided yes this

17:20 ↗ is one of them then this was the letter

17:22 ↗ that goes through and and I think we

17:29 ↗ referred to it as the mitigation matrix

17:31 ↗ but goes through the development

17:32 ↗ agreement section by section and

17:33 ↗ identifies the the mitigation that

17:38 ↗ should be carried over after the

17:40 ↗ development agreement ended so going

17:43 ↗ back to what was discussed in that

17:45 ↗ January 17 meeting there's also some

17:49 ↗ discussion in your notes about VSP can

17:53 ↗ you describe what a BSP is yeah a

17:56 ↗ binding a BSP is a binding site plan and

17:58 ↗ so back in January of 2017

18:02 ↗ our initial intention was to come in

18:05 ↗ with a binding site plan rather than a

18:08 ↗ plat a binding site plan is is basically

18:10 ↗ an alternative land division mechanism

18:13 ↗ that's available in some cases so it's

18:17 ↗ an alternative to to a plat often in a

18:20 ↗ binding site plan you see more detail

18:22 ↗ and more planning work than you would in

18:24 ↗ a typical plat so we felt like that

18:26 ↗ might be the best mechanism for us to

18:31 ↗ use going forward as we started to

18:33 ↗ prepare the property for eventual

18:35 ↗ development so when we when we were

18:39 ↗ speaking with Keith about that his

18:41 ↗ initial response was we can't do a

18:42 ↗ binding site plan because it's not it's

18:45 ↗ not allowed in the development agreement

18:47 ↗ and Patrick then pointed out to him that

18:51 ↗ it actually is allowed in the

18:53 ↗ development agreement and in fact it's

18:55 ↗ defined as one of the implementing

18:58 ↗ approvals which is a defined term within

19:01 ↗ the development agreement

19:11 ↗ so how did discussions about the bsp and

19:14 ↗ the Platt proceed from this meeting well

19:20 ↗ at that meeting there was additional

19:22 ↗ discussion and and Keith acknowledged

19:24 ↗ that you you could do a binding site

19:25 ↗ plan but that he really wasn't sure

19:29 ↗ exactly how it would be processed or

19:32 ↗ what the submittal requirements would be

19:33 ↗ because they hadn't done many in the

19:35 ↗ city at all and hadn't done any in

19:37 ↗ Issaquah Highlands and and that we might

19:44 ↗ want to I think we talked about the

19:45 ↗ thing we might want to do a plat instead

19:56 ↗ so I think on that note I'd like to

19:58 ↗ introduce a new exhibit which will be s

20:07 ↗ 43

20:40 ↗ can you describe what the document @s 43

20:43 ↗ is please yes this is an email to Keith

20:46 ↗ Nevin from Patrick Mulaney and what's

20:52 ↗ the email discussing it's follow-up to

20:55 ↗ that discussion that I was just

20:56 ↗ describing regarding binding site plan

20:59 ↗ that happened at the January 17th

21:00 ↗ meeting and so this this email follows

21:04 ↗ up on that and acknowledges that the

21:07 ↗ development agreement does allow

21:09 ↗ specifically for binding site plans but

21:12 ↗ doesn't have a specific process and and

21:17 ↗ then articulates that it's shelters

21:19 ↗ position that it would be appropriate to

21:20 ↗ follow the codes binding site plan

21:22 ↗ process and the bsp checklist and BSB

21:27 ↗ semental requirements so was this the

21:32 ↗ proposal in terms of the process that

21:34 ↗ was going to be used was this something

21:36 ↗ that Patrick was just volunteering or

21:39 ↗ was it something that was asked for I

21:41 ↗ think this was asked for in the in the

21:44 ↗ meeting on January 17th and then down

21:48 ↗ further at the bottom of that email it's

21:50 ↗ saying that core design Inc will be

21:53 ↗ contacting the city to schedule a

21:54 ↗ pre-application conference whose core

21:56 ↗ design core design was one of our

22:00 ↗ consultants on the binding site plan

22:03 ↗ application which eventually became the

22:05 ↗ plat application was that

22:07 ↗ pre-application conference scheduled and

22:10 ↗ actually held it it was there were a few

22:16 ↗ steps before that so if you could turn

22:20 ↗ to back to your meeting minutes in the

22:25 ↗ binder in front of you to the March 21st

22:27 ↗ 2017 yes you describe what the purpose

22:35 ↗ of this meeting was and who attended

22:37 ↗ that meeting yes so the March 21st 2017

22:41 ↗ meeting was a collaboration meeting for

22:44 ↗ our binding site plan and plat

22:47 ↗ application so what we ended up doing

22:49 ↗ was putting together both to go in

22:53 ↗ to have the collaboration collaboration

22:55 ↗ meeting so at that meeting the people

23:01 ↗ that attended were Keith Niven Luci

23:03 ↗ Sloman Dan Irvin Gary Young Patrick

23:06 ↗ Mulaney Mark velde who's with Kay PFF

23:10 ↗ and is our engineering consultant Dave

23:14 ↗ Katyn who's with core design and myself

23:21 ↗ what did director Niven have to say

23:24 ↗ about the timing for Platt Festing and

23:26 ↗ how that would work at this meeting he

23:31 ↗ was very specific about how Platt

23:34 ↗ vesting and and vesting through the plot

23:37 ↗ what works what he said was that the

23:43 ↗ preliminary plot would vest for five

23:45 ↗ years and then five years five

23:48 ↗ additional years from the final plot and

23:51 ↗ that if you filed a complete site

23:55 ↗ development permit application within

23:57 ↗ that five years after final plot that

24:00 ↗ the site development permit application

24:01 ↗ would also be vested through that plat

24:07 ↗ and I mean he the that was a major part

24:15 ↗ of the discussion and was very clear

24:20 ↗ direction given to us as to how to

24:22 ↗ proceed and why we should proceed with

24:25 ↗ the Platt versus the binding site plan

24:30 ↗ did director Niven or miss Loman and

24:33 ↗ that meeting have anything to say about

24:34 ↗ what process the preliminary plot would

24:38 ↗ follow

24:46 ↗ they confirmed that the preliminary plot

24:49 ↗ would follow the process in the

24:51 ↗ development agreement they made one

24:56 ↗ caveat that if the development agreement

24:59 ↗ was terminated while we were in process

25:02 ↗ that we would be vested but that if they

25:05 ↗ got rid of the you VDC that another

25:07 ↗ commission would be substituted but the

25:10 ↗ process would otherwise be the same so

25:12 ↗ just to clarify what you were saying

25:14 ↗ there was the caveat on vesting or the

25:16 ↗ substituting the development commission

25:17 ↗ for the you VDC the caveat was with

25:20 ↗ respect to the Commission substitution

25:23 ↗ so can you I think we're looking at the

25:26 ↗ same bullet point here on this page can

25:28 ↗ you just read that bullet point into the

25:29 ↗ record please sure it says Keith and

25:32 ↗ Lucy confirmed that the people at would

25:34 ↗ follow the process in the da and Keith

25:36 ↗ added that if the DA is terminated while

25:39 ↗ we were while we are in process that we

25:42 ↗ are vested with one caveat if they get

25:45 ↗ rid of you you VDC he says that they

25:48 ↗ have the right to substitute the DC for

25:50 ↗ the you V DC and the U V DC I apologize

25:55 ↗ if you already defined this but what

25:57 ↗ does that mean the urban village

25:59 ↗ Development Commission they still exist

26:01 ↗ today they do

26:09 ↗ I'm introducing a new exhibit this is

26:12 ↗ going to be s 44

26:41 ↗ you please describe what exhibit s 44 is

26:46 ↗ you seen this before I have and I

26:50 ↗ believe that these are the Lucille omens

26:52 ↗ notes from that same meeting on March

26:55 ↗ 21st 2017 and how are you familiar with

26:59 ↗ them how did you come to have these

27:01 ↗ notes as documents were being turned

27:05 ↗ over I believe in response to a public

27:07 ↗ records request although it could have

27:10 ↗ been in Discovery these files were made

27:13 ↗ available to us and I saw these in mrs.

27:16 ↗ lemons files what a miss Loman note

27:21 ↗ about the timing for the plat so her

27:26 ↗ notes indicate well they say pre plat

27:33 ↗ five years final plan STP

27:36 ↗ three years vest not process so I

27:42 ↗ understand that to be her notes that say

27:47 ↗ essentially the same thing that I just

27:48 ↗ described to you that mr. nippon

27:51 ↗ outlined for us at that meeting and so

27:54 ↗ just to clarify where it says F P you

27:56 ↗ understand that to mean final plat yes

27:58 ↗ and where she says vest not process a

28:04 ↗ minute ago we were talking about your

28:05 ↗ your meeting notes that said that the

28:07 ↗ process would follow the development

28:09 ↗ agreement that's something that director

28:11 ↗ Niven and miss Loman had indicated in

28:12 ↗ that meeting yes so is there a

28:15 ↗ difference here or what's your

28:17 ↗ understanding just your understanding

28:20 ↗ based on these notes my understanding is

28:22 ↗ that that refers to exactly what I had

28:24 ↗ previously explained which was that the

28:26 ↗ the process could be different in that

28:28 ↗ you go to a different Commission if the

28:31 ↗ uvd see no longer existed turning back

28:38 ↗ to your notes

28:42 ↗ I'm looking at the second page of your

28:45 ↗ notes now and what did miss Loman have

28:53 ↗ to say about the timing so both the

28:56 ↗ timing of the plat process and how long

28:58 ↗ that would be anticipated to take and

29:00 ↗ also the steps that she anticipated

29:02 ↗ would be a part of that so my notes read

29:06 ↗ Lucy outlined the plat process as

29:08 ↗ follows and said should be six months

29:10 ↗ start to finish the first bullet was

29:14 ↗ collab collaborative meeting which was

29:16 ↗ that day

29:17 ↗ second was pre apt to address traffic

29:19 ↗ and utilities

29:20 ↗ they'll circulate to all the departments

29:22 ↗ for big picture items third was

29:25 ↗ submitted forthe staff report available

29:27 ↗ ten days before you VDC then you VDC

29:32 ↗ usually twice but this may get through

29:34 ↗ in one then to council they'll refer to

29:37 ↗ Landon Shore for one or more meetings

29:39 ↗ before decision when we pushed for how

29:42 ↗ quickly we can get a pre-op meeting

29:44 ↗ scheduled Lucy said she was not sure

29:46 ↗ because she has no plan a planner

29:48 ↗ capable of taking a plat she ultimately

29:51 ↗ said maybe six weeks but she needed to

29:53 ↗ check with Keith who had left the

29:54 ↗ meeting by this point going back to

29:58 ↗ something that you testified about in

30:00 ↗ the prior hearing is a preliminary

30:04 ↗ application or a collaborative meeting

30:06 ↗ either of those things required under

30:08 ↗ the development agreement for a flat

30:10 ↗ application no neither of those steps

30:12 ↗ are required was it your understanding

30:16 ↗ based on this meeting that miss Loman in

30:19 ↗ the city were requiring those for your

30:20 ↗ plot application yes they made that

30:22 ↗ clear he mentioned that miss Loman

30:27 ↗ anticipated that the process should be

30:29 ↗ six months start to finish where we at

30:32 ↗ in the plot process right now well I

30:36 ↗ mean that meeting was in March of 2017

30:39 ↗ and we are in the process of revising to

30:47 ↗ resubmit but we didn't get complete

30:49 ↗ comments and clarifications from the

30:52 ↗ city until late December so

30:55 ↗ were I don't know more than a year more

31:01 ↗ than the six months that was estimated

31:03 ↗ yeah and that that six months was

31:09 ↗ estimated when we were at collaborative

31:10 ↗ meeting but they described our plot as

31:15 ↗ very simple and should be easy and quick

31:17 ↗ to process and at some points told us

31:20 ↗ that it was that they expected not to

31:24 ↗ have any comments that they would just

31:26 ↗ come back with proposed conditions and

31:29 ↗ go straight to hearing and that didn't

31:31 ↗ end up happening it was this meeting the

31:34 ↗ point in time that shelter decided to

31:36 ↗ pursue a plan instead of a binding site

31:39 ↗ plan yes and why did they end up going

31:44 ↗ that route in part because Keith made it

31:49 ↗ clear that the city would support the

31:52 ↗ plot application and the vesting through

31:54 ↗ the plat application

32:02 ↗ what some kind of big picture

32:04 ↗ functionally speaking what's the

32:06 ↗ difference between a preliminary plot

32:08 ↗ and a final plot a preliminary plot is I

32:16 ↗ guess it shows all of the parts and

32:19 ↗ pieces that will go into a plat and does

32:22 ↗ all of the layout of streets and

32:24 ↗ utilities and and and that sort of thing

32:27 ↗ to create the lots and and how

32:29 ↗ development will be serviced on those

32:31 ↗ Lots the final plot gets recorded

32:34 ↗ typically after the plot is all the way

32:36 ↗ built so the infrastructure is actually

32:38 ↗ constructed you know there's there's

32:41 ↗ some exceptions to that and sometimes

32:43 ↗ you bond for certain things but usually

32:45 ↗ when a final plot is recorded the plot

32:47 ↗ has actually been constructed which is

32:51 ↗ why there's that gap of five to seven

32:54 ↗ years depending on the jurisdiction to

32:57 ↗ allow you to get get the the plot

33:00 ↗ actually constructed so when director

33:03 ↗ Niven and miss Loman were talking about

33:05 ↗ a preliminary plot and five years of

33:07 ↗ vesting and then a final plot and five

33:09 ↗ years of vesting that was accounting for

33:12 ↗ those two different kind of sections of

33:14 ↗ the plat phases of the plot right

33:34 ↗ so following up to this meeting you

33:36 ↗ noted that there was even requested kind

33:39 ↗ of timing in terms of scheduling a

33:41 ↗ preliminary application meeting that you

33:44 ↗ said the city was requiring at this

33:46 ↗ point for the plat application and I

33:49 ↗ believe that was scheduled in late March

33:57 ↗ and we're gonna be looking at a new

33:58 ↗ exhibit a which will be s 45

35:04 ↗ so I'm looking at the actually the last

35:07 ↗ page of that represent it's an email

35:11 ↗ chain and so we're starting back at time

35:13 ↗ and back in time on the last page can

35:16 ↗ you describe what this email was what

35:19 ↗ was the date who was it to and from what

35:20 ↗ was it about these so on Monday March

35:23 ↗ 27th I sent an email to miss Loman

35:27 ↗ following up on the meeting that we had

35:29 ↗ had the previous week and asking to

35:31 ↗ schedule a pre-op as soon as possible

35:36 ↗ what was Miss woman's response

35:41 ↗ she said we can schedule a pre-op and

35:44 ↗ she directed me to Christopher Wright as

35:47 ↗ being the person that would schedule

35:49 ↗ that and then she said however before we

35:52 ↗ put that on the calendar we need all the

35:54 ↗ necessary info we are okay from a

35:58 ↗ planning perspective but from an

35:59 ↗ infrastructure one we need enough info

36:01 ↗ to know that you can and how you'd

36:04 ↗ service wet utilities for your

36:07 ↗ entitlement and then she goes on to say

36:11 ↗ we also need the traffic study that Dan

36:13 ↗ discussed without knowing the roads

36:15 ↗ traffic interconnections etc we aren't

36:18 ↗ able to have the full review we need so

36:22 ↗ what was your response to that my

36:27 ↗ response to her was that I wanted to

36:29 ↗ make sure that I was understanding

36:30 ↗ correctly that she was asking for a full

36:32 ↗ traffic study and utility plan before we

36:35 ↗ could schedule a pre-op meeting which

36:37 ↗ seemed very excessive to me based on my

36:41 ↗ experience that's not the level of

36:43 ↗ detail that you need to provide for a

36:46 ↗ preliminary application meeting and then

36:50 ↗ I also asked her for for a checklist of

36:52 ↗ what was required prior to pre-op that

36:57 ↗ we should follow and what did miss lemon

37:02 ↗ have to say about the the checklist she

37:05 ↗ said there is a checklist but much most

37:06 ↗ of it won't apply and then she said she

37:11 ↗ would defer to the engineers regarding

37:13 ↗ how much of the traffic study would be

37:15 ↗ required for the pre

37:20 ↗ and so so what we ended up doing was

37:23 ↗ having our transportation engineer

37:26 ↗ follow up directly with Dan urban at the

37:30 ↗ city and and based on their discussion a

37:35 ↗ full traffic study was not required for

37:37 ↗ a pre-op so again as a preliminary

37:41 ↗ application a requirement for a plat

37:43 ↗ application in the first place under the

37:45 ↗ development agreement no and what was

37:48 ↗ the timing all this was this was the

37:50 ↗ development agreement still in place yes

37:53 ↗ this was March of 2017 who must had the

37:57 ↗ build-out period expired build-out

37:58 ↗ period had not expired no replacement

38:00 ↗ regulations had even been proposed or

38:03 ↗ drafted at that point in time

38:15 ↗ so the next exhibit that we're going to

38:18 ↗ be adding to the record is a fairly

38:20 ↗ bulky one because it's a lot of the

38:22 ↗ preliminary application materials that

38:24 ↗ were submitted all of course asked you

38:27 ↗ to walk us through them but just to give

38:30 ↗ you all a heads up that there's a large

38:31 ↗ packet coming

39:11 ↗ [Applause]

39:28 ↗ okay so there's a packet of documents

39:31 ↗ that are divided up they're all going to

39:33 ↗ be submitted as one exhibit just to keep

39:37 ↗ it a little bit simpler but bear with us

39:41 ↗ as you kind of get each one passed out

40:40 ↗ and so the packet of materials that

40:42 ↗ you're getting will be s 46 in the

40:45 ↗ record

41:38 ↗ [Applause]

41:49 ↗ [Applause]

41:59 ↗ okay so Tia there's a large number of

42:03 ↗ documents in front of you at US 46 but

42:05 ↗ can we start with that first document

42:07 ↗ and the first page of that exhibit and

42:10 ↗ describe what that is please okay so the

42:19 ↗ first one that I have is a copy of our

42:23 ↗ check that was our application fee in

42:27 ↗ the amount of $2,500 okay and what was

42:30 ↗ the date that this was submitted the

42:35 ↗ date on this check is April 4th 2017 and

42:40 ↗ what was the $2,500 for was that a

42:44 ↗ processing fee or something else

42:46 ↗ it's the preliminary land use

42:48 ↗ application submitted fee this was

42:55 ↗ actually the the this I believe is the

42:58 ↗ fee that is charged by the is a car

43:02 ↗ Municipal Code which probably should not

43:04 ↗ have applied to our project since we

43:06 ↗ were under the development agreement but

43:09 ↗ it was the fee that the city indicated

43:11 ↗ was due with this application and what's

43:14 ↗ the second document that you're looking

43:16 ↗ at there so that was the the first part

43:18 ↗ of this packet so the next thing that I

43:20 ↗ have is the land use permit application

43:23 ↗ form and can you describe what that is

43:26 ↗ please

43:28 ↗ it's a city form that just has basic

43:31 ↗ project information applicant owner

43:35 ↗ contact

43:37 ↗ a brief project description some site

43:42 ↗ information and then how about the next

43:50 ↗ page that you're looking there in the

43:51 ↗ packet and how actually just so that

43:54 ↗ it's clear in the record how many pages

43:56 ↗ is in that land use permit application

43:58 ↗ the land use permit application looks

44:03 ↗ like there's page numbers at the bottom

44:04 ↗ there five thank you so the next thing

44:10 ↗ that I have is a one page proposal

44:14 ↗ summary and what was the proposal

44:18 ↗ summary for this was one of the

44:22 ↗ requirements of the preliminary land

44:24 ↗ juice applications the middle and it's

44:27 ↗ just a summary of what the application

44:29 ↗ is proposing and how about the next

44:32 ↗ document in that packet lease the next

44:36 ↗ document is a one-page transmittal cover

44:40 ↗ sheet from core that lists out the items

44:46 ↗ that were provided the items that were

44:49 ↗ provided to the city right to the city

44:52 ↗ development services okay and how about

44:55 ↗ the next document that you're looking at

45:00 ↗ there the next thing is a plat project

45:04 ↗ narrative dated April 5th 2017 and what

45:09 ↗ is that document this document is a more

45:14 ↗ detailed summary of the project and it

45:18 ↗ actually goes through each of the

45:21 ↗ appendices of the development agreement

45:23 ↗ which is where the development standards

45:25 ↗ are found and how many pages is that

45:31 ↗ document I think there's page numbers at

45:33 ↗ the bottom this document is 16 pages and

45:39 ↗ then the last document in that packet

45:42 ↗ that you have what is it

45:46 ↗ this is actually the document itself or

45:52 ↗ the version of it at that point in time

45:55 ↗ so it's one two three so it's seven

46:02 ↗ pages and what is what is that show what

46:06 ↗ is the plat document so first page has

46:13 ↗ legal description restrictions and title

46:17 ↗ exceptions state cite statistics and

46:20 ↗ notes the second page the second page

46:32 ↗ shows the proposed Lots and at this

46:36 ↗ point at the preliminary land use

46:38 ↗ application stage we were proposing 14

46:41 ↗ Lots which the city later asked us to

46:44 ↗ change the third page has utility and

46:53 ↗ start utilities and storm drainage basic

46:55 ↗ info and then some of these other pages

47:02 ↗ are just zoomed in sections of certain

47:06 ↗ areas of the plat where there's

47:07 ↗ utilities that need to be seen in more

47:10 ↗ detail and then the last page has an

47:15 ↗ overview of the property and different

47:17 ↗ views from different points on or around

47:20 ↗ the property so was all of this prepared

47:24 ↗ just for that preliminary plat

47:26 ↗ application yes all this was was

47:29 ↗ required as part of the preliminary land

47:31 ↗ use application and I apologize it at

47:35 ↗ the risk of sounding repetitive it was

47:37 ↗ just something that was required under

47:38 ↗ the development agreement no it was

47:40 ↗ something that was required by city

47:42 ↗ staff

47:46 ↗ and in in terms of a preliminary

47:49 ↗ application you had mentioned for

47:52 ↗ example that the lots the number of lots

47:55 ↗ changed over time so it was this truly

47:57 ↗ something preliminary or was it would

48:00 ↗ there be a final more more final version

48:03 ↗ of the application that would follow

48:04 ↗ this yes the I mean yes there would be a

48:09 ↗ more final version of an application

48:10 ↗ that follows it but this was much more

48:17 ↗ than what you would typically think of a

48:19 ↗ preliminary application or package and

48:24 ↗ much closer to a full plats in middle

48:26 ↗ and the reason why the number of lots

48:28 ↗ changed on this plat was that the city

48:31 ↗ told us that they didn't like us

48:33 ↗ creating 14 Lots and that 10 was the

48:36 ↗ maximum that they would support and that

48:38 ↗ if we did not reduce it down to 10 Lots

48:41 ↗ that they would make the process more

48:45 ↗ difficult and make the I'd have to look

48:49 ↗ at my notes too to give the exact

48:52 ↗ direction they gave but basically that

48:54 ↗ we would be held to a higher standard in

48:56 ↗ demonstrating compliance with the

48:58 ↗ development agreement vision if we did

49:01 ↗ 14 Lots versus 10 Lots

49:26 ↗ so let's turn next to exhibit s11 one of

49:30 ↗ the exhibits it's already in our record

49:38 ↗ [Applause]

49:45 ↗ yeah will you please just refresh all of

49:49 ↗ our memories what what is or what are

49:52 ↗ the documents at this exhibit x11 s11 is

49:57 ↗ an email chain between me and Lucy

50:05 ↗ Sloman and at some points I think Jean

50:07 ↗ Lin as well regarding our preliminary

50:13 ↗ plat okay

50:15 ↗ and so it it looks to me that the this

50:20 ↗ is also kind of in a reverse chronology

50:22 ↗ that the older or the oldest email and

50:24 ↗ the chain is going to be going back at

50:26 ↗ the very end of that exhibit not

50:29 ↗ consistent with what you're seeing yes

50:31 ↗ and that first email is actually from

50:33 ↗ Ken Shipley at core and so Ken Shipley

50:37 ↗ you said at core design is he one of the

50:40 ↗ consultants that was is working with you

50:42 ↗ he is and so what was Ken doing in this

50:50 ↗ email so he was following up this the

50:58 ↗ email he wrote on April 13 2018 was to

51:02 ↗ Doug schlep and Jean Lin with a CC to

51:07 ↗ face Chafee I think so you say her name

51:09 ↗ myself mark velde Mike Swenson at

51:13 ↗ Transpo and Dave Katyn who's also at

51:16 ↗ core design and he was following up on

51:19 ↗ our March 29th meeting that we had had

51:22 ↗ regarding the initial preliminary plat

51:25 ↗ comments which we had received from the

51:27 ↗ city on March 16th of 2018 and I think

51:32 ↗ sayshe fee may be a new name for us and

51:35 ↗ the record

51:36 ↗ who is that my understanding was that

51:42 ↗ she did did or does transportation

51:46 ↗ operations for the city but that was

51:49 ↗ actually the first time I had met her

51:51 ↗ was at that meeting and so in this email

51:57 ↗ Ken mentions that were awaiting answers

52:00 ↗ information or action from city staff

52:03 ↗ and we don't have to run through all

52:05 ↗ these things but that kind of in summary

52:08 ↗ what were some of the things that you

52:09 ↗ hadn't received direction from the city

52:11 ↗ yet on so there was a new condition that

52:18 ↗ was different from the direction we had

52:19 ↗ previously received and the feedback we

52:22 ↗ had previously received to extend Park

52:24 ↗ Drive through our plat which was not

52:27 ↗ supported or needed by the

52:29 ↗ transportation analysis and so we had

52:31 ↗ asked we had asked for me well actually

52:34 ↗ we had asked him that meeting to discuss

52:36 ↗ it and despite the fact that we were

52:38 ↗ there with the Senior Planner the

52:41 ↗ transportations operations person and

52:44 ↗ the engineering person for the city none

52:47 ↗ of them said that they could speak to

52:49 ↗ the park drive condition because they

52:51 ↗ said it was initiated by Keith Niven and

52:54 ↗ Lucie sloman and they were the only two

52:56 ↗ that could speak to why that was now

52:59 ↗ going to be recovered being be required

53:01 ↗ rather so we had immediately requested a

53:05 ↗ meeting with them to discuss that

53:08 ↗ we also were looking for clarification

53:11 ↗ on some Road standards we were asking

53:20 ↗ for clarification of exactly what they

53:24 ↗ were asking us to show with respect to

53:26 ↗ dry utilities which usually aren't shown

53:28 ↗ in detail at that stage and then some

53:34 ↗ other standards that were really related

53:36 ↗ to adjacent projects so and in this

53:41 ↗ email Ken mentions he states Jeanne

53:44 ↗ mentioned the existence of an

53:46 ↗ to the road standard and that she would

53:48 ↗ distribute it for review are you able to

53:51 ↗ send the referenced AMM what is an AMM

53:55 ↗ it's an administrative modification and

53:58 ↗ that's something that was provided for

54:01 ↗ in the development agreement is an AM

54:06 ↗ could that be an administrative major

54:08 ↗ modification or an administrative minor

54:10 ↗ modification I think by definition if

54:14 ↗ it's an administrative modification it's

54:16 ↗ supposed to be minor if it was a major

54:18 ↗ modification it would be an amendment to

54:20 ↗ the development agreement

54:24 ↗ do you recall whether that AMM was

54:27 ↗ provided eventually it was so let's go

54:36 ↗ further up in time so that email was

54:39 ↗ dated Friday April 13th that we were

54:43 ↗ just discussing when's the next email so

54:47 ↗ the next one is Tuesday April 17th and

54:50 ↗ Jean Lynn responded saying thanks for

54:53 ↗ your patience we have been working on a

54:55 ↗ comprehensive response to the follow-up

54:57 ↗ items from our meeting and your

54:59 ↗ questions below and we'll be getting

55:01 ↗ back to you tomorrow and remind me who

55:05 ↗ is Jeanne Lynn she was the planner that

55:08 ↗ was assigned to our plat and actually to

55:11 ↗ all of our applications and did can

55:21 ↗ respond mr. Shipley respond he did he

55:25 ↗ just responded Thank You Jeanne when's

55:27 ↗ the next email that you received from

55:29 ↗ the city April 18 2018

55:40 ↗ and again it's it's a rather lengthy

55:46 ↗ email but in general what was provided

55:49 ↗ as part of that email so in that email

55:52 ↗ some of the things that we requested

55:54 ↗ were provided but then a bunch of

55:57 ↗ additional feedback or and/or Direction

56:00 ↗ was also provided some of which was not

56:02 ↗ consistent with the written plat

56:04 ↗ comments that we had received in March

56:07 ↗ of 2018 which was what sort of started

56:11 ↗ this whole discussion with the city so

56:16 ↗ we now had conflicting comments that we

56:18 ↗ weren't sure how to how to proceed but

56:23 ↗ we're where are some examples of the

56:24 ↗ conflicting comments that were causing

56:26 ↗ you concern

56:29 ↗ well discovery drive they were changing

56:34 ↗ what they had indicated the road

56:36 ↗ classification should be and they were

56:38 ↗ asking us to apply a multi-purpose trail

56:43 ↗ standard on top of the street standard

56:45 ↗ so that you would have a street with a

56:47 ↗ trail on top of it they were changing

56:52 ↗ they they were telling us to follow a

56:54 ↗ standard but then saying but make these

56:57 ↗ modifications to the standard and we

56:59 ↗ couldn't follow where the modifications

57:01 ↗ were coming from or if they had any

57:05 ↗ basis in in code or or if there were a

57:08 ↗ mms to support them so following this

57:16 ↗ email what was the response from shelter

57:23 ↗ so I sent an email back on Thursday

57:28 ↗ April 26th that responded and and

57:33 ↗ followed up with questions and requests

57:35 ↗ for clarification so that we could

57:36 ↗ revise our plat and resubmit it and

57:41 ↗ could you read the first paragraph of

57:44 ↗ your email back to Jean Lindsay's sure

57:48 ↗ it says Jean we are puzzled and

57:50 ↗ concerned that the city has again

57:52 ↗ changed the

57:52 ↗ direction that it's giving us with

57:54 ↗ respect to the rights of way and trail

57:55 ↗ connections that will be required within

57:57 ↗ our plot as well as with respect to the

58:00 ↗ scope of the transportation analysis and

58:02 ↗ information that will be required we are

58:04 ↗ even more concerned that many of the

58:05 ↗ comments that you provided are not

58:08 ↗ consistent with the development

58:09 ↗ standards set forth in the development

58:11 ↗ agreement to which this application is

58:13 ↗ vested the city has acknowledged that

58:15 ↗ our subdivision application is vested to

58:17 ↗ the development agreement but the city

58:19 ↗ appears to be ignoring the standards in

58:21 ↗ that agreement in the requirements its

58:22 ↗ it is imposing on us we request that you

58:25 ↗ provide response to the following

58:26 ↗ questions and comments so then you've

58:31 ↗ gone on to list out various questions

58:33 ↗ and comments that shelter had correct so

58:42 ↗ it was your understanding I'm just based

58:44 ↗ on this email it sounds like it was your

58:46 ↗ understanding at this point even that

58:48 ↗ the city was acknowledging that the plat

58:50 ↗ application was vested to the

58:52 ↗ development agreement is that accurate

58:53 ↗ yes so there's another email then this

59:02 ↗ was your the email that we just talked

59:03 ↗ about was sent on April 26th what's the

59:07 ↗ next email in that chain on June 6 2018

59:12 ↗ I emailed Jean with others copied asking

59:18 ↗ her please advise as to when we can

59:20 ↗ expect a response to my email below as

59:22 ↗ we are unable to revise and resubmit our

59:25 ↗ preliminary plat application without

59:27 ↗ clarity regarding the city's additional

59:29 ↗ comments and corrections in your email

59:30 ↗ below thank you so April to June have

59:34 ↗ you received any feedback from the city

59:36 ↗ on the plat during that time no

59:43 ↗ and what's the next first of all the

59:46 ↗ date of the next email in that chain and

59:47 ↗ what is the email so on June 8th Jean

59:52 ↗ responded to me and said hi Tia we are

59:54 ↗ still working on these items and we'll

59:56 ↗ be getting back to you with our

59:58 ↗ responses next week thanks for your

1:00:00 ↗ patience that was June 8 2018 what's the

1:00:06 ↗ next email June 29th of 2018 I followed

1:00:11 ↗ up with another email to Jean that said

1:00:13 ↗ just checking in again to see how you

1:00:15 ↗ are coming on the response to my email

1:00:17 ↗ from April below if you could let me

1:00:19 ↗ know when we can expect a response that

1:00:21 ↗ would be helpful thank you so and I'm it

1:00:26 ↗ sounds like from your email that you

1:00:28 ↗ hadn't received a response within the

1:00:31 ↗ week that Jean had mentioned in her

1:00:32 ↗ prior email no great no we received no

1:00:35 ↗ response and no follow-up and until

1:00:37 ↗ after the email that I just read and

1:00:41 ↗ what's the next email in that Jane so I

1:00:44 ↗ had written to her on June 29th on July

1:00:48 ↗ 18th she wrote back to me saying we are

1:00:52 ↗ in the process of finalizing our

1:00:54 ↗ responses and aim to get those to you at

1:00:57 ↗ the end of this month so that would be

1:00:59 ↗ the end of July 2018 July 2018 and are

1:01:03 ↗ we still talking about the questions and

1:01:06 ↗ comments that you had back in April that

1:01:08 ↗ you'd submitted yes and what's the next

1:01:15 ↗ email Jane the next email is on August

1:01:20 ↗ 16 2018 and again it's from me to Jean

1:01:24 ↗ and I say following up again to check on

1:01:28 ↗ timing of your response to the questions

1:01:29 ↗ in my email from April your last email

1:01:31 ↗ indicated we should expect a response by

1:01:34 ↗ the end of July and it's now mid-august

1:01:36 ↗ please advise as to when you anticipate

1:01:38 ↗ being able to provide a response so that

1:01:40 ↗ we can continue to move our platform

1:01:42 ↗ so there's still no response that this

1:01:44 ↗ might correct

1:01:49 ↗ and what's the next email in the chain

1:01:51 ↗ so later that day

1:01:54 ↗ Lucy responded and said I apologize that

1:01:57 ↗ this is taken longer than anticipated

1:01:58 ↗ we had some coordination with other

1:02:00 ↗ departments and some research to answer

1:02:02 ↗ your questions I commit that you will

1:02:05 ↗ have it next week before I go on

1:02:07 ↗ vacation the last week of the month

1:02:13 ↗ I'm mrs. Lowman indicated at any point

1:02:16 ↗ in the past since April when you

1:02:18 ↗ submitted your questions that it was

1:02:20 ↗ gonna take this amount of time to

1:02:22 ↗ coordinate with other departments or do

1:02:24 ↗ some research to answer your questions

1:02:25 ↗ no the only timing indications we got

1:02:28 ↗ were the ones that you just heard me

1:02:31 ↗ read from from Miss Lynn and what's the

1:02:36 ↗ next email in this Jane so the next

1:02:42 ↗ email is from Friday August 24th and it

1:02:47 ↗ was Lucy's response to me which had some

1:02:53 ↗ attachments which were their responses

1:02:56 ↗ to our questions a copy of an

1:02:59 ↗ administrative modification and a

1:03:03 ↗ response on a question regarding

1:03:05 ↗ polygons roads which I think yeah I

1:03:12 ↗ think that one was they they provided us

1:03:14 ↗ a link that I think at that point did

1:03:16 ↗ not work

1:03:17 ↗ it was password-protected and we didn't

1:03:19 ↗ have a password

1:03:24 ↗ and so that was what was the date on

1:03:27 ↗ that email again that was August 24th

1:03:30 ↗ 2018 okay and how about the next email

1:03:33 ↗ in this Jane so then that's October 10th

1:03:37 ↗ 2018 and that is an email from me to

1:03:42 ↗ Lucy with more questions and follow-up

1:03:48 ↗ and clarifications needed based on the

1:03:50 ↗ responses that they had provided

1:04:03 ↗ so following this October 10th email

1:04:06 ↗ from you again we don't need to walk

1:04:09 ↗ through every single detail in here but

1:04:12 ↗ there was all represented it's a fairly

1:04:15 ↗ long email

1:04:16 ↗ can you describe just kind of the bullet

1:04:19 ↗ points of each of the different concerns

1:04:20 ↗ that you had at that time mm-hmm and

1:04:23 ↗ questions that you had at that time well

1:04:29 ↗ I think the the first paragraph

1:04:31 ↗ describes some of it well where we say

1:04:34 ↗ well we appreciate your offer to have

1:04:36 ↗ collaborative discussions regarding

1:04:37 ↗ applicable standards it's important for

1:04:40 ↗ us to understand which standards apply

1:04:42 ↗ per applicable law in this case the

1:04:44 ↗ development agreement and any

1:04:45 ↗ modifications thereto before we can

1:04:48 ↗ evaluate potential changes so there was

1:04:50 ↗ a lot of response a lot of their

1:04:52 ↗ response referred to wanting to start

1:04:57 ↗ collaborative discussions with us about

1:04:59 ↗ various standards when what we had asked

1:05:02 ↗ for was well what standards apply

1:05:04 ↗ specifically with AMS to the road

1:05:07 ↗ standards the m'aimes aren't something

1:05:09 ↗ that is published anywhere or available

1:05:11 ↗ to the public so our only way of getting

1:05:14 ↗ the AMS that would apply to our property

1:05:16 ↗ would be from the staff so it didn't

1:05:22 ↗ seem like that should be a major request

1:05:24 ↗ that required research since they would

1:05:27 ↗ have no way of evaluating of having

1:05:29 ↗ evaluated our plat to provide the

1:05:31 ↗ initial comments if they didn't know

1:05:33 ↗ what a mems applied before they did that

1:05:36 ↗ review so that was applicable Road

1:05:39 ↗ standards were a big part of it

1:05:42 ↗ Trail Standards like I said

1:05:44 ↗ classification of discovery drive the

1:05:47 ↗ park drive requirement and what they

1:05:52 ↗ wanted covered by transportation

1:05:55 ↗ analysis and then again the the DRI

1:05:59 ↗ utilities they were asking for a level

1:06:02 ↗ of detail that just none of us that

1:06:04 ↗ we're working on this Platt and we have

1:06:05 ↗ a very experienced team had ever seen a

1:06:08 ↗ request for that level of detail on DRI

1:06:10 ↗ utilities on a commercial plat

1:06:14 ↗ and then again you see the the reference

1:06:17 ↗ to the polygon roads that we were asking

1:06:20 ↗ for the approved plans and the link at

1:06:22 ↗ that point wasn't working because it

1:06:24 ↗ needed a password so at the bottom of

1:06:28 ↗ your email here after you list out the

1:06:30 ↗ different questions and concerns you had

1:06:34 ↗ what did you explain to miss Loman in

1:06:36 ↗ terms of the timing of all of this I

1:06:39 ↗ said as you know we're anxious to move

1:06:41 ↗ our plot forward so we appreciate a

1:06:43 ↗ prompt response clarifying the city's

1:06:45 ↗ comments and providing the information

1:06:46 ↗ requested so that we can revise and

1:06:48 ↗ resubmit our preliminary plat do you

1:06:53 ↗ recall how long it took to get a

1:06:55 ↗ response to this email I believe that we

1:06:59 ↗ got a response to this email I think it

1:07:04 ↗ was the week of Christmas and in

1:07:05 ↗ December so it was either right before

1:07:07 ↗ right after I can't recall of 2018 yes

1:07:12 ↗ thank you

1:07:13 ↗ so I'm mindful that we're about seven

1:07:15 ↗ minutes past an hour and at this point

1:07:18 ↗ is this a good time for us to take a

1:07:19 ↗ break or would you like me to continue

1:07:23 ↗ depends on how much longer you intend to

1:07:26 ↗ go if this is a good time for you to

1:07:28 ↗ break we would appreciate a break I

1:07:30 ↗ think this is a good time we'll be a bit

1:07:32 ↗ longer with this time this evening so

1:07:34 ↗ let's take a 10-minute break thank you

1:07:38 ↗ [Music]

1:07:51 ↗ you

1:18:20 ↗ okay ready for us all right we're back

1:18:23 ↗ on here so yes please continue see I'd

1:18:29 ↗ like to pick up where we left off

1:18:31 ↗ they're talking about exhibit asked 11

1:18:33 ↗ it was the email string what what was

1:18:40 ↗ the the kind of the overarching concern

1:18:42 ↗ in your back and forth with the city

1:18:44 ↗ starting with those April of 2018

1:18:47 ↗ comments that you had in terms of the

1:18:50 ↗ direction that you were trying to get

1:18:51 ↗ and concerns that you had so the the

1:18:54 ↗ biggest problem was that we could not

1:18:56 ↗ determine from the comments that we were

1:18:59 ↗ receiving what were requirements that

1:19:02 ↗ came from code and in this case code

1:19:05 ↗ being the development standards that

1:19:07 ↗ were enacted by the development

1:19:09 ↗ agreement and what were just other

1:19:12 ↗ requests or desires that were being

1:19:18 ↗ being lodged at us by the city for for

1:19:21 ↗ other standards that we followed that

1:19:24 ↗ they wanted us to follow rather so what

1:19:27 ↗ we were really trying to get at through

1:19:29 ↗ all of this back-and-forth was what is

1:19:33 ↗ the code that we're starting with

1:19:34 ↗ because we need to understand what the

1:19:36 ↗ requirements are before we can talk

1:19:39 ↗ about anything else and and the comments

1:19:44 ↗ and responses that we were receiving

1:19:45 ↗ from the city didn't clarify that and

1:19:49 ↗ they just kept going in different

1:19:51 ↗ directions and not not giving us those

1:19:53 ↗ ties back to the development agreement

1:19:56 ↗ the development standards that were

1:19:57 ↗ enacted by the development agreement so

1:20:00 ↗ that was the major concern and a piece

1:20:02 ↗ of that was the a MMS that we've been

1:20:07 ↗ talking about and just to clarify what

1:20:10 ↗ that is is it's an administrative

1:20:12 ↗ modification of one of the development

1:20:15 ↗ standards in the development agreement

1:20:18 ↗ so those could have come about in a

1:20:20 ↗ variety of ways but they were typically

1:20:24 ↗ something that was applied for either by

1:20:27 ↗ a project applicant in the past or by

1:20:30 ↗ the master developer

1:20:33 ↗ and and it would be a modification to a

1:20:37 ↗ specific development standard and

1:20:38 ↗ sometimes they would apply on a like

1:20:44 ↗ area wide basis to a whole portion of

1:20:46 ↗ this aqua Highlands or sometimes it

1:20:48 ↗ would an AM M could apply only to a

1:20:51 ↗ specific project and so when I

1:20:54 ↗ referenced earlier that the AMM s aren't

1:20:56 ↗ published anywhere they're just

1:20:57 ↗ maintained by the city that was why we

1:21:03 ↗ had to rely on the city to provide us

1:21:06 ↗ with any modifications of the standards

1:21:08 ↗ that actually applied to our property or

1:21:11 ↗ to our project so that again was part of

1:21:13 ↗ that effort to make sure that we

1:21:15 ↗ understood the universe of the rules

1:21:17 ↗ that we were playing by to design our

1:21:20 ↗ plat so that's hopefully that gives a

1:21:23 ↗ better description of kind of the

1:21:25 ↗ struggle that we were going through and

1:21:28 ↗ we really didn't feel like we were

1:21:29 ↗ asking for anything unusual or

1:21:32 ↗ unnecessary this was really the the

1:21:35 ↗ minimum necessary that we need to be

1:21:37 ↗ able to know if we are designing our

1:21:41 ↗ plot properly and you had mentioned some

1:21:45 ↗ confusion and so it was confusion about

1:21:49 ↗ what the development agreement required

1:21:51 ↗ versus what you were seeing in the

1:21:53 ↗ requirements from the city is that right

1:21:55 ↗ or is it something else

1:21:55 ↗ right so some of the requirements or the

1:21:58 ↗ yeah some of the requirements that were

1:22:00 ↗ coming back in the comments from the

1:22:02 ↗ city did not come from the development

1:22:05 ↗ agreement and so we were trying to

1:22:07 ↗ understand where were they coming from

1:22:09 ↗ and I think ultimately what turned out

1:22:12 ↗ to be the case was that they weren't

1:22:15 ↗ coming from anywhere other than that

1:22:18 ↗ that's what the staff thought they

1:22:20 ↗ wanted to apply and so they were sort of

1:22:24 ↗ recategorize din some cases in the

1:22:26 ↗ communication the most recent

1:22:28 ↗ communication as attempts at

1:22:30 ↗ collaborative discussion would you

1:22:36 ↗ characterize the back-and-forth that was

1:22:38 ↗ going on as collaborative no

1:23:17 ↗ right we have a new exhibit for the

1:23:19 ↗ record it's going to be s 47

1:23:46 ↗ will you please describe what the

1:23:49 ↗ document is @s 47 so I believe that this

1:23:59 ↗ is a consolidated file of Jean Linz

1:24:05 ↗ notes with respect to our projects and

1:24:11 ↗ how have you become familiar with these

1:24:14 ↗ notes I believe that these were part of

1:24:21 ↗ the documentation that we received

1:24:23 ↗ either through a public records request

1:24:24 ↗ or through discovery have you reviewed

1:24:27 ↗ these I have we turn to page 6 of the

1:24:33 ↗ notes and unfortunately they aren't page

1:24:38 ↗ numbered and I'm just counting to page 6

1:24:46 ↗ there it's I'm looking at a page that's

1:24:50 ↗ titled questions and comments and it's

1:24:52 ↗ dated Tuesday May 30th 2017 at 10:18

1:24:55 ↗ a.m. okay

1:25:07 ↗ did Miss Lin note anything there in

1:25:10 ↗ terms of direction that she had gotten

1:25:12 ↗ with respect to your project yes there's

1:25:18 ↗ a section on this page that's entitled

1:25:21 ↗ direction from Lucy and you tell us what

1:25:26 ↗ some of the direction was about what did

1:25:30 ↗ she provide what did and I'm assuming is

1:25:33 ↗ is Lucy is it your understanding that

1:25:34 ↗ Lucy is referring to Miss lemon

1:25:36 ↗ yes and so what sort of direction did

1:25:40 ↗ miss lemon provide so the first bullet

1:25:47 ↗ there just map out the blocks and uses

1:25:49 ↗ do not sub sub divided into smaller

1:25:52 ↗ parcels was sort of along the lines of

1:25:55 ↗ what I had described earlier this

1:25:57 ↗ evening about Muslim and directing us

1:26:01 ↗ that ten Lots was okay but fourteen was

1:26:03 ↗ not there is also a bullet about halfway

1:26:12 ↗ down in the list that says originally

1:26:14 ↗ was supposed to give city land for a

1:26:16 ↗ university but they backed out and this

1:26:22 ↗ I believe refers to the statements that

1:26:28 ↗ Mister Niven had also made in meetings

1:26:32 ↗ with us indicating that had we given

1:26:38 ↗ them the land for the university that

1:26:40 ↗ they would be treating our application

1:26:42 ↗ differently and more positively

1:26:51 ↗ and then it feel like at the very last

1:26:54 ↗ bullet I think is also significant in

1:26:57 ↗ that it notes that SEPA is not a concern

1:27:00 ↗ because entitled use is fully covered by

1:27:03 ↗ a previous SEPA analysis so that's a

1:27:05 ↗ reference to what we discussed in my

1:27:09 ↗ previous testimony on whatever night in

1:27:12 ↗ January that was that the part of what

1:27:16 ↗ you got on with your entitlement under

1:27:19 ↗ the development agreement was that the

1:27:22 ↗ CEPA for the full build-out had already

1:27:24 ↗ been done that sleep analysis had

1:27:26 ↗ already been done going back to

1:27:29 ↗ something that you said a minute ago the

1:27:33 ↗ notes say originally was supposed to

1:27:34 ↗ give city land for a university but they

1:27:37 ↗ backed out is it your understanding that

1:27:39 ↗ shelter was supposed to give the land

1:27:42 ↗ for a university no my understanding is

1:27:45 ↗ that there were ongoing discussions at a

1:27:48 ↗ certain point in time early on both

1:27:50 ↗ prior to shelters purchase and just

1:27:54 ↗ after the purchase about that happening

1:28:01 ↗ either a donation of land or a sale at

1:28:03 ↗ below for market value or an option at

1:28:06 ↗ below fair market value and that

1:28:09 ↗ ultimately that was not something that

1:28:11 ↗ shelter was willing to move forward with

1:28:13 ↗ and that there was city staff that

1:28:17 ↗ harbored very hard feelings about that

1:28:19 ↗ on an ongoing basis and and had cited to

1:28:23 ↗ us on multiple occasions that that was

1:28:26 ↗ part of the reason why our applications

1:28:28 ↗ were not being treated favorably so to

1:28:34 ↗ me that's note here was that sentiment

1:28:37 ↗ being passed on to somebody who was new

1:28:39 ↗ to the city in gene Linn

1:28:48 ↗ we could go I believe it's gonna be a

1:28:51 ↗ little bit further up so on that first

1:28:53 ↗ page to the May 26 27 teen entry under

1:29:03 ↗ the section titled general notes what

1:29:06 ↗ did miss Lin have to say about the

1:29:08 ↗ complexity of this pot her note state

1:29:12 ↗ that it should be a fairly simple plot

1:29:14 ↗ which was consistent with what they had

1:29:17 ↗ initially expressed to us in in the

1:29:21 ↗ pre-op meeting and and and then the

1:29:26 ↗ second note goes on to note that we may

1:29:32 ↗ be interested in vesting development for

1:29:34 ↗ 10 years expiration for a preliminary

1:29:37 ↗ plat is five years plus another five

1:29:40 ↗ years to final to file the final plat so

1:29:43 ↗ again this is reference to that meeting

1:29:48 ↗ the collaborative meeting for the plat

1:29:51 ↗ where mr. Niven outlined the how the

1:29:54 ↗ vesting works for a plat and the five

1:29:57 ↗ years for preliminary plat and the five

1:29:59 ↗ years for final plat and then three

1:30:02 ↗ years for a site development permit if

1:30:05 ↗ it's filed within that time frame it was

1:30:08 ↗ that consistent with what mrs. Lowman

1:30:10 ↗ had told you as well

1:30:14 ↗ the timing I guess I'm not understanding

1:30:19 ↗ here in terms of had you been told that

1:30:22 ↗ the five years for a preliminary plot

1:30:24 ↗ and five years for a final pot and three

1:30:26 ↗ years for SDP was that consistent with

1:30:29 ↗ what you'd heard from Miss Loman in

1:30:30 ↗ terms of what she expected the timing to

1:30:33 ↗ be or for investing specifically not for

1:30:36 ↗ processing the applications yeah I think

1:30:39 ↗ she was present at the meeting but it

1:30:41 ↗ was director Niven that was giving the

1:30:43 ↗ direction on how the vesting for the

1:30:45 ↗ plat and the final plat worked and the

1:30:48 ↗ site development permits thank you

1:30:53 ↗ and then at the bottom of those bullet

1:30:56 ↗ points in the general notes section what

1:30:58 ↗ is she saying in terms of written

1:31:00 ↗ comments we should give them written

1:31:06 ↗ comments so in again what was the date

1:31:10 ↗ of these notes that appears to be May 26

1:31:16 ↗ 2007 teen so approximately how long we

1:31:26 ↗ walked through the email chain a minute

1:31:27 ↗ ago but approximately how long did it

1:31:29 ↗ take for you to actually get written

1:31:30 ↗ comments on this we didn't receive

1:31:35 ↗ comments on our Platt was submitted

1:31:38 ↗ August 1st 2017 until March 16th of 2018

1:31:45 ↗ this this note based on this timing it

1:31:48 ↗ could be that she's referring to pre-op

1:31:52 ↗ meeting notes

1:31:54 ↗ I don't recall off the top of my head

1:31:55 ↗ what the date of the the pre-op meeting

1:31:58 ↗ was but typically the city provides

1:32:01 ↗ pre-op meeting notes after the pre-op as

1:32:04 ↗ well so miss Lin calls this a fairly

1:32:11 ↗ simple plat and we heard earlier you

1:32:16 ↗ testified that Lucy anticipated about

1:32:19 ↗ six months for the Platon is that

1:32:21 ↗ correct yes and so how long has the

1:32:28 ↗ process actually taken at this point

1:32:31 ↗ well I mean if you go from when our

1:32:36 ↗ collaborative meeting was in March of

1:32:39 ↗ 2017 and we're now in February of 2019 a

1:32:47 ↗ long time yes longer than six months

1:32:49 ↗ absolutely it took more than six months

1:32:54 ↗ for us to get a single comment on our

1:32:56 ↗ plot application so we can come back to

1:33:00 ↗ to these notes as well but do you recall

1:33:04 ↗ the gene Lynn make notes on any of the

1:33:05 ↗ other applications

1:33:07 ↗ and you can take a minute to flip

1:33:09 ↗ through I know there's a lot there yeah

1:33:10 ↗ I believe that these are consolidated so

1:33:13 ↗ she's got other project related notes so

1:33:20 ↗ she's got some that are internal

1:33:21 ↗ coordination meetings and then she's got

1:33:27 ↗ some Platt condition notes which I don't

1:33:32 ↗ think are things that we've ever seen

1:33:36 ↗ through the plat process plat review

1:33:38 ↗ process

1:33:40 ↗ there are oh there's the preliminary

1:33:45 ↗ plat pre-op meeting notes and it looks

1:33:47 ↗ like that was on May 31st 2017 so likely

1:33:51 ↗ her May 26th 2017 meeting notes are her

1:33:55 ↗ preparing for that meeting on the 31st

1:34:00 ↗ and then it does look like she has notes

1:34:07 ↗ from the medical office collaboration

1:34:09 ↗ meeting the retail collaboration meeting

1:34:15 ↗ the Self Storage collaboration meeting

1:34:17 ↗ the office health club collaboration

1:34:20 ↗ meeting and then medical office pre-op

1:34:26 ↗ retail pre-op meeting office health club

1:34:30 ↗ pre-op meeting self-storage pre-op

1:34:33 ↗ meeting so aside from the sufficiency

1:34:39 ↗ letters that we saw from miss lemons

1:34:41 ↗ testimony and those types of

1:34:44 ↗ communications were these notes given to

1:34:47 ↗ sheltered at any point in this process

1:34:50 ↗ no not through the application review

1:34:52 ↗ process he mentioned that we received

1:34:55 ↗ them either through a public records

1:34:57 ↗ request or through discovery and is that

1:35:01 ↗ the first time that you'd seen these yes

1:35:07 ↗ let's turn to your meeting minutes

1:35:11 ↗ behind er please and we want to turn

1:35:14 ↗ specifically to the may 31st 2017

1:35:17 ↗ meeting okay so can you describe this

1:35:35 ↗ document this one looks a little bit

1:35:37 ↗ different I'll just represent then your

1:35:39 ↗ other meeting notes it's in an email

1:35:40 ↗ form instead of handwritten notes can

1:35:43 ↗ you explain what the difference might be

1:35:45 ↗ just in terms of the format yeah I mean

1:35:50 ↗ sometimes when I did in May meeting

1:35:52 ↗ minutes I would stick them in an email

1:35:54 ↗ sometimes they'd be in a document

1:35:56 ↗ attached to an email okay and so what

1:35:59 ↗ what was the meeting that took place on

1:36:01 ↗ May 31st of 2017 so that was the pre-op

1:36:05 ↗ meeting for the preliminary plat

1:36:08 ↗ application and do you recall who was

1:36:12 ↗ present at that meeting

1:36:15 ↗ [Music]

1:36:24 ↗ I know that loosely Sloman and Jean Lin

1:36:29 ↗ and Doug schlep were there and and I was

1:36:39 ↗ there I believe that Eric Evans and Dave

1:36:45 ↗ Katyn Mark Velde and Mike Swenson also

1:36:48 ↗ attended and as our team and so can you

1:36:55 ↗ walk us through what you talked about in

1:36:58 ↗ this pre-application meeting with

1:36:59 ↗ respect to the the plat sure so this was

1:37:06 ↗ when they introduced Jean Lynn to us and

1:37:08 ↗ and that she would be our planner that

1:37:12 ↗ was assigned to our plat and they told

1:37:17 ↗ us she was a Senior Planner coming from

1:37:19 ↗ California had plenty of experience but

1:37:20 ↗ none in Issaquah Highlands yet so that

1:37:22 ↗ Lucy would be helping her through that

1:37:26 ↗ we started with the number of lots and

1:37:31 ↗ Lucy made it clear that she didn't like

1:37:34 ↗ 14 lots and that she had the expectation

1:37:37 ↗ that she was only going to see five lots

1:37:39 ↗ just one one lot per block and we pushed

1:37:46 ↗ back on that a little bit and where we

1:37:49 ↗ ended up was that she was okay with two

1:37:52 ↗ Lots per block as long as there was a

1:37:54 ↗ pedestrian connection somewhere mid

1:37:56 ↗ block and then my notes say she said

1:38:00 ↗ that if we did more than that then they

1:38:03 ↗ would require an analysis for each lot

1:38:05 ↗ of all of all of how creation of the

1:38:09 ↗ Lots furthers the goals guidelines and

1:38:11 ↗ policies and they will want us to prove

1:38:13 ↗ that building set backs an orientation

1:38:15 ↗ and access work however if we go with

1:38:18 ↗ just two Lots per block with ten total

1:38:21 ↗ then they will just require a brief

1:38:23 ↗ narrative explaining it's consistent

1:38:25 ↗ with the plan block length and that

1:38:27 ↗ details of development will come with

1:38:29 ↗ future land use applications

1:38:34 ↗ so she said that details of development

1:38:37 ↗ will come with future land use

1:38:38 ↗ application what did you understand that

1:38:40 ↗ to mean I understood that to mean that

1:38:46 ↗ details of the the development and how

1:38:49 ↗ it complied with goals and guidelines

1:38:51 ↗ and policies would be at the site

1:38:53 ↗ development permit level and in terms of

1:38:58 ↗ the allowable development allocation

1:39:01 ↗ first of all can you describe on the

1:39:04 ↗ preliminary plat application how the

1:39:08 ↗ allowable development was set forth or

1:39:11 ↗ described

1:39:12 ↗ yes so what we did was you've heard me

1:39:19 ↗ refer to the allowable development under

1:39:21 ↗ the development agreement that had been

1:39:22 ↗ allocated to our property and it was 1.8

1:39:25 ↗ million square feet of various types of

1:39:28 ↗ uses so what we did on the preliminary

1:39:32 ↗ plat was we included a table of

1:39:34 ↗ allowable development and it was

1:39:36 ↗ allocated on a block by block basis so

1:39:39 ↗ that it would be you know X number of

1:39:41 ↗ square feet of retail allocated to block

1:39:45 ↗ a you know X number of commercial

1:39:49 ↗ allocated to block a and the same for

1:39:51 ↗ Block B C D and E so that was how we how

1:39:56 ↗ we addressed it and at that initial

1:39:59 ↗ meeting miss lemon indicated that she

1:40:02 ↗ liked the allocation table that we had

1:40:07 ↗ created

1:40:13 ↗ what did miss Loman have to say about

1:40:15 ↗ the time frame in the process overall

1:40:29 ↗ so she explained that the Folsom medal

1:40:34 ↗ would be the next step and that we

1:40:36 ↗ should coordinate with Chris right on

1:40:37 ↗ that and then the city would review and

1:40:41 ↗ do a staff report which they would give

1:40:44 ↗ us a chance to review and that then the

1:40:47 ↗ U V DC would get the staff report one

1:40:49 ↗ week in advance of the hearing and then

1:40:53 ↗ there would be two UVC meetings one for

1:40:57 ↗ a presentation and to ask questions and

1:40:59 ↗ the second to answer the questions and

1:41:01 ↗ get the recommendation and then it would

1:41:04 ↗ go to counsel and she said that she felt

1:41:11 ↗ like staff was overloaded so she didn't

1:41:13 ↗ have a good guess as to timeframe for

1:41:15 ↗ the entire process but that her hope was

1:41:17 ↗ that it would be done by October so this

1:41:21 ↗ was in May of 2017 and she's saying that

1:41:24 ↗ she could hope hopes that it could be

1:41:26 ↗ done by October is that correct yes did

1:41:33 ↗ did your planner miss Lynn did she ever

1:41:38 ↗ change was there a different planner on

1:41:40 ↗ this pot application throughout that

1:41:41 ↗ time period no gene Lynn has been our

1:41:44 ↗ planner throughout the plat application

1:41:46 ↗ and is also the only planner that's ever

1:41:49 ↗ been assigned to all of our SDP

1:41:52 ↗ applications have you received a staff

1:41:55 ↗ report on your preliminary application

1:41:57 ↗ or your preliminary plat application no

1:42:00 ↗ we have not and has it gone before you

1:42:03 ↗ VDC no City Council No

1:42:28 ↗ let's turn next to an exhibit that is

1:42:32 ↗ already in the record at s 8

1:43:00 ↗ okay so this exhibit was introduced

1:43:04 ↗ earlier but if you could just remind us

1:43:07 ↗ what what is this exhibit at s8 it's an

1:43:10 ↗ email string between Keith Nevin Sarah

1:43:15 ↗ Hawaii who is the executive director for

1:43:17 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands Community

1:43:20 ↗ Association and Lucy Sloman and I'm

1:43:26 ↗ looking on the first page about halfway

1:43:30 ↗ down there's an email dated June 6th

1:43:34 ↗ 2017 at 1:35 p.m. can you describe that

1:43:38 ↗ email for us sure that is an email from

1:43:43 ↗ mr. Niven to Sarah and Lucy and it says

1:43:49 ↗ hey Sarah once you have a vested permit

1:43:52 ↗ you are okay even when we sunset the DEA

1:43:55 ↗ if there's a six month period where the

1:43:57 ↗ project goes idle we could Turman we

1:44:00 ↗ could determine it inactive to keep that

1:44:03 ↗ from happening

1:44:04 ↗ could include submitting for related

1:44:09 ↗ permits giving us a letter saying you

1:44:11 ↗ need an extension or by other means

1:44:15 ↗ since you understand this requirement

1:44:18 ↗ I'm not concerned so long as this moves

1:44:20 ↗ forward at least somewhat continuously

1:44:25 ↗ this was June 6 2017 what did you

1:44:34 ↗ understand it to mean when director

1:44:36 ↗ Niven is saying if there was a six-month

1:44:37 ↗ period where this project goes idle we

1:44:40 ↗ could determine it inactive what does

1:44:43 ↗ that mean to you

1:44:44 ↗ well I think it's getting to the idea of

1:44:50 ↗ vested permits and so he's explaining to

1:44:54 ↗ her that once she has a permit she's

1:44:58 ↗ vested and as long as that permit stays

1:45:00 ↗ active she remains vested and so when

1:45:04 ↗ when he starts talking about permits

1:45:06 ↗ going inactive that is when you could

1:45:10 ↗ potentially lose

1:45:12 ↗ vesting have any of shelters permits

1:45:15 ↗ been inactive no is this what he told

1:45:21 ↗ Sarah what director Niven told Sarah

1:45:24 ↗ Hoey and June 6 of 2017

1:45:27 ↗ many states once you have a vested

1:45:29 ↗ permit you are okay even when we send

1:45:31 ↗ sunset the DA is that consistent with

1:45:34 ↗ what he was telling shelter yes so when

1:45:39 ↗ he's referring to sunset the DA what

1:45:41 ↗ does that mean to you he's referring to

1:45:44 ↗ when the development agreement for

1:45:46 ↗ Issaquah highlands terminates and in

1:45:50 ↗ terms of being okay what does that mean

1:45:53 ↗ to you that your permit would still be

1:45:55 ↗ vested

1:46:38 ↗ so this next exhibit is going to be s 48

1:47:09 ↗ yeah will you please describe what this

1:47:11 ↗ document is this document is the city's

1:47:18 ↗ follow up to the pre-op meeting for our

1:47:22 ↗ preliminary plat so these are their

1:47:25 ↗ their preliminary plat pre-op comments

1:47:28 ↗ what's the date of these comments June

1:47:31 ↗ 7th 2017 and I see David que tener at

1:47:36 ↗ the top who's David Kate and again he is

1:47:38 ↗ with core design and he at the time was

1:47:41 ↗ our main contact for this plat

1:47:52 ↗ so going down to that second bullet

1:47:54 ↗ point after it says there's a title

1:47:57 ↗ action items required prior to PP

1:47:59 ↗ submittal I'm looking at number two what

1:48:03 ↗ did the comments have to say with

1:48:05 ↗ respect to the development allocation

1:48:12 ↗ the comment indicates that the

1:48:15 ↗ block-by-block

1:48:17 ↗ development out allocation could be

1:48:20 ↗ adjusted later on provided that there

1:48:23 ↗ was language to make sure that that

1:48:29 ↗ there was sufficient utility and traffic

1:48:31 ↗ infrastructure to support any proposed

1:48:33 ↗ reallocation so the development

1:48:36 ↗ allocation what's that referring to is

1:48:39 ↗ that the allowable development that you

1:48:40 ↗ were talking about yes so that's

1:48:42 ↗ referring to the table that we had

1:48:43 ↗ included on the preliminary plat that

1:48:45 ↗ had the allowable development allocated

1:48:48 ↗ on a block-by-block basis so did you

1:48:52 ↗ understand this comment to mean that

1:48:53 ↗ there was some flexibility in terms of

1:48:56 ↗ how that allowable development would be

1:48:58 ↗ allocated going forward yes

1:49:12 ↗ who do you recall who these comments

1:49:15 ↗ came from I believe they would have come

1:49:23 ↗ from Miss Lin but they should include

1:49:27 ↗ comments from other departments and as

1:49:30 ↗ you see on the second page there's a

1:49:33 ↗ section that says comments from Public

1:49:35 ↗ Works operations they incorporated

1:49:39 ↗ comments from various different

1:49:40 ↗ departments at that time yes

1:50:01 ↗ [Applause]

1:50:15 ↗ [Applause]

1:50:20 ↗ all right this next exhibit is going to

1:50:22 ↗ be s 49

1:50:46 ↗ yeah will you please describe what the

1:50:48 ↗ document is @s 49 so this is a letter

1:50:53 ↗ from June 9th of 2017 that I sent to mr.

1:51:00 ↗ Navin and Miss lemon

1:51:01 ↗ and this is really related to the

1:51:04 ↗ replacement regulations at this point in

1:51:08 ↗ time there was no draft of the

1:51:11 ↗ replacement regulations but we had

1:51:12 ↗ started as you've seen in my notes from

1:51:15 ↗ much earlier than this having

1:51:18 ↗ discussions with the city about what

1:51:20 ↗ those might do and they had always

1:51:22 ↗ expressed an indication that they wanted

1:51:25 ↗ the the replacement regulations to

1:51:27 ↗ ultimately mimic the development

1:51:29 ↗ agreement or put another way was to

1:51:33 ↗ essentially codify much of what was what

1:51:36 ↗ were this development standards from the

1:51:39 ↗ development agreement so one of the

1:51:40 ↗ things that they had asked us if we

1:51:43 ↗ would do was to go through and provide

1:51:47 ↗ input regarding which elements of the

1:51:51 ↗ development regulations from the

1:51:53 ↗ development agreement should be carried

1:51:56 ↗ over into the new zoning so what we did

1:51:59 ↗ was we hired Weinstein a you to help us

1:52:07 ↗ do that analysis they are really experts

1:52:10 ↗ in in urban planning and so we had them

1:52:13 ↗ go through the code both the existing is

1:52:18 ↗ a qualm Municipal Code and and the

1:52:23 ↗ central Issaquah code provisions as well

1:52:26 ↗ as the development standards that were

1:52:28 ↗ implemented by the development agreement

1:52:29 ↗ and make recommendations with respect to

1:52:33 ↗ what the city should do with the

1:52:36 ↗ replacement regulations so it was a

1:52:40 ↗ pretty extensive exercise that they went

1:52:43 ↗ through and that my letter is just a

1:52:45 ↗ cover letter to their recommendation

1:52:49 ↗ which is attached

1:52:53 ↗ and so Weinstein was you mentioned that

1:52:57 ↗ they were hired so shelter paid them to

1:53:00 ↗ do this review for the city correct when

1:53:05 ↗ they when you had asked them to prepare

1:53:07 ↗ this review with respect to the

1:53:11 ↗ replacement regulations was there any

1:53:13 ↗ concern at that time about vested rights

1:53:16 ↗ and how they would be treated going

1:53:17 ↗ forward no this was totally separate

1:53:22 ↗ from from that I mean at this point in

1:53:25 ↗ time we had a couple of things going one

1:53:29 ↗ was a plat application and we really

1:53:33 ↗ didn't have any concern that that the

1:53:36 ↗ vesting provisions under the development

1:53:38 ↗ agreement enacted through the

1:53:40 ↗ development agreement would be wouldn't

1:53:42 ↗ be honored at the same time the city was

1:53:47 ↗ going to go into a process to adopt new

1:53:49 ↗ regulations that would ultimately apply

1:53:50 ↗ to our property at some point in time so

1:53:53 ↗ we were obviously quite interested in

1:53:56 ↗ those as well and we're tracking and

1:53:58 ↗ trying to to provide help and comments

1:54:03 ↗ along the way I mean we were still

1:54:04 ↗ hopeful that this would be a

1:54:07 ↗ collaborative process so in terms of

1:54:12 ↗ suggestions or kind of planning for the

1:54:14 ↗ future with the replacement regulation

1:54:16 ↗ regulations did it change anything about

1:54:18 ↗ what the development agreement and the

1:54:20 ↗ development regulations adopted through

1:54:22 ↗ it required in terms of vesting no the

1:54:26 ↗ development agreement continued to apply

1:54:29 ↗ until the the new regulations were

1:54:33 ↗ effective which didn't happen until the

1:54:35 ↗ very end of March 2018 so the and even

1:54:40 ↗ then the vesting provision in the

1:54:42 ↗ development agreement would still govern

1:54:45 ↗ with respect to applications that vested

1:54:47 ↗ under that set of regulations

1:54:59 ↗ so the next set of documents we're gonna

1:55:02 ↗ they're gonna end up being s50 but we

1:55:05 ↗ have a number of exhibits again that

1:55:07 ↗ there are individual documents but

1:55:09 ↗ they're a packet as part of us larger

1:55:11 ↗ submit --all so i think what we'd like

1:55:14 ↗ to do to kind of speed up the process of

1:55:16 ↗ getting those to use to mark them all as

1:55:17 ↗ exhibit s50 but divide them into sub

1:55:21 ↗ parts so that we can talk about sub part

1:55:24 ↗ ABC as we go along just to keep it

1:55:27 ↗ moving if that's okay

1:55:37 ↗ [Music]

1:56:28 ↗ so this would be the one that you're

1:56:30 ↗ getting right now is going to be asked

1:56:32 ↗ 50 a and T a while that's being passed

1:56:39 ↗ out we please describe what this

1:56:41 ↗ document is this document is a

1:56:45 ↗ preliminary stormwater report to support

1:56:47 ↗ our preliminary pod application so just

1:56:51 ↗ to provide a little bit of context and

1:56:53 ↗ we're going to be talking about excuse

1:56:57 ↗ me

1:56:58 ↗ talking about the preliminary plot

1:57:00 ↗ application and so is this part of it

1:57:02 ↗ yes okay next we have s 50 B

1:57:29 ↗ and what's the document at us 50 B it's

1:57:33 ↗ the affidavit of agent authority so it

1:57:36 ↗ is Gary on behalf of IH I have

1:57:42 ↗ commercial LLC giving David Katyn at

1:57:45 ↗ core design permission to act as our

1:57:47 ↗ agent on behalf of the plat application

1:57:52 ↗ and next is ask FDC and this one is the

1:57:59 ↗ affidavit of ownership so this is again

1:58:04 ↗ Gary on behalf of IH I have commercial

1:58:08 ↗ indicating that IH i of commercial is

1:58:11 ↗ the owner of the property okay and next

1:58:20 ↗ is s 50 ad and this is the project

1:58:27 ↗ narrative dated July 15 2017 okay and

1:58:31 ↗ let's pause on that one for just a

1:58:33 ↗ second

1:58:40 ↗ oh wait yesterday I gave you - that

1:58:49 ↗ one's not labeled though okay thank you

1:58:59 ↗ okay so let's let's take a pause and

1:59:02 ↗ look at that exhibit which is s fifty D

1:59:06 ↗ so you'd mentioned that that's a project

1:59:09 ↗ narrative can you describe for us what

1:59:13 ↗ that document was intended to be what

1:59:15 ↗ purpose it serves well I believe the

1:59:18 ↗ plat project narrative is is a required

1:59:20 ↗ part of the submission package for a

1:59:23 ↗ preliminary plat and this one is set up

1:59:27 ↗ to be modeled after the staff reports

1:59:33 ↗ that are often issued for plots in

1:59:37 ↗ Issaquah Highlands okay and the date of

1:59:41 ↗ this is July 15 2017 so it was this part

1:59:45 ↗ of the the application that was

1:59:47 ↗ submitted for the preliminary plot at

1:59:49 ↗ that time yes this is part of the

1:59:51 ↗ application that was submitted on August

1:59:53 ↗ 1st 2017 and remind us again we went

1:59:57 ↗ through the preliminary plat application

1:59:59 ↗ process and now we're at another phase

2:00:02 ↗ in the plant application process so

2:00:05 ↗ what's happened between then and now the

2:00:07 ↗ preliminary and this application so we

2:00:12 ↗ had the preliminary land use application

2:00:14 ↗ submit all for the preliminary plat and

2:00:18 ↗ then you saw we got the comments back

2:00:23 ↗ from the city so we had the submit all

2:00:26 ↗ then we had the pre-op meeting and then

2:00:29 ↗ following the pre-op meeting we had the

2:00:31 ↗ comment the written comments that came

2:00:33 ↗ back and then this is part of our submit

2:00:36 ↗ all for the preliminary plat application

2:00:43 ↗ and this is a rather long document it

2:00:48 ↗ goes into a fair amount of description

2:00:51 ↗ about the project but in general what

2:00:54 ↗ sorts of information is it providing can

2:00:56 ↗ you kind of walk us through the document

2:01:00 ↗ sure it's you know has some background

2:01:05 ↗ in the summary of the proposed plat

2:01:08 ↗ it has some permit history on the

2:01:11 ↗ property and then it goes through all of

2:01:15 ↗ the development standards in the

2:01:17 ↗ development agreement so in Section

2:01:19 ↗ three you can see development standards

2:01:21 ↗ and regulations and it goes through and

2:01:24 ↗ analyzes it under the the main body of

2:01:27 ↗ the development agreement and then each

2:01:29 ↗ of the appendices that contain all of

2:01:32 ↗ the development standards but when this

2:01:37 ↗ was submitted

2:01:38 ↗ he said that it's dated July 15 but it

2:01:41 ↗ was submitted on August first was

2:01:43 ↗ development agreement still in place yes

2:01:46 ↗ had the build-out period ended No

2:02:00 ↗ so next part of this s50 exhibit will be

2:02:06 ↗ us 50e

2:02:24 ↗ so in ta what is the document at s 50 e

2:02:28 ↗ so this is the actual preliminary

2:02:32 ↗ document itself

2:02:33 ↗ okay and can you describe for us what

2:02:37 ↗ was set out in that preliminary plot

2:02:41 ↗ application document sure I mean it the

2:02:47 ↗ first page has legal description

2:02:50 ↗ restrictions and and title exceptions

2:02:54 ↗ some survey data some notes cite

2:02:58 ↗ statistics who the owner is the civil

2:03:04 ↗ engineering firm geotechnical

2:03:07 ↗ engineering firm and then as you go

2:03:12 ↗ through the pages it's got the lot

2:03:19 ↗ layout and Road road layout it's got

2:03:24 ↗ some utilities laid out it's got some

2:03:28 ↗ boundary and topo information it's got

2:03:35 ↗ site views looking into and around the

2:03:39 ↗ plot it's got a preliminary landscape

2:03:46 ↗ plan and engineering engineering work

2:03:55 ↗ several pages of that I think that gives

2:04:02 ↗ kind of a general overview of what's

2:04:04 ↗ included in a preliminary plat

2:04:07 ↗ application so in this preliminary plat

2:04:12 ↗ application how was the allowable

2:04:15 ↗ development addressed so if you look on

2:04:24 ↗ sheet P 1.02

2:04:29 ↗ there is a table that's entitled

2:04:34 ↗ allowable development per Issaquah

2:04:36 ↗ Highlands development agreement and then

2:04:39 ↗ in parentheses it says by block and just

2:04:44 ↗ for the sake of the Development

2:04:45 ↗ Commission I apologize because the the

2:04:47 ↗ PDF version is incredibly hard to see

2:04:49 ↗ any of the numbers on so I've got it

2:04:51 ↗ zoomed in but you're probably not going

2:04:53 ↗ to be able to read that part just then

2:04:55 ↗ what's on the screen and this one is

2:04:58 ↗ also very hard to hear it's very small

2:05:00 ↗ we won't print it we might try to find a

2:05:03 ↗ better copy just so it's a little bit

2:05:04 ↗ clearer yeah this one is more clear but

2:05:07 ↗ it's still tiny tiny print sorry let's

2:05:11 ↗ do a question that's okay so that that

2:05:13 ↗ table that you're looking at in terms of

2:05:16 ↗ the allowable development you've

2:05:19 ↗ described it a little already but with

2:05:21 ↗ this document in front of you can you

2:05:22 ↗ explain how it was broken down block by

2:05:24 ↗ block by block excuse me yes so it just

2:05:29 ↗ took our total development again that we

2:05:32 ↗ had allocated under the development

2:05:34 ↗ agreement to our property and broke it

2:05:37 ↗ down on a block by block basis and

2:05:39 ↗ allocated retail commercial and the

2:05:44 ↗ residential units among the blocks a B C

2:05:48 ↗ D and E

2:05:55 ↗ and well we'll talk a little bit more

2:05:57 ↗ about this as we move forward in their

2:05:59 ↗ chronology but did shelter show building

2:06:03 ↗ footprints on this one on this flat

2:06:06 ↗ they're not shown on this on this

2:06:10 ↗ document that I have in my hand

2:06:12 ↗ there was a supplement to this

2:06:14 ↗ application that was submitted in

2:06:16 ↗ December of 2017 that showed the the

2:06:20 ↗ building footprints and parking so this

2:06:24 ↗ this one just showed sort of the overall

2:06:28 ↗ development plan of the plat from the

2:06:32 ↗ perspective that it took all of the

2:06:34 ↗ allowable development that was allocated

2:06:36 ↗ to the property and and spread it out on

2:06:38 ↗ a block by block basis but in terms of

2:06:42 ↗ showing you know specificity in terms of

2:06:44 ↗ what the development would be was it

2:06:47 ↗ allocating you know specifically retail

2:06:50 ↗ to a certain block or specifically

2:06:51 ↗ commercial to another yes it allocated

2:06:56 ↗ specific uses to each block and was this

2:07:00 ↗ the preliminary plot that was used by

2:07:04 ↗ the city for the public notice for your

2:07:07 ↗ application or was it something

2:07:08 ↗ different well I mean it's all one

2:07:11 ↗ application so when you're talking about

2:07:13 ↗ was this the preliminary plat yes was

2:07:16 ↗ this the page no the page that they used

2:07:18 ↗ for the for the public notice

2:07:22 ↗ application for our preliminary plat was

2:07:25 ↗ the one that was submitted in December

2:07:27 ↗ of 2017 which showed the building

2:07:30 ↗ footprints on the Lots and well again

2:07:34 ↗ we'll turn to it a little bit more

2:07:35 ↗ detail in a bit but did that the one

2:07:37 ↗ that was sitting in December did it also

2:07:39 ↗ show the allowable development like this

2:07:40 ↗ one does yes it did

2:08:07 ↗ okay so we have another part of exhibit

2:08:10 ↗ s50 this will be s 50 f ta will you

2:08:25 ↗ describe what this document is please

2:08:55 ↗ this is a memo from me to jean lin and

2:09:00 ↗ it's dated 727 2017 and it follows up on

2:09:09 ↗ her pre-op comments oh wait let's see

2:09:14 ↗ yeah it says it thinks her further

2:09:17 ↗ review comments in response to our

2:09:19 ↗ pre-application submittal and it says we

2:09:24 ↗ believe that all or submitted packet

2:09:26 ↗ contains all of the materials that are

2:09:28 ↗ required for complete preliminary platon

2:09:31 ↗ your comment memorandum requested a

2:09:33 ↗ letter from the IHC a AARC supporting

2:09:37 ↗ the Platts design we have submitted a

2:09:40 ↗ copy of the preliminary plot to IHC AARC

2:09:43 ↗ for their review and they have not

2:09:45 ↗ indicated that they approve of the plat

2:09:47 ↗ design however we have and they have

2:09:50 ↗ indicated I sorry I misspoke and they

2:09:53 ↗ have indicated that they approve of the

2:09:55 ↗ plat design however we have not yet

2:09:56 ↗ received the official letter of support

2:09:58 ↗ from the IHC AARC and then we note that

2:10:06 ↗ this is not a formal plat submittal

2:10:08 ↗ requirement therefore we assume that

2:10:09 ↗ submitting this additional information

2:10:10 ↗ after the initial application will be

2:10:12 ↗ acceptable and will not prevent the city

2:10:14 ↗ from issuing us a determination of

2:10:16 ↗ complete application for our plat so to

2:10:21 ↗ explain what HC AARC is it is a

2:10:25 ↗ Highlands Community Association

2:10:27 ↗ architectural review committee so the

2:10:30 ↗ city was asking that we have a letter

2:10:34 ↗ from the architectural review committee

2:10:39 ↗ at Issaquah Highlands Community

2:10:40 ↗ Association as a requirement of our

2:10:45 ↗ plots of metal which we did eventually

2:10:48 ↗ submit it just wasn't available at the

2:10:50 ↗ time of the initial submit all and we

2:10:53 ↗ thought it was actually kind of an odd

2:10:56 ↗ requirement at the plat level since

2:11:00 ↗ there wasn't really anything

2:11:01 ↗ architecture

2:11:02 ↗ all for them to review at that point but

2:11:06 ↗ we did submit it and this was just a

2:11:08 ↗ memo explaining why it wasn't in the

2:11:12 ↗ with the application materials that were

2:11:14 ↗ submitted on August 1st is that a step

2:11:18 ↗ presenting this to a RC is that a step

2:11:21 ↗ that's required by the development

2:11:22 ↗ agreement no it's not I mean certain

2:11:26 ↗ applications are required to go to IH CA

2:11:29 ↗ a RC by the CC and ours or the covenants

2:11:35 ↗ conditions and restrictions trying to

2:11:37 ↗ translate all the land use lingo so some

2:11:42 ↗ applications are required by the CC NRS

2:11:43 ↗ to go in front of that body so it was

2:11:47 ↗ not really clear why the city was

2:11:49 ↗ imposing that requirement on us it

2:11:50 ↗ wasn't something that came from the

2:11:51 ↗ development agreement or the code

2:11:53 ↗ standards so next we have s 50 G and ta

2:12:07 ↗ what is the document at s 50 G this

2:12:15 ↗ looks like is a SEPA checklist so what

2:12:21 ↗ is the why was the CEPA checklist

2:12:23 ↗ prepared for this preliminary plot I'm

2:12:32 ↗ not sure why it was prepared I think it

2:12:35 ↗ was likely in an abundance of caution

2:12:37 ↗ because the development agreement was

2:12:39 ↗ clear that you didn't need to do a full

2:12:42 ↗ SEPA checklist for development that was

2:12:45 ↗ anticipated under the development

2:12:48 ↗ agreement so next we have s 50 H

2:13:10 ↗ what is the document @s 50 eh so this is

2:13:15 ↗ the preliminary plat lock closure

2:13:18 ↗ calculations from core design what are

2:13:22 ↗ preliminary lock closure calculations

2:13:24 ↗ what does that mean basically it's

2:13:27 ↗ prepared by the surveyor to indicate

2:13:29 ↗ that all of the lots are complete in

2:13:34 ↗ that they have a line that goes all the

2:13:36 ↗ way around them a property line that

2:13:38 ↗ goes all the way around them next we

2:13:43 ↗ have s 50 I and idea what is the

2:13:56 ↗ document at s 50 I

2:14:23 ↗ so it is a legal description okay I just

2:14:29 ↗ wanted to refer back to the plat to so

2:14:32 ↗ that I knew where it was referring to so

2:14:35 ↗ it's a legal description of a proposed

2:14:37 ↗ public trail slash landscape easement

2:14:41 ↗ across a lot ten so a lot ten is shown

2:14:49 ↗ on the preliminary plat and the city had

2:14:52 ↗ indicated that they wanted a public

2:14:55 ↗ trail landscape easement over that

2:14:57 ↗ portion of the property which is the far

2:15:00 ↗ west of our preliminary plat okay and

2:15:05 ↗ then s fifty J says that it's a legal

2:15:09 ↗ description for a proposed public

2:15:11 ↗ sidewalk easement can you explain that

2:15:13 ↗ document to please

2:15:35 ↗ it's a legal description of a proposed

2:15:37 ↗ public sidewalk easement

2:15:39 ↗ on the back of a lot three of the plat

2:15:49 ↗ I'm not entirely sure why this was

2:15:52 ↗ included in the plat application except

2:15:54 ↗ for that polygon was in the process of

2:15:58 ↗ also trying to pursue their developments

2:16:02 ↗ on the adjacent property and they needed

2:16:04 ↗ certain public access easements from us

2:16:09 ↗ in order to build roads and sidewalks

2:16:12 ↗ that are on portions of our property so

2:16:17 ↗ I think these this is part of that okay

2:16:22 ↗ and then the next document is s 50k and

2:16:29 ↗ that says that it's a looks like a title

2:16:32 ↗ insurance policy and what was what was

2:16:34 ↗ the purpose behind that it's it's a

2:16:39 ↗ requirement of a preliminary plat it's a

2:16:42 ↗ middle so it just shows it shows you and

2:16:47 ↗ shows the city what the exceptions are

2:16:49 ↗ the easements and things that are

2:16:52 ↗ recorded against the property okay and

2:16:57 ↗ then the next one and s50 and I think

2:17:01 ↗ the last one in s 50 is s 50 l what is

2:17:11 ↗ the document at s 50 l this is a

2:17:15 ↗ memorandum from Transpo group that

2:17:19 ↗ addresses traffic analysis for the

2:17:25 ↗ proposed preliminary plat who is Transpo

2:17:28 ↗ group they are our transportation

2:17:31 ↗ engineering consultant so on that

2:17:35 ↗ document it mentions Michael Swenson who

2:17:38 ↗ is he he's our primary contact at

2:17:41 ↗ Transpo group for our applications

2:17:45 ↗ and how about the other person listed on

2:17:47 ↗ there is that Darwin Lee is that right

2:17:49 ↗ yeah I believe so and Darwin also works

2:17:53 ↗ on our applications thank you

2:17:57 ↗ so again I wanted to just note that

2:18:01 ↗ we're an hour past the last break we

2:18:05 ↗ have a ways to go with messiahs

2:18:07 ↗ testimony so we can continue to the

2:18:10 ↗ close of this evening or and how late

2:18:13 ↗ would you like us to continue on this

2:18:14 ↗ evening well our we've said we'll go to

2:18:16 ↗ 10 o'clock so we're ready to do that but

2:18:19 ↗ it would be valuable to take a ten and a

2:18:21 ↗ break so that would fit your schedule

2:18:23 ↗ yes that sounds great thank you thank

2:18:26 ↗ you

2:18:42 ↗ you

2:29:56 ↗ okay we're back on the air so it's time

2:29:59 ↗ to resume our meeting thank you we're

2:30:04 ↗ gonna start with a new exhibit that's 51

2:30:24 ↗ yeah we please describe what the

2:30:26 ↗ document is s-51 yes it's an email chain

2:30:32 ↗ between David Holmes and Christopher

2:30:38 ↗ right and Lucy Sloman so who is David

2:30:45 ↗ Holmes David Holmes is at Collins Worman

2:30:50 ↗ and they are our main consultant on the

2:30:55 ↗ medical office building proposal if you

2:31:00 ↗ look at the email it's it's towards I

2:31:03 ↗ think it's on the second page of this

2:31:04 ↗ exhibit it's dated September 5th 2017 at

2:31:08 ↗ 12:20 p.m. do you see the Yvonne I'm

2:31:10 ↗ talking about yes who is it this email

2:31:19 ↗ was from Lucy slummin and it was to

2:31:22 ↗ David Holmes and copied Christopher

2:31:25 ↗ right what did miss lemon tell David

2:31:28 ↗ about the process for site development

2:31:32 ↗ permits

2:31:41 ↗ she said that their process is somewhat

2:31:44 ↗ different we have a three-step process

2:31:46 ↗ of one collaboration to pre-op and three

2:31:51 ↗ full SD Pisa middle is that process

2:31:57 ↗ that's restart process consistent with

2:31:59 ↗ what's required by appendix all of the

2:32:01 ↗ development agreement no it's not with

2:32:05 ↗ the timing of this email so this was

2:32:07 ↗ September 5th of 2017 was the

2:32:10 ↗ development agreement still in place yes

2:32:13 ↗ it was had the build-out period ended no

2:32:15 ↗ it had not so of those steps the the

2:32:19 ↗ three steps what what steps are not

2:32:22 ↗ required by the development agreement

2:32:26 ↗ the first two collaboration and pre-op

2:32:30 ↗ and to your point about had the

2:32:32 ↗ build-out period and it hadn't at this

2:32:35 ↗ time but it also wouldn't

2:32:37 ↗ a difference because the development

2:32:39 ↗ agreement the the development standards

2:32:43 ↗ implemented through the development

2:32:45 ↗ agreement remained in place until the

2:32:48 ↗ new regulations were effective which

2:32:50 ↗ didn't happen until more than six months

2:32:53 ↗ after the end of the build-out period do

2:33:03 ↗ you recall what this email was related

2:33:08 ↗ to in terms of your SDP applications

2:33:10 ↗ what project were you working on at this

2:33:12 ↗ time yes this was the medical office

2:33:15 ↗ building proposal and I think this was

2:33:20 ↗ David Holmes initial outreach to the

2:33:25 ↗ city to get the process started so if

2:33:29 ↗ you go up to the next email on September

2:33:32 ↗ 8 at 1:20 p.m. David Holmes is emailing

2:33:38 ↗ with some other people here we've talked

2:33:41 ↗ about Eric Evans who's James Walker

2:33:44 ↗ James Walker is also at Collins Worman

2:33:47 ↗ and also participated in our medical

2:33:49 ↗ office building application okay and

2:33:51 ↗ what did David have to say about the

2:33:55 ↗ status of the process for the medical

2:33:57 ↗ office building project

2:33:59 ↗ so he said Christopher thank you for

2:34:02 ↗ discussing the pending SDP so middle for

2:34:04 ↗ mo B project with me this morning I

2:34:07 ↗ understand that you will confirm the

2:34:09 ↗ first city collaboration meeting with me

2:34:11 ↗ later today after you discuss it with

2:34:13 ↗ Lucy given the typical available meeting

2:34:16 ↗ dates times we tentatively set wednesday

2:34:19 ↗ 9:27 17 at 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. as a

2:34:23 ↗ collaboration meeting date to review

2:34:26 ↗ architectural concepts and just for

2:34:29 ↗ clarification in the record and do you

2:34:32 ↗ or the consultants often refer to a

2:34:34 ↗ medical office building as mo B yes

2:34:36 ↗ so if we see it come up they're kind of

2:34:39 ↗ interchangeable right okay was it your

2:34:43 ↗ understanding at this time that the

2:34:44 ↗ collaboration meeting was

2:34:46 ↗ that was being required by the city yes

2:34:51 ↗ and I mean that's what his purpose in

2:34:55 ↗ reaching out to Lucy initially was to

2:34:59 ↗ find out what the process was and this

2:35:03 ↗ is the direction that the city is giving

2:35:05 ↗ them let's turn back to your meeting

2:35:11 ↗ minutes there's a meeting on September

2:35:16 ↗ 7th 2017 what was the purpose of the

2:35:32 ↗ September 7 2017 meeting and who were

2:35:36 ↗ the participants in that meeting do you

2:35:38 ↗ recall

2:35:52 ↗ the notes don't say but I know from

2:35:56 ↗ looking at what the content of them is

2:36:01 ↗ that this would have been a meeting that

2:36:09 ↗ at least at least Keith Niven attended

2:36:12 ↗ with me and Gary or Eric from my office

2:36:18 ↗ and I can't say for sure whether Lucie

2:36:21 ↗ was there or not okay what were you

2:36:26 ↗ discussing in this meeting I think we

2:36:34 ↗ discussed various topics both related to

2:36:39 ↗ the replacement regulations and sort of

2:36:45 ↗ how those would be we're being processed

2:36:51 ↗ and then also we started discussing SDPs

2:37:04 ↗ and a SDPs

2:37:12 ↗ and so for the STP is an ASD Pease did

2:37:15 ↗ the city have anything to say in terms

2:37:16 ↗ of the different steps that it was

2:37:19 ↗ requiring for those submittals in this

2:37:21 ↗ meeting

2:37:28 ↗ yeah they walked through that same

2:37:31 ↗ three-step process of the collaborative

2:37:35 ↗ meeting the pre app and then the submit

2:37:38 ↗ all so the same three step process that

2:37:42 ↗ Miss Loehmann's email I believe it was

2:37:44 ↗ the day before two days before had

2:37:47 ↗ mentioned is that accurate right and

2:37:52 ↗ part of what we were doing in this

2:37:55 ↗ meeting is we were introducing the idea

2:37:58 ↗ to to the city that we were coming in

2:38:03 ↗ with SDP submittals so we were there's a

2:38:10 ↗ note about Platte people at timing and

2:38:12 ↗ so we were asking about the status of

2:38:14 ↗ the Platte and we were getting direction

2:38:16 ↗ as to how to submit the SDP and a SDP

2:38:21 ↗ submittals because we weren't sure if

2:38:26 ↗ one big SDP was going to be required or

2:38:29 ↗ if we could do it on a block by block

2:38:31 ↗ basis while the plat was pending and so

2:38:35 ↗ we initiated that discussion I think at

2:38:39 ↗ this meeting and so so one big packet

2:38:43 ↗ being potentially combining the full

2:38:45 ↗ development of the medical office

2:38:47 ↗ building the Self Storage the office and

2:38:49 ↗ the retail versus breaking the mountain

2:38:52 ↗ to separate SDPs and ASDP applications

2:38:54 ↗ is that clarification right yes and so

2:39:00 ↗ did you discuss the issue investing at

2:39:04 ↗ all in this meeting

2:39:17 ↗ I think we did but at this point there

2:39:22 ↗ were draft replacement regulations out

2:39:24 ↗ but they did not contain any vesting

2:39:27 ↗ language and so the city was

2:39:33 ↗ representing to us that when that

2:39:35 ↗ language was included what it was going

2:39:38 ↗ to do was document the city's current

2:39:41 ↗ process or current position which was

2:39:44 ↗ that you vest at preliminary land use

2:39:47 ↗ application because of the West Main

2:39:49 ↗ problem that they had identified and

2:39:51 ↗ that you heard

2:39:53 ↗ Patrick Mulaney explained in his

2:39:55 ↗ testimony so at this time there and the

2:39:59 ↗ replacement regulations can can you take

2:40:01 ↗ a step back and explain what those are

2:40:03 ↗ again just for some context yeah so the

2:40:06 ↗ replacement regulations are the

2:40:08 ↗ regulations that were ultimately adopted

2:40:11 ↗ to govern Issaquah highlands and at the

2:40:15 ↗ point that those were adopted in March

2:40:18 ↗ of at the end of March at 2018

2:40:22 ↗ that's what formally terminated the

2:40:24 ↗ development agreement but it was a

2:40:25 ↗ process of developing those over time

2:40:30 ↗ and the initial hearing on replacement

2:40:34 ↗ regulations was at the end of September

2:40:37 ↗ 2017 so there were drafts in existence

2:40:44 ↗ at the time of this meeting September

2:40:47 ↗ 7th but they were significantly

2:40:52 ↗ different from what ultimately got

2:40:54 ↗ adopted is the language of what was

2:40:58 ↗ adopted in the replacement regulations

2:41:00 ↗ with respect to vesting does that change

2:41:03 ↗ vested rights at all no because it's

2:41:06 ↗ really clear that you can't

2:41:07 ↗ retroactively lis apply legislation to

2:41:10 ↗ change vested rights that's kind of a

2:41:12 ↗ fundamental premise of vesting in land

2:41:14 ↗ use law if you have vested rights to

2:41:18 ↗ begin with does it matter what the

2:41:21 ↗ replacement regulations say about

2:41:23 ↗ vesting at all no that's the point of

2:41:27 ↗ vesting is that it it means that you

2:41:30 ↗ application continues to be governed by

2:41:32 ↗ the regulations that were in place at

2:41:34 ↗ the type of complete application and

2:41:36 ↗ they aren't subject to changing

2:41:39 ↗ regulations

2:42:20 ↗ okay so this next exhibit is going to be

2:42:23 ↗ best fifty-two

2:42:50 ↗ yeah what is the document at s52 this

2:42:56 ↗ appears to be Lucy's lemons notes and

2:43:01 ↗ they are dated nine fourteen seventeen

2:43:08 ↗ did you meet with the city on nine

2:43:11 ↗ fourteen twenty seventeen do you

2:43:13 ↗ remember I don't recall for sure

2:43:16 ↗ how are you familiar with these notes

2:43:19 ↗ these would be part of the files that I

2:43:26 ↗ mentioned before that I think we had

2:43:29 ↗ access to as part of either public

2:43:31 ↗ records request or discovery so these

2:43:37 ↗ word documents were provided by the city

2:43:39 ↗ yes where do you recall seeing these

2:43:44 ↗ contemporaneously with this time Famer

2:43:46 ↗ were they something that were provided

2:43:48 ↗ after the fact no I didn't see them in

2:43:50 ↗ this time frame I only saw them as part

2:43:52 ↗ of that public records or discovery

2:43:55 ↗ process which was much later so at the

2:44:00 ↗ top of the notes here it says sdp vested

2:44:04 ↗ in da why not carry forward what do you

2:44:08 ↗ understand that to mean

2:44:26 ↗ I'm not entirely sure but it would seem

2:44:31 ↗ to be referring to the fact that site

2:44:35 ↗ development permits are expressly vested

2:44:37 ↗ in the development standards that are

2:44:40 ↗ part of the development agreement and so

2:44:44 ↗ somebody is asking the question why you

2:44:46 ↗ wouldn't carry that forward

2:45:01 ↗ Oh

2:45:14 ↗ right next exhibit is s 53

2:45:32 ↗ mr. chairman may I ask a clarifying

2:45:33 ↗ question please yeah

2:45:35 ↗ yes I'm miss Cory and this this may have

2:45:38 ↗ just been an issue with the way this

2:45:39 ↗ previous exhibit exhibit s52 was

2:45:42 ↗ distributed but at least in our copy it

2:45:45 ↗ appears that it's the same document

2:45:47 ↗ identically reproduced six times over it

2:45:50 ↗ was that that may be the case and it

2:45:53 ↗ could just be that that's how it was

2:45:56 ↗ provided to us so when it printed out it

2:45:58 ↗ was a repeat okay yeah those aren't

2:46:00 ↗ intended to be different things no not

2:46:04 ↗ my intention thank you

2:46:11 ↗ okay so we're turning to s 53 now Tia

2:46:16 ↗ can you please explain what the document

2:46:18 ↗ is s 53

2:46:32 ↗ yes so this is an email to Keith Nevin

2:46:38 ↗ from me and copied on it our Lucy

2:46:42 ↗ slummin and Gary young and it is

2:46:45 ↗ regarding the replacement regulations

2:46:47 ↗ and it's dated September 25 2017 and

2:46:55 ↗ this was in response to the packet that

2:47:00 ↗ came out just several days before the

2:47:03 ↗ hearing on the proposed replacement

2:47:06 ↗ regulations the city had added a new

2:47:11 ↗ section to the replacement regulations

2:47:13 ↗ that was to propose a minimum floor area

2:47:18 ↗ ratio or far of one that has major

2:47:27 ↗ impacts on the develop ability of our

2:47:31 ↗ property and it was literally inserted

2:47:36 ↗ into the replacement regulations with no

2:47:40 ↗ explanation other than a sentence that

2:47:42 ↗ said we inserted a minimum fer so this

2:47:48 ↗ is my email to Keith

2:47:51 ↗ asking him where this was coming from

2:47:54 ↗ why they were doing it

2:47:57 ↗ questioning whether they had allowed

2:48:02 ↗ time for adequate discussion or review

2:48:04 ↗ by the PPC which is the planning policy

2:48:09 ↗ Commission which was the entity that was

2:48:12 ↗ holding the hearing and pointing out

2:48:17 ↗ that it the the entire concept of a

2:48:19 ↗ minimum fer was entirely inconsistent

2:48:22 ↗ with what staff had been repeatedly

2:48:24 ↗ telling us and the public about what was

2:48:28 ↗ going to guide the new zoning

2:48:30 ↗ regulations and it would it would

2:48:33 ↗ require development that was very

2:48:36 ↗ different from the development that was

2:48:39 ↗ allowed under the Issaquah Highlands

2:48:44 ↗ development

2:48:47 ↗ we asked if the city had done any

2:48:49 ↗ studies or analysis of the consequences

2:48:52 ↗ of imposing such an fer and sort of

2:48:56 ↗ where where did that number come from it

2:49:03 ↗ was not something that we had heard from

2:49:06 ↗ residents that they wanted so it was

2:49:09 ↗ really it was really a shock and we were

2:49:12 ↗ questioning that as a practical matter

2:49:16 ↗ how does floor area ratio or if they are

2:49:19 ↗ how does that work what does it mean

2:49:21 ↗ so floor area ratio basically if you

2:49:25 ↗ have a floor area ratio of 1 it means

2:49:27 ↗ that your building area or your the area

2:49:31 ↗ of your building the square footage of

2:49:33 ↗ your building needs to equal the square

2:49:34 ↗ footage of your lot so in really simple

2:49:38 ↗ terms if you had a 10,000 square foot

2:49:40 ↗ lot you'd have to have a 10,000 square

2:49:41 ↗ foot building what gets complicated is

2:49:46 ↗ that there are other requirements that

2:49:49 ↗ take up portions of your lot so you

2:49:51 ↗ might need to have setbacks or you might

2:49:53 ↗ need to have parking or you might need

2:49:55 ↗ to have open space or plazas or whatever

2:49:58 ↗ and so now all of a sudden single storey

2:50:02 ↗ developments not an option and maybe

2:50:04 ↗ even two-story developments not an

2:50:07 ↗ option

2:50:08 ↗ and depending on the regulations and the

2:50:09 ↗ lot size maybe even three-story

2:50:11 ↗ developments not an option so it it has

2:50:14 ↗ a huge impact on what you can do with

2:50:19 ↗ the property and it's it's basically

2:50:22 ↗ comparing the lot size to the building

2:50:24 ↗ size here it was aimed at preventing

2:50:36 ↗ retail development on our property and

2:50:40 ↗ that that later was the reason given by

2:50:44 ↗ mr. Nibin at the PPC hearing and the PPC

2:50:49 ↗ that's the planning policy commission

2:50:51 ↗ yes

2:50:59 ↗ what impact is and you alluded to this a

2:51:01 ↗ minute ago but what impact is a floor

2:51:03 ↗ area ratio of 1.0 have on the projects

2:51:06 ↗ that shelters proposing all of them well

2:51:17 ↗ I guess all of them with the exception

2:51:19 ↗ of the storage facility would not meet

2:51:22 ↗ the minimum floor area ratio of 1 and so

2:51:29 ↗ to give you some context the I mean

2:51:32 ↗ obviously the retail doesn't meet it

2:51:35 ↗ with multiple buildings spread out

2:51:37 ↗ you're not going to meet that kind of

2:51:39 ↗ floor area ratio and retail development

2:51:40 ↗ is not consistent with a floor area of 1

2:51:44 ↗ unless you're talking about in

2:51:45 ↗ constructing an indoor shopping center

2:51:48 ↗ mall type development which is not

2:51:51 ↗ something that anybody is really

2:51:53 ↗ building these days the the medical

2:51:57 ↗ office building which is actually quite

2:51:59 ↗ dense and has structured parking doesn't

2:52:03 ↗ meet a minimum fer of one the the

2:52:07 ↗ Microsoft the original Microsoft plan

2:52:10 ↗ for the the 63 acres in Issaquah

2:52:14 ↗ Highlands did not meet an F AR of one it

2:52:18 ↗ was like an F AR of 0.44 so this

2:52:21 ↗ represented a huge change in vision that

2:52:24 ↗ was being put forward by staff at the

2:52:26 ↗ last minute we felt in response to

2:52:29 ↗ having been informed that we had retail

2:52:34 ↗ and other sdp applications coming in so

2:52:38 ↗ how close in time was your communication

2:52:41 ↗ to the city that you were going to be

2:52:42 ↗ doing these SDP and as2 key applications

2:52:44 ↗ to the change in the FA are within two

2:52:48 ↗ weeks I believe so we met with the city

2:52:50 ↗ to inform them of the site development

2:52:54 ↗ permit applications and at that point we

2:52:57 ↗ were only certain as to that we were

2:53:00 ↗ going to be submitting to so we knew

2:53:02 ↗ that we were going to do the retail and

2:53:03 ↗ we knew that we were going to do the

2:53:05 ↗ medical office and we had described the

2:53:08 ↗ retail

2:53:09 ↗ - Keith explaining that it would be

2:53:13 ↗ pretty similar to the Grand Ridge

2:53:15 ↗ shopping center that's already up there

2:53:17 ↗ and would be complementary to those uses

2:53:19 ↗ so he knew exactly what the range of

2:53:23 ↗ possible fer was for our proposal while

2:53:30 ↗ we're on the topic what are what other

2:53:33 ↗ regulations and the replacement

2:53:35 ↗ regulations prevent development of

2:53:38 ↗ shelters property if they were to apply

2:53:41 ↗ the other major issue for us just from a

2:53:45 ↗ development standard perspective with

2:53:48 ↗ the replacement regulations is the

2:53:50 ↗ structured parking requirement so the

2:53:56 ↗ the replacement regulations basically

2:54:00 ↗ wrap in the central Issaquah parking

2:54:04 ↗ requirements for Issaquah highlands

2:54:07 ↗ which have structured structured parking

2:54:10 ↗ required for office buildings of very

2:54:15 ↗ small I think it's like five thousand

2:54:17 ↗ square feet and above and and also

2:54:20 ↗ require it for retail which there's

2:54:22 ↗ really no other jurisdiction that the

2:54:25 ↗ staff could find an example of that

2:54:28 ↗ required structured parking for retail

2:54:29 ↗ because it's not it's just not a viable

2:54:33 ↗ use like that

2:54:35 ↗ so the structured parking is the other

2:54:38 ↗ major thing and then the the way that

2:54:40 ↗ the - the FA are the minimum fer and the

2:54:44 ↗ structured parking interplay is a

2:54:48 ↗ problem because the if you have to build

2:54:52 ↗ structured parking on your lot that

2:54:55 ↗ obviously takes up a portion of your lot

2:54:57 ↗ but the way that the code the Issaquah

2:55:01 ↗ code is drafted you don't get floor area

2:55:04 ↗ credit for a structured parking so it

2:55:07 ↗ essentially makes you have to build even

2:55:09 ↗ taller building and that was a good

2:55:12 ↗ clarification to make this FA are of 1.0

2:55:14 ↗ that's a minimum fer versus a maximum or

2:55:18 ↗ something else and so can you describe

2:55:19 ↗ as a minimum what that means on a

2:55:22 ↗ property

2:55:23 ↗ yeah I mean as a minimum if you were

2:55:27 ↗ treating our property all as one lot

2:55:30 ↗ which it is today because our pots not

2:55:32 ↗ processed

2:55:33 ↗ you'd have to propose 900,000 some

2:55:37 ↗ square feet of development as a minimum

2:55:42 ↗ is that viable on shelters property no

2:55:47 ↗ unless you were gonna do residential can

2:55:50 ↗ you do nine well however many numbers of

2:55:53 ↗ residential those I got very big unit

2:55:56 ↗ since we only have three three units of

2:56:00 ↗ available there so no it's not viable

2:56:09 ↗ let's turn to your meeting minutes again

2:56:13 ↗ and we're gonna be looking at the

2:56:19 ↗ September 26th meeting

2:56:31 ↗ so who who attended this September 26th

2:56:36 ↗ meeting 2017 so it looks like that was

2:56:42 ↗ James and David from Collins Worman

2:56:46 ↗ mark velde from Kay PFF Matt P would be

2:56:51 ↗ Matt Porteous from Hewitt and they were

2:56:54 ↗ the landscape architect lucy Sloman jean

2:56:58 ↗ lynn and doug schlep and myself and what

2:57:02 ↗ were you discussing at this meeting what

2:57:04 ↗ was the purpose of meeting this would be

2:57:07 ↗ the medical office building that we were

2:57:10 ↗ discussing I'm trying to think if this

2:57:18 ↗ would have been the collaborative

2:57:22 ↗ meeting or if it would have I think it

2:57:24 ↗ would have been the collaborative

2:57:25 ↗ meeting the one that was trying to be

2:57:29 ↗ scheduled by David and the email that we

2:57:31 ↗ were just talking about right and so

2:57:34 ↗ this happened at the end of September

2:57:50 ↗ you turn to the last page of your notes

2:57:53 ↗ there did staff in that meeting have

2:57:59 ↗ anything to say about complying with the

2:58:05 ↗ development agreement and how that was

2:58:07 ↗ going to move forward yes so at this

2:58:18 ↗ meeting miss Loman told me that she had

2:58:23 ↗ no intention of following the timeframes

2:58:25 ↗ and the development agreement and the

2:58:27 ↗ reason that she gave was that she didn't

2:58:30 ↗ have enough staff so who was the planner

2:58:34 ↗ that was assigned to this application in

2:58:37 ↗ the medical office building application

2:58:41 ↗ Jean Lin what she is she stole the

2:58:46 ↗ planner on that had she consistently

2:58:48 ↗ been the planner at the whole time yes

2:58:50 ↗ she's been our planner from from day one

2:58:55 ↗ so when Miss lemon was saying that

2:58:57 ↗ there's no staff so they couldn't comply

2:59:00 ↗ with the development agreement what was

2:59:03 ↗ she referencing to jean lin was at this

2:59:04 ↗ meeting I don't really know for sure

2:59:09 ↗ except for it did not seem like she was

2:59:12 ↗ going to let Jean process it on her own

2:59:18 ↗ if gene wasn't processing it on her own

2:59:22 ↗ what's what's your understanding of what

2:59:25 ↗ it might look like to have somebody else

2:59:27 ↗ in that process well I think that that

2:59:32 ↗ lucy was going to continue to

2:59:34 ↗ participate in the reviews and i don't

2:59:37 ↗ really know what it looked like behind

2:59:38 ↗ the scenes other than from the notes

2:59:41 ↗ that we have from from jean or it seemed

2:59:44 ↗ like lucy was giving her direction so

2:59:47 ↗ let's um turn back to you those notes we

2:59:50 ↗ had brought them up a little while ago

2:59:55 ↗ I want to make sure I got the number

3:00:00 ↗ right it should be it s 47 now in our

3:00:04 ↗ record yes

3:00:29 ↗ so dismiss miss Lin Jean Lin discussed

3:00:33 ↗ the medical office building at all in

3:00:35 ↗ her notes she does she has a page that

3:00:38 ↗ says 9 26 17 med office collaboration

3:00:44 ↗ and just in general can you describe

3:00:47 ↗ what she notes there

3:00:55 ↗ these just seemed to be her notes from

3:00:58 ↗ the meeting where we our consultants

3:01:02 ↗ David and James walked through what the

3:01:07 ↗ give an overview of the project Lucy had

3:01:12 ↗ questions about what would happen to the

3:01:17 ↗ entitlement and I think the her initial

3:01:21 ↗ reaction was that she was totally

3:01:25 ↗ underwhelmed by our proposal and didn't

3:01:28 ↗ like it and felt like it was way too

3:01:30 ↗ suburban so her concern was what

3:01:34 ↗ happened to the unused entitlement and

3:01:36 ↗ we talked about the fact that it could

3:01:38 ↗ be reallocated to other blocks or that

3:01:43 ↗ there could be a future phase later we

3:01:49 ↗ went through site layout and driveways

3:01:53 ↗ and parking and fire and pedestrian

3:01:59 ↗ connections and we talked some about

3:02:02 ↗ market and how that was really driving

3:02:04 ↗ the size of our building that we can't

3:02:07 ↗ build a building that's bigger than we

3:02:09 ↗ anticipate being able to lease so in

3:02:17 ↗ terms of the next steps that were being

3:02:19 ↗ required what was the next step

3:02:21 ↗ according to the city in this meeting

3:02:25 ↗ they made it clear that that pre-op was

3:02:28 ↗ required and that that would be the next

3:02:30 ↗ step would it pre-op be required under

3:02:33 ↗ the development agreement No

3:02:51 ↗ let's turn back to your meeting minutes

3:02:54 ↗ and look at the September 28th 2017

3:02:59 ↗ meeting are you talking about my notes

3:03:10 ↗ from the PPC hearing on September 28th

3:03:13 ↗ yes okay so was this the PPC hearing

3:03:20 ↗ that you mentioned a moment ago where

3:03:22 ↗ the FA are the new FA our regulations

3:03:26 ↗ were introduced yes it was if you flip

3:03:34 ↗ to the second page of your notes from

3:03:37 ↗ that meeting I'm looking at the fifth

3:03:43 ↗ bullet point down what did director

3:03:48 ↗ Nevin have to say about minimum FA are

3:03:51 ↗ and how that might be used sorry you're

3:03:55 ↗ on the second page yeah I'm looking at

3:03:57 ↗ page two and it's about halfway down the

3:04:01 ↗ page okay

3:04:12 ↗ [Music]

3:04:14 ↗ let's see he said that when the

3:04:19 ↗ replacement regulations ended that there

3:04:21 ↗ would be no more master developer to

3:04:23 ↗ guide the vision and that Grand Ridge

3:04:31 ↗ Plaza was no good but luckily they

3:04:33 ↗ pushed for one parking deck and that the

3:04:36 ↗ minimum fer just gives them another tool

3:04:40 ↗ and that they can't the city can't stop

3:04:44 ↗ single-story retail development without

3:04:46 ↗ imposing this minimum fer actually

3:04:53 ↗ please just read that into the record

3:04:55 ↗ sure Keith said now that there is no

3:04:58 ↗ more master developer to guide so

3:05:00 ↗ without standards

3:05:02 ↗ you can't guide a property owner to

3:05:04 ↗ implement the vision Grand Ridge Plaza

3:05:06 ↗ is no good but luckily we pushed for one

3:05:08 ↗ parking deck minimum fer just gives us

3:05:11 ↗ another tool we can't stop single-story

3:05:14 ↗ retail without it so at this point in

3:05:19 ↗ time was the city aware of shelters

3:05:23 ↗ single-story retail project yes

3:05:28 ↗ were there any other single-story retail

3:05:30 ↗ projects and the use of Islands well I

3:05:34 ↗ mean there's the existing Grand Ridge

3:05:35 ↗ Plaza development but it's built I guess

3:05:38 ↗ they were had one one more building to

3:05:40 ↗ go at that point in time but no this was

3:05:42 ↗ entirely for our property aimed at our

3:05:47 ↗ property

3:06:17 ↗ [Applause]

3:06:30 ↗ all right so the next exhibit is going

3:06:33 ↗ to be s54

3:06:46 ↗ [Applause]

3:06:52 ↗ see oh can you describe the document at

3:06:55 ↗ s54 please I believe that this was the

3:07:02 ↗ initial drawing or sketch that we used

3:07:07 ↗ for the city collaboration meeting for

3:07:11 ↗ the retail development okay and so the

3:07:15 ↗ area that's highlighted in red is that

3:07:18 ↗ just one portion of shelters property

3:07:21 ↗ right that's one portion of our property

3:07:23 ↗ and that's the portion on which the

3:07:25 ↗ retail sdp sits approximately and who at

3:07:30 ↗ the bottom corner there it says fuller

3:07:31 ↗ Sears architects who are they so fuller

3:07:35 ↗ Sears architects are the architect that

3:07:37 ↗ we hired to help us with our retail site

3:07:44 ↗ development permit application they're

3:07:47 ↗ very experienced in retail development

3:07:50 ↗ they have since been acquired by mg2 so

3:07:54 ↗ in some of the materials you'll see

3:07:55 ↗ fuller Sears kind of fade off and be

3:07:58 ↗ replaced by mg - but it's the same

3:08:00 ↗ project team that is working for us and

3:08:03 ↗ they're working on just the retail sdp

3:08:06 ↗ correct what's the date of this document

3:08:13 ↗ it is October 2nd 2017 you recall when

3:08:18 ↗ the collaboration meeting for retail

3:08:21 ↗ took place

3:08:25 ↗ I don't though I would suspect I have

3:08:27 ↗ meet meeting notes from it maybe was it

3:08:33 ↗ roughly around that date I would assume

3:08:35 ↗ so I think in cs6

3:08:44 ↗ um so exhibit s6 was a previously a

3:08:51 ↗ minute exhibit I'll represent that this

3:08:54 ↗ was a chart prepared by miss Loman and

3:08:56 ↗ it shows the collaboration meeting date

3:08:59 ↗ for the retail SDPs

3:09:03 ↗ n3 2017 is that consistent with your

3:09:07 ↗ memory of when that happened yes so and

3:09:14 ↗ again but this was a collaboration

3:09:16 ↗ meeting so is this a stuff that was

3:09:19 ↗ required by the development agreement or

3:09:21 ↗ was it something that the city was

3:09:22 ↗ requiring no it's not required by the

3:09:25 ↗ development agreement but it was

3:09:27 ↗ required by city staff

3:09:56 ↗ yeah

3:10:22 ↗ okay so I'd like to turn to Exhibit C 13

3:10:43 ↗ so I'm moving forward in the chronology

3:10:47 ↗ of things and what is this document at C

3:10:52 ↗ 13 this is the complete application

3:10:56 ↗ determination for our preliminary plot

3:11:02 ↗ McCall when this was received I don't

3:11:06 ↗ recall the exact date but I know it was

3:11:08 ↗ sometime in October of 2017 but it's

3:11:12 ↗ dated August 11th 2017 which is the date

3:11:16 ↗ on which it should have been deemed

3:11:18 ↗ complete or what actually it was deemed

3:11:21 ↗ complete because the city hadn't

3:11:25 ↗ requested any additional information and

3:11:29 ↗ is that is that pursuant to appendix L

3:11:34 ↗ that you're making that determination

3:11:35 ↗ that the city it would have been

3:11:37 ↗ complete because the city hadn't

3:11:38 ↗ provided any feedback by that date yes

3:11:43 ↗ why did it take so long or what's your

3:11:45 ↗ understanding of why it took so long to

3:11:47 ↗ get this complete application

3:11:49 ↗ determination I'm not really sure I know

3:11:53 ↗ that Dave Katyn our consultant had had

3:11:58 ↗ various email exchanges with gene Linn

3:12:01 ↗ asking for the determination at one

3:12:04 ↗ point she indicated that she had deemed

3:12:07 ↗ it complete as of a different date

3:12:09 ↗ August 23rd or something but then just

3:12:12 ↗ hadn't gotten around to writing it up

3:12:15 ↗ but promised it would be coming and we

3:12:16 ↗ just didn't get it to October and then

3:12:18 ↗ she noted when she sent it that it had

3:12:20 ↗ been back dated to August which was when

3:12:23 ↗ it should have been issued

3:12:31 ↗ turning back to your meeting minutes

3:12:33 ↗ let's look at the meeting that happened

3:12:35 ↗ on October 12th of 2017

3:12:43 ↗ [Applause]

3:13:03 ↗ do you recall what the purpose of this

3:13:07 ↗ meeting was and who it was with

3:13:10 ↗ this was a meeting with Keith Nibin and

3:13:14 ↗ it would have been myself and most

3:13:20 ↗ likely Gary attending with me and it

3:13:24 ↗ could have been Eric Evans but I think

3:13:26 ↗ it was Gary and the the main topic I

3:13:35 ↗ think was mostly having to do with the

3:13:40 ↗ replacement regulations and what had had

3:13:47 ↗ gone on and was going on with those at

3:13:49 ↗ the time so you know the recommendation

3:13:53 ↗ for an FA are one the director niven

3:13:59 ↗ indicate where that FA are at one point

3:14:01 ↗ I was coming from well yeah I mean he

3:14:06 ↗ had explained that the FA are of one

3:14:09 ↗ came from basically looking at the area

3:14:12 ↗ of our property and the maximum

3:14:15 ↗ development and thinking that he thought

3:14:18 ↗ he should get at least half of the

3:14:20 ↗ maximum so that equaled about a1 and so

3:14:22 ↗ he just went with that and there was no

3:14:24 ↗ study behind it or anything but that the

3:14:28 ↗ city was afraid that all we would do was

3:14:31 ↗ retail and so that's why they were

3:14:32 ↗ imposing it so it was your understanding

3:14:36 ↗ from this meeting that that fer came it

3:14:38 ↗ was developed specifically because of

3:14:40 ↗ shelters property and proposed

3:14:42 ↗ developments from this meeting and from

3:14:45 ↗ the the PPC hearing and then later from

3:14:49 ↗ other meetings where he he also made

3:14:52 ↗ those statements

3:15:19 ↗ okay so I'm afraid we've got another one

3:15:21 ↗ of our packets of documents so we'll do

3:15:26 ↗ the same thing that we did with the last

3:15:27 ↗ in terms of doing the exhibit number and

3:15:30 ↗ then a through whatever it takes to get

3:15:32 ↗ through them so this would be exhibit s

3:15:36 ↗ 55 and the first document here would be

3:15:41 ↗ s 55 a

3:16:20 ↗ sigue what's the document at s55 a it's

3:16:25 ↗ a pre-application meeting submittal

3:16:28 ↗ requirements and what is that relate to

3:16:33 ↗ I believe this is the city's checklist

3:16:38 ↗ of submittal requirements that have to

3:16:41 ↗ be submitted prior to scheduling a

3:16:43 ↗ pre-application meeting and I'll

3:16:49 ↗ represent just so that we can keep

3:16:51 ↗ things in context that these were

3:16:53 ↗ documents related to the medical office

3:16:55 ↗ building application I like to introduce

3:17:01 ↗ exhibit s55 II

3:17:17 ↗ can you describe what the document is

3:17:20 ↗ that s 55v

3:17:21 ↗ this is a project narrative for our

3:17:25 ↗ medical office building site or

3:17:29 ↗ administrative site development permit

3:17:30 ↗ what's the date document October 23rd

3:17:34 ↗ 2017 do you recall is that when the free

3:17:40 ↗ application was submitted for the

3:17:41 ↗ medical office building yes that sounds

3:17:45 ↗ about right and so what is the project

3:17:48 ↗ narrative provide for I mean what sorts

3:17:52 ↗ of details does it give it gives a basic

3:17:56 ↗ project description and where it is and

3:17:59 ↗ how access works and then it gives also

3:18:04 ↗ an analysis of how it meets the

3:18:06 ↗ traditional townscape neighborhood

3:18:08 ↗ guidelines this one also has a section

3:18:14 ↗ about how the project is a good neighbor

3:18:16 ↗ to the polygon homes development to the

3:18:19 ↗ north because that was something that

3:18:22 ↗ the city had asked us to include next

3:18:33 ↗ we've got s 55 C then what is the

3:18:38 ↗ document at s 55 C this is just the

3:18:43 ↗ brief project description

3:18:55 ↗ then next one is s55 d and this is the

3:19:06 ↗ land use permit application form for the

3:19:11 ↗ pre-application okay and so that one

3:19:14 ↗ just to clarify that's for a

3:19:15 ↗ reapplication

3:19:17 ↗ but it's using land use permit

3:19:20 ↗ application form correct and remind us

3:19:25 ↗ so when when the city of Issaquah

3:19:28 ↗ requires a free application what's the

3:19:32 ↗ difference between that and a full

3:19:34 ↗ application it has somewhat less

3:19:41 ↗ requirements but it's still a really

3:19:43 ↗ extensive package that you submit as as

3:19:47 ↗ a preliminary land use application

3:19:49 ↗ package okay the next one is s 55 e

3:20:13 ↗ what is the document @s 55e so this is

3:20:17 ↗ the the main projects a middle document

3:20:22 ↗ so this is for the medical office

3:20:26 ↗ building and it has you know site views

3:20:30 ↗ and off site views and gives orientation

3:20:34 ↗ to other natural and man-made features

3:20:36 ↗ around the site and more photo views and

3:20:41 ↗ goes through site access opportunities

3:20:43 ↗ and constraints bike in pedestrian

3:20:47 ↗ circulation vehicular circulation

3:20:53 ↗ there's several pages of that it goes

3:20:56 ↗ through parking calculation and layout

3:21:01 ↗ it shows existing site views along

3:21:05 ↗ various streets and then has some

3:21:12 ↗ drawings that give the sort of bulk and

3:21:16 ↗ scale as compared to neighboring

3:21:18 ↗ developments and then there's an

3:21:25 ↗ engineering component as well as

3:21:28 ↗ building and parking inspiration photos

3:21:32 ↗ that are included in there near the back

3:21:36 ↗ oh and there's also landscape site

3:21:38 ↗ diagram with images so all of that was

3:21:42 ↗ included just as part of the

3:21:44 ↗ pre-application correct so next we have

3:21:49 ↗ s 55 F

3:21:56 ↗ what is this document now this is the

3:21:59 ↗ transmittal cover sheet from Collins

3:22:01 ↗ Worman to the city of Issaquah

3:22:20 ↗ then s 55g looks like

3:22:35 ↗ another title policy what's this this is

3:22:41 ↗ again a title commitment or a

3:22:45 ↗ subdivision guarantee that's required to

3:22:48 ↗ be submitted with the application

3:22:51 ↗ materials so they can see the state of

3:22:55 ↗ title and any exceptions there too and

3:23:03 ↗ so you've mentioned earlier that October

3:23:07 ↗ 23rd 2017 that sounds like the right

3:23:10 ↗ date for the pre-application submittal

3:23:16 ↗ at s55 H is going to be the next exhibit

3:23:28 ↗ what's the what's the date of this

3:23:31 ↗ communication and and what is it

3:23:41 ↗ this is an email from jean lin to david

3:23:44 ↗ holmes and it is when she sent the

3:23:51 ↗ pre-application comments for the medical

3:23:54 ↗ office building to david so that

3:23:57 ↗ happened on friday december 29th 2017 so

3:24:03 ↗ submitted on october 23rd of 2017 and

3:24:07 ↗ received comments back on December 29th

3:24:11 ↗ of 2017 correct is a much longer time

3:24:16 ↗ frame for these than we had experienced

3:24:18 ↗ for our preliminary plot in terms of

3:24:24 ↗ receiving comments back on the

3:24:28 ↗ pre-application correct

3:25:16 ↗ okay so I need to go through a similar

3:25:20 ↗ exercise for the other project that was

3:25:23 ↗ pending at this time that was being

3:25:24 ↗ submitted I have another packet of

3:25:26 ↗ documents it's 9:55 right now so I want

3:25:30 ↗ to be respectful of your time would you

3:25:32 ↗ prefer that I wait or should we try to

3:25:34 ↗ get through this packet it's it's going

3:25:38 ↗ to be a similar thing to what we just

3:25:39 ↗ went through and it looks like it's one

3:25:41 ↗ two three four or five documents so can

3:25:45 ↗ you do that in about 15 minutes I think

3:25:47 ↗ so let's give it a go let's go for it

3:25:49 ↗ let's go a little longer thank you okay

3:26:01 ↗ so um I'll represent also around this

3:26:06 ↗ time was your retail application it is

3:26:09 ↗ October 23rd sound like the date that

3:26:12 ↗ that free application was submitted for

3:26:15 ↗ that as well yes and so these this

3:26:19 ↗ packet of documents is going to be s56

3:26:23 ↗ and we'll start with us 56 a

3:26:49 ↗ yeah will you please describe the

3:26:51 ↗ document at s56 a yes this is the main

3:26:57 ↗ project component of our retail SDP

3:27:06 ↗ application or pre-op pre application

3:27:11 ↗ the application pre-application so this

3:27:14 ↗ would have been the one around the

3:27:15 ↗ October 23rd timeframe right it's dated

3:27:18 ↗ October 23rd 2017 and you can see that

3:27:21 ↗ fuller Sears had been replaced by mg2

3:27:24 ↗ logo on it at that point okay and then

3:27:28 ↗ the next exhibit is f56

3:27:31 ↗ B or s56 B excuse me and what is this

3:27:39 ↗ document this is the project narrative

3:27:45 ↗ for the pre application for the retail

3:27:50 ↗ SDP

3:27:58 ↗ and in general what was what was being

3:28:00 ↗ proposed for the retail project the the

3:28:09 ↗ retail project had 11 buildings over

3:28:13 ↗ five Lots and was very similar in nature

3:28:19 ↗ and intended to be complimentary of the

3:28:22 ↗ existing grand bridge Plaza shopping

3:28:23 ↗ center that's across the street so the

3:28:28 ↗ next exhibit is f56

3:28:30 ↗ see or I'm sorry I keep saying F s 56c

3:28:34 ↗ and this is the land use permit

3:28:38 ↗ application for the pre-application for

3:28:41 ↗ the retail sdp

3:29:12 ↗ right and then F or s my brain is

3:29:17 ↗ getting tired at 10 o'clock p.m. s 56 D

3:29:32 ↗ what's the document at at s 56 D this

3:29:39 ↗ appears to be a schedule of land use

3:29:41 ↗ permit fees so is it your understanding

3:29:45 ↗ from looking at that that those fees go

3:29:47 ↗ to the preliminary application I would

3:29:53 ↗ assume so if it was part of our

3:29:54 ↗ preliminary application submittal I

3:30:02 ↗ think we've reached a good place to stop

3:30:05 ↗ in terms of those exhibits that would

3:30:06 ↗ close out s 56 appreciate that given

3:30:19 ↗ that we've reached our agreed-upon time

3:30:23 ↗ of adjournment the public hearing the

3:30:26 ↗ public hearing tonight on tonight's

3:30:29 ↗ agenda will be continued to a special

3:30:34 ↗ meeting of the Commission occurring

3:30:37 ↗ tomorrow February 6 and the in the

3:30:40 ↗ council chambers starting at 6:30 and so

3:30:45 ↗ now the meeting is adjourned thank you

3:31:02 ↗ 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 (15)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Keith Niven

Econ. & Dev. Srcs. Dir. Mel Morgan

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 Randolph 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