Development Commission - Special Meeting - 05 M · Tuesday, March 5, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 28, 2018

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 5, 2019

packet pp.7–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 28, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:17 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-05-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] `CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING February 5, 2019 Council Chambers 6:30 PM MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Minutes of February 6, 2019

packet pp.11–14

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2017

▶ Watch from 28:57 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 02-06-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission 6:30 PM Council Chambers February 6, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

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

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 56:37 Open packet at p.23 ↗

3688 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ okay good evening ladies and gentlemen

0:21 ↗ I'd like to call to order the special

0:23 ↗ meeting uh development commission

0:25 ↗ special meeting that's going to be

0:27 ↗ discussing

0:28 ↗ the continue tion of the isqua Highlands

0:31 ↗ retail site development permit The isqua

0:34 ↗ Highlands Medical Office administrative

0:36 ↗ site development permit and the isqua

0:38 ↗ Highland self- Storage administrative

0:40 ↗ site development permit before we get to

0:42 ↗ start get started with our direct

0:44 ↗ examination again I would like to uh

0:46 ↗ have the Commissioners look at the uh

0:50 ↗ minutes from February 5th and February

0:53 ↗ [Applause]

0:54 ↗ 6th and would ask for any motions to be

0:58 ↗ made

1:05 ↗ Mr

1:06 ↗ chair uh I'm I um move approval of

1:10 ↗ meeting minutes of February 5th

1:12 ↗ 2019

1:15 ↗ second uh motion's been made and

1:17 ↗ seconded on approval of the minutes of

1:19 ↗ February 5th all those any discussion

1:22 ↗ comments

1:24 ↗ Corrections all those in favor say I I I

1:27 ↗ opposed so motion carries

1:31 ↗ Mr chair I move approval of our meeting

1:33 ↗ minutes from the February 6 2019

1:37 ↗ meeting second motion's been made and

1:40 ↗ seconded does there U any

1:46 ↗ discussion all those in favor of

1:48 ↗ approval of the minutes please indicate

1:50 ↗ by saying I I

1:53 ↗ oppos motion carries thank you so miss

1:56 ↗ Kye I think uh we're ready to start your

1:59 ↗ directing examination of your witness

2:02 ↗ thank

2:03 ↗ [Applause]

2:05 ↗ you just you

2:31 ↗ all right um again this is Jackie k for

2:34 ↗ the record uh Tia hi welcome back you um

2:37 ↗ Tia will you just confirm for us again

2:39 ↗ that you are still testifying under oath

2:42 ↗ um continuing on from your previous

2:43 ↗ testimony in the prior hearings I am

2:46 ↗ thank

2:48 ↗ you so uh the last time that we met we

2:52 ↗ left off in roughly the February 2018

2:55 ↗ time frame um we were talking about a

2:58 ↗ variety of events that happened early in

3:00 ↗ February um can you just kind of take us

3:04 ↗ back a little bit and um help us set the

3:06 ↗ stage again for your testimony tonight

3:08 ↗ um what was happening in February of

3:11 ↗ 2018 um just in general terms between

3:14 ↗ shelter and the city with respect to

3:16 ↗ these applications that we're talking

3:20 ↗ about um so with respect to the

3:24 ↗ applications they had been deemed

3:29 ↗ insufficient several times we were

3:31 ↗ immediately responding and resubmitting

3:33 ↗ trying to address all of the issues um

3:36 ↗ that had been

3:38 ↗ identified um the larger picture was

3:42 ↗ that in early February I believe it was

3:45 ↗ February 2nd the city sent out um an

3:49 ↗ email announcing that the administration

3:51 ↗ had changed their recommendation with

3:55 ↗ respect to the vesting language that

3:58 ↗ would be included in the replacement

4:00 ↗ regulations so up until February 2nd of

4:05 ↗ 2018 the city Administration was

4:08 ↗ recommending that the language that was

4:11 ↗ proposed to be part of the replacement

4:13 ↗ regulations would recognize vesting of

4:16 ↗ site development permits and preliminary

4:18 ↗ land use applications as they had been

4:21 ↗ doing um everywhere else in the city and

4:24 ↗ and um as they had previously cited

4:28 ↗ would uh allow the city to be in

4:31 ↗ compliance with the West Main V Bell viw

4:33 ↗ case so in February on February 2nd we

4:37 ↗ received an email with the with the

4:39 ↗ notice that the vesting language was

4:41 ↗ going to be changed um although there

4:45 ↗ were other applicants who received

4:48 ↗ notice that that change was going to be

4:50 ↗ made at various points before we

4:53 ↗ did do the replacement regulations you

4:56 ↗ know regardless of what they say how did

4:58 ↗ those impact vested rights

5:01 ↗ um they don't impact vested rights uh

5:04 ↗ with respect to applications that were

5:06 ↗ previously vested like

5:08 ↗ ours and so um was this what's your

5:13 ↗ understanding of what brought about this

5:14 ↗ change in the replacement regulations

5:16 ↗ around February 2nd time

5:18 ↗ frame um well I think it says it's it

5:22 ↗ states that it's a change in the

5:24 ↗ administration um that precipitated that

5:27 ↗ change um and so that was explained to

5:30 ↗ us to mean that the new mayor who had

5:32 ↗ taken office in January had changed the

5:35 ↗ recommendation of the the city were you

5:39 ↗ here and present to hear um the opening

5:41 ↗ statements that were made on um behalf

5:44 ↗ of the City by Mr L yes um and do you

5:48 ↗ recall I'm paraphrasing but the

5:50 ↗ arguments regarding the end of the

5:52 ↗ buildout period and the um end of the

5:55 ↗ development agreement termination of the

5:57 ↗ development agreement overall yes

5:59 ↗ generally can you um summarize just kind

6:02 ↗ of what you heard in terms of that

6:04 ↗ argument um well the arguments that that

6:07 ↗ we've heard I think primarily from Mr L

6:10 ↗ in the context of this hearing were new

6:13 ↗ to us because they the city is now

6:16 ↗ taking the position that the buildout

6:18 ↗ period had some significance that is

6:21 ↗ neither included in the actual words

6:24 ↗ that are in the development agreement

6:26 ↗ nor was it ever explained to us or to

6:29 ↗ anyone else to have that significance

6:33 ↗ so basically from what I've heard in the

6:36 ↗ context of this hearing uh the city is

6:39 ↗ saying that somehow applications that

6:41 ↗ were deemed complete prior to the end of

6:44 ↗ the buildout period are to be treated

6:47 ↗ differently than applications deemed

6:49 ↗ complete during the term of the

6:51 ↗ development agreement but after the the

6:54 ↗ buildout period and the the thing that

6:58 ↗ makes that a particular ularly hard

7:01 ↗ argument to put much uh faith in is

7:07 ↗ that there have to be land use

7:09 ↗ regulations that apply to our property

7:12 ↗ at all

7:13 ↗ times the development agreement was the

7:16 ↗ mechanism that enacted develop the land

7:18 ↗ use regulations or development standards

7:21 ↗ that applied to our property those were

7:23 ↗ the only standards that applied to our

7:25 ↗ property or that were available for us

7:27 ↗ to use from the time time the

7:29 ↗ development agreement was enacted all

7:32 ↗ the way through the end of March

7:34 ↗ 2018 so to say that somehow you could

7:38 ↗ only vest prior to the end of the

7:40 ↗ buildout

7:41 ↗ period really makes no sense because you

7:44 ↗ would you would be saying that the only

7:48 ↗ development regulations those that were

7:50 ↗ enacted through the development

7:53 ↗ agreement didn't apply for some period

7:55 ↗ of

7:56 ↗ time um so that answer the question so

8:00 ↗ is is it um is it right that the

8:02 ↗ buildout period ended in September of

8:05 ↗ 2017 yes or 201 2018 no 20 2017 2017 yes

8:11 ↗ um and and so you have September of 2018

8:15 ↗ going forward if if the arguments that

8:18 ↗ you just reiterated to me were true what

8:20 ↗ would that mean for development

8:21 ↗ regulations on shelter's

8:24 ↗ property can you restate that question

8:27 ↗ so so if the buildout period ends in

8:30 ↗ September and we know that the uh

8:33 ↗ development agreement didn't terminate

8:35 ↗ until March of 2018 um if the city's

8:39 ↗ argument were accurate as you just

8:41 ↗ paraphrased what regulations would be

8:43 ↗ covering shelter's property in the

8:45 ↗ meantime I don't know if the development

8:47 ↗ agreement didn't apply between the end

8:49 ↗ of buildout and the effective date of

8:52 ↗ the replacement regulations then there

8:54 ↗ would be no regulations that governed

8:57 ↗ our

8:58 ↗ property is that consistent with your

9:00 ↗ understanding of Washington state law

9:02 ↗ and what it would require for

9:03 ↗ development

9:04 ↗ regulations no um Washington state law

9:07 ↗ requires that you have development

9:08 ↗ regulations in place um particularly in

9:11 ↗ a in a GMA area um but also it's

9:16 ↗ inconsistent with the the terms of the

9:18 ↗ development agreement the development

9:19 ↗ agreement is really clear that it

9:21 ↗ continues to be effective until it

9:24 ↗ terminates and it gives a very specific

9:27 ↗ instruction for how it terminates and I

9:29 ↗ think both the city and we agree that it

9:32 ↗ didn't terminate until the end of March

9:34 ↗ 2018 so to put some significance that is

9:38 ↗ not there on the end of a buildout

9:41 ↗ period is just I mean it it strikes me

9:45 ↗ as an attempt to go back and justify

9:48 ↗ actions that City staff and

9:49 ↗ administration took

9:52 ↗ um in hindsight after they've after they

9:55 ↗ already took those actions and just for

9:57 ↗ clarification you mentioned that acronym

9:59 ↗ GMA a minute ago what does that stand

10:01 ↗ for uh the growth growth man management

10:08 ↗ act so um you may recall from the last

10:12 ↗ hearing we had some larger packets of

10:14 ↗ materials that we were introducing um

10:16 ↗ we've got a couple more of those tonight

10:18 ↗ um so we're going to move through them

10:19 ↗ in the same manner as using an exhibit

10:21 ↗ number and then Parts ABCD to delineate

10:24 ↗ the subp parts um so let's start with

10:33 ↗ so around the um February early February

10:37 ↗ time frame um was shelter working on any

10:41 ↗ other applications um besides we talked

10:45 ↗ last time about the medical office

10:46 ↗ building um there was an office space

10:49 ↗ and then also the retail um what else

10:52 ↗ was going

10:53 ↗ on so the other application that we

10:55 ↗ worked on was the the storage

10:57 ↗ application and that one was slightly

11:00 ↗ behind um the the medical office and the

11:03 ↗ retail and the office building okay so

11:07 ↗ the next exhibit that we're going to add

11:10 ↗ into the record is going to be exhibit

11:13 ↗ s72 um and then we'll start working on

11:15 ↗ the subp parts so this first one will be

11:19 ↗ f72 a

11:41 ↗ Tia will you please describe what s72 a

11:45 ↗ is um this is the administrative site

11:48 ↗ development permit level 1 and two

11:50 ↗ review submitt requirements checklist

11:54 ↗ and it is

11:56 ↗ annotated uh

11:59 ↗ as it was submitted with our application

12:03 ↗ okay and then

12:05 ↗ s72

12:13 ↗ B this is the sepa envelope

12:18 ↗ determination um and I think I described

12:21 ↗ it in my earlier testimony but this was

12:23 ↗ a statement that references the uh

12:28 ↗ sea analysis had already been done for

12:30 ↗ the development with the development

12:33 ↗ agreement okay and s72

12:38 ↗ C uh s72 C is a Geotech

12:44 ↗ report and was that prepared as part of

12:47 ↗ the application for the storage yes this

12:50 ↗ was part of that application as well

12:59 ↗ right then s72

13:02 ↗ d s72 d is the storm water report that

13:08 ↗ was part of the application for the

13:11 ↗ storage uh administrative site

13:13 ↗ development

13:25 ↗ permit s72 e s s 72e is the um the main

13:33 ↗ package that was

13:36 ↗ submitted for the self storage facility

13:39 ↗ so it it includes the plans um the site

13:43 ↗ plan the views from around the site some

13:47 ↗ preliminary

13:48 ↗ engineering um

13:52 ↗ Landscaping

13:54 ↗ uh parking

13:57 ↗ layout internal unit

14:00 ↗ layout um

14:03 ↗ elevations things of that nature okay so

14:07 ↗ um and that's what I just pulled up on

14:09 ↗ the screen here is that the same thing

14:14 ↗ [Applause]

14:18 ↗ yes okay and then um that was fm2 e so

14:22 ↗ fm2 f is our next one

14:35 ↗ so s72 f is the public notice site plan

14:40 ↗ so it's part of the application that's

14:42 ↗ required and it's the um it's a site

14:46 ↗ plan that would be used for posting the

14:48 ↗ site and for public

14:50 ↗ notice okay uh s72

14:54 ↗ G this is the Affidavit of ownership and

14:59 ↗ the Affidavit of agent Authority that

15:02 ↗ were part of the

15:13 ↗ application s72

15:19 ↗ H um s72 H is a letter from isqua

15:23 ↗ Highlands Community

15:25 ↗ Association um that is the Arc or the

15:30 ↗ Architectural Review Committee approval

15:33 ↗ for the storage

15:41 ↗ proposal what does that process look

15:44 ↗ like the um you said the Architectural

15:45 ↗ Review Committee Arc um what does that

15:49 ↗ entail um so to get the the ARC approval

15:55 ↗ you bring your preliminary package in

15:58 ↗ front of their committee um give a

16:01 ↗ presentation have a discussion with them

16:03 ↗ and then if if they have comments

16:06 ↗ they'll give them to you if they have

16:08 ↗ changes they want to see they'll let you

16:09 ↗ know and then ultimately what you're

16:11 ↗ seeking is their approval of your um

16:15 ↗ basic architectural

16:18 ↗ design and then s72

16:25 ↗ I s72 I is the the design narrative that

16:30 ↗ was prepared by Jackson Maine

16:32 ↗ architecture who is our consultant on

16:35 ↗ this

16:40 ↗ project so the project narrative what's

16:43 ↗ what purpose does that

16:45 ↗ serve

16:47 ↗ um it's a required element of the

16:50 ↗ administrative site development plan but

16:53 ↗ it goes through um what the goals are

16:57 ↗ and then how we meet those goals

16:59 ↗ so things like site planning

17:00 ↗ architectural expression pedestrian

17:02 ↗ environment

17:04 ↗ and Landscaping Building Material colors

17:08 ↗ Etc s72

17:12 ↗ J s72 J is the land use permit

17:15 ↗ application for the um

17:25 ↗ asdp s72 k

17:29 ↗ s72 K is a title commitment from first

17:35 ↗ American and again is a requirement of

17:51 ↗ submittal s72 l s72 l is uh

17:57 ↗ transportation memo analyzing the block

18:02 ↗ e storage facility and it's prepared by

18:05 ↗ transpo group our transportation

18:13 ↗ consultant s72 m s72 m is a memorandum

18:20 ↗ from transpo group and it is

18:23 ↗ specifically about a parking

18:25 ↗ modification request that we submitted

18:29 ↗ um for the self storage

18:37 ↗ facility s72

18:41 ↗ n s72 n

18:45 ↗ is uh land use application for the self

18:48 ↗ storage facility and who's the person

18:51 ↗ that um listed themselves as applicant

18:53 ↗ on

18:53 ↗ there uh looks like William Bilu is

18:59 ↗ listed as the applicant and he's with

19:00 ↗ Jackson main architecture who was our

19:03 ↗ architect and our consultant running

19:05 ↗ point on this

19:06 ↗ project thank you um so that is the end

19:09 ↗ of s72 as an exhibit um and so Tia that

19:14 ↗ whole package that we just went through

19:16 ↗ what what was that um I that was the

19:19 ↗ initial submittal for the

19:21 ↗ storage uh project for the

19:26 ↗ administrative site development permit

19:34 ↗ so following submission of this um did

19:36 ↗ you receive any sufficiency letters from

19:38 ↗ the

19:39 ↗ city we did we received a letter of

19:45 ↗ insufficiency I'm going to pull up um

19:48 ↗ what is exhibit

19:51 ↗ c24 um and so that should be Tia and

19:54 ↗ your

19:55 ↗ binder here okay

20:09 ↗ so is c24 one of the letters of

20:12 ↗ insufficiency for this project it is um

20:15 ↗ and what's the date of this one this

20:17 ↗ letter is dated February 23rd

20:21 ↗ 2018 can you run through um again it

20:24 ↗ doesn't have to be every single line but

20:26 ↗ um kind of the the highlights of some

20:28 ↗ the insufficiency comments that you got

20:31 ↗ in this letter yes so the first one uh

20:36 ↗ fits in the category that we've

20:38 ↗ previously discussed which was basically

20:41 ↗ saying that certain elements don't exist

20:43 ↗ because the plat isn't approved yet um

20:47 ↗ and this one actually references that

20:50 ↗ the letter uh agreement that was

20:52 ↗ ultimately signed by shelter and the or

20:55 ↗ by ihfc and the City in March it

20:59 ↗ references that it

21:02 ↗ was not signed yet and that that's part

21:04 ↗ of the insufficiency it also includes a

21:08 ↗ lot of things that we thought were and

21:10 ↗ think are um very minor and not not like

21:15 ↗ anything we've ever been called out uh

21:18 ↗ on for purposes of determining an

21:20 ↗ application insufficient so one of them

21:24 ↗ is that the PDF size is slightly larger

21:29 ↗ than is technically Allowed by the

21:32 ↗ checklist um another is that on the

21:37 ↗ submitt checklist it says these the not

21:41 ↗ applicable items these were blacked out

21:43 ↗ which made review for concurrence

21:46 ↗ difficult in the future please strike

21:47 ↗ with a finer line or otherwise retain

21:49 ↗ the legibility of the item for staff's

21:52 ↗ reference um while we understand that as

21:55 ↗ a comment putting that in the letter as

21:58 ↗ a basis for insufficiency seemed pretty

22:01 ↗ um unusual and

22:04 ↗ absurd

22:07 ↗ uh so as a practical matter I mean the

22:10 ↗ going back to number two the the size of

22:12 ↗ it something that was 116 megabytes in

22:16 ↗ size I mean is it your understanding

22:18 ↗ that that was ultimately successfully

22:19 ↗ submitted to the city so they were able

22:21 ↗ to see

22:22 ↗ it

22:25 ↗ yes there any other um highlights that

22:28 ↗ you wanted to talk about in this

22:46 ↗ letter

22:47 ↗ [Music]

22:50 ↗ um I don't think so I mean actually

22:52 ↗ there's things in here like that we

22:54 ↗ struck uh struck rooftops training as

22:59 ↗ not applicable but they're actually

23:01 ↗ asking us to clarify that no equipment

23:03 ↗ would be located on the roof or provide

23:06 ↗ the required information so I mean it

23:08 ↗ just it was it was a combination of of

23:11 ↗ sort of ticky tacky little things and

23:14 ↗ things that are easily and typically

23:17 ↗ handled within the review process not as

23:20 ↗ a basis for deeming an application

23:23 ↗ complete and then um number five on this

23:26 ↗ list references um

23:29 ↗ request request a modification to the

23:31 ↗ parking standards which is in amm um and

23:34 ↗ I think we talked a little bit about

23:35 ↗ this last time but can you describe

23:37 ↗ again what an amm is and then put that

23:39 ↗ into context here for us sure an amm is

23:42 ↗ an administrative

23:44 ↗ modification um and so what that is is

23:48 ↗ the at the administrative level the

23:50 ↗ staff can make modification certain

23:52 ↗ modifications to some of the development

23:54 ↗ standards if an applicant requests a

23:57 ↗ modification and meets the criteria that

24:00 ↗ are set forth in the development

24:01 ↗ agreement so this was um this comment

24:07 ↗ was telling us that because we were

24:08 ↗ asking for a modification with respect

24:10 ↗ to the parking standard um that we

24:14 ↗ needed to follow the development

24:15 ↗ agreement because again it's the only

24:17 ↗ set of regulations that existed at the

24:19 ↗ time and and submit the the amm

24:23 ↗ following the process in the development

24:26 ↗ agreement um which which we did with uh

24:30 ↗ with our

24:32 ↗ resubmittal and the reason we were

24:34 ↗ asking for an administrative

24:36 ↗ modification is that the the standards

24:38 ↗ in the development agreement required

24:41 ↗ much much more um parking than any

24:44 ↗ storage facility actually needs and so

24:47 ↗ that was the the issue so we were

24:50 ↗ providing the parking studies and and

24:52 ↗ the documentation to to show that the

24:55 ↗ appropriate amount of parking could be

24:57 ↗ provided so this reference to the um it

25:00 ↗ says please review the submittal

25:01 ↗ requirements listed in this section as

25:03 ↗ well as the approval criteria in the

25:05 ↗ development agreement in parenthesis

25:07 ↗ appendix o comma section 10 and

25:10 ↗ parenthesis against the transpo memo

25:12 ↗ provided to ensure that the necessary

25:13 ↗ materials are

25:15 ↗ included um so what did you understand

25:18 ↗ to be the applicable development

25:20 ↗ regulations to this application at this

25:23 ↗ time well the the development

25:25 ↗ regulations that were enacted by the

25:26 ↗ development agreement because again

25:28 ↗ again they were the only regulations

25:30 ↗ that there were and then this letter

25:33 ↗ also I mean confirms that and and tells

25:35 ↗ us to follow the development agreement

25:37 ↗ so is that just coming from your opinion

25:39 ↗ or also what the city's

25:41 ↗ saying uh

25:42 ↗ both and then in section uh

25:46 ↗ four um there's also a reference here

25:49 ↗ I'm looking at it's the last section of

25:52 ↗ section four so it's actually on page

25:54 ↗ two it says also ensure that the

25:57 ↗ documents you are referencing are from

25:58 ↗ the development agreement and not the

26:00 ↗ arc's architectural standards um is that

26:04 ↗ a similar issue to what we were just

26:06 ↗ talking about in terms of uh what we

26:08 ↗ discussed with Section Five excuse me of

26:10 ↗ that letter um I think it is because

26:13 ↗ again it's the city instructing us to

26:15 ↗ follow the development agreement

26:33 ↗ Okay so we've got another um packet of

26:37 ↗ materials um this will be

26:40 ↗ s73 and then we'll do the subp parts

26:43 ↗ again like we just

26:53 ↗ did and um so for starters Tia so after

26:56 ↗ you received the um um sufficiency

27:00 ↗ letter that we were talking about um

27:02 ↗ what did shelter do

27:04 ↗ next um respect to the storage

27:06 ↗ application we immediately got our team

27:09 ↗ to work on addressing all the issues

27:11 ↗ that were raised and and get a

27:16 ↗ resubmittal submitted as as soon as

27:19 ↗ possible okay so this is going to be

27:23 ↗ s73 a

27:37 ↗ will you describe what s73 a is

27:40 ↗ please yes so this s73 a is um the main

27:46 ↗ packet of of plans elevations and

27:50 ↗ information that is was resubmitted for

27:54 ↗ uh the storage facility so it has an

27:56 ↗ update on it that says asdp application

27:59 ↗ Corrections and a date

28:02 ↗ of 227

28:05 ↗ 2018 okay let me pull that one up so we

28:09 ↗ can take a look at it while we're there

28:11 ↗ so um and the date on that so that was

28:14 ↗ is it right that that's a couple days

28:15 ↗ later from the sufficiency letter we

28:18 ↗ were just talking

28:19 ↗ about

28:21 ↗ yes um and this will be this next one

28:24 ↗ will be s 73b

28:35 ↗ and what's the document at s73 B so s73

28:40 ↗ B is the asdp sub midle narrative and

28:44 ↗ it's dated February 28th

28:47 ↗ 2018 so did they um did your consultants

28:50 ↗ and shelter update the um narrative that

28:53 ↗ we were talking about before um I would

28:56 ↗ assume so

28:59 ↗ this next one is s73

29:03 ↗ c s73

29:17 ↗ c is the amm request

29:22 ↗ form does that relate to the parking

29:25 ↗ standards that you described a minute

29:26 ↗ ago

29:31 ↗ it

29:34 ↗ does and then s73

29:39 ↗ D this one's

29:43 ↗ marked s73 D is the land use application

29:47 ↗ form for the Self Storage proposal

30:02 ↗ is s73 e

30:06 ↗ s73 is the

30:09 ↗ updated um transportation memo for the

30:13 ↗ storage

30:22 ↗ proposal s73

30:26 ↗ f um s 73f is the updated memorandum

30:31 ↗ regarding the administrative parking

30:33 ↗ modification

30:43 ↗ request s73

30:50 ↗ G um this s73 G looks like it is

30:55 ↗ generated out of mybuildingpermit.com

30:57 ↗ and and is the

31:00 ↗ administrative modification or

31:03 ↗ administrative adjustment of standard

31:05 ↗ that we were requesting for the parking

31:15 ↗ standards and

31:19 ↗ then this is s73 G wait that was G oh

31:24 ↗ sorry about that s73

31:29 ↗ H thank

31:35 ↗ you

31:36 ↗ um s73 H is

31:43 ↗ uh a sufficiency determination with

31:47 ↗ respect to the amm for the parking

31:51 ↗ requirements and so this this um letter

31:56 ↗ states that based on the development

31:58 ↗ agreement that it that permit had been

32:02 ↗ determined to be incomplete or

32:04 ↗ insufficient um and then the specific

32:07 ↗ basis for that determination

32:12 ↗ was uh it states that it that the

32:17 ↗ development agreement appendix M

32:19 ↗ requires that the master developer

32:20 ↗ approve the amm request so that City

32:22 ↗ staff can process it please obtain

32:24 ↗ Master developer approval from John Shaw

32:26 ↗ at Hartland and provide the city with

32:28 ↗ written documentation of that approval

32:31 ↗ um we had had and have Pro provided that

32:37 ↗ approval to the city and the city has on

32:40 ↗ multiple occasions received from both us

32:42 ↗ and from um John shot Hartland who

32:46 ↗ represents Port Blakeley as well as from

32:49 ↗ Port blakeley's attorney Tom GS uh very

32:53 ↗ clear statements that that we as

32:56 ↗ property owner and and

33:00 ↗ um designated successor under the uh

33:04 ↗ development agreement have do not

33:07 ↗ require Master developer approval for

33:10 ↗ this and other

33:18 ↗ issues so looking at this was there um

33:22 ↗ was there any basis outside of the

33:24 ↗ development agreement for the city's

33:26 ↗ insufficiency letter

33:29 ↗ no the only one that was cited was that

33:31 ↗ we didn't have Master developer

33:33 ↗ approval so what was your understanding

33:36 ↗ of the development regulations that were

33:37 ↗ being applied to your application at

33:39 ↗ this

33:41 ↗ time um again it was the the development

33:45 ↗ regulations that were enacted by the

33:46 ↗ development agreement because they were

33:49 ↗ the only ones and the city specifically

33:51 ↗ sites to the development agreement and

33:54 ↗ to the appendix of to one of the

33:56 ↗ appendices of the development agement

33:58 ↗ and instructs us to follow

34:05 ↗ those okay this next one is s73

34:13 ↗ I and what's that document s73 I is the

34:17 ↗ administrative site development permit

34:19 ↗ level one and two review submittal

34:21 ↗ requirements and again this one is

34:24 ↗ annotated because it was submitted with

34:26 ↗ one of our submitt

34:34 ↗ next one is

34:35 ↗ s73

34:41 ↗ J s73 J is a letter from Jackson M

34:45 ↗ architecture to Jean Lynn at the city um

34:49 ↗ and it

34:51 ↗ is response to the pre-application

34:56 ↗ comments

34:58 ↗ that we eventually received from miss

35:01 ↗ Lynn do you recall when the preapp

35:04 ↗ comments were received um I believe they

35:06 ↗ were received on the same date as the

35:09 ↗ insufficiency letter so I think that was

35:11 ↗ February

35:16 ↗ 23rd what implications does that have

35:19 ↗ for the permit process when you get the

35:22 ↗ um preapp comments on the same day as an

35:24 ↗ insufficiency letter

35:28 ↗ um well I mean typically you would get

35:30 ↗ preup comments right after a preup

35:32 ↗ meeting happens um and and would

35:36 ↗ incorporate those in your application

35:38 ↗ submittal but in in this case and in the

35:41 ↗ case of our permits the city was taking

35:44 ↗ so long to issue the preapp comments

35:47 ↗ that we went ahead and submitted um the

35:51 ↗ applications prior in most cases prior

35:53 ↗ to receiving the prea

35:56 ↗ comments in in written form obviously we

35:59 ↗ received some feedback at the

36:01 ↗ pre-application meeting itself going

36:03 ↗ back to something that we discussed

36:05 ↗ earlier in your testimony um under the

36:08 ↗ development agreement appendix L are

36:10 ↗ prea meetings required for these

36:13 ↗ applications no they're

36:15 ↗ not and and it was it seemed pretty

36:18 ↗ unusual the amount of time that that the

36:20 ↗ city took to issue the preop comments on

36:22 ↗ our sdp and asdp applications because I

36:25 ↗ think on our um that application we got

36:30 ↗ I think it was a week or less um before

36:33 ↗ we got between the pre meeting and when

36:35 ↗ we got the preop comments um and in the

36:38 ↗ case of most of our sdp and asdp

36:40 ↗ applications it was more like six

36:44 ↗ weeks and just again for clarification

36:47 ↗ so you testified a minute ago that um

36:50 ↗ the appendix all the development

36:51 ↗ agreement does not require the preamps

36:53 ↗ so why was shelter going through the

36:55 ↗ prea process the city is requiring us to

36:58 ↗ do the the

37:03 ↗ preamps next one will be um s73

37:10 ↗ k s73 k is a letter from Jackson main

37:15 ↗ architecture dated February 27th 2018 to

37:19 ↗ Lucy

37:20 ↗ slowman and it

37:24 ↗ is okay in response to the the

37:27 ↗ sufficiency

37:37 ↗ determination and then um s73 L looks

37:41 ↗ similar but maybe we can explain kind of

37:43 ↗ the difference between those so this is

37:45 ↗ s73 L and can you explain what that

37:48 ↗ document is um so s73 L is also a letter

37:55 ↗ from Jackson main architecture

37:58 ↗ to the city it's dated February 28th

38:02 ↗ 2018 and it is the design

38:06 ↗ narrative so it's separate from the s73

38:11 ↗ k um is responding to the specific

38:14 ↗ things that were called out as the basis

38:16 ↗ for insufficiency of the application and

38:19 ↗ this is actually this s73 L is actually

38:23 ↗ um the updated design narrative

38:33 ↗ so this next one is s73

38:53 ↗ M um so s73 m is a non-residential sewer

38:58 ↗ use

39:00 ↗ certification which appears to be a King

39:02 ↗ County

39:04 ↗ form and um if you could do me a favor

39:07 ↗ can you hand me back the copies of um L

39:11 ↗ and K I just want to take a look really

39:14 ↗ quick thank

39:24 ↗ you so this next one is s73

39:29 ↗ n thank you

39:40 ↗ mhm what's this document at s73

39:46 ↗ n s73 n

39:52 ↗ so Mr chair for a second we've got a j

39:56 ↗ and a k that look to be the same

39:58 ↗ document the K's single page and the J

40:02 ↗ is let me take a look at and make

40:08 ↗ sure

40:11 ↗ right looks like this is the

40:13 ↗ double-sided and that's a single sided

40:15 ↗ of the same letter let me um make

40:22 ↗ we because they're back to back and they

40:25 ↗ might

40:28 ↗ if you go with those we'll we'll take

40:29 ↗ care of the duplicates just so you can

40:31 ↗ figure out which one you meant to use

40:33 ↗ this one is

41:06 ↗ February 27

41:09 ↗ 2018 to

41:15 ↗ miss okay that's different so that's

41:18 ↗ your K yes that's different than what

41:20 ↗ they have so let's make sure got the

41:23 ↗ right so okay is this one

41:28 ↗ and these two are the same I

41:32 ↗ think this was

41:36 ↗ K so it should be the sufficiency

41:39 ↗ determination and address to Lucy slon

41:41 ↗ so theirs is mixed up

41:46 ↗ then and to complicate it more if these

41:49 ↗ two are the same thing and and N which

41:52 ↗ you were just going to introduce is J

41:54 ↗ okay let's focus on this one first

41:57 ↗ we'll do one at a time so I think they

41:59 ↗ got duplicates and that's it of um of

42:03 ↗ these so J is correct I don't think you

42:07 ↗ have the letter that you have I don't

42:10 ↗ think you have a copy of that yet

42:14 ↗ the to corre yeah so I think that there

42:18 ↗ was just a mixup in the um stack so um

42:22 ↗ so J is correct because that's the

42:23 ↗ February 27 to

42:25 ↗ G yes okay

42:27 ↗ we'll just be missing okay we'll get

42:33 ↗ you

42:35 ↗ okay the Gan

42:37 ↗ line

42:39 ↗ to slowman that's

42:44 ↗ okay

42:49 ↗ fine oh you're missing missam

42:57 ↗ I think we

43:00 ↗ have I never had J think we figured it

43:10 ↗ out3

43:11 ↗ that's I think we might have found it

43:13 ↗ because we got three JS and one k so I

43:16 ↗ think this must be the the

43:18 ↗ K yes that's correct okay we're caught

43:21 ↗ up okay good thank you

43:25 ↗ everyone so then T we just got to sort

43:28 ↗ out what we've got over here so then N I

43:31 ↗ think is the same

43:35 ↗ as

43:37 ↗ J

43:42 ↗ right it's got the same

43:50 ↗ dat which page are you

43:55 ↗ on it's different

43:58 ↗ mhm well just um here flip on my

44:05 ↗ page maybe not

44:11 ↗ same

44:17 ↗ okay yeah this is the same

44:22 ↗ letter

44:25 ↗ okay so that's J okay so n you don't

44:28 ↗ need to n we don't need okay thank you

44:31 ↗ so this was do you have your K already

44:35 ↗ yeah yeah okay I'm going to take these

44:38 ↗ away we have JK l

44:42 ↗ m and then we were about to start on N

44:44 ↗ yes okay but we're going to skip n well

44:47 ↗ with the document that we were going to

44:48 ↗ talk about um and actually I think with

44:52 ↗ all that confusion we've reached the end

44:54 ↗ of the pile anyways so that's good um

44:57 ↗ thank you for bearing with us on that so

44:59 ↗ that's a73 and that's the conclusion of

45:01 ↗ it would have been on exhibit M you guys

45:04 ↗ and Zach and Jeff you guys have the

45:06 ↗ documents as well okay excellent thank

45:09 ↗ you so um so that packet s73 and all the

45:13 ↗ subp parts um can you remind us again

45:15 ↗ what what was that in its

45:17 ↗ entirety so that packet was a

45:20 ↗ resubmittal of our storage application

45:23 ↗ which happened I think on February 28th

45:25 ↗ 2018 thank you

45:41 ↗ here so after you did the reubal um did

45:44 ↗ you get additional sufficiency letters

45:47 ↗ from the city for the storage

45:49 ↗ application we did let's turn and take a

45:53 ↗ look at those the first one that I'm

45:54 ↗ going to pull up is C

45:58 ↗ 25 um is this one of the letters the

46:01 ↗ sufficiency letters for

46:09 ↗ storage um yes it

46:12 ↗ is well actually

46:15 ↗ c25 it looks like is

46:19 ↗ the

46:21 ↗ sufficiency determination of incomplete

46:24 ↗ insufficient for the a mm so I think it

46:28 ↗ might actually be the same

46:31 ↗ as

46:33 ↗ s73 H got it okay so we've talked about

46:36 ↗ that one

46:40 ↗ yes and then the other one would be uh

46:48 ↗ c26 yes C c26 is um an insufficiency

46:54 ↗ determination for the Self Storage build

46:57 ↗ asdp

46:59 ↗ submitt okay and um can we do the same

47:03 ↗ thing of run through some of the

47:05 ↗ insufficiency comments in this

47:07 ↗ letter um there's only one comment in

47:10 ↗ here and it

47:12 ↗ references um it says many required

47:15 ↗ submittal requirements do not exist at

47:17 ↗ this time because the plotting process

47:18 ↗ to establish this property is not

47:20 ↗ complete and then it gives some

47:23 ↗ examples um and then it says however in

47:26 ↗ our dispute resolution meeting on

47:28 ↗ February 6 2018 there was agreement that

47:31 ↗ shelter Holdings Attorney Patrick melany

47:33 ↗ of foster pepper and the City attorney

47:35 ↗ Jim Haney of Ogden Murphy Wallace will

47:38 ↗ edit a draft letter provided by Mr

47:40 ↗ melany the signed form of that letter

47:42 ↗ lays out the terms under which the city

47:44 ↗ will accept the submitt prior to

47:46 ↗ completion of the platting and deem it

47:49 ↗ complete within the vesting framework

47:51 ↗ referenced in the letter without certain

47:54 ↗ submitt requirements being provided in

47:56 ↗ their re recorded final and approved

47:58 ↗ form so this was again the um argument

48:04 ↗ that Miss slowman was making that she

48:07 ↗ would not um accept an application for a

48:11 ↗ site development permit until the

48:14 ↗ platting was complete and it's a a

48:18 ↗ little bit unclear but I think it seems

48:20 ↗ to indicate that she's talking about not

48:22 ↗ only preliminary plat but also final

48:25 ↗ plat which

48:27 ↗ if you remember our what we talked about

48:31 ↗ several several nights ago now

48:35 ↗ um could be years down the road the

48:37 ↗ final plat isn't

48:39 ↗ recorded uh until after the plat is

48:42 ↗ actually built and all the

48:43 ↗ infrastructure is is in

48:46 ↗ place and this letter that um it's

48:50 ↗ referencing if if you could turn to

48:53 ↗ exhibit s36

48:57 ↗ it's already in the

49:16 ↗ record is this the uh the letter

49:19 ↗ agreement that that sufficiency letter

49:22 ↗ is referencing that it wasn't prepared

49:24 ↗ at that time but it eventually was

49:26 ↗ prepared

49:27 ↗ yes it it is that letter and I think it

49:31 ↗ was prepared at that time because they

49:33 ↗ it it may not have been in its final

49:35 ↗ form um but it had been prepared much

49:39 ↗ earlier than that I think in in January

49:43 ↗ or maybe even December thanks for that

49:45 ↗ clarification um and we'll we'll turn

49:47 ↗ back to this letter in a minute I just

49:49 ↗ wanted to check to see if we were

49:51 ↗ talking about the same

49:52 ↗ thing um

50:01 ↗ let's take a look at a new exhibit

50:03 ↗ exhibit uh

50:24 ↗ s74 and I'm actually going to hand you

50:26 ↗ two exhibits what the first will be s74

50:29 ↗ and the second will be

50:31 ↗ s75 um we'll explain both of them as we

50:35 ↗ go

50:40 ↗ here first one's

50:51 ↗ s74 and if you could explain um what the

50:54 ↗ exhibit s74 is please

50:58 ↗ uh yes so

51:00 ↗ s74 is a letter that I submitted to the

51:06 ↗ land and Shore committee on March 1st

51:09 ↗ 2018 um and it was in response to um the

51:15 ↗ packet that was prepared by staff for

51:18 ↗ that land and Shore meeting where they

51:21 ↗ would be discussing the end of the iso

51:23 ↗ Highlands development

51:25 ↗ agreement okay

51:27 ↗ and why did you submit this

51:30 ↗ letter um I submitted the letter because

51:34 ↗ I was concerned that the land and Shore

51:39 ↗ committee and the public were not

51:42 ↗ getting accurate and complete answers to

51:46 ↗ the questions and issues that had been

51:49 ↗ raised um and because we were continuing

51:54 ↗ to participate in the public process

51:56 ↗ related to

51:59 ↗ um everything that related to our

52:01 ↗ project or our property um including the

52:05 ↗ replacement regulations that were being

52:09 ↗ proposed and then

52:12 ↗ s75 what's uh what's this document

52:15 ↗ what's that letter

52:34 ↗ um this letter which is also one that I

52:38 ↗ submitted on March 1st 2018 to the land

52:41 ↗ and Shore committee is is more

52:44 ↗ specifically um on vesting there had had

52:48 ↗ started to be a lot of discussion on on

52:52 ↗ vesting um and the the council members

52:56 ↗ on that committee were asking for

53:00 ↗ information

53:02 ↗ um so this

53:04 ↗ was in response to some of the questions

53:08 ↗ that had been asked what did you explain

53:10 ↗ to them about

53:13 ↗ vesting

53:15 ↗ um well I mean I

53:20 ↗ I in in the first section of the letter

53:24 ↗ I tried to address what ing is and so it

53:28 ↗ states that the vested rights Doctrine

53:31 ↗ refers generally to the notion that a

53:33 ↗ land use application under the proper

53:35 ↗ conditions will be considered only under

53:36 ↗ the land use statutes and ordinances in

53:39 ↗ effect at the time of the application's

53:41 ↗ submit submission and that's a quote

53:43 ↗ from Noble Manor versus Pierce County

53:47 ↗ case um and then it goes on to to talk

53:51 ↗ about the purpose of vesting in

53:52 ↗ providing certainty and predictability

53:54 ↗ in land use regulations um um and the

53:57 ↗ fact that development rights are

53:59 ↗ recognized as valuable property

54:02 ↗ interests under Washington state law um

54:06 ↗ it also went on

54:08 ↗ to clarify that the development

54:10 ↗ agreement does in fact address vesting

54:13 ↗ because staff was telling them them

54:16 ↗ being uh the council members and the

54:18 ↗ public otherwise as you've seen I think

54:20 ↗ in the earlier um slides that were

54:23 ↗ presented they were stating that it

54:26 ↗ didn't provide any guidance on on

54:29 ↗ vesting when in fact it actually

54:32 ↗ provided quite a lot of of guidance on

54:35 ↗ vesting

54:37 ↗ um there also the the council members

54:41 ↗ had been asking

54:42 ↗ for um city attorney's position on

54:46 ↗ vesting um and what came out in the

54:49 ↗ packet of that was public was um a very

54:54 ↗ generic memo on on vesting law it didn't

54:59 ↗ once mention the development agreement

55:01 ↗ or the fact that that there was a

55:03 ↗ vesting provision in the development

55:05 ↗ agreement so while it addressed vesting

55:09 ↗ generally it really didn't provide any

55:11 ↗ guidance with respect to the specific uh

55:14 ↗ situation that the the council was

55:16 ↗ dealing with at that time

55:20 ↗ um

55:22 ↗ also called out that that

55:27 ↗ um the city's position

55:31 ↗ that vesting naturally terminates at the

55:34 ↗ end of the contract had no support in

55:36 ↗ Washington state law or in the

55:38 ↗ development agreement and despite having

55:40 ↗ asked for that the that no one at the

55:43 ↗ city was providing that um and there

55:47 ↗ seemed to be just a general confusion at

55:50 ↗ the council level as

55:54 ↗ to the dis

55:56 ↗ the items that vest per state law so

56:00 ↗ state law requires that plats building

56:02 ↗ permits and development agreements

56:05 ↗ vest and so there was confusion between

56:08 ↗ that and the concept of complying with

56:10 ↗ Washington state law so what we were

56:12 ↗ trying to do was to say yes there are

56:16 ↗ those three categories are things that

56:18 ↗ Washington state law requires the city

56:20 ↗ to acknowledge as as vested um but you

56:24 ↗ also are required to follow Washington

56:27 ↗ state law generally and and that some of

56:29 ↗ the ideas that had been proposed or

56:32 ↗ floated as options in the the

56:36 ↗ documentation or um explanations from

56:40 ↗ staff were in fact not

56:46 ↗ legal so absent this interpretation from

56:50 ↗ the city that the replacement

56:53 ↗ regulations that were ultimately adopted

56:55 ↗ uh dive vest to use their term uh

56:58 ↗ shelter of their vested rights um do the

57:02 ↗ replacement regulations actually have

57:05 ↗ any impact on your vested rights I mean

57:07 ↗ a lot of the letters that we're just

57:08 ↗ talking about are talking about the

57:09 ↗ replacement regulations but what impact

57:11 ↗ should there be on your vested rights

57:13 ↗ and your understanding well we have we

57:16 ↗ have vested applications we had vested

57:18 ↗ applications at the time the replacement

57:20 ↗ regulations were adopted and effective

57:24 ↗ so they really should have no impact the

57:27 ↗ replacement regulations should have no

57:29 ↗ impact on our projects

57:32 ↗ um the I think the interpretation that

57:36 ↗ they retroactively take away our vested

57:39 ↗ rights is

57:40 ↗ particularly

57:43 ↗ um absurd because it they don't say that

57:46 ↗ they do that when you read the the

57:49 ↗ regulation itself it doesn't say that it

57:52 ↗ retroactively takes away uh vested

57:55 ↗ rights it doesn't say that it applies

57:57 ↗ retroactively it just

58:00 ↗ acknowledges that there are three things

58:02 ↗ that the city is required

58:05 ↗ to um required to recognize as vested

58:10 ↗ the building permits plats and short

58:12 ↗ plats and development Agreements are

58:15 ↗ specifically listed as the third item we

58:18 ↗ vested under a development agreement so

58:20 ↗ even if under some scenario you were

58:23 ↗ trying to retroactively apply

58:25 ↗ regulations that didn't exist at the

58:27 ↗ time our applications were submitted to

58:29 ↗ our application it still says that you

58:32 ↗ vest to the development agreement so

58:34 ↗ I've never quite understood the city's

58:36 ↗ logic in pointing to the replacement

58:39 ↗ regulations as a basis

58:41 ↗ for divesting our

58:46 ↗ projects a minute ago when you were

58:48 ↗ describing um the March 1 letter at

58:52 ↗ s75 um you talked about predictability

58:55 ↗ and certainty um as part of of vesting

59:00 ↗ law um if the city were were right in

59:04 ↗ its arguments that we've heard here so

59:06 ↗ far what impact would that have on

59:08 ↗ predictability and certainty for for

59:10 ↗ shelter and um for other developers or

59:13 ↗ property owners in your

59:15 ↗ experience um well I think there's maybe

59:18 ↗ two parts to that question um one if if

59:23 ↗ a city or any legislative body has the

59:26 ↗ ability to retroactively take away

59:30 ↗ vested

59:31 ↗ rights that turns all land use and

59:35 ↗ development in Washington state upside

59:37 ↗ down I mean there everything that I know

59:40 ↗ and have experienced about land use law

59:41 ↗ is wrong and we're changing all the

59:44 ↗ rules it would have major major

59:47 ↗ implications on development in

59:49 ↗ Washington state um if you're talking

59:53 ↗ about this other concept about vesting

59:56 ↗ naturally terminating at the end of a

59:58 ↗ development

59:59 ↗ agreement I think that that also has has

1:00:05 ↗ major implications on land use law in

1:00:07 ↗ Washington and on the desirability or

1:00:10 ↗ viability of using a development

1:00:12 ↗ agreement which is intended to be a tool

1:00:14 ↗ to allow cities and developers to or

1:00:19 ↗ Property Owners to work

1:00:21 ↗ collaboratively together to find um the

1:00:25 ↗ best

1:00:27 ↗ result for the community um and if a

1:00:30 ↗ developer cannot rely on the terms of

1:00:33 ↗ the development agreement or the term of

1:00:36 ↗ a development

1:00:37 ↗ agreement it it becomes useless and it

1:00:40 ↗ won't it won't be something that

1:00:42 ↗ developers will pursue and I think that

1:00:45 ↗ would be unfortunate because there's a

1:00:47 ↗ lot of good development that's happened

1:00:48 ↗ as a result of development agreements

1:00:56 ↗ you also mentioned a minute ago um

1:01:01 ↗ the the presentations or representations

1:01:05 ↗ um that the development agreement

1:01:07 ↗ doesn't say anything about vesting by

1:01:09 ↗ City staff and we've heard about that

1:01:11 ↗ from other Witnesses a little bit too um

1:01:13 ↗ but I'd like to introduce another

1:01:15 ↗ exhibit this will be

1:01:18 ↗ s76

1:01:20 ↗ um and we can talk about that a little

1:01:22 ↗ bit more

1:01:28 ↗ so what's the um what is the document

1:01:33 ↗ s76

1:01:34 ↗ s76 is a PowerPoint

1:01:38 ↗ presentation um dated March 1st 2018 for

1:01:42 ↗ the council land and Shore committee so

1:01:45 ↗ this would be the same

1:01:48 ↗ um meeting at which I provided the the

1:01:52 ↗ two letters that we just talked about as

1:01:53 ↗ s75 and s74

1:01:56 ↗ and if you flip through it I I believe

1:01:58 ↗ it's on the last page of this

1:02:02 ↗ um there is yeah it's the very last page

1:02:06 ↗ 33 um there's a slide titled vesting um

1:02:11 ↗ can you tell us more about this slide

1:02:13 ↗ and what it

1:02:20 ↗ provides um

1:02:30 ↗ well the first sentence says why is

1:02:33 ↗ vesting in the rest of the city more

1:02:35 ↗ lenient um and my understanding is that

1:02:39 ↗ that's a reference to the fact that uh

1:02:43 ↗ staff was acknowledging that everywhere

1:02:45 ↗ else in the city they were planning to

1:02:47 ↗ continue their current

1:02:50 ↗ um procedure of or policy of recognizing

1:02:54 ↗ that vesting happen happens at complete

1:02:56 ↗ preliminary land use

1:02:58 ↗ application uh because that

1:03:02 ↗ was uh necessary in order to comply with

1:03:05 ↗ the West Main V bellw case the first

1:03:08 ↗ bullet on the page says the development

1:03:11 ↗ agreement does not provide regulations

1:03:13 ↗ or guidance on vesting of

1:03:15 ↗ projects that's just flat out not

1:03:19 ↗ true

1:03:21 ↗ um the the next bullet was Property

1:03:24 ↗ Owners knew the development agreement

1:03:25 ↗ had a specific buildout period or

1:03:28 ↗ term that's true but it doesn't really

1:03:31 ↗ have anything to do with

1:03:33 ↗ vesting

1:03:35 ↗ um the third is vesting projects to

1:03:37 ↗ outdated standards is not in the best

1:03:40 ↗ interest of the community and the fourth

1:03:43 ↗ partnership the partnership with the

1:03:45 ↗ master developer for good design

1:03:47 ↗ standards expires with the

1:03:51 ↗ agreement so that last Point expires

1:03:54 ↗ with the agreement um it you know

1:03:56 ↗ obviously doesn't say specifically what

1:03:57 ↗ it's talking about but um is what was

1:04:02 ↗ your understanding of this expiration

1:04:04 ↗ with the agreement and how that affected

1:04:06 ↗ vested rights from from the city's

1:04:07 ↗ perspective at this

1:04:09 ↗ time um I think they were trying to

1:04:12 ↗ imply that the master developer had a

1:04:14 ↗ continued level of control over

1:04:17 ↗ developments that were occurring in

1:04:19 ↗ isqua Highlands that that actually was

1:04:21 ↗ not there um I don't think it's accurate

1:04:24 ↗ to say that the all the design standards

1:04:26 ↗ expired because there was still the you

1:04:29 ↗ know the ccnr or the covenants

1:04:31 ↗ conditions and restrictions were not

1:04:32 ↗ expiring and those continue to be

1:04:34 ↗ implemented through isqua Highlands

1:04:36 ↗ Community

1:04:37 ↗ Association um and particularly with

1:04:40 ↗ respect to our property but also with

1:04:43 ↗ respect to the other properties that had

1:04:45 ↗ been sold off by the master developer

1:04:49 ↗ um there just wasn't any element of

1:04:52 ↗ Master developer control over design

1:04:55 ↗ standards which they were telling the

1:04:57 ↗ the council and the public that there

1:05:00 ↗ were going back to that the first point

1:05:02 ↗ that you brought off why is vesting in

1:05:04 ↗ the rest of the city more lenient um you

1:05:07 ↗ mention you know the rest of the City

1:05:09 ↗ versus um versus what um versus let's

1:05:14 ↗ see at at this point in time I believe

1:05:16 ↗ that the isqua highlands

1:05:20 ↗ um had been separated from Talis in

1:05:23 ↗ terms of the termination of the

1:05:24 ↗ development agreement because both had

1:05:26 ↗ termination of development agreement and

1:05:28 ↗ replacement

1:05:29 ↗ regulations uh being adopted on similar

1:05:32 ↗ time frames and at some point they split

1:05:34 ↗ the two um but they were I think

1:05:38 ↗ planning to treat them the same for

1:05:39 ↗ purposes of most of the code including

1:05:42 ↗ the vesting provision so they were

1:05:46 ↗ saying the the vesting in the rest of

1:05:48 ↗ the city would refer to everywhere else

1:05:51 ↗ outside of those two Urban Villages for

1:05:53 ↗ which the development agreements were

1:05:54 ↗ being

1:05:56 ↗ terminated so for the highlands the

1:05:58 ↗ isqua highlands um what what properties

1:06:03 ↗ remained to be developed and would need

1:06:06 ↗ to benefit from vesting um specifically

1:06:10 ↗ just in the highlands area versus the

1:06:12 ↗ rest of the

1:06:13 ↗ city um there's very few undeveloped

1:06:17 ↗ properties left in isqua Highlands I

1:06:19 ↗ think there's some information in one of

1:06:23 ↗ the exhibits that we've already talked

1:06:25 ↗ about that showed a chart of all of the

1:06:27 ↗ properties that were left

1:06:30 ↗ undeveloped

1:06:31 ↗ um at this point in time so as of March

1:06:37 ↗ 1st I believe that the

1:06:40 ↗ only two properties that they that the

1:06:43 ↗ city staff was saying would potentially

1:06:46 ↗ be left

1:06:47 ↗ unvested if the city went with the

1:06:50 ↗ vesting language and interpretation that

1:06:53 ↗ the staff was again at that point in

1:06:55 ↗ time time um recommending would be our

1:07:00 ↗ property and the city surf property the

1:07:04 ↗ city served property the city later

1:07:06 ↗ changed position and decided to

1:07:08 ↗ recognize vesting for them at the last

1:07:10 ↗ minute the day day before two days

1:07:13 ↗ before the um replacement regulations

1:07:16 ↗ were adopted so that left us and our

1:07:19 ↗ property as the only property with

1:07:21 ↗ applications pending that the city was

1:07:23 ↗ not going to recognize as vested to the

1:07:25 ↗ the development

1:07:33 ↗ agreement then this uh first point the

1:07:35 ↗ development agreement does not provide

1:07:36 ↗ regulations or guidance on vesting of

1:07:38 ↗ projects I think in your first binder

1:07:42 ↗ here this one uh yeah I just want to

1:07:45 ↗ make sure we get the right exhibit

1:07:46 ↗ number

1:08:16 ↗ okay so we're looking at

1:08:19 ↗ s25 um and that's the excerpts from the

1:08:23 ↗ development agreement that we talked

1:08:25 ↗ about the first night that you

1:08:27 ↗ testified um can you point out a couple

1:08:30 ↗ examples of where the development

1:08:32 ↗ agreement provides for regulations or

1:08:34 ↗ guidance on vesting of projects sure so

1:08:37 ↗ section 3.23 is titled vesting of

1:08:40 ↗ development standards and

1:08:49 ↗ mitigation and then going to this second

1:08:51 ↗ bullet point where it says Property

1:08:52 ↗ Owners knew the development agreement

1:08:54 ↗ had a specific buildout period or term

1:08:57 ↗ um you said it's true that you know that

1:08:59 ↗ you knew that there was a build out

1:09:00 ↗ period or term um but what what

1:09:04 ↗ implications does that have under the

1:09:06 ↗ development

1:09:07 ↗ agreement so after the buildout period

1:09:10 ↗ the development agreement continues in

1:09:12 ↗ place um the only change is that the

1:09:15 ↗ city is allowed to

1:09:18 ↗ adopt CH changes to the development

1:09:21 ↗ standards in the development agreement

1:09:23 ↗ or to terminate or either the city or

1:09:26 ↗ the master developer could terminate the

1:09:28 ↗ development agreement so we knew that

1:09:31 ↗ both of those things were possible but

1:09:32 ↗ we also knew that there's a required

1:09:34 ↗ process for the city to enact those new

1:09:36 ↗ ordinances so the development

1:09:39 ↗ agreement

1:09:41 ↗ continues

1:09:44 ↗ until it terminates by enacting by the

1:09:47 ↗ city enacting the replacement

1:09:49 ↗ regulations can you look specifically at

1:09:52 ↗ section 3.2 3.2 of the development

1:09:56 ↗ agreement and uh

1:09:59 ↗ s25 and um you just explained it in

1:10:03 ↗ terms of the buildout period but what

1:10:04 ↗ does that provide for in that

1:10:07 ↗ section um it specifically is talking

1:10:09 ↗ about after the buildout period And it

1:10:11 ↗ says the development standards shall

1:10:13 ↗ continue to apply to all applications

1:10:15 ↗ for implementing approval submitted

1:10:17 ↗ after expiration of the buildout period

1:10:20 ↗ except either party May terminate this

1:10:21 ↗ agreement and the zoning and development

1:10:23 ↗ regulations may be modified as provided

1:10:25 ↗ in section

1:10:27 ↗ 5.13 so that's what I was just

1:10:29 ↗ describing that everything stays the

1:10:32 ↗ same and continues to apply unless and

1:10:35 ↗ until something is modified per

1:10:39 ↗ 5.13 and 5.13 is the term section of the

1:10:43 ↗ development agreement and that's where

1:10:46 ↗ it outlines how the

1:10:49 ↗ city uh goes about adopting replacement

1:10:52 ↗ regulations to terminate the agreement

1:10:55 ↗ and even there it says no sooner than 6

1:10:58 ↗ months after the notice of termination

1:11:00 ↗ they have to hold public hearings um

1:11:04 ↗ prior

1:11:05 ↗ to um adopting the the new zoning

1:11:10 ↗ so under any

1:11:13 ↗ scenario the development agreement

1:11:15 ↗ contemplates that there's a period after

1:11:17 ↗ buildout where the development agreement

1:11:19 ↗ needs to still apply because the

1:11:23 ↗ development regulations under the

1:11:24 ↗ development agreement are the only thing

1:11:26 ↗ that can apply to this property um until

1:11:29 ↗ new regulations are

1:11:41 ↗ implemented oh sure

1:11:57 ↗ I think if you don't mind um we're at a

1:12:00 ↗ pretty clean spot to take a break if

1:12:02 ↗ that's okay it's 741 so about an hour in

1:12:04 ↗ a little over an hour um is that okay

1:12:07 ↗ with you we continue if you would like

1:12:08 ↗ to either way I was going to ask for

1:12:10 ↗ that so I appreciate the recognition of

1:12:12 ↗ that and uh I would offer that we take a

1:12:15 ↗ break for 10 minutes thank

1:12:24 ↗ you

1:12:54 ↗ e

1:13:24 ↗ e

1:13:54 ↗ e

1:14:24 ↗ e

1:14:54 ↗ e

1:15:23 ↗ e

1:15:53 ↗ e

1:16:23 ↗ e

1:16:53 ↗ e

1:17:23 ↗ e

1:17:53 ↗ e

1:18:23 ↗ e

1:18:53 ↗ e

1:19:23 ↗ e

1:19:53 ↗ e

1:20:23 ↗ e

1:20:53 ↗ e

1:21:23 ↗ e

1:21:53 ↗ e

1:22:23 ↗ e

1:22:53 ↗ e

1:23:23 ↗ e all right we're back on the A and back

1:23:25 ↗ in session okay thank

1:23:28 ↗ you uh so Tia we left off a minute ago

1:23:30 ↗ talking about um a couple documents from

1:23:33 ↗ March 1st we're looking at the

1:23:35 ↗ PowerPoint from the March 1st 2018

1:23:37 ↗ Landon Shore meeting um do you recall

1:23:40 ↗ whether you were present at that

1:23:42 ↗ meeting I don't believe I was I think um

1:23:45 ↗ Patrick melany of foster pepper are

1:23:48 ↗ outside um land use Council attended

1:23:52 ↗ that meeting um

1:23:55 ↗ both because I was sick but also because

1:23:58 ↗ I received an email from uh council

1:24:01 ↗ member Stacy

1:24:03 ↗ Goodman uh I think in the afternoon

1:24:05 ↗ before that meeting letting me know that

1:24:09 ↗ she had decided to allocate the 3 minute

1:24:14 ↗ um time limit that they put on on people

1:24:17 ↗ making public comment that she had

1:24:19 ↗ decided that she was going to allocate

1:24:21 ↗ it on a group byg group basis so that we

1:24:25 ↗ would only get a total of three minutes

1:24:27 ↗ for however many um people came to speak

1:24:31 ↗ um on behalf of of

1:24:33 ↗ ihfc and she said that she wanted to

1:24:36 ↗ call that out to us because we um

1:24:39 ↗ typically brought more than one person

1:24:41 ↗ to participate in the public

1:24:44 ↗ process are um or was this meeting the

1:24:46 ↗ March 1st meeting was it videotaped yes

1:24:50 ↗ and did you review the video and watch

1:24:52 ↗ it after the fact yes um did you also

1:24:55 ↗ review the slides that we were just

1:24:57 ↗ talking about at

1:24:59 ↗ s76 yes I've reviewed the slides and and

1:25:02 ↗ the packet that went into the meeting

1:25:06 ↗ obviously so next I'd like to turn to

1:25:09 ↗ exhibit uh new exhibit

1:25:19 ↗ s77 uh Tia what is this

1:25:23 ↗ document s 77 is an email um from Sarah

1:25:27 ↗ Beth LaVine to me uh Sarah Beth Works um

1:25:32 ↗ in my office and is part of the

1:25:34 ↗ development team and she had gone to the

1:25:38 ↗ city to drop off the application fee for

1:25:43 ↗ the storage

1:25:45 ↗ asdp and the person at the desk and as

1:25:51 ↗ well as the permit technician that was

1:25:53 ↗ there

1:25:55 ↗ um refused to accept the application fee

1:25:59 ↗ and then told her while she was there

1:26:02 ↗ that

1:26:04 ↗ um they wanted to give her back to

1:26:07 ↗ previous checks that she had dropped off

1:26:10 ↗ because our applications were denied and

1:26:14 ↗ so

1:26:15 ↗ she she Angie Angie Aldrich the permit

1:26:20 ↗ technician gave Sarah Beth the two

1:26:24 ↗ previous checks that she had submitted

1:26:26 ↗ and as well as the check she was

1:26:29 ↗ attempting to submit that day and asked

1:26:32 ↗ her to take them back as the city was

1:26:34 ↗ refusing them um and this was on March

1:26:38 ↗ 14th

1:26:40 ↗ 2018 so this was before the replacement

1:26:43 ↗ regulations had been

1:26:46 ↗ adopted

1:26:48 ↗ um and it was it was surprising to me

1:26:51 ↗ that the city would refuse the checks

1:26:53 ↗ and the that they were giving back

1:26:56 ↗ checks that they had accepted months and

1:26:58 ↗ months earlier when we had submitted our

1:27:00 ↗ applications for the medical office

1:27:02 ↗ building and the um retail sdp so this

1:27:07 ↗ also says that

1:27:10 ↗ um the applications were

1:27:13 ↗ denied is what's your understanding of

1:27:16 ↗ what it means to have a denied

1:27:20 ↗ application well a denied application

1:27:23 ↗ would mean

1:27:25 ↗ that it was not approved

1:27:29 ↗ and I I mean I I don't I didn't know how

1:27:32 ↗ to take

1:27:33 ↗ that is that um consistent with your

1:27:37 ↗ understanding of how the sufficiency

1:27:39 ↗ letters worked in that process or is

1:27:41 ↗ that something different to

1:27:44 ↗ you well I mean the sufficiency letters

1:27:47 ↗ we had been going back and forth I mean

1:27:49 ↗ we had been submitting and getting in

1:27:51 ↗ insufficiency letters for several months

1:27:53 ↗ at this point point we had the um letter

1:27:56 ↗ agreement pending City

1:27:59 ↗ signature um at that point so this all

1:28:03 ↗ just seemed very bizarre to to reject

1:28:06 ↗ application

1:28:07 ↗ fees and then to also state that the

1:28:10 ↗ applications were

1:28:12 ↗ denied so that was March uh

1:28:15 ↗ 14th um there was another document uh at

1:28:19 ↗ S40 if you can turn to that I believe

1:28:22 ↗ was dated March 14th this as

1:28:42 ↗ well so um Patrick mlan testified about

1:28:46 ↗ this document uh a few evenings ago um

1:28:49 ↗ can you describe again what this

1:28:51 ↗ document is please

1:28:55 ↗ so S40 is a letter from Patrick melany

1:29:00 ↗ addressed to Keith nen

1:29:04 ↗ regarding city transportation impact fee

1:29:07 ↗ credit

1:29:11 ↗ proposal do you um Recall why this was

1:29:15 ↗ provided or just kind of what the

1:29:17 ↗ purpose of This

1:29:20 ↗ was um well I think that Mr nian had

1:29:25 ↗ suggested that we

1:29:33 ↗ um draft a

1:29:35 ↗ proposal to get some sort of

1:29:40 ↗ discounted impact fee credit for traffic

1:29:44 ↗ mitigation fees that had already been

1:29:46 ↗ provided per the development agreement

1:29:50 ↗ um and so

1:29:54 ↗ Patrick melany was writing back to Mr

1:29:56 ↗ nien to explain that because our

1:30:00 ↗ preliminary plat application and which

1:30:03 ↗ allocates all of the allowable

1:30:04 ↗ development that we had under the

1:30:06 ↗ development agreement across the

1:30:08 ↗ property um was vested that part of what

1:30:13 ↗ vests per the terms of the the

1:30:16 ↗ development agreement are the

1:30:18 ↗ development standards the development

1:30:19 ↗ standards expressly include the

1:30:22 ↗ mitigation so

1:30:26 ↗ he was explaining to Mr nien that

1:30:29 ↗ because we were vested under the plat we

1:30:32 ↗ did not see any reason why there should

1:30:34 ↗ be a deeply discounted recognition of

1:30:38 ↗ Transportation mitigation impact fees

1:30:40 ↗ that had been already received by the

1:30:45 ↗ city okay and then if you can turn to um

1:30:48 ↗ exhibit s36 please

1:30:56 ↗ yes um we briefly mentioned this letter

1:31:00 ↗ a minute ago um remind us what what is

1:31:02 ↗ this letter

1:31:04 ↗ again so this is uh March 15 2018 letter

1:31:10 ↗ agreement regarding completeness

1:31:12 ↗ determinations for the sdp applications

1:31:14 ↗ and asdp

1:31:17 ↗ applications and can you walk us through

1:31:20 ↗ um what this letter provided for in

1:31:22 ↗ terms of um the agreement between

1:31:25 ↗ shelter and the

1:31:28 ↗ city um sure it it provided for the city

1:31:32 ↗ to recognize that the sdp applications

1:31:35 ↗ were in fact complete

1:31:38 ↗ um and and then that shelter or

1:31:43 ↗ ihfc was um consenting

1:31:50 ↗ to have the city review the plat applic

1:31:54 ↗ before the sdps because that seemed to

1:31:57 ↗ be their issue that they wanted the plat

1:31:59 ↗ to be processed first um despite that

1:32:04 ↗ being what they were articulating that

1:32:06 ↗ they wanted the plat to be processed

1:32:07 ↗ first they had done nothing up until

1:32:10 ↗ that point to process that application

1:32:13 ↗ that at that point had been sitting with

1:32:15 ↗ them

1:32:17 ↗ for at least 7 months because it was

1:32:22 ↗ August 1st 20

1:32:25 ↗ 17 when the complete application was

1:32:28 ↗ submitted and we were now in mid

1:32:30 ↗ mid-march

1:32:32 ↗ 2018 um so I think those were the two

1:32:36 ↗ the the two biggest points of that

1:32:37 ↗ letter were that they were deeming the

1:32:39 ↗ sdp applications complete and we were

1:32:41 ↗ saying

1:32:43 ↗ fine process the plat um so it actually

1:32:51 ↗ says following the completeness

1:32:53 ↗ determinations the city will focus on

1:32:54 ↗ the timely processing of the of IH ifc's

1:32:57 ↗ preliminary plat application before

1:33:01 ↗ ihf's sdp applications are

1:33:08 ↗ processed so it also mentions there if

1:33:10 ↗ you look at the next sentence and what

1:33:11 ↗ you were reading it says that um uh it

1:33:14 ↗ mentions because of the added procedural

1:33:16 ↗ requirement of appearing before the

1:33:17 ↗ development commission or the Urban

1:33:19 ↗ Village design commission um what's your

1:33:22 ↗ understanding of what that meant

1:33:29 ↗ sorry where are you let me read this so

1:33:31 ↗ okay so following preliminary plat

1:33:32 ↗ approval the city's goal is four to six

1:33:37 ↗ months for for asdp review and 69 months

1:33:40 ↗ for sdp review because of the added

1:33:43 ↗ procedural requirement of appearing

1:33:45 ↗ before the development commission or the

1:33:47 ↗ Urban Village design commission so um

1:33:55 ↗ that was just describing that there was

1:33:58 ↗ a process

1:34:01 ↗ for consideration of sdp

1:34:04 ↗ applications um that actually would not

1:34:07 ↗ apply

1:34:08 ↗ to all of them it would have only

1:34:11 ↗ applied to the sdp applications not the

1:34:15 ↗ asdp and is that um where where are you

1:34:18 ↗ getting that from that uh that it would

1:34:20 ↗ only apply to one versus the other oh

1:34:23 ↗ because the development agreement

1:34:25 ↗ provides that only the site development

1:34:28 ↗ permit applications go in front of a

1:34:29 ↗ commission the asps are administrative

1:34:32 ↗ and that's supposed to be approved by

1:34:34 ↗ the administrative

1:34:44 ↗ staff

1:34:51 ↗ okay let's then um turn to exhibit s38

1:34:56 ↗ which was um I believe

1:34:59 ↗ the next day after that letter was

1:35:02 ↗ dated

1:35:05 ↗ um can you describe what s38 is for us

1:35:09 ↗ yes s38 is an email to Keith nien from

1:35:13 ↗ Patrick melany and it copies Jim Haney

1:35:16 ↗ and

1:35:18 ↗ myself um and Pat

1:35:20 ↗ Schneider um and it's this it's

1:35:24 ↗ regarding shelter's response regarding

1:35:26 ↗ City partial traffic impact fee credit

1:35:28 ↗ proposal so the email chain um is in

1:35:33 ↗ response to the letter that we were just

1:35:35 ↗ talking about

1:35:37 ↗ under

1:35:39 ↗ s 40 I think S40 which was S40 okay so

1:35:45 ↗ it was Patrick melan's letter and and in

1:35:48 ↗ the email chain on Thursday March 15th

1:35:50 ↗ at

1:35:51 ↗ 437 Keith wrote to Patrick saying my

1:35:54 ↗ read of this letter is that ihfc does

1:35:56 ↗ not want to enter into a conversation

1:35:57 ↗ with the city about impact fees if I

1:35:59 ↗ have misunderstood please let me know um

1:36:02 ↗ so the next day Patrick wrote back to

1:36:05 ↗ Keith and said I do think you that you

1:36:08 ↗ misunderstand ihc's position ihfc has

1:36:12 ↗ always been willing to discuss the

1:36:13 ↗ development agreement mitigation and

1:36:15 ↗ remains willing to do

1:36:17 ↗ so um there's more there but I don't

1:36:20 ↗ know that I need to read it in unless

1:36:21 ↗ you want me to no that thank you that's

1:36:23 ↗ okay and so um so was shelter willing to

1:36:27 ↗ discuss mitigation with the

1:36:29 ↗ city

1:36:31 ↗ yes had shelter been trying to discuss

1:36:34 ↗ mitigation with the city yes I mean

1:36:37 ↗ throughout all of our conversations with

1:36:39 ↗ the city

1:36:41 ↗ um throughout the the process of the

1:36:46 ↗ replacement regulations being considered

1:36:48 ↗ and throughout the process of our

1:36:49 ↗ applications being submitted we always

1:36:52 ↗ had been open to disc discussion and in

1:36:54 ↗ fact asking for discussion um but

1:36:57 ↗ typically what was happening was Keith

1:36:59 ↗ would ask us or specifically to have

1:37:03 ↗ have us to have Patrick write something

1:37:06 ↗ which then Keith would say he was

1:37:08 ↗ sending to the City attorney and we

1:37:10 ↗ would get no

1:37:11 ↗ response um no response from Keith or no

1:37:15 ↗ response from the city attorney and even

1:37:18 ↗ when uh Patrick would call the City

1:37:21 ↗ attorney he often wouldn't get calls

1:37:23 ↗ back or wouldn't get get response um at

1:37:27 ↗ all so you know there are several

1:37:30 ↗ letters that are in the record that

1:37:32 ↗ you've seen that we we provided per as

1:37:35 ↗ requested

1:37:37 ↗ and there just wasn't any response on

1:37:39 ↗ the city's

1:37:41 ↗ side so this email also makes reference

1:37:43 ↗ to it says in IH ifc's view mitigation

1:37:46 ↗ is intertwined with vesting and both

1:37:48 ↗ issues are raised in the notice of

1:37:50 ↗ default um if we look at S4

1:37:58 ↗ one um is this the notice of default

1:38:01 ↗ that that email was referring

1:38:06 ↗ to

1:38:09 ↗ yes and what's your understanding of why

1:38:12 ↗ this was provided what's the purpose of

1:38:15 ↗ this um the notice of default was a

1:38:18 ↗ formal notice to the city of all of the

1:38:21 ↗ ways that they were in default of the

1:38:23 ↗ development

1:38:27 ↗ agreement it also had the development

1:38:29 ↗ agreement also has a provision that if

1:38:31 ↗ you deliver a notice of default you're

1:38:32 ↗ supposed to meet within a set number of

1:38:34 ↗ days I think it might be seven did you

1:38:37 ↗ end up meeting with the

1:38:39 ↗ city we did

1:39:00 ↗ so let's turn um let's let's turn to

1:39:03 ↗ that meeting and talk about it um and

1:39:05 ↗ we'll come back to to another issue in a

1:39:07 ↗ moment um so do you recall and you're

1:39:10 ↗ welcome to look at your meeting minutes

1:39:12 ↗ if you need to to refresh your memory um

1:39:15 ↗ but do you recall when that default

1:39:16 ↗ meeting

1:39:18 ↗ happened um I believe that it happened

1:39:22 ↗ on

1:39:23 ↗ March

1:39:26 ↗ 21st

1:39:28 ↗ 2018 although these notes say 19 but

1:39:31 ↗ it's

1:39:33 ↗ 18 and just um for a matter of the

1:39:35 ↗ record Zach I wanted to make sure you

1:39:36 ↗ have a copy of the meeting minutes for

1:39:38 ↗ this meeting that correct okay perfect

1:39:41 ↗ just wanted to make

1:39:42 ↗ sure um okay so let's talk about what

1:39:45 ↗ happened in this meeting um who who were

1:39:47 ↗ the people that attended

1:39:49 ↗ it um so this meeting it was Gary Young

1:39:53 ↗ me Patrick melany Pat Schneider Zack L

1:39:58 ↗ Keith nien and Lucy

1:40:01 ↗ slowman and um and so you mentioned a

1:40:03 ↗ minute ago that this was arising out of

1:40:05 ↗ that um March 5th letter

1:40:10 ↗ um so what was I mean we we know that it

1:40:12 ↗ was a notice of default and this was

1:40:13 ↗ coming out of that but um what were the

1:40:16 ↗ the topics in general that that you were

1:40:18 ↗ talking about at this

1:40:20 ↗ meeting um

1:40:23 ↗ well I mean we were going through the uh

1:40:27 ↗ the defaults that we had specified in

1:40:30 ↗ the in the letter um Mr

1:40:33 ↗ nian explained that rather than Write a

1:40:36 ↗ response that he wanted to talk through

1:40:39 ↗ the

1:40:41 ↗ defaults were you here to listen to um

1:40:44 ↗ Patrick mol's testimony about this

1:40:46 ↗ meeting I was do you agree with his

1:40:49 ↗ characterization of what happened in the

1:40:51 ↗ meeting I do

1:40:55 ↗ do you recall um how City staff reacted

1:40:59 ↗ at this meeting to the issues that were

1:41:01 ↗ being raised in the

1:41:03 ↗ discussion uh yes um Mr nien seemed

1:41:08 ↗ upset to at having to be present at the

1:41:12 ↗ meeting from the outset um

1:41:15 ↗ [Music]

1:41:16 ↗ and made that clear in his

1:41:19 ↗ Communications with us and with our

1:41:21 ↗ attorney um

1:41:28 ↗ so we it was it was a little bit

1:41:31 ↗ contentious from from the very beginning

1:41:33 ↗ but we attempted to walk through um the

1:41:37 ↗ notice of

1:41:46 ↗ default I'm looking on the um the the

1:41:50 ↗ second page here of the meeting minute

1:41:54 ↗ um it's 1 two 3 four five bullet points

1:41:58 ↗ down

1:42:05 ↗ um after you've had a chance to review

1:42:08 ↗ can you um can you tell us about Mr

1:42:10 ↗ Nan's reaction in this

1:42:13 ↗ meeting yeah so at some point um partway

1:42:17 ↗ through the

1:42:18 ↗ meeting uh Mr nen

1:42:23 ↗ stated that he needed to leave by 2:45

1:42:27 ↗ for another meeting across town so he

1:42:29 ↗ suggested that Mr Schneider should

1:42:31 ↗ manage his time more efficiently um at

1:42:34 ↗ that point Mr nien was really kind of

1:42:37 ↗ agitated and and getting

1:42:44 ↗ angry if you go further down the page

1:42:46 ↗ there

1:42:48 ↗ um and look at let's see it's one two

1:42:54 ↗ 10 bullet points

1:43:00 ↗ down um what did Mr nan have to say

1:43:03 ↗ about the the timelines under the

1:43:05 ↗ development

1:43:09 ↗ agreement

1:43:14 ↗ um well he said he wasn't prepared to

1:43:17 ↗ answer questions about the timelines

1:43:21 ↗ because he didn't know them because he

1:43:23 ↗ didn't he he didn't feel like that was

1:43:25 ↗ his job but that maybe Lucy might know

1:43:27 ↗ the

1:43:30 ↗ timelines then if you go further down

1:43:32 ↗ there um what did Miss Lowman have to

1:43:34 ↗ say about the the timelines under the

1:43:36 ↗ development

1:43:38 ↗ agreement she acknowledged that the

1:43:40 ↗ timelines were

1:43:44 ↗ exceeded so after that

1:43:48 ↗ meeting was it what was your impression

1:43:50 ↗ in terms of um at least one of the

1:43:53 ↗ defaults that was being alleged in terms

1:43:54 ↗ of the timing and exceeding the time

1:43:57 ↗ requirements under the development

1:44:00 ↗ agreement sorry can you say that again

1:44:02 ↗ so after that so miss slowman you just

1:44:05 ↗ explained um had said that the timeline

1:44:08 ↗ was exceeded um was that one of the

1:44:11 ↗ defaults that was alleged in your

1:44:14 ↗ default letter on from March 5th that

1:44:17 ↗ the city wasn't following the timelines

1:44:19 ↗ of the development agreement yes that

1:44:21 ↗ was one of the

1:44:27 ↗ defaults and so after she acknowledged

1:44:30 ↗ that that that that time frame had been

1:44:32 ↗ exceeded Mr Schneider asked if we could

1:44:35 ↗ all agree that there was at least one

1:44:37 ↗ default

1:44:41 ↗ um and then he pointed out that the

1:44:43 ↗ development agreement states that if

1:44:45 ↗ there are defaults that the defaulting

1:44:48 ↗ party has 30 days to cure did they cure

1:44:51 ↗ the default in 30 days no they did not

1:44:54 ↗ they still it our plot is still in

1:44:59 ↗ process so then on the next

1:45:03 ↗ page about seven seven bullet points

1:45:07 ↗ down

1:45:09 ↗ um this conversation it appears from the

1:45:12 ↗ notes continue to progress um what was

1:45:16 ↗ Mr nen's reaction as the meeting went

1:45:19 ↗ on um as I stated before he was he was

1:45:23 ↗ agitated and upset at having to be there

1:45:26 ↗ he kept saying things like he didn't

1:45:28 ↗ understand or he didn't know or it

1:45:29 ↗ wasn't his job

1:45:33 ↗ um and at one point he told us that the

1:45:36 ↗ city can respond by April 4th but all

1:45:39 ↗ the letter was going to say is that he

1:45:41 ↗ didn't understand and so there wasn't

1:45:43 ↗ really going to be any substance to the

1:45:51 ↗ response um and then

1:45:54 ↗ Mr Schneider said what pointed out that

1:45:57 ↗ it was clear that he really hadn't that

1:45:59 ↗ Mr nien hadn't really read the notice of

1:46:01 ↗ default carefully and and hadn't given

1:46:04 ↗ it adequate Focus so rather than having

1:46:08 ↗ him read it out loud um he wanted to

1:46:10 ↗ move to the agenda items that we had

1:46:14 ↗ provided at the outset so Mr Schneider

1:46:16 ↗ had provided an agenda at the beginning

1:46:18 ↗ of the meeting at that point Keith got

1:46:20 ↗ really angry and started packing up hisu

1:46:22 ↗ stuff and was attempting to leave the

1:46:25 ↗ meeting

1:46:27 ↗ um saying it wasn't a good use he didn't

1:46:30 ↗ know if it was a good use of of our time

1:46:35 ↗ and that his plan was just to write back

1:46:37 ↗ to us in 30 days saying that he needed

1:46:39 ↗ more information and he wanted to leave

1:46:41 ↗ at that point um Mr Schneider pointed

1:46:44 ↗ out to Mr nian that according to what he

1:46:48 ↗ had told us earlier in the meeting he

1:46:50 ↗ still had 20 minutes left before he

1:46:52 ↗ needed to leave to get to his meeting

1:46:55 ↗ and asked that he please sit back down

1:46:58 ↗ so that we could continue to go through

1:47:00 ↗ the agenda items um and the city could

1:47:03 ↗ explain their position as we went on um

1:47:07 ↗ and Mr nien did did end up sitting back

1:47:09 ↗ down and

1:47:11 ↗ staying you f to the the very last page

1:47:14 ↗ of your um notes I'm looking at a bullet

1:47:19 ↗ point that's 1 two 3 4 up from the

1:47:21 ↗ bottom

1:47:24 ↗ um what did Mr Divan have to say about

1:47:27 ↗ the um vested status of the plat he

1:47:31 ↗ confirmed that the plat is vested and

1:47:33 ↗ will be reviewed based on the standards

1:47:35 ↗ in the development

1:47:37 ↗ agreement and so then um Patrick melany

1:47:40 ↗ pointed out that the development

1:47:43 ↗ agreement defines development standards

1:47:46 ↗ capitalized term um as including

1:47:50 ↗ mitigation and so he asked for

1:47:52 ↗ confirmations that what they're saying

1:47:54 ↗ was that we vest through the plot to the

1:47:58 ↗ mitigation and Mr nien said that they

1:48:01 ↗ would need to get back to us on

1:48:04 ↗ that have they gotten back to you on

1:48:07 ↗ that

1:48:09 ↗ um sort of there there is a letter on

1:48:13 ↗ from April 4th that Mr nien wrote back

1:48:16 ↗ in response to this

1:48:20 ↗ meeting um before we before that meeting

1:48:25 ↗ ended

1:48:28 ↗ um I guess Patrick mlini kept asking

1:48:35 ↗ um some questions about vesting and if

1:48:39 ↗ the city's position was that even if we

1:48:41 ↗ had a complete application the

1:48:43 ↗ replacement regulations could

1:48:45 ↗ retroactively

1:48:51 ↗ unvested at the time time and so he said

1:48:54 ↗ something to the effect of you want my

1:48:57 ↗ opinion on that I'll give you my opinion

1:48:59 ↗ it's and then Mr L cut him off and said

1:49:02 ↗ no we'll get back to you on that and

1:49:04 ↗ that was kind of how the the meeting

1:49:07 ↗ ended uh Mr Schneider said that it would

1:49:09 ↗ be helpful if we had their official

1:49:11 ↗ position because we don't have any clear

1:49:14 ↗ answers and that they are $33 million

1:49:17 ↗ plus questions and the Clock Was ticking

1:49:26 ↗ so you mentioned that um the city

1:49:29 ↗ responded least in part with a letter

1:49:32 ↗ from uh date of April 4th

1:49:35 ↗ 2018 um can you turn to exhibit s30

1:49:39 ↗ please

1:50:01 ↗ is the letter at s30 is that the letter

1:50:03 ↗ that you were just referring

1:50:06 ↗ to it

1:50:10 ↗ is so what did the city have to say in

1:50:14 ↗ this letter and I know it's it's a

1:50:15 ↗ lengthy letter so we don't have to go

1:50:16 ↗ through every aspect of it but um let's

1:50:21 ↗ talk first about the the plat

1:50:23 ↗ application issue uh do you recall what

1:50:25 ↗ the city had to say about the plat in

1:50:28 ↗ this

1:50:30 ↗ letter um I believe they acknowledged

1:50:32 ↗ that it was vested let me find the

1:50:36 ↗ section

1:50:54 ↗ [Applause]

1:51:00 ↗ I think to um to help you find it I'm

1:51:03 ↗ looking at page

1:51:04 ↗ five uh there's a section

1:51:08 ↗ that runs onto that page and let me know

1:51:11 ↗ if that's what you're thinking

1:51:21 ↗ about yeah

1:51:23 ↗ yes this is what I was thinking about

1:51:36 ↗ um so it

1:51:40 ↗ um it says in part on actually the top

1:51:44 ↗ of page five there's a sentence that

1:51:46 ↗ reads where a plat application actually

1:51:49 ↗ identifies a specific development plan

1:51:51 ↗ or concept such as building Footprints

1:51:53 ↗ setbacks Etc what is vested is what is

1:51:57 ↗ sought in the application for a plat and

1:52:00 ↗ that's a quote from Noble Manor

1:52:03 ↗ um based on

1:52:06 ↗ this uh our plat application vests us to

1:52:13 ↗ both the building Footprints of the sdps

1:52:16 ↗ which are shown on our plat

1:52:18 ↗ application um as well as the parking is

1:52:22 ↗ also shown a parking layout is also

1:52:24 ↗ shown on the plat application um and the

1:52:28 ↗ the development plan or concept is shown

1:52:32 ↗ in the form of the table that allocates

1:52:35 ↗ the allowable development um under the

1:52:38 ↗ development agreement across the blocks

1:52:41 ↗ so when I read that portion of this

1:52:44 ↗ letter I thought well that portion is

1:52:47 ↗ correct um they somehow come to

1:52:50 ↗ different conclusions

1:52:53 ↗ um I actually suspected that this

1:52:57 ↗ when the city responded to this and

1:53:01 ↗ wrote this that maybe the people that

1:53:04 ↗ wrote this letter weren't aware that the

1:53:06 ↗ building Footprints and allowable

1:53:07 ↗ development were shown on the plat

1:53:11 ↗ um because I think it it

1:53:14 ↗ really I mean it it states what the law

1:53:16 ↗ is and and our our plat complies with

1:53:20 ↗ that and given those two things there's

1:53:23 ↗ no reason why we should

1:53:24 ↗ be here in this hearing because we were

1:53:27 ↗ vested and are vested to the development

1:53:30 ↗ agreement the development standards

1:53:32 ↗ under the development agreement which

1:53:35 ↗ would give jurisdiction over our sdp

1:53:38 ↗ applications to the UVC not the

1:53:40 ↗ development commission and to the and

1:53:44 ↗ the asps should be administrative

1:53:47 ↗ decisions that are made by the

1:53:50 ↗ administrative staff

1:53:53 ↗ so a minute ago um you were mentioning

1:53:56 ↗ the what the plot shows um we have a

1:54:02 ↗ a figure of the plot that's already in

1:54:06 ↗ the record but um we noticed that maybe

1:54:09 ↗ because the shading is very light that

1:54:11 ↗ some of the features aren't showing up

1:54:14 ↗ so um we wanted to

1:54:16 ↗ introduce another exhibit which is going

1:54:18 ↗ to be

1:54:19 ↗ s78 um this is just a higher resolution

1:54:23 ↗ image of the plat um so that's a little

1:54:28 ↗ bit easier to

1:54:41 ↗ see yes

1:54:47 ↗ please redefined or or clarified version

1:54:50 ↗ of a PL are you refering to the CL that

1:54:53 ↗ was contained in the August 2017

1:54:55 ↗ submittal or the December 15th 2017

1:54:59 ↗ supplement the the December that was

1:55:02 ↗ included with the notice of decis or

1:55:03 ↗ notice of application thank you so

1:55:06 ↗ that's um here's one for record think I

1:55:09 ↗ have an extra here for me

1:55:12 ↗ p and tia if you could take a look at it

1:55:15 ↗ and just confirm you know what I just

1:55:17 ↗ explained that this is is what I said it

1:55:21 ↗ is yes this is a sheet out of our plaid

1:55:24 ↗ application materials and it's just a

1:55:27 ↗ better print out of what was actually

1:55:29 ↗ submitted okay and what were some of the

1:55:32 ↗ um the features that you were concerned

1:55:34 ↗ may not be showing up on the lower

1:55:37 ↗ resolution images of this um I think

1:55:40 ↗ specifically the parking was hard to see

1:55:42 ↗ in the smaller and and lower resolution

1:55:46 ↗ version that was previously included as

1:55:48 ↗ an exhibit and if you look down at the

1:55:51 ↗ bottom um here here in it's it's almost

1:55:54 ↗ in the middle of the page what's the

1:55:56 ↗ date of this

1:55:58 ↗ document 12:14

1:56:01 ↗ 2017 okay so that's referencing back to

1:56:03 ↗ that December submitt that we were just

1:56:05 ↗ talking about yeah and again the way

1:56:09 ↗ that Mr L refers to it infers that there

1:56:11 ↗ are two applications there are not two

1:56:14 ↗ applications there is one single

1:56:16 ↗ application for one single plat and

1:56:19 ↗ never before this hearing has the city

1:56:21 ↗ ever alleged that there were two

1:56:24 ↗ applications or that somehow this was

1:56:27 ↗ not part of our

1:56:30 ↗ application

1:56:34 ↗ okay so before we get too far along um

1:56:37 ↗ in the timeline wanted to go back to um

1:56:44 ↗ uh new exhibit which will be s79

1:57:11 ↗ um will you please

1:57:13 ↗ describe what the document is at s79

1:57:22 ↗ yes this is a

1:57:25 ↗ letter that I wrote to the isaca city

1:57:29 ↗ council on March 16th

1:57:32 ↗ 2018 and why did you write that

1:57:37 ↗ letter um we wanted to make sure that

1:57:40 ↗ the city council was aware of what was

1:57:44 ↗ going on with the staff and the review

1:57:48 ↗ of our applications and that there were

1:57:51 ↗ some

1:57:53 ↗ serious defaults under the development

1:57:55 ↗ agreement

1:57:59 ↗ um and that if they proceeded in the way

1:58:03 ↗ that the administration was recommending

1:58:07 ↗ that there we would have no choice but

1:58:10 ↗ to pursue legal action that was not what

1:58:13 ↗ we wanted to do it's not in anybody's

1:58:16 ↗ best interest but it

1:58:18 ↗ was the only Avenue that that staff and

1:58:22 ↗ and the administration were leaving us

1:58:26 ↗ with and turning back to the April

1:58:30 ↗ fourth letter that we were just talking

1:58:32 ↗ about so that's back at

1:58:36 ↗ s30

1:58:39 ↗ um what did shelter do after receiving

1:58:42 ↗ this letter

1:58:44 ↗ um what next steps did it take with

1:58:47 ↗ respect to the letter and what it says

1:58:50 ↗ um we

1:58:53 ↗ because what this letter said was that

1:58:55 ↗ they were deeming our sdp applications

1:58:58 ↗ to not be vested any longer to the um

1:59:04 ↗ development standards enacted by the

1:59:06 ↗ development agreement

1:59:09 ↗ we appealed this determination to the

1:59:12 ↗ hearing

1:59:14 ↗ examiner um the city argued at the

1:59:17 ↗ hearing examiner that it wasn't a final

1:59:21 ↗ determination that they were going to

1:59:22 ↗ make that final determination later and

1:59:25 ↗ that we were premature in our uh

1:59:29 ↗ appeal let's take a look at exhibit S2

1:59:49 ↗ please okay um what is this doc doent at

1:59:55 ↗ S2 it is a declaration of Mr nen signed

2:00:00 ↗ May 31st

2:00:04 ↗ 2018 and

2:00:07 ↗ um what did uh Mr nian tell the hearing

2:00:10 ↗ examiner well and actually to back up

2:00:13 ↗ was this submitted to the hearing

2:00:14 ↗ examiner that you just

2:00:17 ↗ referenced yes it was uh what did Mr

2:00:20 ↗ nian tell the hearing Examiner

2:00:23 ↗ about when a final decision would be

2:00:28 ↗ issued um in number eight of his

2:00:31 ↗ declaration he stated that each of these

2:00:34 ↗ applications which he's referring to the

2:00:36 ↗ sdp applications and asdp applications

2:00:39 ↗ is currently under active administrative

2:00:41 ↗ review and is being processed by the

2:00:43 ↗ city the city has not yet issued a final

2:00:47 ↗ decision approving denying or

2:00:48 ↗ conditioning any of the requested

2:00:50 ↗ permits

2:00:52 ↗ although not certain I anticipate that a

2:00:54 ↗ final decision on ihc's sdp and asdp

2:00:59 ↗ applications will be issued in June or

2:01:02 ↗ July

2:01:04 ↗ 2018 and that a decision on IH ifc's

2:01:07 ↗ preliminary plat will be issued in

2:01:09 ↗ August or September of

2:01:11 ↗ 2018 did any of those things happen no

2:01:15 ↗ they did

2:01:17 ↗ not and what was the date of this

2:01:20 ↗ declaration so this was was from May

2:01:24 ↗ 31st

2:01:26 ↗ 2018 so May 31st 2018 and then he's

2:01:30 ↗ anticipating June or July

2:01:33 ↗ 2018

2:01:36 ↗ um is it your understanding that it

2:01:38 ↗ would be even possible for the

2:01:40 ↗ applications to be heard and decided in

2:01:42 ↗ front of something like the development

2:01:43 ↗ Commission in that time

2:01:45 ↗ frame uh I don't I don't believe so um

2:01:49 ↗ since they would have had to be noticed

2:01:51 ↗ and staff reports would have had to be

2:01:53 ↗ written um and they really hadn't done

2:01:57 ↗ any review on the applications at that

2:02:00 ↗ point

2:02:02 ↗ um nor are we aware of any review being

2:02:05 ↗ done until much later in in August and

2:02:10 ↗ September of

2:02:12 ↗ 2018 did you review this declaration um

2:02:16 ↗ when you received it around around this

2:02:18 ↗ time of um May 31st yeah

2:02:22 ↗ yes what was your understanding when you

2:02:25 ↗ reviewed it of what would happen with

2:02:27 ↗ the

2:02:28 ↗ applications my understanding was that

2:02:31 ↗ the

2:02:31 ↗ city administratively was going to issue

2:02:35 ↗ a decision on the applications saying

2:02:37 ↗ that they had determined that they were

2:02:40 ↗ not vested to the development standards

2:02:42 ↗ in the development agreement and instead

2:02:44 ↗ would be considered under the

2:02:48 ↗ um replacement regulations and were

2:02:51 ↗ there for being denied I thought those

2:02:55 ↗ decisions would be issued

2:02:58 ↗ administratively um there was

2:03:01 ↗ another communication from Miss slowman

2:03:05 ↗ around this time we got I believe it was

2:03:08 ↗ on May 25th of 2018 we got a letter on

2:03:12 ↗ each of our applications stating that

2:03:15 ↗ the city was going to apply the

2:03:17 ↗ replacement regulations and asking us to

2:03:20 ↗ either revise our applications so that

2:03:22 ↗ they complied with the replacement

2:03:24 ↗ regulations

2:03:26 ↗ or um let them know in writing that we

2:03:30 ↗ would not be doing that because we

2:03:32 ↗ didn't agree in which case they would

2:03:34 ↗ expeditiously issue a decision on the

2:03:38 ↗ applications so never in that

2:03:41 ↗ communication nor in this communication

2:03:43 ↗ did they say anything about development

2:03:45 ↗ commission um there were also additional

2:03:48 ↗ conversations that were happening and

2:03:50 ↗ Communications that were happening

2:03:52 ↗ between the city's attorney and our

2:03:54 ↗ attorneys

2:03:56 ↗ um no one communicated that we would go

2:03:59 ↗ to development commission until much

2:04:01 ↗ much

2:04:04 ↗ later so let's um going back to what you

2:04:07 ↗ said just a minute ago these May 25th

2:04:09 ↗ letters um let's talk about those for a

2:04:13 ↗ minute so those would be new exhibits um

2:04:17 ↗ which we should be at s79

2:04:28 ↗ S8 okay s next no you're correct that's

2:04:31 ↗ right because the March 16 letter is s79

2:04:34 ↗ thank you so

2:04:36 ↗ S80 um and there's three of these

2:04:41 ↗ letters so it'll be

2:04:42 ↗ S80

2:04:47 ↗ s81 and s82

2:05:05 ↗ here's the first

2:05:15 ↗ one this is not the same

2:05:18 ↗ thing sorry

2:05:27 ↗ so S8 is the medical office

2:05:30 ↗ one

2:05:32 ↗ yeah okay so they've left us shy of one

2:05:42 ↗ but then

2:05:45 ↗ s81 should be for

2:06:00 ↗ this one we have the correct number of

2:06:02 ↗ so there you

2:06:16 ↗ go

2:06:20 ↗ okay so uh Tia can you

2:06:23 ↗ describe um what the letters are at S80

2:06:28 ↗ s81 and s82 please yes S8 is regarding

2:06:33 ↗ the medical office building s81 is

2:06:36 ↗ regarding the retail and

2:06:40 ↗ s82 is regarding the storage facility

2:06:43 ↗ all of these letters are the letters

2:06:45 ↗ that I just described they're dated May

2:06:48 ↗ 25th

2:06:49 ↗ 2018 um

2:06:56 ↗ and they acknowledge that

2:06:59 ↗ our administrative site development

2:07:02 ↗ permit or site development permit

2:07:03 ↗ application was deemed

2:07:05 ↗ complete

2:07:10 ↗ um um but

2:07:14 ↗ then they say that following termination

2:07:17 ↗ of the agreement and the city council's

2:07:20 ↗ adoption of replacement regul

2:07:21 ↗ regulations the project site is

2:07:23 ↗ therefore is thereafter governed by the

2:07:25 ↗ replacement regulations rather than the

2:07:28 ↗ standards set forth in the agreement

2:07:31 ↗ um and then they ask us to

2:07:36 ↗ review uh well it asks it says please

2:07:38 ↗ notify me if any changes are necessary

2:07:41 ↗ to comply with the newly effective

2:07:42 ↗ regulations which you may view here and

2:07:44 ↗ they provide a link if your position is

2:07:46 ↗ that the replacement regulations are not

2:07:48 ↗ applicable to your permit application

2:07:50 ↗ and you decline to form the review and

2:07:53 ↗ make the modifications referenced above

2:07:55 ↗ please confirm your intent to this

2:07:56 ↗ effect in writing at your earliest

2:07:58 ↗ convenience in that event the city will

2:08:00 ↗ proceed expeditiously to issue a final

2:08:02 ↗ decision on your permit based upon the

2:08:04 ↗ application's compliance or

2:08:06 ↗ non-compliance with the replacement

2:08:07 ↗ regulations this request to um make our

2:08:13 ↗ make revisions to comply with the

2:08:15 ↗ replacement

2:08:17 ↗ regulations

2:08:19 ↗ um seemed

2:08:24 ↗ a little bit disingenuous to us given

2:08:27 ↗ that the replacement

2:08:29 ↗ regulations

2:08:32 ↗ were portions of them were developed to

2:08:35 ↗ prohibit

2:08:37 ↗ the exact type of development that we

2:08:40 ↗ were proposing specifically on the

2:08:42 ↗ retail application um and that everyone

2:08:46 ↗ already knew that the none of these

2:08:49 ↗ three applications complied with the

2:08:53 ↗ with the replacement regulations um so

2:08:56 ↗ we received this letter on May 25th

2:08:58 ↗ which I think was either the Thursday or

2:09:01 ↗ the Friday before Memorial Day weekend

2:09:03 ↗ and we responded back to them I think by

2:09:06 ↗ the 31st so only a couple business days

2:09:09 ↗ later and

2:09:11 ↗ then nothing we didn't get any

2:09:15 ↗ expeditious decision we didn't get

2:09:18 ↗ anything um until much later well I

2:09:22 ↗ guess there were conversations happening

2:09:24 ↗ between the attorneys like I had said

2:09:26 ↗ before um where we were under the

2:09:29 ↗ impression that the the decisions were

2:09:32 ↗ coming

2:09:34 ↗ administratively

2:09:35 ↗ um and at

2:09:38 ↗ one at some point in August I believe we

2:09:42 ↗ were informed that the city had changed

2:09:44 ↗ its position once again and had now

2:09:47 ↗ decided that we should go to development

2:09:50 ↗ commission um to determine if there if

2:09:52 ↗ the applications complied with the

2:09:55 ↗ replacement

2:09:57 ↗ regulations so um so minute ago you

2:09:59 ↗ mentioned that you responded a couple

2:10:01 ↗ days later to those letters um there's a

2:10:05 ↗ new exhibit at

2:10:07 ↗ s83 um is this the the letter that you

2:10:11 ↗ were referencing

2:10:17 ↗ [Applause]

2:10:28 ↗ um I think this is part of the response

2:10:32 ↗ because I think there was also there was

2:10:33 ↗ a letter from me as well as a letter

2:10:37 ↗ from Foster pepper I believe um so this

2:10:41 ↗ is yes part of the the response if you

2:10:44 ↗ take a look at uh S7 in the

2:10:48 ↗ record um I'll give you a minute to get

2:10:51 ↗ it in front of you but is uh if you can

2:10:53 ↗ tell me if S7 is the other part of that

2:10:56 ↗ response that you're

2:11:04 ↗ referencing yes it

2:11:08 ↗ is and then um you made reference a

2:11:11 ↗ minute ago to conversations between the

2:11:13 ↗ attorneys um

2:11:17 ↗ about the um

2:11:23 ↗ the process that was being applied um

2:11:25 ↗ this will be

2:11:27 ↗ S

2:11:38 ↗ 84 can you describe what the document is

2:11:41 ↗ at s84

2:11:44 ↗ please yes this is a letter

2:11:48 ↗ from Pat Schneider to Zack

2:11:52 ↗ L

2:11:58 ↗ um following up on a conversation that

2:12:02 ↗ they had had on August 2nd um in which

2:12:07 ↗ Mr L had explained that the city had

2:12:10 ↗ changed its position and now intended to

2:12:13 ↗ process our

2:12:14 ↗ applications for sdps and

2:12:17 ↗ asps

2:12:19 ↗ um by means of the process in the

2:12:22 ↗ replacement regulations which meant it

2:12:24 ↗ was going to development

2:12:27 ↗ commission the letter goes on to explain

2:12:30 ↗ why that should not be uh happening

2:12:36 ↗ but that's where we

2:12:39 ↗ are so just again being um conscious of

2:12:43 ↗ time I've got another topic that is is

2:12:46 ↗ fairly short I think to get through so

2:12:48 ↗ I'm going to try to get through that and

2:12:49 ↗ then pause for a break again if you

2:12:51 ↗ would like to um I think it would take

2:12:54 ↗ about 10 to 15 minutes but I just wanted

2:12:57 ↗ to let you know let's do

2:13:18 ↗ that so this next exhibit um

2:13:23 ↗ will be

2:13:45 ↗ s85 uh Tia will you please describe the

2:13:48 ↗ document at s85

2:13:51 ↗ uh so this is a

2:13:53 ↗ continued email

2:13:56 ↗ chain um regarding our preliminary plat

2:14:01 ↗ application and

2:14:02 ↗ processing um the email at the very top

2:14:06 ↗ is from Lucy slowman to me um on Friday

2:14:12 ↗ December 21st

2:14:15 ↗ 2018 okay and there's um there's some

2:14:18 ↗ attachments to that

2:14:21 ↗ um this and I want to provide um one of

2:14:25 ↗ those attachments this would be uh

2:14:29 ↗ s86 if you could just confirm for me

2:14:32 ↗ that this is in fact one of the

2:14:34 ↗ attachments

2:14:51 ↗ yes so s86 was attached to the December

2:14:55 ↗ 21st 2018 email from Miss lomman to me

2:14:59 ↗ um and this is a

2:15:04 ↗ coated responses back and forth

2:15:08 ↗ on um questions related to our plat and

2:15:14 ↗ it's a document that Miss slowman put

2:15:16 ↗ together based on correspondence that

2:15:18 ↗ the city received or sent to to us

2:15:21 ↗ related to the

2:15:23 ↗ plat and so have you um has shelter

2:15:27 ↗ responded to the most recent comments

2:15:31 ↗ from I guess this would be from December

2:15:33 ↗ 21st

2:15:34 ↗ 2018 um yes so we resubmitted our plat

2:15:40 ↗ application today to the city um the

2:15:44 ↗ this email chain if you look back it

2:15:47 ↗ starts um back in April of

2:15:55 ↗ 2018

2:15:56 ↗ um and it's taken from April of 2018

2:16:01 ↗ until December 21st 2018 for us to get

2:16:07 ↗ straight answers out of the staff as to

2:16:10 ↗ what regulations apply to our plat and

2:16:16 ↗ when I say what regulations I don't I

2:16:19 ↗ maybe regulations isn't the right word

2:16:20 ↗ stand standards like specifically things

2:16:22 ↗ like Road standards um Trail standards

2:16:25 ↗ the things that you really need to know

2:16:27 ↗ in order to put together um an

2:16:30 ↗ application for a plat we were getting

2:16:33 ↗ changing direction inconsistent comments

2:16:36 ↗ and

2:16:36 ↗ so and just a lot of non-responsiveness

2:16:40 ↗ so I think we've already gone through

2:16:42 ↗ the some of the time frames in here

2:16:44 ↗ where there are long pauses where we you

2:16:47 ↗ know ask for information in April and we

2:16:49 ↗ get a response at the end of August

2:16:51 ↗ um so big big gaps in in um

2:16:56 ↗ communication and um finally on December

2:17:00 ↗ 21st they sent back enough information

2:17:03 ↗ that we could revise our plat so we've

2:17:05 ↗ been working from then until now to

2:17:10 ↗ revise and resubmit the um plat

2:17:15 ↗ application so it's back into the city

2:17:17 ↗ now okay um and I have copies of that um

2:17:23 ↗ they're already in order so I can have

2:17:26 ↗ just a second to add them but this will

2:17:29 ↗ be s87 and then we'll go through the

2:17:31 ↗ subp parts um which are subp Parts a

2:17:35 ↗ through I believe it's F or yeah a

2:17:39 ↗ through f

2:18:02 ↗ give you I'm G to hand you these make

2:18:04 ↗ sure that I'm that they're the same ones

2:18:07 ↗ in each of these packets um in

2:18:11 ↗ order so B here you go okay

2:18:31 ↗ therey

2:19:03 ↗ all

2:19:09 ↗ right that's the complete Marked One um

2:19:13 ↗ these two are in the same order but not

2:19:17 ↗ yet

2:19:21 ↗ okay so um if you could walk us through

2:19:25 ↗ the uh subparts of exhibit

2:19:29 ↗ s87 pleas um beginning with a so s87 a

2:19:34 ↗ is a preliminary storm water

2:19:39 ↗ report s

2:19:42 ↗ 87b

2:19:43 ↗ is

2:19:46 ↗ the main

2:19:49 ↗ plat package has some of the preliminary

2:19:52 ↗ engineering and the the layout that's

2:19:55 ↗ sort of the meat of the the plat

2:19:59 ↗ itself um

2:20:04 ↗ s87 wait did I oh this is C S8

2:20:08 ↗ 87c is a a chart that responds to

2:20:16 ↗ the comments that

2:20:19 ↗ were Prov provided by the city as a

2:20:22 ↗ markup of the preliminary plat

2:20:25 ↗ application itself um so those were from

2:20:28 ↗ March 16th

2:20:31 ↗ 2018

2:20:34 ↗ um and then there

2:20:38 ↗ is uh a memo from transpo group that's

2:20:45 ↗ s87d um that resp responds to the

2:20:49 ↗ transportation related

2:20:52 ↗ questions um then s87 e is a

2:20:57 ↗ supplemental project

2:21:00 ↗ narrative um and S excuse me would you

2:21:05 ↗ what what was the supplemental project

2:21:07 ↗ narrative oh would have been s87

2:21:14 ↗ E I don't think we I have a copy of D I

2:21:18 ↗ see okay

2:21:21 ↗ [Applause]

2:21:26 ↗ do you guys have I think they're in here

2:21:28 ↗ yeah

2:21:29 ↗ okay okay thank you sorry excuse me okay

2:21:32 ↗ thank you so s87 e was the supplemental

2:21:36 ↗ project

2:21:37 ↗ narrative um and S

2:21:42 ↗ 87f is another set of responses to City

2:21:47 ↗ comments so part of what happened was we

2:21:51 ↗ got comments as a markup of the plat

2:21:55 ↗ itself on in March of 2018 then we met

2:21:59 ↗ with the city on that on those comments

2:22:04 ↗ um at the end of March and then in

2:22:10 ↗ April they provided us with additional

2:22:14 ↗ comments that weren't entirely

2:22:16 ↗ consistent and in some case outright

2:22:19 ↗ conflicted with information that had

2:22:21 ↗ been provided either at our

2:22:24 ↗ pre-application or in the comments from

2:22:28 ↗ March so that's why there's two

2:22:30 ↗ different sets of comment

2:22:35 ↗ responses so why has it uh taken

2:22:38 ↗ until today um to be able for shelter to

2:22:43 ↗ be able to submit these materials for

2:22:45 ↗ the

2:22:46 ↗ plat um you mean from December 21st

2:22:50 ↗ first till today or what do you mean

2:22:53 ↗ well so so what was what was significant

2:22:55 ↗ about December the December 21st

2:22:57 ↗ communication versus everything else

2:22:59 ↗ that was going on for months in terms of

2:23:02 ↗ being able to submit these

2:23:03 ↗ materials well it wasn't until the

2:23:06 ↗ December communication that we had

2:23:08 ↗ enough information and clarification of

2:23:10 ↗ what which standards applied so we had

2:23:14 ↗ conflicting statements from the city

2:23:16 ↗ about what was the applicable standard

2:23:19 ↗ to apply what information was required

2:23:22 ↗ um and so the questions and um

2:23:28 ↗ clarifications that we had requested and

2:23:30 ↗ started requesting back in April well

2:23:33 ↗ March and April of 2018 it wasn't until

2:23:37 ↗ December of 2018 that we got enough

2:23:39 ↗ information to actually revise and and

2:23:43 ↗ resubmit um I think when Miss slowman

2:23:47 ↗ testified

2:23:48 ↗ she characterized it as you know us

2:23:51 ↗ asking an unusual number of questions or

2:23:55 ↗ somehow being unreasonable in the

2:23:57 ↗ information that we were requesting but

2:24:00 ↗ it was really information that without

2:24:03 ↗ which we couldn't revise and resubmit

2:24:07 ↗ our application appropriately and quite

2:24:10 ↗ frankly it was some of it was

2:24:12 ↗ information without which they would not

2:24:14 ↗ be able to review our application so the

2:24:17 ↗ best example of that would be our

2:24:20 ↗ request for all of the amm that would

2:24:23 ↗ apply to the road standards for our

2:24:28 ↗ project

2:24:30 ↗ um if there are modifications to the

2:24:33 ↗ standards we had no way of knowing that

2:24:36 ↗ unless the city provided those um and

2:24:39 ↗ that took I think that was cited in part

2:24:42 ↗ as one of the things that took so long

2:24:45 ↗ for them to

2:24:47 ↗ research and that was after they had

2:24:49 ↗ already complet completed one review of

2:24:51 ↗ our plat in March so I'm not sure what

2:24:53 ↗ they reviewed it

2:25:07 ↗ against do you recall were you um

2:25:10 ↗ present for Mr nen's testimony at our

2:25:13 ↗ October 24th Hearing in front of the

2:25:15 ↗ development commission yes do you recall

2:25:19 ↗ uh Mr n been testifying that he hadn't

2:25:21 ↗ had time to discuss with staff what

2:25:23 ↗ vested through the

2:25:25 ↗ plat

2:25:27 ↗ yes and I thought that

2:25:30 ↗ was in direct conflict with everything I

2:25:35 ↗ mean with the the very premise of being

2:25:37 ↗ here because the argument that we have

2:25:41 ↗ been making and have made to the city

2:25:44 ↗ throughout is that the plat vested us

2:25:48 ↗ invested the sdp appliations um

2:25:52 ↗ so if if the city made the

2:25:56 ↗ determination that the sdp applications

2:25:59 ↗ were not vested to the de the

2:26:03 ↗ development standards enacted through

2:26:04 ↗ the development

2:26:06 ↗ agreement then they had to have already

2:26:09 ↗ determined that those sdp applications

2:26:12 ↗ didn't vest through the plat so they had

2:26:15 ↗ to have considered what did vest through

2:26:16 ↗ the plat um just by virtue of sending us

2:26:21 ↗ here um so that was one part of it the

2:26:25 ↗ other part of it

2:26:26 ↗ was the April fourth letter is their

2:26:30 ↗ response where they attempt to respond

2:26:32 ↗ to that and I think later in his

2:26:34 ↗ testimony he refers to the April 4th

2:26:38 ↗ letter as where he had answered the

2:26:40 ↗ question for us as to what vested

2:26:43 ↗ through the plat so I don't know how he

2:26:45 ↗ would have written the April 4th letter

2:26:47 ↗ explaining what was ed through the plat

2:26:51 ↗ and not having had the opportunity to

2:26:56 ↗ discuss with his staff and the City

2:26:59 ↗ attorney so I found his testimony very

2:27:01 ↗ inconsistent with what I knew to be

2:27:04 ↗ true do you also recall hearing uh

2:27:08 ↗ director Nan testify that um and I'm

2:27:11 ↗ summarizing that he made the decision to

2:27:13 ↗ send the your shelter's applications to

2:27:16 ↗ the development commission back in March

2:27:18 ↗ of 2018 yes

2:27:22 ↗ is that consistent um with your

2:27:24 ↗ understanding of what he was telling

2:27:26 ↗ shelter and the hearing

2:27:29 ↗ examiner no because we didn't like I

2:27:33 ↗ said we didn't ever hear anything of

2:27:36 ↗ development commission until August of

2:27:39 ↗ 2018 and his declaration to the hearing

2:27:43 ↗ examiner on May 31st referenced that he

2:27:47 ↗ he believed it was the decision was

2:27:48 ↗ going to happen in June or July um if if

2:27:52 ↗ he believed that then and if he believed

2:27:56 ↗ that and he believed that the

2:27:59 ↗ applications were coming to development

2:28:01 ↗ commission then one would think he would

2:28:03 ↗ have taken some step to actually get the

2:28:06 ↗ applications to development Commission

2:28:08 ↗ in June or July um but he didn't do that

2:28:12 ↗ and looking back at the calendar for the

2:28:14 ↗ development commission there's a big gap

2:28:17 ↗ where you guys didn't have to meet on

2:28:18 ↗ anything in in most of June July and

2:28:22 ↗ August um so

2:28:25 ↗ I I find it hard to believe

2:28:29 ↗ that he could have both made that

2:28:31 ↗ decision

2:28:33 ↗ in March and

2:28:36 ↗ also at the end of May believed that he

2:28:39 ↗ was going to get the applications

2:28:40 ↗ through development commission and

2:28:43 ↗ comply with all the notice requirements

2:28:44 ↗ and staff reports and everything in in

2:28:46 ↗ June or July and you add to that the

2:28:49 ↗ fact that the the city attorneys were

2:28:51 ↗ not aware that that was his plan until

2:28:54 ↗ August when they informed our attorneys

2:28:56 ↗ that the position had

2:29:00 ↗ changed I think we're ready to take a

2:29:02 ↗ break

2:29:04 ↗ there let's come back in 10

2:29:19 ↗ minutes

2:29:49 ↗ e

2:30:18 ↗ e

2:30:48 ↗ e

2:31:18 ↗ e

2:31:48 ↗ e

2:32:18 ↗ e

2:32:48 ↗ e

2:33:18 ↗ e

2:33:48 ↗ e

2:34:18 ↗ e

2:34:48 ↗ e

2:35:18 ↗ e

2:35:48 ↗ e

2:36:18 ↗ e

2:36:48 ↗ e

2:37:18 ↗ e

2:37:48 ↗ e

2:38:18 ↗ e

2:38:48 ↗ e

2:39:18 ↗ e

2:39:48 ↗ e

2:40:18 ↗ e e

2:41:15 ↗ okay I think we're back on the air so it

2:41:18 ↗ would be a good time to resume okay

2:41:20 ↗ thank

2:41:21 ↗ you um so we're going to start by

2:41:23 ↗ introducing a new exhibit

2:41:31 ↗ s88 put it up on the screen here as well

2:41:37 ↗ for thank

2:41:40 ↗ you excuse me

2:41:43 ↗ okay so um s88 is a demonstrative um

2:41:49 ↗ that we're going to use as we walk

2:41:50 ↗ through some other exhibits and

2:41:52 ↗ testimony from Tia um so starting with

2:41:56 ↗ this um T I wanted to talk with you a

2:41:59 ↗ little bit about some other projects

2:42:01 ↗ that are going on in the isqua highlands

2:42:04 ↗ um in the first one that I want to talk

2:42:06 ↗ about is this isqua Highlands Block 19

2:42:09 ↗ multif family

2:42:11 ↗ application um

2:42:13 ↗ and

2:42:17 ↗ there's we have the

2:42:21 ↗ um notice of application for that which

2:42:25 ↗ will add as exhibit

2:42:28 ↗ s89

2:42:32 ↗ um if you could take a look at this and

2:42:34 ↗ just confirm that that's actually what

2:42:36 ↗ it is for the record please

2:43:00 ↗ yes this is a notice of application for

2:43:02 ↗ Block 19

2:43:04 ↗ multifamily

2:43:09 ↗ um it's a five-story apartment building

2:43:13 ↗ okay and then um S90 is the uh next

2:43:18 ↗ exhibit um and can you describe what

2:43:21 ↗ that document is

2:43:27 ↗ please um S90 is a notice of decision

2:43:32 ↗ and it's an administrative site

2:43:34 ↗ development permit for Block

2:43:36 ↗ 19 it's dated October 13

2:43:39 ↗ 2017 okay so can you walk us through the

2:43:43 ↗ um the timeline there then at

2:43:46 ↗ s88 um and just confirm with these

2:43:49 ↗ documents that the times on that

2:43:51 ↗ timeline are or dates on that timeline

2:43:53 ↗ are

2:43:55 ↗ accurate uh yes so if you look at the

2:43:59 ↗ notice of application which is

2:44:01 ↗ s89 um it notes that the application

2:44:05 ↗ date is April 21st

2:44:07 ↗ 2017 the application complete date is

2:44:10 ↗ May 24th

2:44:12 ↗ 2017 um and then the notice of decision

2:44:16 ↗ date is October 13th 2017

2:44:19 ↗ so you can see the time frames for

2:44:23 ↗ review were vastly different for this

2:44:26 ↗ application than for our

2:44:30 ↗ applications

2:44:34 ↗ um despite the fact that it looks like

2:44:37 ↗ these

2:44:38 ↗ applications came in and were processed

2:44:40 ↗ in a time when the city has said they

2:44:44 ↗ had shortage of staff so for this asdp

2:44:48 ↗ that the application came in within just

2:44:51 ↗ over a month it was deemed

2:44:54 ↗ complete and um it was approved less

2:45:00 ↗ than six months

2:45:02 ↗ later how long has shelter been waiting

2:45:04 ↗ on its

2:45:06 ↗ applications well it it varies um but we

2:45:11 ↗ we started the plat process with

2:45:15 ↗ conversations with the city back in

2:45:16 ↗ early 2017 so we're two years in on the

2:45:20 ↗ plat and um the sdp applications we

2:45:25 ↗ started

2:45:26 ↗ conversations and early meetings with

2:45:30 ↗ the city in September and October of

2:45:35 ↗ 2017 so we're now in

2:45:40 ↗ 2019 if you could turn to the next page

2:45:43 ↗ in s88 please

2:45:50 ↗ what's the city surf project what's your

2:45:53 ↗ understanding of what that is um so the

2:45:55 ↗ city surf project is a proposed

2:45:58 ↗ indoor um wave deep waterer

2:46:03 ↗ surfing uh facility um that also has I

2:46:08 ↗ think a restaurant space and maybe a

2:46:11 ↗ little bit of additional

2:46:13 ↗ retail so they have a site

2:46:15 ↗ administrative site development permit

2:46:20 ↗ and I think this next exhibit would be S

2:46:22 ↗ S90 so

2:46:25 ↗ s91

2:46:26 ↗ [Applause]

2:46:29 ↗ um what what's the document at

2:46:44 ↗ s91 um so this is the notice of

2:46:47 ↗ application for the city surf project um

2:46:52 ↗ and it has an application date of May

2:46:54 ↗ 23rd

2:46:56 ↗ 2017 um a an application completeness

2:47:01 ↗ date of June 7th

2:47:04 ↗ 2017 um and

2:47:07 ↗ then the exhibit shows that the

2:47:10 ↗ application was approved on October 10th

2:47:13 ↗ 2017

2:47:19 ↗ then s92 is going to be the next

2:47:22 ↗ document um what's the document at

2:47:31 ↗ s92

2:47:32 ↗ s92

2:47:35 ↗ is

2:47:37 ↗ uh part of an

2:47:40 ↗ email

2:47:41 ↗ chain between Lucy

2:47:45 ↗ slowman and John hos and it looks like

2:47:49 ↗ Keith niban is included on this as well

2:47:52 ↗ and Jennifer R Woods Valerie Porter and

2:47:55 ↗ Christopher Wright who are all City

2:47:57 ↗ Planning staff are copied on

2:48:04 ↗ it um what's this uh conversation about

2:48:08 ↗ encouraging encouraging him to pursue a

2:48:11 ↗ building

2:48:13 ↗ permit

2:48:16 ↗ um so miss slowman wrote to John

2:48:21 ↗ hos

2:48:25 ↗ um and she says I don't know when you're

2:48:28 ↗ planning to submit your building permit

2:48:30 ↗ but I suggest you do it somewhat soon

2:48:32 ↗ the reason is that with the end of The

2:48:34 ↗ Da we are working to determine which

2:48:36 ↗ permits are vested under the da and

2:48:38 ↗ which aren't state law establishes

2:48:40 ↗ certain permits as vesting permits and

2:48:42 ↗ building permits if they are deemed

2:48:44 ↗ complete are one of them the land use

2:48:47 ↗ permit you received is not one

2:48:49 ↗ identified in state law staff has

2:48:51 ↗ proposed to council that land use

2:48:53 ↗ permits such as yours be vested but we

2:48:56 ↗ don't know what council's decision will

2:48:57 ↗ be the safest route to ensure your land

2:49:00 ↗ use permit is vested is to have a

2:49:02 ↗ complete building permit prior to the

2:49:05 ↗ new code going into effect and this was

2:49:08 ↗ on October 16th

2:49:10 ↗ 2017 is what Miss slman was saying in

2:49:13 ↗ this email is that

2:49:15 ↗ accurate

2:49:16 ↗ um well I mean

2:49:20 ↗ the part about Council getting to decide

2:49:23 ↗ or staff getting to decide what whether

2:49:28 ↗ a permit remains vested or not is not

2:49:31 ↗ accurate it's not consistent with

2:49:33 ↗ Washington

2:49:35 ↗ law so what's this push for a building

2:49:37 ↗ permit for uh Mr Hoss's

2:49:42 ↗ application

2:49:45 ↗ um I don't know why they were wanting to

2:49:48 ↗ do that except for that I guess they

2:49:50 ↗ wanted to make sure that the council

2:49:52 ↗ couldn't undo undo vesting of his

2:49:58 ↗ project um and I guess Miss slowman felt

2:50:02 ↗ like building permit was the only thing

2:50:04 ↗ that was going

2:50:07 ↗ to accomplish that did Miss Lowman or

2:50:10 ↗ anyone else at the city reach out to

2:50:12 ↗ shelter to try to get shelter toest via

2:50:14 ↗ a building

2:50:15 ↗ permit no they never they never uh

2:50:20 ↗ reached out to us and suggested a

2:50:21 ↗ building permit or suggested any uh

2:50:26 ↗ extra means of ensuring that our vesting

2:50:28 ↗ was continued to be

2:50:32 ↗ recognized so let's look at uh new

2:50:34 ↗ exhibit

2:50:37 ↗ [Applause]

2:50:44 ↗ s93 what's the exhibit at s93

2:50:52 ↗ s93 is an email from Lucy slowman

2:50:57 ↗ to Crystal

2:51:00 ↗ Ki Chris W Christopher Wright uh and

2:51:05 ↗ John hos on November 14th

2:51:09 ↗ 2017 regarding City serve building

2:51:12 ↗ permit presubmit

2:51:14 ↗ so she's saying there in this email um

2:51:19 ↗ they and I'm inferring that that's

2:51:21 ↗ referring back to City serf are racing

2:51:23 ↗ to submit a complete building permit so

2:51:25 ↗ that they will be vested under the IH

2:51:27 ↗ development agreement which likely means

2:51:29 ↗ by the end of this year

2:51:33 ↗ um what's your take on that

2:51:38 ↗ statement um well at this point in time

2:51:41 ↗ in November of

2:51:43 ↗ 2017 staff was really pushing for

2:51:47 ↗ replacement regulations to be adopted on

2:51:49 ↗ December 4th of

2:51:52 ↗ 2017 and so I think

2:51:56 ↗ um this is City staff trying

2:52:00 ↗ to help or encourage Mr hos

2:52:05 ↗ to get a building permit um application

2:52:10 ↗ complete application in so that they

2:52:13 ↗ could be sure that his project remained

2:52:17 ↗ vested

2:52:19 ↗ so I guess um I'm confused by this

2:52:22 ↗ because so he did he have is it your

2:52:24 ↗ understanding that he had a land use

2:52:25 ↗ permit issued yeah in October of 2017 he

2:52:30 ↗ had a an administrative site development

2:52:33 ↗ permit issued um for his project under

2:52:37 ↗ the development agreement where the

2:52:39 ↗ development standards enacted by the

2:52:41 ↗ development agreement are very specific

2:52:43 ↗ that implementing approvals vest and

2:52:46 ↗ site development permit is in

2:52:48 ↗ implementing approval so I don't know

2:52:52 ↗ why they were doing this

2:52:55 ↗ um but but they were advising Mr hos

2:52:59 ↗ that he should get a building permit

2:53:03 ↗ application in in order to maintain his

2:53:05 ↗ vested status which he clearly already

2:53:15 ↗ had okay let's turn now to S9 D4 a new

2:53:38 ↗ exhibit what's the document at

2:53:42 ↗ s94 uh s94 is a continuation of that uh

2:53:46 ↗ email chain that that we saw in

2:53:51 ↗ s93 um so at the

2:53:54 ↗ end of the November 14th 2017 email Miss

2:54:00 ↗ slman ask a question and she says what I

2:54:03 ↗ didn't know is what the threshold is for

2:54:06 ↗ pre submittal permit in other words does

2:54:08 ↗ John need one before he submits his BL

2:54:11 ↗ which BL is referencing the building

2:54:14 ↗ permit um Christopher Wright responds

2:54:17 ↗ and says yes yes they should do a pres

2:54:19 ↗ submittal meeting especially given the

2:54:21 ↗ vesting situation the direction I've

2:54:24 ↗ given is to request the meeting when

2:54:25 ↗ their plans and submittal are at about

2:54:29 ↗ 90% um and then miss slowman responds to

2:54:34 ↗ Christopher and says in light of the

2:54:36 ↗ times can you give John in light of the

2:54:39 ↗ tight times can you give JN some

2:54:42 ↗ guidance on timing since you're

2:54:45 ↗ saying he needs to do this Lo

2:54:51 ↗ so again she she miss slman is

2:54:56 ↗ attempting to help Mr hos make sure that

2:55:02 ↗ the city continues to recognize his his

2:55:05 ↗ vested status and her opinion is that

2:55:09 ↗ this should be

2:55:10 ↗ accomplished by getting a complete

2:55:13 ↗ building permit application in

2:55:27 ↗ and all of this is at the same time that

2:55:29 ↗ we're experiencing the exact opposite

2:55:32 ↗ from City staff

2:55:36 ↗ um you know we're having our stdp and

2:55:40 ↗ asdp applications repeatedly rejected

2:55:43 ↗ for um completeness which would clearly

2:55:47 ↗ vest them under the development

2:55:49 ↗ agreement since sdps are implementing

2:55:54 ↗ approvals so let's take a look at uh

2:55:58 ↗ s95 you

2:56:05 ↗ exhibit what is

2:56:11 ↗ s95 s95 is an email from Miss slowman to

2:56:16 ↗ Mary Lou poly Emily Moon and Keith nen

2:56:21 ↗ um since this was in January of

2:56:25 ↗ 2018 uh mayor Paulie had just recently

2:56:28 ↗ taken

2:56:30 ↗ office

2:56:34 ↗ um and Miss slman references that Keith

2:56:38 ↗ had driven around mayor Paulie and they

2:56:42 ↗ had talked about ISO Highlands blocks 19

2:56:44 ↗ and 20 but she wasn't sure that Keith

2:56:47 ↗ had the most most up-to-date information

2:56:49 ↗ so she was providing some additional

2:56:52 ↗ information

2:56:54 ↗ um with respect to block 20 City

2:56:57 ↗ surf uh she states they have an approved

2:57:01 ↗ asdp and have said they are ready to

2:57:03 ↗ submit for construction permits this

2:57:06 ↗ week the owner and I have exchanged

2:57:07 ↗ emails and plan to talk this morning I'm

2:57:09 ↗ hoping he can submit his building permit

2:57:12 ↗ ASAP since I've told him about the

2:57:15 ↗ imminent adoption of replacement

2:57:16 ↗ regulations

2:57:19 ↗ uh submitt of a building permit which is

2:57:22 ↗ deemed complete would vest him under

2:57:23 ↗ state

2:57:26 ↗ law so what was the date of this

2:57:29 ↗ email January 26th

2:57:33 ↗ 2018 and um how was the city treating

2:57:36 ↗ shelter with respect to um or were they

2:57:40 ↗ how how was shelter being treated with

2:57:42 ↗ respect to this building permit

2:57:43 ↗ conversation that the city was having

2:57:44 ↗ with John hos were you having the same

2:57:46 ↗ conversation something different no no

2:57:49 ↗ one was reaching out to us trying to

2:57:51 ↗ help us vest under any

2:57:53 ↗ scenario um it was never suggested to us

2:57:56 ↗ that we submit a building permit

2:57:59 ↗ application

2:58:01 ↗ um I think that's in part because the

2:58:04 ↗ city staff was also of the opinion that

2:58:06 ↗ they would not accept a building permit

2:58:09 ↗ application from us because they

2:58:11 ↗ required site development permit

2:58:13 ↗ application as a precondition to

2:58:15 ↗ building permit application so they did

2:58:18 ↗ not believe that was an option to vest

2:58:20 ↗ us plus they didn't want to vest our

2:58:23 ↗ projects um around this same time so

2:58:26 ↗ we're this this email is on January 26th

2:58:30 ↗ 2018 the email announcing the change in

2:58:33 ↗ the administrative administration's

2:58:36 ↗ recommendation um came out on February

2:58:39 ↗ 2nd so just a few days after this so

2:58:42 ↗ this is

2:58:43 ↗ the behind the scenes what was happening

2:58:46 ↗ to ensure that everyone else who had

2:58:50 ↗ applications potentially in isqua

2:58:52 ↗ Highlands had a path to being recognized

2:58:55 ↗ as vested as soon as that was

2:58:59 ↗ accomplished

2:59:01 ↗ we the the city adopted the replacement

2:59:05 ↗ regulations and decided that we were the

2:59:07 ↗ only property owner with pending

2:59:09 ↗ applications that were not going to be

2:59:12 ↗ um acknowledged as vested to the

2:59:14 ↗ development standards enacted by the

2:59:15 ↗ development regulations

2:59:20 ↗ let's take a look at s96 this is a new

2:59:36 ↗ exhibit uh what is this document at

2:59:41 ↗ s96 um this was a followup to the s95

2:59:47 ↗ continuation of of that email chain um

2:59:50 ↗ so mayor paully had responded excellent

2:59:54 ↗ update thank you on Friday evening and

2:59:58 ↗ then on Saturday January

3:00:01 ↗ 27th um Miss slowman wrote back and said

3:00:05 ↗ I am concerned John hos the developer of

3:00:08 ↗ City surf block 20 and I have exchanged

3:00:10 ↗ a number of emails this week I've called

3:00:13 ↗ him two to three times but he will not

3:00:14 ↗ return my call his emails have focused

3:00:17 ↗ on the city's right to not vest his land

3:00:20 ↗ use permit rather than when he will

3:00:23 ↗ submit a building permit or the status

3:00:26 ↗ of his project even though I

3:00:28 ↗ specifically ask those

3:00:31 ↗ questions

3:00:33 ↗ so at this time um had you talked with

3:00:36 ↗ John hos at all about his

3:00:40 ↗ situation um yes we had been in contact

3:00:43 ↗ with with Mr hos throughout the process

3:00:46 ↗ I don't remember exactly when we started

3:00:49 ↗ talking to him so do you know what this

3:00:51 ↗ um what Miss suman's referen when she

3:00:53 ↗ says his emails have focused on the

3:00:55 ↗ city's right to not vest his land use

3:00:57 ↗ permit um do you know what that's

3:01:00 ↗ referring to yes John was adamant that

3:01:03 ↗ the city could not divest his project

3:01:07 ↗ particularly where he had an issued um

3:01:10 ↗ site development permit which clearly

3:01:12 ↗ vested under the development agreement

3:01:15 ↗ um so he was telling the city that that

3:01:17 ↗ he

3:01:18 ↗ did not feel the need to spend resources

3:01:24 ↗ um

3:01:24 ↗ on developing B building permit

3:01:27 ↗ application materials when he had a

3:01:30 ↗ vested permit and he adamantly believed

3:01:34 ↗ um and I believe correctly that that his

3:01:38 ↗ permit was vested

3:01:40 ↗ and he didn't need to do that um you

3:01:44 ↗ know the

3:01:45 ↗ city he he told us that the city offered

3:01:48 ↗ to relax building permit submittal

3:01:50 ↗ requirements for him if he would just

3:01:52 ↗ get his building permit

3:02:05 ↗ in did the city make any sort of

3:02:08 ↗ reference to you or to um to your

3:02:10 ↗ knowledge to Mr hos about why they were

3:02:15 ↗ taking this position that um building

3:02:18 ↗ permit would or I'm sorry a land use

3:02:20 ↗ permit would be

3:02:25 ↗ divested um I'm not

3:02:35 ↗ sure do you recall that there was ever

3:02:38 ↗ um a a reason given for this this shift

3:02:42 ↗ to

3:02:43 ↗ um this concept of retroactive divesting

3:02:49 ↗ I mean I think it was always described

3:02:51 ↗ to us and as far as I know to Mr hos

3:02:55 ↗ that it was a change in administration

3:02:58 ↗ and that they the new mayor had changed

3:03:00 ↗ the recommendation and she didn't want

3:03:02 ↗ to acknowledge vesting for those

3:03:15 ↗ projects so let's look at a new exhibit

3:03:34 ↗ s97 what's the document at

3:03:41 ↗ s97 um it is an email

3:03:45 ↗ chain and if you go all the way to the

3:03:49 ↗ back of it it starts with the February

3:03:51 ↗ 2nd email that I referenced um which was

3:03:55 ↗ when they announc the change in position

3:04:00 ↗ um with respect to

3:04:03 ↗ vesting

3:04:06 ↗ um so it says there are several items to

3:04:10 ↗ note number one the vesting language has

3:04:13 ↗ been changed to match state law rather

3:04:16 ↗ than the previous broader vesting

3:04:18 ↗ language as this is an Administration

3:04:21 ↗ decision the mayor has offered to

3:04:23 ↗ discuss this change with concerned

3:04:26 ↗ parties and so following up to that

3:04:29 ↗ email um it looks like John had

3:04:32 ↗ forwarded that on to some

3:04:35 ↗ people I think he

3:04:41 ↗ replied all where are we yeah so that

3:04:44 ↗ was actually not him he didn't forward

3:04:47 ↗ it to those people that was a reply all

3:04:49 ↗ those were the people that were

3:04:50 ↗ initially copied on it by the city clerk

3:04:54 ↗ um and so he responded back to the city

3:04:58 ↗ clerk saying there is a contention of

3:04:59 ↗ stakeholders on this list who have asps

3:05:01 ↗ and other permits that would like to

3:05:03 ↗ speak with the mayor regarding the

3:05:05 ↗ administrative decision to drop the

3:05:06 ↗ proposed vesting language how would you

3:05:09 ↗ suggest we facilitate the meeting and

3:05:11 ↗ should we do so as a group or on a

3:05:13 ↗ property by propy basis

3:05:18 ↗ so then there's another email here from

3:05:20 ↗ um Tisha geyser to Lucy

3:05:24 ↗ slowman

3:05:27 ↗ um what does that one

3:05:29 ↗ say um so she Tisha says hi Lucy I'm

3:05:35 ↗ hoping you can address John's

3:05:37 ↗ question

3:05:39 ↗ um and then Lucy responds back this is

3:05:42 ↗ up to Emily and Mary Lou Keith has

3:05:45 ↗ already sent it to Emily on Friday I

3:05:47 ↗ haven't seen seen anything about how

3:05:48 ↗ they want to handle it and

3:05:51 ↗ then on

3:05:53 ↗ Tuesday Tisha asks again for a update on

3:05:57 ↗ a response for

3:05:59 ↗ John

3:06:01 ↗ um and then Keith

3:06:04 ↗ responds saying that he thinks what he

3:06:07 ↗ remembered Emily saying was that MLP or

3:06:10 ↗ Mary ly should take the lead on this

3:06:13 ↗ with staff providing backup I think

3:06:15 ↗ Joanne could schedule a meeting with LP

3:06:18 ↗ and John Lucy or I should be included as

3:06:20 ↗ staff staff

3:06:24 ↗ support so at this time

3:06:29 ↗ um was the city attempting to to go

3:06:33 ↗ through this same process that's being

3:06:35 ↗ described with John hos um in terms of

3:06:37 ↗ meeting with the mayor and moving that

3:06:39 ↗ along for um for

3:06:42 ↗ shelter

3:06:46 ↗ um not not exactly so we received the

3:06:50 ↗ same

3:06:51 ↗ email um on the 2 and we also requested

3:06:57 ↗ a meeting with the mayor right away

3:07:00 ↗ um in response to this email indicating

3:07:03 ↗ that the decision to change the vesting

3:07:06 ↗ language was her

3:07:08 ↗ decision

3:07:10 ↗ um so

3:07:13 ↗ we got a meeting with with the mayor and

3:07:16 ↗ with Keith separately from this and I

3:07:18 ↗ believe

3:07:20 ↗ John um also got a meeting with the

3:07:22 ↗ mayor

3:07:24 ↗ and I don't know if it was Keith or Lucy

3:07:27 ↗ um or maybe

3:07:29 ↗ both

3:07:31 ↗ separately but our meeting was not ever

3:07:34 ↗ no discussion was ever about helping us

3:07:36 ↗ to vest it was the con the the opposite

3:07:54 ↗ and the other thing that's not in these

3:07:56 ↗ emails is that the city informed um Mr

3:08:01 ↗ hos that they were changing the

3:08:03 ↗ administration's recommendation before

3:08:07 ↗ they ever told us or before they ever

3:08:09 ↗ released it

3:08:12 ↗ publicly so let's look at another

3:08:14 ↗ exhibit s98

3:08:18 ↗ um can you describe what's at s98

3:08:28 ↗ please this

3:08:31 ↗ s98 um appears to be um a

3:08:37 ↗ meeting notice an electronic meeting

3:08:40 ↗ notice for a meeting that was organized

3:08:43 ↗ by Lucy slowman regarding the city surf

3:08:46 ↗ phased permits

3:08:48 ↗ um so this was on March 7th

3:08:53 ↗ 2018

3:09:03 ↗ um how did the city based on this uh

3:09:07 ↗ email or meeting invite um how did the

3:09:11 ↗ city feel about Mr hass's Project

3:09:18 ↗ hang on just a second let me read

3:09:20 ↗ through

3:09:26 ↗ this so I think what this is is the text

3:09:31 ↗ that is actually below the the header of

3:09:34 ↗ the meeting request is an email cut and

3:09:37 ↗ pasted that John hos sent to the city

3:09:42 ↗ following up on the meeting that they

3:09:45 ↗ had had in response to his request that

3:09:49 ↗ was in the previous email string that we

3:09:52 ↗ were looking at under s97 got it so he

3:09:57 ↗ describes that he's proceeding Full

3:10:00 ↗ Speed Ahead on two parallel courses and

3:10:02 ↗ wants to get feedback their feedback

3:10:05 ↗ first that that he was planning to

3:10:07 ↗ proceed with the Deferred building

3:10:09 ↗ submitt building permit submittal

3:10:11 ↗ package within the time frame we

3:10:13 ↗ discussed for the city surf facility and

3:10:16 ↗ second we're seeking a tempor B

3:10:17 ↗ structure permit for a popup

3:10:22 ↗ um

3:10:24 ↗ so so this the from this um is

3:10:29 ↗ it what's a do you understand what the

3:10:31 ↗ Deferred building permit the middle

3:10:33 ↗ package would be based on conversation

3:10:36 ↗ conversations with John um after he met

3:10:39 ↗ with the mayor and staff um my

3:10:43 ↗ understanding is he's referring to what

3:10:44 ↗ they had offered him which was to relax

3:10:47 ↗ the building permit submittal

3:10:49 ↗ requirements so let him do um some sort

3:10:53 ↗ of lesser than normal building permit

3:10:56 ↗ submitt in order to check the box of

3:10:59 ↗ building permit submitt and recognize

3:11:01 ↗ his project as vested so my

3:11:04 ↗ understanding is that's what

3:11:07 ↗ he's referring to in this text and the

3:11:11 ↗ city relaxed any standards in um the

3:11:14 ↗ processes that it was requiring shelter

3:11:16 ↗ to go through on it permit

3:11:18 ↗ applications no quite quite the opposite

3:11:21 ↗ um as you saw from our sdp insufficiency

3:11:32 ↗ letters so let's turn to exhibit s99

3:11:39 ↗ [Applause]

3:11:48 ↗ um and what's this document at

3:11:51 ↗ s99 s99 appears to be a draft of a

3:11:57 ↗ letter that the city ultimately sent to

3:11:59 ↗ John hos and City surf

3:12:03 ↗ um acknowledging that their asdp

3:12:10 ↗ application was in fact

3:12:12 ↗ vested to the development standards in

3:12:15 ↗ the development agreement as Mr hos had

3:12:18 ↗ been contending all along so what were

3:12:20 ↗ in this draft at least what were they

3:12:22 ↗ relying on in terms of um saying that he

3:12:25 ↗ would be vested what was the rationale

3:12:27 ↗ for that that they're

3:12:30 ↗ providing

3:12:32 ↗ um

3:12:33 ↗ [Music]

3:12:35 ↗ they they refer to the three-year

3:12:38 ↗ boilerplate effective term reference

3:12:42 ↗ that was in the asdp document

3:12:45 ↗ itself together with the underlying

3:12:47 ↗ provisions of the development

3:12:49 ↗ agreement as the the basis for

3:12:52 ↗ recognizing the

3:12:57 ↗ vesting then let's look at uh exhibit

3:13:05 ↗ S100 what's the document at

3:13:09 ↗ S100 S100 is the actual final letter

3:13:13 ↗ that was issued to Mr hos and City surf

3:13:17 ↗ regarding investing of

3:13:19 ↗ his uh

3:13:22 ↗ asdp

3:13:25 ↗ permit does the development agreement

3:13:27 ↗ make any distinction to based on your

3:13:30 ↗ understanding between uh complete

3:13:32 ↗ application and a permit like John hos

3:13:35 ↗ has no it

3:13:37 ↗ doesn't not for purposes of of vesting

3:13:41 ↗ does it do you know of anything in the

3:13:43 ↗ development agreement that uh says

3:13:45 ↗ something about a three-year term of

3:13:47 ↗ permit governing vesting no there's

3:13:49 ↗ nothing like that in the development

3:13:53 ↗ agreement uh going back to exhibit s88

3:13:57 ↗ that figure of the different timelines

3:14:00 ↗ um let's move on to the next page in

3:14:04 ↗ that so it should be the page for

3:14:05 ↗ Westridge North single family polygon

3:14:09 ↗ application okay

3:14:14 ↗ [Applause]

3:14:17 ↗ this will be um the next exhibit will be

3:14:23 ↗ s101 um and can you describe for us what

3:14:26 ↗ that exhibit

3:14:28 ↗ [Applause]

3:14:32 ↗ ISE um this

3:14:36 ↗ is the combined notice of application

3:14:40 ↗ that the city issued

3:14:43 ↗ for three projects the Westridge North

3:14:46 ↗ single family plat the High Street

3:14:49 ↗ collection preliminary plat oops I

3:14:52 ↗ skipped one and the Westridge Town Homes

3:14:55 ↗ North site development permit so when

3:14:58 ↗ was um the Westridge North single family

3:15:02 ↗ application when was that

3:15:03 ↗ submitted uh July 14th

3:15:07 ↗ 2017 when did the city deem it complete

3:15:10 ↗ July 24th

3:15:12 ↗ 2017 so what's how many days did that

3:15:15 ↗ take them 10 days

3:15:18 ↗ as per the development agreement that's

3:15:20 ↗ what appendix L of the development

3:15:21 ↗ agreement

3:15:23 ↗ requires so you mentioned a minute ago

3:15:25 ↗ that this was combined with the High

3:15:27 ↗ Street so there was so the notice of

3:15:29 ↗ application for High Street did it go

3:15:31 ↗ out at the same time as this one it did

3:15:33 ↗ these three applications that are part

3:15:35 ↗ of this um S11 they all the notices came

3:15:39 ↗ out together as one combined notice it's

3:15:42 ↗ posted that way in the city's system of

3:15:45 ↗ active permits as well

3:15:50 ↗ so then the next exhibit

3:15:53 ↗ [Applause]

3:16:03 ↗ s102 uh what's this document at

3:16:08 ↗ s102

3:16:09 ↗ s102 is a briefing response memo for

3:16:15 ↗ Westridge North single family family

3:16:18 ↗ plat and it's dated April 10th

3:16:21 ↗ 2018 okay and um what what is that

3:16:26 ↗ document what is that just kind of as a

3:16:28 ↗ summary what does it

3:16:30 ↗ do

3:16:32 ↗ um so the briefing response memo would

3:16:36 ↗ respond to

3:16:39 ↗ um public comments and questions and

3:16:42 ↗ issues that had come up with respect to

3:16:45 ↗ the plat application

3:16:48 ↗ and it's the staff staff response

3:16:50 ↗ although I think also the staff allows

3:16:53 ↗ the applicant to help with the response

3:17:28 ↗ okay so then this next exhibit would be

3:17:32 ↗ um

3:17:38 ↗ s103 and can you describe what the

3:17:41 ↗ document is at s103 please

3:17:49 ↗ s103 is a notice of decision for the

3:17:51 ↗ Westridge North Town Homes one site

3:17:55 ↗ development

3:17:56 ↗ permit okay and there's also um so then

3:18:02 ↗ S10 4

3:18:18 ↗ s104 is the notice of action by isqua

3:18:22 ↗ city council

3:18:25 ↗ um for the Westridge North preliminary

3:18:29 ↗ plat so it says that the date of action

3:18:32 ↗ was July 16th 2018 so that was for the

3:18:36 ↗ Westridge North preliminary plat so that

3:18:38 ↗ was the one that

3:18:40 ↗ the

3:18:42 ↗ um

3:18:45 ↗ application had come in about a year

3:18:48 ↗ previous on July 14th 2017 so is that

3:18:51 ↗ the same thing as the Westridge North

3:18:53 ↗ single family application that's shown

3:18:56 ↗ on um I think this be the third page of

3:18:58 ↗ this yes okay figure that we're looking

3:19:01 ↗ at so you said it's taken about a year

3:19:04 ↗ for or it took about a year for that

3:19:06 ↗ plat from plat application to approval

3:19:09 ↗ and I think it's worth noting that that

3:19:11 ↗ was a

3:19:12 ↗ particularly um complicated plat because

3:19:15 ↗ it involved D

3:19:20 ↗ um

3:19:21 ↗ closing um a street that is part of

3:19:26 ↗ isqua Highlands and is going to be

3:19:28 ↗ converted into a trail so it had a

3:19:33 ↗ particularly contentious issue attached

3:19:36 ↗ to it and was therefore much more

3:19:39 ↗ complex than our plat

3:19:41 ↗ application and more complex than an

3:19:43 ↗ average plat

3:19:46 ↗ and then uh let's flip then to the next

3:19:49 ↗ page in this uh figure so we're looking

3:19:52 ↗ at the Westridge Town Homes One South in

3:19:56 ↗ exhibit

3:19:58 ↗ [Music]

3:20:05 ↗ s88 and uh this would be exhibit

3:20:09 ↗ [Music]

3:20:13 ↗ s105 I'm going to hand to you here

3:20:17 ↗ um what's exhibit

3:20:20 ↗ s105 s105 is the notice of application

3:20:23 ↗ for the Westridge Town Homes

3:20:26 ↗ one um site development

3:20:30 ↗ permit and if you go back I think um a

3:20:33 ↗ minute ago I handed you an exhibit

3:20:36 ↗ for West Ridge North yeah let me

3:20:43 ↗ see that's a different one thank you um

3:20:49 ↗ well let's see so let's let's back up

3:20:51 ↗ and focus on that for a second so the

3:20:54 ↗ sdp application for that uh when was

3:20:58 ↗ that one

3:20:59 ↗ submitted um the application date shown

3:21:02 ↗ is February 11th

3:21:04 ↗ 2016 um and when was it deemed complete

3:21:07 ↗ April 12th

3:21:12 ↗ 2016 and um on this slide it shows uh

3:21:16 ↗ July 20 or July 19 of 2016 as the

3:21:20 ↗ application approved date is that

3:21:21 ↗ consistent with your memory of it yes I

3:21:26 ↗ don't remember the exact date but that

3:21:27 ↗ sounds generally consistent with my

3:21:32 ↗ understanding and so um if you look at

3:21:35 ↗ that exhibit uh 105 the notice of

3:21:38 ↗ application what did the notice of

3:21:40 ↗ application have to say about a um any

3:21:42 ↗ sort of plat related to the Westridge

3:21:44 ↗ Town Homes 1 South

3:21:47 ↗ um so it notes on the notice of

3:21:49 ↗ application that a short plat

3:21:52 ↗ subdivision is also required in order to

3:21:54 ↗ segregate the subject parcel for

3:21:56 ↗ development so this is significant

3:21:59 ↗ because it's the exact

3:22:01 ↗ situation that we have with our

3:22:05 ↗ applications um for site development

3:22:08 ↗ permits except for in our case the city

3:22:11 ↗ decided to tell us that until the plat

3:22:14 ↗ was done

3:22:17 ↗ the sdp

3:22:18 ↗ applications could not be accepted as

3:22:22 ↗ complete here clearly they were accepted

3:22:25 ↗ as complete prior to the subdivision

3:22:27 ↗ being done um and prior to the

3:22:31 ↗ preliminary subdivision being approved

3:22:34 ↗ um and significantly in this case they

3:22:37 ↗ actually approved the sdp prior to the

3:22:42 ↗ the plat so it's the extreme opposite of

3:22:45 ↗ the position they took just a year or so

3:22:48 ↗ later with respect to our

3:22:53 ↗ applications so if you flip to the next

3:22:55 ↗ page in

3:22:58 ↗ s88 um it's titled short plot of lot

3:23:09 ↗ a and uh this next exhibit would be s106

3:23:28 ↗ um what's the document at

3:23:31 ↗ s106 um s106 is the notice of decision

3:23:36 ↗ uh approving the short plot of lot a um

3:23:40 ↗ in isqua Highlands so this is the short

3:23:44 ↗ plot that's referred to in the the

3:23:46 ↗ Westridge Town Homes one um notice of

3:23:50 ↗ application so this was the the short

3:23:52 ↗ plat that created the lot that was then

3:23:55 ↗ the subject of that

3:23:57 ↗ sdp so when was that um

3:24:03 ↗ submitted

3:24:06 ↗ um looking let's see uh yeah the notice

3:24:10 ↗ of decision states that on February 2nd

3:24:14 ↗ 2016 the property own owner submitted a

3:24:17 ↗ short plate short plat application to

3:24:20 ↗ subdivide lot a into three lots okay and

3:24:25 ↗ when was it approved and it was approved

3:24:28 ↗ on um January 6th

3:24:36 ↗ 2017 so that

3:24:38 ↗ was

3:24:40 ↗ after the sdp approval which happened on

3:24:45 ↗ July 19th of

3:24:55 ↗ 2016 okay so I'm um mindful that we have

3:24:58 ↗ about 5 minutes till

3:24:59 ↗ 10 um and we can do one of two things um

3:25:05 ↗ and I know that lawyers give horrible

3:25:07 ↗ time estimates so I apologize in advance

3:25:10 ↗ but I think I think we can get through

3:25:13 ↗ the remainder of Miss heim's testimony

3:25:15 ↗ in another 15 minutes or so if we want

3:25:18 ↗ to stay past if not we're happy to pick

3:25:21 ↗ it up tomorrow and and we're here

3:25:22 ↗ anyways tomorrow and can do that

3:25:25 ↗ um wanted to throw it out

3:25:28 ↗ there I think process-wise if we can be

3:25:31 ↗ done in about 15 minutes that would

3:25:33 ↗ facilitate the uh cross examination

3:25:36 ↗ tomorrow starting first thing so that

3:25:38 ↗ that would make the most sense to me

3:25:40 ↗ council is that agreeable no objection

3:25:42 ↗ from the city Mr okay thank you we'll do

3:25:45 ↗ our best to move it along but um like I

3:25:47 ↗ said I think about 15

3:25:50 ↗ minutes okay so let's turn to the next

3:25:54 ↗ page in s88 it's uh Westridge block for

3:25:57 ↗ affordable

3:26:00 ↗ housing um

3:26:04 ↗ and this next exhibit would be s107

3:26:16 ↗ can you describe for us what s17 is

3:26:19 ↗ please s107 is a no of application for

3:26:23 ↗ Westridge block 4 affordable housing

3:26:27 ↗ asdp so when was the application date

3:26:30 ↗ for this April 27th

3:26:34 ↗ 2018 uh is that before or after the

3:26:37 ↗ replacement regulations were adopted

3:26:40 ↗ that is after the replacement

3:26:42 ↗ regulations were adopted and effective

3:26:46 ↗ when was the application deemed complete

3:26:49 ↗ May 16th

3:26:51 ↗ 2018 and what's the date of that notice

3:26:53 ↗ of

3:26:55 ↗ application uh July 17th

3:26:59 ↗ 2018 what is that notice of application

3:27:02 ↗ have to say about the um standards that

3:27:05 ↗ are going to be used to evaluate that

3:27:07 ↗ Westridge block 4

3:27:15 ↗ project uh

3:27:19 ↗ um it says that the preliminary

3:27:24 ↗ determination of development regulations

3:27:26 ↗ that will be used for project mitigation

3:27:28 ↗ and

3:27:29 ↗ consistency is a qua Highlands

3:27:31 ↗ development

3:27:35 ↗ agreement so what do you understand that

3:27:37 ↗ to mean in terms of what regulations are

3:27:39 ↗ going to apply to that

3:27:41 ↗ application the city treated this

3:27:43 ↗ application as vested to the is

3:27:46 ↗ Highlands development agreement despite

3:27:48 ↗ the fact that it clearly came in after

3:27:52 ↗ the replacement regulations um were in

3:27:56 ↗ effect

3:27:59 ↗ and if it were processed under the

3:28:02 ↗ replacement regulations it would

3:28:06 ↗ um it would have come here to this

3:28:08 ↗ Commission because it's also on one of

3:28:11 ↗ the streets that are designated for

3:28:15 ↗ commission

3:28:19 ↗ approval so were you here when Mr niban

3:28:22 ↗ was um he provided some testimony on the

3:28:25 ↗ Westridge block 4 application and was

3:28:28 ↗ referencing um an affordable housing

3:28:31 ↗ development agreement as providing the

3:28:33 ↗ basis for why that vesting would occur

3:28:36 ↗ compared to shelter's Applications yes I

3:28:39 ↗ was here for that and um let's look at

3:28:41 ↗ exhibit

3:28:43 ↗ c33 please

3:28:56 ↗ can you describe what the document at

3:28:58 ↗ c33 is yes c33 is the developer sales

3:29:03 ↗ agreement for affordable units at

3:29:05 ↗ Westridge do you recall U Mr Nan

3:29:08 ↗ providing c33 as the the basis for his

3:29:13 ↗ um testimony that the Westridge block 4

3:29:17 ↗ application vested because of a

3:29:19 ↗ affordable housing agreement I do I

3:29:22 ↗ remember him pointing to this agreement

3:29:24 ↗ as the basis for vesting those projects

3:29:27 ↗ does this agreement say anything about

3:29:29 ↗ vesting it does not it's also not a

3:29:32 ↗ development

3:29:34 ↗ agreement what is it it's a developer

3:29:36 ↗ sales

3:29:38 ↗ agreement which really deals with the

3:29:42 ↗ affordable covenants that are attached

3:29:45 ↗ to the property

3:29:54 ↗ so then let's look at exhibit

3:29:57 ↗ S5

3:30:05 ↗ please yes and um what's exhibit

3:30:10 ↗ S5 um it is also the developer sales

3:30:14 ↗ agreement

3:30:16 ↗ I think it has more

3:30:19 ↗ attached

3:30:29 ↗ here so this this exhibit is um they'll

3:30:32 ↗ represent is considerably longer than

3:30:34 ↗ the other one it's about 80 Pages or so

3:30:38 ↗ um and if you keep

3:30:42 ↗ flipping here we go

3:30:46 ↗ get

3:30:50 ↗ to so further along in there um what

3:30:55 ↗ else is included in this exhibit um

3:30:57 ↗ besides the developer sales

3:30:59 ↗ agreement um also a copy of a

3:31:05 ↗ development agreement with polygon

3:31:07 ↗ Northwest for the provision of

3:31:09 ↗ affordable housing so just to clarify do

3:31:12 ↗ you recall um director Nan giving this

3:31:16 ↗ document as a basis for his opinion or

3:31:18 ↗ was it just the developer sales

3:31:21 ↗ agreement um well this this document the

3:31:25 ↗ development agreement was also provided

3:31:27 ↗ by the city I think it's at

3:31:30 ↗ c34 um but director nian specifically

3:31:34 ↗ testified that the development agreement

3:31:38 ↗ with polygon um that is that we're

3:31:41 ↗ looking at in in

3:31:44 ↗ S5 but also that is

3:31:49 ↗ c34 um does not address vesting and is

3:31:52 ↗ not the basis for vesting those projects

3:31:55 ↗ instead he pointed to the developer

3:31:57 ↗ sales agreement and a provision that

3:32:01 ↗ addressed termination as the basis for

3:32:04 ↗ vesting which I found quite confusing

3:32:07 ↗ since it's both not a development

3:32:08 ↗ agreement and doesn't actually address

3:32:12 ↗ vesting but again this from from our

3:32:17 ↗ perspective is another example of the

3:32:21 ↗ city stretching and trying to find ways

3:32:24 ↗ to make sure that they could acknowledge

3:32:27 ↗ every other project in isqua Highlands

3:32:32 ↗ as vested other than our

3:32:38 ↗ projects so let's look at

3:32:42 ↗ S18

3:32:44 ↗ um what's the document at

3:32:49 ↗ s108 um

3:32:52 ↗ this s108 is

3:32:55 ↗ the notice of decision for the

3:32:59 ↗ administrative site development permit

3:33:01 ↗ for Block 4 at isqua

3:33:05 ↗ Highlands and so um So based on on this

3:33:09 ↗ is it your understanding that block four

3:33:11 ↗ has been approved by the city is moving

3:33:13 ↗ forward yes

3:33:20 ↗ let's flip to uh the next page in s88 so

3:33:23 ↗ it says Westridge Town Homes North

3:33:25 ↗ polygon

3:33:28 ↗ application and this would be uh exhibit

3:33:32 ↗ s19 that we'll look at next

3:33:50 ↗ so s19 what's that

3:33:52 ↗ document s19 is the notice of

3:33:57 ↗ application for the Westridge Town Homes

3:34:01 ↗ North site development

3:34:02 ↗ permit when was that applied for October

3:34:06 ↗ 20th

3:34:09 ↗ 2017 and um what's the when was it

3:34:12 ↗ determined complete October 30th 2017 10

3:34:15 ↗ days is after the application was

3:34:17 ↗ submitted did this one um was this one

3:34:20 ↗ of the ones that went out with shelters

3:34:22 ↗ notice of application for the um plat

3:34:26 ↗ yes it did go get noticed with our plat

3:34:28 ↗ um I think it's also significant that

3:34:31 ↗ it's uh to compare it to our projects

3:34:34 ↗ because it's a site development permit

3:34:36 ↗ applied for um in the same time frame as

3:34:41 ↗ our site development permits so this is

3:34:44 ↗ post buildout

3:34:46 ↗ period but still during the effective

3:34:48 ↗ term of the development

3:34:51 ↗ agreement

3:34:52 ↗ um and it's the same type of permit as

3:34:57 ↗ at least one of the permits that's

3:34:58 ↗ before you and what's your understanding

3:35:01 ↗ about what um development regulations

3:35:04 ↗ were being applied to this Westridge

3:35:06 ↗ Town Homes North

3:35:09 ↗ application um the city treated this as

3:35:12 ↗ vested to the development standards

3:35:14 ↗ enacted by the development agreement

3:35:21 ↗ and this next document would be

3:35:29 ↗ S110 what's the document at

3:35:36 ↗ S110

3:35:37 ↗ [Music]

3:35:42 ↗ um this is a notice of decision for

3:35:45 ↗ Westridge Town Homes North site

3:35:48 ↗ development

3:35:50 ↗ permit and uh what's the what's the date

3:35:53 ↗ of that approval date May 10th

3:35:58 ↗ 2018 what does it have to say about um

3:36:01 ↗ the development regulations that were

3:36:03 ↗ applied to that project

3:36:22 ↗ it says um whereas even though the isqua

3:36:26 ↗ highlands development agreement was

3:36:27 ↗ terminated on March 28th 2018 and

3:36:30 ↗ replacement regulations IMC

3:36:34 ↗ 18.1 19B have been enacted this

3:36:37 ↗ application was vested to the now

3:36:39 ↗ terminated development agreement and was

3:36:41 ↗ reviewed under those regulations

3:36:50 ↗ why was this application reviewed under

3:36:52 ↗ the development regulations adopted

3:36:55 ↗ through the development agreement and

3:36:56 ↗ vested to those but shelters

3:36:59 ↗ wasn't according to the city well I mean

3:37:03 ↗ they both should have been processed

3:37:05 ↗ under the and and analyzed under the

3:37:08 ↗ development standards under the

3:37:09 ↗ development agreement um the only

3:37:13 ↗ explanations that I've heard were were

3:37:15 ↗ that they vested through a development

3:37:19 ↗ agreement um and then as you've heard

3:37:22 ↗ from Mr nien the only development

3:37:25 ↗ agreement that the city has entered into

3:37:29 ↗ with um with polygon with respect to

3:37:34 ↗ this property is that affordable housing

3:37:37 ↗ development agreement which he testified

3:37:39 ↗ does not address vesting and we agree it

3:37:41 ↗ does not address vesting

3:37:44 ↗ so I don't know how they justify

3:37:47 ↗ treating this one one way and treating

3:37:49 ↗ ours a different way

3:37:52 ↗ um but they both they both were vested

3:37:56 ↗ to the development to the development

3:37:58 ↗ standards enacted by the development

3:37:59 ↗ agreement per the terms of that

3:38:02 ↗ development agreement

3:38:04 ↗ which are what applied to both

3:38:07 ↗ applications does this document indicate

3:38:10 ↗ whether appendix L and the the

3:38:12 ↗ requirements in appendix l in terms of

3:38:14 ↗ the process were applied to this

3:38:15 ↗ application as

3:38:17 ↗ well um it does reference uh appendix L

3:38:21 ↗ processing of land use and construction

3:38:25 ↗ permits and it references that the

3:38:27 ↗ hearings were held in accordance with

3:38:30 ↗ appendix l so they followed appendix L

3:38:32 ↗ for this

3:38:43 ↗ application and again when did did the

3:38:46 ↗ when did the buildout period end can you

3:38:49 ↗ remind us of that the buildout period

3:38:51 ↗ ended in September of 2017 so before

3:38:54 ↗ this site development permit application

3:38:57 ↗ was deemed

3:39:09 ↗ complete so um

3:39:18 ↗ with all these different applications um

3:39:21 ↗ what what's your understanding of the

3:39:23 ↗ procedures and the timelines that the

3:39:25 ↗ city has been applying to them and I'm

3:39:27 ↗ when I say all these different

3:39:28 ↗ applications I'm talking about the the

3:39:31 ↗ ones other than shelters projects that

3:39:32 ↗ we just went

3:39:34 ↗ through well for all of these projects

3:39:38 ↗ that we've been discussing the city is

3:39:41 ↗ applying the development standards and

3:39:44 ↗ the process it that are set forth in the

3:39:47 ↗ development agreement so

3:39:51 ↗ um there they're treating it as fully

3:39:54 ↗ vested to um development standards and

3:39:57 ↗ process if they didn't if they somehow

3:40:02 ↗ um they've told us from time to time

3:40:05 ↗ that we wouldn't vest to process even if

3:40:07 ↗ we were vested um and if that were the

3:40:10 ↗ case if they were treating these other

3:40:11 ↗ applications that way then you would

3:40:14 ↗ have seen these these other applications

3:40:16 ↗ come before you because the

3:40:19 ↗ asdp um for the the uh block four

3:40:24 ↗ affordable housing fronts on Ellis and

3:40:27 ↗ per the replacement regulations if

3:40:29 ↗ that's what was needing to be followed

3:40:30 ↗ it would have come here to this

3:40:32 ↗ commission and it didn't um instead

3:40:36 ↗ you've seen all of these

3:40:37 ↗ applications either get an

3:40:39 ↗ administrative approval written by the

3:40:41 ↗ administrative staff or they went to UVC

3:40:45 ↗ which would be following the procedure

3:40:48 ↗ in the development

3:40:50 ↗ agreement so I guess then to to wrap up

3:40:55 ↗ um to clarify because we've heard a lot

3:40:57 ↗ of testimony about the vested rights

3:41:00 ↗ issue

3:41:02 ↗ um is there any dispute that shelter's

3:41:05 ↗ applications don't comply with the

3:41:07 ↗ replacement

3:41:08 ↗ regulations no I think you heard that

3:41:10 ↗ from us on day one and we will continue

3:41:13 ↗ to tell you that

3:41:16 ↗ these applications do not comply with

3:41:19 ↗ the um replacement

3:41:22 ↗ regulations because they were designed

3:41:24 ↗ and submitted in accordance with the

3:41:27 ↗ development standards enacted by the

3:41:28 ↗ development agreement so what's your

3:41:31 ↗ understanding of why we're here

3:41:41 ↗ today we are just trying to move forward

3:41:45 ↗ with our applications they are vested

3:41:47 ↗ under the develop to the development

3:41:50 ↗ standards that were enacted by the

3:41:52 ↗ development agreement um we've been

3:41:56 ↗ asking the city

3:41:59 ↗ since March of 2018 when we delivered

3:42:04 ↗ the the notice of default to comply with

3:42:06 ↗ the development agreement and process

3:42:08 ↗ our applications well we were asking

3:42:10 ↗ actually previous to that but but um at

3:42:14 ↗ that point it

3:42:16 ↗ became

3:42:19 ↗ um more involved from a legal

3:42:23 ↗ perspective and we've been simply trying

3:42:25 ↗ to get to a decision on vesting that we

3:42:28 ↗ can appeal to a body with jurisdiction

3:42:31 ↗ and while we really appreciate you all

3:42:34 ↗ taking the time to sit and listen to all

3:42:37 ↗ of all of this testimony um we continue

3:42:42 ↗ to believe as we stated at the very

3:42:43 ↗ beginning of this hearing that it is

3:42:46 ↗ unnecessary and

3:42:48 ↗ inappropriate and the city should have

3:42:51 ↗ just issued a decision that was

3:42:53 ↗ appealable and let the vesting issue get

3:42:55 ↗ decided by a body with

3:43:02 ↗ jurisdiction thank you I think that

3:43:05 ↗ concludes for this evening and for Miss

3:43:07 ↗ heim's testimony um and to a point that

3:43:10 ↗ she just made we do thank you very much

3:43:12 ↗ for staying over for your time we really

3:43:13 ↗ appreciate that um um so with that we're

3:43:17 ↗ we're closed for Miss Heim for now um I

3:43:19 ↗ guess tomorrow evening would be the

3:43:21 ↗ opportunity for the city to pick up on

3:43:23 ↗ Cross

3:43:24 ↗ examination

3:43:26 ↗ yes okay and um Zach do you have a an

3:43:31 ↗ idea of how long that will take whether

3:43:33 ↗ it would

3:43:34 ↗ be the whole time tomorrow evening or

3:43:36 ↗ something shorter than that probably

3:43:39 ↗ somewhat shorter than that I can't uh

3:43:42 ↗ unfortunately estimate with too much

3:43:43 ↗ specific I need to go back and review my

3:43:45 ↗ notes for this evening's proceeding but

3:43:47 ↗ I would anticipate that it will not last

3:43:49 ↗ the full three and a half hours okay

3:43:51 ↗ thank you very

3:43:55 ↗ much so we've reached uh a little past

3:43:58 ↗ the agreed upon time when we are going

3:43:59 ↗ to adjourn the public hearings on

3:44:01 ↗ tonight's agenda will be continued to a

3:44:03 ↗ special meeting of the commission on

3:44:05 ↗ March 6th tomorrow in the church in the

3:44:08 ↗ council chambers at 6:30 the meeting is

3:44:10 ↗ now adjourned thank you

3:44:16 ↗ okay

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 (16)

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 [Gary Young

Shelter Holdings, audience]