Development Commission - Special Meeting - 06 F · Wednesday, February 6, 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…

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 ↗

3937 segments .txt ↗

0:28 ↗ okay uh we are on the air i'd like to

0:31 ↗ welcome everybody to the special meeting

0:34 ↗ of uh

0:35 ↗ concerning the isco highlands retail

0:37 ↗ site development permit the issaquah

0:39 ↗ highlands medical office administrative

0:41 ↗ site development permit and the issaquah

0:43 ↗ highlands self-storage administrative

0:45 ↗ site development permit

0:47 ↗ remind everybody that we are being

0:49 ↗ recorded

0:50 ↗ and so if we could everybody could speak

0:52 ↗ up and make sure you lean into the

0:54 ↗ microphone so we can hear well that

0:55 ↗ would be really helpful

0:57 ↗ and with that i'll just uh check miss

1:00 ↗ carray

1:01 ↗ yeah ray hey ray we'll turn the time

1:04 ↗ over to you thank you um we'd like to

1:06 ↗ recall tia to continue her testimony

1:16 ↗ um so tia do you acknowledge that you

1:18 ↗ were still testifying under oath you

1:19 ↗ were sworn in a few nights ago i am okay

1:22 ↗ um do you like to pick up where we left

1:24 ↗ off yesterday evening

1:28 ↗ and just to bring us back to where we

1:30 ↗ were at in time it was um roughly after

1:33 ↗ we'd gotten through the two

1:34 ↗ two applications the medical office

1:36 ↗ building

1:37 ↗ and then also the retail

1:38 ↗ pre-applications that were submitted and

1:40 ↗ we kind of ended on that note okay

1:43 ↗ so i wanted to turn next going back to

1:45 ↗ your meeting minutes

1:48 ↗ binder to a meeting that happened on

1:50 ↗ october 24th

1:53 ↗ will 2017.

1:53 ↗ flip to that for me please

2:03 ↗ [Applause]

2:11 ↗ [Applause]

2:23 ↗ oh my goodness

2:28 ↗ okay

2:30 ↗ um

2:31 ↗ what what was the meeting that happened

2:32 ↗ on october 24th of 2017

2:39 ↗ um i believe this was the collaborative

2:41 ↗ meeting for

2:43 ↗ our storage application

2:45 ↗ okay and if you turn to

2:47 ↗ the third the final page of your notes

2:50 ↗ there

2:51 ↗ what did ms slowman have to say about

2:53 ↗ the

2:54 ↗ preliminary application process for

2:57 ↗ for sdp asdp applications

3:04 ↗ um well she

3:06 ↗ maintained her position that pre-ops

3:08 ↗ were required

3:10 ↗ um and she referenced that they may be

3:12 ↗ called something else in the development

3:13 ↗ agreement are you aware of anywhere else

3:15 ↗ in the development agreement where

3:17 ↗ pre-apps are

3:18 ↗ referenced or required for sdps or

3:20 ↗ asdp's

3:21 ↗ no

3:22 ↗ there's no

3:23 ↗ steps before the application called out

3:26 ↗ in the development agreement

3:29 ↗ what

3:30 ↗ what role does arc arc

3:34 ↗ i think you described it to me in the

3:35 ↗ architectural review committee last

3:37 ↗ night

3:38 ↗ what role do they play in all of this

3:42 ↗ so the architectural review committee is

3:45 ↗ a committee or commission i don't

3:47 ↗ remember which of the

3:50 ↗ isaqua highlands community association

3:52 ↗ and they conduct the architectural

3:54 ↗ review of anything that gets built up

3:56 ↗ there

3:58 ↗ their role

4:00 ↗ to my knowledge is separate from the

4:02 ↗ city process although i think that they

4:04 ↗ the city and

4:06 ↗ ihca have

4:09 ↗ created a process where they overlap

4:11 ↗ some

4:12 ↗ and i know on our applications we were

4:15 ↗ required to submit arc approvals which

4:18 ↗ we did for all of our applications

4:21 ↗ um

4:23 ↗ early on in the process

4:27 ↗ all right and i'd like to turn next to

4:29 ↗ exhibit s31

4:31 ↗ um it should be in your binder here yeah

4:53 ↗ okay

4:54 ↗ can you describe

4:56 ↗ what the document is at s31 please

5:02 ↗ um

5:03 ↗ this is a letter dated october 25th 2017

5:09 ↗ and it is addressed to mr james haney at

5:12 ↗ ogden murphy wallace and it is from

5:15 ↗ [Music]

5:16 ↗ patrick

5:18 ↗ patrick mullaney

5:20 ↗ and what was your understanding of

5:23 ↗ the purpose of this letter

5:38 ↗ um it

5:39 ↗ it states that the purpose of this

5:41 ↗ letter is to explain

5:43 ↗ ihif commercials position on both the

5:46 ↗ vesting for the proposed zoning

5:48 ↗ and the vesting

5:50 ↗ under the grand ridge development

5:51 ↗ agreement and to solicit your input so

5:54 ↗ that both parties can hopefully obtain

5:55 ↗ clarity and reach timely agreement on

5:57 ↗ the applicable vesting rules and process

6:01 ↗ um and then if you turn to page four of

6:03 ↗ that letter

6:06 ↗ and i should have asked this at the

6:07 ↗ outset um did you receive a copy of this

6:09 ↗ letter at this time were you aware of

6:11 ↗ the letter yes i did

6:13 ↗ um and so on page four they're in

6:16 ↗ section b

6:17 ↗ um can you read that first sentence in

6:20 ↗ that section

6:21 ↗ it says ihif commercial also asks the

6:24 ↗ city to confirm how it will address the

6:26 ↗ vesting and processing of ihif

6:29 ↗ commercials current and pending

6:30 ↗ pre-application

6:32 ↗ submittals so did shelter ask for an

6:36 ↗ interpretation on investing

6:38 ↗ yes that's what this letter does

6:41 ↗ was this the only time that shelter

6:42 ↗ asked for an interpretation from the

6:44 ↗ director on vesting

6:45 ↗ no i think we asked for it multiple

6:47 ↗ times both verbally and and probably in

6:50 ↗ email and

6:52 ↗ in this letter as well

6:58 ↗ let's turn back to the meeting minutes

7:01 ↗ this time looking at the meeting that

7:02 ↗ happened

7:03 ↗ on october 26th please

7:09 ↗ okay

7:13 ↗ so what was the meeting that happened on

7:16 ↗ october 26 of 2017

7:18 ↗ so this was the collaborative meeting on

7:21 ↗ our

7:24 ↗ office or sometimes called commercial or

7:27 ↗ office fit fitness

7:29 ↗ application which was on block c

7:33 ↗ so the collaborative meeting was this

7:35 ↗ the kind of the starting point for that

7:37 ↗ application yes

7:42 ↗ i'd like to introduce a new document

7:45 ↗ into

7:46 ↗ the record this is going to be s57

8:07 ↗ tia can you please describe what the

8:08 ↗ document is at s57

8:12 ↗ this is an email chain between me and

8:14 ↗ lucy sloman

8:16 ↗ so if you turn back to

8:19 ↗ in the email chain to the friday october

8:21 ↗ 27 2017 email

8:25 ↗ what did miss loman have to say

8:30 ↗ her email to me says tia the city's

8:32 ↗ position

8:33 ↗ is that the meetings we are discussing

8:35 ↗ with you are provided in the development

8:37 ↗ agreement though they have different

8:38 ↗ names they are marked optional

8:41 ↗ and that decision is at our discretion

8:44 ↗ we believe they benefit everyone in

8:46 ↗ improving the conformance of the sdp

8:49 ↗ submittal to the development agreement

8:51 ↗ regards lucy

8:53 ↗ let's go up to

8:55 ↗ your response the next email in this

8:57 ↗ chain

8:59 ↗ um

9:00 ↗ it stated 10 30 2017. um what was your

9:04 ↗ response to ms loman's email

9:09 ↗ [Music]

9:10 ↗ well we i thanked her for

9:12 ↗ her response

9:16 ↗ and disagreed with her interpretation

9:19 ↗ that optional actually meant at her

9:21 ↗ discretion

9:23 ↗ um i think it's pretty clear that in in

9:25 ↗ a

9:26 ↗ code like is enacted by the development

9:29 ↗ agreement that if something were at the

9:31 ↗ discretion of the city it would say at

9:34 ↗ the discretion of the city or required

9:36 ↗ at the discretion of this

9:38 ↗ of the city and not

9:39 ↗ optional

9:41 ↗ also the

9:42 ↗ um

9:46 ↗ how's the best way to describe this the

9:47 ↗ triggering event for a pre-op

9:51 ↗ meeting

9:52 ↗ would be filing of a preliminary land

9:55 ↗ use application by the applicant so

9:59 ↗ it's something that is

10:01 ↗ necessarily in the control of of the

10:04 ↗ applicant so it would make no sense for

10:07 ↗ optional to mean

10:08 ↗ at the discretion of the city

10:12 ↗ and does the development agreement and

10:14 ↗ specifically appendix al is it your

10:16 ↗ understanding that appendix cell

10:18 ↗ provides for

10:19 ↗ any discretion in terms of whether the

10:21 ↗ city can require a collaborative or

10:23 ↗ pre-application meeting

10:25 ↗ no the development agreement is really

10:27 ↗ clear that that

10:29 ↗ is it is optional at the option of the

10:31 ↗ applicant and there's actually some

10:33 ↗ additional

10:35 ↗ text in appendix l that we cited in this

10:38 ↗ email

10:40 ↗ back to them

10:43 ↗ so after this point did you still

10:45 ↗ understand that

10:46 ↗ the pre-application meetings and the

10:48 ↗ collaborative meetings were something

10:49 ↗ that was required

10:52 ↗ i understood that

10:53 ↗ per the development agreement they were

10:56 ↗ not required but per the staff they were

10:58 ↗ being required regardless

11:06 ↗ let's turn now to

11:08 ↗ exhibit

11:09 ↗ c6 in the record

11:15 ↗ here

11:38 ↗ tia what's the document at c6

11:43 ↗ this is a

11:45 ↗ memo that was written

11:48 ↗ by

11:49 ↗ keith niven and lucy sloman and was

11:51 ↗ provided to

11:54 ↗ either landon shore or the council i'm

11:56 ↗ not sure which

11:59 ↗ i'm going to

12:00 ↗ introduce kind of to help to clarify

12:02 ↗ with that

12:03 ↗ a new exhibit which will be s58

12:07 ↗ [Applause]

12:19 ↗ um what is the document at s58

12:24 ↗ s58 is a

12:27 ↗ memo from lucy sloman and keith niven

12:29 ↗ addressed to

12:31 ↗ council landon's shore committee

12:34 ↗ and it references a number of

12:36 ↗ attachments

12:38 ↗ one of which

12:39 ↗ is called out as the vesting white paper

12:42 ↗ and i believe that the vesting white

12:44 ↗ paper is actually

12:46 ↗ the

12:47 ↗ exhibit c6

12:49 ↗ okay so that would have been an

12:50 ↗ attachment to

12:53 ↗ exhibit s58 yes

13:03 ↗ so if you scroll down or

13:05 ↗ flip through the pages in your case and

13:07 ↗ in that document to

13:11 ↗ page seven of the document

13:14 ↗ there's a section called

13:16 ↗ investing

13:18 ↗ what did the city uh indicator i guess

13:20 ↗ it was ms sloman and director niven that

13:22 ↗ were writing this memo what did they

13:24 ↗ indicate with respect to vesting at that

13:26 ↗ time

13:27 ↗ in this memo in in the memo that is

13:31 ↗ s58

13:32 ↗ um it says vesting provide a discussion

13:35 ↗ draft of

13:37 ↗ on the issues associated with vesting

13:39 ↗ and then discussion says see attachment

13:42 ↗ for and recommendation says

13:45 ↗ include the proposed vesting language

13:47 ↗ which has been slightly edited for

13:49 ↗ clarity

13:50 ↗ and then it says c 1819b

13:53 ↗ 360 for the proposed language

13:57 ↗ so let's turn to attachment 4

14:00 ↗ that this is referencing and that's

14:03 ↗ exhibit c6 that we had just pulled up

14:06 ↗ um

14:08 ↗ what did and i guess this was an

14:10 ↗ attachment from

14:12 ↗ um the city do you know who it was from

14:16 ↗ specifically

14:18 ↗ or who prepared this

14:19 ↗ my assumption was always that that keith

14:22 ↗ niven had prepared it because

14:24 ↗ he had offered at a previous meeting to

14:27 ↗ write a vesting white paper for the land

14:29 ↗ and shore committee and then this one

14:32 ↗ came out after that

14:35 ↗ so my assumption is that mr niven wrote

14:37 ↗ it

14:38 ↗ let's turn to the second page of c6

14:41 ↗ there's a section called evaluation

14:43 ↗ there

14:46 ↗ what did this white paper have to say or

14:48 ↗ what did director nibben have to say

14:50 ↗ about

14:52 ↗ investing and this west main issue that

14:54 ↗ we heard patrick mullaney testify about

15:02 ↗ well

15:03 ↗ it explains that the administrative

15:06 ↗ administration supports what's called

15:08 ↗ out in the memo as alternative to

15:12 ↗ because it's consistent with the vested

15:13 ↗ rights doctrine and

15:15 ↗ the west maine v bellevue decision

15:19 ↗ and then it goes on to state since the

15:21 ↗ administration requires a land use

15:23 ↗ permit to be issued prior to the

15:25 ↗ submittal of a building permit a

15:27 ↗ complete land use permit has alway or

15:29 ↗ has been viewed by the administration

15:33 ↗ and city attorney as part of the

15:35 ↗ building permit process

15:38 ↗ so this was totally consistent with

15:41 ↗ our understanding of vesting law and

15:45 ↗ also with all of our previous

15:47 ↗ conversations with the city and our

15:50 ↗ understanding of their both previous and

15:52 ↗ current practice with respect to vesting

15:55 ↗ throughout the city of issaquah

15:58 ↗ and

15:59 ↗ what practice was that that it was

16:01 ↗ consistent with

16:02 ↗ acknowledging that because the land use

16:05 ↗ permit is required

16:08 ↗ and

16:08 ↗ and actually because the preliminary

16:10 ↗ land use application is so extensive

16:14 ↗ that they had to recognize that vesting

16:16 ↗ occurs at complete preliminary land use

16:19 ↗ application

16:21 ↗ and that that's what

16:23 ↗ keith had told us many times verbally

16:25 ↗ and what our experience was

16:29 ↗ in the city of issaquah

16:32 ↗ so in your experience if you were to go

16:35 ↗ apply for a building permit

16:38 ↗ without a complete land use permit

16:41 ↗ what what would happen

16:44 ↗ i don't believe that a

16:45 ↗ building permit would ever have been

16:47 ↗ accepted without a land use permit

16:50 ↗ that was very clear from

16:52 ↗ both conversations with staff but also

16:54 ↗ from the

16:56 ↗ building permit submittal checklist

16:58 ↗ itself

17:00 ↗ and it i mean it just was not not an

17:04 ↗ option plus you have to understand a

17:06 ↗ building permit isn't something that you

17:08 ↗ just

17:09 ↗ do quickly it's really expensive so i

17:12 ↗ mean for one building

17:14 ↗ you're talking hundreds of thousands of

17:16 ↗ dollars to to pull together a building

17:18 ↗ permit so

17:20 ↗ um it's a it's a significant

17:23 ↗ um

17:24 ↗ it's a significant requirement and so

17:27 ↗ what the city was doing and explaining

17:29 ↗ at this point in time

17:30 ↗ made a lot of sense and makes a lot of

17:33 ↗ sense

17:41 ↗ let's you mentioned the checklist a

17:42 ↗ minute ago

17:43 ↗ let's turn to those checklists one of

17:46 ↗ them is in

17:47 ↗ the record already um as s9

17:52 ↗ um

17:53 ↗ and it should be in front of you

17:55 ↗ in this binder and this one yep

18:12 ↗ okay

18:13 ↗ okay so a minute ago you mentioned the

18:15 ↗ the checklist um is s9 the building

18:18 ↗ permit

18:19 ↗ checklist that you were referencing

18:22 ↗ it is

18:24 ↗ um and specifically what types of

18:25 ↗ projects does this one apply to so this

18:28 ↗ one is for

18:29 ↗ commercial and multi-family building

18:31 ↗ permit submittal requirements

18:33 ↗ so is this um is this the checklist that

18:36 ↗ would apply to shelters projects yes

18:40 ↗ if you scroll down um return to the

18:43 ↗ second page

18:45 ↗ um

18:47 ↗ what does it say in terms of the

18:48 ↗ pre-submittal requirements for a

18:49 ↗ building permit

18:51 ↗ well the first one is land use permit

18:53 ↗ notice of decision has been issued

18:56 ↗ there's no way that you can have a

18:57 ↗ notice of decision issued if you don't

18:59 ↗ have the permit approved so it makes

19:02 ↗ very very clear that that's a

19:05 ↗ requirement

19:06 ↗ and just to clarify for the record a

19:08 ↗ notice of decision um what's what's the

19:10 ↗ difference between that and a complete

19:12 ↗ application what can you just kind of

19:13 ↗ describe high level what that process is

19:16 ↗ yeah i notice the decision comes out

19:17 ↗ after the decision is issued and so

19:19 ↗ that's the the public notice that the

19:21 ↗ decision has happened

19:23 ↗ okay so the final decision on that

19:25 ↗ permit application correct

19:28 ↗ and then let's turn to a new exhibit

19:31 ↗ which will be s59

19:40 ↗ [Applause]

20:06 ↗ what's the document at s59

20:09 ↗ um this one is called non-residential

20:13 ↗ and multi-family construction

20:15 ↗ permit submittal requirements

20:18 ↗ so um

20:19 ↗ the title might be self-explanatory but

20:21 ↗ what types of projects would this one

20:22 ↗ apply to

20:25 ↗ um i think

20:27 ↗ anything that's

20:28 ↗ non-residential or multi-family

20:33 ↗ if you turn to the second page on this

20:34 ↗ one

20:38 ↗ what's required in terms of the

20:40 ↗ pre-submittal requirements for a

20:41 ↗ building permit for these types of

20:42 ↗ projects

20:45 ↗ it has the same the same notation that a

20:48 ↗ land use permit notice of decision has

20:50 ↗ been issued

20:54 ↗ if you go down to the very bottom of

20:56 ↗ that page what's the date of this form

21:01 ↗ this one shows a date of december

21:04 ↗ 16 2016.

21:07 ↗ and if we turn back to s9 the exhibit

21:10 ↗ you were looking at before

21:13 ↗ um

21:14 ↗ is there a date on that checklist

21:22 ↗ um it looks like there's a really light

21:25 ↗ date that says

21:30 ↗ updated september 26 2017.

21:35 ↗ okay and i'm seeing that too i'm looking

21:37 ↗ specifically at page two of the document

21:39 ↗ might have the highest quality of the

21:40 ↗ date um but

21:43 ↗ yeah okay oops and so so two different

21:45 ↗ dates on two different checklists um is

21:48 ↗ that consistent with with your

21:50 ↗ experience working in issaquah um

21:53 ↗ that

21:55 ↗ this requirement of having a land use

21:57 ↗ permit prior to building permit

22:00 ↗ was a long-standing requirement in the

22:03 ↗ city

22:04 ↗ yes i mean that's what it says in the

22:07 ↗ memo that was written by staff as well

22:09 ↗ and i think there's lots of instances of

22:11 ↗ the various public

22:13 ↗ meetings that

22:14 ↗ they spoke at leading up to the

22:16 ↗ replacement regulations adoption where

22:18 ↗ they acknowledge that

22:20 ↗ let's turn back to that memo at c

22:23 ↗ 6.

22:34 ↗ yes were you here for director niven's

22:36 ↗ testimony i was

22:38 ↗ did you hear him make reference to the

22:40 ↗ fact that um he viewed this

22:43 ↗ memo and specifically the west main

22:45 ↗ issue that's presented in it to be an

22:47 ↗ error

22:48 ↗ i did and i thought that was

22:52 ↗ a bit disingenuous given that this has

22:54 ↗ been a topic of discussion that has been

22:57 ↗ brought up over and over and over again

23:00 ↗ since the time this memo was was written

23:03 ↗ throughout the process of the

23:05 ↗ replacement regulations

23:07 ↗ we

23:08 ↗ made many comments both written and

23:12 ↗ verbal at the hearings and and meetings

23:16 ↗ about this issue and citing back to this

23:20 ↗ statement in particular and there were

23:22 ↗ many opportunities to correct it if it

23:24 ↗ were in fact in error both by mr niven

23:28 ↗ had the opportunity to correct it ms

23:30 ↗ sloman had the opportunity to correct it

23:32 ↗ and city attorney jim haney would have

23:33 ↗ had the opportunity to correct it since

23:35 ↗ it references specifically that it's

23:38 ↗ both the position

23:39 ↗ of the

23:41 ↗ administration and the

23:43 ↗ um

23:45 ↗ the city attorney

23:47 ↗ and and no one ever made that correction

23:49 ↗ no one ever made that assertion that

23:51 ↗ this was wrong

23:53 ↗ until this hearing

24:13 ↗ let's turn back to your meeting minutes

24:15 ↗ now for a moment please

24:18 ↗ i want to take a look at

24:21 ↗ a meeting that happened on november 6th

24:24 ↗ of 2017.

24:36 ↗ so can you describe um well first of all

24:39 ↗ your recollection of who was present at

24:41 ↗ that meeting on november 6

24:43 ↗ 2017.

24:46 ↗ um i believe that meeting would have

24:47 ↗ been keith niven gary young and myself

24:52 ↗ and what was the purpose of that meeting

25:14 ↗ um i believe the purpose was

25:18 ↗ to

25:18 ↗ [Music]

25:21 ↗ talk about where they were with the

25:23 ↗ replacement regulations and that process

25:27 ↗ also talk about what the potential path

25:30 ↗ forward for development of

25:34 ↗ of our property might be besides the

25:37 ↗ applications that we had pending at that

25:39 ↗ point it was it was sort of a meeting on

25:41 ↗ all the various topics that were in play

25:43 ↗ at that point in time

25:46 ↗ if you look down

25:47 ↗ in your notes there

25:50 ↗ to the fifth bullet point down

25:53 ↗ what did director niven have to say with

25:55 ↗ respect to shelter's involvement in the

25:58 ↗ replacement regulation process

26:04 ↗ so what my notes say are he asked that

26:06 ↗ we quote stop poking at us end quote

26:11 ↗ and

26:12 ↗ quote stop asking people to come speak

26:14 ↗ end quote

26:16 ↗ he said that neither staff nor counsel

26:18 ↗ are stupid and they know that people

26:20 ↗ showing up

26:21 ↗ are only showing up because we ask them

26:24 ↗ is that true that people were only

26:26 ↗ showing up because you were asking them

26:27 ↗ to show up no

26:31 ↗ and if you move further down the page

26:33 ↗ this is towards the end of the page

26:36 ↗ there some of your notes are disgusting

26:38 ↗ discussing the vesting process

26:40 ↗ um

26:41 ↗ what did director niven have to say with

26:43 ↗ respect to vesting in this meeting

26:48 ↗ again i'll just read from my notes it

26:50 ↗ says investing in process

26:52 ↗ he explained pre-op is optional but if

26:55 ↗ you elect to skip it there's no way

26:57 ↗ staff would be able to understand your

26:59 ↗ application it would be like a foreign

27:01 ↗ language and they could therefore not

27:04 ↗ determine if it was complete

27:10 ↗ what did he say about the timing of when

27:11 ↗ stp applications would best

27:14 ↗ he said that sdp applications vest and

27:17 ↗ that that happens

27:19 ↗ at the preliminary land use application

27:29 ↗ had staff given any advice to counsel at

27:32 ↗ that time in terms of what they might be

27:34 ↗ able to do with the replacement

27:35 ↗ regulations and how it would affect

27:37 ↗ vesting

27:39 ↗ yes at that meeting he told us that

27:41 ↗ staff had advised council

27:44 ↗ that they could make a

27:46 ↗ quote policy decision to retroactively

27:49 ↗ remove the vested status from

27:51 ↗ applications that were submitted

27:54 ↗ under the development agreement

27:56 ↗ we obviously objected to that and told

27:58 ↗ him that that was not something that

28:01 ↗ that council could legally do

28:04 ↗ and from your comment it sounds like

28:07 ↗ um

28:08 ↗ sounds like maybe i understand the

28:10 ↗ answer but to be clear is your

28:12 ↗ understanding that

28:14 ↗ legislation based on your experience

28:15 ↗ that legislation can retroactively strip

28:18 ↗ vested rights

28:20 ↗ no it absolutely can't the law is very

28:22 ↗ clear on that

28:37 ↗ so

28:46 ↗ all right the next exhibit will be s60

29:10 ↗ yeah will you please describe the

29:12 ↗ document at s60

29:18 ↗ this is an email from

29:21 ↗ tom goltz

29:23 ↗ to me and to patrick mullaney

29:27 ↗ tom

29:28 ↗ is or was the attorney for port blakely

29:32 ↗ the master developer under the isoqua

29:34 ↗ highlands development agreement

29:37 ↗ and um what was the the purpose of tom

29:40 ↗ gold's email why did you reach out to

29:42 ↗ him why did he respond

29:44 ↗ um we had reached out to him because we

29:46 ↗ were struggling with some of the

29:47 ↗ positions that the city was taking on

29:49 ↗ various issues um

29:51 ↗ [Music]

29:52 ↗ to sort of run through them briefly um

29:56 ↗ one was appendix l

29:59 ↗ the the city had at various points given

30:02 ↗ various different explanations as to

30:05 ↗ what the

30:06 ↗ status of exhibit or sorry appendix l to

30:09 ↗ the development agreement was and just

30:11 ↗ to refresh your memory that's the one

30:13 ↗ that deals with permit processing and

30:16 ↗ timelines

30:18 ↗ so at one point

30:21 ↗ mr niven explained to us that well

30:25 ↗ port blakely used to fund the mdrt which

30:27 ↗ was the permit review

30:31 ↗ agency uh on behalf of the city

30:34 ↗ that reviewed things in issaquah

30:35 ↗ highlands and since port blakely doesn't

30:38 ↗ fund that anymore we've decided that

30:40 ↗ appendix l no longer applies and we're

30:42 ↗ just going to apply the issaquah

30:45 ↗ municipal code

30:47 ↗ um

30:48 ↗ and so that was one of the the questions

30:50 ↗ we

30:51 ↗ asked tom about and his response was was

30:55 ↗ clear that no to his knowledge appendix

30:57 ↗ l is still in effect and there was no

30:59 ↗ there was never anything that amended it

31:01 ↗ there was um

31:02 ↗ a study that had been done

31:05 ↗ at some point by an outside consultant

31:07 ↗ and a different

31:10 ↗ funding arrangement had been tried out

31:12 ↗ but it was temporary in nature and when

31:13 ↗ it went away the default was back to

31:15 ↗ appendix l

31:17 ↗ so that was one of the issues that he

31:18 ↗ commented

31:20 ↗ on

31:21 ↗ he also responded to our question about

31:25 ↗ the optional pre-application conference

31:28 ↗ and he stated to me appendix l clearly

31:31 ↗ makes it the apple

31:33 ↗ the applicant's option and not the city

31:36 ↗ for convening a pre-application

31:37 ↗ conference

31:38 ↗ so

31:39 ↗ his position was the same as our

31:42 ↗ interpretation and and this is coming

31:44 ↗ from the guy who had been involved from

31:46 ↗ the very beginning in the drafting and

31:48 ↗ everything

31:49 ↗ else

31:50 ↗ on behalf of the master developer

31:54 ↗ there

31:55 ↗ had also been

31:57 ↗ issue

31:58 ↗ raised by the city about whether we had

32:01 ↗ rights under the development agreement

32:03 ↗ or just obligations again director niven

32:06 ↗ took the position

32:08 ↗ that we had no rights to enforce the

32:10 ↗ development agreement against the city

32:12 ↗ that we only had obligations to follow

32:15 ↗ it

32:16 ↗ and along those same lines that we

32:22 ↗ didn't have rights to

32:24 ↗ ask for an extension with respect to our

32:26 ↗ property so again he he addresses those

32:30 ↗ issues and explains to the city that

32:33 ↗ that in fact as a property owner we have

32:35 ↗ rights and also beyond that as a

32:38 ↗ designated successor which was a

32:40 ↗ specific status under the development

32:43 ↗ agreement that we had been assigned by

32:46 ↗ microsoft who had gotten it from port

32:49 ↗ blakely the master developer that we had

32:52 ↗ um rights there as well

32:55 ↗ and that um this this email was between

32:58 ↗ you and tom golds at shelter but that

33:02 ↗ position that he provided to you was

33:04 ↗ that also provided to the city

33:06 ↗ yes and i believe he wrote directly to

33:08 ↗ the city as well

33:15 ↗ let's turn now to exhibit s 33 is

33:18 ↗ already in the record

33:32 ↗ so

33:40 ↗ so this was a document that patrick

33:42 ↗ mullaney had testified about but can you

33:44 ↗ remind us and just describe us what

33:46 ↗ describe to us what this document is

33:49 ↗ yes this is a november 9 2017

33:53 ↗ letter

33:54 ↗ to

33:55 ↗ keith niven

33:56 ↗ from patrick mullaney

33:59 ↗ regarding

34:01 ↗ the grand ridge development agreement

34:02 ↗ mitigation

34:05 ↗ so with respect to mitigation why was

34:07 ↗ this letter provided by mr mullaney

34:20 ↗ i believe he had earlier provided

34:22 ↗ another letter on mitigation but again

34:25 ↗ at various times mr niven

34:27 ↗ asked for

34:29 ↗ more from

34:30 ↗ us and our attorney

34:32 ↗ on the mitigation he always would say

34:35 ↗ that he was forwarding it on to the city

34:38 ↗ attorney for

34:40 ↗ comment

34:42 ↗ and response do you recall if you

34:44 ↗ received comment and response i don't

34:46 ↗ believe we ever did

34:55 ↗ so this letter was dated november 9th

35:00 ↗ also around i'll just represent also

35:01 ↗ around that time on november 9th was

35:04 ↗ when the office sdp application was

35:06 ↗ being prepared does that sound

35:07 ↗ consistent with your memory as well

35:11 ↗ yes

35:11 ↗ so um again we have a series of exhibits

35:14 ↗ similar to last night we'll introduce

35:16 ↗ them as one

35:17 ↗ exhibit number but have separate parts a

35:19 ↗ b c d etcetera so we're going to move

35:22 ↗ through that for a minute here

35:56 ↗ all right so these are going to be

35:57 ↗ exhibit s 61.

36:06 ↗ starting with x s 61 a

36:21 ↗ tia what's the documented s61a

36:24 ↗ [Applause]

36:25 ↗ um this is

36:29 ↗ a graphic related to

36:31 ↗ our commercial office site plan for

36:34 ↗ block c

36:36 ↗ and s61b

36:41 ↗ [Applause]

36:49 ↗ and this is another graphic related to

36:51 ↗ the same

36:55 ↗ stp

36:56 ↗ the the

36:58 ↗ s61a is the first floor which shows the

37:01 ↗ health club in retail

37:03 ↗ and

37:04 ↗ s61b

37:06 ↗ shows that there's office above and also

37:09 ↗ shows parking layout and the interaction

37:12 ↗ with the

37:13 ↗ adjacent retail

37:15 ↗ okay

37:16 ↗ and then s61c

37:22 ↗ and s61c is

37:26 ↗ a title commitment or a subdivision

37:28 ↗ guarantee from first american again just

37:31 ↗ showing

37:32 ↗ ownership and

37:35 ↗ exceptions or things that are recorded

37:37 ↗ against title

37:41 ↗ and then s 61 d

37:47 ↗ s 61d is a pre-application

37:50 ↗ meeting submittal requirements checklist

38:05 ↗ and is that for

38:06 ↗ this related to the office as well

38:08 ↗ specifically

38:10 ↗ yes i would assume so

38:18 ↗ so then we have s61

38:21 ↗ e

38:26 ↗ can you describe what that document is

38:33 ↗ um

38:40 ↗ this looks like it is um

38:46 ↗ a memo that has some

38:48 ↗ some of the facts related to the

38:50 ↗ proposal for the office on block c

38:53 ↗ okay and it's specifically regarding

38:56 ↗ solid waste service

38:59 ↗ then s61f

39:05 ↗ a 61f is the brief project description

39:10 ↗ [Applause]

39:18 ↗ [Applause]

39:23 ↗ and s61g

39:30 ↗ this oops

39:31 ↗ s61g is a land use permit application

39:35 ↗ for the preliminary land use application

39:38 ↗ for the office building on block c lot

39:41 ↗ 6.

39:49 ↗ then s 61

39:53 ↗ h

40:01 ↗ so

40:02 ↗ s61h

40:04 ↗ is the

40:06 ↗ main packet of the submittal of the

40:08 ↗ preliminary

40:10 ↗ application

40:12 ↗ for block c

40:14 ↗ so again this one

40:16 ↗ has a lot of components to it it has

40:20 ↗ analysis of site views

40:22 ↗ and photo views from various points

40:27 ↗ both on and off the site

40:29 ↗ and along the frontage

40:32 ↗ it

40:33 ↗ has

40:34 ↗ mapped out the natural and man-made

40:36 ↗ features of significance that are around

40:38 ↗ the site

40:40 ↗ it deals with site access opportunities

40:43 ↗ and constraints

40:44 ↗ it deals with there's a plan that deals

40:46 ↗ with bike and pedestrian circulation

40:50 ↗ there is a plan for vehicular

40:52 ↗ circulation

40:57 ↗ there's a plan for parking

41:00 ↗ there's a plan that shows community

41:02 ↗ context

41:04 ↗ um

41:06 ↗ in in looking at the neighboring context

41:08 ↗ there's um massing drawings that show

41:11 ↗ the scale as compared to other things

41:13 ↗ both proposed and built around it

41:17 ↗ um there's several

41:20 ↗ pages of images of that

41:26 ↗ there are building inspiration photos

41:29 ↗ there

41:30 ↗ are several pages of engineering work

41:34 ↗ there's a preliminary landscape diagram

41:38 ↗ and landscape character images and

41:41 ↗ amenities

41:42 ↗ so it's a pretty significant packet

41:45 ↗ okay and then the next one um is s61i

41:53 ↗ you describe what what that is and how

41:55 ↗ it ties into what you were just looking

41:57 ↗ at at s61h

41:59 ↗ s61i

42:01 ↗ is the more complete project narrative

42:05 ↗ which

42:06 ↗ has a shorter description of the

42:07 ↗ property but it also and the project but

42:10 ↗ it also

42:12 ↗ includes

42:13 ↗ how the project conforms to the

42:15 ↗ traditional townscape neighborhood

42:17 ↗ guidelines

42:21 ↗ and it has a section

42:25 ↗ that discusses ownership and maintenance

42:27 ↗ responsibilities of the improvements as

42:30 ↗ well

42:33 ↗ and then s61j

42:39 ↗ s61j is a transmittal sheet from collins

42:42 ↗ warman who was our consultant on this

42:45 ↗ that

42:46 ↗ was the cover sheet for all of the

42:48 ↗ things that were submitted

43:05 ↗ all right and then um

43:07 ↗ this last one in this packet would be

43:09 ↗ s61k

43:25 ↗ so s 61k

43:28 ↗ is an email from jean lin our planner

43:34 ↗ our planner at the city to david holmes

43:36 ↗ our consultant contact on this project

43:39 ↗ and the email says attach please find

43:42 ↗ our pre-application comments for the

43:44 ↗ proposed office building

43:45 ↗ and this email is dated

43:48 ↗ january 16

43:50 ↗ 2018

43:52 ↗ and our pre-op submittal

43:55 ↗ transmittal sheet is dated november

43:58 ↗ 8

43:58 ↗ 2017.

44:04 ↗ so a couple of months in between

44:06 ↗ yes

44:11 ↗ okay

44:12 ↗ let's um let's turn now to um

44:16 ↗ exhibits s34 and s35

44:21 ↗ okay

44:40 ↗ so we heard um mr mullaney testify about

44:44 ↗ each of these but can you remind us what

44:46 ↗ the exhibit at s34 is

44:49 ↗ so s34 is an email to keith niven from

44:53 ↗ patrick mullaney

44:55 ↗ that references an attached

44:58 ↗ copy electronic copy of a letter

45:01 ↗ that was being mailed

45:03 ↗ on behalf of ihaf commercial

45:07 ↗ requesting a meeting per the grand ridge

45:09 ↗ development agreement dispute resolution

45:11 ↗ paragraph

45:14 ↗ and what was or what were some of the

45:17 ↗ main issues that you were concerned

45:19 ↗ about resolving through a dispute

45:20 ↗ resolution process

45:28 ↗ the issues called out in that email are

45:31 ↗ the vesting for ihifc's plat and site

45:34 ↗ development

45:36 ↗ permit preliminary applications

45:38 ↗ applicable mitigation

45:40 ↗ and the proposed far and structured

45:43 ↗ parking requirements

45:46 ↗ so then at exhibit s35

45:49 ↗ um

45:50 ↗ is this the

45:52 ↗ letter that

45:54 ↗ was attached to that email it is

46:00 ↗ and so

46:01 ↗ what is the does the letter

46:03 ↗ what does the letter do what's the

46:04 ↗ purpose of that compared to the email

46:07 ↗ the letter

46:09 ↗ was to formally invoke the dispute

46:11 ↗ resolution provision of the development

46:13 ↗ agreement which then required

46:16 ↗ a dispute resolution meeting within the

46:18 ↗ seven days following that

46:20 ↗ notice

46:22 ↗ so if you go down to the third paragraph

46:25 ↗ there

46:26 ↗ and i'm looking at on the first page and

46:28 ↗ i'm looking specifically at um the

46:31 ↗ second sentence that starts with despite

46:33 ↗ repeated requests can you read that

46:35 ↗ sentence please yes it says despite

46:38 ↗ repeated requests the city has not

46:40 ↗ acknowledged whether it considers

46:42 ↗ ihifc's

46:43 ↗ site development permit preliminary

46:45 ↗ applications vested to the development

46:47 ↗ agreement's development standards

46:51 ↗ and can you continue reading there as

46:52 ↗ well the city has also refused to follow

46:55 ↗ the city review procedures and standards

46:58 ↗ established by section 3.22.1

47:02 ↗ and appendix l for the timely processing

47:05 ↗ and complete application decisions on

47:07 ↗ ihifc's site development permit

47:10 ↗ preliminary applications

47:12 ↗ so the first sentence that you read

47:14 ↗ despite repeated requests

47:16 ↗ does that go back to what you mentioned

47:18 ↗ to me earlier in terms of asking for

47:20 ↗ interpretations on vesting is that the

47:22 ↗ same thing that it's referencing or is

47:23 ↗ it something different

47:25 ↗ yes it's generally the same thing

47:28 ↗ so this was dated um

47:31 ↗ november 15 2017. was there

47:34 ↗ a follow-up to this letter

47:37 ↗ um

47:38 ↗ there was there would have been a

47:40 ↗ meeting that that

47:41 ↗ happened after this and in response to

47:44 ↗ this there was also email communication

47:47 ↗ between mr niven and myself where

47:50 ↗ he acknowledged that our preliminary

47:52 ↗ land use applications were vested to the

47:54 ↗ development standards under the

47:55 ↗ development agreement

47:57 ↗ let's turn um to your meeting minutes

48:01 ↗ and look at the november 21st 2017

48:04 ↗ meeting

48:20 ↗ so who was present at this

48:22 ↗ meeting

48:23 ↗ um at this meeting it was keith niven

48:27 ↗ patrick mullaney

48:28 ↗ gary young and myself

48:31 ↗ and was this the meeting that you

48:33 ↗ referenced a moment ago

48:35 ↗ as a follow-up to the dispute resolution

48:36 ↗ letter

48:38 ↗ yes

48:42 ↗ what did director niven have to say

48:44 ↗ about vesting in this meeting

48:53 ↗ he told us that right now

48:56 ↗ site development preliminary land use

48:59 ↗ applications vest to the development

49:01 ↗ agreement and so that we

49:03 ↗ are

49:04 ↗ vested to the development agreement

49:07 ↗ and so can you actually i think i see

49:10 ↗ where you were referencing in your notes

49:11 ↗ can you read those two sentences that

49:13 ↗ you just paraphrased into the record

49:15 ↗ please sure so it said my notes say

49:18 ↗ right now sdp prelim apps vest to da

49:23 ↗ kn

49:24 ↗ which would be keith niven

49:27 ↗ vested now to d.a council can decide

49:31 ↗ they don't like vesting language if

49:32 ↗ council changes their mind you start

49:34 ↗ over

49:36 ↗ so that last part that you just read

49:39 ↗ what what is that referencing

49:42 ↗ this was that idea that

49:44 ↗ he had raised earlier that they had

49:47 ↗ advised council that removal of a vested

49:51 ↗ status was a policy decision that the

49:53 ↗ council was entitled to make

49:55 ↗ with respect to our

49:56 ↗ applications is that consistent with

49:59 ↗ your understanding of how vested rights

50:00 ↗ and the vesting doctrine works

50:03 ↗ no that would mean that vesting doesn't

50:05 ↗ exist as a concept because vesting

50:08 ↗ means that you serve that

50:11 ↗ your right to be considered under the

50:13 ↗ applica the

50:15 ↗ land use regulations that are in place

50:17 ↗ at the time of your complete application

50:19 ↗ survives

50:20 ↗ change of

50:22 ↗ the applicable land use standards

50:25 ↗ so if the council could change the

50:27 ↗ standards

50:28 ↗ and then also decide to remove your

50:31 ↗ vesting

50:32 ↗ your vested status

50:34 ↗ that would mean investing didn't exist

50:35 ↗ at all

50:47 ↗ if you go to the very end of your notes

50:49 ↗ there um looking at the very last

50:51 ↗ notation that you make on the last page

50:54 ↗ um

50:55 ↗ what was the follow-up from this meeting

50:59 ↗ so at this meeting

51:01 ↗ keith suggested that we because we were

51:04 ↗ asking for confirmation that we were

51:06 ↗ vested to the development agreement as

51:07 ↗ he had stated he suggested that i write

51:10 ↗ that in an email to him and that he

51:13 ↗ would confirm via email

51:16 ↗ and did you do that i did

51:19 ↗ and he did let's look at exhibit c4

51:35 ↗ so and again this is in kind of reverse

51:37 ↗ chronological order so i'm looking at

51:39 ↗ the very last pages first

51:41 ↗ um it's an email from you dated november

51:44 ↗ 21st 2017.

51:46 ↗ um was that the email that you were just

51:48 ↗ referencing

51:49 ↗ it is so you can see that that i sent

51:52 ↗ that right after the meeting that we had

51:55 ↗ and it references that we had met with

51:56 ↗ him that morning

51:59 ↗ and it asked him to confirm our

52:01 ↗ understanding that the land used perm

52:04 ↗ that our land use permit applications

52:06 ↗ have been deemed complete per appendix l

52:09 ↗ of the development agreement and are

52:10 ↗ therefore vested to

52:12 ↗ the development standards in the

52:14 ↗ development agreement

52:16 ↗ so if we look at that table then that

52:18 ↗ follows in your email

52:20 ↗ what is the table showing

52:23 ↗ the table shows all of the applications

52:26 ↗ that we had in at that point in time

52:31 ↗ and were those um

52:33 ↗ uh it looks like did this include the

52:35 ↗ plot on this list or is that a separate

52:36 ↗ issue

52:37 ↗ um it did include the plot

52:39 ↗ at that time but the plot was

52:42 ↗ at a different stage because the

52:44 ↗ full application for preliminary plot

52:46 ↗ had already been deemed complete

52:48 ↗ okay and so these were the

52:50 ↗ looks like the sdps um and asdp's

52:54 ↗ that were

52:56 ↗ at different stages at this point what

52:58 ↗ what stages were they at

53:00 ↗ um

53:02 ↗ let's see my table there

53:07 ↗ shows what

53:09 ↗ when they had been submitted so

53:11 ↗ we had

53:13 ↗ preliminary application for sdp for

53:17 ↗ the medical office which was

53:19 ↗ submitted on 10 23 17.

53:23 ↗ the

53:24 ↗ retail sdp was submitted also on 102317

53:28 ↗ and the

53:31 ↗ pre-op for the office building

53:34 ↗ was submitted on 11 9 17.

53:39 ↗ so

53:40 ↗ what what was the response that you

53:42 ↗ received to this email

53:45 ↗ so the initial response from mr niven

53:48 ↗ was just it stated

53:50 ↗ unless you have received a request from

53:52 ↗ the city staff for additional

53:53 ↗ information these applications are

53:55 ↗ viewed as

53:56 ↗ quote complete end quote per the terms

53:59 ↗ of the development agreement

54:01 ↗ and i followed up on that

54:04 ↗ again this is all on the same day

54:06 ↗ and said thanks keith we have not

54:08 ↗ received any request for additional info

54:11 ↗ i'm assuming that you mean that the

54:13 ↗ applications are complete and vested to

54:15 ↗ the development agreement as stated in

54:17 ↗ the email below

54:19 ↗ and as we discussed

54:20 ↗ in our meeting with you today please

54:23 ↗ confirm

54:24 ↗ and then

54:25 ↗ his response to that was yes

54:29 ↗ so then there's a follow-up chain um

54:33 ↗ it looks like that last email was from

54:35 ↗ keith niven to you with gary young and

54:38 ↗ patrick mullaney and lucy sloman copied

54:41 ↗ but then the next email who's that

54:43 ↗ between

54:44 ↗ then the next email is from lucy sloman

54:47 ↗ to keith niven

54:49 ↗ and she

54:50 ↗ says they aren't vested unless the

54:53 ↗ council agrees to the vesting language

54:55 ↗ i'm confused

54:58 ↗ and what was dr niven's response

55:00 ↗ his response was they are vested at this

55:03 ↗ moment under the d.a if the council

55:06 ↗ removes the proposed vesting language

55:08 ↗ they will lose their vested status

55:12 ↗ and what did miss loman say in response

55:14 ↗ she asked mr niven shouldn't that be

55:16 ↗ clear in the response

55:20 ↗ did director nevin or ms loman ever

55:22 ↗ tell you about this email chain or tell

55:24 ↗ tell you anything about the content

55:27 ↗ in terms of asking for clarity or

55:28 ↗ providing clarity and a response

55:31 ↗ no the first time that i saw this was in

55:33 ↗ this hearing

55:44 ↗ and then that email where they're

55:46 ↗ discussing where director niven says if

55:48 ↗ the council removes the proposed vesting

55:50 ↗ language they will lose their vested

55:52 ↗ status is that consistent with your

55:53 ↗ understanding of how vested rights and

55:55 ↗ the vested rights doctrine works

55:57 ↗ no because again you would be suggesting

56:00 ↗ that legislation could be retroactively

56:03 ↗ applied to remove

56:05 ↗ vested status of applications which is

56:07 ↗ very clear from the case law in

56:09 ↗ washington state that that is not

56:11 ↗ something that can be done it also would

56:13 ↗ be suggesting that

56:15 ↗ the vesting language that would apply to

56:17 ↗ our applications did not yet exist

56:20 ↗ which

56:22 ↗ is kind of an absurd concept

56:34 ↗ so about this time

56:36 ↗ november 21st of 2017

56:40 ↗ was shelter continuing to work on its

56:42 ↗ sdp submittals

56:45 ↗ yes i believe that our full sdp

56:49 ↗ applications were submitted around this

56:51 ↗ time or at least the first

56:53 ↗ couple

56:54 ↗ okay and so um

56:56 ↗ so we're going to walk through a couple

56:57 ↗ of those submittals again so

57:00 ↗ the first one that we're going to talk

57:01 ↗ about is the medical office building um

57:04 ↗ which i'll represent was november 21st

57:07 ↗ 2017 for the

57:09 ↗ final submittal is that consistent with

57:12 ↗ your understanding

57:13 ↗ that sounds right to me

57:18 ↗ so this would be um the next packet is

57:20 ↗ going to be s62

57:23 ↗ and we're going to have subparts to that

57:25 ↗ as well

57:42 ↗ if i could make a suggestion it's been

57:44 ↗ an hour perhaps we could take our break

57:46 ↗ and then we could put all of the

57:48 ↗ subparts together and hand them up at

57:50 ↗ once at the conclusion of the break and

57:53 ↗ save a little time that way that's an

57:54 ↗ excellent suggestion we

57:57 ↗ appreciate that so let's let's take that

57:59 ↗ 10 minute break

58:00 ↗ thank you thank you

1:09:42 ↗ [Applause]

1:09:45 ↗ okay we're back on the air miss carray

1:09:47 ↗ thank you please proceed

1:09:50 ↗ right so we compiled um s62 and there's

1:09:54 ↗ subparts a

1:09:56 ↗ through

1:09:58 ↗ e

1:09:59 ↗ um which tia has in front of her now

1:10:03 ↗ so um tia will you move through just

1:10:05 ↗ starting with um s62a describe what that

1:10:08 ↗ is please

1:10:10 ↗ um so

1:10:11 ↗ this is the medical office building site

1:10:14 ↗ development or administrative site

1:10:16 ↗ development permit submittal

1:10:18 ↗ so

1:10:19 ↗ s62a is

1:10:21 ↗ sort of the bulk of the

1:10:23 ↗ the package

1:10:25 ↗ so

1:10:25 ↗ it has

1:10:27 ↗ you know the the project information and

1:10:30 ↗ various graphics

1:10:33 ↗ it has site views

1:10:35 ↗ and off-site views

1:10:39 ↗ again the natural and man-made features

1:10:42 ↗ around the project

1:10:45 ↗ site access opportunities and

1:10:46 ↗ constraints

1:10:48 ↗ site views along

1:10:50 ↗ the frontage

1:10:57 ↗ it has

1:11:02 ↗ parking layout and

1:11:04 ↗ tabulation and summaries

1:11:07 ↗ of the parking both in the structure and

1:11:10 ↗ on the surface

1:11:14 ↗ it has a

1:11:16 ↗ graphic that shows where a potential

1:11:18 ↗ phase ii building could go

1:11:20 ↗ it has building elevations

1:11:24 ↗ um

1:11:29 ↗ from various sides of the of the

1:11:32 ↗ building

1:11:35 ↗ um

1:11:37 ↗ what is this

1:11:39 ↗ it it addresses things like fire truck

1:11:42 ↗ access

1:11:43 ↗ floor plans

1:11:46 ↗ interior floor plans

1:11:50 ↗ again more elevations and materials that

1:11:53 ↗ might be used

1:11:56 ↗ and then it has views

1:11:59 ↗ of each side of the building and the

1:12:02 ↗ proposed parking structure

1:12:07 ↗ it has a green grading and storm

1:12:10 ↗ drainage plan

1:12:11 ↗ it has utilities addressed

1:12:15 ↗ it has

1:12:16 ↗ a context map that shows

1:12:19 ↗ how it fits into the larger community

1:12:23 ↗ it has

1:12:28 ↗ various calculations and landscaping

1:12:31 ↗ and images and

1:12:33 ↗ plant selections

1:12:35 ↗ and

1:12:36 ↗ it's a an extensive package but that's

1:12:39 ↗ what's part of the site development

1:12:40 ↗ permit submittal requirements

1:12:42 ↗ and how about um at

1:12:44 ↗ s62b s62b is an update to the

1:12:49 ↗ title commitment or subdivision

1:12:50 ↗ guarantee

1:12:52 ↗ and s62c

1:12:56 ↗ is

1:12:59 ↗ a letter from

1:13:01 ↗ the ihca

1:13:03 ↗ architectural review committee approving

1:13:06 ↗ of our application

1:13:10 ↗ [Applause]

1:13:11 ↗ s62d

1:13:13 ↗ is the affidavit of ownership and also

1:13:17 ↗ the affidavit of agent authority

1:13:21 ↗ for this application

1:13:24 ↗ s62e

1:13:26 ↗ is

1:13:27 ↗ a

1:13:29 ↗ solid waste service company review and

1:13:32 ↗ collection space standards form

1:13:34 ↗ so we have a lot of documents in each of

1:13:37 ↗ these packets um

1:13:38 ↗ are they necessarily all inclusive like

1:13:41 ↗ every single document or are there other

1:13:43 ↗ submittals that or other documents that

1:13:45 ↗ might have been submitted with those

1:13:46 ↗ applications

1:13:48 ↗ this looks pretty comprehensive but i

1:13:49 ↗ know

1:13:50 ↗ that

1:13:51 ↗ there was one document that we submitted

1:13:53 ↗ with each of our site development permit

1:13:56 ↗ applications that was

1:13:59 ↗ i think we called it a cipa statement

1:14:01 ↗ and it basically referenced the

1:14:03 ↗ development agreement and the fact that

1:14:05 ↗ the cipa had been completed

1:14:08 ↗ in connection with the development

1:14:09 ↗ agreement which was why there was no

1:14:11 ↗ cipa checklist required so i know that

1:14:13 ↗ was submitted and i don't see it in this

1:14:14 ↗ package so there may have been other

1:14:17 ↗ items like that that aren't aren't here

1:14:19 ↗ but this this is the bulk of the

1:14:21 ↗ site development permit packet for the

1:14:24 ↗ medical office building

1:14:25 ↗ thank you

1:14:27 ↗ and then

1:14:28 ↗ right around that time um

1:14:31 ↗ were you also moving forward with the

1:14:32 ↗ retail submittal

1:14:34 ↗ yes so the retail sdp submittal and the

1:14:38 ↗ medical office building

1:14:40 ↗ civital were kind of on parallel tracks

1:14:43 ↗ on relatively the the same time frames

1:14:46 ↗ okay and so we have a packet of

1:14:48 ↗ documents that will be

1:14:50 ↗ um introduced as s63 and then the

1:14:52 ↗ subparts as well so starting with s63a

1:14:57 ↗ if you could describe that document

1:14:59 ↗ please

1:15:02 ↗ so this document at s63a is

1:15:07 ↗ a site plan showing the

1:15:09 ↗ proposed retail project on blocks a b

1:15:13 ↗ and a portion of c

1:15:17 ↗ and is that showing the buildings that

1:15:18 ↗ you were describing

1:15:20 ↗ yesterday evening in terms of the

1:15:22 ↗ different buildings that make up that

1:15:24 ↗ retail

1:15:24 ↗ project yes

1:15:28 ↗ and then s63b

1:15:31 ↗ is again a title commitment or

1:15:34 ↗ subdivision guarantee

1:15:36 ↗ that was submitted with the

1:15:38 ↗ stp application

1:15:49 ↗ okay an s63c

1:15:52 ↗ s63c

1:15:54 ↗ is the letter from the issaquah

1:15:57 ↗ highlands architectural review committee

1:16:00 ↗ approving

1:16:01 ↗ the

1:16:02 ↗ retail

1:16:04 ↗ application packet

1:16:08 ↗ and s63d

1:16:14 ↗ s63d

1:16:15 ↗ is a geotechnical report

1:16:19 ↗ for the property prepared by terra

1:16:21 ↗ associates

1:16:23 ↗ and just as a note on there on the

1:16:25 ↗ geotechnical report it refers to the

1:16:28 ↗ high street collection

1:16:30 ↗ is that the same thing as the retail

1:16:32 ↗ the high street collection is actually

1:16:34 ↗ the name that we use to refer to the

1:16:36 ↗ entire plat so we would use that to

1:16:39 ↗ refer to

1:16:40 ↗ all of our

1:16:43 ↗ proposed projects up there

1:16:47 ↗ so yes it would also be inclusive of the

1:16:49 ↗ retail thank you

1:16:51 ↗ and then finally there's s63e

1:16:59 ↗ s63e is the affidavit of ownership

1:17:04 ↗ and affidavit of agent authority

1:17:26 ↗ and i i apologize i said finally but

1:17:28 ↗ there's actually quite a bit more to

1:17:29 ↗ this one

1:17:31 ↗ so that was

1:17:33 ↗ s63e so we're on s63f

1:17:41 ↗ [Applause]

1:17:48 ↗ what's this document

1:17:51 ↗ s63f

1:17:53 ↗ is a solid waste service company review

1:17:55 ↗ and collection space standards

1:17:58 ↗ and this one was prepared for the retail

1:18:08 ↗ and then s63g

1:18:16 ↗ so s63g is

1:18:18 ↗ a memorandum from transpo group the

1:18:21 ↗ transportation our transportation

1:18:23 ↗ consultant

1:18:25 ↗ that

1:18:26 ↗ addresses blocks a b and

1:18:29 ↗ the north half of c

1:18:34 ↗ s 63

1:18:38 ↗ h

1:18:39 ↗ and this is something is this documented

1:18:41 ↗ s63h is that specific to

1:18:45 ↗ this application or is that um general

1:18:48 ↗ information can you just describe what

1:18:49 ↗ it is

1:18:57 ↗ um

1:19:07 ↗ this is some kind of city form on

1:19:10 ↗ site development permit applications

1:19:24 ↗ i'm not exactly sure where this comes

1:19:26 ↗ from okay

1:19:28 ↗ and then um s63

1:19:31 ↗ i

1:19:37 ↗ oh you gave me an extra one i think

1:19:40 ↗ there's one extra here for you

1:19:44 ↗ s63i is a land use permit application

1:19:48 ↗ form

1:19:49 ↗ the site development permit

1:19:52 ↗ for

1:19:53 ↗ [Music]

1:19:54 ↗ the retail

1:19:56 ↗ project

1:19:58 ↗ okay

1:20:01 ↗ and then s 63 j

1:20:15 ↗ so

1:20:16 ↗ s63j is sort of the bulk of the

1:20:19 ↗ application

1:20:21 ↗ [Music]

1:20:23 ↗ again has site plans

1:20:25 ↗ views from in and around the property

1:20:30 ↗ circulation plans for both

1:20:33 ↗ vehicular pedestrian bicycle

1:20:38 ↗ fire department access

1:20:41 ↗ and fire hose reach analysis

1:20:44 ↗ and then provides sort of zoomed in

1:20:47 ↗ plans of each block

1:20:53 ↗ building elevations

1:20:57 ↗ and this one is a big one because there

1:20:59 ↗ are i think 11 buildings

1:21:02 ↗ in the retail proposal

1:21:06 ↗ engineering

1:21:07 ↗ and

1:21:08 ↗ grading

1:21:09 ↗ and

1:21:11 ↗ topographic information

1:21:16 ↗ storm water layout

1:21:21 ↗ cut and fills

1:21:25 ↗ landscape plans

1:21:30 ↗ more landscape plans

1:21:35 ↗ more landscape plans pretty extensive

1:21:37 ↗ landscape plans actually

1:21:40 ↗ um and all sorts of images the the

1:21:44 ↗ plant schedule that would be used for

1:21:47 ↗ the landscaping

1:21:51 ↗ it's a thorough packet

1:21:54 ↗ and then s63

1:21:57 ↗ okay

1:22:00 ↗ a 63k

1:22:03 ↗ is

1:22:04 ↗ project narrative

1:22:10 ↗ and design criteria narrative

1:22:15 ↗ including landscape guidelines

1:22:21 ↗ okay

1:22:22 ↗ and then s63

1:22:24 ↗ l

1:22:28 ↗ s63l is the sipa envelope determination

1:22:32 ↗ which i referred to earlier as a cipa

1:22:35 ↗ statement and we

1:22:36 ↗ we submitted the statement with each of

1:22:38 ↗ our

1:22:39 ↗ site development permit or site develop

1:22:42 ↗ administrative site development permit

1:22:44 ↗ applications

1:22:46 ↗ and that's what you were referencing

1:22:48 ↗ earlier yes okay

1:22:51 ↗ um okay and then s63m

1:22:56 ↗ uh s63m is the

1:23:01 ↗ preliminary stormwater report for the

1:23:04 ↗ retail blocks a b and c

1:23:08 ↗ or c north

1:23:09 ↗ all right

1:23:10 ↗ and s 63

1:23:13 ↗ n

1:23:25 ↗ so s63n is the site development permit

1:23:29 ↗ submittal requirements checklist

1:23:31 ↗ and it has items checked off

1:23:34 ↗ and

1:23:37 ↗ it has a few notes on it

1:23:39 ↗ with respect to where information is

1:23:42 ↗ located or available

1:23:45 ↗ okay

1:23:46 ↗ and then um

1:23:48 ↗ finally this time and i think i mean it

1:23:50 ↗ this time s63 oh

1:24:03 ↗ um

1:24:04 ↗ [Music]

1:24:05 ↗ this looks like it's a

1:24:08 ↗ form

1:24:10 ↗ generated out of

1:24:13 ↗ mybuildingpermit.com which is the

1:24:19 ↗ online

1:24:20 ↗ building

1:24:21 ↗ permits or i guess just permit submittal

1:24:24 ↗ program that the city uses

1:24:28 ↗ so i assume that this was generated by

1:24:32 ↗ the information that our applicants up

1:24:34 ↗ our

1:24:35 ↗ our consultants rather load uploaded to

1:24:37 ↗ the city's

1:24:39 ↗ mybuildingpermit.com website

1:24:41 ↗ to submit this application

1:24:45 ↗ okay

1:24:46 ↗ do you recall roughly when

1:24:49 ↗ you had a pre-application meeting for

1:24:51 ↗ the retail and medical office building

1:24:55 ↗ um i know that

1:24:58 ↗ from the time we submitted our

1:25:01 ↗ preliminary land use application which

1:25:03 ↗ was what you had to do before they would

1:25:05 ↗ the city would allow us to schedule

1:25:06 ↗ those meetings it was i think five or

1:25:09 ↗ six weeks out

1:25:12 ↗ so

1:25:13 ↗ one of the applications we

1:25:16 ↗ had the

1:25:17 ↗ pre-application meeting

1:25:20 ↗ right before we submitted

1:25:23 ↗ the full application

1:25:25 ↗ and the other one i think we may have

1:25:26 ↗ submitted the full application right

1:25:29 ↗ before

1:25:30 ↗ having the pre-application meeting

1:25:33 ↗ roughly around the end of november 2017

1:25:35 ↗ does that sound accurate yes okay

1:25:39 ↗ so um i'd like to turn now to

1:25:42 ↗ c16

1:25:43 ↗ exhibit c16 so it should be in that

1:25:46 ↗ binder in front of you there

1:25:58 ↗ what is the document at c16

1:26:03 ↗ um

1:26:04 ↗ this is one of the letters that we

1:26:07 ↗ received

1:26:08 ↗ with respect to our medical office

1:26:11 ↗ building sdp submittal where the city

1:26:14 ↗ deemed that it was insufficient our

1:26:18 ↗ application was insufficient

1:26:21 ↗ and so this is in the subject line it

1:26:22 ↗ says sufficiency determination um

1:26:25 ↗ is that how the city typically refers to

1:26:28 ↗ these as sufficiency determinations

1:26:31 ↗ um i know that that's how they referred

1:26:34 ↗ to the letters that we received on these

1:26:36 ↗ applications

1:26:38 ↗ and so

1:26:39 ↗ we don't have to go through every point

1:26:40 ↗ in this letter

1:26:42 ↗ it speaks for itself but

1:26:44 ↗ in general well first of all did you did

1:26:46 ↗ you get multiples of these letters for

1:26:48 ↗ your different project applications

1:26:50 ↗ yes every time we submitted we got an

1:26:53 ↗ insufficient insufficiency determination

1:26:56 ↗ back from the city um in just under the

1:27:00 ↗ 10 days that

1:27:02 ↗ i i guess to back up a step the

1:27:05 ↗ according to the development agreement

1:27:06 ↗ if you submit an application the city

1:27:09 ↗ has

1:27:10 ↗ 10 days to review and let you know if

1:27:13 ↗ anything is missing from the application

1:27:15 ↗ so that you can then submit that

1:27:17 ↗ additional material

1:27:19 ↗ if they don't respond asking for

1:27:21 ↗ additional materials within that 10 days

1:27:24 ↗ then the application is deemed to be

1:27:26 ↗ complete

1:27:27 ↗ so in each case every time we submitted

1:27:31 ↗ our complete application we would get a

1:27:34 ↗ letter from miss loman usually on the

1:27:37 ↗ 8th 9th or 10th day

1:27:40 ↗ stating that the application

1:27:42 ↗ was incomplete it

1:27:45 ↗ became quickly

1:27:46 ↗ apparent to us

1:27:48 ↗ that she did not intend to allow us to

1:27:51 ↗ reach the complete application

1:27:53 ↗ determination for these applications

1:27:56 ↗ why did that become apparent to you can

1:27:58 ↗ you give some examples

1:28:00 ↗ sure i mean the the

1:28:02 ↗ most obvious and troubling example was

1:28:06 ↗ that um one of the categories of

1:28:09 ↗ objections that she repeatedly made was

1:28:12 ↗ that

1:28:13 ↗ we could not meet the requirement of

1:28:16 ↗ showing things like

1:28:18 ↗ lot lines

1:28:19 ↗ because our plot hadn't been

1:28:21 ↗ approved yet and at various times she

1:28:24 ↗ either said that the preliminary plot

1:28:26 ↗ had to be approved or that the final

1:28:29 ↗ plot had to be rep approved which

1:28:32 ↗ seemed

1:28:33 ↗ to make absolutely no sense to us since

1:28:36 ↗ the preliminary

1:28:37 ↗ final plot approval could be

1:28:39 ↗ years down the road and the idea that

1:28:41 ↗ you couldn't

1:28:42 ↗ even submit an sdp for processing until

1:28:45 ↗ that occurred

1:28:46 ↗ really made no sense

1:28:49 ↗ but there were there were

1:28:52 ↗ i guess several categories of things

1:28:54 ↗ that she objected to i would probably

1:28:56 ↗ put them into three major categories

1:28:59 ↗ one was were things that related to the

1:29:01 ↗ plat so things that she said we couldn't

1:29:03 ↗ possibly have because the plot wasn't

1:29:05 ↗ approved now keeping in mind that the

1:29:07 ↗ reason the plot wasn't approved was

1:29:09 ↗ because she hadn't started reviewing it

1:29:11 ↗ and we're sitting at the end of november

1:29:13 ↗ beginning of december

1:29:15 ↗ and she'd had that application since

1:29:17 ↗ august 1st and had done no review and it

1:29:20 ↗ should have been

1:29:22 ↗ you know uh end of october decision by

1:29:26 ↗ our calculation under the development

1:29:27 ↗ agreement appendix l

1:29:30 ↗ so the plot was the big category the

1:29:32 ↗ things related to the plat

1:29:34 ↗ there were a number of items that she

1:29:38 ↗ asked for on various

1:29:40 ↗ applications and in in several of the

1:29:45 ↗ insufficiency letters

1:29:47 ↗ where information actually was already

1:29:49 ↗ provided but i think the review her

1:29:52 ↗ review was happening relatively quickly

1:29:54 ↗ in order to kick the applications out

1:29:57 ↗ under the 10-day time frame and so she

1:29:59 ↗ would say you know i need this

1:30:01 ↗ information or that information which

1:30:02 ↗ was already provided and we would point

1:30:04 ↗ that out

1:30:07 ↗ and then the last category i would say

1:30:10 ↗ are things that were just

1:30:12 ↗ very nitpicky and i don't think are

1:30:14 ↗ things that would typically

1:30:16 ↗ be called out by the city to as a basis

1:30:20 ↗ for

1:30:22 ↗ deeming an application incomplete so

1:30:24 ↗ there was definitely crossover happening

1:30:26 ↗ in reviewing

1:30:29 ↗ aspects of the application that would be

1:30:30 ↗ reviewed in the review phase and not in

1:30:33 ↗ the complete application phase

1:30:35 ↗ so i guess to go back to c16 and look at

1:30:43 ↗ look at some of the comments so for

1:30:45 ↗ example the first comment where it says

1:30:47 ↗ almost every document that was uploaded

1:30:49 ↗ was mislabeled making it difficult

1:30:51 ↗ making review difficult

1:30:53 ↗ well that had to do with the way the

1:30:54 ↗ city's system is set up and the staff

1:30:57 ↗ the

1:30:58 ↗ permit technician at the city had

1:31:00 ↗ advised our consultant if you don't have

1:31:03 ↗ the category to choose from in my

1:31:05 ↗ building permit that matches what you're

1:31:07 ↗ actually uploading

1:31:09 ↗ choose something else that's close

1:31:11 ↗ and we can fix it so that's what we did

1:31:13 ↗ but then we got kicked out and that is

1:31:15 ↗ one of the

1:31:16 ↗ the reasons given for that

1:31:18 ↗ um

1:31:21 ↗ number two on this letter it really

1:31:23 ↗ relates to the

1:31:25 ↗ the plat and the sort of endless loop

1:31:27 ↗ that we would never be able to get out

1:31:29 ↗ of because she controlled the very thing

1:31:31 ↗ that we need according to her to get to

1:31:34 ↗ complete application

1:31:37 ↗ you know number three was something

1:31:39 ↗ where you know no neighborhood type is

1:31:41 ↗ provided on the cover sheet well it was

1:31:43 ↗ provided on the second page so

1:31:46 ↗ it was maybe in the wrong place

1:31:48 ↗ according to the permit checklist but

1:31:51 ↗ the information was there

1:31:54 ↗ let me just quickly scan through some of

1:31:56 ↗ these oh number five was another one

1:32:00 ↗ that we really struggled with how to how

1:32:02 ↗ to address this

1:32:06 ↗ so one of her comments is existing site

1:32:08 ↗ survey includes roads which do not exist

1:32:11 ↗ now what was actually going on was that

1:32:14 ↗ there are

1:32:15 ↗ roads that polygon at the time was in

1:32:18 ↗ the process of constructing

1:32:20 ↗ on a portion of our property and

1:32:22 ↗ adjacent to our property

1:32:24 ↗ um the roads did exist like you could

1:32:28 ↗ walk on them drive on them they were

1:32:29 ↗ there but they hadn't been accepted by

1:32:32 ↗ the city so she was asking our survey

1:32:35 ↗ to sh to not show things that were

1:32:37 ↗ physically there because they hadn't

1:32:39 ↗ been

1:32:42 ↗ accepted by the city as complete

1:32:44 ↗ as you might imagine for a surveyor

1:32:46 ↗ who's supposed to go out and look at

1:32:47 ↗ what's there and depicted on a survey

1:32:50 ↗ they struggled with how do you how how

1:32:52 ↗ would they go back in time and show

1:32:55 ↗ what was there before

1:32:57 ↗ um so that was another one that just

1:32:59 ↗ seemed

1:33:01 ↗ not

1:33:02 ↗ uh reasonable

1:33:05 ↗ okay and then how about um let's look

1:33:07 ↗ also because around this time there was

1:33:08 ↗ a

1:33:10 ↗ letter for the other application as well

1:33:12 ↗ so it'd be c17 would be the next exhibit

1:33:17 ↗ can you describe what this is

1:33:19 ↗ this is a similar letter but it is for

1:33:23 ↗ the

1:33:25 ↗ retail

1:33:26 ↗ application

1:33:29 ↗ okay and you had mentioned um on the

1:33:31 ↗ last one the issue with the plat

1:33:34 ↗ in subsection five there

1:33:37 ↗ um

1:33:39 ↗ can you um

1:33:41 ↗ maybe i mean without reading the first

1:33:44 ↗ full sentence there that has a lot of uh

1:33:46 ↗ jumble in it

1:33:48 ↗ kind of paraphrase and then read the the

1:33:50 ↗ second half of that paragraph to us

1:33:54 ↗ um so it goes through and lists a lot of

1:33:56 ↗ things like

1:33:58 ↗ um

1:34:01 ↗ property lines and right-of-way

1:34:05 ↗ and distances

1:34:07 ↗ that buildings would be from property

1:34:09 ↗ lines

1:34:10 ↗ and it says these elements do not exist

1:34:12 ↗ at this time

1:34:14 ↗ the request is to process a site

1:34:15 ↗ development permit or sdp prior to

1:34:18 ↗ completion of the planning process

1:34:21 ↗ provide the basis for determining a

1:34:22 ↗ complete application without this

1:34:24 ↗ information in addition explain how the

1:34:27 ↗ process would proceed given that

1:34:29 ↗ approval conditions notes and

1:34:31 ↗ restrictions easements etc would not

1:34:34 ↗ exist

1:34:35 ↗ for use in the review of the sdp

1:34:39 ↗ and that is that the same comment that

1:34:40 ↗ you got in response to

1:34:42 ↗ the medical office building yes

1:34:54 ↗ and before we move on from this one is

1:34:56 ↗ there anything else that again we don't

1:34:57 ↗ have to march through everyone piece by

1:34:59 ↗ piece but anything else you want to

1:35:00 ↗ highlight in this one

1:35:07 ↗ [Music]

1:35:08 ↗ i mean like number 17 above grade

1:35:11 ↗ utilities power vaults etc are not shown

1:35:14 ↗ nor is the relationship between

1:35:15 ↗ utilities and plants

1:35:17 ↗ i mean

1:35:19 ↗ that may be something that you

1:35:22 ↗ she would want to work through in the

1:35:24 ↗ sdp process but that seems pretty

1:35:26 ↗ extreme to be a basis for deeming an

1:35:29 ↗ application complete

1:35:41 ↗ okay

1:35:43 ↗ so

1:35:44 ↗ moving forward in time do you recall um

1:35:47 ↗ when the

1:35:49 ↗ storage application was submitted and

1:35:51 ↗ we're kind of in the chronology of

1:35:53 ↗ things we're roughly towards the end of

1:35:54 ↗ november of 2017 right now

1:36:04 ↗ i don't recall off the top of my head

1:36:06 ↗ okay if if i said december 1st of 2017

1:36:09 ↗ for the preliminary application does

1:36:11 ↗ that sound accurate

1:36:13 ↗ yes

1:36:16 ↗ let's turn now to exhibit s32

1:36:47 ↗ what's the um document at s32

1:36:53 ↗ this is a december 4th 2017

1:36:56 ↗ letter to the issaquah city council

1:36:59 ↗ from our attorney patrick mullaney

1:37:03 ↗ did you also receive a copy of this

1:37:04 ↗ letter at this time i did

1:37:08 ↗ and if you go down to the

1:37:10 ↗ third paragraph there it starts with as

1:37:12 ↗ keith nevin pointed out

1:37:15 ↗ can you just read that first sentence

1:37:17 ↗ yes it says as keith niven pointed out

1:37:20 ↗ in the vesting memo attachment 4 to the

1:37:23 ↗ november 17

1:37:24 ↗ 2017 staff memorandum the city requires

1:37:28 ↗ issuance of a land use permit

1:37:30 ↗ e.g site development permit as a

1:37:33 ↗ necessary prerequisite to issuance of a

1:37:35 ↗ building permit

1:37:38 ↗ is it your understanding that that

1:37:39 ↗ attachment for

1:37:41 ↗ that's referenced in this letter is the

1:37:43 ↗ same

1:37:44 ↗ november 16 memo that we were talking

1:37:46 ↗ about earlier that describes the west

1:37:48 ↗ main problem yes it is

1:37:52 ↗ so and you had mentioned earlier in your

1:37:54 ↗ testimony that

1:37:55 ↗ director niven

1:37:57 ↗ would have had many opportunities to

1:38:00 ↗ correct his so-called error if that was

1:38:02 ↗ the case

1:38:04 ↗ um

1:38:05 ↗ did he correct that error at this time

1:38:07 ↗ after receiving this letter

1:38:09 ↗ no he didn't and neither did the city

1:38:12 ↗ attorney or anyone else in the staff

1:38:31 ↗ we've got a couple new exhibits to

1:38:33 ↗ introduce um

1:38:35 ↗ at

1:38:38 ↗ s

1:38:39 ↗ 64.

1:38:51 ↗ so

1:39:21 ↗ here's the first one

1:39:30 ↗ [Applause]

1:39:33 ↗ okay so we're looking at s64

1:39:36 ↗ um can you describe what this is please

1:39:41 ↗ this is the supplemental submittal that

1:39:44 ↗ we made to our plaid application i

1:39:46 ↗ believe on december 15 2017

1:39:51 ↗ and my notes say that the date was

1:39:53 ↗ december 12th of 2017 so it might just

1:39:55 ↗ be a few days stiff that could be right

1:39:57 ↗ okay

1:39:58 ↗ um

1:40:00 ↗ and so so what do those

1:40:02 ↗ show

1:40:04 ↗ um so

1:40:05 ↗ these show the building footprints that

1:40:09 ↗ were proposed in the site development

1:40:11 ↗ permit applications

1:40:13 ↗ [Music]

1:40:14 ↗ on the plat

1:40:16 ↗ application so

1:40:20 ↗ part of why we did this was the

1:40:22 ↗ the comment in the um

1:40:27 ↗ insufficiency letter that we were

1:40:28 ↗ talking about where you know

1:40:30 ↗ lucy was giving us the feedback that she

1:40:33 ↗ couldn't understand how the two

1:40:36 ↗ the the

1:40:38 ↗ site development permit applications

1:40:40 ↗ related to the plat because the plot

1:40:42 ↗ hadn't been approved so

1:40:44 ↗ um

1:40:44 ↗ [Music]

1:40:46 ↗ we did what was in our control which was

1:40:49 ↗ to put the two together so that she

1:40:51 ↗ could see the setbacks from the lines

1:40:53 ↗ and everything else and we

1:40:56 ↗ submitted

1:40:58 ↗ that as part of our

1:41:00 ↗ application for the preliminary plat and

1:41:04 ↗ so we did that

1:41:06 ↗ both by uploading to

1:41:07 ↗ mybuildingpermit.com

1:41:09 ↗ as part of our application and also by

1:41:12 ↗ sending it

1:41:14 ↗ directly to our planner jean lin so that

1:41:16 ↗ she would be aware that we had made that

1:41:19 ↗ supplemental submittal

1:41:23 ↗ so you said that this was a supplemental

1:41:24 ↗ submittal was there anything really

1:41:27 ↗ changed about the plot application at

1:41:28 ↗ this point or was it just

1:41:30 ↗ clarification there weren't there

1:41:32 ↗ weren't any significant changes

1:41:34 ↗ a few things shift around a little bit

1:41:36 ↗ but

1:41:37 ↗ nothing significant it's still the same

1:41:41 ↗ so let's take a look at exhibit s

1:41:43 ↗ three

1:41:58 ↗ oops

1:42:01 ↗ yes

1:42:02 ↗ um what is the documented s3

1:42:06 ↗ so

1:42:07 ↗ [Music]

1:42:08 ↗ s3

1:42:11 ↗ oh this is the um

1:42:13 ↗ of application

1:42:16 ↗ and

1:42:17 ↗ that the city issued and they did our

1:42:21 ↗ plat application

1:42:23 ↗ as a joint notice of application with

1:42:25 ↗ two of the adjacent polygon applications

1:42:29 ↗ so the first

1:42:30 ↗ couple pages are for

1:42:33 ↗ westridge single family

1:42:36 ↗ western north single family rather and

1:42:38 ↗ westridge townhomes north

1:42:40 ↗ and then the

1:42:43 ↗ third

1:42:44 ↗ section of the notice of application is

1:42:47 ↗ for our high street collection

1:42:48 ↗ preliminary plat

1:42:53 ↗ okay what was the date of the notice of

1:42:55 ↗ application

1:42:56 ↗ it was december 27th 2017.

1:43:00 ↗ who who prepares notices of application

1:43:02 ↗ in the city

1:43:03 ↗ is it the applicant or is it the city

1:43:05 ↗ the city staff prepares them

1:43:07 ↗ specifically on this one who prepared it

1:43:10 ↗ um i would assume that it was jean lynn

1:43:12 ↗ since she's our planner but i don't know

1:43:14 ↗ that for sure

1:43:17 ↗ if you look at the attachment to

1:43:20 ↗ that notice um

1:43:24 ↗ what is the uh plot

1:43:26 ↗ show

1:43:28 ↗ on the diagram that was attached to the

1:43:29 ↗ notice of application

1:43:31 ↗ oh the the diagram that's attached is

1:43:34 ↗ the

1:43:36 ↗ december

1:43:37 ↗ 2017 supplemental submittal so it shows

1:43:40 ↗ the

1:43:42 ↗ site development permit building

1:43:44 ↗ footprints

1:43:46 ↗ on the plat layout

1:43:49 ↗ which

1:43:50 ↗ i mean made sense to us why you would

1:43:53 ↗ choose that application or that graphic

1:43:55 ↗ because that would be the graphic that

1:43:58 ↗ gives the most information to the public

1:44:00 ↗ and that's the intent of the notice of

1:44:02 ↗ application

1:44:16 ↗ when

1:44:17 ↗ around this time or at any point did the

1:44:19 ↗ city ever

1:44:21 ↗ question you or reach out about the

1:44:23 ↗ supplemental submittal of this plot

1:44:27 ↗ no

1:44:28 ↗ it always has been part of our

1:44:30 ↗ application and i was actually

1:44:33 ↗ kind of surprised in the context of this

1:44:35 ↗ hearing and some of the related legal

1:44:37 ↗ proceedings to hear

1:44:39 ↗ the city attorney explain

1:44:43 ↗ that

1:44:44 ↗ they somehow don't consider this part of

1:44:46 ↗ the application because

1:44:48 ↗ we've never been informed that it wasn't

1:44:51 ↗ accepted or that it wasn't part of the

1:44:53 ↗ application

1:44:54 ↗ or

1:44:56 ↗ anything unusual with respect to the

1:44:58 ↗ supplement

1:44:59 ↗ when was the first time that you heard

1:45:01 ↗ that that might be the position of the

1:45:03 ↗ city now

1:45:05 ↗ um

1:45:06 ↗ it was either in this hearing or it was

1:45:10 ↗ in

1:45:11 ↗ mr lel's briefing to the hearing

1:45:13 ↗ examiner on one of our appeals

1:45:18 ↗ of the vesting determination that we

1:45:21 ↗ sent to the hearing examiner

1:45:25 ↗ let's i'm going to introduce a new

1:45:27 ↗ exhibit s65

1:45:45 ↗ um it looks like the

1:45:47 ↗ top is printed off but um can you

1:45:50 ↗ make out or explain to us who you

1:45:52 ↗ understand to be on this email at s65

1:45:56 ↗ um it looks like it was too

1:46:01 ↗ jean lynn

1:46:02 ↗ with a copy to valerie porter and it's

1:46:04 ↗ from lucy sloman

1:46:06 ↗ do you know who valerie porter is

1:46:08 ↗ um i believe she's a planner with the

1:46:11 ↗ city of issaquah

1:46:13 ↗ and what did miss lemon have to say to

1:46:15 ↗ jean in this email

1:46:17 ↗ she told her that she did a great job of

1:46:19 ↗ getting out the combined notice of

1:46:21 ↗ application for the three permits the

1:46:23 ↗ westridge north

1:46:25 ↗ family the westridge north town home sdp

1:46:28 ↗ and the shelter high street platte

1:46:31 ↗ and what was the date of this email

1:46:34 ↗ this was february 10 2018. so how long

1:46:37 ↗ after

1:46:38 ↗ that notice of application showing the

1:46:40 ↗ building footprints went out was this

1:46:43 ↗ a month and a half

1:46:50 ↗ and you hadn't heard anything from

1:46:52 ↗ the city questioning the supplemental

1:46:55 ↗ submission

1:46:56 ↗ at any point

1:46:57 ↗ no i mean i still haven't other than in

1:46:59 ↗ this hearing which is not directly on

1:47:02 ↗ the plat so i

1:47:04 ↗ am a little baffled by the conversation

1:47:06 ↗ that we've heard here and seen in in

1:47:08 ↗ legal briefing

1:47:10 ↗ because typically if if you submitted

1:47:13 ↗ something on your application after the

1:47:15 ↗ fact that

1:47:17 ↗ the city deemed to be a major change to

1:47:19 ↗ your application

1:47:21 ↗ they would tell you that it's a major

1:47:22 ↗ modification

1:47:24 ↗ and and kick your application

1:47:27 ↗ out or back to the starting point

1:47:31 ↗ we didn't get that we didn't and we

1:47:33 ↗ didn't expect that either because we

1:47:34 ↗ really weren't changing anything

1:47:36 ↗ significant

1:47:38 ↗ and the fact that

1:47:40 ↗ you know

1:47:42 ↗ two weeks later after we submitted it

1:47:44 ↗ they used it in the notice of

1:47:45 ↗ application just confirmed our

1:47:47 ↗ understanding that

1:47:49 ↗ they were processing the plot and that

1:47:50 ↗ this was a piece of it

1:47:56 ↗ let's turn back to

1:47:58 ↗ the meeting minutes

1:48:00 ↗ and look at the december

1:48:02 ↗ 12th 2017 meeting please

1:48:24 ↗ okay

1:48:25 ↗ so what so first of all who attended the

1:48:28 ↗ december 12th meeting

1:48:30 ↗ um that would be lucy sloman jean lin

1:48:33 ↗ doug schlepp

1:48:35 ↗ david holmes

1:48:37 ↗ james um

1:48:40 ↗ i can't remember his last name from

1:48:42 ↗ collins mormon uh

1:48:46 ↗ alan from

1:48:48 ↗ hewitt

1:48:49 ↗ who is our landscape architect on that

1:48:52 ↗ one

1:48:53 ↗ and riley

1:48:55 ↗ from kpf our engineer

1:48:58 ↗ and myself

1:48:59 ↗ okay and what was the purpose of this

1:49:01 ↗ meeting

1:49:02 ↗ this was the

1:49:03 ↗ block c

1:49:06 ↗ which is the office proposal

1:49:09 ↗ preliminary application meeting

1:49:14 ↗ did um did miss lumens i'm sorry so i

1:49:16 ↗ noticed that there's you said jean lynn

1:49:18 ↗ was there and she was the planner on all

1:49:20 ↗ of the applications is that right

1:49:22 ↗ correct um did miss sloman frequently

1:49:25 ↗ come to the the meetings with gene as

1:49:27 ↗ well

1:49:29 ↗ yes typically

1:49:30 ↗ she did i can only think of one

1:49:36 ↗ one meeting on the plat that she did not

1:49:41 ↗ okay so this meeting was on december

1:49:42 ↗ 12th

1:49:44 ↗ um

1:49:45 ↗ and then i'll represent just so we can

1:49:47 ↗ keep things moving along that on

1:49:48 ↗ december 20th of 2017 was the retail

1:49:52 ↗ resubmittal we mentioned a minute ago

1:49:54 ↗ that there was the insufficiency letter

1:49:56 ↗ and so

1:49:56 ↗ a resubmittal on december 20th so we

1:49:58 ↗ have a couple documents related to that

1:50:02 ↗ um

1:50:30 ↗ so this is going to be s65 and it

1:50:32 ↗ subparts

1:50:43 ↗ i think that's going to be a 66. oh

1:50:47 ↗ oh yeah

1:50:48 ↗ oh no you're right

1:50:50 ↗ thank you very much for the correction

1:50:52 ↗ so s66 and subparts

1:51:01 ↗ so this is s

1:51:05 ↗ 66a

1:51:09 ↗ [Applause]

1:51:10 ↗ um

1:51:11 ↗ and we can move pretty quickly through

1:51:13 ↗ these it's just the application packet

1:51:16 ↗ so what's s66

1:51:18 ↗ um it is

1:51:20 ↗ a retail site plan

1:51:26 ↗ okay and s66b

1:51:29 ↗ is an affidavit of ownership

1:51:32 ↗ and agent authority

1:51:43 ↗ s66

1:51:47 ↗ see

1:51:50 ↗ a solid waste service company review and

1:51:53 ↗ collection space standards

1:52:06 ↗ and s66d

1:52:10 ↗ this is a land use permit application

1:52:12 ↗ form for a site development permit for

1:52:14 ↗ re for the retail application

1:52:32 ↗ all right and then s66e

1:52:38 ↗ so

1:52:39 ↗ s66e is a letter

1:52:43 ↗ from

1:52:44 ↗ mg2 to ms sloman responding to her

1:52:49 ↗ comments

1:52:51 ↗ in the insufficiency letter that we had

1:52:53 ↗ received

1:52:56 ↗ and um s66

1:52:59 ↗ f

1:53:03 ↗ um

1:53:05 ↗ this appears to be

1:53:06 ↗ sort of the bulk of the package with all

1:53:09 ↗ of the

1:53:10 ↗ plans elevations images

1:53:13 ↗ engineering

1:53:20 ↗ s66g

1:53:22 ↗ this is the

1:53:24 ↗ project narrative

1:53:38 ↗ s66h

1:53:43 ↗ uh this is the site development permit

1:53:46 ↗ submittal requirements

1:53:48 ↗ so it's the checklist and it's annotated

1:53:51 ↗ to show what was included

1:53:56 ↗ okay and that should close out

1:53:58 ↗ exhibit us 66 and its subparts

1:54:04 ↗ so just to to clarify for the record but

1:54:07 ↗ all the documents that we just went

1:54:08 ↗ through those what were those related to

1:54:12 ↗ the retail

1:54:13 ↗ uh sdp application

1:54:15 ↗ and so that was um was that our

1:54:17 ↗ resubmittal

1:54:19 ↗ yes that was in response to the

1:54:23 ↗ insufficiency letter that we had talked

1:54:25 ↗ about just a little while ago

1:54:28 ↗ okay

1:54:29 ↗ let's look at exhibit c18 and c19

1:54:48 ↗ okay so what's at exhibit c

1:54:51 ↗ 18

1:54:53 ↗ um this is another insufficiency letter

1:54:57 ↗ from miss sloman

1:54:59 ↗ and c18 is related to

1:55:03 ↗ the retail project

1:55:06 ↗ and again we went through

1:55:09 ↗ your summary in terms of

1:55:12 ↗ kind of categories of of issues that

1:55:14 ↗ were being raised in the sufficiency

1:55:15 ↗ letters already

1:55:18 ↗ if you look down at number five

1:55:22 ↗ on this one

1:55:24 ↗ what was the response to

1:55:27 ↗ or what was miss sloman's and jean

1:55:29 ↗ lynn's response to

1:55:31 ↗ the corrections that you submitted

1:55:34 ↗ trying to address number five

1:55:38 ↗ so her response to number five which was

1:55:41 ↗ related to the plat

1:55:44 ↗ states revision is insufficient as

1:55:46 ↗ indicated above without approval of a

1:55:48 ↗ preliminary plot these elements do not

1:55:50 ↗ exist and have been manufactured to meet

1:55:53 ↗ the sdp requirements without approval

1:55:55 ↗ and recording of the plat

1:55:58 ↗ these elements have not been confirmed

1:56:00 ↗ or vetted the purpose of the planning

1:56:02 ↗ process is to review studies and

1:56:04 ↗ establish the property lines as well as

1:56:06 ↗ other site elements without completing

1:56:08 ↗ that process first a statement saying

1:56:11 ↗ you will comply with plaque conditions

1:56:13 ↗ is aspirational

1:56:15 ↗ in fact the plat might invalidate part

1:56:17 ↗ or all of the site configuration

1:56:19 ↗ proposed in the sdp requiring a minor or

1:56:22 ↗ major revision to the sdp

1:56:24 ↗ the proposed process is circular

1:56:28 ↗ so is that the the endless circular

1:56:30 ↗ process that you were alluding to

1:56:31 ↗ earlier

1:56:33 ↗ it is um i think

1:56:36 ↗ we saw it slightly differently circular

1:56:38 ↗ in a different way but

1:56:40 ↗ um but yes that's what what we're

1:56:42 ↗ talking about

1:56:43 ↗ so what what's approval of a preliminary

1:56:46 ↗ plat mean um what does that look like in

1:56:49 ↗ in the

1:56:50 ↗ steps of a plat process

1:56:52 ↗ so approval of the preliminary plot

1:56:55 ↗ would be the

1:56:58 ↗ the next step after submittal and review

1:57:00 ↗ you submit your review and then the you

1:57:03 ↗ approve

1:57:04 ↗ then as i described i think last night

1:57:07 ↗ the

1:57:09 ↗ infrastructure of the plat gets built

1:57:12 ↗ before the final plot is recorded

1:57:16 ↗ so she both refers to approval of a

1:57:19 ↗ preliminary plot but then she says

1:57:21 ↗ without

1:57:22 ↗ approval and recording of the plot which

1:57:24 ↗ would be much further down the line so

1:57:27 ↗ when she references recording now

1:57:30 ↗ i'm thinking well she's saying i can't

1:57:32 ↗ get to complete application for

1:57:34 ↗ years down

1:57:36 ↗ the the line um

1:57:38 ↗ so this this condition was obviously

1:57:40 ↗ very concerning and again the biggest

1:57:42 ↗ problem with it was that

1:57:46 ↗ the thing that she says i need approval

1:57:48 ↗ of the plot is the thing that only she

1:57:50 ↗ controls i have no way of making her

1:57:53 ↗ review my plat it's been in since august

1:57:56 ↗ 1st and at this point we're december

1:57:58 ↗ 27th and i haven't received a single

1:58:00 ↗ comment

1:58:02 ↗ she's told me that she doesn't have any

1:58:04 ↗ intention of following the time frames

1:58:05 ↗ in the development agreement

1:58:07 ↗ which

1:58:09 ↗ actually just before this letter came

1:58:11 ↗ out on the 27th

1:58:14 ↗ of december 2017

1:58:16 ↗ i received an email from ms sloman

1:58:20 ↗ asking her asking me if i would give her

1:58:24 ↗ additional time to review our

1:58:27 ↗ resubmittal to see if she would deem it

1:58:30 ↗ complete or incomplete

1:58:32 ↗ because she was out of town or because

1:58:35 ↗ of the holidays i can't remember what

1:58:36 ↗ the exact reason was um

1:58:41 ↗ i thought that was an unusual request

1:58:43 ↗ since they were at the same time taking

1:58:46 ↗ the position that appendix l time frames

1:58:49 ↗ didn't

1:58:50 ↗ apply

1:58:51 ↗ when it

1:58:52 ↗ came to the review time frames that they

1:58:55 ↗ were supposed to follow for review of

1:58:57 ↗ our applications

1:58:59 ↗ now when there was a review time frame

1:59:01 ↗ that had

1:59:02 ↗ the

1:59:04 ↗ clear

1:59:05 ↗ result of deeming our application

1:59:08 ↗ complete she was actually acknowledging

1:59:09 ↗ that they applied and asking me to

1:59:11 ↗ extend that deadline

1:59:14 ↗ before i ever responded to her

1:59:17 ↗ she went ahead and issued these

1:59:19 ↗ insufficiency determinations

1:59:39 ↗ let's look at exhibit c19

1:59:47 ↗ and c19 is a similar letter

1:59:50 ↗ of the same date but it's for the

1:59:52 ↗ medical office building sdp submittal

1:59:56 ↗ it's the same issue with the plot show

1:59:58 ↗ up in this

1:59:59 ↗ it does

2:00:17 ↗ and then down on number 11 because you

2:00:19 ↗ had mentioned it before

2:00:22 ↗ the comment on above grade utilities

2:00:24 ↗ power vaults etc what was the response

2:00:27 ↗ to

2:00:28 ↗ the revisions that you submitted

2:00:33 ↗ she says response indicates this will

2:00:35 ↗ occur in the future but must be reviewed

2:00:37 ↗ during land use permit no information on

2:00:40 ↗ the relationship of trees to utilities

2:00:44 ↗ and what's what's the problem what's the

2:00:47 ↗ disconnect happening there

2:00:50 ↗ um

2:00:52 ↗ again we're getting into

2:00:55 ↗ review comments instead of complete

2:00:58 ↗ application comments

2:01:00 ↗ um

2:01:01 ↗ and we're just getting into a level of

2:01:03 ↗ detail that i quite frankly have never

2:01:04 ↗ seen in a complete

2:01:06 ↗ application determination

2:01:09 ↗ and

2:01:10 ↗ you know our our

2:01:12 ↗ project teams collectively for all of

2:01:14 ↗ these applications have extensive

2:01:18 ↗ experience both in issaquah and

2:01:19 ↗ throughout the region and were

2:01:23 ↗ pretty blown away by the

2:01:25 ↗ responses that we were getting and the

2:01:28 ↗ nitpicky things that we were being

2:01:31 ↗ called out on for complete application

2:01:34 ↗ and the nitpicky things i mean are they

2:01:36 ↗ is nitpicky just

2:01:37 ↗ annoying that you have to go back or

2:01:39 ↗ what's that preventing you from getting

2:01:40 ↗ to

2:01:41 ↗ it's preventing us from getting to

2:01:43 ↗ complete application determinations

2:01:47 ↗ which

2:01:49 ↗ are significant because

2:01:51 ↗ of vesting now we already had

2:01:53 ↗ confirmation that we were vested

2:01:56 ↗ from

2:01:58 ↗ at the preliminary land use application

2:02:00 ↗ but from our perspective both because we

2:02:02 ↗ actually want to build these projects

2:02:04 ↗ and

2:02:05 ↗ from

2:02:06 ↗ a

2:02:07 ↗ security

2:02:09 ↗ of vesting

2:02:12 ↗ in a city that was

2:02:14 ↗ putting forth as an option at this point

2:02:17 ↗ some positions that we didn't think were

2:02:19 ↗ legal with respect to vesting the

2:02:21 ↗ further advanced our applications were

2:02:23 ↗ the better

2:02:25 ↗ so you know

2:02:28 ↗ it was it was clear that the intention

2:02:30 ↗ was to keep us from getting to complete

2:02:31 ↗ application because these kinds of

2:02:33 ↗ things i mean on here you've got

2:02:37 ↗ she wanted retaining walls and waist

2:02:39 ↗ closures enclosures called out well

2:02:41 ↗ there's not any significant retaining

2:02:43 ↗ walls on that site for retail but you

2:02:46 ↗ know there are

2:02:47 ↗ some smaller ones that you would have in

2:02:50 ↗ any

2:02:50 ↗ development and so we went back and we

2:02:52 ↗ called those out and then

2:02:54 ↗ we were still insufficient and she's

2:02:56 ↗ saying we needed

2:02:58 ↗ length height color materials and top

2:03:01 ↗ and bottom spot elevations which weren't

2:03:03 ↗ provided so we're providing information

2:03:05 ↗ on where the wall is and how big it is

2:03:07 ↗ and then she's like well but you need

2:03:08 ↗ the materials i mean we're just getting

2:03:10 ↗ into a level of detail that is not

2:03:12 ↗ typical for complete application and we

2:03:15 ↗ weren't by no means saying that that

2:03:16 ↗ those were not discussions that we're

2:03:18 ↗ going to have but those were discussions

2:03:19 ↗ that you have in the context of your

2:03:21 ↗ project review um and and just by

2:03:24 ↗ deeming an application complete it

2:03:26 ↗ doesn't mean that the city can't ask for

2:03:28 ↗ more information later

2:03:30 ↗ it doesn't mean that we can't submit

2:03:31 ↗ applica more information later it just

2:03:34 ↗ means that we submitted enough

2:03:35 ↗ information

2:03:37 ↗ for our application to be considered

2:03:40 ↗ and that clearly wasn't the standard

2:03:41 ↗ that was being applied to our permits

2:03:46 ↗ and how about on number 13 there um

2:03:49 ↗ there's a

2:03:50 ↗ response to your revision

2:03:52 ↗ that references plating what was the the

2:03:55 ↗ deal there

2:03:58 ↗ [Music]

2:04:03 ↗ so that one was discovery drive not

2:04:05 ↗ complete and the information provided

2:04:07 ↗ does not clarify what frontage

2:04:08 ↗ improvements are required

2:04:10 ↗ for full build out and what dedication

2:04:12 ↗ might be necessary to do that

2:04:16 ↗ and then she says that that's part of

2:04:18 ↗ the planning process so this was one of

2:04:20 ↗ those that she flagged as

2:04:22 ↗ items that couldn't occur with um

2:04:25 ↗ with

2:04:27 ↗ the site development permit because it

2:04:29 ↗ needed to happen with the plating

2:04:31 ↗ process

2:04:34 ↗ and with respect to the lot lines that

2:04:36 ↗ are called out in i think it's number

2:04:39 ↗ two on this one it's also significant

2:04:41 ↗ when you look at our site i mean yes

2:04:44 ↗ we're processing a plot but

2:04:46 ↗ if you look around our property on most

2:04:50 ↗ sides it's fronted

2:04:52 ↗ it's it's bordered rather

2:04:55 ↗ by right away so

2:04:57 ↗ it wasn't as if you're planning a piece

2:04:59 ↗ of property that it doesn't have

2:05:03 ↗ established boundaries it does

2:05:07 ↗ and the roads

2:05:08 ↗ two of the roads that go through our

2:05:10 ↗ plat

2:05:11 ↗ are actually already constructed and at

2:05:13 ↗ this time were already approved to be

2:05:15 ↗ constructed or actually were constructed

2:05:18 ↗ by polygon so

2:05:22 ↗ i think it's even

2:05:24 ↗ more of a stretch to say that you

2:05:26 ↗ couldn't

2:05:27 ↗ deem an application complete without the

2:05:29 ↗ plat being approved

2:05:38 ↗ so throughout this process these are

2:05:39 ↗ we've been talking about the sufficiency

2:05:41 ↗ letters which are these formal letters

2:05:43 ↗ that we've been looking at did you also

2:05:46 ↗ get comments back from the preliminary

2:05:49 ↗ application meetings that were held

2:05:55 ↗ we did

2:05:57 ↗ they were a little out of sequence

2:05:59 ↗ because they took so long to issue those

2:06:02 ↗ comments with respect to the site

2:06:03 ↗ development permits so i think i called

2:06:05 ↗ out in when we were looking at our

2:06:09 ↗ preliminary plat application materials

2:06:11 ↗ last night that the time frame for

2:06:14 ↗ issuing the comments after our

2:06:16 ↗ pre-application meeting was relatively

2:06:17 ↗ quick i think it was a week or so after

2:06:20 ↗ um

2:06:21 ↗ i'd have to look at the

2:06:23 ↗ dates again but i believe we were more

2:06:26 ↗ like six weeks out from pre-op to

2:06:29 ↗ providing the comments

2:06:33 ↗ with respect to the sdp applications

2:06:45 ↗ so then

2:06:46 ↗ moving forward again in time um

2:06:50 ↗ you received these these insufficiency

2:06:52 ↗ letters

2:06:55 ↗ did shelter resubmit applications again

2:06:58 ↗ for medical office and retail

2:07:00 ↗ yes every time that we received an

2:07:02 ↗ insufficiency letter we would

2:07:06 ↗ gather our consultants and

2:07:08 ↗ try to address everything in those

2:07:10 ↗ letters and resubmit as quickly as we

2:07:12 ↗ could

2:07:28 ↗ i think given the time right now and the

2:07:30 ↗ next couple are going to be really big

2:07:32 ↗ packets again it's probably a good time

2:07:33 ↗ to take a break and we can try to gather

2:07:35 ↗ those together to be as efficient as

2:07:37 ↗ possible

2:07:38 ↗ excellent we appreciate that let's take

2:07:39 ↗ a let's take a 10 minute break thank you

2:20:50 ↗ oh you should you should

2:20:52 ↗ he talks about

2:20:55 ↗ all right uh if i can call a meeting

2:20:57 ↗ back to order i think uh we're on the

2:20:59 ↗ air or i know we're on the air so uh

2:21:01 ↗ miss kerry if you could uh carry on

2:21:03 ↗ thank you

2:21:05 ↗ um

2:21:06 ↗ so first of all tia we have a

2:21:08 ↗ rather large exhibit coming in um and

2:21:11 ↗ just to kind of explain the context for

2:21:12 ↗ this so we're talking about the medical

2:21:15 ↗ office building and retail resubmittals

2:21:18 ↗ when shelter did the resubmittals what

2:21:21 ↗ did those look like

2:21:25 ↗ i guess at various

2:21:27 ↗ times of resubmitting they looked

2:21:28 ↗ slightly different but initially the

2:21:30 ↗ resubmittals when we would get an

2:21:32 ↗ insufficiency letter we would have to

2:21:35 ↗ resubmit pretty much the entire package

2:21:37 ↗ so

2:21:38 ↗ um that's why you see the six inches

2:21:42 ↗ plus of documents

2:21:44 ↗ sitting there

2:21:46 ↗ we would have to have our consultants

2:21:47 ↗ reassemble the entire package and

2:21:50 ↗ resubmit it through

2:21:52 ↗ my building mybuildingpermit.com at the

2:21:55 ↗ later stages of the insufficiency

2:21:57 ↗ letters

2:22:01 ↗ they identify that the only issues left

2:22:04 ↗ are the plot related issues

2:22:07 ↗ so there really wasn't anything

2:22:10 ↗ by way of revising plans or documents

2:22:12 ↗ that we submitted that could be actually

2:22:14 ↗ resubmitted

2:22:16 ↗ and at that point then we weren't making

2:22:19 ↗ full resubmittals we

2:22:20 ↗ were making um like a a letter of recent

2:22:25 ↗ medal

2:22:26 ↗ and so we um

2:22:28 ↗ we've tried to figure out the most

2:22:30 ↗ efficient way to do this and so i think

2:22:32 ↗ we're just going to run through as we

2:22:33 ↗ have been in terms of saying you know

2:22:35 ↗ the full exhibit number in this case um

2:22:38 ↗ we've

2:22:39 ↗ moved through to

2:22:41 ↗ a 67 for the medical office resubmittal

2:22:45 ↗ tia is going to go through and identify

2:22:46 ↗ the documents just so that we understand

2:22:48 ↗ what they are and the record but we're

2:22:49 ↗ going to move through them as quickly as

2:22:50 ↗ we can so

2:22:52 ↗ we'll start on that process so

2:22:54 ↗ this is um

2:22:55 ↗ s67 um

2:23:05 ↗ the first one is s67a

2:23:15 ↗ let's see if you could describe that

2:23:17 ↗ document just briefly please

2:23:19 ↗ this

2:23:20 ↗ is a title commitment or

2:23:23 ↗ subdivision guarantee

2:23:26 ↗ then s 67

2:23:30 ↗ b

2:23:38 ↗ this is the

2:23:40 ↗ arc approval letter letter for the

2:23:44 ↗ retail project

2:23:51 ↗ an s67c

2:23:56 ↗ a 67c is the affidavit of ownership and

2:24:00 ↗ the affidavit of agent authority

2:24:08 ↗ an s67d

2:24:11 ↗ a 67d is the geotechnical report

2:24:23 ↗ s67e

2:24:26 ↗ s67e is the

2:24:31 ↗ preliminary stormwater report

2:24:34 ↗ for the

2:24:35 ↗ medical office

2:24:41 ↗ s67

2:24:43 ↗ f

2:24:46 ↗ s67f

2:24:49 ↗ is the solid waste service company

2:24:52 ↗ review and collection space standards

2:24:54 ↗ form

2:24:55 ↗ for

2:24:56 ↗ the

2:24:58 ↗ medical office

2:25:19 ↗ care for a band-aid

2:25:27 ↗ at risk of harming you well continue on

2:25:30 ↗ um okay so this is s67g

2:25:34 ↗ careful

2:25:37 ↗ s67g

2:25:39 ↗ is

2:25:41 ↗ a

2:25:46 ↗ project narrative for

2:25:48 ↗ the

2:25:49 ↗ medical office asdp

2:25:54 ↗ s67 h

2:25:57 ↗ s 67h is the land use permit application

2:26:01 ↗ form for the site development permit for

2:26:03 ↗ the medical office building

2:26:10 ↗ 67i

2:26:14 ↗ s67i

2:26:16 ↗ is the transpo group memorandum

2:26:22 ↗ regarding the block d

2:26:25 ↗ medical office building

2:26:30 ↗ and i think some of these may be showing

2:26:31 ↗ up in resubmittal and they were probably

2:26:34 ↗ actually submitted with the original

2:26:38 ↗ application but their file may have

2:26:40 ↗ called them out and put them in the

2:26:41 ↗ resubmittal

2:26:43 ↗ the filing system of the

2:26:45 ↗ consultants

2:26:48 ↗ an s67

2:26:51 ↗ j

2:26:59 ↗ this is

2:27:01 ↗ the public notice site plan

2:27:03 ↗ for the medical office building

2:27:16 ↗ s67k

2:27:19 ↗ this s67k is the sepa envelope

2:27:23 ↗ determination

2:27:27 ↗ i can't tell for sure which application

2:27:29 ↗ that was that goes to but it was

2:27:31 ↗ submitted with each of our applications

2:27:35 ↗ s67

2:27:37 ↗ l

2:27:40 ↗ s67l is the site development permit

2:27:42 ↗ submittal requirement checklist

2:28:04 ↗ s67m

2:28:09 ↗ s67m is the medical office building

2:28:14 ↗ site development administrative site

2:28:16 ↗ development permit resubmittal and it's

2:28:18 ↗ the main package of

2:28:21 ↗ plans and it's dated january 16 2018.

2:28:29 ↗ s67n

2:28:36 ↗ uh s67n

2:28:42 ↗ is

2:28:45 ↗ an existing conditions

2:28:52 ↗ sheet of the submittal or one of the

2:28:56 ↗ recent middles for the medical office

2:28:58 ↗ building

2:29:01 ↗ an s67-0

2:29:05 ↗ um

2:29:06 ↗ s6700

2:29:09 ↗ is a january 17 2018

2:29:14 ↗ response to the

2:29:15 ↗ asdp

2:29:18 ↗ insufficiency letter for the medical

2:29:20 ↗ office building

2:29:22 ↗ and the cover page of this is

2:29:25 ↗ a printout from my building permit that

2:29:28 ↗ is

2:29:29 ↗ an attempt to respond to one of the

2:29:32 ↗ previous comments in the

2:29:35 ↗ insufficiency letter about not being

2:29:37 ↗ able to tell where various documents

2:29:39 ↗ were submitted

2:29:41 ↗ so it's sort of a map that shows

2:29:43 ↗ for example

2:29:45 ↗ our storm report is under the title

2:29:47 ↗ drainage report or

2:29:50 ↗ it's it's the road map to show where

2:29:52 ↗ specific documents are in my building

2:29:54 ↗ permit

2:29:56 ↗ oops

2:29:58 ↗ s67p

2:30:02 ↗ s67p is a january 17th 2018

2:30:07 ↗ asdp submittal response letter to lucy

2:30:11 ↗ sloman from collins warman

2:30:17 ↗ and that's on the medical office

2:30:18 ↗ building

2:30:22 ↗ s67q

2:30:28 ↗ a 67q

2:30:30 ↗ is

2:30:33 ↗ a january 17th

2:30:35 ↗ letter to

2:30:37 ↗ jean lynn

2:30:43 ↗ regarding her

2:30:45 ↗ this is responses to the pre-application

2:30:48 ↗ asdp

2:30:50 ↗ comments

2:30:54 ↗ on the

2:30:55 ↗ medical office building

2:31:02 ↗ so those were included with one of the

2:31:04 ↗ resubmittals because we didn't

2:31:06 ↗ have comments yet at the time that we

2:31:08 ↗ made the submittal

2:31:31 ↗ okay s67r

2:31:37 ↗ s67r is a

2:31:40 ↗ transmittal memo

2:31:42 ↗ to christopher wright at the city of

2:31:44 ↗ issaquah from david holmes regarding the

2:31:46 ↗ medical office building and it's dated

2:31:49 ↗ january 17 2018

2:31:51 ↗ and it lists the various items that are

2:31:54 ↗ included in the recent middle

2:31:58 ↗ okay

2:31:59 ↗ i think that should close out

2:32:01 ↗ s67

2:32:30 ↗ so we also had around this time

2:32:32 ↗ the retail resubmittal is that

2:32:35 ↗ consistent with your memory

2:32:37 ↗ yes as i mentioned before both those

2:32:39 ↗ were sort of tracking along very similar

2:32:41 ↗ time frames okay so these um are gonna

2:32:43 ↗ be at s68

2:32:58 ↗ so

2:33:13 ↗ so starting with um s68a

2:33:28 ↗ f68a is a

2:33:32 ↗ site plan for the

2:33:34 ↗ retail sdp

2:33:48 ↗ and s 68

2:33:50 ↗ b

2:33:53 ↗ s 68 b is a letter dated january 16

2:33:57 ↗ 2018

2:33:58 ↗ addressed to lucy sloman

2:34:06 ↗ responding to

2:34:09 ↗ one of the insufficiency letters with

2:34:11 ↗ respect to the retail application

2:34:34 ↗ an s66c

2:34:38 ↗ or sorry a 68

2:34:41 ↗ rather c

2:34:47 ↗ s68c is the

2:34:51 ↗ bulk of the package of the

2:34:54 ↗ retail site development permit so all

2:34:57 ↗ the maps and plans and

2:35:00 ↗ elevations and photos and images okay

2:35:04 ↗ so that should be the end of s68

2:35:14 ↗ um let's turn to

2:35:16 ↗ exhibit s6 in the record please

2:35:34 ↗ okay

2:35:35 ↗ um can you describe what is the

2:35:38 ↗ documented s6

2:35:40 ↗ um

2:35:41 ↗ this is the

2:35:43 ↗ summary of the various applications of

2:35:45 ↗ our various applications that i believe

2:35:47 ↗ was

2:35:48 ↗ prepared by lucy sloman okay and so

2:35:52 ↗ there's summaries of the different dates

2:35:54 ↗ it looks like she's listing out

2:35:55 ↗ different dates of things like the

2:35:56 ↗ pre-op

2:35:58 ↗ the collaboration meetings and then also

2:36:01 ↗ there's a list of dates for it says

2:36:03 ↗ insufficient and then followed by dates

2:36:05 ↗ there

2:36:07 ↗ are these dates on

2:36:09 ↗ this chart consistent with your

2:36:11 ↗ recollection of when the various states

2:36:13 ↗ for your applications were

2:36:19 ↗ um

2:36:22 ↗ i think

2:36:30 ↗ generally yes

2:36:32 ↗ i would make a couple of comments to

2:36:34 ↗ that

2:36:38 ↗ the first is on the preliminary plat

2:36:41 ↗ it notes that we got comments on january

2:36:44 ↗ 16 2018 i don't think that's accurate i

2:36:48 ↗ think that a comment that

2:36:51 ↗ ended up relating to

2:36:54 ↗ a change in something that they asked

2:36:55 ↗ for with respect to the plat came out of

2:36:58 ↗ the review

2:37:00 ↗ of one of the other

2:37:01 ↗ sdp applications but we didn't receive

2:37:04 ↗ any comments on

2:37:06 ↗ the plat

2:37:09 ↗ until march of 2018

2:37:15 ↗ the other

2:37:19 ↗ the other thing i guess i just don't

2:37:20 ↗ know what the comments mean under where

2:37:23 ↗ it says comments and gives a date for

2:37:26 ↗ each of the

2:37:28 ↗ sdp applications

2:37:31 ↗ i'm not sure what that means i don't

2:37:32 ↗ know if those are pre-op comments they

2:37:35 ↗ they might be the date dates that we

2:37:37 ↗ received the pre-app comments

2:37:40 ↗ um but we never received any

2:37:43 ↗ application

2:37:44 ↗ comments so pre-app comments um what

2:37:48 ↗ what are those

2:37:50 ↗ those would be the comments that we

2:37:52 ↗ get out of after a pre-app

2:37:56 ↗ meeting so you have the meeting you have

2:37:57 ↗ discussion about the application and

2:38:00 ↗ then the city generates written comments

2:38:03 ↗ that come from various juris various

2:38:05 ↗ departments within the city

2:38:07 ↗ and consolidates those into a letter and

2:38:09 ↗ sends it to you

2:38:12 ↗ and

2:38:12 ↗ and so then that's is that distinct from

2:38:15 ↗ um the insufficiency letters or

2:38:17 ↗ sufficiency letters that you're

2:38:18 ↗ receiving

2:38:21 ↗ yes that's different

2:38:26 ↗ so according to this um when was the

2:38:29 ↗ first date that comments were received

2:38:31 ↗ assuming that we're talking about

2:38:32 ↗ pre-application comments

2:38:35 ↗ on the office pre-application and retail

2:38:38 ↗ pre-application

2:38:41 ↗ when you say office do you mean the

2:38:42 ↗ medical office or the

2:38:44 ↗ office

2:38:45 ↗ uh no the the office

2:38:48 ↗ so this chart notes that office

2:38:52 ↗ comments were received january 16 2018.

2:38:57 ↗ so how long after submitted or how long

2:39:00 ↗ after the pre-app was that for these

2:39:02 ↗ different applications

2:39:05 ↗ um

2:39:06 ↗ well on this it says that the office

2:39:09 ↗ pre-app was submitted in no on november

2:39:11 ↗ 9th of 2017.

2:39:16 ↗ so two months two months a little over

2:39:18 ↗ two months

2:39:22 ↗ and then retail

2:39:26 ↗ has comments noted as january 16 2018

2:39:30 ↗ and the pre-app was submitted

2:39:33 ↗ on

2:39:35 ↗ october 23rd 2017 so that one's even

2:39:39 ↗ longer

2:39:41 ↗ okay

2:39:44 ↗ let's turn to um your meeting minutes

2:39:46 ↗ again and look at the january 17th 2018

2:39:49 ↗ meeting

2:39:58 ↗ oops

2:40:11 ↗ january 17th yes okay so um what

2:40:15 ↗ happened at the january 17 2018 meeting

2:40:18 ↗ what was the purpose of that meeting so

2:40:20 ↗ that was the pre-app meeting for our

2:40:23 ↗ storage

2:40:24 ↗ administrative site development permit

2:40:26 ↗ application

2:40:31 ↗ and then let's turn and actually before

2:40:33 ↗ we move past that

2:40:35 ↗ we're going to have a new exhibit

2:40:39 ↗ at s69

2:40:42 ↗ and

2:40:44 ↗ i'll represent that these will be

2:40:46 ↗ documents related to the storage pre-app

2:40:48 ↗ and ta you can verify that for me as we

2:40:50 ↗ go through

2:41:03 ↗ all right so the the first

2:41:06 ↗ one that we will have at s

2:41:08 ↗ 69 is s69a

2:41:16 ↗ and um

2:41:19 ↗ yeah will you please describe that

2:41:20 ↗ document for

2:41:22 ↗ me

2:41:25 ↗ um this s69a is a letter from jackson

2:41:28 ↗ main architecture which was our

2:41:31 ↗ main consultant

2:41:33 ↗ and point of contact for the storage

2:41:36 ↗ application

2:41:40 ↗ and it looks like this is

2:41:44 ↗ a cover letter that goes with the

2:41:47 ↗ submittal

2:41:51 ↗ and then s69

2:41:53 ↗ v

2:41:57 ↗ s69b is

2:42:02 ↗ the

2:42:04 ↗ main submittal

2:42:07 ↗ for the

2:42:08 ↗ the storage pre-app and so it has the

2:42:10 ↗ existing site information all the

2:42:12 ↗ different views similar to the other

2:42:15 ↗ applications that we've

2:42:16 ↗ already gone through it has

2:42:19 ↗ site context and adjacent uses

2:42:23 ↗ and

2:42:26 ↗ what is this

2:42:29 ↗ uh

2:42:32 ↗ some kind of

2:42:35 ↗ sunrise sunset analysis i'm not sure

2:42:38 ↗ what that is

2:42:40 ↗ neighboring developments

2:42:43 ↗ it shows

2:42:45 ↗ some engineering work

2:42:47 ↗ building massing architectural concepts

2:42:53 ↗ um building inspiration

2:42:56 ↗ landscape inspiration and plant palette

2:43:01 ↗ architectural concepts and a written

2:43:04 ↗ narrative

2:43:06 ↗ how about the document at s69c

2:43:11 ↗ s69c is the land use application form

2:43:15 ↗ for the

2:43:18 ↗ self storage

2:43:28 ↗ and s69 d

2:43:30 ↗ [Applause]

2:43:32 ↗ s 69 d is the land use permit

2:43:34 ↗ application form for the preliminary

2:43:37 ↗ land use application for the

2:43:40 ↗ storage facility

2:43:57 ↗ okay so that should close out as 69.

2:44:02 ↗ um and let's turn now to well actually

2:44:04 ↗ before we move on so you walked us

2:44:06 ↗ through what those documents are so were

2:44:07 ↗ those related to the pre-application for

2:44:10 ↗ self-storage is that correct

2:44:12 ↗ yes those would have been the submittal

2:44:14 ↗ that we made

2:44:15 ↗ prior to being allowed to schedule the

2:44:18 ↗ pre-application for storage

2:44:20 ↗ and

2:44:22 ↗ when we were doing the storage

2:44:24 ↗ application

2:44:25 ↗ we asked again could we go without a

2:44:28 ↗ pre-app and go straight to application

2:44:30 ↗ and again we were told no you need to do

2:44:33 ↗ the

2:44:34 ↗ collaborative and pre-app

2:44:38 ↗ okay

2:44:39 ↗ um let's turn to exhibit c

2:44:41 ↗ 20.

2:44:55 ↗ what is the oh sorry i'll give you a

2:44:57 ↗ minute to get there today yeah i'm

2:44:59 ↗ almost there no no worries okay i got it

2:45:02 ↗ um what's the document at c20

2:45:04 ↗ so this is a january 26 2017

2:45:10 ↗ insufficiency letter from

2:45:12 ↗ [Music]

2:45:13 ↗ the city

2:45:14 ↗ on our

2:45:17 ↗ retail

2:45:18 ↗ proposal

2:45:24 ↗ okay and going down to um number five

2:45:28 ↗ and that sufficiency letter

2:45:30 ↗ what did

2:45:32 ↗ the city have to say or what did mrs

2:45:33 ↗ solomon have to say with respect to

2:45:36 ↗ the

2:45:37 ↗ plot issue that we've been discussing on

2:45:38 ↗ these applications

2:45:40 ↗ so the january 26th response says

2:45:43 ↗ revision is insufficient

2:45:45 ↗ letter agreement has not been approved

2:45:47 ↗ by the city attorney and signed by both

2:45:49 ↗ parties

2:45:50 ↗ what's the letter agreement that this is

2:45:52 ↗ referencing

2:45:53 ↗ so it's referencing the letter agreement

2:45:56 ↗ that was ultimately signed

2:45:59 ↗ in march

2:46:01 ↗ i

2:46:02 ↗ believe around the 16th of march

2:46:06 ↗ or it might have been the 18th

2:46:08 ↗ through the 16th or the 18th of march

2:46:09 ↗ 2018 there it was actually signed and it

2:46:12 ↗ acknowledged that our applications were

2:46:14 ↗ complete so the reason why it's

2:46:17 ↗ referenced

2:46:18 ↗ here at this time in in late january is

2:46:22 ↗ that is a letter agreement that patrick

2:46:24 ↗ mullaney

2:46:26 ↗ worked on with lucy sloman and

2:46:29 ↗ it had been

2:46:30 ↗ sent to the city

2:46:32 ↗ um

2:46:33 ↗ for review and signature

2:46:36 ↗ so when she says it's not been approved

2:46:38 ↗ by the city attorney at this point we

2:46:40 ↗ had didn't have any

2:46:41 ↗ comments or response from the city

2:46:43 ↗ attorney or the city staff

2:46:46 ↗ but we had sent over i believe a signed

2:46:48 ↗ version at that point

2:46:50 ↗ what was the what was the point of that

2:46:52 ↗ letter why why were you pursuing that

2:46:55 ↗ um

2:46:57 ↗ the reason why we were pursuing it was

2:46:59 ↗ the the endless loop of plot

2:47:01 ↗ requirements for

2:47:03 ↗ completeness

2:47:04 ↗ there was nothing that we could do

2:47:07 ↗ absent um

2:47:09 ↗ entering into some letter agreement with

2:47:12 ↗ them

2:47:12 ↗ uh to get across the the finish line

2:47:16 ↗ that ms sloman had established for us

2:47:18 ↗ which was

2:47:20 ↗ a

2:47:21 ↗ a line that couldn't be reached until

2:47:23 ↗ she completed

2:47:24 ↗ her review approval and potentially

2:47:27 ↗ of the preliminary platinum potentially

2:47:29 ↗ of the the final plot so we had

2:47:33 ↗ engaged in discussion with the city to

2:47:35 ↗ try to figure out

2:47:36 ↗ what really was the concern and and how

2:47:39 ↗ do we get there

2:47:40 ↗ so one of the things that's addressed in

2:47:42 ↗ that letter is that

2:47:45 ↗ they're supposed to review the plot

2:47:47 ↗ first and they were supposed to review

2:47:49 ↗ the plot

2:47:51 ↗ i forget what the terminology is but

2:47:53 ↗ quickly after the letter agreement

2:47:56 ↗ so let's um i'm going to introduce a new

2:47:58 ↗ exhibit s70

2:48:19 ↗ all right

2:48:20 ↗ um what is the document at s70

2:48:27 ↗ this is a letter

2:48:30 ↗ dated january 31st 2018

2:48:34 ↗ and it is from me

2:48:38 ↗ to lucy sloman and copied to keith niven

2:48:43 ↗ jim haney the city attorney

2:48:45 ↗ and patrick mullaney our outside

2:48:47 ↗ attorney

2:48:51 ↗ and it has to do with this

2:48:55 ↗ this issue of how do we get to complete

2:48:57 ↗ application when you're controlling the

2:48:58 ↗ one thing that's preventing us from

2:49:00 ↗ getting there

2:49:10 ↗ and so as you go through this um letter

2:49:12 ↗ and the third

2:49:14 ↗ the third paragraph down um

2:49:17 ↗ can you read the the first sentence of

2:49:19 ↗ that paragraph please

2:49:21 ↗ of the third paragraph yes it starts

2:49:23 ↗ with unfortunately yes

2:49:25 ↗ it says unfortunately this is just the

2:49:27 ↗ latest example of the city's pattern of

2:49:28 ↗ delaying and obstructing our ability to

2:49:30 ↗ get to complete sdp application

2:49:33 ↗ as you're aware we submitted our plaid

2:49:35 ↗ application on august 1st 2017

2:49:38 ↗ six months ago and it was deemed

2:49:40 ↗ complete as of august 11 2017. the plaid

2:49:44 ↗ application is required to be reviewed

2:49:46 ↗ according to the terms of the

2:49:47 ↗ development agreement

2:49:49 ↗ and so you go on there

2:49:51 ↗ that just so you don't have to read the

2:49:52 ↗ whole thing into the record can you

2:49:53 ↗ paraphrase

2:49:54 ↗ kind of the rest of that

2:49:57 ↗ it basically goes through the time

2:49:59 ↗ frames in appendix l

2:50:03 ↗ and

2:50:04 ↗ states that the

2:50:06 ↗ council action should have

2:50:09 ↗ taken place

2:50:11 ↗ by october 28 2017

2:50:15 ↗ and that we had an expectation

2:50:17 ↗ that our preliminary plot would be

2:50:19 ↗ approved in that time frame

2:50:24 ↗ now moving down to the second page there

2:50:26 ↗ can you read the sentence at the top

2:50:29 ↗ line that starts with you informed us

2:50:32 ↗ you informed us on multiple occasions

2:50:34 ↗ that you were aware of the development

2:50:36 ↗ agreement provisions but had no

2:50:37 ↗ intention of following the timing

2:50:39 ↗ requirements and that there were no

2:50:41 ↗ remedies available to us for your

2:50:42 ↗ failure to adhere to the terms of the

2:50:44 ↗ development agreement

2:50:46 ↗ the city's failure to follow the terms

2:50:47 ↗ of the development agreement has caused

2:50:49 ↗ the issue that you are now citing as

2:50:51 ↗ preventing us from getting to complete

2:50:53 ↗ application for our sdp and is therefore

2:50:56 ↗ not an appropriate basis for deeming our

2:50:57 ↗ sdp application incomplete

2:51:02 ↗ then that next paragraph um

2:51:05 ↗ you go on and to talk about a

2:51:07 ↗ conversation that you had with director

2:51:08 ↗ niven can you explain that for us please

2:51:12 ↗ yes before we went in for any of our sdp

2:51:15 ↗ applications

2:51:17 ↗ we went in and met with director niven

2:51:20 ↗ to make sure that we were going to be

2:51:23 ↗ submitting them in a format that would

2:51:26 ↗ the city would accept and review

2:51:31 ↗ and this was the issue that i think

2:51:32 ↗ again i flagged maybe in the in last

2:51:35 ↗ night's testimony where we weren't sure

2:51:38 ↗ if the city's preference would be to

2:51:40 ↗ have individual sdp applications on a

2:51:43 ↗ block by block basis or if they would

2:51:47 ↗ prefer to have it all as one sdp

2:51:49 ↗ application because the plot hadn't been

2:51:51 ↗ approved

2:51:53 ↗ and at that time director niven assured

2:51:56 ↗ us that doing the individual block by

2:51:57 ↗ block

2:51:59 ↗ applications

2:52:01 ↗ would be acceptable

2:52:15 ↗ so you go on through throughout the

2:52:17 ↗ letter to

2:52:18 ↗ describe the process and we've talked

2:52:19 ↗ about some of these issues already

2:52:22 ↗ um

2:52:25 ↗ at this time and i'm now down on

2:52:27 ↗ looks like the third page the final page

2:52:29 ↗ of this document

2:52:34 ↗ can you read the second paragraph there

2:52:36 ↗ that says as we have stated before

2:52:39 ↗ it says as we have stated before we have

2:52:41 ↗ spent a significant amount of time and

2:52:43 ↗ resources

2:52:45 ↗ over five hundred thousand dollars on

2:52:46 ↗ our pending issaquah highlands land use

2:52:48 ↗ applications and although the city has

2:52:50 ↗ acknowledged that all of our pending

2:52:52 ↗ land use applications vested when the

2:52:54 ↗ preliminary land use applications were

2:52:55 ↗ deemed complete we are seeking complete

2:52:58 ↗ application status for the sdp asdp's as

2:53:02 ↗ soon as possible

2:53:14 ↗ and so the follow-on to this letter you

2:53:15 ↗ had mentioned that letter agreement

2:53:17 ↗ already and and we'll um we'll pull that

2:53:19 ↗ up and talk about it in a little bit

2:53:21 ↗ but is is that the march letter

2:53:23 ↗ agreement the follow-on to this

2:53:27 ↗ letter in terms of kind of the

2:53:29 ↗ discussions that were happening around

2:53:31 ↗ these issues

2:53:33 ↗ yes i think um

2:53:37 ↗ i think that a draft of that letter

2:53:39 ↗ agreement already existed at the time of

2:53:41 ↗ this letter so in the second paragraph

2:53:43 ↗ of this letter it references

2:53:46 ↗ um that patrick malini worked with you

2:53:48 ↗ to create a letter agreement outlining

2:53:50 ↗ the process that you requested that

2:53:51 ↗ letter agreement was signed and

2:53:52 ↗ submitted to you and keith niven on

2:53:54 ↗ january 24th 2018 however we still have

2:53:57 ↗ no response from you other than it's

2:53:59 ↗ been referred to the city attorney the

2:54:01 ↗ city attorney does not return calls from

2:54:03 ↗ our attorney and has provided no

2:54:04 ↗ response

2:54:10 ↗ let's turn back to the

2:54:12 ↗ sufficiency letters that we were looking

2:54:14 ↗ at a minute ago

2:54:18 ↗ and

2:54:19 ↗ i'm specifically looking at a c

2:54:22 ↗ 21 now we'd already talked about the

2:54:26 ↗ uh retail one okay um so what is the the

2:54:30 ↗ document at c21

2:54:32 ↗ c21 is a january 26 2017 insufficiency

2:54:37 ↗ letter

2:54:38 ↗ regarding the medical office building

2:54:44 ↗ and if you look at

2:54:45 ↗ section two in that

2:54:48 ↗ what was the response

2:54:50 ↗ to your revisions regarding the plot

2:54:52 ↗ issue

2:54:53 ↗ i think it's the same response as on the

2:54:54 ↗ previous letter for the other project

2:54:57 ↗ and it says revision is insufficient

2:54:59 ↗ letter agreement has not been approved

2:55:00 ↗ by the city attorney and signed by both

2:55:02 ↗ parties

2:55:16 ↗ and if you go down to number 13

2:55:20 ↗ we mentioned number 13 already before in

2:55:23 ↗ a prior sufficiency letter

2:55:25 ↗ had any change occurred with in regard

2:55:28 ↗ to the city's response to number

2:55:30 ↗ thirteen

2:55:31 ↗ no it says

2:55:33 ↗ see item five above

2:55:38 ↗ which

2:55:41 ↗ i'm not sure if she actually meant to

2:55:43 ↗ see number five or see number two

2:55:45 ↗ but number five is the

2:55:48 ↗ issue about whether roads exist when

2:55:50 ↗ they're built or when

2:55:52 ↗ they are accepted by the city

2:56:16 ↗ all right this next exhibit is going to

2:56:18 ↗ be s

2:56:20 ↗ 71

2:56:31 ↗ um

2:56:46 ↗ and what is the document at s71

2:56:50 ↗ this is a february 2nd 2018

2:56:53 ↗ letter from

2:56:55 ↗ me to

2:56:57 ↗ the city attention lucy sloman and it's

2:56:59 ↗ regarding the medical office

2:57:02 ↗ site development permit application and

2:57:04 ↗ request for dispute resolution meeting

2:57:06 ↗ this is essentially the same letter that

2:57:09 ↗ we wrote

2:57:12 ↗ for the

2:57:13 ↗ um retail one that is under exhibit s70

2:57:18 ↗ but this is for the medical office

2:57:21 ↗ so um what was the date of this letter

2:57:24 ↗ um this one's february 2nd 2018. do you

2:57:27 ↗ recall the date of the other letter at

2:57:29 ↗ s70 january 31st 2018. so in both of the

2:57:33 ↗ letters

2:57:34 ↗ you had mentioned already that there was

2:57:36 ↗ a reference that we hadn't received any

2:57:38 ↗ shelter hadn't received any response um

2:57:41 ↗ the city attorney wasn't returning calls

2:57:43 ↗ and provided no response is that still

2:57:45 ↗ consistent between january 31st and

2:57:47 ↗ february 2nd yes still true

2:57:57 ↗ let's turn to your meeting minutes um

2:57:59 ↗ for

2:58:00 ↗ the february 6 2018 meeting

2:58:28 ↗ so who was at this meeting on february

2:58:31 ↗ 6th of 2018.

2:58:35 ↗ um

2:58:37 ↗ so the the

2:58:38 ↗ february 6 2018 meeting

2:58:41 ↗ was the dispute resolution meeting that

2:58:44 ↗ we were requesting in those two letters

2:58:46 ↗ that we just introduced as s70 and s71

2:58:50 ↗ um so

2:58:52 ↗ at this meeting it was jim haney

2:58:55 ↗ lucy sloman keith niven patrick mullaney

2:58:58 ↗ and me

2:59:08 ↗ so can you walk us through

2:59:10 ↗ what was discussed at this

2:59:12 ↗ meeting sure

2:59:19 ↗ i think beginning with it it looks like

2:59:21 ↗ from your notes

2:59:22 ↗ um

2:59:23 ↗ one of the first things that were

2:59:25 ↗ was talked about was the plot plat

2:59:28 ↗ what did the city have to say about the

2:59:30 ↗ platte application at that time

2:59:33 ↗ so they indicated that it was clear that

2:59:36 ↗ it's vested

2:59:40 ↗ and patrick asked

2:59:44 ↗ what that means and they acknowledge

2:59:46 ↗ that it means that it vests to the

2:59:47 ↗ development standards in the development

2:59:49 ↗ agreement

2:59:52 ↗ patrick followed up by asking

2:59:55 ↗ them to confirm that that includes the

2:59:57 ↗ regulations and mitigation

3:00:00 ↗ and

3:00:01 ↗ uh

3:00:01 ↗ mr haney said

3:00:03 ↗ yes to the regulations and no to the

3:00:06 ↗ mitigation

3:00:07 ↗ which really made no sense because

3:00:09 ↗ development standards is a defined term

3:00:13 ↗ in the development agreement

3:00:14 ↗ and it expressly includes mitigation in

3:00:18 ↗ the in the defined term development

3:00:20 ↗ standards

3:00:22 ↗ so patrick pointed that out

3:00:25 ↗ um

3:00:25 ↗ to mr haney

3:00:28 ↗ and he looked at it and

3:00:31 ↗ said he understood our position but

3:00:35 ↗ um

3:00:36 ↗ thought it's not clear

3:00:40 ↗ what did um what discussion did you have

3:00:42 ↗ with respect to the west main problem

3:00:45 ↗ um that we discussed earlier that was

3:00:46 ↗ brought up in the november of 2017 memo

3:00:49 ↗ from um mr novena miss loman

3:00:53 ↗ so

3:00:54 ↗ um

3:00:59 ↗ again patrick asked about the city's

3:01:02 ↗ position that

3:01:04 ↗ preliminary land use applications vest

3:01:07 ↗ in order to avoid

3:01:09 ↗ a west main problem

3:01:13 ↗ and asked why the administration was now

3:01:16 ↗ suggesting

3:01:18 ↗ that a different standard be applied

3:01:21 ↗ within the urban villages

3:01:23 ↗ from that that would be applied outside

3:01:26 ↗ of the urban villages but in the

3:01:28 ↗ remainder of

3:01:30 ↗ issaquah

3:01:31 ↗ um

3:01:35 ↗ and i guess maybe a little bit of

3:01:36 ↗ background is helpful to understand the

3:01:39 ↗ context there

3:01:40 ↗ um

3:01:41 ↗ so this meeting happened on february 6th

3:01:45 ↗ of 2018

3:01:48 ↗ up until february 2nd of 2018 the

3:01:51 ↗ administration had been

3:01:53 ↗ recommending to council that the

3:01:56 ↗ language in the replacement regulations

3:02:00 ↗ acknowledged that

3:02:02 ↗ sdps and preliminary land use

3:02:04 ↗ applications are vested to the

3:02:07 ↗ development agreement when the

3:02:08 ↗ application is deemed complete

3:02:12 ↗ on february 2nd

3:02:15 ↗ an email went out from the city saying

3:02:17 ↗ that due to the change in administration

3:02:20 ↗ the

3:02:21 ↗ uh

3:02:22 ↗ the recommendation of the administration

3:02:25 ↗ with respect to vesting had changed so

3:02:27 ↗ this was after

3:02:28 ↗ mayor polly had taken office and

3:02:32 ↗ the email that came out offered

3:02:35 ↗ that she would speak with anybody that

3:02:37 ↗ took issue with the change in

3:02:39 ↗ recommendation

3:02:40 ↗ so

3:02:43 ↗ the reason why we were asking that then

3:02:47 ↗ was that what the city was suggesting

3:02:50 ↗ was that

3:02:52 ↗ in

3:02:53 ↗ the urban villages that would now be

3:02:55 ↗ governed by would would at the point of

3:02:58 ↗ adoption be governed by the replacement

3:03:01 ↗ regulations there would be language in

3:03:04 ↗ there

3:03:06 ↗ that would potentially say something

3:03:08 ↗ other than that and we didn't know at

3:03:11 ↗ this point exactly what that language

3:03:12 ↗ would be because i don't think it had

3:03:13 ↗ been released yet

3:03:16 ↗ but the concept was troubling that you

3:03:18 ↗ could have

3:03:20 ↗ a vesting standard

3:03:23 ↗ in part of the city that was different

3:03:25 ↗ than the vesting standard in another

3:03:27 ↗ part of the city when the process is

3:03:29 ↗ identical

3:03:30 ↗ so if you have a west main problem

3:03:33 ↗ on the valley floor you have the same

3:03:36 ↗ west main problem in issaquah highlands

3:03:38 ↗ or any other part of of the city

3:03:42 ↗ so that's why we were asking about

3:03:45 ↗ what could you possibly be

3:03:47 ↗ thinking that

3:03:49 ↗ that that is a good idea

3:03:53 ↗ so when we asked about that lucy jumped

3:03:55 ↗ in right away saying

3:03:56 ↗ that pre-ops weren't required for our

3:03:59 ↗ applications

3:04:00 ↗ and and she started saying how

3:04:03 ↗ we had pointed that out to her and then

3:04:05 ↗ the city immediately said oh yeah you're

3:04:07 ↗ right

3:04:08 ↗ which was not what happened at all

3:04:11 ↗ if the preliminary applications weren't

3:04:13 ↗ required we would not have had them um

3:04:17 ↗ we asked multiple times

3:04:20 ↗ on on

3:04:21 ↗ each of our applications but

3:04:23 ↗ specifically on the storage application

3:04:25 ↗ which lagged behind the the medical

3:04:28 ↗ office and the retail

3:04:29 ↗ we very clearly asked again and very

3:04:31 ↗ clearly we're told that it was required

3:04:34 ↗ so i disagreed with her in that meeting

3:04:37 ↗ um

3:04:39 ↗ and and said you know we wouldn't why

3:04:42 ↗ would we have had them if they weren't

3:04:43 ↗ required clearly we just wanted to get

3:04:45 ↗ our applications processed

3:04:46 ↗ and and her response was that because

3:04:49 ↗ they were so helpful and a great tool

3:04:51 ↗ for us

3:04:52 ↗ which if you look at the if we think

3:04:54 ↗ about the timing that we just discussed

3:04:56 ↗ of the pre-applications and when we got

3:04:58 ↗ comments and when applications went in

3:05:02 ↗ they really weren't helpful for us and

3:05:03 ↗ they if anything kind of slowed down or

3:05:06 ↗ made the process a little bit disjointed

3:05:08 ↗ well for sure slowed down because it

3:05:10 ↗ inserted months of process ahead of

3:05:12 ↗ being able to submit our applications

3:05:16 ↗ um so we moved on from that with lucy

3:05:19 ↗ telling telling me that we have

3:05:21 ↗ different memories

3:05:22 ↗ um

3:05:24 ↗ and then talked about

3:05:29 ↗ um

3:05:34 ↗ what vests under state law

3:05:37 ↗ he also or

3:05:40 ↗ mr haney

3:05:42 ↗ pulled out a section of the issaquah

3:05:44 ↗ municipal code

3:05:47 ↗ which

3:05:48 ↗ references

3:05:50 ↗ that it shouldn't be deemed to require

3:05:52 ↗ anything prior to building

3:05:54 ↗ permit submittal

3:05:56 ↗ um

3:06:01 ↗ we so then i'll just read out of out of

3:06:03 ↗ my notes from there we pointed out that

3:06:05 ↗ the imc is inconsistent with the way the

3:06:07 ↗ administration runs things and that

3:06:09 ↗ their position is the sdp is required

3:06:11 ↗ before building permit and pre-op is

3:06:13 ↗ required before sdp so

3:06:17 ↗ so in order to avoid a west main problem

3:06:21 ↗ vesting occurs at pre-app

3:06:24 ↗ mr haney questioned that and looked at

3:06:27 ↗ keith and lucy

3:06:29 ↗ neither of whom would speak to that that

3:06:31 ↗ point

3:06:33 ↗ at that point

3:06:34 ↗ patrick pulled out

3:06:36 ↗ the

3:06:37 ↗ november

3:06:38 ↗ of 2017

3:06:41 ↗ memo that the staff had written

3:06:45 ↗ which lays out that position and and

3:06:48 ↗ says that it's the position of not only

3:06:51 ↗ the administration but also the city

3:06:52 ↗ attorney

3:06:56 ↗ how did mr haney react to that

3:06:58 ↗ oh he laughed and said that he was going

3:07:01 ↗ to give wayne hell for that

3:07:03 ↗ um which

3:07:05 ↗ he's referring to wayne tanaka who was

3:07:07 ↗ the previous city attorney

3:07:10 ↗ i thought that particularly odd since mr

3:07:13 ↗ haney was actually the city attorney at

3:07:15 ↗ the time the memo was written

3:07:21 ↗ but if you go down to the bottom of the

3:07:22 ↗ page there

3:07:25 ↗ in terms of

3:07:26 ↗ the timing of the application processing

3:07:28 ↗ and everything what did director niven

3:07:30 ↗ have to say about

3:07:32 ↗ the timing of the process

3:07:36 ↗ um

3:07:39 ↗ he

3:07:41 ↗ said that everything was our fault and

3:07:43 ↗ that um

3:07:45 ↗ staff was trying to get the replacement

3:07:46 ↗ regulations passed before the end of the

3:07:49 ↗ year and we slowed it down and so now

3:07:52 ↗ the administration changed their mind

3:07:54 ↗ and there's a new mayor and we have to

3:07:56 ↗ deal with the consequences we meaning

3:07:58 ↗ ihifc has to deal with the consequences

3:08:01 ↗ what did you understand that to mean you

3:08:04 ↗ have to deal with the consequences

3:08:05 ↗ because of a new mayor

3:08:07 ↗ i understood that to mean that

3:08:09 ↗ the new mayor was directing the

3:08:11 ↗ administration to change their

3:08:12 ↗ recommendation to not recognize our

3:08:15 ↗ vested applications

3:08:22 ↗ and so just to clarify again in terms of

3:08:24 ↗ the replacement regulations because some

3:08:25 ↗ of this is is happening in the context

3:08:28 ↗ of those

3:08:30 ↗ does it matter what the replacement

3:08:32 ↗ regulations say in terms of whether your

3:08:34 ↗ vested rights are recognized under

3:08:36 ↗ washington law

3:08:38 ↗ no it shouldn't

3:08:40 ↗ it's the problem is the way that the

3:08:43 ↗ staff is interpreting

3:08:45 ↗ those regulations and trying to apply

3:08:48 ↗ them retroactively

3:09:10 ↗ let's turn to the february

3:09:13 ↗ 7th

3:09:15 ↗ meeting notes that you have in your

3:09:17 ↗ binder there

3:09:26 ↗ so what was the meeting that happened on

3:09:27 ↗ february 7th of 2018.

3:09:34 ↗ oh

3:09:35 ↗ february 7 2018 was a community meeting

3:09:40 ↗ on the replacement regulations and the

3:09:42 ↗ end of the development agreement that

3:09:45 ↗ was held at blakely hall

3:09:49 ↗ and who was presenting at that meeting

3:09:52 ↗ lucy sloman and keith niven

3:09:55 ↗ where was it

3:09:57 ↗ just limited to

3:09:59 ↗ people from shelter or was it a public

3:10:01 ↗ meeting for others to attend no it was

3:10:03 ↗ it was open to the public and the intent

3:10:06 ↗ was to do

3:10:07 ↗ outreach to the community to let them

3:10:09 ↗ know

3:10:10 ↗ how the replacement regulations had

3:10:12 ↗ evolved over

3:10:14 ↗ the time that they had been in

3:10:16 ↗ consideration by the city

3:10:32 ↗ do you recall um if

3:10:36 ↗ uh miss loman or director niven had um

3:10:40 ↗ any comments in terms of

3:10:42 ↗ the the development agreement and what

3:10:44 ↗ it provided for at that meeting

3:10:48 ↗ yes

3:10:49 ↗ that was one of the

3:10:52 ↗ meetings where ms loman presented her

3:10:55 ↗ slide that said that the development

3:10:57 ↗ agreement provides no guidance or

3:11:00 ↗ regulations regarding vesting of

3:11:02 ↗ applications

3:11:04 ↗ is that true

3:11:05 ↗ no it's absolutely

3:11:06 ↗ false there's a section that's

3:11:10 ↗ titled vesting of development standards

3:11:13 ↗ and mitigation

3:11:24 ↗ do you recall whether director niven had

3:11:25 ↗ anything to say about shelters projects

3:11:27 ↗ at that meeting

3:11:31 ↗ he did

3:11:35 ↗ this meeting was was different than some

3:11:37 ↗ of the other hearings and committee

3:11:39 ↗ meetings because there was more

3:11:40 ↗ opportunity for members of the public

3:11:44 ↗ to interact and ask questions and

3:11:46 ↗ follow-up questions

3:11:48 ↗ um

3:11:50 ↗ in

3:11:52 ↗ that context

3:11:54 ↗ he

3:12:01 ↗ he referenced that

3:12:04 ↗ some of the provisions of the

3:12:05 ↗ replacement regulations were in response

3:12:08 ↗ to our applications and when they saw

3:12:10 ↗ our applications what they thought they

3:12:12 ↗ needed to do to prevent the things they

3:12:14 ↗ didn't want

3:12:15 ↗ and he

3:12:16 ↗ also

3:12:18 ↗ said the city wants jobs they won't give

3:12:21 ↗ up on that and

3:12:24 ↗ if they have to wait if we have to wait

3:12:27 ↗ 10 years or more to

3:12:29 ↗ build

3:12:31 ↗ anything on our property that that the

3:12:33 ↗ city's okay with that

3:12:42 ↗ there's video of that meeting that's

3:12:44 ↗ probably more accurate than my

3:12:47 ↗ my notes um as far as the exact things

3:12:50 ↗ that were said

3:12:51 ↗ thank you that that's helpful and um you

3:12:53 ↗ know a lot of this is your memory too in

3:12:55 ↗ addition to your notes so

3:12:57 ↗ um

3:12:58 ↗ okay

3:13:02 ↗ so but your recollection of that meeting

3:13:04 ↗ it sounds like was that their director

3:13:05 ↗ niven was specifically referring to

3:13:07 ↗ shelters applications

3:13:09 ↗ yes he made it clear that when they saw

3:13:11 ↗ the applications that were starting to

3:13:13 ↗ come in that they realized they wanted

3:13:15 ↗ to change the replacement regulations

3:13:17 ↗ that had been initially proposed

3:13:20 ↗ to prevent certain types of development

3:13:22 ↗ that are allowed under the development

3:13:23 ↗ agreement

3:13:31 ↗ so continuing forward in the um

3:13:33 ↗ chronology of of things

3:13:35 ↗ um we're turning back to the

3:13:37 ↗ applications themselves and i'd like to

3:13:39 ↗ look at c 22 and c23

3:13:44 ↗ it should be in the binder right there

3:13:48 ↗ there was one other thing on that

3:13:50 ↗ meeting on the 7th i know

3:13:55 ↗ director niven had testified when when

3:13:58 ↗ he testified at this hearing that

3:14:01 ↗ he was not directed by anybody to change

3:14:04 ↗ his position or change the

3:14:05 ↗ administration's recommendation with

3:14:07 ↗ respect to vesting but at the beginning

3:14:11 ↗ of that february 7th meeting prior to

3:14:14 ↗ the meeting starting starting

3:14:16 ↗ director niven was speaking with gary

3:14:18 ↗ young and i and indicated that he was

3:14:21 ↗ just following his new boss's directions

3:14:24 ↗ with respect to the

3:14:26 ↗ recommendation change

3:14:28 ↗ on the vesting language who is his new

3:14:31 ↗ boss

3:14:32 ↗ mayor paulie

3:14:41 ↗ so let's turn to um

3:14:44 ↗ exhibit c-22

3:15:00 ↗ and can you please describe what the

3:15:02 ↗ document at c22 is

3:15:05 ↗ um c22 is another insufficiency letter

3:15:09 ↗ from

3:15:10 ↗ the city and this is on our retail

3:15:13 ↗ application

3:15:15 ↗ okay and so this one the the

3:15:16 ↗ introduction paragraph looks a little

3:15:18 ↗ bit different to me

3:15:19 ↗ what's changed in this sufficiency

3:15:21 ↗ letter

3:15:27 ↗ there's some text added that says

3:15:29 ↗ however in summary

3:15:31 ↗ the only outstanding submittal

3:15:33 ↗ requirement items are associated with

3:15:35 ↗ the pending preliminary plat

3:15:38 ↗ there's more if you want me to read it

3:15:39 ↗ but that's the the in summary sentence

3:15:42 ↗ so at this point on february 9th 2018

3:15:46 ↗ the only issues that are left according

3:15:48 ↗ to the city are the ones that relate to

3:15:50 ↗ the plot which

3:15:51 ↗ at this point still

3:15:53 ↗ they have not done any review on

3:16:03 ↗ so down at the on number five that we've

3:16:06 ↗ talked about a couple of times with

3:16:07 ↗ prior versions of this letter

3:16:09 ↗ um

3:16:10 ↗ on february 9th can you explain what the

3:16:13 ↗ response was

3:16:14 ↗ on february 9th it says revision is

3:16:16 ↗ insufficient see an introduction above

3:16:20 ↗ so at this point is there anything else

3:16:22 ↗ that you could have done to move this

3:16:25 ↗ application forward

3:16:30 ↗ no i mean we submitted the plot we're

3:16:32 ↗ asking them to review the plot they're

3:16:33 ↗ not reviewing it so then we try to get a

3:16:35 ↗ letter agreement we negotiate the letter

3:16:38 ↗ agreement we sign it we send it in they

3:16:41 ↗ don't respond

3:16:42 ↗ um so we're stuck and we're just all

3:16:46 ↗ we're trying to do is get our

3:16:47 ↗ applications to continue through the

3:16:50 ↗ process and we had an expectation that

3:16:53 ↗ the development agreement which

3:16:55 ↗ is the only set of regulations that

3:16:58 ↗ applied to our project would be followed

3:17:00 ↗ and they're just saying

3:17:02 ↗ no and

3:17:04 ↗ we don't have to follow it and you don't

3:17:06 ↗ really have any rights

3:17:08 ↗ under it to enforce it

3:17:10 ↗ so

3:17:11 ↗ we've been doing a lot of talking about

3:17:12 ↗ the replacement regulations that are

3:17:15 ↗ being drafted at this time and then

3:17:16 ↗ there's development regulations through

3:17:18 ↗ the development agreement also called

3:17:20 ↗ development standards we've heard you

3:17:21 ↗ explain

3:17:22 ↗ um so what's

3:17:24 ↗ what's in place at this time what we're

3:17:26 ↗ dealing with all this back and forth

3:17:27 ↗ with the city what's governing

3:17:29 ↗ the development standards in the

3:17:31 ↗ development agreement that were enacted

3:17:33 ↗ through the development agreement those

3:17:35 ↗ are the only thing that can apply

3:17:38 ↗ because the replacement regulations are

3:17:40 ↗ not adopted they're in draft form

3:17:42 ↗ they're still being considered they're

3:17:44 ↗ still being modified as of

3:17:46 ↗ you know february 2nd they say they're

3:17:48 ↗ going to modify the the language i don't

3:17:50 ↗ remember the exact date when when the

3:17:52 ↗ modified vesting language came out but

3:17:55 ↗ but it was even after that it was even

3:17:57 ↗ later than that so

3:18:00 ↗ there was only one set of regulations

3:18:02 ↗ that we could follow we were following

3:18:03 ↗ them to the best of our ability we were

3:18:05 ↗ trying to get the city to follow them

3:18:08 ↗ we didn't have anything else that we

3:18:10 ↗ could do

3:18:16 ↗ let's look at c23

3:18:21 ↗ which appears to be another sufficiency

3:18:23 ↗ determination

3:18:25 ↗ um can you describe this one for us

3:18:27 ↗ please c-23 is a february 9th 2018

3:18:31 ↗ insufficiency letter

3:18:34 ↗ this one is on our medical office

3:18:36 ↗ building

3:18:38 ↗ and this one is um

3:18:43 ↗ again

3:18:44 ↗ has this new language

3:18:45 ↗ that says

3:18:47 ↗ in summary the only outstanding

3:18:49 ↗ submittal requirement items are

3:18:51 ↗ associated with the pending preliminary

3:18:53 ↗ plot

3:18:55 ↗ i'm stuck on this one too correct

3:19:31 ↗ so i'll represent you can confirm um for

3:19:34 ↗ me later that um if we're moving forward

3:19:37 ↗ in the chronology on february 14th

3:19:39 ↗ the storage application would have been

3:19:41 ↗ submitted

3:19:42 ↗ but um

3:19:43 ↗ acknowledging that we've got just a

3:19:44 ↗ couple minutes of time i'd like to skip

3:19:46 ↗ over that and come back and address

3:19:48 ↗ another issue this evening

3:19:50 ↗ um and actually before i do that so

3:19:52 ↗ we're at 9 52 right now were you

3:19:54 ↗ intending a 10 o'clock cut off for this

3:19:56 ↗ evening as well okay close to 10 as we

3:19:59 ↗ could make okay we'll get through one

3:20:01 ↗ more topic and then we can end for the

3:20:02 ↗ evening

3:20:04 ↗ um

3:20:05 ↗ so let's take a look in your meeting

3:20:06 ↗ minutes

3:20:07 ↗ um

3:20:08 ↗ at the february 15 2018 meeting please

3:20:27 ↗ okay so uh what was this meeting about

3:20:30 ↗ um this was a meeting

3:20:34 ↗ with

3:20:35 ↗ uh mayor mary lou pauley and keith niven

3:20:38 ↗ and

3:20:40 ↗ myself and derek straight who is the

3:20:43 ↗ president of shelter holdings

3:20:45 ↗ um

3:20:46 ↗ and this was in response to

3:20:48 ↗ when the

3:20:50 ↗ city sent out the notice that they were

3:20:52 ↗ going to be changing their

3:20:53 ↗ recommendation with respect to the

3:20:56 ↗ vesting provision that would be in the

3:20:58 ↗ replacement regulations they offered

3:21:00 ↗ that because it was a change

3:21:04 ↗ coming from the administration that the

3:21:06 ↗ mayor had offered to speak with anyone

3:21:09 ↗ who had issue with it

3:21:11 ↗ so we

3:21:12 ↗ of course had issue with it and

3:21:13 ↗ immediately asked for a meeting with the

3:21:16 ↗ mayor

3:21:18 ↗ so this february 15th meeting was

3:21:21 ↗ that meeting

3:21:26 ↗ so at this meeting um did you discuss

3:21:28 ↗ the

3:21:29 ↗ west wing issue that we've talked about

3:21:31 ↗ with the mayor

3:21:33 ↗ um we did

3:21:36 ↗ and what happened in the course of that

3:21:37 ↗ discussion

3:21:59 ↗ so i

3:22:01 ↗ asked

3:22:02 ↗ her

3:22:03 ↗ that since the originally proposed

3:22:06 ↗ vesting language was based on the

3:22:07 ↗ current practice and acknowledgement

3:22:09 ↗ that the city process has issues under

3:22:11 ↗ west main

3:22:12 ↗ if you don't acknowledge the vesting

3:22:14 ↗ occurring earlier on in the process

3:22:17 ↗ i asked her what what had changed in

3:22:20 ↗ that analysis to support that new

3:22:21 ↗ position

3:22:23 ↗ and she said she didn't know she didn't

3:22:25 ↗ know of any new legal analysis that had

3:22:27 ↗ been done to support the change in

3:22:29 ↗ position

3:22:32 ↗ did she say anything about investing

3:22:34 ↗ under the development agreement

3:22:38 ↗ um she told me that the development

3:22:39 ↗ agreement is silent on vesting

3:22:42 ↗ um

3:22:43 ↗ which

3:22:44 ↗ i

3:22:45 ↗ immediately pointed out that it's

3:22:46 ↗ actually not

3:22:48 ↗ and cited to the section that's titled

3:22:51 ↗ vesting

3:22:54 ↗ and

3:22:58 ↗ keith said we disagree on that and

3:23:03 ↗ so i suggested well at least we can

3:23:05 ↗ agree that there is a section of the

3:23:07 ↗ development agreement entitled vesting

3:23:09 ↗ to development standards and mitigation

3:23:12 ↗ and keith said no that he didn't agree

3:23:14 ↗ that that section existed

3:23:17 ↗ so it was

3:23:19 ↗ very much an uncomfortable and strange

3:23:21 ↗ experience for me because clearly that

3:23:25 ↗ exists

3:23:26 ↗ clearly it existed he knew it existed

3:23:28 ↗ but for some reason we were playing this

3:23:29 ↗ game that we were not going to

3:23:32 ↗ agree that it existed and we were

3:23:34 ↗ talking about the title we weren't

3:23:35 ↗ talking about any content so it was

3:23:38 ↗ bizarre at best

3:23:46 ↗ did you ask um mayor lou paulie about

3:23:50 ↗ why there had been this change and that

3:23:51 ↗ we're talking about the replacement

3:23:52 ↗ regulations specifically but why there

3:23:54 ↗ had been

3:23:55 ↗ a change in the administration's

3:23:57 ↗ position on

3:23:59 ↗ what the replacement regulations should

3:24:00 ↗ say about vesting going forward

3:24:04 ↗ we did

3:24:06 ↗ and she said it was something that she

3:24:07 ↗ had been

3:24:09 ↗ thinking about a lot

3:24:12 ↗ about where the appropriate time for

3:24:14 ↗ vesting

3:24:16 ↗ to occur would be

3:24:18 ↗ and she said that she had saved a letter

3:24:21 ↗ from the city attorney from landon shore

3:24:23 ↗ from a long time ago

3:24:24 ↗ um that she felt really supported her

3:24:27 ↗ position

3:24:30 ↗ and and so i asked her if we could have

3:24:32 ↗ a copy of that letter because i hadn't

3:24:34 ↗ seen any letter like that

3:24:37 ↗ and she said sure let me run to my

3:24:39 ↗ office and get it and so she went to her

3:24:41 ↗ office and

3:24:42 ↗ she came back

3:24:44 ↗ with a letter that was actually from

3:24:48 ↗ our attorney patrick mullaney and

3:24:50 ↗ supported our position and outlined

3:24:52 ↗ exactly why what she was now

3:24:55 ↗ recommending

3:24:56 ↗ was not legal so again very

3:25:00 ↗ bizarre and uncomfortable

3:25:02 ↗ situation

3:25:04 ↗ but that was what happened

3:25:11 ↗ so

3:25:28 ↗ i think we're ready to end on that note

3:25:29 ↗ for the evening

3:25:32 ↗ okay

3:25:33 ↗ i think we're ready to end too but

3:25:36 ↗ there are a few things that we need to

3:25:37 ↗ reconcile the first is that

3:25:40 ↗ we are at the time that we agreed to

3:25:42 ↗ adjourn but we and we'll continue the

3:25:45 ↗ public hearings on tonight's agenda to

3:25:47 ↗ future meetings a future meeting date

3:25:49 ↗ but we need to decide on when those next

3:25:52 ↗ meetings might be

3:25:53 ↗ i understand that the parties may be

3:25:55 ↗ available to continue these hearings to

3:25:57 ↗ the evening of march 5th and 6th is that

3:25:59 ↗ correct

3:26:00 ↗ yes we we will have some witness

3:26:03 ↗ availability issues on the fifth i

3:26:06 ↗ believe

3:26:07 ↗ but given where we're at and miss heim's

3:26:09 ↗ testimony and um

3:26:12 ↗ mr lal's explanation that he expects the

3:26:14 ↗ lengthy cross of miss heim as well i

3:26:15 ↗ would expect that we could get through

3:26:17 ↗ the fifth before

3:26:19 ↗ another

3:26:20 ↗ as that's still consistent with

3:26:24 ↗ it's not me

3:26:25 ↗ um miss heim would be here on the fifth

3:26:27 ↗ of march and if i could ask how much

3:26:30 ↗ longer do you anticipate with your

3:26:32 ↗ direct examination um i would expect

3:26:34 ↗ that we would finish up that evening but

3:26:36 ↗ i don't know whether we will take the

3:26:38 ↗ full time or shorter amount of time

3:26:39 ↗ we're just kind of moving at the pace

3:26:40 ↗ that we can

3:26:41 ↗ and could you

3:26:43 ↗ provide some approximate estimate of how

3:26:45 ↗ many more documents you anticipate uh

3:26:47 ↗ entering into the record

3:26:49 ↗ um

3:26:50 ↗ i i don't know the numbers but if you

3:26:52 ↗ can see the the second box right here

3:26:54 ↗ it's kind of that remaining stack is

3:26:56 ↗ what we're looking at a half a box half

3:26:58 ↗ a box

3:26:59 ↗ mr chairman given the the sheer volume

3:27:02 ↗ of materials and

3:27:04 ↗ the apparent likelihood that miss heim

3:27:06 ↗ will be

3:27:08 ↗ testifying for at least a good portion

3:27:11 ↗ of the march 5th

3:27:12 ↗ hearing date if we do in fact reconvene

3:27:14 ↗ on that date our request would be that

3:27:16 ↗ we end the that meeting with her direct

3:27:20 ↗ testimony and begin our

3:27:21 ↗ cross-examination which will be lengthy

3:27:23 ↗ on the following date

3:27:25 ↗ just for planning

3:27:26 ↗ purposes okay so uh

3:27:29 ↗ you want to use up the whole time

3:27:31 ↗ does that seem consistent with your

3:27:33 ↗ thoughts i mean we'll use you know all

3:27:35 ↗ the time that we can get if if there's

3:27:38 ↗ if we end halfway through and there's an

3:27:40 ↗ ample amount of time to begin her

3:27:41 ↗ cross-examination our preference is to

3:27:43 ↗ continue through this hearing you know

3:27:45 ↗ and use as much time as we can so we get

3:27:47 ↗ through it faster

3:27:50 ↗ but you know if

3:27:51 ↗ if they're requesting to end it early

3:27:53 ↗ that's the city's request we would of

3:27:54 ↗ course request to keep going and have

3:27:56 ↗ them do their cross at that time

3:27:58 ↗ it would really depend on how far we get

3:28:00 ↗ into the the meeting on the fifth as to

3:28:02 ↗ whether or not that would be i think an

3:28:04 ↗ efficient use of time again we're

3:28:06 ↗ talking about a

3:28:08 ↗ cross-examination of a witness that at

3:28:10 ↗ that point will have been

3:28:11 ↗ on the stand for at least five or more

3:28:14 ↗ uh hearing dates so there's going to be

3:28:16 ↗ a significant volume of information

3:28:18 ↗ to cross-examine her on

3:28:21 ↗ including a lot of new information

3:28:22 ↗ presumably that will be introduced on

3:28:25 ↗ the uh

3:28:26 ↗ the march 5th date

3:28:28 ↗ if i may you know her testimony had

3:28:30 ↗ started a number of hearings ago and so

3:28:32 ↗ there's been plenty of time including

3:28:34 ↗ many weeks now between these hearings

3:28:36 ↗ and the march hearings that the city has

3:28:38 ↗ the documents we've been providing the

3:28:40 ↗ exhibits that we're introducing so they

3:28:42 ↗ they can be prepped to at least start

3:28:44 ↗ the cross-examination by that point

3:28:46 ↗ i understand my point is just trying to

3:28:48 ↗ figure out how long

3:28:49 ↗ each of you plan to take so that we can

3:28:52 ↗ start focusing on when we might accept

3:28:55 ↗ public

3:28:56 ↗ have public input

3:28:58 ↗ or public testimony i mean not input but

3:29:00 ↗ public testimony so if you're thinking

3:29:02 ↗ you can be you will be done with your

3:29:04 ↗ examination on the fifth

3:29:07 ↗ at some point if

3:29:10 ↗ more than likely

3:29:14 ↗ you'll take the whole time

3:29:16 ↗ that i do have other witnesses as well

3:29:18 ↗ we do so we'll we will have um one

3:29:21 ↗ additional witness at this time gary

3:29:23 ↗ young will be testifying

3:29:24 ↗ um

3:29:25 ↗ and then the city would have their their

3:29:27 ↗ opportunity to cross if they want to

3:29:29 ↗ pursue that and then we would

3:29:30 ↗ be into rebuttal witnesses at that point

3:29:33 ↗ okay so would it be fair to think that

3:29:35 ↗ you would require the sixth to do the

3:29:38 ↗ cross exam

3:29:40 ↗ askew excuse me cross-examination or is

3:29:42 ↗ that not enough time not sufficient time

3:29:44 ↗ i believe that we should be able to

3:29:45 ↗ proceed through our cross-examination of

3:29:47 ↗ miss heim on the sixth that's correct

3:29:49 ↗ okay

3:29:51 ↗ so are commissioners available on the

3:29:53 ↗ 5th and 6th of march

3:29:58 ↗ you all look so excited

3:30:00 ↗ so

3:30:02 ↗ okay so uh

3:30:06 ↗ the commissioner's available

3:30:08 ↗ you all are available

3:30:09 ↗ so it looks like we will

3:30:12 ↗ have continue our public hearing meeting

3:30:14 ↗ tonight that is a special meeting for

3:30:17 ↗ the commission on march 5th

3:30:19 ↗ in the council chamber starting at 6 30

3:30:21 ↗ and the plan would be to go to 10

3:30:23 ↗ o'clock again and that seems to be a

3:30:25 ↗ reasonable period of time

3:30:27 ↗ and

3:30:28 ↗ so with that i think we are adjourned

3:30:32 ↗ thank you

3:30:49 ↗ 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