Development Commission - Special Meeting - 06 M · Wednesday, March 6, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

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

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.23 ↗

3957 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ today

0:24 ↗ all right good evening ladies and

0:27 ↗ gentlemen I'd like to call to order the

0:28 ↗ special meeting of the development

0:30 ↗ commission discussing the Issaquah

0:31 ↗ Highlands retail site development permit

0:34 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands Medical Office

0:36 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:38 ↗ and the Issaquah Highlands Self Storage

0:41 ↗ administrative site development permit I

0:44 ↗ think we're where we are process it wise

0:46 ↗ is that Mr LEL is going to begin his

0:50 ↗ direct or at his cross-examination of

0:53 ↗ the applicant's witness

0:56 ↗ and just before we begin as a

0:57 ↗ clarification

0:59 ↗ um provided binders to the development

1:01 ↗ commission updated from yesterday so you

1:03 ↗ should have a full set in front of you

1:04 ↗ thank you

1:06 ↗ thanks

1:13 ↗ foreign

1:14 ↗ ers

1:20 ↗ good evening it's time hi

1:23 ↗ um

1:24 ↗ could you please uh verify that you

1:26 ↗ continue to be under oath from your

1:28 ↗ prior testimony I am

1:31 ↗ president for all the testimony and

1:33 ↗ argument in this public hearing how

1:35 ↗ your Council Mr Schneider stated during

1:39 ↗ his opening statement that you quote

1:42 ↗ took careful notes end quote of your

1:45 ↗ various meetings with City staff members

1:48 ↗ do you remember that statement

1:50 ↗ yes

1:52 ↗ you also indicated in your own testimony

1:54 ↗ previously that you kept notes during

1:55 ↗ some of the meetings that you had with

1:57 ↗ City officials is that correct yes

2:01 ↗ were these the same notes or minutes

2:03 ↗ that were provided to me by your Council

2:05 ↗ Miss Kerry during the previous

2:07 ↗ installment of this hearing

2:10 ↗ yes the notes that she provided were

2:12 ↗ notes that I took

2:13 ↗ okay please ask your counsel to provide

2:15 ↗ you with a binder folder that contains

2:18 ↗ those notes they should be up there

2:19 ↗ great thank you I'm at this point

2:23 ↗ I'd like to offer into evidence as a

2:26 ↗ city exhibit the entirety of the note or

2:30 ↗ minute package that

2:32 ↗ miscarry

2:34 ↗ invited to City's Council during the I

2:37 ↗ believe the January 15th hearing

2:39 ↗ proceedings

2:41 ↗ um and these are

2:44 ↗ is

2:54 ↗ yeah

2:57 ↗ 1957 would be the next exhibit in order

3:00 ↗ I believe

3:02 ↗ I believe we have to through 43 at this

3:06 ↗ point c43 but let me double check that

3:13 ↗ that's what I have as well I have that

3:14 ↗ we have through seed 42 so this would be

3:16 ↗ 43. okay

3:25 ↗ I'll be 44.43 yeah we have 40. yeah

3:30 ↗ actually we have through c43 so this

3:33 ↗ would be c44 yeah

3:36 ↗ no Market is 44.

3:43 ↗ [Applause]

3:45 ↗ I have extra copies

3:48 ↗ sure thank you

3:52 ↗ okay

3:54 ↗ how did you maintain your notes miss him

3:59 ↗ how did I maintain them yes after taking

4:02 ↗ them

4:04 ↗ um I'm not sure what you mean did you

4:06 ↗ maintain them on a computer did you

4:08 ↗ maintain them in word format did you

4:09 ↗ maintain them as a PDF document

4:12 ↗ oh sure I think it depends on which

4:16 ↗ notes you're talking about some are hand

4:18 ↗ written which obviously would have been

4:20 ↗ in a file and some are typed so those

4:25 ↗ who were in Word document format and

4:29 ↗ um

4:30 ↗ some were in emails so those are in

4:33 ↗ emails did you ever destroy any notes

4:35 ↗ from any of your meetings with City

4:36 ↗ staff

4:38 ↗ I don't believe so

4:40 ↗ do you specifically inform City staff

4:43 ↗ members that you would be taking notes

4:44 ↗ during these meetings

4:50 ↗ but they saw me taking notes during all

4:52 ↗ of the meetings

4:55 ↗ did anyone on the city staff ever

4:57 ↗ comment regarding your note-taking

4:59 ↗ no no one ever objected

5:04 ↗ I refer your attention please to exhibit

5:07 ↗ s 55h

5:19 ↗ I can provide a copy if it's easier for

5:22 ↗ you and

5:29 ↗ that might be faster but um let me see

5:31 ↗ oh this one

5:34 ↗ [Applause]

5:37 ↗ for the record this was a an exhibit

5:39 ↗ that had previously been introduced by

5:42 ↗ shelter in this proceeding

5:45 ↗ and it's identified as an email message

5:48 ↗ from Jean Lynn to David Holmes with

5:52 ↗ several courtesy copy recipients

5:56 ↗ could you please read

5:59 ↗ the highlighted portion of the substance

6:01 ↗ of that email

6:02 ↗ beginning with please note

6:09 ↗ [Music]

6:10 ↗ um

6:11 ↗ I can but I can also tell you that this

6:13 ↗ email is not referring to notes that I

6:15 ↗ took at a meeting there it's referring

6:18 ↗ to notes that David took

6:20 ↗ do you want still want me to read it

6:22 ↗ peace

6:24 ↗ please note that I have had a chance to

6:26 ↗ review the minutes your team prepared

6:27 ↗ for this meeting while some statements

6:30 ↗ were accurate there were statements that

6:32 ↗ either have not been verified or were

6:34 ↗ not discussed in the meeting

6:36 ↗ for these reasons I did not rely on

6:39 ↗ those minutes our comments from the

6:41 ↗ meeting are reflected in our comment

6:42 ↗ letter

6:45 ↗ did Mr Holmes provide any other notes or

6:48 ↗ minutes of meetings with City staff two

6:51 ↗ City staff members after he took them to

6:53 ↗ your knowledge I don't know

6:55 ↗ did any other member of the shelter

6:58 ↗ applicant or consultant team

7:00 ↗ provide copies of meeting minutes or

7:03 ↗ notes to city staff members

7:05 ↗ I don't know

7:14 ↗ if you testified that you began working

7:16 ↗ for a shelter in April 2015 is that

7:19 ↗ correct yes

7:22 ↗ the earliest meeting notes or minutes

7:24 ↗ that were provided to City's Council

7:27 ↗ during the previous hearing installment

7:29 ↗ were from a January 21st 2016 meeting

7:33 ↗ with City staff

7:35 ↗ did you have any previous meetings with

7:37 ↗ the city before that date

7:39 ↗ your recollection regarding the shelter

7:41 ↗ project

7:45 ↗ [Music]

7:46 ↗ um

7:47 ↗ I think probably

7:51 ↗ did you take any notes or prepare any

7:53 ↗ minutes for those meetings

7:56 ↗ I don't know

8:00 ↗ I'd like Cuda if you could please turn

8:02 ↗ to your meeting notes

8:05 ↗ from the January 21st

8:09 ↗ 2016 meeting

8:13 ↗ okay

8:15 ↗ when was this document created

8:18 ↗ it would have

8:19 ↗ been created either on the date of the

8:22 ↗ meeting or shortly thereafter

8:25 ↗ and the meeting notes indicate that the

8:27 ↗ meeting was

8:29 ↗ with Keith Niven of Issaquah were there

8:32 ↗ any other City staff members in

8:34 ↗ attendance at this meeting do you

8:35 ↗ recollection

8:40 ↗ I don't believe so because if there were

8:42 ↗ I would have noted it in the meeting

8:45 ↗ minutes

8:49 ↗ the purpose of this meeting to discuss

8:51 ↗ entering into a new development

8:53 ↗ agreement

8:58 ↗ I think the purpose of this meeting was

9:00 ↗ to discuss generally planning and

9:03 ↗ development of

9:04 ↗ our property

9:08 ↗ potentially extending or amending or a

9:12 ↗ new development agreement would have

9:14 ↗ been one of the topics that was

9:16 ↗ discussed that from very early on was

9:19 ↗ something that was suggested by director

9:22 ↗ Niven

9:24 ↗ was that suggestion prior to this

9:26 ↗ meeting or at the meeting I think the

9:28 ↗ initial the initial suggestions predate

9:32 ↗ my involvement with this project

9:34 ↗ I think his initial conversations about

9:37 ↗ development agreement started with Gary

9:40 ↗ much earlier

9:42 ↗ so you wouldn't have any first-hand

9:43 ↗ knowledge regarding those prior meetings

9:45 ↗ because they predated your time with

9:47 ↗ shelter is that correct

9:50 ↗ I'm not sure that's totally accurate I

9:52 ↗ wouldn't I don't have first-hand

9:54 ↗ knowledge of meetings that predate my

9:56 ↗ employment with shelter that's accurate

9:59 ↗ thank you could you please turn to page

10:01 ↗ two of your

10:03 ↗ January 21st 2016.

10:06 ↗ [Music]

10:07 ↗ meeting minutes your notes there provide

10:10 ↗ and this is a quote there are old

10:13 ↗ standards in the development agreement

10:15 ↗ and the city will not allow you to

10:17 ↗ continue to vest to those end quote do

10:20 ↗ you see that reference

10:23 ↗ yes who stated that

10:26 ↗ Mr Niven

10:29 ↗ he was talking about just to give you

10:32 ↗ contacts he was talking about if we were

10:35 ↗ in a new if we were negotiating a new

10:37 ↗ development agreement that there were

10:39 ↗ certain standards that the city felt

10:41 ↗ were outdated and wouldn't be something

10:43 ↗ that they would be interested in

10:45 ↗ allowing us to continue to vest to so

10:48 ↗ the one that he gave was storm water

10:50 ↗ because as you know storm water manuals

10:52 ↗ get updated over time and he thought

10:55 ↗ that the city would want new development

10:58 ↗ under a future development agreement to

11:01 ↗ use a different storm water manual were

11:03 ↗ there other development standards that

11:06 ↗ Mr Niven discussed

11:08 ↗ in the context of investing or

11:10 ↗ non-investing in this meeting

11:15 ↗ um

11:17 ↗ I don't recall any other specific

11:20 ↗ development standards that he gave as an

11:22 ↗ example but I think use of the term

11:25 ↗ vesting in that context is a little bit

11:28 ↗ misleading because what what he's

11:31 ↗ referring to is what standards would

11:34 ↗ have been carried over from the Issaquah

11:37 ↗ Highlands development agreement to

11:39 ↗ potentially a new development agreement

11:41 ↗ so he was using Vest in that way in

11:43 ↗ carrying it from one existing agreement

11:46 ↗ to another not in the normal term sense

11:49 ↗ of vesting he was using vesting in a

11:52 ↗ sense that's not

11:53 ↗ traditional or legalistic in your

11:56 ↗ understanding as a land use lawyer is

11:58 ↗ that your understanding I would say it's

12:00 ↗ not that he was using it in the sense

12:03 ↗ that is not consistent with the vesting

12:06 ↗ discussion that we've had throughout

12:07 ↗ this hearing thank you

12:11 ↗ um could I have you next turn please to

12:13 ↗ your February 1st 2016 meeting notes

12:20 ↗ okay and the

12:24 ↗ fifth bullet point beginning with Keith

12:27 ↗ explained could you please read that

12:35 ↗ it says Keith explained that if we do

12:38 ↗ not extend or do a new development

12:40 ↗ agreement then the city will give us

12:42 ↗ traditional zoning designation for our

12:43 ↗ property he's not sure what that would

12:45 ↗ be and is that an accurate reflection of

12:48 ↗ what Mr Niven told you at that meeting

12:50 ↗ to your recollection

12:52 ↗ I think that's one item that he told us

12:55 ↗ at that meeting

12:57 ↗ So based on that statement from Mr Niven

12:59 ↗ you were aware as of February 1st 2016

13:03 ↗ that the zoning would change on your

13:06 ↗ property unless a new development

13:07 ↗ agreement was reached or the existing

13:10 ↗ development agreement was

13:12 ↗ affirmatively extended correct no I

13:15 ↗ don't think that's accurate I think

13:16 ↗ could you please clarify I think that

13:20 ↗ that statement is talking about what

13:23 ↗ would happen with respect to our

13:25 ↗ property on a very broad level with

13:27 ↗ respect to the regulations that that

13:30 ↗ apply so this statement doesn't to me

13:33 ↗ say anything about ability to invest

13:35 ↗ under the development agreement which is

13:38 ↗ another possibility that you didn't

13:39 ↗ include in that question okay my

13:41 ↗ question wasn't specifically related to

13:43 ↗ vesting per se more going to the the

13:46 ↗ purpose and context of the bullet

13:49 ↗ pointed statement in your notes

13:54 ↗ you please then look at page three of

13:56 ↗ the February 1st 2016

13:59 ↗ um meeting notes in particular the

14:04 ↗ fourth and fifth

14:06 ↗ bullet points

14:28 ↗ okay did you provide some context as to

14:31 ↗ what was being discussed in those bullet

14:34 ↗ points

14:37 ↗ and summarize what you understood Eric

14:40 ↗ and Mr Niven to be referring to

14:55 ↗ um I think the

14:57 ↗ I think that

14:59 ↗ Eric was acknowledging that

15:02 ↗ um

15:05 ↗ planning at the level that we're talking

15:07 ↗ about at it for a 21-acre piece of

15:11 ↗ property in the middle of a mostly

15:13 ↗ developed master plan wouldn't

15:16 ↗ necessarily be an easy process and we

15:19 ↗ didn't expect that it would be an easy

15:22 ↗ process but we did expect to work

15:24 ↗ collaboratively with the city to try to

15:25 ↗ come up with the best solution

15:29 ↗ um

15:31 ↗ and Keith was explaining from his

15:34 ↗ perspective some of the challenges of

15:38 ↗ negotiating a development agreement in

15:40 ↗ Issaquah in particular

15:42 ↗ with respect to the

15:44 ↗ process potentially not being easy

15:47 ↗ for either negotiating a new development

15:50 ↗ agreement or obtaining an extension of

15:52 ↗ the current one were there specific time

15:54 ↗ frames or time estimates that were

15:56 ↗ referenced in that discussion to your

15:58 ↗ recollection

16:01 ↗ um I

16:02 ↗ I would need to take a minute to review

16:04 ↗ the notes just just to remember what was

16:08 ↗ discussed in this particular meeting but

16:09 ↗ I do know that

16:11 ↗ at various points of time in this within

16:14 ↗ this time frame Mr Niven gave us

16:17 ↗ different descriptions of what the

16:19 ↗ process was to get to development

16:22 ↗ agreement and those had different time

16:25 ↗ frames associated with them do you call

16:27 ↗ recall approximately what those time

16:30 ↗ frames would have been no

16:32 ↗ he then please turn to your February

16:35 ↗ 25th 2016 meeting notes

16:46 ↗ according to your notes it indicates

16:47 ↗ that this meeting was between yourself

16:50 ↗ and Keith and Emily Moon

16:54 ↗ is that correct

16:56 ↗ um

17:01 ↗ I believe that

17:04 ↗ Gary and possibly Eric were there as

17:06 ↗ well yeah but Gary and Eric both were

17:09 ↗ there as well thank you is that a parent

17:12 ↗ from the document somewhere it's

17:13 ↗ difficult for me to tell given the the

17:16 ↗ addressee versus the indication of who

17:19 ↗ was actually in attendance yeah if you

17:22 ↗ look at the bullets you'll see there are

17:26 ↗ some that say Gary explained and Eric

17:29 ↗ explained thank you

17:32 ↗ was this a collaborative meeting

17:35 ↗ generally was it an amicable meeting

17:50 ↗ foreign

18:16 ↗ I think generally yes

18:18 ↗ is there anything in these meeting notes

18:20 ↗ or in your own personal recollection

18:22 ↗ that would indicate that this meeting

18:24 ↗ was antagonistic at all or volatile

18:28 ↗ involved any type of a

18:30 ↗ tempers flaring on either side

18:34 ↗ [Applause]

18:36 ↗ I don't remember anything with tempers

18:39 ↗ flaring in this meeting

18:42 ↗ if the meeting had turned volatile or

18:45 ↗ antagonistic would that have been

18:47 ↗ reflected in your notes

18:50 ↗ um yeah I mean if it was extreme then

18:52 ↗ yes probably

18:54 ↗ what would you define as extreme just

18:55 ↗ for purposes of reference

18:58 ↗ um

18:58 ↗ probably somebody raising their voice

19:01 ↗ face turning red threatening to leave a

19:03 ↗ meeting that kind of thing and again to

19:06 ↗ your knowledge that didn't happen at

19:07 ↗ this meeting

19:10 ↗ um

19:11 ↗ not that I recall

19:12 ↗ in the second bullet point there's a

19:14 ↗ reference to needing support from the

19:18 ↗ mayor's office first do you see that

19:20 ↗ reference

19:30 ↗ yes if you give me the context please

19:33 ↗ for that statement what what did it mean

19:35 ↗ to need support from the mayor's office

19:37 ↗ and what was what was at issue

19:40 ↗ um I think what Keith was advising us

19:43 ↗ was that we needed to have both his and

19:48 ↗ the mayor's support of any proposal to

19:51 ↗ make it have a more smooth path forward

19:55 ↗ is it a fair characterization that Mr

19:57 ↗ niven's comments and suggestions to you

20:00 ↗ were aimed at facilitating a proposal by

20:03 ↗ shelter

20:06 ↗ yeah I mean I think that he was trying

20:09 ↗ to walk through

20:11 ↗ um ideas as to how to get

20:15 ↗ to

20:16 ↗ some kind of solution

20:18 ↗ but he also

20:21 ↗ he was not able to I think give us very

20:25 ↗ concrete Direction on some of those

20:27 ↗ items

20:29 ↗ with respect to the reference to the

20:32 ↗ mayor's office who was the Issaquah

20:34 ↗ mayor at the time of this meeting in

20:36 ↗ February of 2016.

20:39 ↗ I believe that would have been Fred

20:40 ↗ Butler

20:44 ↗ based upon Mr niven's recommendation

20:47 ↗ what what efforts on behalf of shelter

20:50 ↗ did you make to to follow his his advice

20:53 ↗ or his recommendation

20:57 ↗ his recommendation regarding getting

20:59 ↗ support from the mayor's office and or

21:01 ↗ the council

21:02 ↗ oh well he advised that we needed to go

21:05 ↗ to the community and get their support

21:08 ↗ if we wanted to get administration and

21:11 ↗ the Mayors by buy-in on a different

21:15 ↗ proposal that was something other than

21:17 ↗ what was under the current development

21:19 ↗ agreement

21:20 ↗ so based on that we began the Outreach

21:24 ↗ that we did to the Issaquah Highlands

21:26 ↗ Community which I think I described

21:28 ↗ earlier and it had involved several open

21:31 ↗ houses focus groups bringing all of our

21:34 ↗ consultants in to meet with the

21:37 ↗ community and answer questions take

21:39 ↗ their feedback and and develop a plan

21:41 ↗ based on that

21:45 ↗ laughs

21:47 ↗ did you recognize at the time of this

21:49 ↗ meeting that any decision in this regard

21:51 ↗ would be up to the city council they

21:53 ↗ would be the ultimate decision makers

21:56 ↗ decision makers on what on a potential

22:00 ↗ extension of a development agreement or

22:03 ↗ a new development agreement or a

22:04 ↗ modification of the classification of

22:06 ↗ your property

22:08 ↗ yes

22:24 ↗ did Miss Moon indicate that she would be

22:27 ↗ supportive of ihisc's

22:30 ↗ proposal working going forward at this

22:33 ↗ meeting

22:39 ↗ [Applause]

22:46 ↗ I'm not sure that we had a specific

22:49 ↗ proposal at that point in time so I'm

22:52 ↗ not sure that she would have offered

22:54 ↗ support of a proposal she indicate any

22:56 ↗ type of opposition to any pro

23:00 ↗ future option for the the shelter

23:02 ↗ property at that meeting

23:21 ↗ I I think she only asked us to to have a

23:24 ↗ more definitive proposal

23:46 ↗ do you then turn to your meeting notes

23:49 ↗ for

23:52 ↗ the May 18 2016 meeting

24:05 ↗ according to the attendee list the

24:09 ↗ persons in attendance at that meeting

24:10 ↗ were Mr Niven MS sloman MR young Mr

24:13 ↗ Evans and yourself

24:15 ↗ yes

24:20 ↗ in the

24:22 ↗ fourth bullet point the hollow bullet

24:24 ↗ point under the first solid bullet point

24:27 ↗ on page one reference to kn

24:32 ↗ KN made clear that the process is very

24:35 ↗ fluid and they are sharing their current

24:37 ↗ sharing their current course but are

24:39 ↗ open to discussion and changing course

24:41 ↗ if needed

24:42 ↗ you give me the context for that and

24:45 ↗ explain what that was intended to mean

24:52 ↗ well the city was briefing us on how

24:55 ↗ they were going to approach the end of

24:58 ↗ development agreements which they were

25:00 ↗ calling End of Days

25:03 ↗ um

25:05 ↗ and Keith was explaining that

25:11 ↗ they really hadn't gotten very far in

25:13 ↗ the process of figuring out what that

25:16 ↗ was going to look what the zoning might

25:18 ↗ look like that they were proposing

25:20 ↗ um after the development agreement

25:23 ↗ was there a discussion at this meeting

25:25 ↗ regarding the future replacement

25:26 ↗ regulations that would govern the

25:28 ↗ Issaquah Highland area after the

25:30 ↗ development agreement was terminated

25:35 ↗ um

25:37 ↗ there was General discussion I don't

25:41 ↗ believe

25:43 ↗ at this well hold on let me let me look

25:45 ↗ at my notes before I answer

26:33 ↗ so there was some discussion of their

26:37 ↗ initial thoughts on the general approach

26:40 ↗ but there was no discussion on the

26:43 ↗ specific replacement regulations because

26:44 ↗ they hadn't been developed or drafted

26:47 ↗ yet

26:49 ↗ did Mr Newman indicate that that would

26:51 ↗ likely be a work in progress for some

26:53 ↗ time at this meeting

27:04 ↗ I don't know if he spoke to timing if

27:07 ↗ there's

27:08 ↗ something specific you want me to look

27:10 ↗ at you could point me to it I'm trying

27:13 ↗ to find out more about the the purpose

27:15 ↗ and what was actually said at this

27:18 ↗ Gathering

27:19 ↗ did Mr Niven indicate that he was unsure

27:21 ↗ where the council really was with

27:22 ↗ respect to the wind down of the

27:24 ↗ development agreements at this point in

27:26 ↗ time

27:30 ↗ yes

27:31 ↗ what did you interpret that to mean

27:35 ↗ that he didn't know what the council had

27:37 ↗ in mind

27:39 ↗ um

27:40 ↗ with respect to the wind down of the

27:42 ↗ development agreements

27:44 ↗ can you please look at the second solid

27:47 ↗ bullet point on the second page of your

27:49 ↗ meeting notes for that meeting

27:51 ↗ beginning with KN said

27:55 ↗ sorry say that again the second solid

27:57 ↗ bullet point correct on page two page

28:00 ↗ two KN said

28:09 ↗ so he explained to us that the talus

28:11 ↗ developer was also asking about

28:13 ↗ mitigation fees already paid and that

28:15 ↗ the city didn't have an answer yet

28:18 ↗ what's the talus

28:20 ↗ development or developer Talus is

28:23 ↗ another master plan in the City of

28:25 ↗ Issaquah and initially the city combined

28:29 ↗ Talus and Issaquah Highlands for

28:32 ↗ purposes of drafting replacement

28:34 ↗ regulations because they were

28:36 ↗ terminating the Two Urban Village

28:38 ↗ developments at the same time and it had

28:41 ↗ originally anticipated having the same

28:43 ↗ regulation set of regulations govern

28:46 ↗ both areas

28:48 ↗ later on in the process they decided to

28:51 ↗ split the two and treat them differently

28:55 ↗ turning to page three of your notes

29:05 ↗ the fifth solid bullet point beginning

29:08 ↗ with KN said you read that please

29:23 ↗ yeah so this is one of the the the times

29:27 ↗ that I referenced earlier uh tonight

29:29 ↗ where he gave a different explanation

29:32 ↗ this is one of the explanations of how

29:35 ↗ you would initiate a development

29:37 ↗ agreement negotiation

29:40 ↗ um

29:41 ↗ so this at this point in time he said

29:43 ↗ that if we were going to start

29:45 ↗ a negotiation of a development agreement

29:50 ↗ we would need Council approval

29:53 ↗ um

29:55 ↗ and that his opinion was it would be

29:58 ↗ very prescriptive

30:00 ↗ and might not allow the flexibility that

30:02 ↗ we were looking for and skipping a

30:05 ↗ bullet point the next reference from Mr

30:07 ↗ Niven KN said that if there is any

30:11 ↗ Resident support for shelter's idea then

30:14 ↗ they need to reach out to council and be

30:16 ↗ vocal because all counsel is hearing is

30:19 ↗ negative what did that mean in your

30:22 ↗ understanding

30:24 ↗ um well we had some discussion about the

30:26 ↗ fact that you know Council was hearing

30:28 ↗ from people that didn't want development

30:31 ↗ um

30:33 ↗ and and part of that discussion turned

30:36 ↗ on the fact that anytime there's there's

30:39 ↗ a development proposal

30:42 ↗ um

30:43 ↗ Council or the the city or the governing

30:46 ↗ agency only here's typically from those

30:49 ↗ that oppose it if you like a project you

30:52 ↗ don't usually spend your evening in city

30:54 ↗ council or a development commission

30:56 ↗ telling them how great it is it's it's

30:58 ↗ those that oppose so we had some

31:01 ↗ discussion on on that

31:04 ↗ um

31:06 ↗ and that's what that referred to if I

31:08 ↗ understood your testimony at this point

31:10 ↗ there was no specific proposal is that

31:12 ↗ correct

31:14 ↗ um I think that was in February there

31:16 ↗ was no specific proposal these notes are

31:18 ↗ from May and in may we had gone out to

31:22 ↗ the community and had our initial open

31:24 ↗ house and at our initial open house

31:26 ↗ there still was not a specific proposal

31:29 ↗ what we did at that open house was we

31:32 ↗ brought all of our market research

31:35 ↗ and our Consultants on various issues

31:38 ↗ that we thought people would be

31:39 ↗ interested in So what had been shared

31:42 ↗ was Market data about how much of each

31:44 ↗ type of use could could be supported in

31:47 ↗ Issaquah Highlands some people

31:48 ↗ definitely misunderstood that that for

31:52 ↗ example there was the market study

31:54 ↗ concluded that there was demand for up

31:58 ↗ to 2500 units of housing additional

32:01 ↗ housing in Issaquah Highlands that was

32:03 ↗ never what we were proposing

32:06 ↗ um but that that number was shared as

32:09 ↗ what the demand would support and so

32:12 ↗ there was there were some people that

32:13 ↗ were confused by that and were

32:15 ↗ contacting the city

32:18 ↗ do you recall were they coming to

32:19 ↗ Council meetings to express their views

32:21 ↗ or were they

32:22 ↗ writing letters to council members how

32:24 ↗ was the council hearing this negative

32:26 ↗ input

32:29 ↗ um I couldn't tell you all the ways that

32:31 ↗ they hear then hear from people in the

32:34 ↗ community

32:34 ↗ um because as uh

32:37 ↗ an outside party we don't have access to

32:40 ↗ that

32:41 ↗ um you know there is definitely

32:43 ↗ a contingent that tends to show up at

32:46 ↗ most is a quasity council meetings and

32:48 ↗ express opinions that are typically

32:50 ↗ against

32:51 ↗ most things

32:55 ↗ but to your knowledge your understanding

32:57 ↗ and recollection it was more than just

33:00 ↗ one or two people that were expressing

33:02 ↗ negative viewpoints at that stage I

33:05 ↗ don't really have any contacts to answer

33:07 ↗ that fair enough thank you Debbie please

33:09 ↗ turn to your September 21st 2016 meeting

33:13 ↗ notes

33:15 ↗ this was a meeting attended according to

33:17 ↗ your notes by Mr Niven Ms sloman Patrick

33:21 ↗ Bellini

33:22 ↗ Gary Young Eric Evans and yourself

33:27 ↗ correct yes

33:30 ↗ please turn to page two of that document

33:34 ↗ [Applause]

33:38 ↗ please read the

33:42 ↗ fifth bullet point beginning with Keith

33:44 ↗ said

33:52 ↗ I'm sorry it's uh September 21st

33:56 ↗ 2016 I believe thank you

34:06 ↗ um that bullet point says Keith said all

34:09 ↗ your mitigation will evaporate and

34:11 ↗ disappear because the city's new

34:14 ↗ concurrency system has no relevance to

34:17 ↗ vested trips however he acknowledged

34:20 ↗ that the city can't make landowners pay

34:21 ↗ again something that the landowner has

34:23 ↗ already paid for so there might be some

34:25 ↗ number of trips vested in the overlay

34:29 ↗ they may be directional only

34:31 ↗ so just to be clear as of

34:34 ↗ September 21st 2016 Mr Niven informed

34:39 ↗ shelter of the city's belief that it

34:41 ↗ could not make landowners pay again for

34:43 ↗ something that the landowner had already

34:45 ↗ paid for is that your recollection of

34:48 ↗ this meeting

34:49 ↗ yes he made that statement on on several

34:52 ↗ occasions and

34:55 ↗ he made statements to the contrary on

34:57 ↗ occasions as well

34:59 ↗ could you please scroll down to the

35:02 ↗ eighth bullet point on page two

35:05 ↗ beginning with Keith indicated

35:09 ↗ and please read that aloud

35:17 ↗ Keith indicated that the solution for

35:19 ↗ mitigation credit related to the D.A

35:21 ↗ will be similar to how the city

35:23 ↗ addresses credits for the talus property

35:26 ↗ and Talus Master developer Dan Hayes and

35:29 ↗ the D.A

35:30 ↗ just for reference obviously refers to

35:33 ↗ the development agreement correct and do

35:36 ↗ you know how the city addressed credits

35:39 ↗ for the Taoist property and Talus Master

35:41 ↗ developer Dan Hayes

35:44 ↗ I don't but I believe the city is

35:46 ↗ involved in a lawsuit with with respect

35:48 ↗ to or lawsuit or appeals with respect to

35:51 ↗ the talus development as well

35:58 ↗ but Mr Keith Mr Niven indicated

36:01 ↗ according to your notes that there was a

36:03 ↗ potential solution for mitigation credit

36:05 ↗ under the development agreement correct

36:10 ↗ he indicated that

36:17 ↗ the solution could be similar to how

36:20 ↗ they cut to a solution that they might

36:22 ↗ come up with for Dan Hayes there was no

36:25 ↗ solution offered for either property at

36:28 ↗ that time

36:30 ↗ thank you can you please turn to the top

36:32 ↗ of page four

36:38 ↗ beginning the first bullet point

36:40 ↗ beginning with Gary asked and read that

36:43 ↗ aloud please

36:52 ↗ yes

36:57 ↗ [Music]

37:00 ↗ Gary asked how shelter can protect its

37:03 ↗ current contractual rights Keith

37:05 ↗ responded that when the D.A expires

37:08 ↗ shelter will lose its contractual rights

37:11 ↗ and the city council will Zone shelters

37:13 ↗ property

37:15 ↗ Keith said at that point shelter would

37:18 ↗ be at the whim of council

37:21 ↗ with your testimony Miss Heim as

37:23 ↗ reflected in your own meeting notes that

37:27 ↗ Mr Niven informed shelter as early as

37:31 ↗ September 21st 2016 of the city's

37:35 ↗ position that shelter would lose its

37:38 ↗ contractual rights when the development

37:41 ↗ agreement expires

37:43 ↗ that the city or pardon me that the the

37:46 ↗ landowner would be quote at the whim of

37:48 ↗ the council following that point

37:51 ↗ with respect to zoning regulations that

37:54 ↗ applied to the council or applied to the

37:57 ↗ property that's what he was referring to

37:59 ↗ as being at the whim of the council and

38:02 ↗ contractual rights do not include vested

38:05 ↗ rights that that occurred pursuant to

38:08 ↗ the development regulations that were in

38:10 ↗ place at the time of the

38:12 ↗ um at the time of the application you

38:15 ↗ don't construe Mr niven's statement

38:18 ↗ regarding contractual rights as

38:21 ↗ referring to rights that accrued under

38:23 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands development

38:25 ↗ agreement I don't construe his statement

38:27 ↗ to be referring to vested rights

38:30 ↗ particularly because at this point in

38:32 ↗ time we weren't talking about vested

38:34 ↗ rights there was no doubt about vested

38:37 ↗ rights we were talking about future

38:39 ↗ zoning of the property and future

38:42 ↗ regulations that would apply after the

38:44 ↗ development agreement terminated there

38:47 ↗ was nothing to make anyone think that

38:50 ↗ vested rights were at issue

38:57 ↗ you please read aloud the third bullet

39:01 ↗ point

39:02 ↗ on page four beginning with Patrick

39:04 ↗ question

39:09 ↗ Patrick questioned what will happen to

39:11 ↗ projects vested under the D.A Keith said

39:14 ↗ that if a project is vested under the

39:16 ↗ D.A it will remain vested for the term

39:19 ↗ of the vesting permit

39:21 ↗ Lucy pointed out that once zoning

39:23 ↗ changes the permits do not have to be

39:25 ↗ extended

39:27 ↗ was there anything in this reference or

39:30 ↗ your discussion on this point at that

39:32 ↗ meeting that specifically referred to in

39:37 ↗ permit application as opposed to a

39:40 ↗ permit or an approved permit

39:44 ↗ well investing always refers to an

39:46 ↗ application

39:48 ↗ I would repeat my question was there

39:50 ↗ specific references in this discussion

39:51 ↗ to Applications

39:55 ↗ I don't remember the exact terminology

39:57 ↗ used but vesting doesn't does issued

40:00 ↗ permits investing isn't it isn't an

40:03 ↗ issue for issued permits vesting is an

40:05 ↗ issue for applications

40:07 ↗ can I please have you turn to your

40:10 ↗ meeting notes from October 27 2016.

40:17 ↗ 2016. is that you said

40:19 ↗ [Applause]

40:29 ↗ thank you

40:32 ↗ this is a meeting between according to

40:35 ↗ your notes

40:36 ↗ Gary Tia and Keith and I assume from

40:40 ↗ Context that that is Mr Young yourself

40:42 ↗ and Keith Niven

40:44 ↗ yes

40:45 ↗ who initiated this meeting do you recall

40:57 ↗ I don't recall

41:00 ↗ do you please look at the

41:06 ↗ eighth and Ninth bullet points on the

41:09 ↗ first page

41:21 ↗ what was the context of those statements

41:32 ↗ I believe this meeting happened just

41:35 ↗ after

41:37 ↗ um

41:38 ↗ mayor Butler had written us an email

41:41 ↗ telling us that he had no interest in

41:44 ↗ the mixed use project that we had been

41:48 ↗ working on with the community and with

41:51 ↗ the staff but more with the community at

41:54 ↗ that point

41:55 ↗ and so

41:57 ↗ um

41:59 ↗ this was a follow-up meeting to that if

42:02 ↗ I'm recalling the dates correctly

42:05 ↗ um and so Keith was explaining

42:10 ↗ some of the

42:13 ↗ factors that he saw as challenges to the

42:17 ↗ timing at which this issue was coming up

42:20 ↗ he

42:24 ↗ also explained that he did not think

42:27 ↗ that this Council was very economically

42:30 ↗ oriented and cited the example that they

42:34 ↗ had enacted the moratorium without ever

42:36 ↗ considering the financial impacts on the

42:39 ↗ city

42:39 ↗ and that they were only now coming to

42:44 ↗ to think about the impacts and he

42:46 ↗ described them as coming from privileged

42:48 ↗ backgrounds where they never had to

42:51 ↗ to worry about money

42:54 ↗ do you please look at the the first

42:56 ↗ hollow bullet point at the top of the

42:58 ↗ page beginning with shelter Holdings

43:00 ↗ wants to focus

43:05 ↗ you want me to look at it or what are

43:07 ↗ you asking me yeah I think could you

43:08 ↗ please refer to it I'll ask you a

43:09 ↗ question about that the reference is

43:11 ↗ that shelter Holdings wants to focus on

43:13 ↗ residential is that an accurate

43:15 ↗ statement of what shelter's proposal was

43:19 ↗ at that point in time

43:21 ↗ um well that that bullet is is

43:24 ↗ giving

43:25 ↗ the two reasons that the city does not

43:29 ↗ want to work with us and so he said one

43:31 ↗ of the reasons was that we wanted to do

43:33 ↗ Residential and the other reason was

43:35 ↗ that the office Market might not be

43:38 ↗ there and that office was really the

43:40 ↗ only thing that that the city was

43:43 ↗ interested in so the fact that we

43:46 ↗ couldn't perform because there was no

43:48 ↗ Market support for the one thing that

43:50 ↗ they wanted was one of the bases for not

43:53 ↗ wanting to work with us

43:56 ↗ and in the third bullet point beginning

43:58 ↗ with Council believes

44:00 ↗ um

44:02 ↗ indicates according to these notes that

44:04 ↗ no one in the highlands at least

44:07 ↗ according to the city council supports

44:09 ↗ any residential on our site including

44:12 ↗ president Stacy Goodman and UB

44:15 ↗ uvdc members Jeff Walker and Carl lay is

44:20 ↗ that an accurate statement of of

44:23 ↗ or understanding of what was said at

44:25 ↗ this meeting

44:26 ↗ yes that Keith told us that yes

44:31 ↗ so your understanding as of October 27th

44:34 ↗ of 2016 was at the Issaquah city council

44:37 ↗ believed that no one in the Issaquah

44:40 ↗ Highlands supported any residential

44:42 ↗ development on your property

44:45 ↗ my understanding was that that's what

44:48 ↗ Keith told us that the that the council

44:50 ↗ believed

44:53 ↗ do you then please turn to your meeting

44:56 ↗ notes from November 10 2016.

45:08 ↗ okay okay

45:12 ↗ according to

45:13 ↗ your notes this meeting be involved Mr

45:17 ↗ Young yourself

45:19 ↗ Mary Lou and Mariah Mary Lou Paulie and

45:23 ↗ Mariah Batiste

45:26 ↗ yes

45:28 ↗ who are Mary Lou Paulie and Mariah

45:31 ↗ Batiste

45:32 ↗ um at that time they were both council

45:34 ↗ members for the City of Issaquah how did

45:37 ↗ you happen to have a meeting with

45:39 ↗ individual council members on November

45:41 ↗ 10 2016. we reached out to them you

45:44 ↗ initiated this meeting I think probably

45:47 ↗ Mr Young did

45:48 ↗ you remember the purpose of doing so

45:52 ↗ um

45:58 ↗ I think we were wanting to get direct

46:00 ↗ feedback from the council members as to

46:04 ↗ what they were

46:05 ↗ thinking or what their Vision was for

46:09 ↗ the long-term planning of our property

46:13 ↗ this was before Mary Lou Paulie became

46:16 ↗ mayor correct correct

46:20 ↗ do you please read the third bullet

46:23 ↗ point from the bottom of the page

46:25 ↗ beginning with on page one beginning

46:26 ↗ with when asked about

46:39 ↗ read that aloud please

46:46 ↗ when asked about her thoughts on retail

46:48 ↗ on the property Mary Lou said staff has

46:50 ↗ never given them any recommendation on

46:52 ↗ that and has really never shown them

46:55 ↗ what the original vision for the

46:56 ↗ property was but whatever that was she

46:59 ↗ would need to see that to stick with

47:01 ↗ that

47:03 ↗ she said staff has not had the time to

47:06 ↗ provide that information to council she

47:08 ↗ was unsure about retail

47:10 ↗ so if I understand this

47:13 ↗ notation correctly

47:16 ↗ Ms Polly or council member Paulie at the

47:19 ↗ time

47:20 ↗ didn't indicate any particular

47:23 ↗ opposition or support for any shelter

47:25 ↗ proposal at that time is that your

47:27 ↗ understanding as well

47:29 ↗ well at this point in time we had

47:33 ↗ received the message from the mayor that

47:34 ↗ the the original mixed-use thing that we

47:37 ↗ wanted to do was a no-go the city wasn't

47:39 ↗ going to support it they told us to go

47:41 ↗ focus on what was in the development

47:43 ↗ agreement and do that so that's what we

47:45 ↗ were trying to do one of the concepts

47:48 ↗ that we floated to

47:50 ↗ council members Paulie and Batiste was

47:53 ↗ to just extend the development agreement

47:56 ↗ as it was with respect to our property

47:58 ↗ to

48:00 ↗ yeah

48:02 ↗ this I guess to back up again you have

48:04 ↗ to give more context the moratorium had

48:06 ↗ been enacted and staff resources were

48:08 ↗ being focused on the work plan and

48:11 ↗ figuring out how to get out of the the

48:13 ↗ moratorium at the same time there was

48:16 ↗ this need to figure out what zoning

48:18 ↗ would come after the development

48:21 ↗ agreements in Issaquah Highlands and

48:23 ↗ Talus so our suggestion was just extend

48:26 ↗ it with respect to our property which is

48:29 ↗ probably the most contentious because

48:30 ↗ it's not developed yet

48:33 ↗ and and we will then focus on the uses

48:37 ↗ that are allowed by the development

48:39 ↗ agreement that's what we were doing at

48:40 ↗ that point in time so

48:44 ↗ she didn't we didn't have necessarily a

48:47 ↗ specific proposal to put in front of her

48:49 ↗ and that wasn't the point of that

48:50 ↗ meeting it was to talk bigger picture

48:53 ↗ and initially she had indicated

48:55 ↗ openness to that concept she thought it

48:58 ↗ made some sense but she wanted to defer

49:01 ↗ to director niven's advice on that so

49:04 ↗ you would characterize her

49:06 ↗ position on future retail development on

49:09 ↗ your property or shelter's property as

49:10 ↗ being essentially non-committal or open

49:12 ↗ at that point

49:15 ↗ yeah

49:17 ↗ could you please look at the

49:21 ↗ fifth bullet point from the bottom of

49:23 ↗ the page on page one of your November

49:25 ↗ 10th 2016 notes

49:28 ↗ beginning with Gary and Tia

49:36 ↗ you please read that bullet point aloud

49:38 ↗ when you have a moment

49:56 ↗ I can read it but I think it needs

49:58 ↗ context to make sense so I think

50:02 ↗ um what we were trying to explain to her

50:04 ↗ was as we started to really focus on the

50:08 ↗ uses under the development agreement

50:09 ↗ which were the commercial and Retail

50:11 ↗ uses

50:13 ↗ um we were finding that the end user of

50:17 ↗ the property whether that be an office

50:20 ↗ developer or an office tenant or retail

50:25 ↗ or medical office

50:28 ↗ um those end users always want to know

50:31 ↗ that when they start spending their

50:33 ↗ resources engaging with you that you can

50:35 ↗ perform and and build whatever it is or

50:39 ↗ sell for them to build whatever it is

50:40 ↗ that is the plan

50:42 ↗ um with a development agreement with a

50:45 ↗ term that had a process for terminating

50:51 ↗ potentially coming up and not having any

50:54 ↗ indication from the city as to what that

50:57 ↗ zoning that might replace it at some

50:59 ↗ unknown point in time there was a lot of

51:02 ↗ uncertainty and so we were feeling that

51:06 ↗ impact our discussions with the The

51:09 ↗ Brokerage community and the potential

51:12 ↗ end users and so that was one of the

51:14 ↗ reasons why

51:16 ↗ um appeal it was appealing to us to just

51:18 ↗ extend it as is let us let us keep

51:20 ↗ working this give give us the tools to

51:23 ↗ make what you are telling us you want

51:25 ↗ happen

51:29 ↗ and that the reference then in that

51:31 ↗ bullet point of your notes to the

51:33 ↗ expiration of the development agreement

51:35 ↗ bringing urgency to this issue was

51:37 ↗ informed by what you just said

51:39 ↗ yeah because I think she was she meaning

51:43 ↗ uh council member Paulie was saying you

51:47 ↗ know all of our staff resources are

51:48 ↗ devoted to this moratorium we really

51:50 ↗ don't have time to undertake anything

51:53 ↗ else and we were trying to explain to

51:56 ↗ her that they're

51:58 ↗ um there was a time sensitivity because

52:00 ↗ of the potential end of the development

52:03 ↗ agreement so it wasn't something that

52:04 ↗ could simply wait for a moratorium that

52:07 ↗ was

52:08 ↗ slated to take 18 months to work out of

52:11 ↗ to be resolved

52:14 ↗ in your second bullet point on page one

52:18 ↗ beginning with Gary began by

52:21 ↗ acknowledging issues and timing problems

52:23 ↗ that exist in the city

52:27 ↗ what was Gary who I assume is Mr Young

52:29 ↗ referring to in his reference to issues

52:33 ↗ and timing problems that exist in the

52:36 ↗ city

52:36 ↗ [Applause]

52:38 ↗ I believe he was probably referring to

52:41 ↗ the same issues that I just described

52:43 ↗ about the moratorium and staff being

52:46 ↗ allocated to the moratorium and

52:49 ↗ potentially to the issues that Keith had

52:53 ↗ identified in one of the previous

52:55 ↗ meetings

52:56 ↗ minutes that we had looked at

52:59 ↗ and in the third bullet point

53:02 ↗ beginning with Mary Lou started off

53:07 ↗ do you please read the second sentence

53:10 ↗ of that bullet point

53:14 ↗ staff does not have any ability to take

53:17 ↗ on another large project thank you that

53:20 ↗ was communicated to you and Mr Young at

53:24 ↗ the meeting

53:26 ↗ um

53:28 ↗ that was the that was what I was just

53:30 ↗ explaining that she was citing the

53:31 ↗ moratorium as a reason for a bandwidth

53:35 ↗ issue for staff and bandwidth as you

53:39 ↗ understood it I assume referred to staff

53:42 ↗ availability and resources at that time

53:45 ↗ yes

53:47 ↗ could you please turn to page two of

53:50 ↗ your meeting notes

53:53 ↗ [Applause]

54:02 ↗ and please read the

54:07 ↗ sixth and seventh bullet points in the

54:09 ↗ middle of the page

54:12 ↗ allowed

54:20 ↗ this is what I I think already explained

54:24 ↗ that we

54:26 ↗ suggested extending the D.A at least

54:28 ↗ with respect to our property may be a

54:30 ↗ win-win as it would give everyone some

54:33 ↗ time

54:34 ↗ we could pursue the office commercial

54:36 ↗ retail and staff

54:39 ↗ sorry and staff would not have to deal

54:41 ↗ with rezoning our portion of the

54:43 ↗ property yet

54:45 ↗ um

54:45 ↗ Mary Lou said she had not heard that

54:47 ↗ idea and seemed to like it she suggested

54:50 ↗ that we pursue it with Keith

54:52 ↗ Mariah agreed that it sounded like a

54:54 ↗ reasonable idea

54:56 ↗ so at this point in 2016

55:00 ↗ then council member Paulie was amenable

55:03 ↗ to

55:05 ↗ The Proposal that shelter had put forth

55:07 ↗ regarding extension of the development

55:09 ↗ agreement

55:14 ↗ proposal because it was just in

55:15 ↗ discussion with her but but yes she

55:17 ↗ didn't immediately object to it it was

55:18 ↗ only after that she got director niven's

55:21 ↗ input that

55:23 ↗ they that the city responded that they

55:26 ↗ weren't interested in that either

55:29 ↗ as of this date Mary Lou said that she

55:31 ↗ had not heard that idea and seemed to

55:34 ↗ like it quote end quote

55:36 ↗ your notes indicate that she was

55:38 ↗ actually visibly supportive of that

55:40 ↗ don't they

55:42 ↗ yes I mean she was open to the idea she

55:45 ↗ had didn't hadn't had any input from

55:47 ↗ staff yet and she didn't immediately

55:49 ↗ have a negative reaction to it she was

55:50 ↗ open to it

55:52 ↗ did I draw your attention to the three

55:54 ↗ bullet points below that beginning with

55:56 ↗ Mary Lou suggested

56:06 ↗ the entire sentence reads Mary Lou

56:08 ↗ suggested we meet with other council

56:11 ↗ members did you meet with other council

56:13 ↗ members at her suggestion

56:15 ↗ we reached out to all the council

56:17 ↗ members some of them met with us and

56:20 ↗ some of them did not at various times

56:23 ↗ and then could you please read the

56:26 ↗ second bullet point from the bottom of

56:28 ↗ the page beginning with Gary asked aloud

56:33 ↗ Jerry asked if they were comfortable

56:34 ↗ disclosing how they slashed the city

56:37 ↗ feels about shelter and whether they

56:39 ↗ have any concerns they both agreed they

56:41 ↗ felt good about shelter and that shelter

56:43 ↗ has a good relationship who is they in

56:46 ↗ that sentence

56:47 ↗ uh it would be Mariah and Mary Lou Miss

56:51 ↗ Polly at this point council member Polly

56:54 ↗ along with council member Batiste

56:57 ↗ oath agreed that they felt good about

56:59 ↗ shelter and that shelter has a good

57:01 ↗ relationship

57:03 ↗ that's what they talk about reflection

57:05 ↗ of your notes at the time yes that's

57:07 ↗ what they told us

57:09 ↗ you please then turn to

57:12 ↗ reading notes from November 14 2016.

57:17 ↗ yes

57:20 ↗ and Mr chairman my co-counsel has just

57:23 ↗ reminded me that we're approximately one

57:25 ↗ hour into the proceeding and I'd be

57:27 ↗ happy to break at this point if you

57:29 ↗ think it'd be appropriate for a restroom

57:31 ↗ break for for everyone

57:34 ↗ I think that would be appropriate I

57:36 ↗ appreciate it let's take a 10 minute

57:37 ↗ break thank you

1:06:50 ↗ all right I'd like to bring the meeting

1:06:53 ↗ back to order and uh Mr Lowe you may

1:06:55 ↗ resume your cross-examination thank you

1:06:57 ↗ Mr chairman uh Miss Heim could you

1:06:59 ↗ please turn to your

1:07:01 ↗ November 14 2016 meeting notes

1:07:05 ↗ yes

1:07:06 ↗ and this as I understand it was a

1:07:07 ↗ meeting between Mr Niven Mr Young

1:07:11 ↗ Mr mullaney and yourself yes

1:07:14 ↗ was this meeting at

1:07:16 ↗ Issaquah City Hall Northwest

1:07:19 ↗ I don't recall the location but I would

1:07:22 ↗ assume that that's probably where we met

1:07:26 ↗ did you attend this meeting at the

1:07:29 ↗ city's request or did you in the shelter

1:07:31 ↗ team initiate the meeting

1:07:34 ↗ I don't know

1:07:36 ↗ do you please turn to the third bullet

1:07:39 ↗ point on page one of your meeting notes

1:07:42 ↗ and read that bullet point aloud for me

1:07:56 ↗ um this bullet point says he explained

1:07:58 ↗ that when we met with

1:07:59 ↗ Mariah and Mary Lou they expressed a

1:08:02 ↗ real concern that the staff's workload

1:08:04 ↗ due to the moratorium was such that they

1:08:07 ↗ cannot deal with anything with respect

1:08:09 ↗ to our property until after the

1:08:11 ↗ moratorium work is done however they

1:08:14 ↗ were open to the idea of extending the

1:08:16 ↗ D.A with respect to our property to

1:08:19 ↗ allow us the opportunity to pursue the

1:08:20 ↗ commercial users that the city wants

1:08:23 ↗ while also giving the city time to

1:08:25 ↗ breathe without having to focus on

1:08:27 ↗ planning for this property

1:08:29 ↗ if I understand this portion of your

1:08:32 ↗ meeting notes Miss Heim this is a

1:08:35 ↗ reiteration by the city

1:08:37 ↗ that staff's current workload at that

1:08:40 ↗ time was extraordinarily high is that

1:08:43 ↗ correct no that's not correct actually

1:08:46 ↗ this bullet is the he in this bullet is

1:08:49 ↗ Gary and so this was Gary explaining the

1:08:52 ↗ the meeting that we had with

1:08:55 ↗ um

1:08:55 ↗ council members Polly and Batiste so he

1:08:59 ↗ was explaining that conversation that we

1:09:01 ↗ just have had gone through just prior to

1:09:03 ↗ our break and we were getting then

1:09:06 ↗ Keith's reaction

1:09:08 ↗ to that

1:09:10 ↗ but there's nothing in that status had

1:09:12 ↗ changed in the interim period between

1:09:14 ↗ the previous meeting and this meeting is

1:09:16 ↗ that correct with relation to staff's

1:09:19 ↗ workload at the time

1:09:21 ↗ I have no way of knowing that

1:09:23 ↗ well there's a statement in your meeting

1:09:25 ↗ notes from November 14th where Mr Young

1:09:29 ↗ is stating that did anyone correct that

1:09:32 ↗ statement from him

1:09:35 ↗ he was explaining what Mary Lou Paulie

1:09:39 ↗ had told us at the previous meeting did

1:09:42 ↗ anyone correct that statement by Mr

1:09:44 ↗ Young at that time

1:09:47 ↗ I'm not sure he was he was explaining

1:09:49 ↗ something that had happened and

1:09:52 ↗ so who would what would need correct

1:09:55 ↗ anything happen to your knowledge and

1:09:57 ↗ with respect to the Staffing at the city

1:09:59 ↗ in the city's development services

1:10:01 ↗ department that would have evolved or

1:10:04 ↗ changed since the the previous meeting

1:10:08 ↗ are you asking me if there were staff

1:10:09 ↗ changes between November 10th and

1:10:12 ↗ November 14th were you aware of anything

1:10:15 ↗ that would change the staff workload

1:10:17 ↗ concern that was expressed at the prior

1:10:19 ↗ meeting

1:10:22 ↗ I'm still not following what you're

1:10:24 ↗ asking me that's a parent I'll move on

1:10:26 ↗ to the next question okay

1:10:28 ↗ can you please turn to

1:10:31 ↗ the second page

1:10:34 ↗ of your meeting notes from that meeting

1:10:38 ↗ in the third bullet point beginning with

1:10:40 ↗ Patrick Patrick asked about

1:10:57 ↗ um so it says Patrick asked about

1:10:59 ↗ whether Keith had given any more thought

1:11:01 ↗ to how they would address mitigation

1:11:02 ↗ paid in the zoning option Keith said

1:11:06 ↗ some of it's easy and other pieces are

1:11:08 ↗ hard but his initial thoughts are as

1:11:11 ↗ follows he encouraged us to put together

1:11:13 ↗ a first proposal for the city's

1:11:15 ↗ consideration and said the city's not

1:11:17 ↗ trying to gouge us

1:11:20 ↗ so Mr Niven said that the city is not

1:11:23 ↗ trying to gouge you as shelter is that

1:11:25 ↗ is that correct

1:11:27 ↗ yes that's what he told us at that

1:11:29 ↗ meeting

1:11:31 ↗ and Mr Niven according to these notes

1:11:34 ↗ encourage shelter to put together a

1:11:36 ↗ first proposal

1:11:38 ↗ for the city's consideration regarding

1:11:40 ↗ mitigation

1:11:42 ↗ yes and we did that

1:11:47 ↗ the enumeration of

1:11:50 ↗ potential mitigation items that follows

1:11:53 ↗ in that third solid bullet point and

1:11:55 ↗ continuing through the

1:11:57 ↗ four hollow bullet points regarding

1:12:01 ↗ water charges governmental service

1:12:03 ↗ impact fees fire and traffic

1:12:07 ↗ is this the first time that these

1:12:08 ↗ mitigation measures or any credit for

1:12:10 ↗ them was discussed between the city and

1:12:12 ↗ shelter

1:12:15 ↗ [Music]

1:12:17 ↗ so I think in one of the earlier

1:12:19 ↗ meetings there was reference to traffic

1:12:21 ↗ mitigation being discussed but following

1:12:24 ↗ up on this we did submit the the

1:12:28 ↗ first proposal that he refer or that was

1:12:31 ↗ referenced in the notes and it was

1:12:33 ↗ requested by Keith but we never got any

1:12:35 ↗ formal response from the city but Mr

1:12:37 ↗ Niven at this meeting again reiterated

1:12:40 ↗ or expressed his

1:12:43 ↗ encouragement for shelter to provide a

1:12:46 ↗ proposal regarding mitigation and any

1:12:48 ↗ credit for that correct

1:12:50 ↗ yes and then when we provided it the

1:12:53 ↗ city never responded to it and this is

1:12:55 ↗ after Mr niven's comment regarding the

1:12:59 ↗ quote evaporation end quote of

1:13:03 ↗ mitigation under the development

1:13:05 ↗ agreement that occurred on I believe the

1:13:08 ↗ September 21st meeting notes

1:13:11 ↗ yeah I think you're identifying one of

1:13:13 ↗ the things that happened throughout this

1:13:16 ↗ process was that the city would take one

1:13:19 ↗ position and then take another position

1:13:20 ↗ and change their mind about how things

1:13:23 ↗ were going to be treated could you

1:13:25 ↗ please turn to the the next page of your

1:13:27 ↗ meeting notes in the first bullet point

1:13:29 ↗ beginning with Patrick asked how

1:13:41 ↗ and read both the solid bullet point and

1:13:44 ↗ the hollow bullet point underneath it

1:13:46 ↗ for the record please

1:13:54 ↗ sorry which one did you want me to read

1:13:55 ↗ the the first

1:13:58 ↗ bullet point at the top of the next page

1:14:00 ↗ beginning with Patrick asked Howe

1:14:02 ↗ Patrick asked how and when the vesting

1:14:06 ↗ portion of the zoning option could be

1:14:08 ↗ negotiated Keith suggested that we make

1:14:11 ↗ a proposal and agreed that sooner is

1:14:14 ↗ better than later

1:14:15 ↗ he encouraged

1:14:17 ↗ use

1:14:19 ↗ I think that means it's supposed to be

1:14:20 ↗ us to look at the mitigation fee

1:14:23 ↗ appendix to the development agreement

1:14:25 ↗ now again this one needs to just

1:14:27 ↗ continue reading the uh the hollow

1:14:30 ↗ bullet point I'll ask you if I want some

1:14:32 ↗ context after that thank you

1:14:34 ↗ okay I just have to say that the vesting

1:14:36 ↗ reference here is not it's again vesting

1:14:39 ↗ under the development agreement again if

1:14:41 ↗ you could please just read the the text

1:14:43 ↗ that I've asked you to read I'll come

1:14:45 ↗ Circle back with context if that's

1:14:46 ↗ appropriate okay for the record I just I

1:14:49 ↗ don't think that this

1:14:50 ↗ will accurately answer anything reading

1:14:53 ↗ it without the context of what we're

1:14:55 ↗ again if you could please just read the

1:14:57 ↗ text that I've asked you to read to the

1:14:59 ↗ extent that your own Council has

1:15:01 ↗ follow-up questions and you'd like to

1:15:03 ↗ express context through that

1:15:05 ↗ redirect examination that's your

1:15:07 ↗ prerogative but I'd ask you to read the

1:15:09 ↗ the specific test that I've asked

1:15:12 ↗ Patrick questioned how this would be

1:15:15 ↗ documented and Keith suggested a

1:15:17 ↗ mitigation certificate of some kind

1:15:19 ↗ would be used so that it could ride with

1:15:22 ↗ the property thank you

1:15:24 ↗ are you familiar and have you read the

1:15:28 ↗ Issaquah Highlands development agreement

1:15:30 ↗ at issue in this proceeding

1:15:33 ↗ have I read the Issaquah Highlands

1:15:34 ↗ development agreement yes yes

1:15:37 ↗ to your knowledge is there a reference

1:15:39 ↗ in the Issaquah Highlands development

1:15:41 ↗ agreement to a mitigation certificate

1:15:45 ↗ not that I recall

1:15:47 ↗ to your knowledge is there a reference

1:15:49 ↗ to a mitigation certificate in the

1:15:52 ↗ Issaquah municipal code

1:15:54 ↗ I don't know

1:15:56 ↗ your knowledge is there a reference to a

1:15:58 ↗ mitigation certificate under

1:16:01 ↗ Revised Code of Washington

1:16:03 ↗ I don't know

1:16:06 ↗ so Mr Niven

1:16:08 ↗ was suggesting in his own right at this

1:16:12 ↗ meeting

1:16:13 ↗ and outside the box approach to

1:16:16 ↗ facilitate some type of credit or offset

1:16:18 ↗ protection for shelter is that correct

1:16:24 ↗ he was

1:16:26 ↗ discussing it he didn't it didn't ever

1:16:30 ↗ have an opportunity to move Beyond just

1:16:33 ↗ discussion your notes Miss Heim indicate

1:16:36 ↗ that Mr Niven encouraged shelter to look

1:16:40 ↗ at the mitigation fee appendix to the

1:16:42 ↗ development agreement and that Keith

1:16:44 ↗ suggested a mitigation certificate of

1:16:47 ↗ some kind that could be used that's that

1:16:49 ↗ seems like an affirmative suggestion

1:16:51 ↗ wouldn't wouldn't you agree

1:16:53 ↗ a suggestion that when we did the things

1:16:56 ↗ that he asked he never responded to

1:17:00 ↗ you please turn to your meeting notes

1:17:02 ↗ from March 21st 2017.

1:17:19 ↗ okay

1:17:21 ↗ you recall who called this meeting or

1:17:23 ↗ who initiated this meeting

1:17:26 ↗ well this was a collaboration meeting

1:17:28 ↗ for The

1:17:30 ↗ Binding site plan slash plot application

1:17:34 ↗ so

1:17:38 ↗ when we met with director Niven

1:17:40 ↗ initially to talk about doing a binding

1:17:42 ↗ site plan we were informed that the

1:17:45 ↗ collaboration meeting should be the

1:17:47 ↗ first step so

1:17:48 ↗ then in response to that we asked for a

1:17:51 ↗ collaboration meeting

1:17:53 ↗ okay thank you and it looks like the

1:17:55 ↗ attendees for this meeting were Mr Niven

1:17:57 ↗ Ms sloman Dan Irvin Gary Young Patrick

1:18:02 ↗ mullaney Mark veldi Dave Caton and tia

1:18:06 ↗ Heim

1:18:07 ↗ is that correct yes could you please

1:18:10 ↗ remind me who Kurt Seaman is

1:18:15 ↗ um

1:18:15 ↗ I don't know for sure but I think he was

1:18:18 ↗ a transportation person for the city

1:18:21 ↗ and Mr Irvin

1:18:23 ↗ uh he was the city's

1:18:27 ↗ I think engineering consultant

1:18:30 ↗ and Mark veldy he's our engineer

1:18:34 ↗ thank you he's with kpff thank you

1:18:38 ↗ on page one in the second bullet point

1:18:41 ↗ could you please read that text

1:18:43 ↗ beginning with City indicated

1:18:46 ↗ City indicated that they would support a

1:18:48 ↗ plat to create the lots and that this

1:18:51 ↗ would be the simplest path Keith

1:18:53 ↗ acknowledged that a plot would vest for

1:18:55 ↗ five years and then five years from the

1:18:58 ↗ final plot date and added that we could

1:19:01 ↗ get vested for an additional three years

1:19:03 ↗ by filing a site development plan after

1:19:06 ↗ the final plot

1:19:10 ↗ thank you are you aware Miss Heim of

1:19:12 ↗ anything in the Issaquah Highlands

1:19:14 ↗ development agreement that refers to

1:19:17 ↗ some type of a five-year vesting period

1:19:20 ↗ for final plots

1:19:25 ↗ um

1:19:26 ↗ let me think about this for a second

1:19:36 ↗ I can't recall if there's anything in

1:19:37 ↗ the development agreement but under

1:19:39 ↗ state law a plot vest for five years

1:19:42 ↗ thank you and so I'm clear in your

1:19:46 ↗ understanding The Five-Year plot vesting

1:19:51 ↗ that you referred to under state law is

1:19:53 ↗ that to your knowledge contained in RCW

1:19:56 ↗ 5817 170 subsection 2A

1:20:01 ↗ I don't have that in front of me

1:20:06 ↗ I'll send you a copy of that statute

1:20:10 ↗ I'm sorry it's a printout from the RCW I

1:20:13 ↗ can

1:20:17 ↗ thank you

1:20:54 ↗ so what was your question again is is

1:20:57 ↗ your understanding that the five-year

1:20:59 ↗ period referred to by Mr Niven for final

1:21:02 ↗ plots is that the same five-year period

1:21:05 ↗ That's contained in that RCW provision

1:21:07 ↗ that I've just provided you

1:21:09 ↗ I don't know what he was referring to in

1:21:11 ↗ that meeting I just know that that's

1:21:12 ↗ what he told us okay and I'll rewind

1:21:15 ↗ then are you aware again of any

1:21:17 ↗ provision in the Issaquah Highlands

1:21:19 ↗ development agreement that would

1:21:21 ↗ set forth a five-year period for final

1:21:24 ↗ plot vesting

1:21:26 ↗ I don't know without reviewing the

1:21:28 ↗ agreement for that specifically are you

1:21:30 ↗ aware of anything in the Issaquah

1:21:31 ↗ Municipal Code that would establish that

1:21:33 ↗ sort of a five-year vesting provision

1:21:35 ↗ for final plots I've never done the

1:21:37 ↗ research on that thank you thank you

1:21:39 ↗ are you aware of anything in the

1:21:42 ↗ Issaquah Highlands development agreement

1:21:44 ↗ that would establish a the quote

1:21:46 ↗ additional three-year period end quote

1:21:49 ↗ that was referenced by Mr Niven for a

1:21:52 ↗ site development permit

1:21:54 ↗ I assumed he was referring to the fact

1:21:57 ↗ that I I believe site development

1:21:59 ↗ permits are valid for three years

1:22:01 ↗ and do you know where the Authority for

1:22:03 ↗ that

1:22:05 ↗ requirement would be I don't

1:22:18 ↗ know the record I'm handing you the

1:22:20 ↗ hearing room copy of the Issaquah

1:22:22 ↗ municipal code and specifically

1:22:24 ↗ referring your attention to IMC 1804

1:22:30 ↗ 220

1:22:32 ↗ subsection d

1:22:34 ↗ one do you see that text miss him I'm

1:22:38 ↗ sorry I didn't bring a copy for Council

1:22:40 ↗ but you're welcome to look at the code

1:22:41 ↗ book

1:22:45 ↗ do you agree that that provision

1:22:47 ↗ contains a three-year effective period

1:22:49 ↗ for Approved permits

1:22:55 ↗ I uh I can't tell what kind of permit

1:22:59 ↗ we're talking about here but it

1:23:05 ↗ it says final decisions approving the

1:23:08 ↗ application shall be valid for three

1:23:09 ↗ years from the date

1:23:12 ↗ of application approval

1:23:14 ↗ as specified in the notice of decision

1:23:17 ↗ except for a longer time period is

1:23:20 ↗ adopted for this chapter thank you

1:23:34 ↗ unless I'm based on what I've showed you

1:23:37 ↗ um

1:23:37 ↗ that you're understanding that Mr

1:23:39 ↗ niven's references to a five-year period

1:23:42 ↗ for final plots and a three-year period

1:23:46 ↗ for site development permits as

1:23:49 ↗ referenced in your March 21st 2017 notes

1:23:54 ↗ were in reference to an approved land

1:23:57 ↗ use decision

1:23:58 ↗ or did Mr Niven give any indication that

1:24:02 ↗ he was referring to an application or a

1:24:04 ↗ land use decision

1:24:06 ↗ I'm not sure I understand that question

1:24:11 ↗ the second bullet point of your March

1:24:13 ↗ 21st 2017 meeting notes that I believe

1:24:16 ↗ that you've just referenced is there

1:24:18 ↗ anything in that

1:24:21 ↗ bullet point

1:24:22 ↗ that refers to an application as opposed

1:24:25 ↗ to an approved permit

1:24:36 ↗ I think that this reference to the site

1:24:40 ↗ development

1:24:41 ↗ filing a site development plan is

1:24:44 ↗ referenced to a permit application

1:24:47 ↗ did Mr Niven say that during the meeting

1:24:51 ↗ I don't have his exact quote but he he

1:24:54 ↗ explained to us that the theory for

1:24:58 ↗ investing that we should follow was we

1:25:02 ↗ already when we were working on the plot

1:25:05 ↗ application at this time that's what

1:25:07 ↗ they were telling us to do is do the

1:25:08 ↗ plot application not The Binding site

1:25:10 ↗ plan that we would have five years from

1:25:14 ↗ the time it the permit was issued to

1:25:17 ↗ file our final plot and record that and

1:25:20 ↗ that we would have five years from then

1:25:22 ↗ to file a sdp

1:25:26 ↗ which would then give us three years

1:25:28 ↗ from that approval

1:25:31 ↗ can you please look at the fourth bullet

1:25:34 ↗ point in your March 21st 2017 meeting

1:25:37 ↗ notes

1:25:39 ↗ and read that for me please

1:25:42 ↗ Keith added that his belief is that we

1:25:44 ↗ vest to land use regulations but not to

1:25:46 ↗ process

1:25:48 ↗ so he thinks that if they later change

1:25:50 ↗ the process I'll just I'm sorry I just

1:25:52 ↗ wanted you to read the text

1:25:53 ↗ that was the text

1:25:56 ↗ they're just the first sentence excuse

1:25:58 ↗ me did did he elaborate on that

1:26:00 ↗ statement the one concerning process at

1:26:03 ↗ this meeting

1:26:06 ↗ um

1:26:10 ↗ I I think the next sentence addresses it

1:26:13 ↗ but beyond that

1:26:14 ↗ [Music]

1:26:14 ↗ um

1:26:15 ↗ yeah at various times including at this

1:26:18 ↗ meeting he talked about vesting to that

1:26:21 ↗ a vested application would best to

1:26:24 ↗ regulations or standards but not

1:26:26 ↗ necessarily process however that's not

1:26:28 ↗ how the city has been handling vested

1:26:31 ↗ applications if I could please have you

1:26:33 ↗ turn to your meeting notes from May 31st

1:26:36 ↗ 2017.

1:26:40 ↗ I'm sorry pardon me your meeting notes

1:26:43 ↗ for September 7th 2017.

1:26:50 ↗ foreign

1:27:01 ↗ notes yes oh you yes and do you recall

1:27:06 ↗ if you prepared these notes

1:27:07 ↗ contemporaneously with the meeting or

1:27:09 ↗ afterward yes these would have been uh

1:27:12 ↗ contemporaneous with the meeting

1:27:15 ↗ who attended this meeting

1:28:02 ↗ I can't tell for sure from this meeting

1:28:04 ↗ but I do recall that this was the

1:28:07 ↗ meeting where we went in to meet with

1:28:10 ↗ with Keith and we were we this was the

1:28:13 ↗ meeting at which we told the told him

1:28:16 ↗ that we were planning to come in with

1:28:18 ↗ site development permit applications

1:28:20 ↗ so I know that at least Keith and myself

1:28:23 ↗ were there and I'm not sure if it would

1:28:26 ↗ have either been Eric or Gary with me

1:28:28 ↗ from from our team

1:28:30 ↗ just to clarify you informed Miss Niven

1:28:33 ↗ at this November I'm sorry September 7th

1:28:37 ↗ 2017

1:28:39 ↗ meeting of shelters intent to come in

1:28:42 ↗ for site development permit applications

1:28:44 ↗ yeah at that time we knew that we were

1:28:47 ↗ coming in with the retail and the

1:28:50 ↗ medical office and we didn't know for

1:28:53 ↗ sure what the other ones would be thank

1:28:55 ↗ you could you please turn to page two of

1:28:58 ↗ your notes

1:29:00 ↗ there's a

1:29:04 ↗ reference to Patrick

1:29:07 ↗ backslash gym and then a dash that

1:29:11 ↗ proceeds with Jim says nothing vested d

1:29:17 ↗ a expires and all

1:29:21 ↗ apps are unvested

1:29:24 ↗ is that an accurate

1:29:26 ↗ recital of that text yes that's what it

1:29:29 ↗ says could you explain to me what that

1:29:31 ↗ was intended to mean is is Patrick

1:29:34 ↗ Patrick mullaney Patrick would be

1:29:36 ↗ Patrick mullaney

1:29:38 ↗ and I think that that bullet or that

1:29:43 ↗ text is referring to the fact that Keith

1:29:46 ↗ was saying that Jim meaning Jim Haney

1:29:51 ↗ was saying that there that nothing is

1:29:54 ↗ vested the D.A expires and all

1:29:58 ↗ applications

1:30:00 ↗ are uninvested thank you and just for

1:30:03 ↗ the record Jim Haney would be the

1:30:05 ↗ Issaquah City attorney correct at that

1:30:07 ↗ at that time

1:30:11 ↗ um

1:30:12 ↗ yes I believe so

1:30:15 ↗ and

1:30:16 ↗ it is your recollection that

1:30:18 ↗ Keith

1:30:21 ↗ explain this and you were essentially

1:30:25 ↗ paraphrasing Mr Niven is that is that my

1:30:29 ↗ understanding is that Keith was telling

1:30:31 ↗ us that Jim was taking these positions

1:30:33 ↗ and that Keith didn't he told us he

1:30:35 ↗ didn't agree with him and he was asking

1:30:37 ↗ us to have Patrick speak with Jim yeah

1:30:40 ↗ so is that statement or that last

1:30:43 ↗ statement reflected somewhere in your

1:30:45 ↗ notes

1:30:46 ↗ no that that's my recollection of the

1:30:48 ↗ meeting thank you but at least from

1:30:51 ↗ what's written in your notes shelter was

1:30:54 ↗ on notice as of September of 2017 that

1:30:58 ↗ the Issaquah City attorney's position at

1:31:01 ↗ least with respect to vesting was that

1:31:03 ↗ quote nothing vested when the

1:31:06 ↗ development agreement expires and that

1:31:08 ↗ all applications are unvested

1:31:12 ↗ there were many positions articulated

1:31:14 ↗ that was one of them they also took the

1:31:16 ↗ position that issued permits would

1:31:18 ↗ disappear and evaporate and that was

1:31:20 ↗ also categorized as Jim's advice so

1:31:23 ↗ there were lots of different versions of

1:31:25 ↗ what we were told was Jim's advice and

1:31:28 ↗ we were told to go speak with him just

1:31:31 ↗ because somebody told us that that may

1:31:35 ↗ be a position of the city doesn't mean

1:31:38 ↗ that

1:31:40 ↗ that's what the development agreement

1:31:42 ↗ says my question I just wanted to

1:31:44 ↗ clarify that this is what was explained

1:31:46 ↗ to you or expressed to you at that

1:31:48 ↗ September 2017 meeting as your notes

1:31:51 ↗ apparently indicate is that correct

1:31:53 ↗ it was it was said to us and explained

1:31:56 ↗ that the development services director

1:31:58 ↗ did not agree with it and does the

1:32:01 ↗ development services directors alleged

1:32:04 ↗ disagreement with the city attorney show

1:32:06 ↗ up in your notes Here

1:32:08 ↗ no but you also see right below it where

1:32:11 ↗ the the notes say that the city hasn't

1:32:14 ↗ asked for the city attorney's opinion so

1:32:16 ↗ again we're getting conflicting

1:32:18 ↗ we were getting conflicting messages

1:32:19 ↗ from the staff so he's saying Jim's

1:32:22 ↗ saying this Patrick needs to talk to him

1:32:24 ↗ we haven't actually asked him yet and

1:32:27 ↗ we're going to do that next week

1:32:29 ↗ your notes reflect the fact that the

1:32:32 ↗ City attorney had opined on this issue

1:32:33 ↗ but the city hadn't asked for the city

1:32:35 ↗ attorney's advice correct thank you

1:32:37 ↗ could you please scroll down to near the

1:32:40 ↗ bottom of the second page of your notes

1:32:43 ↗ from this meeting immediately

1:32:46 ↗ above and to the right of a of a heading

1:32:50 ↗ entitled step one

1:32:52 ↗ there is a reference

1:32:54 ↗ that states quote Lucy wants vesting end

1:32:59 ↗ quote

1:33:01 ↗ um you recall the context and purpose of

1:33:04 ↗ that reference and who said it and and

1:33:08 ↗ um what the reason for that was yeah I

1:33:10 ↗ believe that that was a reference to the

1:33:12 ↗ fact that Lucy wanted to include vesting

1:33:15 ↗ language into the replacement

1:33:16 ↗ regulations which were in draft form at

1:33:20 ↗ that point

1:33:22 ↗ did and Lucy was Miss sloman yes did did

1:33:26 ↗ Miss sloman as part of this meeting

1:33:28 ↗ Express her

1:33:31 ↗ desire for a particular substantive

1:33:35 ↗ content of those vesting provisions and

1:33:38 ↗ the replacement regulations at this

1:33:39 ↗ meeting

1:33:43 ↗ um I honestly can't tell from the notes

1:33:46 ↗ if she was at this meeting I know at

1:33:48 ↗ this point in time the city staff

1:33:51 ↗ meaning Miss sloman and Mr Nivens

1:33:54 ↗ position was that the the vesting

1:33:56 ↗ language that should be included in the

1:33:59 ↗ replacement regulations should reflect

1:34:01 ↗ what the city was doing with respect to

1:34:04 ↗ vesting throughout the city which was to

1:34:05 ↗ acknowledge that vesting occurs at

1:34:08 ↗ preliminary land use complete

1:34:09 ↗ preliminary land use application so

1:34:12 ↗ that would have been the position that

1:34:14 ↗ she would have articulated at this point

1:34:15 ↗ in time okay and you don't have a direct

1:34:18 ↗ recollection of that you're I can't tell

1:34:21 ↗ you if it was at this meeting or a week

1:34:23 ↗ before or a week after or but at this

1:34:25 ↗ point in time

1:34:27 ↗ um that's what the city's position was

1:34:29 ↗ and you can see that when the the

1:34:32 ↗ initial drafts of the replacement

1:34:33 ↗ regulations came out that was what was

1:34:36 ↗ included

1:34:37 ↗ so if I understand your testimony

1:34:40 ↗ correctly MS sloman

1:34:42 ↗ was in favor of

1:34:44 ↗ generous broad vesting protection in the

1:34:48 ↗ replacement regulations

1:34:53 ↗ I'll withdraw the question could you

1:34:55 ↗ please explain again Miss Heim

1:34:58 ↗ what you felt based on Ms sloman's

1:35:01 ↗ comments were to you that Ms slowman

1:35:04 ↗ wanted to see in the replacement

1:35:06 ↗ regulations in terms of vesting

1:35:09 ↗ I think that what staff initially

1:35:12 ↗ proposed and wanted to see at that point

1:35:14 ↗ in time meaning in the fall of 2017 in

1:35:18 ↗ the replacement regulations was vesting

1:35:21 ↗ language that they felt complied with

1:35:23 ↗ Washington State vesting law which was

1:35:25 ↗ to acknowledge that the vesting of

1:35:27 ↗ applications should of site development

1:35:30 ↗ permit applications should happen at the

1:35:33 ↗ preliminary land use application stage

1:35:35 ↗ and that was because both the site

1:35:37 ↗ development permit and the preliminary

1:35:40 ↗ land use permit application were

1:35:43 ↗ required steps in the building permit

1:35:45 ↗ process and the staff referred to them

1:35:46 ↗ as linked permits and when you say that

1:35:50 ↗ staff had supported vesting language of

1:35:53 ↗ that type for the replacement

1:35:55 ↗ regulations

1:35:57 ↗ are you referring to both Ms slowman and

1:35:59 ↗ Mr Niven

1:36:02 ↗ I'm assuming yes because the memos and

1:36:04 ↗ things that the presentations were by

1:36:06 ↗ one or both of them

1:36:08 ↗ to your understanding both Mr Niven and

1:36:12 ↗ miss slowman

1:36:13 ↗ favored the the type of vesting language

1:36:16 ↗ that you just described

1:36:18 ↗ initially in the fall of 2017 yes as of

1:36:22 ↗ this point

1:36:23 ↗ yes we're referring to in September of

1:36:26 ↗ 2017 at the time of of the notes for

1:36:29 ↗ which this meeting were taken yes that's

1:36:31 ↗ what they told us yes

1:36:33 ↗ could you please turn to your meeting

1:36:35 ↗ notes from

1:36:37 ↗ November 28th of 2017.

1:36:51 ↗ this is apparently from the PPC hearing

1:36:54 ↗ on September 28th of that year is that

1:36:57 ↗ correct

1:36:58 ↗ sorry I'm still getting there

1:37:04 ↗ and in case I inadvertently said in

1:37:06 ↗ November I'm referring to September 28th

1:37:09 ↗ and your notes from that meeting oh

1:37:25 ↗ foreign

1:37:30 ↗ yes

1:37:36 ↗ to the record did you attend this

1:37:37 ↗ meeting of the PPC I did this was

1:37:40 ↗ actually the hearing the initial hearing

1:37:41 ↗ on the replacement regulations and that

1:37:43 ↗ in the PPC

1:37:45 ↗ acronym is in reference to the city's

1:37:48 ↗ planning policy commission correct

1:37:49 ↗ correct

1:37:51 ↗ in the fourth hollow bullet point

1:37:56 ↗ under the first solid bullet point

1:38:00 ↗ in reference to statements that were

1:38:03 ↗ apparently made by miss sloman it stated

1:38:06 ↗ that Ms sloman noted that it won't apply

1:38:10 ↗ to polygon where they have a vested land

1:38:14 ↗ use permit but but they meet it anyway

1:38:16 ↗ can you tell me what that statement is

1:38:18 ↗ in reference to

1:38:31 ↗ um that that statement is related to The

1:38:36 ↗ Parks requirement that they were talking

1:38:39 ↗ about in the replacement regulations and

1:38:44 ↗ it was referencing that for polygons

1:38:46 ↗ vested

1:38:48 ↗ permits they wouldn't have to meet the

1:38:52 ↗ new requirements because they were

1:38:53 ↗ vested so polygon had certain permits

1:38:56 ↗ that were already vested at that date do

1:38:58 ↗ you recall what the status of polygon's

1:39:01 ↗ permit I'm looking at the the word

1:39:03 ↗ permit as as being singular in this

1:39:05 ↗ reference in your notes

1:39:07 ↗ um do you know what what the status of

1:39:09 ↗ polygon's permit was in the city's

1:39:11 ↗ application process at that time

1:39:14 ↗ they have multiple

1:39:17 ↗ projects and so I I could probably

1:39:20 ↗ figure it out from looking at the

1:39:22 ↗ exhibit that we looked at last night if

1:39:25 ↗ you want me to do that if you could I

1:39:27 ↗ think that would be helpful and I'm

1:39:29 ↗ happy to take a break if you think that

1:39:30 ↗ would be more than a few minutes

1:39:33 ↗ um it just depends Jackie can you the

1:39:37 ↗ demonstrative that we had last night

1:39:41 ↗ okay

1:39:47 ↗ this one

1:40:09 ↗ that will work

1:40:50 ↗ so I think that it would have referred

1:40:53 ↗ to the likely the polygon

1:40:58 ↗ um

1:40:59 ↗ Westridge North single family plot

1:41:02 ↗ application because that plot

1:41:05 ↗ application was submitted in July of

1:41:10 ↗ 2017 and was deemed complete in July of

1:41:14 ↗ 2017. I suppose it also could have

1:41:17 ↗ referred to an issued permit

1:41:20 ↗ but I think because

1:41:26 ↗ I guess it doesn't my notes don't

1:41:28 ↗ distinguish whether they're talking

1:41:29 ↗ about an application or or a permit

1:41:32 ↗ um thank you I appreciate that

1:41:33 ↗ clarification in the next hollow bullet

1:41:36 ↗ point I believe that you're you're

1:41:38 ↗ paraphrasing Ms Heim here I'm sorry Ms

1:41:40 ↗ slowman here you say in response to

1:41:43 ↗ question she apparently Ms slowman

1:41:47 ↗ pointed out that polygons tract D is not

1:41:52 ↗ vested and will be subject to the new

1:41:54 ↗ regulations

1:41:56 ↗ do you know what that reference meant

1:41:59 ↗ and what is polygons tract d

1:42:07 ↗ um

1:42:08 ↗ it would have been one of polygon's

1:42:11 ↗ other

1:42:12 ↗ Parcels that did not yet have an

1:42:15 ↗ application submitted

1:42:17 ↗ as of

1:42:19 ↗ September 28 2017.

1:42:22 ↗ correct was there much discussion in

1:42:27 ↗ Open session at this November 28th PPC

1:42:31 ↗ hearing regarding specific project

1:42:34 ↗ permit applications and the status of

1:42:37 ↗ them in the Issaquah Highlands

1:42:41 ↗ um if if you wanted me to answer a

1:42:45 ↗ question on specific content of the

1:42:47 ↗ meeting it'd be helpful to have the

1:42:48 ↗ presentation in front of me sure I'll

1:42:50 ↗ come back to that the next bullet point

1:42:53 ↗ the solid bullet point beginning with

1:42:55 ↗ Lucy talked could you please read that

1:42:58 ↗ bullet point in its entirety

1:43:00 ↗ out loud

1:43:06 ↗ Lucy talked about vesting and said it

1:43:08 ↗ was complicated and talking with the

1:43:11 ↗ City attorney

1:43:12 ↗ certain permits are vested by state

1:43:14 ↗ regulations but that the city gets to

1:43:17 ↗ make a policy decision with respect to

1:43:19 ↗ all other permits this was the the

1:43:21 ↗ expressed position of City staff as of

1:43:25 ↗ November or excuse me September 28 2017

1:43:29 ↗ in an open public meeting correct

1:43:34 ↗ there was no vesting language yet

1:43:36 ↗ provided in the replacement regulations

1:43:38 ↗ that were subject to the hearing and so

1:43:40 ↗ they had a placeholder in there and said

1:43:42 ↗ it was coming so in in her

1:43:46 ↗ um

1:43:47 ↗ in her presentation this is what Lucy

1:43:51 ↗ expressed

1:43:55 ↗ throughout the remainder of that

1:43:57 ↗ September 28th 2007 meeting did Ms

1:44:01 ↗ sloman make any additional comments

1:44:04 ↗ publicly that would contradict that

1:44:06 ↗ statement regarding certain permits are

1:44:09 ↗ vested by state regulations that the

1:44:11 ↗ city gets to make a policy decision with

1:44:12 ↗ respect to all other permits

1:44:24 ↗ not that I recall but there wasn't much

1:44:26 ↗ discussion on investing at this point

1:44:28 ↗ since there was no vesting language

1:44:29 ↗ proposed as part of the replacement

1:44:30 ↗ regulations do you recall approximately

1:44:34 ↗ how many people attended that public

1:44:35 ↗ hearing

1:44:36 ↗ I don't

1:44:39 ↗ I then have you turn to your meeting

1:44:41 ↗ notes from

1:44:43 ↗ [Applause]

1:44:54 ↗ October 12th

1:44:56 ↗ of 2017.

1:44:58 ↗ [Applause]

1:45:10 ↗ I'm sorry but uh the uh October 2nd

1:45:14 ↗ pardon me

1:45:18 ↗ [Applause]

1:45:22 ↗ this is also a series of handwritten

1:45:25 ↗ notes as far as I can tell in the

1:45:27 ↗ indication at the top of the page on on

1:45:30 ↗ page one I would suggest that it was a

1:45:33 ↗ meeting with Keith

1:45:34 ↗ so this was a meeting between yourself

1:45:37 ↗ and Mr Niven

1:45:40 ↗ um it would have included either Gary

1:45:43 ↗ Young or Eric Evans also I never met

1:45:46 ↗ with Mr Niven by myself okay thank you

1:45:49 ↗ and could you please turn to

1:45:53 ↗ page two

1:46:03 ↗ there is an underlined handwritten

1:46:06 ↗ heading entitled

1:46:08 ↗ believe

1:46:10 ↗ big topics do you see that

1:46:15 ↗ yes

1:46:18 ↗ and I believe

1:46:20 ↗ connected with that a reference to Min f

1:46:24 ↗ a r which I assume is minimum far does

1:46:27 ↗ that

1:46:28 ↗ import with your recollection yes

1:46:31 ↗ because the minimum far was proposed to

1:46:35 ↗ be added to the replacement regulations

1:46:36 ↗ just before that hearing on on September

1:46:40 ↗ of 2017.

1:46:42 ↗ and immediately below that big topics

1:46:45 ↗ heading there is a a statement if I'm

1:46:48 ↗ reading this correctly that reads mayor

1:46:52 ↗ supports far in IH and Talus

1:46:58 ↗ is that an accurate reading of your

1:47:00 ↗ handwritten notes yes

1:47:02 ↗ and the mayor at this point would have

1:47:05 ↗ been mayor Fred Butler correct correct

1:47:08 ↗ mayor Mary Lou Paulie the city's current

1:47:10 ↗ mayor had not yet taken office or been

1:47:13 ↗ elected

1:47:14 ↗ correct

1:47:17 ↗ was this the first that you had heard

1:47:19 ↗ that mayor Butler supported a minimum

1:47:23 ↗ floor area ratio in the Issaquah

1:47:26 ↗ Highlands and Talus areas

1:47:37 ↗ I believe so because the the minimum far

1:47:41 ↗ came as a complete shock to us we had

1:47:43 ↗ been having ongoing discussions with the

1:47:46 ↗ city about the replacement regulations

1:47:47 ↗ and nothing was included with with

1:47:50 ↗ respect to minimum or maximum fars and

1:47:54 ↗ then right after we introduced the fact

1:47:57 ↗ that we were coming in with our retail

1:47:59 ↗ proposal and our medical office building

1:48:02 ↗ the staff introduced the minimum far

1:48:05 ↗ concept which would undermine both of

1:48:08 ↗ those projects

1:48:10 ↗ so the this would have been one of our

1:48:13 ↗ first discussions with staff regarding

1:48:16 ↗ the minimum far as we were totally

1:48:18 ↗ blindsided by it

1:48:20 ↗ you recall it was the mayor at this

1:48:23 ↗ meeting or was this reference to the

1:48:26 ↗ mayor supporting a minimum far

1:48:29 ↗ information that was conveyed to you by

1:48:32 ↗ Mr Niven or other staff members no the

1:48:34 ↗ mayor was not at the meeting so this

1:48:36 ↗ would have been something that Mr Niven

1:48:38 ↗ was telling us

1:48:39 ↗ and if I could refer your attention back

1:48:42 ↗ to the the previous page of your October

1:48:45 ↗ second minutes there is a reference on

1:48:49 ↗ the first page in about mid page under

1:48:53 ↗ the heading Min f a r

1:48:58 ↗ that reads I believe

1:49:01 ↗ admin won't back off far quote unquote

1:49:07 ↗ is that an accurate reading of your

1:49:09 ↗ handwritten notes yes what did that mean

1:49:13 ↗ the administration won't back off of

1:49:15 ↗ requiring a minimum far

1:49:19 ↗ who was the administration that you were

1:49:21 ↗ referring to at that time was that Mr

1:49:22 ↗ Fred Butler the the mayor or was that

1:49:25 ↗ some subordinate official in the city's

1:49:29 ↗ bureaucracy

1:49:31 ↗ um I understood it to be Mr Niven and

1:49:34 ↗ the mayor

1:49:42 ↗ going back to the second page of your

1:49:45 ↗ meeting notes under the

1:49:48 ↗ heading underlined vesting

1:49:53 ↗ there is text that reads and I'm

1:49:57 ↗ struggling a little bit with the

1:49:58 ↗ handwriting but please correct me if I'm

1:50:00 ↗ wrong quote code will identify sdp as

1:50:06 ↗ vesting permit

1:50:09 ↗ pre-app application vests you

1:50:13 ↗ Platt sdp

1:50:18 ↗ asp

1:50:20 ↗ will address vesting in code is that an

1:50:24 ↗ accurate reading of your handwritten

1:50:25 ↗ notes

1:50:26 ↗ that is accurate and it can give you

1:50:28 ↗ some context if you'd like please thank

1:50:30 ↗ you

1:50:31 ↗ so this was

1:50:34 ↗ Mr Niven explaining to us that the code

1:50:37 ↗ language was going to that

1:50:40 ↗ the vesting language that they were

1:50:42 ↗ going to be inserting into the

1:50:43 ↗ replacement regulations was going to

1:50:46 ↗ identify that site development permits

1:50:49 ↗ were a vesting permit and that

1:50:53 ↗ preliminary land use applications vest

1:50:56 ↗ for purposes of city code

1:50:59 ↗ and so then the list underneath of plot

1:51:03 ↗ sdp asdp

1:51:05 ↗ um

1:51:07 ↗ that was just a note that they would all

1:51:09 ↗ be addressed in in the code so they they

1:51:13 ↗ had

1:51:14 ↗ this was articulating the position of

1:51:16 ↗ what was going to be proposed by the by

1:51:19 ↗ the staff and the administration

1:51:22 ↗ um

1:51:25 ↗ as far as vesting language and the

1:51:27 ↗ replacement regulations

1:51:29 ↗ if I'm understanding

1:51:31 ↗ that statement

1:51:33 ↗ in conjunction with your

1:51:36 ↗ prior testimony

1:51:38 ↗ the same time staff were proposing a

1:51:41 ↗ minimum far

1:51:44 ↗ they were also proposing

1:51:47 ↗ vesting language for purposes of the

1:51:49 ↗ replacement regulations that would vest

1:51:55 ↗ stp's pre-applications

1:51:58 ↗ Flats

1:52:00 ↗ perhaps other

1:52:02 ↗ yes

1:52:03 ↗ thank you

1:52:05 ↗ please look at the handwritten heading

1:52:10 ↗ beginning with the word m and I believe

1:52:13 ↗ it is mitigation but I I will defer to

1:52:17 ↗ you on that because this is your writing

1:52:19 ↗ do you see that about two-thirds of the

1:52:21 ↗ way down the page on page two yes is

1:52:24 ↗ that word mitigation yes I believe so

1:52:28 ↗ and the text that immediately follows

1:52:30 ↗ that is quote

1:52:32 ↗ Jim brightline expires

1:52:37 ↗ hasn't waver end quote is that accurate

1:52:41 ↗ I think that looks right could you

1:52:43 ↗ please

1:52:44 ↗ describe what this was intended to mean

1:52:47 ↗ um this is what I was talking about

1:52:48 ↗ earlier where Mr Niven would explain to

1:52:51 ↗ us that he thought the City attorney was

1:52:53 ↗ taking one position and and he didn't

1:52:57 ↗ agree with it so with respect to

1:53:00 ↗ mitigation and this is separate from the

1:53:02 ↗ vesting issue but just mitigation

1:53:04 ↗ provided under the development agreement

1:53:06 ↗ and what happens to it after termination

1:53:09 ↗ so Mr Niven was telling us that the City

1:53:13 ↗ attorney was still taking the same

1:53:15 ↗ position again Jim in that context is

1:53:18 ↗ Jim Haney The City attorney correct

1:53:21 ↗ you please again and I'm sorry if I

1:53:24 ↗ missed this uh explain the reference to

1:53:28 ↗ waiver in that statement

1:53:32 ↗ I think that means I think it actually

1:53:34 ↗ should mean

1:53:35 ↗ wavered like he has not wavered in his

1:53:38 ↗ position but again we never despite all

1:53:41 ↗ the attempts we made through our

1:53:43 ↗ attorney to contact the City attorney we

1:53:45 ↗ never got direct feedback from him as to

1:53:48 ↗ what the actual position was until much

1:53:52 ↗ later thank you could you please turn to

1:53:55 ↗ your meeting notes from October 12 2017.

1:54:02 ↗ mm-hmm this is also a handwritten

1:54:05 ↗ document and apart from the date

1:54:07 ↗ reference on the top of the the single

1:54:10 ↗ page that's provided here there's a

1:54:13 ↗ basic reference to meeting with Keith

1:54:16 ↗ Niven do you see that text yes were

1:54:20 ↗ there other attendees at this meeting

1:54:25 ↗ um

1:54:31 ↗ I can't tell from the notes but I know

1:54:34 ↗ like I said before that it likely Gary

1:54:38 ↗ Young or otherwise Eric Evans would have

1:54:40 ↗ attended with me

1:54:43 ↗ do you look about two-thirds of the way

1:54:46 ↗ down

1:54:47 ↗ the page

1:54:49 ↗ under the handwritten heading

1:54:53 ↗ I believe this is correct tomorrow

1:54:55 ↗ packet

1:54:58 ↗ and the reference to

1:55:03 ↗ ask Lucy for code potentially

1:55:08 ↗ narrow Gap by vesting language to be

1:55:11 ↗ inserted

1:55:13 ↗ City attorney working on it now was that

1:55:16 ↗ an accurate reading of your of your

1:55:18 ↗ notes I think so please explain what

1:55:21 ↗ that was intended to to mean

1:55:24 ↗ there was some sort of packet coming out

1:55:27 ↗ for a public meeting

1:55:30 ↗ um

1:55:32 ↗ and that I was supposed to ask Lucy for

1:55:35 ↗ the draft code

1:55:36 ↗ I'm not sure what potentially narrow Gap

1:55:40 ↗ means but it also references that

1:55:43 ↗ vesting language was to be inserted in

1:55:45 ↗ the code and the City attorney was

1:55:47 ↗ reviewing the vesting language

1:55:50 ↗ that ultimately got it's inserted into

1:55:52 ↗ the code in October of 2017.

1:55:56 ↗ so that vesting language was ultimately

1:55:59 ↗ inserted into the code as these meeting

1:56:01 ↗ minutes indicated would happen that's

1:56:04 ↗ correct at some point in October I don't

1:56:07 ↗ have the exact date in front of me there

1:56:09 ↗ was a draft of the replacement

1:56:10 ↗ regulations that came out that included

1:56:13 ↗ vesting language which was as described

1:56:16 ↗ by Keith at the previous meeting and it

1:56:19 ↗ acknowledged the vesting of land use

1:56:23 ↗ applications

1:56:24 ↗ and that was a vesting approach that was

1:56:29 ↗ supported by the then Administration

1:56:33 ↗ as far as you were aware I would assume

1:56:35 ↗ because it was being recommended to to

1:56:37 ↗ land Insurance to council and it had

1:56:40 ↗ been reviewed by the City attorney

1:56:43 ↗ did you

1:56:45 ↗ publicly express your support for that

1:56:48 ↗ vesting language

1:56:51 ↗ um at some point we did yes express your

1:56:54 ↗ support

1:56:58 ↗ I would have either been in comments at

1:57:00 ↗ public meeting or in letters

1:57:03 ↗ letters into the public hearing record

1:57:05 ↗ or letters to staff

1:57:07 ↗ to well I mean there may be there may be

1:57:10 ↗ emails with staff but for sure in the

1:57:14 ↗ the public record at one point

1:57:17 ↗ um at one point Mr Niven asked us not to

1:57:21 ↗ or suggested I should say that we that

1:57:23 ↗ we not bring up vesting because he

1:57:26 ↗ didn't want to call attention to it

1:57:30 ↗ necessarily if the council or Landon

1:57:32 ↗ Shore weren't raising it on their own

1:57:34 ↗ and then later in the process he asked

1:57:37 ↗ us to support the language and we did

1:57:41 ↗ if I understood your your testimony

1:57:43 ↗ right then

1:57:44 ↗ Mr Niven was suggesting that you not

1:57:48 ↗ publicly

1:57:49 ↗ acknowledge or support the proposed

1:57:51 ↗ vesting language because he was

1:57:53 ↗ attempting to

1:57:56 ↗ ensure that it passed or to not draw

1:57:59 ↗ attention to it in the eyes of the of

1:58:01 ↗ the council or Landon Shore committee

1:58:03 ↗ was that was that the purpose as you

1:58:05 ↗ understood it as I understood it

1:58:07 ↗ initially he just advised us that if

1:58:10 ↗ they were not bringing it up then we

1:58:12 ↗ should not bring it up it was in the

1:58:13 ↗ what was being proposed later in the

1:58:16 ↗ process he asked us to support it which

1:58:18 ↗ we did

1:58:19 ↗ did you interpret Mr niven's comments in

1:58:25 ↗ that respect as

1:58:28 ↗ essentially favoring your proposal your

1:58:30 ↗ position on the vesting language

1:58:34 ↗ um I I mean we weren't having a position

1:58:36 ↗ the city was taking a position

1:58:40 ↗ but it was a position that you were

1:58:43 ↗ publicly supporting I believe you just

1:58:44 ↗ testified you ended that later we

1:58:47 ↗ publicly supported it yes and that was

1:58:49 ↗ consistent with what staff was also

1:58:51 ↗ supporting

1:58:52 ↗ so yes I mean the replacement

1:58:54 ↗ regulations it was a really long

1:58:56 ↗ document so I mean there were lots of

1:58:58 ↗ Provisions that we never said oh I

1:59:00 ↗ really like section 1819b blah blah blah

1:59:03 ↗ um I'm sorry shelter never expressed a

1:59:06 ↗ specific support for every provision in

1:59:09 ↗ the replacement regulations no but it

1:59:11 ↗ did Express support for the vesting

1:59:14 ↗ provision that had been proposed by City

1:59:16 ↗ staff at some point we did yes

1:59:22 ↗ Mr chairman this might also be a good

1:59:25 ↗ time for a break or essentially another

1:59:27 ↗ hour in but I'm happy to keep going if

1:59:29 ↗ that's your preference

1:59:36 ↗ okay I appreciate that let's take a 10

1:59:39 ↗ minute break thank you before we go on

1:59:41 ↗ break I'm just curious um if you have

1:59:43 ↗ kind of a rough idea of how much longer

1:59:45 ↗ you might be with your cross tonight or

1:59:47 ↗ do you think you'll wrap up or I think

1:59:49 ↗ we're probably going to be going through

1:59:51 ↗ the evening and I apologize uh Mr

1:59:53 ↗ chairman I believe that I may have been

1:59:55 ↗ a little optimistic in my original

1:59:58 ↗ estimate on on that so I I fully expect

2:00:01 ↗ that our cross-examination will consume

2:00:04 ↗ the rest of tonight's proceeding

2:00:06 ↗ we we probably didn't have a different

2:00:08 ↗ expectation than that so

2:00:11 ↗ understanding the legal time constraints

2:00:14 ↗ so I appreciate it let's take a 10

2:00:15 ↗ minute break and we'll be back

2:11:54 ↗ foreign

2:11:57 ↗ okay I'd like to call the meeting back

2:11:59 ↗ to order and uh Mr Lowe would you please

2:12:03 ↗ continue your cross-examination thank

2:12:06 ↗ you Mr chairman

2:12:07 ↗ can you please turn this Heim to your

2:12:10 ↗ October 3rd to set 2017.

2:12:15 ↗ meeting notes

2:12:17 ↗ yes

2:12:20 ↗ this again is a handwritten series of

2:12:23 ↗ notes and it's only titled with the date

2:12:26 ↗ collaboration

2:12:29 ↗ meeting

2:12:32 ↗ retail

2:12:33 ↗ and it appears that the attendees are

2:12:38 ↗ mg2

2:12:40 ↗ kpff yourself Ms sloman and Gene who I

2:12:45 ↗ assume is Gene Lynn is that correct

2:12:47 ↗ correct and who is mg2

2:12:50 ↗ mg2 is our architect and consultant on

2:12:56 ↗ the retail proposal and kpff is our

2:12:59 ↗ engineer thank you

2:13:01 ↗ what was the purpose of this meeting

2:13:03 ↗ this was the collaboration meeting for

2:13:05 ↗ the retail sdp

2:13:08 ↗ and

2:13:15 ↗ is there any discussion regarding

2:13:17 ↗ vesting at this meeting

2:13:51 ↗ foreign

2:14:37 ↗ to it in the notes

2:14:39 ↗ was there any discussion at this meeting

2:14:41 ↗ to your recollection of the

2:14:45 ↗ placement regulations and whatever form

2:14:47 ↗ they happen to be at that point

2:15:11 ↗ I don't see any reference to replacement

2:15:12 ↗ regulations

2:15:14 ↗ did staff at who attended this meeting

2:15:17 ↗ which I apparently was Lucy sloman and

2:15:20 ↗ Jean Lynn

2:15:21 ↗ expressed during the course of this

2:15:23 ↗ meeting any opposition to the concept of

2:15:27 ↗ retail development on that project site

2:15:34 ↗ foreign

2:16:07 ↗ I don't think so we weren't really

2:16:09 ↗ talking about the application at that

2:16:11 ↗ level we were talking about the actual

2:16:14 ↗ proposal okay so just to clarify

2:16:18 ↗ your recollection and as your notes May

2:16:21 ↗ indicate there was no expression by the

2:16:24 ↗ the staff members present at that

2:16:26 ↗ meeting regarding any opposition to

2:16:28 ↗ retail development on your property

2:16:33 ↗ no I think staff acknowledged that it

2:16:36 ↗ was a permitted use on the property they

2:16:39 ↗ did they acknowledged that at this

2:16:40 ↗ meeting

2:16:41 ↗ well yeah I mean we're sitting there

2:16:43 ↗ talking about the application so they

2:16:46 ↗ acknowledge that the

2:16:48 ↗ application was going to look like this

2:16:51 ↗ and they gave feedback specifically on

2:16:53 ↗ certain aspects that are noted

2:16:56 ↗ um on in in the notes but retail is

2:17:01 ↗ permitted under the development

2:17:02 ↗ agreement the development and agreement

2:17:03 ↗ regulations are what apply

2:17:06 ↗ that's what we were talking about at the

2:17:07 ↗ meeting thank you can you please scroll

2:17:10 ↗ down to near the end of the first page

2:17:14 ↗ the reference to Lucy make it a good

2:17:19 ↗ neighbor to residential

2:17:23 ↗ something beginning with the word s

2:17:26 ↗ start to screen property

2:17:29 ↗ by reading that accurately

2:17:33 ↗ um I think it says Lucy make it a good

2:17:36 ↗ neighbor to the residential and then it

2:17:38 ↗ says Steve start to screen parking so

2:17:42 ↗ that's a reference to one of the

2:17:44 ↗ comments that we got on

2:17:47 ↗ um

2:17:48 ↗ on I think all of our sdps was that we

2:17:51 ↗ needed to make the proposal a good

2:17:54 ↗ neighbor specifically to the polygon

2:17:56 ↗ properties that were going to be

2:17:58 ↗ developed that were closest in proximity

2:18:00 ↗ to us

2:18:02 ↗ um and so one of the ways that you do

2:18:05 ↗ that is through screening parking

2:18:07 ↗ screening your parking and providing

2:18:09 ↗ pedestrian connections and that kind of

2:18:11 ↗ thing okay and that that was the

2:18:12 ↗ reference to Good Neighbor that was what

2:18:14 ↗ that was intended to mean the the

2:18:16 ↗ screening and your understanding well I

2:18:18 ↗ don't think it's just screening but that

2:18:20 ↗ that comment was related to how you

2:18:24 ↗ um

2:18:26 ↗ how you cite uses next to each other

2:18:28 ↗ thank you could you please turn to the

2:18:30 ↗ next page of your notes about three

2:18:33 ↗ quarters of the way down the page

2:18:36 ↗ the handwritten statement and I believe

2:18:38 ↗ I'm reading this correctly include a

2:18:41 ↗ detail of how to address residential

2:18:45 ↗ then don't have to write it

2:18:49 ↗ my reading that statement accurately

2:18:53 ↗ um yes I think that's what it says what

2:18:55 ↗ was that intended to mean I think that's

2:18:58 ↗ a reference to the same thing we were

2:18:59 ↗ just talking about just how to address

2:19:02 ↗ the interaction with residential

2:19:09 ↗ the very top of the page there's a

2:19:11 ↗ statement that I believe reads Lucy

2:19:14 ↗ Lessons Learned From GR

2:19:19 ↗ he

2:19:21 ↗ is that correct yes so that's lessons

2:19:23 ↗ learned from Grand Ridge Plaza which is

2:19:25 ↗ the shopping center across the street

2:19:27 ↗ from our proposed retail development

2:19:31 ↗ thank you

2:19:32 ↗ and could you please turn to your

2:19:36 ↗ October 24th 2017 meeting notes

2:19:40 ↗ yes

2:19:41 ↗ this is entitled storage Dash lot 9 and

2:19:46 ↗ again aided October 24th 2017.

2:19:51 ↗ I did not glean a reference of who the

2:19:55 ↗ attendees might be except for a few

2:19:57 ↗ scattered names on the following Pages

2:20:00 ↗ do you recall who would have attended

2:20:01 ↗ this meeting

2:20:04 ↗ um

2:20:04 ↗ I

2:20:07 ↗ I know that someone from Jackson Maine

2:20:09 ↗ architecture would have attended this

2:20:12 ↗ um

2:20:16 ↗ and it would have again been

2:20:19 ↗ Gene and Lucy from the city it looks

2:20:22 ↗ like

2:20:23 ↗ Doug also Doug schlepp also attended on

2:20:26 ↗ behalf of the city

2:20:28 ↗ um

2:20:32 ↗ I can't tell for sure from this I'd have

2:20:35 ↗ to look at my calendar or something to

2:20:38 ↗ figure out what other Consultants might

2:20:39 ↗ have attended what was the purpose of

2:20:42 ↗ this meeting do you recall

2:20:47 ↗ um

2:20:48 ↗ let me think about this

2:20:53 ↗ I don't know whether this is the

2:20:55 ↗ collaborative meeting or the pre-op

2:20:57 ↗ meeting for the storage proposal but

2:20:59 ↗ it's one of the two

2:21:03 ↗ the bottom of page one of your notes

2:21:06 ↗ there's a reference to gr shares B

2:21:10 ↗ backslash w

2:21:12 ↗ all blocks

2:21:15 ↗ Plus

2:21:17 ↗ some word beginning with C could do same

2:21:21 ↗ am I reading that accurately I think it

2:21:23 ↗ says gr shares between all blocks and we

2:21:27 ↗ could do the same so that's again a

2:21:29 ↗ reference to Grand Ridge Plaza and their

2:21:31 ↗ parking they share between blocks and

2:21:33 ↗ they suggested that we could do the same

2:21:35 ↗ because we were talking about the the

2:21:37 ↗ parking issue with respect to the

2:21:39 ↗ storage that the code required way more

2:21:42 ↗ parking spaces than anyone thought were

2:21:45 ↗ necessary

2:21:47 ↗ thank you can you please turn to the

2:21:49 ↗ last page or I'm sorry the yeah the last

2:21:51 ↗ page of those meeting notes

2:21:57 ↗ there is a reference in your handwriting

2:22:00 ↗ that I believe reads quote at end of

2:22:03 ↗ pre-app process

2:22:06 ↗ city gives letters of

2:22:10 ↗ correction

2:22:14 ↗ or all submittal particularly

2:22:16 ↗ requirements for submittal am I reading

2:22:19 ↗ that correctly

2:22:21 ↗ um I think it says at the end of pre-op

2:22:22 ↗ process city gives letter of and then it

2:22:26 ↗ says above comments and Below

2:22:27 ↗ Corrections

2:22:29 ↗ additional submittal

2:22:32 ↗ particular requirements for submittal

2:22:37 ↗ and I'm sorry could you elaborate on

2:22:40 ↗ what that was intended to

2:22:41 ↗ address so I think this is the direction

2:22:44 ↗ that we were getting from City staff

2:22:46 ↗ about what would happen at the end of

2:22:49 ↗ the pre-app process that we would

2:22:51 ↗ get a comment or correction letter that

2:22:56 ↗ might have additional submittal

2:22:57 ↗ requirements

2:22:59 ↗ and you did shelter receive additional

2:23:02 ↗ comment letters based on that

2:23:06 ↗ concept are you asking specifically

2:23:08 ↗ about the storage uh yes

2:23:12 ↗ um yes we would have received a pre-op

2:23:14 ↗ comment letter at some point

2:23:17 ↗ it was that letter in evidence already

2:23:19 ↗ uh

2:23:24 ↗ yes I believe it is I believe it was

2:23:25 ↗ would have been part of that application

2:23:27 ↗ or resubmittal thank you immediately

2:23:30 ↗ below that reference in your meeting

2:23:32 ↗ notes there's a reference that reads to

2:23:35 ↗ my best of my ability quote vesting

2:23:38 ↗ can't answer

2:23:40 ↗ Lucy pointed out to Stacy today

2:23:45 ↗ Council May disagree that Lu permits

2:23:50 ↗ should vest

2:23:53 ↗ is Lu permits a reference to land use

2:23:55 ↗ permits yes

2:23:57 ↗ is that an accurate

2:23:59 ↗ reading of your notes Here

2:24:05 ↗ um yes I think that's what they say

2:24:07 ↗ who in reference to the vesting can't

2:24:12 ↗ answer

2:24:14 ↗ what question was asked that could not

2:24:17 ↗ be answered

2:24:21 ↗ um I believe that one of our Consultants

2:24:23 ↗ asked about when a permit application

2:24:27 ↗ vests and Lucy's response was that she

2:24:31 ↗ can't answer but then she went on to

2:24:33 ↗ explain that she had advised Stacy

2:24:36 ↗ Goodman that day that Council May

2:24:39 ↗ disagree

2:24:41 ↗ and decide that land use permits should

2:24:44 ↗ not vest even though they were currently

2:24:47 ↗ vesting permits in the city

2:24:55 ↗ was there further discussion about the

2:24:58 ↗ vesting issue at this meeting beyond

2:25:01 ↗ what your notes indicate

2:25:03 ↗ I I can't recall

2:25:07 ↗ but just to clarify MS sloman

2:25:10 ↗ could not provide a definitive answer to

2:25:13 ↗ the question of whether you're

2:25:15 ↗ application for the storage building

2:25:17 ↗ wood vest is that correct

2:25:21 ↗ um yes I think in the context of the

2:25:24 ↗ larger discussions that we're having

2:25:27 ↗ where we were having with various people

2:25:30 ↗ and bodies at the city

2:25:33 ↗ um there were there was this idea that

2:25:37 ↗ it often was expressed by miss slowman

2:25:40 ↗ that um

2:25:42 ↗ whether to continue to recognize the

2:25:45 ↗ vested status of an application was a

2:25:47 ↗ policy determination that the council

2:25:49 ↗ could make every time that that was

2:25:51 ↗ raised we objected to it and and said

2:25:55 ↗ that's not legal that's not that's not

2:25:57 ↗ consistent with uh

2:26:00 ↗ Washington state law I don't think that

2:26:03 ↗ in the context of this meeting there was

2:26:06 ↗ a deeper discussion because it was not

2:26:10 ↗ specifically on that topic it was on

2:26:13 ↗ this was the I think the collaboration

2:26:15 ↗ meeting for the storage application if I

2:26:19 ↗ understood your testimony Ms sloman did

2:26:21 ↗ reiterate her previous position during

2:26:24 ↗ this meeting that the council May

2:26:26 ↗ disagree that land use permits should

2:26:29 ↗ vest

2:26:30 ↗ correct yes that was her position and

2:26:34 ↗ that was in reference to the pending

2:26:38 ↗ adoption of the replacement regulations

2:26:40 ↗ yes it's sort of confusing because

2:26:42 ↗ they're talking about a regulation

2:26:45 ↗ that's not yet adopted and suggesting

2:26:47 ↗ that it could retroactively apply to

2:26:50 ↗ remove the vested status which is

2:26:52 ↗ a concept that doesn't make a lot of

2:26:55 ↗ sense and that's not consistent with

2:26:56 ↗ Washington state law and then

2:26:59 ↗ immediately below this vesting reference

2:27:01 ↗ in your notes there is a a statement

2:27:04 ↗ that reads quote pre-app recall

2:27:09 ↗ I believe that's required per Lucy

2:27:13 ↗ parentheses might be called something

2:27:16 ↗ else in D A end quote

2:27:20 ↗ is that an accurate reading yes

2:27:24 ↗ what was that statement

2:27:26 ↗ reference to

2:27:28 ↗ um well we were again asking to move

2:27:30 ↗ forward without a pre-app and Lucy was

2:27:33 ↗ again telling us that the

2:27:34 ↗ pre-application process and meeting

2:27:37 ↗ was required and when I pointed out that

2:27:41 ↗ it wasn't required in the development

2:27:43 ↗ agreement she said well maybe it's

2:27:44 ↗ called something else

2:27:47 ↗ did you respond back to her after she

2:27:51 ↗ indicated that

2:27:54 ↗ the pre-app might be called something

2:27:56 ↗ else in the development agreement or to

2:27:58 ↗ the conversation essentially terminate

2:28:00 ↗ at that point I don't remember the

2:28:01 ↗ details of the conversation there's

2:28:03 ↗ email correspondence that goes back and

2:28:04 ↗ forth around that same time that I

2:28:06 ↗ believe is already in the record that

2:28:08 ↗ that details that

2:28:10 ↗ hmm

2:28:11 ↗ thank you can you please turn to your

2:28:13 ↗ October 26 2017 notes

2:28:21 ↗ this also

2:28:23 ↗ is a series of handwritten notes and I

2:28:26 ↗ don't I could not see any specific names

2:28:30 ↗ in this document except for a scattered

2:28:33 ↗ reference to

2:28:34 ↗ Lucy

2:28:36 ↗ Ellis and Gene

2:28:39 ↗ I'm assuming

2:28:41 ↗ that Lucy refers to Ms sloman is that

2:28:44 ↗ correct

2:28:46 ↗ um Lucy refers to Miss sloman Jean would

2:28:49 ↗ refer to Jean Lynn there's a reference

2:28:51 ↗ to Doug which would be Doug schlepp

2:28:54 ↗ Ellis is not a person it's a street well

2:28:58 ↗ thank you

2:28:59 ↗ is there any discussion of investing in

2:29:02 ↗ this meeting

2:29:34 ↗ I don't see any reference to it in the

2:29:36 ↗ notes what was the purpose of this

2:29:37 ↗ meeting

2:29:39 ↗ uh it was the collaborative meeting for

2:29:41 ↗ the Block C office or commercial Fitness

2:29:45 ↗ proposal or office Fitness proposal

2:29:48 ↗ and at the very top of the the first

2:29:50 ↗ page there's a reference to

2:29:53 ↗ asked if Block C retail can proceed with

2:29:58 ↗ retail quote unquote

2:30:00 ↗ an accurate reading yes what does that

2:30:03 ↗ intended to mean

2:30:05 ↗ um well Block C is the block that's on

2:30:09 ↗ the corner of ninth and Discovery and so

2:30:13 ↗ there's two lots proposed for that block

2:30:16 ↗ the northernmost block or sorry the

2:30:20 ↗ northernmost lot is actually part of the

2:30:23 ↗ retail

2:30:24 ↗ sdp application and then the the

2:30:28 ↗ southern portion of the block of Block C

2:30:31 ↗ was the um

2:30:34 ↗ commercial Fitness

2:30:37 ↗ proposal so we were just confirming that

2:30:41 ↗ the city was on board with that and

2:30:44 ↗ didn't want us to show the retail that's

2:30:48 ↗ in Block C with this application and

2:30:51 ↗ they confirmed that that was fine thank

2:30:53 ↗ you could you please turn to your

2:30:56 ↗ November 6 2017 meeting notes

2:31:02 ↗ yes and this is apparently a an email

2:31:06 ↗ sent from you

2:31:09 ↗ primarily to Derek straight and Gary

2:31:12 ↗ Young and Patrick mullaney with a cc to

2:31:16 ↗ Eric Evans and Natalie quick Consulting

2:31:20 ↗ is that correct yes

2:31:23 ↗ um

2:31:25 ↗ who attended the November 6 2017 meeting

2:31:51 ↗ I believe it was just Gary Young and

2:31:55 ↗ Keith Niven and me

2:31:59 ↗ thank you

2:32:01 ↗ could you please read aloud the

2:32:05 ↗ seventh bullet point on page one of your

2:32:11 ↗ email

2:32:25 ↗ he had various ideas about how to

2:32:28 ↗ manipulate the proposed replacement

2:32:30 ↗ regulations so that they might work for

2:32:33 ↗ a retail proposal one of which was

2:32:35 ↗ getting the surface parking approved as

2:32:37 ↗ an interim use like Swedish which has

2:32:40 ↗ many conditions and a five-year term

2:32:42 ↗ with a five-year extension if they meet

2:32:45 ↗ certain requirements like Master

2:32:47 ↗ planning building permit for a hundred

2:32:49 ↗ thousand square feet but ultimately it

2:32:52 ↗ can't stay for more than 10 years he

2:32:54 ↗ called Lucy to his office to explain

2:32:56 ↗ this I do not see this as a realistic

2:32:59 ↗ solution is the he referenced in this

2:33:01 ↗ bullet point Keith Niven

2:33:04 ↗ yes what does it mean to

2:33:07 ↗ manipulate the proposed replacement

2:33:09 ↗ regulations in the way that Mr Niven was

2:33:12 ↗ referencing

2:33:14 ↗ so he was talking about doing things

2:33:16 ↗ like we'll make your you can meet the

2:33:18 ↗ far just make your lot really tiny and

2:33:20 ↗ so that the building covers the whole

2:33:22 ↗ thing and then that will work and then

2:33:24 ↗ yeah you can't do service parking but we

2:33:26 ↗ could maybe let you do it in in an

2:33:28 ↗ interim manner where you can have it but

2:33:32 ↗ only for a little while and then when

2:33:34 ↗ that term runs out you're going to have

2:33:35 ↗ to go build a parking structure or

2:33:37 ↗ something it was a lot of ideas that

2:33:40 ↗ um to me he wasn't he wasn't all the way

2:33:44 ↗ familiar with what was being proposed in

2:33:45 ↗ the replacement regulations because

2:33:47 ↗ there were aspects of it that clearly

2:33:48 ↗ didn't work

2:33:50 ↗ and it just wasn't a very realistic

2:33:53 ↗ solution given the regulatory framework

2:33:56 ↗ that we would be working within and the

2:33:58 ↗ regulatory framework you'll be working

2:33:59 ↗ within is the replacement regulations

2:34:03 ↗ correct yeah in that context that's what

2:34:05 ↗ we were talking about that had not yet

2:34:07 ↗ been adopted at that point correct

2:34:09 ↗ correct the proposed replacement

2:34:11 ↗ regulations and Mr Niven if I understand

2:34:14 ↗ the context of your notes and testimony

2:34:17 ↗ was essentially

2:34:18 ↗ brainstorming on about ideas

2:34:22 ↗ through which

2:34:23 ↗ some proposal for shelter might work on

2:34:26 ↗ that property is it I think he was

2:34:28 ↗ trying to counter the things that we had

2:34:31 ↗ been saying publicly about

2:34:34 ↗ the fact that the the replacement

2:34:36 ↗ regulations don't allow retail because

2:34:39 ↗ the city staff had been saying that we

2:34:42 ↗ were not right about that that we

2:34:44 ↗ actually could build retail that we were

2:34:46 ↗ just

2:34:47 ↗ I don't know choosing not to or saying

2:34:49 ↗ that it would be too hard when it

2:34:51 ↗ actually was doable so this was sort of

2:34:54 ↗ further discussion on a point that

2:34:55 ↗ probably came up in the context of of

2:34:58 ↗ more public discussions

2:35:03 ↗ in the hollow bullet point

2:35:08 ↗ one or two lines down from what you just

2:35:11 ↗ read

2:35:14 ↗ there is a reference to quote he blames

2:35:17 ↗ PPC and mayor's office from being

2:35:20 ↗ unwilling to move on this end quote what

2:35:23 ↗ is that in reference to

2:35:47 ↗ oh this is in reference to the proposed

2:35:50 ↗ minimum far of one

2:35:53 ↗ so he was trying to say that it was the

2:35:56 ↗ mayor and the PPC that

2:36:01 ↗ um

2:36:02 ↗ that was unwilling and at this meeting

2:36:04 ↗ he was encouraging us to come back with

2:36:08 ↗ um a proposal that

2:36:11 ↗ spread various fars out over the over

2:36:15 ↗ the site and he said that it that our

2:36:18 ↗ proposal needed to average an affair of

2:36:21 ↗ one because really what he saw the far

2:36:23 ↗ as doing was guaranteeing a certain

2:36:27 ↗ amount of total development and so in in

2:36:31 ↗ the earlier public meetings he had

2:36:33 ↗ explained that the way he came up with

2:36:36 ↗ the proposed far of one was he just

2:36:38 ↗ looked at the total entitlement that

2:36:40 ↗ wasn't built that we had allocated and

2:36:43 ↗ divided it in half and then spread it

2:36:46 ↗ across our property and so that came

2:36:48 ↗ back with an far one to achieve that so

2:36:51 ↗ he asked asked us to go back

2:36:54 ↗ he's like you can put it how you want it

2:36:56 ↗ across the Lots but it needs to average

2:36:59 ↗ one so that I can still say the cities

2:37:02 ↗ still guaranteed or going to get that

2:37:05 ↗ minimum amount of development so in this

2:37:08 ↗ meeting this is I think where he's

2:37:12 ↗ um where he's asking us to do that and

2:37:15 ↗ and he's blaming the mayor's office and

2:37:18 ↗ the PPC for

2:37:20 ↗ um sticking to that far of one that he

2:37:23 ↗ had proposed and just to clarify as of

2:37:25 ↗ November 6 2017 when this meeting

2:37:29 ↗ occurred the mayor would have still been

2:37:33 ↗ former mayor Fred Butler correct

2:37:37 ↗ I believe so

2:37:39 ↗ thank you

2:37:40 ↗ although the election would have been I

2:37:42 ↗ mean mayor Polly would have been

2:37:46 ↗ probably elected that week

2:37:48 ↗ but not ashamed not had taken office yet

2:37:51 ↗ thank you

2:37:53 ↗ the next bullet point passed that on

2:37:56 ↗ page one beginning with on vesting and

2:37:59 ↗ process I'm going to read that aloud to

2:38:02 ↗ you

2:38:03 ↗ quote investing in process he explained

2:38:06 ↗ pre-app is optional

2:38:10 ↗ but if you elect to skip it there is no

2:38:13 ↗ way staff would be able to understand

2:38:15 ↗ your application parentheses it would be

2:38:19 ↗ like a foreign language and parent and

2:38:23 ↗ they could therefore not determine if it

2:38:26 ↗ was complete

2:38:27 ↗ that an accurate reading of your notes

2:38:30 ↗ yes okay so on November 6 2017

2:38:37 ↗ Keith Niven explained to you that a

2:38:41 ↗ pre-application conference

2:38:44 ↗ is

2:38:46 ↗ optional

2:38:48 ↗ it's only optional if you don't care if

2:38:50 ↗ your application ever can be deemed

2:38:53 ↗ complete

2:38:54 ↗ I'm sorry could you explain that I

2:38:56 ↗ wasn't following that well what you just

2:38:58 ↗ read said that he would net if you

2:39:01 ↗ didn't

2:39:02 ↗ choose in quotes to have a

2:39:05 ↗ pre-application meeting there would be

2:39:07 ↗ no path to having your application

2:39:10 ↗ deemed complete

2:39:12 ↗ so

2:39:15 ↗ yes he was explaining that the

2:39:16 ↗ development agreement didn't require it

2:39:18 ↗ but that he was requiring it

2:39:20 ↗ is there something in your notes that

2:39:23 ↗ indicate that he was quote requiring it

2:39:27 ↗ um

2:39:28 ↗ I think the notes reflect that and also

2:39:31 ↗ all of the discussion and all of the

2:39:34 ↗ communication that we had verbally with

2:39:37 ↗ us and our Consultants it was very very

2:39:39 ↗ clear that

2:39:41 ↗ if you we ever wanted a complete

2:39:43 ↗ application

2:39:44 ↗ then we must have a pre-application

2:39:50 ↗ looking at the specific language of your

2:39:53 ↗ notes

2:39:54 ↗ in the bullet point that I just quoted

2:39:58 ↗ correct me if I'm I'm misquoting this

2:40:01 ↗ but it appears that

2:40:05 ↗ he is reaffirming Mr Niven is

2:40:07 ↗ reaffirming that the pre-application is

2:40:09 ↗ optional but he's explaining the

2:40:12 ↗ Practical difficulties for staff in

2:40:15 ↗ reviewing an application for which a

2:40:17 ↗ pre-op had not occurred is that an

2:40:19 ↗ accurate

2:40:20 ↗ reading in your I don't think so okay

2:40:22 ↗ could you explain why it's not accurate

2:40:24 ↗ because I was there and had the

2:40:26 ↗ conversation with him and he was

2:40:28 ↗ definitely indicating that we needed to

2:40:31 ↗ do the pre-app if we wanted to ever get

2:40:34 ↗ to complete application which is

2:40:36 ↗ obviously a step that is very important

2:40:38 ↗ if you're trying to advance an

2:40:40 ↗ application

2:40:45 ↗ the

2:40:46 ↗ hollow bullet point immediately

2:40:48 ↗ following that text provides quote he

2:40:51 ↗ says he doesn't know where council is at

2:40:54 ↗ on vesting although Stacy seems to have

2:40:58 ↗ issue with it end quote

2:41:01 ↗ so there was discussion regarding

2:41:03 ↗ vesting at this meeting correct

2:41:07 ↗ yes who initiated that discussion

2:41:16 ↗ I I don't know

2:41:18 ↗ his reference to

2:41:20 ↗ he doesn't know where council is at on

2:41:23 ↗ vesting what was that intended or what

2:41:25 ↗ did you interpret that as meaning

2:41:27 ↗ that he didn't know whether Council

2:41:31 ↗ supported the vesting language that

2:41:33 ↗ staff was recommending and is Stacy to

2:41:37 ↗ your understanding Stacy Goodman yes

2:41:39 ↗ he's a council member at that time yes

2:41:43 ↗ what was her connection with this issue

2:41:47 ↗ at that time beside being a council

2:41:49 ↗ member if there was one

2:41:53 ↗ um she might have been the chair of the

2:41:55 ↗ land and Shore committee at the time

2:41:56 ↗ she's also an Issaquah Highlands

2:41:58 ↗ resident and had been very vocal against

2:42:01 ↗ development of our property for anything

2:42:03 ↗ other than what she called the original

2:42:06 ↗ vision

2:42:08 ↗ the next bullet point I'm going to quote

2:42:10 ↗ this directly says he again Mr Niven

2:42:14 ↗ says sdp applications vest and that

2:42:20 ↗ happens at preliminary application end

2:42:23 ↗ quote is that an accurate statement from

2:42:25 ↗ your notes yes

2:42:27 ↗ immediately following that statement

2:42:30 ↗ I'm going to read the next hollow bullet

2:42:32 ↗ point which provides quote staff has

2:42:36 ↗ advised council members that they can

2:42:39 ↗ make the policy decision to

2:42:41 ↗ retroactively remove vested status for

2:42:44 ↗ applications submitted under the D.A

2:42:48 ↗ parentheses except plots and building

2:42:51 ↗ permits and parent is that an accurate

2:42:54 ↗ reading

2:42:55 ↗ yes and to add to that I think he was

2:42:58 ↗ explaining to us when he explained it as

2:43:01 ↗ staff having explained that he was

2:43:04 ↗ referring to miss sloman had advised

2:43:07 ↗ certain council members of that and he

2:43:09 ↗ was

2:43:10 ↗ I I perceived it as him distancing

2:43:13 ↗ himself a little bit from having given

2:43:15 ↗ that advice that he was categorizing it

2:43:17 ↗ as someone else on staff's advice

2:43:19 ↗ okay thank you but just just to clarify

2:43:22 ↗ in the same

2:43:24 ↗ meeting apparently

2:43:28 ↗ right after Mr Niven indicated that sdp

2:43:31 ↗ applications vest

2:43:34 ↗ at the preliminary application stage he

2:43:37 ↗ also said that staff has advised council

2:43:39 ↗ members that they can make a policy

2:43:41 ↗ decision to retroactively remove vested

2:43:44 ↗ status for applications submitted under

2:43:47 ↗ the development agreement except for

2:43:49 ↗ platinum building permits Yes again

2:43:51 ↗ you're identifying one of the most

2:43:53 ↗ frustrating things about the discussions

2:43:54 ↗ that we had throughout this process was

2:43:56 ↗ you know there were multiple conflicting

2:43:59 ↗ positions

2:44:01 ↗ um

2:44:01 ↗ that were articulated along the way

2:44:06 ↗ the next bullet point at the bottom of

2:44:08 ↗ page one reads and I quote as we

2:44:11 ↗ discussed far

2:44:14 ↗ we suggested that if you link vesting

2:44:17 ↗ recognition and minimum far together we

2:44:21 ↗ might be able to get on board with a

2:44:24 ↗ proposal that averages

2:44:26 ↗ one and we could even show them how

2:44:30 ↗ future phases could be accommodated is

2:44:32 ↗ that an accurate reading yes

2:44:35 ↗ is we in that statement

2:44:38 ↗ um

2:44:42 ↗ well there are two different ways in

2:44:44 ↗ that statement so the first we would

2:44:46 ↗ mean all of us in the meeting and the

2:44:48 ↗ second we would be uh Gary and I

2:44:53 ↗ um so the second we if I understand the

2:44:56 ↗ reading of this this notation is that

2:44:59 ↗ you and Gary on behalf of shelter might

2:45:02 ↗ be able to get on board with a proposal

2:45:05 ↗ that averages an far of one is that

2:45:08 ↗ correct so this was what I was talking

2:45:09 ↗ about earlier where Keith had asked us

2:45:11 ↗ to come up with a proposal that averaged

2:45:15 ↗ one far across the property

2:45:18 ↗ um so he was really pushing us to do

2:45:21 ↗ that and felt like that could

2:45:23 ↗ I think he felt like that would result

2:45:24 ↗ would potentially resolve the far issue

2:45:27 ↗ and have us

2:45:28 ↗ um

2:45:29 ↗ stop

2:45:30 ↗ commenting and protesting on it so

2:45:34 ↗ when when we're talking about linking

2:45:36 ↗ the vesting recognition Mr Niven had

2:45:39 ↗ been telling us over and over again that

2:45:42 ↗ you vest at pre-op you best at pre-op

2:45:44 ↗ but he was unwilling to put it in

2:45:46 ↗ writing anywhere and so what we were

2:45:50 ↗ suggesting there was okay if we're going

2:45:52 ↗ to come and get on board with far then

2:45:54 ↗ you're going to confirm in writing your

2:45:56 ↗ your acknowledgment of our vesting

2:46:00 ↗ um

2:46:00 ↗ but this time I'm I am struggling with

2:46:03 ↗ this concept and hopefully you can help

2:46:05 ↗ elucidate this

2:46:10 ↗ minimum far is a requirement of the

2:46:13 ↗ replacement regulations as they've been

2:46:15 ↗ proposed at that time correct correct

2:46:19 ↗ if your

2:46:21 ↗ permit your site development permit is

2:46:24 ↗ vested under the replacement regulations

2:46:26 ↗ that do not include a minimum far

2:46:29 ↗ standard

2:46:34 ↗ why would you care about complying with

2:46:37 ↗ the far standard why would that even be

2:46:38 ↗ part of the discussion

2:46:40 ↗ well our

2:46:43 ↗ our site development permits are only a

2:46:45 ↗ portion of the total development and

2:46:47 ↗ they don't cover the whole property so

2:46:49 ↗ under any scenario the replacement

2:46:51 ↗ regulations eventually apply to our

2:46:54 ↗ property right so we could we do care

2:46:56 ↗ about the replacement regulations in all

2:46:59 ↗ stages of their development there is a

2:47:02 ↗ distinction if I'm hearing you correctly

2:47:03 ↗ that you're drawing between the

2:47:07 ↗ astp and STP applications that were

2:47:09 ↗ submitted in 2017

2:47:12 ↗ and future far application to the

2:47:16 ↗ development of other parts of your

2:47:18 ↗ property is that correct

2:47:20 ↗ um kind of I think that there there are

2:47:24 ↗ the STP applications that we're pending

2:47:26 ↗ and that had a certain amount of

2:47:28 ↗ development but I think the total is in

2:47:31 ↗ the

2:47:32 ↗ I don't know four to five hundred

2:47:33 ↗ thousand square foot range and there's

2:47:36 ↗ 1.8 million square feet of entitlement

2:47:38 ↗ allocated to this property through the

2:47:41 ↗ development agreement and through the

2:47:42 ↗ plot so we we saw and see this the

2:47:47 ↗ proposed developments as one part of

2:47:51 ↗ development and that there's future

2:47:53 ↗ capacity and so I think you'll see also

2:47:56 ↗ in these notes

2:47:58 ↗ um there's reference to showing where

2:48:01 ↗ more phases could go so this was a

2:48:06 ↗ concept where we're going okay well we

2:48:08 ↗ have these applications you've already

2:48:09 ↗ said they're vested we're processing

2:48:11 ↗ them they're vested to the development

2:48:12 ↗ standards that are in place now you're

2:48:14 ↗ coming up with these new regulations

2:48:16 ↗ that are going to be adopted at some

2:48:17 ↗ point in the somewhat near future we

2:48:20 ↗ care about them because our property

2:48:21 ↗ will eventually be subject to them

2:48:24 ↗ um and and we were trying to manage both

2:48:28 ↗ of those things both the current

2:48:29 ↗ applications which were vested and he

2:48:31 ↗ had acknowledged were vested but at this

2:48:33 ↗ point in time he had not yet

2:48:35 ↗ acknowledged it in writing later he did

2:48:39 ↗ but you were at least if I'm reading

2:48:41 ↗ this correctly you shelter was at least

2:48:43 ↗ tentatively amenable to a an approach

2:48:47 ↗ under which

2:48:48 ↗ far and the minimum far standard that

2:48:51 ↗ had been proposed under the replacement

2:48:53 ↗ regulations would govern future

2:48:56 ↗ development on the shelter property just

2:49:00 ↗ not the current sdp applications is that

2:49:03 ↗ is that correct

2:49:05 ↗ that was what we were discussing was

2:49:07 ↗ whether there was a solution that we

2:49:09 ↗ could get get on board with having an

2:49:11 ↗ far the varied far concept that we ended

2:49:15 ↗ up coming forward with it had I mean it

2:49:18 ↗ was a varied concept where it had a

2:49:21 ↗ higher far on certain Parcels of a very

2:49:24 ↗ low far on certain Parcels so that it

2:49:26 ↗ could accommodate retail development so

2:49:29 ↗ it involved a sort of averaging model is

2:49:32 ↗ that that was Keith's suggestion yes

2:49:34 ↗ that it was averaging was that far

2:49:39 ↗ approach ultimately adopted into the

2:49:41 ↗ replacement regulations

2:49:43 ↗ it wasn't it was Keith and I had

2:49:45 ↗ discussed

2:49:47 ↗ how it would be presented at the land

2:49:50 ↗ and Shore meeting

2:49:52 ↗ [Music]

2:49:53 ↗ um

2:49:54 ↗ he had said that we would present it

2:49:56 ↗ together and describe it together that's

2:49:59 ↗ not what happened he ended up taking it

2:50:01 ↗ and giving it to miss sloman who

2:50:04 ↗ presented it as my proposal that was not

2:50:08 ↗ really the city wasn't taking a position

2:50:10 ↗ on at all it ended up totally confusing

2:50:13 ↗ the council members on Landon Shore and

2:50:16 ↗ kind of just

2:50:19 ↗ didn't go anywhere because it was

2:50:22 ↗ they were confused by it

2:50:26 ↗ who had suggested linking a vesting

2:50:29 ↗ recognition and minimum far together

2:50:31 ↗ again this goes back to which we you

2:50:35 ↗ were referring to in the bullet point

2:50:36 ↗ that I had most recently quoted our

2:50:39 ↗ suggestion was that if you want us to do

2:50:41 ↗ a varied far and come together with you

2:50:43 ↗ on this concept we want you to

2:50:46 ↗ acknowledge what you keep telling us

2:50:49 ↗ verbally which is that our our sdp

2:50:52 ↗ applications are vested and they've

2:50:53 ↗ vested at the preliminary land use

2:50:55 ↗ application stage

2:51:01 ↗ can you please turn to your November

2:51:04 ↗ 21st 2017 meeting notes

2:51:09 ↗ yes

2:51:11 ↗ this is also a handwritten document

2:51:16 ↗ apart from the date reference and the

2:51:18 ↗ upper left hand corner of the first page

2:51:20 ↗ that indicates that this meeting was

2:51:23 ↗ attended by

2:51:25 ↗ Ethan Niven

2:51:27 ↗ Patrick mullaney yourself and I believe

2:51:29 ↗ Mr Young is that correct

2:51:32 ↗ yes is there any other attendees at this

2:51:34 ↗ meeting to your recollection

2:51:40 ↗ thank you

2:52:20 ↗ I don't think so

2:52:24 ↗ did shelter request this meeting

2:52:28 ↗ I don't know

2:52:30 ↗ what was the purpose of this meeting

2:52:46 ↗ I'm not sure exactly I mean it was like

2:52:51 ↗ many of the meetings in that period of

2:52:52 ↗ time talking about all of the various

2:52:54 ↗ issues that we had and were managing

2:52:57 ↗ with the city so sdps replacement

2:53:00 ↗ regulations plot development agreement

2:53:05 ↗ okay so Global meeting covering multiple

2:53:09 ↗ issues as you understand is that correct

2:53:10 ↗ yes

2:53:13 ↗ there's a reference near the top of the

2:53:15 ↗ page or page one

2:53:18 ↗ that reads quote Keith no start with

2:53:22 ↗ default end quote is it an accurate

2:53:24 ↗ reading of your handwriting handwriting

2:53:28 ↗ it is and actually what does that mean I

2:53:30 ↗ think that that that is making me

2:53:33 ↗ remember that we around this time had

2:53:36 ↗ delivered a notice

2:53:40 ↗ notice of default I I can't I might not

2:53:43 ↗ be using the right terminology but a

2:53:45 ↗ notice of some sort of default under the

2:53:47 ↗ development agreement and so this was

2:53:49 ↗ the meeting I think in response to that

2:53:51 ↗ based on that comment okay

2:53:54 ↗ do you know what Mr uh Mr nibbon meant

2:53:57 ↗ by no start with default

2:54:00 ↗ um

2:54:01 ↗ that he wanted to start with the default

2:54:05 ↗ like no to whatever we were trying to

2:54:06 ↗ start with let's start with the default

2:54:08 ↗ allegation

2:54:10 ↗ for purposes of ordering your discussion

2:54:12 ↗ during the meeting yes correct okay

2:54:15 ↗ and then there's a reference immediately

2:54:17 ↗ below that to

2:54:19 ↗ 3.23.2 can process permits under the D A

2:54:25 ↗ until it expires quote unquote

2:54:29 ↗ who said that

2:54:33 ↗ I can't tell for sure I think based on

2:54:36 ↗ these notes and the comment below which

2:54:39 ↗ says do you think we are not processing

2:54:41 ↗ under the D.A I'm guessing that Keith

2:54:45 ↗ cited that but it looks like a reference

2:54:48 ↗ to the vesting section under the

2:54:50 ↗ development agreement okay so to your

2:54:52 ↗ recollection and I understand that it's

2:54:54 ↗ difficult given the

2:54:56 ↗ um the format of these handwritten notes

2:54:58 ↗ but it's your understanding that Mr

2:55:00 ↗ Niven told you at this November 21st

2:55:03 ↗ 2017 meeting that

2:55:06 ↗ the city can process permits under the

2:55:09 ↗ development agreement until it expires

2:55:12 ↗ and there's a specific reference

2:55:14 ↗ immediately above that to 3.23.2

2:55:19 ↗ I'm not sure I would make that statement

2:55:22 ↗ based on the notes I I can say that we

2:55:25 ↗ talked about 3.223.2

2:55:28 ↗ um

2:55:30 ↗ but you don't know who said that

2:55:31 ↗ statement I don't okay but someone

2:55:33 ↗ apparently if I'm understanding it

2:55:35 ↗ correctly and your notes correctly did

2:55:38 ↗ say that under Section 3.2 3.2 in

2:55:43 ↗ process permits under the development

2:55:45 ↗ agreement until it expires I don't know

2:55:47 ↗ that that's a direct quote I know that

2:55:49 ↗ that's what's written in the notes I I

2:55:51 ↗ don't really know exactly where it came

2:55:53 ↗ from fair enough thank you

2:55:55 ↗ there's a statement immediately below

2:55:58 ↗ that that reads quote do you think we

2:56:02 ↗ are not processing under D.A end quote

2:56:05 ↗ what's that statement intended to mean

2:56:09 ↗ I believe that was Keith asking us if we

2:56:13 ↗ thought that they were not processing

2:56:15 ↗ our applications in accordance with the

2:56:17 ↗ development agreement

2:56:23 ↗ so you think Mr Niven stated that

2:56:26 ↗ I think it was a question and I think he

2:56:28 ↗ asked it

2:56:30 ↗ and immediately below that reference

2:56:33 ↗ there is a

2:56:35 ↗ statement and I'm going to quote again

2:56:38 ↗ right now sdp prelim apps vest to d a

2:56:45 ↗ KN vested now to d a

2:56:50 ↗ Council can decide they don't like

2:56:53 ↗ vesting Lang if counsel changes their

2:56:58 ↗ mind you start over end quote is that an

2:57:01 ↗ accurate reading of your notes

2:57:03 ↗ yes so this is again the same thing

2:57:05 ↗ we've talked about a bunch of times

2:57:06 ↗ where they're saying you're vested

2:57:09 ↗ the the city is telling us that we are

2:57:12 ↗ vested now to the development agreement

2:57:14 ↗ because we have the preliminary

2:57:16 ↗ applications that are complete and again

2:57:19 ↗ then they're suggesting that the council

2:57:21 ↗ could decide to retroactively take that

2:57:24 ↗ vesting away which we

2:57:26 ↗ vehemently disagree with

2:57:28 ↗ so if I understand you correctly Messiah

2:57:30 ↗ Mr nibbon is stating

2:57:33 ↗ your

2:57:35 ↗ your notes and your attempt to capture

2:57:37 ↗ his statement that according to Mr Niven

2:57:40 ↗ shelter is vested as of right now or

2:57:43 ↗ right then to the development agreement

2:57:45 ↗ but that the council in Mr niven's view

2:57:47 ↗ can decide that the council doesn't like

2:57:50 ↗ the vesting language is that the staff

2:57:53 ↗ proposed vesting language

2:57:56 ↗ yes and if the council changes their

2:58:00 ↗ mind you as shelter will start over that

2:58:03 ↗ was Mr niven's position at this meeting

2:58:06 ↗ it was it was a position that he

2:58:08 ↗ articulated at the meeting that it was

2:58:10 ↗ based on a fundamental misunderstanding

2:58:13 ↗ of but that's what your notes say

2:58:15 ↗ correct in terms of what Mr Niven was

2:58:18 ↗ communicating to you at this meeting

2:58:19 ↗ that's one of the things that he

2:58:21 ↗ communicated at this meeting immediately

2:58:23 ↗ below that reference there is another

2:58:25 ↗ statement reading quote Haney says you

2:58:30 ↗ are only vesting to contract period

2:58:36 ↗ City attorney is the one not willing to

2:58:41 ↗ quote end quote

2:58:43 ↗ Amy again from the context in your

2:58:46 ↗ previous testimony would be Jim Haney

2:58:48 ↗ the Issaquah City attorney yes

2:58:50 ↗ what does that statement intended to

2:58:52 ↗ mean and who who communicated that

2:58:55 ↗ statement

2:58:57 ↗ this was again something that Keith

2:58:59 ↗ would repeatedly tell us that he was

2:59:01 ↗ getting advice from Jim Haney The City

2:59:04 ↗ attorney that said vesting only lasts to

2:59:07 ↗ the contract period again we always

2:59:10 ↗ disagreed and always asked for

2:59:12 ↗ conversation with with Mr Haney and

2:59:15 ↗ never got any response and I also never

2:59:18 ↗ saw any

2:59:20 ↗ um

2:59:21 ↗ response publicly to the questions that

2:59:24 ↗ were being asked by council members in

2:59:26 ↗ the process on these issues

2:59:32 ↗ to the reference to quote City attorney

2:59:35 ↗ is the one not willing to what does that

2:59:38 ↗ mean

2:59:39 ↗ but we're not willing to what

2:59:47 ↗ I'm not sure

2:59:50 ↗ thank you

2:59:51 ↗ the next statement in those notes reads

2:59:54 ↗ quote counsel is told they have a choice

2:59:58 ↗ they are deciding end quote

3:00:01 ↗ what is that in reference to

3:00:04 ↗ that's in reference to the idea that

3:00:07 ↗ staff had advised counsel that whether

3:00:10 ↗ to continue to recognize vested permit

3:00:13 ↗ applications

3:00:14 ↗ was a policy decision that they could

3:00:17 ↗ make to retroactively remove vested

3:00:19 ↗ status

3:00:20 ↗ thank you

3:00:21 ↗ the next statement in this series of

3:00:24 ↗ notes is quote we want to see

3:00:28 ↗ acknowledgment that apps are vested end

3:00:31 ↗ quote

3:00:33 ↗ yes that statement intended to mean

3:00:37 ↗ that was us asking yet again to see

3:00:40 ↗ acknowledgment in writing that our

3:00:43 ↗ applications were vested

3:00:46 ↗ and I think in this meeting later on in

3:00:50 ↗ the notes Keith suggested to us that

3:00:53 ↗ that he would do that he just needed us

3:00:56 ↗ to send him an email

3:00:58 ↗ um

3:00:59 ↗ calling out the permit applications and

3:01:02 ↗ that he would confirm via email

3:01:05 ↗ thank you the next statement reads quote

3:01:07 ↗ Patrick suggest use the plat to link

3:01:11 ↗ vesting plus mitigation Dash Keith

3:01:16 ↗ end quote is that an accurate reading

3:01:19 ↗ yes what is that intended to mean

3:01:22 ↗ Patrick I'm assuming is Patrick mullaney

3:01:24 ↗ from the the heading yes

3:01:28 ↗ thank you what was the the reference

3:01:30 ↗ there intended to mean

3:01:33 ↗ um I think

3:01:35 ↗ because Keith was suggesting to us that

3:01:39 ↗ he agreed with

3:01:41 ↗ um

3:01:42 ↗ with our positions about vesting that

3:01:45 ↗ Patrick was suggesting to him you need

3:01:47 ↗ to look at the plot and and what vests

3:01:50 ↗ through the plot which should be

3:01:53 ↗ um the the development that's shown

3:01:55 ↗ there on and the and that gets you to

3:02:01 ↗ that provides the link of vesting to

3:02:04 ↗ both the development and the mitigation

3:02:07 ↗ through the development agreement

3:02:09 ↗ standards

3:02:10 ↗ as of the the time of this meeting on

3:02:13 ↗ November 21st 2017

3:02:16 ↗ did

3:02:18 ↗ shelters preliminary plot applications

3:02:21 ↗ show building footprints

3:02:23 ↗ it showed allowable development

3:02:24 ↗ allocated

3:02:27 ↗ I don't believe it is

3:02:30 ↗ the bottom of the page there's a

3:02:32 ↗ reference to quote Jim working on

3:02:34 ↗ written response end quote is that a

3:02:37 ↗ reference to Mr Haney yes

3:02:39 ↗ and the written response is in

3:02:42 ↗ specific response to I'm not sure at

3:02:45 ↗ that point there were various letters

3:02:47 ↗ and emails that that Patrick had written

3:02:51 ↗ to to Jim and contact attempts that had

3:02:54 ↗ been made so I'm not sure which that

3:02:56 ↗ refers to

3:02:57 ↗ at the top of the next page there's a

3:03:00 ↗ statement that reads quote what are

3:03:03 ↗ vesting events and confirm weave end

3:03:06 ↗ quote

3:03:08 ↗ I think that's obviously an incomplete

3:03:12 ↗ sentence but it's referencing to what I

3:03:14 ↗ was

3:03:15 ↗ describing before which was that Keith

3:03:18 ↗ suggested that we send an email to him

3:03:22 ↗ so that he could confirm we've vested

3:03:25 ↗ okay so just to clarify an assignment

3:03:27 ↗ this the statement that I just read was

3:03:29 ↗ your suggestion to Mr Niven

3:03:34 ↗ well I mean this isn't like a transcript

3:03:36 ↗ so it's

3:03:39 ↗ my notes I believe that these notes are

3:03:42 ↗ referring to the discussion that we had

3:03:43 ↗ at that meeting which was that

3:03:47 ↗ Keith suggested we sent him an email

3:03:49 ↗ describing where our permits were and

3:03:52 ↗ that he would confirm

3:03:54 ↗ that they were vested

3:03:59 ↗ moving down in the document there's a

3:04:01 ↗ handwritten heading entitled appendix L

3:04:04 ↗ do you see that

3:04:06 ↗ yes and a reference immediately

3:04:09 ↗ following that that reads 9.1 defaults

3:04:13 ↗ complete application after 10 days

3:04:18 ↗ k n

3:04:20 ↗ colon whatever you give us is a pre-app

3:04:25 ↗ is complete end quote is it an accurate

3:04:29 ↗ reading yes what does that intended to

3:04:31 ↗ mean

3:04:33 ↗ um I think it's part of the larger

3:04:34 ↗ discussion on the status of our

3:04:37 ↗ applications and so he was we were

3:04:39 ↗ talking about the fact that the

3:04:41 ↗ development agreement has a 10-day

3:04:43 ↗ period after an application within which

3:04:46 ↗ the city can request more information if

3:04:49 ↗ the application is not complete and

3:04:51 ↗ since we were beyond that period for all

3:04:53 ↗ of our preliminary land use applications

3:04:55 ↗ he was acknowledging that whatever we

3:04:58 ↗ gave them for pre-op was at this point

3:05:00 ↗ deemed complete

3:05:02 ↗ did Mr Niven or any other City staff

3:05:05 ↗ member follow up with any sort of

3:05:06 ↗ written confirmation to that effect

3:05:09 ↗ yes

3:05:10 ↗ is that documentation in the record for

3:05:13 ↗ this hearing

3:05:14 ↗ yes I believe so

3:05:18 ↗ the next statement reads send email to k

3:05:21 ↗ n based on app L have these apps

3:05:26 ↗ submitted on these dates deemed complete

3:05:31 ↗ yeah so this is that same same reference

3:05:33 ↗ to the same concept that we were

3:05:34 ↗ discussing which was that I was to send

3:05:36 ↗ him an email that listed out the

3:05:38 ↗ applications

3:05:39 ↗ listed out the uh

3:05:44 ↗ dates that they were submitted and the

3:05:46 ↗ dates that they were deemed complete and

3:05:47 ↗ that he would confirm that they were

3:05:49 ↗ vested

3:05:50 ↗ and did you send that email yes

3:05:53 ↗ is that your November 6th email

3:05:55 ↗ 2017 that's in the record no it's a

3:05:59 ↗ November 22nd email and it's and he

3:06:02 ↗ responded and confirmed that they were

3:06:04 ↗ arrested

3:06:05 ↗ next reference is entitled outside D.A

3:06:08 ↗ do you see that

3:06:10 ↗ yes and the immediately following text

3:06:13 ↗ is quote sdp pre-apped vested undercity

3:06:18 ↗ code end quote you is that an accurate

3:06:21 ↗ reading yes who said that Mr Niven he

3:06:24 ↗ described that throughout the city

3:06:27 ↗ um the this the administration's

3:06:30 ↗ position was that sdp pre-application or

3:06:34 ↗ preliminary applications best because

3:06:37 ↗ they're linked to the building permit

3:06:39 ↗ process

3:06:41 ↗ did Mr Niven cite any Municipal Code or

3:06:44 ↗ development agreement sections in

3:06:46 ↗ support of his statement to your

3:06:48 ↗ knowledge

3:06:51 ↗ um

3:07:00 ↗ I don't think so but you know he's the

3:07:02 ↗ director of development services so we

3:07:03 ↗ assumed that he knows what the city

3:07:05 ↗ policy is regarding site development

3:07:08 ↗ permit applications investing

3:07:12 ↗ the next statement

3:07:14 ↗ in your notes reads quote KN colon

3:07:18 ↗ mitigation plus vesting are not

3:07:22 ↗ connected

3:07:23 ↗ City could pull vesting

3:07:27 ↗ and acknowledge mitigation end quote is

3:07:31 ↗ that an accurate reading

3:07:33 ↗ yes and

3:07:35 ↗ from the context is it is it true that

3:07:38 ↗ that statement was made by Mr Niven at

3:07:41 ↗ this meeting

3:07:42 ↗ yes

3:07:43 ↗ okay so in light of what

3:07:46 ↗ I

3:07:48 ↗ just quoted before that Mr niven's

3:07:51 ↗ comment apparently that STP pre-apps are

3:07:53 ↗ vested under the city code

3:07:56 ↗ Mr Niven apparently immediately

3:07:58 ↗ following that statement

3:08:00 ↗ then said that the city could pull

3:08:02 ↗ vesting if it wanted to is that is that

3:08:05 ↗ what your notes indicate no I don't

3:08:07 ↗ think that's what it meant I think he

3:08:09 ↗ was talking about pulling the vesting

3:08:11 ↗ language out of the replacement

3:08:12 ↗ regulations

3:08:15 ↗ is there anything in this document your

3:08:19 ↗ notes that indicates that this was a

3:08:21 ↗ reference to the replacement regulations

3:08:25 ↗ no but again these aren't a transcript

3:08:27 ↗ this is being used to help jog my memory

3:08:31 ↗ I'm I'm responding based on my memory

3:08:34 ↗ that's being jogged by looking at my

3:08:36 ↗ notes from that meeting

3:08:42 ↗ so in in that context if I'm

3:08:45 ↗ understanding you correctly Miss Heim Mr

3:08:47 ↗ Niven was referring to

3:08:49 ↗ the city council's ability under Mr

3:08:52 ↗ niven's theory that the council could

3:08:55 ↗ pull vesting out of the replacement

3:08:57 ↗ regulations and simply not address it at

3:08:59 ↗ all

3:09:00 ↗ is that what you meant I think I well I

3:09:04 ↗ don't know if that's I don't know if

3:09:05 ↗ that's what he meant but my

3:09:06 ↗ understanding was that he met he was

3:09:08 ↗ saying that they could pull the vesting

3:09:11 ↗ language that was currently being

3:09:12 ↗ proposed at that time I didn't he didn't

3:09:14 ↗ get into what it may or may not be

3:09:16 ↗ replaced with but that he the city could

3:09:20 ↗ still acknowledge mitigation

3:09:30 ↗ are you aware of any

3:09:32 ↗ draft or iteration of the replacement

3:09:35 ↗ regulations that specifically addressed

3:09:38 ↗ mitigation that had been provided during

3:09:42 ↗ the term of the development agreement

3:09:47 ↗ um well that's kind of a tricky question

3:09:49 ↗ because if you are acknowledging vesting

3:09:53 ↗ through the development agreement which

3:09:55 ↗ the earlier version of the vesting

3:09:58 ↗ language that was proposed did then you

3:10:01 ↗ are also acknowledging vesting of

3:10:03 ↗ mitigation because the development

3:10:05 ↗ agreement is explicit that mitigation is

3:10:08 ↗ part of the development standards to

3:10:09 ↗ which you've asked

3:10:10 ↗ forget about the tricky question aspect

3:10:13 ↗ which is not my intent I'm just curious

3:10:14 ↗ does the word mitigation appear in any

3:10:17 ↗ of the iterations or drafts of the

3:10:20 ↗ replacement regulations that you saw or

3:10:22 ↗ you are aware of during the legislative

3:10:25 ↗ process for the replacement regulations

3:10:27 ↗ I really don't know whether the word

3:10:29 ↗ mitigation

3:10:32 ↗ appears in any draft if you're asking if

3:10:35 ↗ there was a an effort to globally

3:10:39 ↗ address mitigation in the development

3:10:41 ↗ agreement no I never saw that thank you

3:10:44 ↗ the next statement in your notes

3:10:47 ↗ reads k n and I'm struggling with the

3:10:51 ↗ next word but I believe it begins with a

3:10:53 ↗ G

3:10:54 ↗ Council keeps vesting language and Haney

3:10:58 ↗ says mitigation disappears end quote is

3:11:02 ↗ that an accurate reading and could you

3:11:04 ↗ please tell me what that that word is

3:11:06 ↗ intended to to mean

3:11:08 ↗ I think what it says is KN guess and

3:11:11 ↗ then Council keeps the vesting language

3:11:13 ↗ and Haney says mitigation disappears so

3:11:16 ↗ he was telling us that what he thought

3:11:18 ↗ was going to happen was that the council

3:11:20 ↗ was going to leave the vesting language

3:11:21 ↗ as proposed by staff and but then that

3:11:25 ↗ Haney would take the position that

3:11:28 ↗ mitigation disappears obviously that's a

3:11:31 ↗ very strange position to take if you are

3:11:33 ↗ familiar with the development agreement

3:11:36 ↗ because mitigation is specifically

3:11:38 ↗ included in the development standards to

3:11:41 ↗ which you vest and that this is what Mr

3:11:44 ↗ Niven had

3:11:46 ↗ estimated or I guess quote unquote

3:11:48 ↗ guessed that the council would would

3:11:50 ↗ ultimately do with the replacement

3:11:52 ↗ regulations is

3:11:54 ↗ keep the vesting language that the staff

3:11:56 ↗ had proposed but that under the city

3:11:58 ↗ attorney's position even if they did

3:12:00 ↗ that the mitigation that had been

3:12:02 ↗ previously provided during the term of

3:12:04 ↗ the agreement would quote disappear

3:12:07 ↗ that what was communicated to you at

3:12:09 ↗ this meeting this was his prediction as

3:12:12 ↗ to what he thought was likely to happen

3:12:15 ↗ and the next statement reads quote

3:12:18 ↗ Heath says mitigation not part of

3:12:23 ↗ Dev standards

3:12:26 ↗ despite it being in definitions

3:12:30 ↗ end quote is that an accurate reading

3:12:33 ↗ yes what was that

3:12:36 ↗ intended to mean

3:12:38 ↗ um this was Keith took the position that

3:12:42 ↗ mitigation was not part of the defined

3:12:44 ↗ term development standards under the

3:12:47 ↗ development agreement even though the

3:12:49 ↗ words in the development agreement are

3:12:51 ↗ very clear that it is so this is one of

3:12:54 ↗ those situations where it puts us in a

3:12:57 ↗ very awkward position when you're having

3:12:59 ↗ a discussion with somebody that doesn't

3:13:02 ↗ that refuses to acknowledge something

3:13:04 ↗ that is obvious to everyone else in the

3:13:07 ↗ room

3:13:20 ↗ next statement reads quote only vesting

3:13:24 ↗ to Dev standards rest of D.A disappears

3:13:31 ↗ only Lu standards end quote is that an

3:13:35 ↗ accurate reading

3:13:37 ↗ yes what does that mean

3:13:40 ↗ that's again the position that he was

3:13:43 ↗ articulating and he was Keith yes

3:13:46 ↗ and what was his position what was he

3:13:49 ↗ articulating with that he was making

3:13:51 ↗ this argument that you vest to

3:13:54 ↗ development standards but the

3:13:56 ↗ development standards doesn't include

3:13:58 ↗ mitigation

3:14:01 ↗ um it's not what's in the development

3:14:02 ↗ can you explain the basis for that is

3:14:04 ↗ that I haven't objected a number of

3:14:07 ↗ times but you keep cutting her off in

3:14:08 ↗ her answers I'm I'm sorry I thought that

3:14:11 ↗ she paused in mid statement I'd be happy

3:14:13 ↗ to slow down a little bit

3:14:17 ↗ do you have something else to say Miss

3:14:18 ↗ Heim

3:14:20 ↗ um

3:14:25 ↗ so this whole issue is the that if you

3:14:30 ↗ don't actually read the development

3:14:31 ↗ agreement and you're just saying well

3:14:33 ↗ development standards in my mind doesn't

3:14:35 ↗ include mitigation that's what Keith was

3:14:37 ↗ doing he wasn't actually looking at the

3:14:40 ↗ development agreement and so this was a

3:14:43 ↗ conversation that we had with him it

3:14:46 ↗ doesn't make a lot of sense if you're

3:14:47 ↗ following along

3:14:49 ↗ um with the way that things lay out but

3:14:52 ↗ it's what was happening

3:14:55 ↗ the next statement from your notes is

3:14:58 ↗ quote

3:15:01 ↗ question is to

3:15:04 ↗ what you vest period end quote

3:15:08 ↗ is that accurate

3:15:10 ↗ yes that's what it says stated that

3:15:14 ↗ I can't tell from the notes

3:15:21 ↗ okay if you have no recollection of that

3:15:23 ↗ that's fine I'll move on but that to

3:15:24 ↗ your knowledge that wasn't a a question

3:15:27 ↗ posed by staff or yourself well I mean

3:15:30 ↗ the whole the whole discussion was all

3:15:32 ↗ about vesting and to what you vest so

3:15:35 ↗ yeah somebody was saying that that's the

3:15:38 ↗ whole topic that we're discussing I mean

3:15:40 ↗ the city was going as so far as to say

3:15:42 ↗ that even issued sdps would invest and

3:15:47 ↗ unissue

3:15:48 ↗ which was and I think that's the next

3:15:52 ↗ reference at the top of the next page if

3:15:54 ↗ I could have you look at that the quote

3:15:57 ↗ is

3:15:58 ↗ issued sdps will disappear under option

3:16:02 ↗ three

3:16:04 ↗ C contract expired is that what you were

3:16:07 ↗ just referring to yes

3:16:09 ↗ and was this a

3:16:12 ↗ an acknowledgment of the by shelter or

3:16:16 ↗ was this a statement by Mr Niven or some

3:16:19 ↗ other meeting attendee this was a

3:16:21 ↗ statement from Mr Niven and option three

3:16:23 ↗ refers to

3:16:25 ↗ the options that were laid out in I

3:16:28 ↗ think it's in November 16th memo

3:16:32 ↗ that staff wrote I don't I don't recall

3:16:34 ↗ whether it was Mr Niven or Miss sloman

3:16:36 ↗ it's already in the record somewhere but

3:16:40 ↗ I believe

3:16:42 ↗ I believe option three well I don't know

3:16:45 ↗ what which which option it was but it

3:16:48 ↗ was not the option that had the proposed

3:16:51 ↗ vesting language that acknowledged

3:16:54 ↗ vesting of the land use permit

3:16:56 ↗ applications and the site development

3:16:58 ↗ permit applications so basically he was

3:17:01 ↗ telling us he Keith was telling us that

3:17:04 ↗ if Council chose to modify or take out

3:17:08 ↗ that language out of the replacement

3:17:09 ↗ regulations that sdps issued under the

3:17:13 ↗ development agreement would disappear

3:17:16 ↗ and not be valid anymore

3:17:18 ↗ in the reference if I understood you

3:17:21 ↗ correctly and this time was not to

3:17:22 ↗ Applications

3:17:24 ↗ but actually issued permits yes and that

3:17:27 ↗ was under option three uh that's that's

3:17:30 ↗ what what he referenced it as in that

3:17:32 ↗ meeting yeah and your next statement if

3:17:35 ↗ I'm reading this correctly if this the

3:17:37 ↗ reference to th is to yourself is

3:17:40 ↗ quote if you choose option three

3:17:45 ↗ your delay has prevented us from vesting

3:17:48 ↗ end quote is that accurate yeah so this

3:17:52 ↗ one I'm sorry did you express that to Mr

3:17:54 ↗ Niven is that a statement that you made

3:17:55 ↗ at the meeting yes

3:17:57 ↗ so we were we were telling him or I was

3:18:00 ↗ telling him that if they'd

3:18:03 ↗ do something other than acknowledge the

3:18:06 ↗ vesting or continued vesting of our

3:18:08 ↗ projects that

3:18:11 ↗ it would that the city's other defaults

3:18:14 ↗ under the development agreement for

3:18:16 ↗ failing to process in accordance with

3:18:17 ↗ the time frames that are spelled out in

3:18:20 ↗ appendix l

3:18:21 ↗ would have caused us not to get to

3:18:23 ↗ whatever that new point of vesting was

3:18:26 ↗ that they were going to establish so

3:18:30 ↗ we still firmly were of the opinion and

3:18:34 ↗ still are of the opinion we are vested

3:18:37 ↗ um but if they we were telling him that

3:18:40 ↗ if you take some other position not only

3:18:42 ↗ is that position itself

3:18:45 ↗ not legal but you also have

3:18:48 ↗ intentionally delayed our permits and

3:18:50 ↗ this and all of this delay and failure

3:18:52 ↗ to get to whatever Point you're telling

3:18:54 ↗ us we should have gotten to is your

3:18:56 ↗ fault

3:18:57 ↗ and you conveyed that to Mr Niven at

3:19:00 ↗ this meeting it did

3:19:02 ↗ he respond

3:19:06 ↗ um I mean there was discussion

3:19:09 ↗ of that

3:19:11 ↗ um this was this was a meeting this was

3:19:13 ↗ one of the meetings at which he then

3:19:17 ↗ referred

3:19:19 ↗ referred back to the fact that Gary

3:19:22 ↗ didn't give him the property for the

3:19:24 ↗ College Years before and he called it a

3:19:28 ↗ pivot point and and said that there were

3:19:31 ↗ many pivot Points in this process and

3:19:33 ↗ had Gary made a different Choice

3:19:36 ↗ um that we'd be treated differently

3:19:39 ↗ that reference to these pivot Points in

3:19:41 ↗ the

3:19:42 ↗ prior

3:19:45 ↗ property issues with the college

3:19:48 ↗ that in this document and your notes

3:19:50 ↗ there is a reference to pivot Points and

3:19:52 ↗ could have let us do the college that is

3:19:55 ↗ something that that part of the

3:19:57 ↗ conversation is quite clear in my mind

3:19:59 ↗ because it was so appalling to me that a

3:20:02 ↗ government employee would sit there and

3:20:04 ↗ look at a property owner in front of two

3:20:09 ↗ attorneys and say you didn't give me

3:20:12 ↗ something I asked for so now I'm

3:20:13 ↗ treating you differently I it was

3:20:16 ↗ shocking

3:20:20 ↗ next reference in your

3:20:23 ↗ meeting notes reads quote not funded to

3:20:27 ↗ appendix L end quote what was that

3:20:30 ↗ intended to mean

3:20:31 ↗ so this was another one of several

3:20:35 ↗ arguments that Keith Made to us about

3:20:37 ↗ why they weren't or weren't required to

3:20:41 ↗ find to to follow the time frames in

3:20:44 ↗ appendix L I'm sorry could I interject

3:20:46 ↗ just briefly to their clarification so

3:20:48 ↗ that that statement was a a statement or

3:20:51 ↗ paraphrase from Mr Niven

3:20:54 ↗ um it was a yeah sort of I mean it was a

3:20:58 ↗ topic that we discussed so it was

3:21:00 ↗ something that he brought up that he

3:21:02 ↗ said they were not funded to follow

3:21:04 ↗ appendix L and he said that originally

3:21:08 ↗ under the development agreement the

3:21:10 ↗ master developer Port Blakely had funded

3:21:13 ↗ an entity that was called the mdrt and I

3:21:16 ↗ don't remember what that stands for but

3:21:18 ↗ it was basically a permit review entity

3:21:22 ↗ a branch of the city if you will that

3:21:25 ↗ reviewed all of the permits in Issaquah

3:21:28 ↗ Highlands when it was sort of at the

3:21:30 ↗ height of its development and that mdrt

3:21:34 ↗ was funded by the master developer at

3:21:39 ↗ some point the master developer didn't

3:21:41 ↗ discontinued that funding mechanism and

3:21:44 ↗ the permits started being processed by

3:21:48 ↗ the city staff now some of that mdrt

3:21:50 ↗ staff actually rolled in and became the

3:21:52 ↗ city staff

3:21:53 ↗ um but he was of the opinion that when

3:21:56 ↗ that funding stopped that he didn't have

3:21:59 ↗ to to follow the time frames in appendix

3:22:03 ↗ L any longer

3:22:05 ↗ um there's there's no evidence in the

3:22:07 ↗ documents as they as they are or as they

3:22:09 ↗ were amended that that's actually true

3:22:12 ↗ and we did follow up with the master

3:22:14 ↗ developer and the master developers

3:22:15 ↗ attorney to clarify

3:22:18 ↗ um that that's that's not true and they

3:22:20 ↗ confirmed that appendix L was in fact in

3:22:23 ↗ effect and that there was although there

3:22:26 ↗ had been a short time period in which a

3:22:29 ↗ different Arrangement was tested out

3:22:31 ↗ that that Arrangement had expired and

3:22:35 ↗ that the appendix L was in effect in the

3:22:37 ↗ city was

3:22:38 ↗ Bound by that as were we thank you could

3:22:41 ↗ you then turn to your December 12th 2017

3:22:45 ↗ meeting notes

3:22:47 ↗ I think Mr chairman this will be my last

3:22:49 ↗ uh

3:22:51 ↗ uh series of questions for this evening

3:22:53 ↗ with that's permissible to you I think

3:22:55 ↗ it would be a good breaking point and

3:22:57 ↗ we're getting close to the 10 o'clock

3:22:58 ↗ hour let's go

3:22:59 ↗ and this will not be a very long

3:23:02 ↗ the attendees at this meeting Miss Heim

3:23:05 ↗ as I understand it from your notes were

3:23:07 ↗ Ms sloman Jean Lynn Mr schlepp

3:23:13 ↗ David David

3:23:15 ↗ Holmes at uh

3:23:19 ↗ oh it's too late I can't remember the

3:23:21 ↗ name of I'm blanking on the name of our

3:23:23 ↗ consultant but our architect uh

3:23:25 ↗ consultant yeah David and James are both

3:23:28 ↗ of the architect Alan is at the

3:23:30 ↗ landscape architect and Riley was with

3:23:32 ↗ kpff the engineer thank you and the the

3:23:35 ↗ title of this document is a Block C

3:23:38 ↗ pre-app office and Fitness

3:23:41 ↗ he didn't describe the purpose of of

3:23:43 ↗ this December 12 2017 meeting

3:23:46 ↗ yes this was the required preliminary

3:23:48 ↗ application meeting for the office and

3:23:51 ↗ fitness proposal on bloxy

3:23:54 ↗ was there any discussion regarding

3:23:55 ↗ vesting at this meeting

3:24:39 ↗ foreign

3:24:44 ↗ to vesting in my notes

3:24:47 ↗ thank you I think that would again be a

3:24:50 ↗ very logical breaking point I do have

3:24:53 ↗ probably I would estimate an hour and a

3:24:55 ↗ half or so of additional questions when

3:24:58 ↗ we reconvene at the next meeting I'm

3:25:01 ↗ sorry

3:25:02 ↗ could you say that again please I was

3:25:04 ↗ again this would probably be a logical

3:25:07 ↗ breaking point for purposes of our

3:25:08 ↗ cross-examination and I would estimate

3:25:10 ↗ approximately an hour and a half to

3:25:12 ↗ maybe an hour and 45 minutes of

3:25:14 ↗ additional questioning when we reconvene

3:25:17 ↗ thank you duly noted I actually have a

3:25:20 ↗ one quick question for the record before

3:25:22 ↗ we turn this into the city is it just

3:25:23 ↗ ministerial

3:25:25 ↗ um the issue we had with the the letter

3:25:28 ↗ um that was I think it was part of s 73

3:25:33 ↗ um I just wanted to get clarification

3:25:35 ↗ Jackie I think you might be able to do

3:25:36 ↗ this is there as far as in what you guys

3:25:40 ↗ intended to submit an S 73n I'm not

3:25:43 ↗ seeing it in the notebook and we we

3:25:45 ↗ discovered it was a duplicate on our end

3:25:47 ↗ and so I just wanted to get some

3:25:49 ↗ clarification on that before I give this

3:25:51 ↗ to the city clerk

3:25:53 ↗ um let me check for a second and see if

3:25:55 ↗ it can help with that

3:25:57 ↗ um

3:26:05 ↗ no I have it it appears to be the exact

3:26:09 ↗ same letter as s73j and that was my

3:26:12 ↗ initial question and then it didn't

3:26:14 ↗ appear in the um the notebooks that the

3:26:17 ↗ applicants so I think that's right and

3:26:19 ↗ if I recall and I apologize we don't

3:26:20 ↗ have a transcript from last night so

3:26:22 ↗ that it would clarify but I think that

3:26:24 ↗ was the exhibit that we were having

3:26:25 ↗ that's shuffling around on right

3:26:27 ↗ um so I think that we decided not to use

3:26:30 ↗ n in that exhibit because we recognized

3:26:33 ↗ it was already a duplicate okay perfect

3:26:35 ↗ I'm gonna pull it I just wanted to make

3:26:36 ↗ sure that wasn't appropriate okay thank

3:26:38 ↗ you

3:26:42 ↗ okay I think we've reached the agreed

3:26:45 ↗ upon time or close to the agreed upon

3:26:47 ↗ time when the meeting would be adjourned

3:26:49 ↗ but uh we'll be so therefore we'll be

3:26:51 ↗ continuing the public hearings on

3:26:53 ↗ tonight's agenda to a further meeting

3:26:55 ↗ date and we need to decide the dates for

3:26:58 ↗ our next meetings and I understand that

3:26:59 ↗ the parties may have may be available to

3:27:03 ↗ continue these hearings to the evening

3:27:04 ↗ of March 19th and 20th is that correct

3:27:09 ↗ foreign

3:27:14 ↗ commissioners

3:27:16 ↗ I'm available excellent okay

3:27:21 ↗ the public hearing on tonight's agenda

3:27:23 ↗ will be continued to a special meeting

3:27:25 ↗ of the commission on March 19 2019 in

3:27:28 ↗ the council chambers at 6 30 PM the

3:27:31 ↗ meeting is now adjourned

3:27:33 ↗ not adjourned

3:27:36 ↗ given that I believe that we're coming

3:27:38 ↗ near the point where I think it would be

3:27:41 ↗ appropriate to schedule the public

3:27:42 ↗ testimony portion of the public hearing

3:27:45 ↗ since we won't be meeting in the near

3:27:47 ↗ term until we reconvene on the 19th and

3:27:49 ↗ 20th I don't I certainly foresee

3:27:52 ↗ concluding my cross-examination of Miss

3:27:55 ↗ Heim on the 19th and I would have to

3:27:59 ↗ defer to the applicant as to how much

3:28:00 ↗ additional direct witness testimony will

3:28:03 ↗ be required but it might be a good idea

3:28:06 ↗ to schedule the public testimony portion

3:28:08 ↗ of the hearing or the 20th so then the

3:28:11 ↗ parties can schedule one last go-around

3:28:13 ↗ for purposes of the rebuttal that might

3:28:16 ↗ be more expedient but

3:28:18 ↗ not my place to advise you but I'll just

3:28:19 ↗ throw that out there for um

3:28:21 ↗ consumption of the of the commission

3:28:23 ↗ okay

3:28:29 ↗ you might ask how many more witnesses

3:28:31 ↗ they plan to how do you have a large

3:28:34 ↗ number of witnesses to come forward we

3:28:36 ↗ have one more witness that we'll call

3:28:38 ↗ um and I think that our ability to get

3:28:41 ↗ through that witness with the city 's

3:28:43 ↗ cross-examination if they're going to do

3:28:44 ↗ a cross-examination and a redirect of

3:28:46 ↗ each of our Witnesses it's just going to

3:28:48 ↗ depend on how much longer the cross of

3:28:49 ↗ Miss Heim takes the next time

3:28:53 ↗ so we can we'll we can try to get done

3:28:55 ↗ in that period of time but I just I

3:28:57 ↗ don't know how the timing will actually

3:28:58 ↗ work out

3:28:59 ↗ my uh my experience with you all is that

3:29:03 ↗ time is not a real strong value for you

3:29:06 ↗ I mean I know you think it's important

3:29:08 ↗ but it's not not easy to predict

3:29:11 ↗ I don't want to bring the public here

3:29:13 ↗ and not be able to have time for them to

3:29:16 ↗ do that so

3:29:18 ↗ my guess is you're probably going to

3:29:21 ↗ take the 19th and part of the 20th that

3:29:24 ↗ can you advise me otherwise that's fine

3:29:27 ↗ and I appreciate the concern and I think

3:29:29 ↗ that you're

3:29:31 ↗ characterization of our respective

3:29:33 ↗ estimates of of timing is probably

3:29:35 ↗ accurate if I can malign my own so I

3:29:38 ↗ have no objection to that I was again

3:29:40 ↗ just attempting to expedite the process

3:29:43 ↗ so I'm I'm fine with that and that

3:29:45 ↗ certainly the commission can schedule

3:29:46 ↗ the pelvic testimony portion of the

3:29:48 ↗ public hearing when we reconvene later

3:29:50 ↗ so I apologize I'm not sure in light of

3:29:53 ↗ these last comments whether we're all on

3:29:55 ↗ the same page about expectations so my

3:29:59 ↗ assumption is on the 19th we'll finish

3:30:02 ↗ up with Ms Heim and perhaps with Mr

3:30:05 ↗ Young and then is the city intending to

3:30:07 ↗ call rebuttal Witnesses and if so or is

3:30:12 ↗ it you're thinking you'll do that before

3:30:13 ↗ or after the public testimony

3:30:19 ↗ your microphone on

3:30:20 ↗ it's been my understanding that the

3:30:22 ↗ rebuttal testimony would occur after the

3:30:24 ↗ public hearings so the parties would

3:30:26 ↗ have the opportunity to rebut any

3:30:28 ↗ statements that members of the public

3:30:30 ↗ might make

3:30:32 ↗ whether at what extent the commission

3:30:33 ↗ chooses to schedule that public

3:30:35 ↗ testimony to occur on for example the

3:30:39 ↗ 20th this is your prerogative I was just

3:30:41 ↗ suggesting that as one option too

3:30:44 ↗ rolling as it were I appreciate that

3:30:47 ↗ well it certainly it seems to me that if

3:30:50 ↗ the rebuttal testimony is coming after

3:30:52 ↗ the public hearing then we should

3:30:53 ↗ schedule the public hearing on the 20th

3:30:55 ↗ otherwise we're likely to have a

3:30:58 ↗ an evening we're not being terribly

3:30:59 ↗ productive with that was my point

3:31:03 ↗ so we would concur with that suggestion

3:31:05 ↗ okay

3:31:06 ↗ I would agree with that that sounds

3:31:08 ↗ sounds like the the best guess at this

3:31:11 ↗ point is to schedule public input on the

3:31:14 ↗ 20th and to expect the uh

3:31:18 ↗ cross-examination and the the uh

3:31:21 ↗ redirect to be completed on the 19th and

3:31:25 ↗ then the or the redirect would be on at

3:31:27 ↗ a further meeting after the public

3:31:28 ↗ hearing is that correct

3:31:30 ↗ I'm understanding Mr Schneider's

3:31:33 ↗ comments and the commission's preference

3:31:35 ↗ what would occur on the 19th would be a

3:31:38 ↗ completion of the city's

3:31:40 ↗ cross-examination of Miss Heim any

3:31:43 ↗ redirect of Miss Heim by the applicant

3:31:45 ↗ then they would call if a Time

3:31:48 ↗ permitting Mr young as I believe their

3:31:50 ↗ Final witness and then any cross and

3:31:52 ↗ redirect of that witness and then the

3:31:56 ↗ 20th would be reserved for the public

3:31:58 ↗ hearing and as well as any carryover

3:32:00 ↗ from Mr Young's testimony

3:32:02 ↗ and I don't have any sense whether the

3:32:05 ↗ public hearing is going to last five

3:32:07 ↗ minutes or two hours so unless there's

3:32:10 ↗ some ability to predict the length of it

3:32:12 ↗ then I would suggest that the city be

3:32:14 ↗ prepared to put on its rebuttal

3:32:16 ↗ testimony with whatever time remains on

3:32:19 ↗ the 20th

3:32:21 ↗ um if there is going to be rebuttal

3:32:22 ↗ testimony

3:32:24 ↗ you might be prepared to begin that but

3:32:26 ↗ my strong assumption given the the

3:32:29 ↗ length of Miss heim's testimony over the

3:32:31 ↗ last five hearings in Mr mullaney's

3:32:34 ↗ testimony that uh it would be that our

3:32:37 ↗ rebuttal Witnesses would consume

3:32:40 ↗ likely an entire session in and of

3:32:42 ↗ themselves

3:32:48 ↗ so what give me a recommendation should

3:32:50 ↗ we try to hold the public input on the

3:32:52 ↗ 20th public hearing portion of the

3:32:54 ↗ meeting it sounds like we should do that

3:32:55 ↗ yes yes so let's let's try to get that

3:32:58 ↗ scheduled make make sure that the public

3:33:00 ↗ knows that that's their opportunity to

3:33:02 ↗ be able to comment

3:33:06 ↗ that sound good yeah yep

3:33:08 ↗ is it all right if we adjourn now

3:33:11 ↗ we're adjourned

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]