Development Commission - Special Meeting - 19 M · Tuesday, March 19, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 16, 2018

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 5, 2019

packet pp.7–11

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 16, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:07 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-05-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of March 6, 2019

packet pp.13–14

▶ Watch from 1:07:32 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 03-06-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

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

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 2:13:57 Open packet at p.23 ↗

3540 segments .txt ↗

0:15 ↗ there we go good evening ladies and

0:17 ↗ gentlemen I'd like to uh bring to order

0:19 ↗ the public meeting for uh or the public

0:22 ↗ hearing I'm sorry for the isqua

0:24 ↗ highlands retail site development permit

0:27 ↗ The isqua Highlands Medical Office

0:28 ↗ administrative site devel permit and the

0:31 ↗ isqua Highland Self Storage

0:32 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:35 ↗ before we start uh we have a couple of

0:38 ↗ administrative things to do we have

0:39 ↗ minutes from March 5th and March 6th

0:42 ↗ that I need some uh action taken on by

0:45 ↗ the commission so um how about March 5th

0:49 ↗ Mr chair I move we approved the minutes

0:50 ↗ of the March 5th 2019 meeting

0:54 ↗ second okay uh motion's been moved

0:58 ↗ there's been a motion and seconded uh

1:00 ↗ any comment all those in favor say I I

1:04 ↗ opposed motion carries Mr chair move we

1:07 ↗ approve the minutes to the March 6 2019

1:09 ↗ meeting second motion's been made and

1:12 ↗ seconded any

1:14 ↗ discussion uh all those in favor say I I

1:17 ↗ I I'll opposed thank you thank you uh so

1:22 ↗ uh Mr L I think we're in the process of

1:25 ↗ continuing our cross examination of Miss

1:27 ↗ Heim

1:34 ↗ I apologize my voice is a little bit

1:36 ↗ scratchy I'm a little bit under the

1:38 ↗ weather and suffering from uh allergy so

1:40 ↗ please bear with me I

1:42 ↗ apologize our recorder would request

1:44 ↗ that it given every chance we speak as

1:47 ↗ loud as we

1:52 ↗ can this I'm could you please verify

1:55 ↗ that you continue to be under oath from

1:57 ↗ your prior testimony I am thank you

2:00 ↗ um where we left off we were discussing

2:03 ↗ the uh the notes or minutes that you had

2:05 ↗ prepared and that were recently uh

2:07 ↗ introduced as a bundle into the evidence

2:09 ↗ record for this proceeding and what I'd

2:12 ↗ like to do is Begin Again with your

2:15 ↗ meeting notes from the February 6th 2018

2:21 ↗ [Applause]

2:23 ↗ meeting I believe that that was um the

2:26 ↗ bundle of of meeting notes was exhibit

2:28 ↗ c44 for the record thank

2:31 ↗ you you have that document I'm working

2:35 ↗ on

2:41 ↗ [Applause]

2:47 ↗ it yeah

2:52 ↗ got yes I have those according to the uh

2:56 ↗ heading it appears that the attendees at

2:58 ↗ this meeting were Jim Haney Lucy slowman

3:01 ↗ Keith nien Patrick molini and yourself

3:04 ↗ is that

3:05 ↗ correct

3:07 ↗ yes could you please turn to page one at

3:12 ↗ near the top of the page there's a

3:14 ↗ discussion about the plat presumably IH

3:18 ↗ ifc's plat do you see that reference at

3:21 ↗ the second bullet

3:27 ↗ point beginning with we asked about the

3:29 ↗ pl

3:30 ↗ yes I see

3:32 ↗ that in the third hollow bullet point

3:35 ↗ below that there's a a statement reading

3:38 ↗ Haney said yes regulations and no to

3:41 ↗ mitigation do you see that

3:43 ↗ reference I see the reference could you

3:46 ↗ please describe what that was in in

3:48 ↗ reference to and the context for that

3:50 ↗ statement so this meeting was um a

3:54 ↗ dispute resolution meeting under the

3:56 ↗ terms of the development agreement so it

3:58 ↗ was something that we had delivered

4:00 ↗ uh the city a notice requesting the

4:02 ↗ meeting they had to Grant the meeting

4:04 ↗ within a certain number of days um so

4:07 ↗ this was that meeting which I was I

4:10 ↗ think the first time we had seen Mr

4:13 ↗ Haney at one of the meetings regarding

4:16 ↗ our properties um one of the things that

4:19 ↗ we were talking about was the plat

4:23 ↗ vesting because the city had said and

4:27 ↗ said in this meeting that the plot was

4:28 ↗ vested but there was never any Clarity

4:31 ↗ given from what there Clarity given to

4:35 ↗ us as to what the city's perspective was

4:38 ↗ on what that meant other than saying

4:41 ↗ less than everything or not to

4:44 ↗ everything that you vest to not

4:46 ↗ everything under a plat um so

4:50 ↗ that that bullet point that you point to

4:55 ↗ um the we asked about the plat Lucy

4:58 ↗ stated that it's clear that it's vested

5:00 ↗ then the sub bullets that you asked

5:02 ↗ about the one

5:05 ↗ um was Mr Haney's response that yes we

5:10 ↗ vest to

5:11 ↗ regulations um and he initially said

5:15 ↗ that no to mitigation and Patrick our

5:18 ↗ attorney pointed out that development

5:20 ↗ standards to which you vest is a defined

5:22 ↗ term in the development agreement which

5:24 ↗ includes both regulations and mitigation

5:27 ↗ Mr Haney didn't appear to be aware that

5:29 ↗ that existed in the development

5:35 ↗ agreement and then could you please look

5:37 ↗ about half the way down on uh the first

5:40 ↗ page of your February 6th meeting notes

5:43 ↗ to the fourth solid bullet point

5:46 ↗ beginning with any pointed

5:50 ↗ out you see that yes um could you please

5:55 ↗ read that bullet point up to the

5:57 ↗ beginning of the of the hollow bullet

5:59 ↗ point for the

6:05 ↗ record I can read that section but I

6:07 ↗ don't think it would give you an

6:08 ↗ accurate depiction of the conversation

6:10 ↗ that happened unless you also look at

6:12 ↗ the bullet points below that we we'll

6:14 ↗ get there but I I would ask you to read

6:16 ↗ the the solid bullet point for the

6:18 ↗ record please okay for the record um

6:20 ↗ without having the context that bullet

6:22 ↗ point says Haney pointed out that

6:24 ↗ everyone agrees that there are only

6:26 ↗ certain things that vest under state law

6:28 ↗ so where would we possibly get the idea

6:31 ↗ that sdp vests he also pulled out the

6:34 ↗ IMC which says nothing is required prior

6:36 ↗ to building

6:39 ↗ permit then the hollow bullet point

6:42 ↗ below that I think that you were

6:43 ↗ referring to before indicates that we

6:46 ↗ pointed out that the IMC is inconsistent

6:49 ↗ with the way the administration runs

6:51 ↗ things who's the Wii in that

6:55 ↗ statement the Wii is uh shelter pointed

6:59 ↗ out that the administration had been on

7:02 ↗ record many times explaining that they

7:05 ↗ do not

7:07 ↗ treat um that they actually require sdps

7:11 ↗ before building permits and consider

7:13 ↗ them linked permits and therefore the

7:14 ↗ vesting occurs at an earlier point in

7:17 ↗ time which was inconsistent with the the

7:20 ↗ section of IMC that uh Mr Haney had

7:23 ↗ cited to and Patrick our

7:25 ↗ attorney um read P actually pulled out

7:28 ↗ the memo that staff had written

7:30 ↗ regarding that issue and um read that to

7:35 ↗ Mr Haney who again had

7:38 ↗ not he seemed to have not uh been

7:41 ↗ familiar with that memo or been aware of

7:43 ↗ that

7:46 ↗ memo the second hollow bullet point

7:50 ↗ immediately below that reference reads

7:53 ↗ Haney questioned that and looked at

7:55 ↗ Keith and Lucy neither of whom would

7:58 ↗ speak to the point

8:01 ↗ is that the reference that you were you

8:02 ↗ were meaning that Mr Haney was

8:05 ↗ communicating with Mr nian and miss

8:08 ↗ slowman about that

8:12 ↗ memo um I don't think that that was

8:15 ↗ specifically about the memo when we

8:17 ↗ pointed out that the city does in fact

8:19 ↗ require sdps and prior to building

8:22 ↗ permit and it was was therefore treating

8:26 ↗ sdps as the vesting due to the west main

8:29 ↗ problem

8:30 ↗ um despite what it might say in any one

8:34 ↗ given section of the isqua municipal

8:37 ↗ code he looked to his client to see if

8:41 ↗ that were true and both of them sat

8:43 ↗ there with blank faces not wanting to

8:45 ↗ say a word because they knew that it was

8:48 ↗ true did they say they knew that it was

8:51 ↗ true they did in the memo that they

8:53 ↗ wrote on November 17th which is what

8:55 ↗ Patrick pulled out but did they say that

8:57 ↗ in the meeting on they didn't have to

9:00 ↗ say it did they say

9:03 ↗ it did they say they comment on that was

9:06 ↗ there any discussion that they conceded

9:08 ↗ the

9:09 ↗ point in that part of the discussion

9:12 ↗ they did not respond when he looked at

9:14 ↗ them to see if that was in fact the way

9:17 ↗ the city was running things he

9:19 ↗ eventually laughed it off as that you

9:21 ↗ know uh the previous City attorney Wayne

9:26 ↗ had taken that

9:27 ↗ position you please turn to the the

9:30 ↗ second page of your uh February 6th

9:33 ↗ meeting notes and the third solid bullet

9:37 ↗ point beginning with Patrick and Keith

9:39 ↗ discussed

9:55 ↗ mitigation and could you please read the

9:58 ↗ sentence beginning with if we are

10:02 ↗ saying allow again I can read the

10:05 ↗ sentence but without context it doesn't

10:07 ↗ really accurately depict the

10:08 ↗ conversation that was happening and if

10:11 ↗ you could please read the sentence thank

10:14 ↗ you it says if we are saying we are

10:17 ↗ fully vested to mitigation post da then

10:20 ↗ city is saying no but there is an

10:23 ↗ opportunity to negotiate if we propose

10:25 ↗ something

10:26 ↗ less and that was a statement from Keith

10:28 ↗ nien

10:31 ↗ that was part of a conversation that

10:34 ↗ Patrick and Keith were having our

10:36 ↗ perspective on that was that we were

10:38 ↗ vested fully through the plat so we

10:40 ↗ didn't understand why we would be ever

10:42 ↗ proposing something less than

10:45 ↗ that that that was a statement

10:47 ↗ paraphrasing Keith nian if I understand

10:49 ↗ your testimony or the context of your

10:51 ↗ notes that was a sentence out of my

10:53 ↗ notes that was a portion of it it was

10:57 ↗ referencing a portion of a conversation

10:59 ↗ that we had and when what I'm trying to

11:01 ↗ discern is who those statements should

11:04 ↗ be ascribed

11:07 ↗ to which statement are you talking about

11:10 ↗ one that I just had you read for the

11:11 ↗ record the the well the notes are

11:15 ↗ paraphrasing a conversation so they're

11:17 ↗ not exact quotes from any person but if

11:20 ↗ you're asking who articulated the city's

11:22 ↗ position that would be Keith thank

11:26 ↗ you on page two the fifth bullet

11:34 ↗ point with Tia asked and then

11:37 ↗ immediately below that the hollow bullet

11:39 ↗ point beginning with Keith said rules of

11:43 ↗ Da don't change during the term so

11:46 ↗ vesting is just a word and doesn't

11:49 ↗ matter if it makes you feel good to call

11:52 ↗ your permits vested you can call it

11:54 ↗ whatever you want is that an

11:57 ↗ accurate statement of of Mr nen's

12:03 ↗ comments he made a comment along those

12:05 ↗ lines during that meeting yes could you

12:09 ↗ explain what ihfc interpreted that

12:13 ↗ statement to mean

12:30 ↗ well this meeting occurred on February 6

12:33 ↗ 2018 this was a couple of days after the

12:37 ↗ city had announced that they had changed

12:39 ↗ their position on the recommended

12:41 ↗ vesting language in the um that would go

12:44 ↗ into the replacement

12:46 ↗ regulations um and they were now taking

12:49 ↗ the position that vesting could be

12:51 ↗ removed retroactively by city council

12:54 ↗ action so this

12:56 ↗ was Keith trying to say that vesting

12:59 ↗ just doesn't matter because the city

13:01 ↗ council can take it away which we

13:03 ↗ obviously objected to and explained for

13:08 ↗ um an additional time that that's not

13:11 ↗ legal it's not consistent with

13:12 ↗ Washington law and vested rights or

13:14 ↗ property rights that you can't

13:15 ↗ retroactively take away by legisl

13:17 ↗ legislative action and if I could have

13:20 ↗ you look down slightly further in the

13:23 ↗ second page of your meeting

13:26 ↗ notes the

13:31 ↗ next solid bullet point beginning with

13:34 ↗ Patrick asked what the city's position

13:36 ↗ is with respect to mitigation after

13:39 ↗ termination of The Da could you please

13:41 ↗ read um the hollow bullet point

13:45 ↗ statement beginning with Haney

13:51 ↗ said Haney said after termination

13:53 ↗ neither side is bound so if there are

13:56 ↗ permit applications after termination

13:58 ↗ then new mitigation should be provided

14:01 ↗ if you still bound to the mitigation

14:03 ↗ after the termination then what would be

14:05 ↗ the purpose of the termination and is

14:07 ↗ that an

14:08 ↗ accurate statement of Mr Haney's

14:11 ↗ comments at that

14:17 ↗ meeting um he did make that statement

14:19 ↗ and our response indicated that you know

14:23 ↗ he was missing a big portion of what the

14:25 ↗ purpose of a termination of AG an

14:27 ↗ agreement would be if he was looking at

14:29 ↗ it from that perspective and his this is

14:32 ↗ you know an issue that kept coming up

14:34 ↗ over and over again was just

14:35 ↗ inconsistent positions that were being

14:37 ↗ taken by the city so we went from Keith

14:40 ↗ always telling us that City can't double

14:42 ↗ dip mitigation has to be acknowledged

14:45 ↗ and it might be acknowledged later but

14:47 ↗ you don't know if it's going to be

14:48 ↗ acknowledged later to then Haney taking

14:50 ↗ this position at this particular

14:55 ↗ time thank you and on the third and

14:57 ↗ final page of your February 6th notes

15:00 ↗ the final solid bullet point beginning

15:02 ↗ with Patrick pointed

15:09 ↗ out do you see

15:12 ↗ that

15:14 ↗ M the statement reads Patrick pointed

15:17 ↗ out that the LNS packet says the

15:19 ↗ administration changed its position

15:22 ↗ after consideration and comments what

15:25 ↗ were those and then it says Keith said

15:28 ↗ we received comments on both sides of

15:31 ↗ vesting I think Steve Pereira made a

15:34 ↗ comment against vesting and also the new

15:37 ↗ executive

15:38 ↗ input you please give me the context of

15:41 ↗ this statement in your

15:47 ↗ notes um yeah so you know we had just

15:51 ↗ been blindsided by this change in the

15:53 ↗ recommendation from the city

15:55 ↗ Administration as to what um as to both

15:58 ↗ what what vesting language would be

16:00 ↗ included in the replacement regulations

16:02 ↗ and the impacts that the city staff was

16:05 ↗ interpreting to flow from that language

16:08 ↗ um we had been objecting to the option

16:11 ↗ that they were now saying was the

16:13 ↗ preferred op option which had previously

16:15 ↗ not been recommended by the city so we

16:18 ↗ were and the message that we got when

16:20 ↗ the recommendation changed was that it

16:22 ↗ was due to the new Administration so

16:25 ↗ what Patrick was asking was the in the

16:29 ↗ land and Shore packet which is the LNS

16:32 ↗ packet it said that the administration

16:33 ↗ changed its position after consideration

16:35 ↗ and comments and he was asking what were

16:38 ↗ those um comments and considerations and

16:42 ↗ so Keith explained that from his

16:46 ↗ perspective they had received comments

16:48 ↗ on both sides of vesting and he cited

16:50 ↗ Steve pereira's comment they had

16:53 ↗ received comments on both sides of

16:55 ↗ vesting but you have to understand that

16:57 ↗ one of those comments um on the other

16:59 ↗ side of vesting or asking the city to

17:02 ↗ divest our project came from an adjacent

17:05 ↗ property owner who felt the city had

17:07 ↗ promised him that there would be no

17:09 ↗ other retail development in isqua

17:11 ↗ Highlands so were there comments yes

17:14 ↗ were those in appropriate basis for

17:15 ↗ changing the recommend recommendation or

17:19 ↗ or um not continuing to recognize vested

17:22 ↗ right absolutely

17:24 ↗ not you please turn to your February 8th

17:28 ↗ 20

17:30 ↗ 8 meeting

17:37 ↗ notes for the record this is I believe

17:40 ↗ an email from yourself to Gary young

17:44 ↗ Derek straight and Patrick molini at

17:47 ↗ 8:46 a.m. on February 8th 2018 yeah so I

17:52 ↗ think you're referring to they there

17:53 ↗ notes from a meeting that had occurred

17:55 ↗ the previous evening on February 7th is

17:58 ↗ that is that what you're referring to

18:00 ↗ yes thank you for the clarification the

18:01 ↗ subject line is 27 community meeting D

18:05 ↗ isqua so

18:07 ↗ it's my understanding that referred to

18:09 ↗ the previous night's meeting uh which is

18:12 ↗ the first sentence of your of your

18:14 ↗ message so could you please describe

18:17 ↗ what this document is in reference to

18:20 ↗ and what meeting occurred on February

18:23 ↗ 7th yes this was a community meeting

18:27 ↗ that the city hosted in in at Blakeley

18:30 ↗ Hall um to explain to the community the

18:35 ↗ changes that had occurred um within the

18:39 ↗ replacement the proposed replacement

18:41 ↗ regulations um during the course of

18:44 ↗ their

18:50 ↗ evolution about 34s of the way down the

18:54 ↗ first page there's a bullet point

18:56 ↗ beginning with on vesting could you

18:59 ↗ please read that

19:04 ↗ aloud um it says on vesting Das Lucy

19:08 ↗ says that da provided no guidance on

19:10 ↗ vesting and they are really concerned

19:12 ↗ about vesting to outdated

19:15 ↗ standards Lucy is Miss slowman correct

19:18 ↗ that correct

19:21 ↗ and who is the they to your

19:24 ↗ understanding that is referenced in the

19:26 ↗ second sentence of of that statement

19:29 ↗ well I think we've heard testimony about

19:32 ↗ the the slide that was presented at this

19:34 ↗ meeting and others um say stating that

19:37 ↗ the the development agreement provides

19:39 ↗ no um guidance or regulations on vesting

19:42 ↗ so the they in in this um bullet point

19:46 ↗ in my notes is referring to the city so

19:50 ↗ um one of the the things that they cited

19:54 ↗ as um a reason for not recognizing

19:57 ↗ continuing to recog ize vested Rights

20:00 ↗ was that they didn't like the idea of

20:02 ↗ vesting to outdated standards so just to

20:05 ↗ clarify the the they in your view did

20:07 ↗ not refer to the isqua city

20:11 ↗ council the they conf referred

20:15 ↗ to uh Lucy or city Administration thank

20:20 ↗ you um finally I'd like you to please

20:22 ↗ turn to your meeting notes from February

20:26 ↗ 15th 2018

20:30 ↗ this is a meeting according to your note

20:34 ↗ heading with Mary L ply Keith nien Eric

20:38 ↗ Strait and yourself yes could you please

20:42 ↗ turn to the second

20:44 ↗ page and read the

20:46 ↗ [Music]

20:47 ↗ third solid bullet point beginning with

20:50 ↗ Kei said for the record

21:05 ↗ the bullet point says Keith said for the

21:09 ↗ record staff or at least he is not

21:12 ↗ purposely delaying our application

21:14 ↗ processing if they had the resources to

21:16 ↗ process timely they

21:18 ↗ would is that an accurate statement to

21:21 ↗ your recollection of what Mr nien said

21:23 ↗ at that

21:24 ↗ meeting um it's not an accurate

21:27 ↗ statement he said something along those

21:29 ↗ lines an accurate surmise as as far as

21:33 ↗ it goes if it's not a Verbatim statement

21:36 ↗ to your understanding that that is

21:38 ↗ essentially the substance of what he

21:41 ↗ said yes he made a statement along those

21:44 ↗ lines at this meeting but again this

21:45 ↗ meeting you may recall my testimony on

21:47 ↗ it earlier was one of the most bizarre

21:50 ↗ meetings I've ever been in in my life

21:52 ↗ because when you're looking at an

21:53 ↗ agreement and it says certain words and

21:56 ↗ the other party that you're talking to

21:58 ↗ refus us es to acknowledge that those

22:00 ↗ words exist on the on the page um it's

22:04 ↗ it's a hard thing to know how to even

22:06 ↗ continue a

22:07 ↗ conversation but just to clarify Mr nian

22:10 ↗ did make that statement that's why you

22:11 ↗ wrote it down

22:13 ↗ correct yes he wanted to put something

22:16 ↗ on the record that he wasn't

22:18 ↗ intentionally delaying our applications

22:20 ↗ despite the fact that nobody had

22:22 ↗ reviewed the the plat which had been in

22:24 ↗ from August 1st thank you I'd like to

22:28 ↗ ask some questions about how and when

22:32 ↗ shelter acquired its isqua Highland's

22:34 ↗ property and the process that uh was

22:38 ↗ taken for that

22:39 ↗ undertaking when shelter acquired that

22:42 ↗ property how much entitlement came with

22:46 ↗ it

22:48 ↗ um I can give you my understanding of it

22:51 ↗ for the record I was not um employed by

22:54 ↗ shelter at the time that the property

22:56 ↗ was

22:57 ↗ acquired um so the question as to how

22:59 ↗ much entitlement came with the property

23:02 ↗ when the property was purchased by

23:06 ↗ um isqua Highlands investment fund LLC

23:10 ↗ from Microsoft it was 63 Acres at that

23:14 ↗ point in

23:16 ↗ time the owners of shelter Holdings were

23:19 ↗ also the O owners of polygon Northwest

23:22 ↗ and so it gets a little bit confusing

23:25 ↗ maybe to understand how that happened

23:28 ↗ but so the 63 Acres were purchased by

23:31 ↗ isqua Highlands investment fund and came

23:34 ↗ with

23:35 ↗ um approximately 1.2 million square feet

23:39 ↗ of commercial

23:42 ↗ entitlement and could you to the best of

23:46 ↗ your ability Define the term entitlement

23:48 ↗ in this

23:49 ↗ context um I'm referring to allowable

23:52 ↗ development under the development

23:55 ↗ agreement and did did shelter purchase

23:58 ↗ addition entitlement from Port Blakeley

24:00 ↗ communities after that point yes

24:03 ↗ approximately how much entitlement was

24:05 ↗ purchased from Port

24:07 ↗ Blakeley um so ihfc purchased

24:12 ↗ entitlement from Port Blakeley um and it

24:16 ↗ was

24:17 ↗ around 600,000 Square ft of commercial

24:22 ↗ and

24:23 ↗ Retail and

24:25 ↗ uh three residential units

24:29 ↗ and I'm at 600,000 square feet is not

24:31 ↗ the exact number it's in the 600,000

24:34 ↗ range and just to clarify three three

24:37 ↗ residential units were included in that

24:40 ↗ purchase

24:41 ↗ yes and and when approximately was that

24:45 ↗ additional entitlement from Port

24:47 ↗ Blakeley

24:50 ↗ acquired I believe it

24:53 ↗ was in December of 2015

25:02 ↗ when you refer to commercial um in

25:05 ↗ reference to the

25:07 ↗ entitlement uh that was purchased does

25:09 ↗ that include

25:10 ↗ office when I refer to commercial it's a

25:13 ↗ defined term under the development

25:15 ↗ agreement and to your knowledge would

25:17 ↗ that include potential office

25:19 ↗ development yes among other

25:25 ↗ uses you recall your testimony

25:28 ↗ concerning the uh kinzer report that I

25:30 ↗ think has been submitted into

25:33 ↗ evidence um yes I remember talking about

25:35 ↗ it when did shelter hire kinzer to

25:38 ↗ prepare the

25:40 ↗ report I don't know the exact date but

25:43 ↗ it would have been in

25:46 ↗ 2015 and was the purpose of

25:49 ↗ commissioning that report to evaluate

25:50 ↗ the viability of various uses on

25:53 ↗ shelter's property including office

25:56 ↗ medical office and Retail

26:03 ↗ yes what were the primary conclusions of

26:06 ↗ the kinzer

26:07 ↗ report um can I have the a copy of the

26:10 ↗ kinzer report in front of

26:13 ↗ me I'll Circle back with that thank

26:19 ↗ you approximately how many housing units

26:23 ↗ are there in the iswell highlands are

26:26 ↗ you aware of that figure

26:29 ↗ I don't know the exact figure off the

26:31 ↗ top of my head in the total allowed

26:34 ↗ under the development agreement was

26:37 ↗ 4,000 and some I don't know the exact

26:46 ↗ number do you recall your testimony

26:49 ↗ about uh shelter's attempts

26:52 ↗ to pursue residential development on the

26:56 ↗ property and a amount or level that was

26:59 ↗ not allowed by the development agreement

27:02 ↗ at the time back in

27:04 ↗ 2015

27:07 ↗ 2016 um I remember explaining the

27:10 ↗ process that we went through to explore

27:13 ↗ the idea as to whether the city would be

27:16 ↗ open to a mixed use development that

27:18 ↗ would have additional residential beyond

27:21 ↗ what was initially anticipated by the

27:23 ↗ development agreement and approximately

27:25 ↗ how many new housing units was shelter

27:28 ↗ expecting to acre from that process had

27:31 ↗ you been successful in your

27:34 ↗ proposal um I think our

27:39 ↗ proposal

27:41 ↗ had well I I guess I would caveat it by

27:44 ↗ saying that our proposal was

27:48 ↗ um

27:49 ↗ conceptual um it was of a conceptual

27:52 ↗ nature and it it anticipated around

27:56 ↗ 1,800 units I

28:01 ↗ believe just so I'm clear if there were

28:03 ↗ 4,000 I believe you testified give or

28:06 ↗ take um housing units allotted for the

28:10 ↗ isqua highlands

28:11 ↗ area shelter's

28:14 ↗ proposal would have added approximately

28:17 ↗ 1,800 units to that total amount is that

28:24 ↗ accurate um yes the the proposal the

28:29 ↗ mixed use proposal that shelter had

28:31 ↗ included around 1,800 additional

28:36 ↗ units did shelter believe that the

28:39 ↗ residents of the isqua Highlands would

28:41 ↗ have liked to have seen the number of

28:43 ↗ housing units in isqua Highlands area

28:46 ↗ increased by almost

28:49 ↗ 40% um I think

28:52 ↗ that shelter believed that there are

28:55 ↗ benefits of uh of a mixed use

28:59 ↗ development that the excuse me that the

29:03 ↗ residents of isqua in general would

29:07 ↗ enjoy and think valuable um we also knew

29:11 ↗ that there would be people that would be

29:13 ↗ opposed to additional residential

29:17 ↗ development but the benefits that were

29:20 ↗ offered as part of the mixed use uh

29:23 ↗ proposal were extensive um including

29:27 ↗ things like like uh public swimming pool

29:30 ↗ a public Amphitheater um open spaces for

29:34 ↗ public

29:35 ↗ Gatherings um lots of restaurants and

29:38 ↗ retail locations entertainment

29:40 ↗ uses um so there were a variety of

29:44 ↗ things Beyond just housing units that

29:46 ↗ were

29:54 ↗ proposed believe that you testified that

29:57 ↗ this may have occurred occurred before

29:59 ↗ you joined shelter so if you can't

30:02 ↗ answer the question um please just let

30:04 ↗ me know but my understanding is

30:08 ↗ that at some point the city had

30:11 ↗ allegedly asked for an option on the

30:14 ↗ shelter property or a demand for some

30:17 ↗ sort of a free donation of property from

30:19 ↗ shelter do you recall that testimony yes

30:22 ↗ that's

30:25 ↗ correct could you please explain that

30:29 ↗ to me as to how that proposal or idea

30:33 ↗ came to be and how it was expressed or

30:36 ↗ communicated to

30:38 ↗ shelter um I don't have the firsthand

30:41 ↗ knowledge because I wasn't a part of

30:43 ↗ those discussions but um I have reviewed

30:47 ↗ notes and had discussions with parties

30:49 ↗ that were involved um and my

30:51 ↗ understanding was that or is that when

30:55 ↗ uh the property was acquired and

30:57 ↗ discussions or actually probably just

30:59 ↗ before the property was acquired and

31:00 ↗ discussions began with the city

31:04 ↗ um the city indicated that they wanted a

31:07 ↗ large portion of the property for a uh

31:11 ↗ institutional use or college um the the

31:14 ↗ conversation that conversation continued

31:17 ↗ over a pretty long period of time um and

31:21 ↗ the ask from the city morphed at

31:24 ↗ different periods of time so at times

31:26 ↗ they were asking for up to 30 Acres of

31:29 ↗ the

31:30 ↗ 63 um at times it was give it to us for

31:34 ↗ free other times it was give us an

31:36 ↗ option to purchase it at below fair

31:38 ↗ market value so there are various uh I

31:42 ↗ guess it would depend as to what point

31:44 ↗ in time you're asking what exactly they

31:46 ↗ were asking for and to answer your

31:48 ↗ question about how that conversation

31:51 ↗ came to be it was the city was asking

31:55 ↗ for that in exchange for

32:00 ↗ allowing certain development of the

32:02 ↗ property initially they were asking

32:06 ↗ for that gift um in exchange for

32:09 ↗ something that was actually already

32:11 ↗ allowed under the development agreement

32:13 ↗ which later came to be in the form of

32:16 ↗ the polygon residential

32:18 ↗ development and you indicated that you

32:20 ↗ had I believe testified that you'd seen

32:23 ↗ notes to that effect is that correct

32:26 ↗ I've seen notes from meetings but I've

32:28 ↗ also had discussions with um people that

32:31 ↗ were participants in those meetings and

32:33 ↗ discussions there's also emails okay

32:36 ↗ have those emails been entered into

32:38 ↗ evidence for purposes of this

32:41 ↗ proceeding I I don't track the exhibits

32:43 ↗ so I don't know that do you recall who

32:46 ↗ would have sent those emails and who the

32:48 ↗ recipients would have been um Keith nien

32:51 ↗ would have been involved in all of

32:54 ↗ them so just so I'm clear your test Tony

32:58 ↗ is that there is a written documentation

33:00 ↗ somewhere in the form of emails or other

33:02 ↗ records that documents

33:06 ↗ this attempt by the city to extract

33:09 ↗ either a donation or some type of an

33:11 ↗ option is that

33:13 ↗ correct there are emails that relate to

33:17 ↗ the city

33:19 ↗ asking shelter or a previous version of

33:22 ↗ shelter for such

33:25 ↗ donation and because you were not at

33:28 ↗ shelter or had not yet joined shelter at

33:30 ↗ the time that these discussions or

33:32 ↗ Communications occurred um do you know

33:34 ↗ who would have been the um applicable or

33:38 ↗ appropriate person at shelter with

33:40 ↗ knowledge direct knowledge of this

33:43 ↗ issue um Gary Young would have been

33:47 ↗ involved in some discussions and Derek

33:49 ↗ Strait would have been involved in those

33:51 ↗ discussions G young and Derek Strait yes

33:55 ↗ thank you

34:04 ↗ you started at shelter in 2015 correct

34:08 ↗ yes is it true that shelter at that

34:10 ↗ point was in a phase of needing to

34:13 ↗ re-evaluate what it would what would

34:15 ↗ happen or could happen on its isqua

34:17 ↗ Highlands property at that

34:20 ↗ time um when I came on and started

34:23 ↗ working on the isqua

34:26 ↗ project uh

34:30 ↗ I

34:32 ↗ was filled in on the

34:36 ↗ September of

34:37 ↗ 2014 meeting where the the city or

34:41 ↗ rather where um Gary had informed the

34:45 ↗ city that we would not be giving them

34:48 ↗ either property or an option at below

34:51 ↗ fair market value on our property for a

34:54 ↗ college um and that there had been a

34:56 ↗ very

34:58 ↗ um

34:59 ↗ extreme upset reaction from Mr nien and

35:04 ↗ and Mr Harrison um and that we

35:09 ↗ were needing to evaluate how to move

35:13 ↗ forward with development given the fact

35:16 ↗ that any development of our property

35:18 ↗ would need to flow through Mr nien um

35:21 ↗ and he was quite angry with Gary okay

35:25 ↗ and that is a I think the if I'm not

35:27 ↗ mistaken the second or third time we've

35:29 ↗ heard a reference to Mr nien being quote

35:33 ↗ angry in quote at Gary or shelter in

35:36 ↗ relation to this uh property donation or

35:39 ↗ option issue

35:42 ↗ um is there any documentation that that

35:46 ↗ demonstrates or would show this anger by

35:49 ↗ Mr nen any any emails or letters or any

35:53 ↗ other written

35:54 ↗ communication demonstrating his his

35:57 ↗ anger

35:59 ↗ I don't know because the city hasn't

36:00 ↗ turned over documents to us are you

36:03 ↗ aware of any documents to that effect

36:05 ↗ I'm aware of our notes that document

36:07 ↗ with all the meetings that that it

36:09 ↗ happened that that happened in or where

36:11 ↗ he referenced that his feelings related

36:16 ↗ to not granting his request were

36:18 ↗ impacting how he was treating current

36:21 ↗ applications and

36:23 ↗ proposals you constru that if I

36:26 ↗ understand your testimony as anger

36:29 ↗ I don't construe my notes as anger

36:34 ↗ no are there any other references that

36:38 ↗ you're aware of either in in emails or

36:41 ↗ notes or letters that would show that Mr

36:44 ↗ nen was in fact angry at shelter or Mr

36:47 ↗ Young I don't know

37:05 ↗ believe you testified that you received

37:07 ↗ an email from Mr nien on November 21st

37:11 ↗ 2017 stating that if you hadn't received

37:14 ↗ requests for additional information for

37:16 ↗ your plat in the three preapplication

37:19 ↗ pre pre-applications that they were

37:22 ↗ determined to be complete that you

37:24 ↗ recall that

37:26 ↗ testimony um can I can I have a copy of

37:28 ↗ that email I think it's in the record

37:30 ↗ come back on that

37:33 ↗ um you recall you referred it in your

37:37 ↗ January 15th uh testimony to the quote I

37:41 ↗ believe this is a quote uh tons or or a

37:45 ↗ large amount of mitigation that you had

37:48 ↗ paid for uh when you AC when shelter

37:50 ↗ acquired the property you recall that

37:53 ↗ testimony if you're offering it as a

37:55 ↗ quote I'd like to see the transcript to

37:57 ↗ see what I

38:22 ↗ said Zach when you get there can you

38:24 ↗ just explain what page and lines you're

38:26 ↗ at please

38:33 ↗ if you could go to um the reference that

38:36 ↗ I was referring to is uh page 70 of the

38:41 ↗ uh January 15th uh transcript 7071 and

38:46 ↗ continuing from there talking about

38:49 ↗ um mitigations uh that were allegedly

38:53 ↗ included when um shelter acquired the

38:57 ↗ property

38:58 ↗ and the entitlements do you see

39:01 ↗ that I think so if you're referencing

39:03 ↗ specific quotes it'd be helpful to have

39:05 ↗ the line numbers thank you so the

39:07 ↗ specific quote that I was uh referring

39:10 ↗ to was this is on page 70 quote so a big

39:14 ↗ piece of it would be mitigation end

39:17 ↗ quote you see that or do you have a I

39:19 ↗ don't have the transcript but you didn't

39:21 ↗ give me a copy

39:32 ↗ do you see the reference now yes okay so

39:37 ↗ the big piece of it being mitigation or

39:40 ↗ that's a paraphrase since you have my

39:41 ↗ copy of the uh of the transcript could

39:44 ↗ you please refer to what mitigation you

39:46 ↗ were referring to and what what

39:48 ↗ mitigation shelter acquired or alleges

39:51 ↗ that it acquired when it IT obtained the

39:53 ↗ property in the isqua highlands so the

39:56 ↗ question that had been asked me was what

39:58 ↗ are some of the other rights that were

40:01 ↗ part of the allowable development and So

40:04 ↗ my answer was referring to the fact that

40:08 ↗ mitigation is that was provided under

40:11 ↗ the development agreement um was a big

40:15 ↗ piece of the allowable development which

40:19 ↗ was one of the property rights that was

40:20 ↗ acquired when we purchased the

40:23 ↗ property and what

40:26 ↗ specific components made up that

40:30 ↗ mitigation um I would need to read and

40:34 ↗ review the development agreement to

40:35 ↗ Define what was included in the

40:38 ↗ mitigation but

40:41 ↗ mitigation mitigation were all of

40:44 ↗ the improvements in

40:47 ↗ infrastructure and payments that are

40:49 ↗ that were made to the city to offset the

40:52 ↗ impacts of the development that was

40:53 ↗ allowed by the development agreement

40:57 ↗ when you AC when shelter acquired the

40:59 ↗ property in its transaction with the

41:03 ↗ seller was mitigation specifically

41:06 ↗ called out in that purchase

41:09 ↗ agreement as a valuation item what what

41:13 ↗ transaction are you referring to when

41:15 ↗ shelter acquired its property when it

41:17 ↗ purchased the ISA Highland's property in

41:20 ↗ your transactional documents purchase

41:22 ↗ and sale agreement or otherwise was

41:25 ↗ mitigation specifically identified

41:28 ↗ um I wasn't involved in that so I don't

41:30 ↗ know and also I can't tell from your

41:32 ↗ question which transaction you're

41:35 ↗ talking about because again the the

41:37 ↗ entire 63 Acres was acquired by isqua

41:40 ↗ Highlands investment fund and then later

41:42 ↗ a portion of it was transferred to

41:45 ↗ ihif

41:47 ↗ commercial when it when the shelter

41:51 ↗ first acquired the property or the um as

41:55 ↗ the first transaction that you

41:56 ↗ referenced do you know if mitigation was

41:59 ↗ specifically identified as part of that

42:03 ↗ transaction I think I already testified

42:05 ↗ that I was not part of that transaction

42:07 ↗ so I don't know but mitigation would not

42:09 ↗ need to be specifically identified

42:11 ↗ because the development agreement ran

42:13 ↗ with the land and so if you bought the

42:16 ↗ property you were necessarily subject to

42:18 ↗ the benefits and burdens of the

42:20 ↗ development agreement agreement that's

42:22 ↗ the way the development agreement works

42:33 ↗ believe that you testified that your

42:35 ↗ professional experience before coming to

42:38 ↗ work for shelter was as a land use

42:42 ↗ attorney for the Perkins kui

42:47 ↗ firm and then also as National Council

42:50 ↗ or in-house Council for Dr Horton is

42:53 ↗ that

42:54 ↗ correct yes I was part of the real

42:56 ↗ estate and land use group at Perkins

42:58 ↗ kuie and I was in house with Dr Horton

43:01 ↗ and approximately how long did you work

43:04 ↗ for Perkins

43:06 ↗ kui

43:07 ↗ [Music]

43:10 ↗ um

43:12 ↗ from well I was a summer associate there

43:15 ↗ in in 2000 and I left and went to DR

43:21 ↗ Horton in

43:23 ↗ 2007 approximately six

43:25 ↗ years yes and did you practice

43:28 ↗ exclusively in the real estate and land

43:31 ↗ use Fields while you were at Perkins

43:35 ↗ COI uh yes I mean there may have been a

43:38 ↗ project or two early on that were in

43:40 ↗ different departments but I was a real

43:42 ↗ estate and land use attorney there

43:44 ↗ and do you describe your role at Dr

43:47 ↗ Horton as in-house

43:49 ↗ counsel um I was the local Council for

43:54 ↗ the Seattle division um at least in

43:57 ↗ initially I then took over running the

43:59 ↗ entitlement department and the Land

44:01 ↗ Development Department um I also served

44:07 ↗ to support the Portland Division at

44:09 ↗ certain

44:12 ↗ times so before you joined shelter in

44:15 ↗ 2015 you had approximately 15 years of

44:20 ↗ legal experience as a land use attorney

44:22 ↗ is that

44:23 ↗ correct yeah

44:25 ↗ approximately you know if the city of

44:28 ↗ isqua Staff members Keith nien Lucy

44:31 ↗ slman or Jean Lynn have legal training

44:33 ↗ as a

44:34 ↗ lawyer I have no

44:38 ↗ idea do you ever rely upon Lucy slowman

44:41 ↗ Keith niens or Jean Lynn for legal

44:43 ↗ advice during your interactions with

44:47 ↗ them um I wouldn't rely on the city to

44:49 ↗ give me legal advice um I did rely on

44:53 ↗ them for

44:55 ↗ positions of the city that they are

44:57 ↗ articulated to

44:59 ↗ us since you began work for shelter in

45:03 ↗ 2015 approximately how many meetings

45:05 ↗ with City staff members did you

45:07 ↗ personally

45:12 ↗ attend I don't have a good way of

45:14 ↗ estimating that more than 20 less than

45:20 ↗ 10 can you tell me what you're asking me

45:22 ↗ again so it's clear from your meeting

45:25 ↗ notes that were provided and ENT into

45:27 ↗ evidence that you had at least some

45:29 ↗ meetings with city of isqua Staff

45:32 ↗ members during your work for shelter I'm

45:36 ↗ trying to gauge approximately how many

45:38 ↗ meetings you actually met uh

45:40 ↗ individually or or pardon me directly

45:43 ↗ with City staff members during that

45:44 ↗ period and it can be an approximate

45:46 ↗ figure I'm just asking if you can

45:48 ↗ provide me with a rough

45:49 ↗ estimate I really don't feel like I have

45:52 ↗ a good

45:54 ↗ estimate but you did attend meetings

45:56 ↗ directly with City staff

45:59 ↗ members um yes I think I testified

46:02 ↗ before that I never

46:04 ↗ attended meetings with City staff that

46:07 ↗ just included me there was always

46:09 ↗ another shelter employee or or owner

46:12 ↗ with me and you attended these meetings

46:15 ↗ with City staff members in Your Capacity

46:17 ↗ as legal council for shelter

46:20 ↗ correct I have a dual role at shelter as

46:23 ↗ I have in the past so um I I wouldn't

46:27 ↗ say that I wouldn't characterize it that

46:30 ↗ way no how would you characterize Your

46:32 ↗ Role I think I already testified that I

46:34 ↗ was the point person on these

46:35 ↗ applications so I needed to be able to

46:38 ↗ have discussions with City staff on the

46:41 ↗ applications but you were as part of

46:43 ↗ your as you put it dual role also

46:47 ↗ the legal councel for shelter

46:50 ↗ correct that's one of the the roles that

46:53 ↗ I play thank you and of of the various

46:57 ↗ meetings that you attended with City

46:59 ↗ staff members regarding shelters land

47:02 ↗ use matters how many of these meetings

47:04 ↗ were also attended by the City

47:09 ↗ attorney well I

47:12 ↗ think probably the one that Jim Haney

47:16 ↗ attended he may have attended two but

47:20 ↗ and then I think you

47:22 ↗ attended one or maybe two

47:27 ↗ did you or anyone else at shelter ever

47:30 ↗ notify the City attorney in advance that

47:32 ↗ you would be meeting directly with City

47:33 ↗ staff

47:37 ↗ members I think the city staff was aware

47:39 ↗ that I was an attorney but also I was

47:42 ↗ not coming in as attorney for um for

47:46 ↗ shelter Holdings or ihif commercial um

47:50 ↗ we hired Patrick melany as our outside

47:53 ↗ land use Council the city was very

47:55 ↗ familiar with the fact that he was

47:57 ↗ um he is an attorney and has had

48:01 ↗ routinely met with him with other

48:02 ↗ clients and did the same on this

48:05 ↗ project so my question was did you or

48:08 ↗ anyone else at shelter ever notify the

48:10 ↗ City attorney in advance that you would

48:12 ↗ be meeting directly with City staff

48:14 ↗ members I did

48:24 ↗ not just to clarify I think as part of

48:27 ↗ your dual role that you just referred to

48:30 ↗ were you the primary person responsible

48:32 ↗ at shelter for submitting

48:35 ↗ applications land use applications to

48:37 ↗ the city are you asking in general or

48:40 ↗ are you asking on these in isqua inqua

48:43 ↗ pardon me

48:47 ↗ um I was the primary contact on these

48:50 ↗ applications within shelter so my role

48:53 ↗ on these applications with the with is

48:56 ↗ the qua was not as legal counsel for

49:01 ↗ shelter it was as part of the

49:03 ↗ development team pursuing applications

49:06 ↗ Patrick molan was our outside Council

49:08 ↗ which was who was serving in the legal

49:11 ↗ council

49:13 ↗ role for purposes of of submitting

49:17 ↗ applications land use applications to

49:19 ↗ the city would you consider yourself the

49:22 ↗ primary point of contact for shelter and

49:25 ↗ shelter's interactions with

49:29 ↗ isqua for these

49:31 ↗ applications um within shelter I was the

49:35 ↗ primary point of contact are each

49:37 ↗ application had um one of our

49:40 ↗ Consultants who acted as the um I forget

49:46 ↗ the right terminology from your forms

49:47 ↗ but basically the person who actually

49:49 ↗ submitted physically the applications

49:55 ↗ online and with is that person or that

49:58 ↗ individual different for each of

50:00 ↗ shelter's various land use applications

50:05 ↗ yes and I believe that with respect to

50:08 ↗ shelter's preliminary plat application

50:11 ↗ uh your most recent

50:13 ↗ testimony was that uh shelter had just

50:17 ↗ recently

50:19 ↗ resubmitted a revised version of the

50:22 ↗ preliminary plan

50:23 ↗ application is that correct

50:28 ↗ um I can't recall the date of our last

50:30 ↗ meeting but when that it was the 6th of

50:34 ↗ uh of March of memory serves okay so in

50:36 ↗ early March we resubmitted the plat

50:41 ↗ application um in response to the

50:45 ↗ comments that we had received from the

50:47 ↗ city that took many months to clarify

50:50 ↗ and get um to a point where we were able

50:53 ↗ to respond to them so in early March yes

50:55 ↗ we resubmitted

50:57 ↗ the plat application

51:38 ↗ can I have you look at exhibit C9 please

51:55 ↗ [Applause]

52:01 ↗ you recognize this

52:05 ↗ [Applause]

52:22 ↗ document it looks like C9 is um a series

52:26 ↗ of do

52:30 ↗ documents is this the land land use

52:33 ↗ application for shelters preliminary

52:36 ↗ plat

52:39 ↗ application um this appears to be the

52:42 ↗ initial submitt for the plat application

52:46 ↗ if and could you please look at the date

52:50 ↗ reference or the date submitted

52:51 ↗ reference at the bottom leftand corner

52:54 ↗ of page one of that application form

52:57 ↗ that prefaces their other

53:01 ↗ materials says August 1st 2017 is that

53:06 ↗ an accurate date in reference to when

53:09 ↗ this document was submitted to the

53:12 ↗ city um that is what it says on here and

53:15 ↗ yes my recollection is that we submitted

53:18 ↗ the plat application on August 1st 2017

53:25 ↗ [Music]

53:29 ↗ in the

53:32 ↗ city's application

53:34 ↗ form for this preliminary plat

53:37 ↗ application is there any opportunity to

53:41 ↗ identify building

53:43 ↗ Footprints or future

53:47 ↗ structures in the form is

53:54 ↗ there if if by by the form are you

53:57 ↗ referring to just the form

54:03 ↗ correct no this is just a a general land

54:06 ↗ use application so it has applicant

54:09 ↗ contractor project location property

54:12 ↗ owner and that's

54:13 ↗ it is there anything that you're aware

54:16 ↗ of in

54:17 ↗ the bundle of materials that was

54:20 ↗ submitted in August of

54:23 ↗ 2017 for purposes of shelters

54:26 ↗ preliminary plat applications that

54:29 ↗ depicted building footprints on the

54:34 ↗ site um the just this submitt doesn't

54:39 ↗ reflect the whole

54:41 ↗ application um because there was

54:43 ↗ additional information that was

54:44 ↗ submitted in December this submitt shows

54:47 ↗ the allowable development table which

54:49 ↗ shows all of the allowable development

54:51 ↗ under the development agreement and how

54:52 ↗ it's allocated on a block-by-block basis

54:54 ↗ so it shows a development plan plan for

54:57 ↗ it it does not include specific building

55:00 ↗ Footprints at that time we didn't have

55:03 ↗ um have any other applications pending

55:07 ↗ thank you I think you referred in your

55:09 ↗ testimony just now to the December

55:11 ↗ submitt uh which I believe in your prior

55:14 ↗ testimony you had referred to as a

55:16 ↗ supplement um that's the document

55:20 ↗ that picks building Footprints

55:23 ↗ correct um well in December there were

55:25 ↗ several Pages additional pages that were

55:28 ↗ submitted

55:30 ↗ um and those depict building Footprints

55:33 ↗ of the pending STP

55:36 ↗ applications did the

55:39 ↗ city request that shelter submit that

55:44 ↗ supplemental um document in December of

55:49 ↗ 2017 in some ways yes because with the

55:52 ↗ sdp applications as we were submitting

55:54 ↗ them they were kicking them out saying

55:57 ↗ they they there's no way for us to know

55:59 ↗ if they're consistent with the plat

56:01 ↗ because the plot's not reviewed yet and

56:03 ↗ so one of the steps we took in response

56:06 ↗ to that was submitting additional

56:08 ↗ information which showed exactly how the

56:10 ↗ proposed plat lines interact with the um

56:14 ↗ proposed building Footprints of the

56:17 ↗ sdps did shelter discuss the December

56:22 ↗ 2017 supplemental submittal with City

56:25 ↗ staff members before that document was

56:27 ↗ actually filed with the

56:31 ↗ city um it was filed on my building

56:34 ↗ permit and then it was also emailed to

56:37 ↗ our planner directly so that she would

56:39 ↗ be aware that that was

56:40 ↗ submitted but did shelter discuss that

56:44 ↗ document with City staff before

56:46 ↗ submitting it were there Communications

56:49 ↗ between shelter and City staff members

56:52 ↗ concerning that submitt before it was

56:55 ↗ actually

56:56 ↗ filed with the

56:59 ↗ city there were discussions regarding

57:03 ↗ the plat application before it was

57:05 ↗ submitted and there were discussions

57:07 ↗ regarding consistency of the sdp

57:11 ↗ applications with the

57:12 ↗ plat is that what you're asking no I'm

57:15 ↗ I'm asking specifically if shelter ever

57:18 ↗ informed the city of its intent to file

57:22 ↗ the December 15

57:24 ↗ 2017 supplement

57:26 ↗ before the document was actually filed

57:29 ↗ on I think you said my building

57:30 ↗ permit.com no there would be no reason

57:33 ↗ to talk to the city um when you're

57:35 ↗ submitting additional information ahead

57:37 ↗ of I mean I don't know why we would need

57:40 ↗ to have any discussion at that point but

57:42 ↗ just to clarify there was no discussion

57:45 ↗ before that submitt occurred well I

57:46 ↗ think I testified that there there was

57:48 ↗ discussion about the applications um

57:51 ↗ both the sdps and the

57:53 ↗ plat but trying to understand your your

57:57 ↗ testimony did shelter inform the city

58:01 ↗ that it was going to submit the December

58:04 ↗ 15th supplement before that submitt

58:06 ↗ occurred was there an advanced statement

58:09 ↗ by shelter informing the city that that

58:11 ↗ supplement would be filed I don't think

58:15 ↗ so but that would have been unusual if

58:16 ↗ we did

58:18 ↗ that who at shelter made the decision to

58:21 ↗ submit this December 2017 supplement

58:29 ↗ I'm not sure what you

58:31 ↗ mean we have a team of of people that

58:34 ↗ work on our applications thank you which

58:36 ↗ members of that team made the decision

58:38 ↗ to submit the December 2017

58:42 ↗ supplement um I would not attribute the

58:44 ↗ decision to a single person I would say

58:46 ↗ that that our team decided that that

58:49 ↗ should be

58:50 ↗ submitted which members of your team

58:52 ↗ were involved in that

58:54 ↗ decision it would be

58:58 ↗ all of the members that were working on

59:00 ↗ those aspects so it had engineering so

59:03 ↗ kpff it had um core was our uh

59:08 ↗ consultant that was the point of uh the

59:11 ↗ applicant contact so they were involved

59:13 ↗ in that discussion um as well as Gary

59:16 ↗ and Derek and Eric and myself

59:26 ↗ at the time that December 2017

59:29 ↗ supplement to shelter's Plat application

59:32 ↗ was submitted had the buildout period

59:35 ↗ under the development agreement

59:38 ↗ expired the buildout period has no

59:41 ↗ impact on our application that was

59:43 ↗ vested so I'm not sure to restate my

59:48 ↗ question at the time that the December

59:52 ↗ 2017 supplement to shelter's preliminary

59:55 ↗ plat application

59:56 ↗ was submitted had the buildout period

59:59 ↗ under the development agreement

1:00:02 ↗ expired so are you asking me if

1:00:04 ↗ September comes before

1:00:06 ↗ December I'm asking you what I hope is a

1:00:09 ↗ fairly simple question that I think is

1:00:12 ↗ capable of a very simple direct answer

1:00:14 ↗ so that's what I would respectfully ask

1:00:17 ↗ for so I think it's already in the

1:00:20 ↗ record September was when of 2017 was

1:00:23 ↗ the end of the buildout period and

1:00:26 ↗ you're asking me about the December

1:00:28 ↗ submittal to our

1:00:30 ↗ application um

1:00:33 ↗ so I think that answers your question

1:00:36 ↗ thank

1:00:37 ↗ you with respect to the various sdp and

1:00:42 ↗ ASP applications that are at issue in in

1:00:44 ↗ this

1:00:46 ↗ hearing shter was asked to provide

1:00:50 ↗ additional information to verify

1:00:52 ↗ compliance with the replacement

1:00:54 ↗ regulations do you do you recall that

1:00:57 ↗ letter that was sent to shelter in May

1:01:00 ↗ of

1:01:01 ↗ 2018 I believe that's in the record can

1:01:03 ↗ I have it in front of me it's attachment

1:01:05 ↗ four I'm sorry attachment three to the

1:01:07 ↗ staff

1:01:10 ↗ report you have a copy of that I don't

1:01:12 ↗ have the staff

1:01:16 ↗ report was one of the last exhibits

1:01:26 ↗ St

1:01:37 ↗ [Applause]

1:01:39 ↗ rep and Mr chairman we're actually an

1:01:42 ↗ hour into the uh the testimony this

1:01:44 ↗ might be an appropriate point for a

1:01:46 ↗ break while my colleague uh finds the

1:01:48 ↗ document that issue if the commission

1:01:51 ↗ would be amendable to

1:01:53 ↗ that why don't we take a 10-minute break

1:01:55 ↗ thank you

1:02:54 ↗ e

1:03:24 ↗ e

1:03:54 ↗ e

1:04:24 ↗ e

1:04:54 ↗ e

1:05:24 ↗ e

1:05:54 ↗ e

1:06:24 ↗ e

1:06:54 ↗ e

1:07:24 ↗ e

1:07:54 ↗ e

1:08:24 ↗ e

1:08:54 ↗ e

1:09:24 ↗ e

1:09:54 ↗ e

1:10:24 ↗ e

1:10:54 ↗ e

1:11:24 ↗ e

1:11:54 ↗ e

1:12:24 ↗ e

1:12:54 ↗ e

1:13:24 ↗ e

1:13:54 ↗ e e

1:14:35 ↗ all right we're back in

1:14:37 ↗ session thank you Mr chairman during the

1:14:40 ↗ break uh discussed briefly with uh

1:14:42 ↗ Council for the commission the uh

1:14:44 ↗ recordkeeping issue is it related to the

1:14:48 ↗ staff report that the city originally uh

1:14:52 ↗ distributed in advance of this

1:14:53 ↗ proceeding back in SE September and the

1:14:56 ↗ attachments to that document and I I

1:14:58 ↗ would defer to miss Lao as to how that

1:15:01 ↗ um recordkeeping matter will be

1:15:03 ↗ addressed but those are the two

1:15:04 ↗ documents that I was attempting to

1:15:06 ↗ question the witness regarding I don't

1:15:08 ↗ believe they've been assigned specific

1:15:09 ↗ exhibit numbers at this point actually I

1:15:11 ↗ think they have it would take me a

1:15:13 ↗ minute to look them up but they were

1:15:14 ↗ introduced almost right off the bat from

1:15:15 ↗ us from the applicant I do recall that

1:15:19 ↗ but they should be in the record also

1:15:21 ↗ from the very first submitt of the city

1:15:23 ↗ even before these proceed meetings

1:15:26 ↗ convened I think we're ref what's being

1:15:29 ↗ referred to here is the staff report

1:15:30 ↗ itself contained a number of exhibits

1:15:33 ↗ and at least in the electronic record

1:15:35 ↗ that these binders have been made of and

1:15:37 ↗ that's been made available to all the

1:15:38 ↗ parties as well as the Commissioners

1:15:40 ↗ those exhibits are missing and I think

1:15:41 ↗ that's what all that um Mr L is

1:15:44 ↗ referring to and I don't know if if and

1:15:46 ↗ I don't believe there have been assigned

1:15:47 ↗ additional numbers except to the extent

1:15:49 ↗ those have been and many of those I

1:15:50 ↗ think have probably been admitted

1:15:53 ↗ individually and I think Zach wants to

1:15:55 ↗ um refer to a few of these attachments

1:15:58 ↗ that are in C in the first C1 exhibit

1:16:00 ↗ this evening if if we could and I think

1:16:02 ↗ just as a as a suggestion I'll obviously

1:16:04 ↗ refer to the the commission's preference

1:16:07 ↗ but um since the staff report and its

1:16:10 ↗ various attachments were essentially the

1:16:13 ↗ foundational document for this

1:16:15 ↗ proceeding it might make sense to Simply

1:16:18 ↗ uh note them as an exhibit through some

1:16:21 ↗ type of a um kind of a creative

1:16:24 ↗ numbering scheme so it shows up at the

1:16:26 ↗ very beginning of the city's exhibit

1:16:27 ↗ list like c0 or something to that effect

1:16:31 ↗ uh that that might be um most expedient

1:16:34 ↗ and accurate way of of handling that

1:16:36 ↗ issue you mean for referen ring it this

1:16:38 ↗ this evening um all defer I don't mean

1:16:41 ↗ to complicate things at all but um and

1:16:43 ↗ you're welcome to take a look at them

1:16:44 ↗ but I think it's beginning at

1:16:46 ↗ s22

1:16:49 ↗ s23 uh and

1:16:53 ↗ s24 are um

1:16:55 ↗ the there many pages like s24 is 123

1:16:58 ↗ pages long they should be the full staff

1:17:00 ↗ reports and attachments um because it

1:17:02 ↗ was one of our concerns coming into it

1:17:04 ↗ that it hadn't been made part of the

1:17:05 ↗ record yet thank you and maybe to

1:17:07 ↗ facilitate what I think is going to be a

1:17:09 ↗ very short line of of questioning would

1:17:12 ↗ it be possible uh to hand a a copy of

1:17:15 ↗ the city's um May 25th 2018 letter to

1:17:20 ↗ regarding the uh asdp and sdp

1:17:23 ↗ applications to Miss Heim for her

1:17:26 ↗ reference and then the the two response

1:17:28 ↗ letters that shelter had submitted both

1:17:30 ↗ by Miss Heim and through uh shelter's

1:17:33 ↗ Council well so I I'll yes but I'll need

1:17:35 ↗ your guidance a little bit there so um

1:17:38 ↗ which of the staff reports are you

1:17:40 ↗ wanting to look at is it the self

1:17:41 ↗ storage or any of them or I think that

1:17:44 ↗ they're more or less identical for

1:17:45 ↗ purposes of of these questions uh

1:17:48 ↗ they're listed as uh attachments three

1:17:52 ↗ and four to the city's original staff

1:17:55 ↗ reports and those are the same

1:17:57 ↗ references for each of the staff reports

1:18:00 ↗ that was prepared for these proceedings

1:18:02 ↗ so um so Tia so s22 in your exhibit

1:18:05 ↗ binder um this is the

1:18:10 ↗ uh make sure that we're looking at the

1:18:12 ↗ same thing I have it at

1:18:16 ↗ s23 oh okay well it should be in each of

1:18:19 ↗ the packets it sounds like right um

1:18:22 ↗ so yeah so that would be for medical

1:18:25 ↗ office that would be one example of them

1:18:26 ↗ so if you want to look at s23 TF okay it

1:18:30 ↗ sounds like attachments three and four

1:18:32 ↗ is that right correct thank

1:18:35 ↗ you so are we looking at the May 25th

1:18:39 ↗ 2018 letter correct could you please

1:18:41 ↗ identify that for the record and I uh

1:18:44 ↗ would like to extend my appreciation to

1:18:46 ↗ car for her assistance and facilitating

1:18:51 ↗ that um so I am looking at a May 25th

1:18:55 ↗ 2018 letter from Lucy slowman that is

1:18:59 ↗ addressed to me at shelter Holdings and

1:19:02 ↗ to David holes at Collins

1:19:07 ↗ Warman do you agree that that letter

1:19:10 ↗ invited shelter to provide information

1:19:14 ↗ to the city either revising uh its

1:19:18 ↗ original development plan for the

1:19:20 ↗ underlying permit

1:19:22 ↗ application or explaining how that

1:19:24 ↗ permit application satisfied the

1:19:26 ↗ replacement

1:19:31 ↗ regulations um this

1:19:35 ↗ letter informed us that they were going

1:19:37 ↗ to be reviewing our permit applications

1:19:42 ↗ against the new replacement

1:19:45 ↗ regulations and then asked us to notify

1:19:49 ↗ them them being the city if changes are

1:19:53 ↗ necessary to comply with the new

1:19:56 ↗ regulations and then said that if our

1:19:58 ↗ position was that the replacement

1:20:01 ↗ regulations are not applicable to our

1:20:03 ↗ permit

1:20:05 ↗ application um that we should confirm

1:20:09 ↗ that in writing to them at at our

1:20:10 ↗ earliest convenience and did shelter can

1:20:13 ↗ what was shelter's response to that

1:20:15 ↗ letter um well I think this letter came

1:20:18 ↗ out May 25th was right before um

1:20:21 ↗ Memorial Day weekend like it was either

1:20:23 ↗ Thursday or Friday and and by the middle

1:20:26 ↗ of the following week we had sent a

1:20:28 ↗ letter back to the city explaining our

1:20:33 ↗ position and what was that response or

1:20:36 ↗ what was the the content or substance of

1:20:37 ↗ the the shelter

1:20:38 ↗ response um I don't have that the letter

1:20:41 ↗ in front of me but believe that Miss

1:20:44 ↗ Miss KY was going to refer that to you

1:20:46 ↗ as well that was the two I know it's in

1:20:50 ↗ our exhibits but it would take me some

1:20:51 ↗ time to figure out where in the exhibits

1:20:54 ↗ okay well let me ask you then U Miss

1:20:56 ↗ Heim without reference to the documents

1:20:59 ↗ did did shelter agree to revise its

1:21:02 ↗ proposals uh in a way that would comply

1:21:04 ↗ with the replacement

1:21:07 ↗ regulations our actually I flipped the

1:21:09 ↗ page and our letter is the next

1:21:12 ↗ one um so the May 31st 2018 letter is

1:21:15 ↗ the next page and that was our response

1:21:19 ↗ um there's a letter from me and then

1:21:21 ↗ there's an attached letter from um Pat

1:21:25 ↗ Schneider our

1:21:27 ↗ attorney and we declined to revise the

1:21:30 ↗ applications because they were vested to

1:21:32 ↗ the development standards that were

1:21:33 ↗ enacted by the development agreement and

1:21:37 ↗ was that conveyed in the two letter

1:21:39 ↗ responses that you just referred to

1:21:44 ↗ yes are you familiar with the

1:21:46 ↗ replacement regulations for the isqua

1:21:48 ↗ highlands area that

1:21:51 ↗ were adopted by the city in of 2018 and

1:21:56 ↗ are now codified at

1:21:59 ↗ chapter 1819 B

1:22:03 ↗ IMC uh I'm generally familiar

1:22:06 ↗ yes did the kinzer report ever evaluate

1:22:10 ↗ the development potential of shelter's

1:22:12 ↗ property under those replacement

1:22:14 ↗ regulations your

1:22:17 ↗ knowledge the kinzer report was done

1:22:20 ↗ prior to those

1:22:22 ↗ regulations those was your answer

1:22:24 ↗ negative yeah they couldn't evaluate

1:22:27 ↗ something that didn't exist has ihfc or

1:22:30 ↗ shelter commissioned any professional

1:22:33 ↗ report study or analysis that evaluates

1:22:36 ↗ the development potential of shelter's

1:22:38 ↗ property under the replacement

1:22:42 ↗ regulations um just for the record I'm

1:22:45 ↗ going to object to the extent that

1:22:46 ↗ you're calling for any sort of attorney

1:22:48 ↗ work product in further record I I am

1:22:51 ↗ excluding from uh my questioning the uh

1:22:54 ↗ any attorney client uh communication and

1:22:57 ↗ asking if uh

1:22:59 ↗ any professional planning evaluation or

1:23:04 ↗ appraisal uh development uh analysis was

1:23:07 ↗ prepared or

1:23:10 ↗ commissioned so can you restate your

1:23:12 ↗ question

1:23:13 ↗ please has shelter commissioned any

1:23:16 ↗ professional report study or analysis

1:23:20 ↗ that evaluates the development potential

1:23:22 ↗ of shelter's property under the

1:23:25 ↗ replacement regulations excluding any

1:23:28 ↗ attorney client work

1:23:31 ↗ product um we had lots of conversations

1:23:35 ↗ and input from various professionals and

1:23:39 ↗ experts throughout the process of the

1:23:41 ↗ replacement regulations being evaluated

1:23:44 ↗ and adopted

1:23:46 ↗ um I'm I'm not sure that there's a a

1:23:50 ↗ report was there any written evaluation

1:23:53 ↗ even if it didn't rise to the level of a

1:23:58 ↗ report um not that I can think of and

1:24:01 ↗ could you please identify

1:24:04 ↗ which Consultants or other professionals

1:24:08 ↗ were commissioned or um rained or

1:24:12 ↗ otherwise the shelter inquired about

1:24:15 ↗ this

1:24:17 ↗ issue well there's a lot of parts and

1:24:20 ↗ pieces to the replacement regulations so

1:24:22 ↗ there are different pieces that we

1:24:23 ↗ discuss with different of our

1:24:25 ↗ consultants and I think

1:24:30 ↗ um probably includes most if not all of

1:24:33 ↗ the Consultants that worked on each of

1:24:35 ↗ our applications um we

1:24:38 ↗ had engaged a retail broker we had

1:24:42 ↗ conversations with um medical office

1:24:45 ↗ Brokers we had

1:24:49 ↗ uh lots of conversations and input from

1:24:52 ↗ various professionals involved in all of

1:24:54 ↗ the types of development that are

1:24:55 ↗ proposed under our applications um and

1:25:00 ↗ you know you have to remember that the

1:25:01 ↗ replacement regulations were going on at

1:25:04 ↗ the same time as we were pursuing the

1:25:05 ↗ applications so a lot of those

1:25:07 ↗ conversations crossed over and included

1:25:09 ↗ both

1:25:11 ↗ items did any of those Consultants or

1:25:16 ↗ experts or or um individuals that you

1:25:21 ↗ collectively just referred to ever Det

1:25:24 ↗ determine or convey to shelter that

1:25:28 ↗ development of shelter's isqua Highlands

1:25:31 ↗ property was not economically viable

1:25:34 ↗ under the replacement

1:25:38 ↗ regulations uh

1:25:40 ↗ yes who opined to that

1:25:43 ↗ effect so one example that I can think

1:25:46 ↗ of is um from the retail perspective the

1:25:50 ↗ only development of a retail Center that

1:25:53 ↗ would be allowed under the replacement

1:25:55 ↗ regulations would be a multistory indoor

1:25:58 ↗ mall with structured parking so the

1:26:00 ↗ retail

1:26:01 ↗ professionals um told us that our

1:26:04 ↗ opinion was that that's not an

1:26:05 ↗ economically viable use to develop at

1:26:08 ↗ this

1:26:10 ↗ time and was that statement in writing

1:26:13 ↗ do you recall um I believe actually that

1:26:16 ↗ um

1:26:18 ↗ Steve from mg2 testified to that in

1:26:22 ↗ front of PPC in

1:26:26 ↗ September and that was in specific

1:26:28 ↗ reference to shelter's retail site

1:26:31 ↗ development permit correct no this was

1:26:35 ↗ regarding the replacement

1:26:37 ↗ regulations so just so I'm clear that

1:26:40 ↗ that statement from that particular uh

1:26:42 ↗ individual applies to all of IH ifc's

1:26:47 ↗ pending asdp and sdp applications under

1:26:50 ↗ the replacement regulations

1:26:54 ↗ I don't understand that question

1:26:57 ↗ okay the individual that you just

1:27:02 ↗ parroted specifically opined As I

1:27:04 ↗ understood it regarding the effect of

1:27:07 ↗ the replacement regulations uh Visa the

1:27:10 ↗ shelter's retail proposal is that

1:27:13 ↗ correct no he opined on the impact of

1:27:17 ↗ the replacement regulations on the

1:27:18 ↗ ability to develop retail

1:27:21 ↗ retail at all under the replacement

1:27:23 ↗ regulation

1:27:24 ↗ did he also aine concerning the

1:27:27 ↗ development of uh shelter's proposed

1:27:31 ↗ medical office

1:27:33 ↗ building um he is uh was is a architect

1:27:38 ↗ that specializes in retail so we didn't

1:27:41 ↗ talk to him about our medical office

1:27:44 ↗ proposal but again he testified at the

1:27:46 ↗ PPC hearing so if we wanted to see what

1:27:49 ↗ he said we all should probably look at

1:27:52 ↗ that record thank

1:28:20 ↗ you is it your position U Miss Heim that

1:28:23 ↗ the

1:28:24 ↗ enforcement and application of the

1:28:27 ↗ replacement regulations would prevent

1:28:31 ↗ shelter

1:28:32 ↗ from

1:28:34 ↗ developing its

1:28:37 ↗ property as depicted in the August 1st

1:28:42 ↗ 2017 preliminary plat application that

1:28:45 ↗ shelter

1:28:51 ↗ submitted I'm not sure what you mean

1:28:55 ↗ you're aware of the plat application

1:28:58 ↗ materials that I believe you testified

1:29:00 ↗ to earlier this evening I believe

1:29:02 ↗ they're at exhibit C9 do you recall that

1:29:07 ↗ testimony that I'm aware that they exist

1:29:10 ↗ yes yes okay is there anything

1:29:14 ↗ in shelter's original preliminary plaid

1:29:17 ↗ application set forth at exhibit

1:29:20 ↗ C9 that shelter could not

1:29:24 ↗ accomplish under the replacement

1:29:31 ↗ regulations

1:29:34 ↗ um there's a couple of things one I

1:29:36 ↗ don't think when you say our original

1:29:38 ↗ plot application I disagree that that

1:29:41 ↗ refers only to the materials in

1:29:43 ↗ C9

1:29:47 ↗ um so I guess it's hard for me to answer

1:29:51 ↗ your question when I don't agree with

1:29:53 ↗ the premise that it's based on and I

1:29:56 ↗ appreciate that but I would ask you to

1:29:57 ↗ answer the question as I've asked it so

1:29:59 ↗ that I'll rephrase it hopefully this

1:30:01 ↗ will assist if the replacement

1:30:04 ↗ regulations were to govern the plat

1:30:08 ↗ application that shelter

1:30:10 ↗ submitted honor about August 1st

1:30:14 ↗ 2017 is there anything included in that

1:30:19 ↗ application as it existed on August 1st

1:30:22 ↗ 2017

1:30:24 ↗ that shelter could not accomplish under

1:30:26 ↗ the replacement

1:30:32 ↗ regulations well again I disagree that

1:30:35 ↗ that is an application that's separate

1:30:37 ↗ from the rest of our application

1:30:38 ↗ materials that were submitted in

1:30:41 ↗ December um

1:30:44 ↗ the plat application materials from day

1:30:47 ↗ one have always included all of the

1:30:50 ↗ allowable

1:30:51 ↗ development and allocated them on a

1:30:54 ↗ block by block basis retail is

1:30:58 ↗ not able to be

1:31:02 ↗ developed under the replacement

1:31:06 ↗ regulations retail as I understand your

1:31:09 ↗ your response is not able to be

1:31:11 ↗ developed under the replacement

1:31:13 ↗ regulations correct when you apply the F

1:31:17 ↗ and the structured parking requirements

1:31:19 ↗ it becomes a type of development that is

1:31:21 ↗ not economically developable

1:31:30 ↗ developable can you point to a provision

1:31:35 ↗ in exhibit C9 that would specifically

1:31:39 ↗ not

1:31:41 ↗ be capable of

1:31:43 ↗ accomplishment under the replacement

1:31:46 ↗ regulations and I can hand you a copy of

1:31:47 ↗ that exhibit if you'd like I you can

1:31:50 ↗ hand me a copy but I still I don't

1:31:52 ↗ really understand what you're asking a

1:31:54 ↗ vision of an application that can't be

1:31:56 ↗ accomplished so

1:31:59 ↗ the preliminary plaid application that

1:32:03 ↗ is set forth at exhibit C9 yes which

1:32:07 ↗ includes retail so I think I answered

1:32:09 ↗ the so what what part of that

1:32:12 ↗ application packet that's set forth at

1:32:15 ↗ exhibit C9 does the replacement

1:32:19 ↗ regulations

1:32:21 ↗ prohibit or prevent I hfc from

1:32:31 ↗ accomplishing well I mean you're asking

1:32:33 ↗ me to review a huge packet of

1:32:36 ↗ information it's I don't mean to be

1:32:39 ↗ difficult my my it's it's entirely

1:32:41 ↗ appropriate if if your response is that

1:32:43 ↗ you can't identify uh anything that

1:32:46 ↗ would be thwarted or prevented by the

1:32:48 ↗ replacement regulations but that's what

1:32:50 ↗ I'm getting at is is there something in

1:32:53 ↗ I hfc's preliminary plat application as

1:32:57 ↗ it was submitted on August 1st

1:33:00 ↗ 2017 that the replacement regulations

1:33:03 ↗ would prevent ihfc from accomplishing I

1:33:07 ↗ think that's fairly straightforward well

1:33:08 ↗ I mean we're we're all in agreement I

1:33:11 ↗ think that the plat is vested to the

1:33:13 ↗ development standards under the

1:33:14 ↗ development agreement which I think is

1:33:15 ↗ partly why your conf your question is so

1:33:18 ↗ confusing to me

1:33:20 ↗ but if you're asking if there's

1:33:22 ↗ something on there that can't be

1:33:24 ↗ accomplished I think I already pointed

1:33:26 ↗ out one example of that is that the plat

1:33:30 ↗ application that was part of that

1:33:34 ↗ C9 um shows the allowable development

1:33:38 ↗ under the development agreement

1:33:39 ↗ allocated on a block-by-block basis part

1:33:41 ↗ of that allowable development includes

1:33:44 ↗ retail development retail development

1:33:47 ↗ cannot be accomplished under the

1:33:49 ↗ replacement regulations due to the F

1:33:52 ↗ requirements the structured parking

1:33:54 ↗ and

1:33:55 ↗ other portions of the replacement

1:33:58 ↗ regulations is it your position that

1:34:01 ↗ retail development on the

1:34:03 ↗ site cannot physically be

1:34:06 ↗ accomplished as a result of the

1:34:08 ↗ replacement regulations

1:34:10 ↗ or that it would not be

1:34:13 ↗ economically

1:34:15 ↗ viable do

1:34:20 ↗ that well if you build a structure that

1:34:23 ↗ can't be leased I'm not sure that that's

1:34:26 ↗ actually retail development

1:34:28 ↗ then can you point to me the provision

1:34:31 ↗ of exhibit C9 that you

1:34:35 ↗ contend ihfc or shelter could not

1:34:39 ↗ accomplish under the replacement

1:34:41 ↗ regulations objection Zach I think this

1:34:43 ↗ has been asked and answered a number of

1:34:45 ↗ times with respect uh Council I'm still

1:34:47 ↗ waiting for an answer and I've asked it

1:34:49 ↗ a few different ways now um I I disagree

1:34:53 ↗ she's given you an answer numerous times

1:34:56 ↗ I'm I'm simply asking for her to

1:34:58 ↗ identify the specific provision of an

1:35:00 ↗ exhibit that she has in front of her

1:35:02 ↗ that she

1:35:03 ↗ contends cannot be accomplished under

1:35:06 ↗ the replacement regulations and if if

1:35:08 ↗ the witness would like a a brief recess

1:35:11 ↗ I'm certainly amenable I don't think a

1:35:13 ↗ recess is necessary but I think she gave

1:35:15 ↗ a pretty thorough explanation a minute

1:35:16 ↗ ago I mean this is for the development

1:35:18 ↗ commission to resolve whether we

1:35:19 ↗ continue with this line of questioning

1:35:21 ↗ or not

1:35:25 ↗ I think uh we ought to try one more time

1:35:28 ↗ if can

1:35:28 ↗ you apparently you're looking for a

1:35:31 ↗ specific and missim is not has offered

1:35:35 ↗ three one was flary ratio one was onsite

1:35:40 ↗ parking can't think of what the other

1:35:42 ↗ one was certainly thank you and I

1:35:44 ↗ appreciate that so by reference to any

1:35:47 ↗ of the materials that are contained in

1:35:50 ↗ exhibit C9 then can you point to me

1:35:55 ↗ which

1:35:57 ↗ page of I of shelter's development

1:36:01 ↗ scheme is not capable of

1:36:04 ↗ accomplishment under the replacement

1:36:10 ↗ regulations okay I think I answered it

1:36:12 ↗ if you want me to sit here and go

1:36:14 ↗ through Page by page I can

1:36:18 ↗ um I'm a little bit confused again why

1:36:20 ↗ we're talking about this on an

1:36:22 ↗ application that that everyone has

1:36:24 ↗ agreed is vested to the development

1:36:26 ↗ standards under the development

1:36:28 ↗ agreement Mr chairman I I will be happy

1:36:31 ↗ to move on because I think that this is

1:36:32 ↗ essentially a dead end but I would like

1:36:34 ↗ to note for the record that the

1:36:36 ↗ witnesses responses have been

1:36:38 ↗ nonresponsive on that and I object I

1:36:40 ↗ disagree entirely she's answered the

1:36:42 ↗ question a number of times

1:36:44 ↗ now so why don't we move

1:36:47 ↗ on with respect to

1:36:50 ↗ the sdp and asdp application ations that

1:36:54 ↗ shelter submitted in

1:36:57 ↗ 2017 has shelter commissioned any

1:36:59 ↗ studies or evaluations

1:37:03 ↗ that

1:37:06 ↗ specifically analyze the effect of the

1:37:09 ↗ replacement regulations on those

1:37:13 ↗ development

1:37:14 ↗ applications again that was asked and

1:37:16 ↗ answered already you asked about

1:37:18 ↗ specific studies Consultants earlier I

1:37:20 ↗ think it was more more specific to the

1:37:22 ↗ property I'm asking if if uh there were

1:37:25 ↗ specific studies or evaluations

1:37:27 ↗ performed in relation to um

1:37:30 ↗ shelter's actual STP and ASP

1:37:36 ↗ applications are STP and ASP

1:37:39 ↗ applications are vested to the

1:37:40 ↗ development standards under the

1:37:42 ↗ development

1:37:45 ↗ agreement I'm sorry could you say that

1:37:47 ↗ again our applications that you're

1:37:49 ↗ asking about are vested to the

1:37:50 ↗ development standards under the under

1:37:52 ↗ the

1:37:54 ↗ um development agreement

1:37:58 ↗ so I'm not sure why what you're asking

1:38:00 ↗ me so I don't think you're answering the

1:38:04 ↗ question that I'm asking my my question

1:38:07 ↗ specifically is whether shelter has

1:38:08 ↗ commissioned any studies or evaluations

1:38:11 ↗ that have analyzed the effect of the

1:38:13 ↗ replacement regulations specifically in

1:38:17 ↗ relation to shelters STP and ASP

1:38:21 ↗ applications that's not a question

1:38:23 ↗ regarding vesting it's a question of

1:38:25 ↗ whether and to what extent shelter has

1:38:27 ↗ commissioned any

1:38:29 ↗ studies well I think if you're asking

1:38:32 ↗ about specific studies on these

1:38:34 ↗ applications the answer is no there's

1:38:36 ↗ lots of conversation throughout the

1:38:38 ↗ process including in the process of um

1:38:41 ↗ the replacement regulation public

1:38:43 ↗ meetings um

1:38:45 ↗ where the ways that our applications

1:38:48 ↗ don't comply with the replacement

1:38:50 ↗ regulations were pointed out either by

1:38:52 ↗ shelter or by City

1:38:56 ↗ staff when did shelter begin preparation

1:38:59 ↗ of its sdp and asdp applications for the

1:39:02 ↗ isqua highlands

1:39:09 ↗ property

1:39:11 ↗ um I believe that would have

1:39:17 ↗ been in August and

1:39:20 ↗ September of 2017

1:39:30 ↗ I'd like to call your attention to your

1:39:33 ↗ February 5th 2019 testimony and for Miss

1:39:37 ↗ car's benefit this is I believe at Pages

1:39:39 ↗ 87 and 88 which referred to your meeting

1:39:43 ↗ notes from

1:39:44 ↗ the September 7th 2017 meeting between

1:39:49 ↗ shelter and City staff members and I

1:39:51 ↗ apologize Zach but what was the date of

1:39:53 ↗ say this was your um uh February 5th

1:39:57 ↗ 2019 thank

1:39:59 ↗ you and if you're going to ask me about

1:40:01 ↗ it can I also have a copy and you're

1:40:03 ↗ welcome to get that from your Council or

1:40:05 ↗ I can provide you

1:40:28 ↗ while you're grabbing that I'm sorry but

1:40:29 ↗ one more time the page that we're going

1:40:31 ↗ to be I believe it was 87 and 88 okay

1:40:33 ↗ thank you

1:40:45 ↗ [Applause]

1:41:20 ↗ you can please re familiarize yourself

1:41:22 ↗ with that testimony for the record I

1:41:24 ↗ handed the witness a copy of the the

1:41:27 ↗ transcript

1:41:50 ↗ [Music]

1:42:01 ↗ okay okay specifically I'd like you to

1:42:04 ↗ look at the quote pardon me the quote

1:42:08 ↗ beginning with a direction shelter was

1:42:10 ↗ asking for quote direction as to how to

1:42:13 ↗ submit the sdp and asdp submittals

1:42:16 ↗ because we weren't sure if one big sdp

1:42:20 ↗ was going to be required or if we could

1:42:22 ↗ do it on a block by block basis while

1:42:24 ↗ that plat was pending so we initiated

1:42:27 ↗ that discussion I think at this meeting

1:42:29 ↗ do you see that

1:42:30 ↗ testimony yes and do you recall

1:42:33 ↗ testifying to that effect

1:42:35 ↗ yes so as of that date referenced in

1:42:39 ↗ your testimony which was September 7th

1:42:43 ↗ 2017 shelter wasn't even sure whether to

1:42:46 ↗ submit one Omnibus site development

1:42:49 ↗ permit or multiple individual site

1:42:52 ↗ development permits for its various

1:42:53 ↗ proposals

1:42:56 ↗ correct we weren't sure which way the

1:42:59 ↗ city would require it to be

1:43:05 ↗ submitted for the record shelter had not

1:43:08 ↗ yet made a decision concerning its

1:43:11 ↗ proposal as to whether it was going to

1:43:14 ↗ submit an application for one Omnibus

1:43:18 ↗ site development permit or various

1:43:21 ↗ smaller site development permits

1:43:23 ↗ correct um we knew actually just sorry

1:43:27 ↗ just a minute are we still talking about

1:43:29 ↗ the same text because we just took away

1:43:31 ↗ the testimony that she was talking about

1:43:33 ↗ oh she's not confused I don't think that

1:43:35 ↗ she's okay Tia do you need those in

1:43:36 ↗ front of you or is it okay that it's

1:43:38 ↗ gone now it depends what if he's going

1:43:39 ↗ to ask me about what I said then I would

1:43:41 ↗ rather have it in front of me but if

1:43:44 ↗ pardon me I thought that you refresh

1:43:47 ↗ recollection enough excuse me

1:44:09 ↗ okay so you were asking about

1:44:12 ↗ the the status of our sdp and asdp plans

1:44:16 ↗ on that date we had certain plans that

1:44:19 ↗ we were working on the question that we

1:44:21 ↗ were asking the city was went to the

1:44:26 ↗ format of how they were submitted um

1:44:29 ↗ whether it was one application for all

1:44:32 ↗ the property that showed all of it or

1:44:34 ↗ whether they could be submitted on a

1:44:37 ↗ block byblock

1:44:40 ↗ basis by the time of that

1:44:42 ↗ conversation

1:44:44 ↗ on September 7th of

1:44:47 ↗ 2017 approximately how much work a

1:44:52 ↗ shelter put into into the the

1:44:54 ↗ preparation of an asp or sdp application

1:44:58 ↗ at that

1:45:00 ↗ point um there's not really a good way

1:45:02 ↗ for me to quantify that in terms

1:45:13 ↗ of number of hours that shelter

1:45:17 ↗ personnel and or Consultants had devoted

1:45:21 ↗ toward preparing an sdp or s P

1:45:25 ↗ application gosh that's also really hard

1:45:28 ↗ to quantify because before you move

1:45:30 ↗ forward with a development proposal

1:45:31 ↗ there's so much that goes into the

1:45:35 ↗ analysis that you're doing ahead of time

1:45:37 ↗ to determine what a viable pro project

1:45:39 ↗ is and what you want to propose so at

1:45:43 ↗ this point in time at as of September

1:45:47 ↗ 2017 the beginning of September

1:45:50 ↗ 2017 um we were were certain that we

1:45:54 ↗ were moving forward with um uh proposed

1:45:57 ↗ retail development on a portion of the

1:46:00 ↗ site as well as a medical office

1:46:03 ↗ building on another portion of the site

1:46:06 ↗ um so we had

1:46:08 ↗ spent time on those I I again I can't

1:46:11 ↗ really quantify it was there a specific

1:46:14 ↗ schematic or drawing that had been

1:46:16 ↗ prepared by shelter uh depicting its um

1:46:20 ↗ its ultimate

1:46:21 ↗ development scheme intent by that point

1:46:24 ↗ I really can't recall on that specific

1:46:27 ↗ date and I believe your testimony

1:46:30 ↗ indicated that the the purpose of your

1:46:32 ↗ uh September 7th 2017 meeting with City

1:46:35 ↗ staff was to receive Direction on that

1:46:38 ↗ point is that correct um can you point

1:46:41 ↗ me to where you're looking in you have

1:46:43 ↗ my copy if I'm not mistaken that was the

1:46:45 ↗ purpose of your meeting I believe I I

1:46:49 ↗ mean I don't know where I'm looking in

1:46:51 ↗ the transcript to find

1:47:01 ↗ that okay can you please read beginning

1:47:05 ↗ with we were

1:47:15 ↗ asking that's in the middle of a

1:47:17 ↗ sentence you want me to start reading no

1:47:19 ↗ feel free to read from the beginning of

1:47:20 ↗ the sentence if that's easier for you

1:47:27 ↗ okay so it says so we were there's a

1:47:30 ↗ note about pre-at timing and so we were

1:47:33 ↗ asking about the status of the plat and

1:47:35 ↗ we were getting direction as to how to

1:47:37 ↗ submit the sdp and asdp submittals

1:47:41 ↗ because we weren't sure if one big sdp

1:47:43 ↗ was going to be required or if we could

1:47:46 ↗ do it on a block by block basis while

1:47:47 ↗ the plat was pending and so we initiated

1:47:50 ↗ that discussion I think at this meeting

1:47:55 ↗ so again your testimony as I understand

1:47:58 ↗ it was that the purpose of that

1:48:00 ↗ September 7th 2017 meeting with City

1:48:03 ↗ staff was to receive Direction on that

1:48:06 ↗ point correct I don't think that's what

1:48:08 ↗ my testimony said I don't think it said

1:48:10 ↗ it was the purpose that was one of the

1:48:11 ↗ items that was discussed in that meeting

1:48:15 ↗ did you receive direction from the city

1:48:17 ↗ following that

1:48:19 ↗ meeting following the meeting or at the

1:48:22 ↗ meeting

1:48:23 ↗ um can I refer to my notes from that

1:48:26 ↗ meeting sure

1:49:21 ↗ EX for

1:50:02 ↗ okay can you ask your question

1:50:07 ↗ again my question was did the city ever

1:50:09 ↗ or did you did shelter ever receive

1:50:11 ↗ direction from the city in response to

1:50:14 ↗ your inquiry regarding whether a single

1:50:18 ↗ Omnibus um STP or ASP application would

1:50:22 ↗ bequ required or appropriate versus

1:50:26 ↗ various individual ones yes Mr Nan told

1:50:30 ↗ us that we could do individual sdp

1:50:33 ↗ applications and did Mr nien convey that

1:50:36 ↗ information to you at that meeting yes

1:50:39 ↗ or did he follow up with any sort of a

1:50:41 ↗ written confirmation after that meeting

1:50:44 ↗ no that's not typically how he

1:50:51 ↗ operates did shelter ever physically

1:50:54 ↗ attempt to

1:50:56 ↗ submit applications for its requested

1:50:59 ↗ STP or asps before the expiration of the

1:51:03 ↗ buildout period under the development

1:51:07 ↗ agreement um I would need to look at the

1:51:11 ↗ um exhibit that showed our exact dates

1:51:14 ↗ to to tell you when what what exhibit

1:51:17 ↗ was that um I believe that that we had

1:51:21 ↗ an exhibit

1:51:23 ↗ that was a demonstrative of the various

1:51:25 ↗ dates that applied or that the various

1:51:28 ↗ dates that were important with respect

1:51:30 ↗ to each of the applications could you

1:51:33 ↗ please locate that and and refer to

1:51:40 ↗ it and I'll look to my Council for help

1:51:43 ↗ me in the right

1:51:45 ↗ direction should be

1:51:52 ↗ yeah C or not C it's because it's a

1:51:55 ↗ shelter exhibit it's

1:51:59 ↗ s26 I think if if that's what you're

1:52:02 ↗ looking for

1:52:06 ↗ to ret my notebook out of your way that

1:52:09 ↗ one

1:52:26 ↗ okay so for our medical office

1:52:30 ↗ ASP

1:52:32 ↗ application

1:52:35 ↗ um

1:52:36 ↗ we had our collaborative meeting on 926

1:52:42 ↗ 2017 so that means that we would have

1:52:45 ↗ initiated the process with the city of

1:52:47 ↗ asking for that meeting to start the

1:52:49 ↗ application process prior to the um

1:52:52 ↗ expiration of the buildout period for

1:52:54 ↗ the storage

1:52:56 ↗ application

1:52:58 ↗ um our collaborative meeting was 10:24

1:53:02 ↗ so I don't know the exact date when we

1:53:03 ↗ started requesting that meeting which

1:53:05 ↗ would have started the application

1:53:07 ↗ process so I can't answer with respect

1:53:10 ↗ to that one the retail sdp

1:53:14 ↗ application um the collaborative meeting

1:53:17 ↗ which was the start of the application

1:53:19 ↗ process was on 103 2017

1:53:22 ↗ so it is likely that we began that

1:53:25 ↗ process of requesting that meeting to

1:53:28 ↗ initiate the application process prior

1:53:30 ↗ to the end of the buildout

1:53:34 ↗ period was that last application that

1:53:36 ↗ you referred to was that physically

1:53:38 ↗ ready to submit before the expiration of

1:53:42 ↗ the buildout

1:53:44 ↗ period which part of the

1:53:46 ↗ application uh the application as a

1:53:49 ↗ whole so there were multiple steps um um

1:53:53 ↗ to that were outlined by the city as

1:53:56 ↗ required to get to full application so

1:54:02 ↗ um we were at step one if step one had

1:54:06 ↗ been what was if the step one required

1:54:08 ↗ by the city had actually followed what

1:54:11 ↗ was in the development agreement then we

1:54:13 ↗ would have been at a different

1:54:16 ↗ spot what was step one I'm not familiar

1:54:19 ↗ with that term well the first step that

1:54:22 ↗ the city required of us for each of our

1:54:24 ↗ sdp applications was to request a

1:54:27 ↗ collaborative meeting and then wait for

1:54:30 ↗ them to give us the date on which the

1:54:32 ↗ collaborative meeting could be

1:54:35 ↗ held by what date had

1:54:38 ↗ shelter physically

1:54:40 ↗ prepared an STP or ASP application for

1:54:45 ↗ that

1:54:47 ↗ project I can't tell you the exact date

1:54:50 ↗ when the application was was prepared um

1:54:54 ↗ but also would point out that

1:54:56 ↗ application is not I'm not clear on what

1:54:59 ↗ that means because there were various

1:55:01 ↗ parts to what the application consisted

1:55:04 ↗ of has shelter ever attempted to submit

1:55:07 ↗ a building permit application for its

1:55:09 ↗ isqua Highlands

1:55:15 ↗ property um no because the city told us

1:55:18 ↗ that site development permits were

1:55:20 ↗ required prior to building permit

1:55:22 ↗ application ations was

1:55:24 ↗ shelter informed by City staff that the

1:55:27 ↗ city would not accept a building permit

1:55:30 ↗ application for shelter's

1:55:34 ↗ property um that was a well-known um

1:55:38 ↗ practice of the city that s site

1:55:40 ↗ development permits were required prior

1:55:42 ↗ to building permit

1:55:45 ↗ applications um also you have to

1:55:47 ↗ understand that building permit

1:55:49 ↗ applications are not a simple process

1:55:51 ↗ these are that's hundreds of thousands

1:55:53 ↗ of dollars that you would be spending

1:55:56 ↗ just to prepare an application

1:55:59 ↗ that would not be accepted by the

1:56:02 ↗ city so I think your testimony and I'm

1:56:04 ↗ paraphrasing here was that it was a

1:56:07 ↗ well-known fact or words to that effect

1:56:10 ↗ but was shelter ever specifically

1:56:14 ↗ informed by the city that the city would

1:56:17 ↗ not accept a building permit application

1:56:19 ↗ for shelter's property

1:56:23 ↗ not whether it was a well-known fact but

1:56:24 ↗ whether you actually received that

1:56:27 ↗ direction or that information from the

1:56:30 ↗ city we did when you look at the submitt

1:56:32 ↗ checklists for the for the various

1:56:35 ↗ applications that were provided by the

1:56:38 ↗ city you so setting aside the submitt

1:56:41 ↗ checklist for now did any City staff

1:56:43 ↗ member ever inform you verbally or in

1:56:47 ↗ writing that the city would not accept a

1:56:49 ↗ building permit application for

1:56:51 ↗ shelter's property

1:56:53 ↗ well in yes in writing I mean one

1:56:56 ↗ example of where they informed us and

1:56:58 ↗ everyone else in writing was that

1:57:00 ↗ November uh is it November 16th 2017

1:57:04 ↗ memo where they explained that the city

1:57:07 ↗ requires site development permits prior

1:57:09 ↗ to building permit applications there's

1:57:11 ↗ also a lot of of um testimony at the

1:57:16 ↗ various uh public hearings and public

1:57:18 ↗ meetings related to the replacement

1:57:20 ↗ regulations where staff explained in

1:57:22 ↗ depth this concept of linked permits and

1:57:24 ↗ how they required sdp applications and

1:57:27 ↗ preliminary land use applications as

1:57:29 ↗ precursers to submitt of a building

1:57:31 ↗ permit so it wasn't something that we

1:57:33 ↗ made up or just assumed it was something

1:57:35 ↗ that we heard read and saw from the city

1:57:38 ↗ repeatedly did you ever ask the city

1:57:41 ↗ staff specifically whether the city

1:57:43 ↗ would accept a building permit

1:57:45 ↗ application for shelter's property I did

1:57:51 ↗ not I'd like to refer you to uh exhibit

1:57:56 ↗ S9 if you referenced this in your

1:57:58 ↗ original

1:58:00 ↗ testimony it was also referenced by Mr

1:58:03 ↗ mlan do you have exhibits in front of

1:58:05 ↗ you as I do

1:58:21 ↗ [Applause]

1:58:25 ↗ are you familiar with this

1:58:26 ↗ document generally yes is this the

1:58:29 ↗ document that you were just referring to

1:58:31 ↗ in your testimony regarding the the

1:58:33 ↗ general knowledge again I'm paraphrasing

1:58:36 ↗ of uh the city's practice regarding

1:58:39 ↗ building permits and how they

1:58:41 ↗ interplayed with land use

1:58:44 ↗ permits I don't think that I said this

1:58:47 ↗ document was the general knowledge you

1:58:49 ↗ asked for an example of the city

1:58:52 ↗ informing Us in writing and so I pointed

1:58:55 ↗ out that this that the building permit

1:58:59 ↗ submitt checklist lists sdp or land use

1:59:05 ↗ um land use permit notice of decision

1:59:08 ↗ has been issued as a a requirement a

1:59:12 ↗ pre- submittal requirement for building

1:59:14 ↗ permits and just so I'm clear is that

1:59:17 ↗ reference on Miss himim on page two of

1:59:21 ↗ exhibit 9 the commercial and multif

1:59:24 ↗ family building permit submittal

1:59:26 ↗ requirement uh checklist is that on page

1:59:29 ↗ two

1:59:30 ↗ [Music]

1:59:33 ↗ under pre submittal requirements is that

1:59:36 ↗ what you're referring to yes page two

1:59:39 ↗ pres submittal requirements lists land

1:59:41 ↗ use permit notice of decision has been

1:59:43 ↗ issued as a pres submittal

1:59:46 ↗ requirement when did you become aware of

1:59:49 ↗ this document

1:59:52 ↗ I don't know the specific

1:59:54 ↗ date you estimate when you became aware

1:59:57 ↗ of it I don't need a specific date but

2:00:00 ↗ was it during the time that I've been

2:00:02 ↗ working on the isqua

2:00:04 ↗ project okay so sometime between 2015

2:00:08 ↗ and now you be more specific than

2:00:12 ↗ that I I mean I don't I don't really

2:00:14 ↗ know I I may have looked at it very

2:00:16 ↗ early on I may have not I don't know

2:00:19 ↗ fair

2:00:20 ↗ enough did you become aware of this

2:00:23 ↗ document um it's posted on the city's

2:00:26 ↗ website so you you learned about it

2:00:30 ↗ because it was posted on the city's

2:00:31 ↗ website that's how shelter became aware

2:00:34 ↗ of this

2:00:36 ↗ document um that's how I've accessed the

2:00:41 ↗ document I'm specifically asking how you

2:00:44 ↗ became aware of this document not how

2:00:46 ↗ you accessed

2:00:47 ↗ it um well I mean I guess I would have

2:00:51 ↗ become aware of it by looking at the

2:00:52 ↗ city's website which is part of my

2:00:56 ↗ normal course when I'm working on permit

2:01:00 ↗ applications did a city staff member

2:01:03 ↗ ever provide you or shelter with a copy

2:01:06 ↗ of this document City staff members

2:01:09 ↗ routinely referred to the submitt

2:01:11 ↗ checklist um on the city's

2:01:16 ↗ website did the city staff member ever

2:01:19 ↗ express his or her intent to enforce the

2:01:23 ↗ provisions of the land use permit notice

2:01:26 ↗ of decision being issued provision of

2:01:29 ↗ this document against shelter's

2:01:32 ↗ property yes you let me know when that

2:01:35 ↗ was again the most obvious and easy

2:01:38 ↗ example is to refer to that November

2:01:41 ↗ memo and all of the testimony November

2:01:43 ↗ of 2017 memo and all of the testimony

2:01:46 ↗ and discussion that happened in public

2:01:48 ↗ meetings around um that explanation it

2:01:53 ↗ was all very very clear so before that

2:01:56 ↗ November 2017 meeting did City staff

2:02:00 ↗ members ever indicate their intent to

2:02:03 ↗ enforce this document or that provision

2:02:06 ↗ of this document against shelter that's

2:02:09 ↗ I I'm I was trying to give you a

2:02:11 ↗ specific example I I can't recall

2:02:14 ↗ specific examples of it other than that

2:02:18 ↗ at the moment okay and if this is

2:02:20 ↗ redundant I apologize but just to clear

2:02:21 ↗ verify did any staff member ever site to

2:02:24 ↗ this document in its dealings with

2:02:26 ↗ shelter and your pre-application

2:02:28 ↗ conferences or application conferences

2:02:30 ↗ or Communications regarding shelters

2:02:33 ↗ permit applications I don't

2:02:40 ↗ know do you agree that a building permit

2:02:43 ↗ application would vest under both the

2:02:45 ↗ city's code and state

2:02:49 ↗ law the city's code has different

2:02:51 ↗ vesting Provisions for different

2:02:53 ↗ portions of the city are you

2:02:56 ↗ specifically asking about one or are you

2:02:58 ↗ asking about both generally if you're

2:03:00 ↗ aware of of any provision of the city's

2:03:02 ↗ code under which a building permit would

2:03:06 ↗ vest yes I believe a building permit

2:03:09 ↗ vests under city code do you also agree

2:03:11 ↗ that a building permit would vest under

2:03:13 ↗ state

2:03:14 ↗ law

2:03:17 ↗ yes I'm going to refer you now to

2:03:20 ↗ exhibit s 25 and if you don't have a

2:03:23 ↗ copy of that I'm happy to bring here

2:03:32 ↗ um can you identify that document please

2:03:35 ↗ um I think it's a portion of the Grand

2:03:38 ↗ Ridge annexation and development

2:03:39 ↗ agreement so it's the development

2:03:41 ↗ agreement that we've been referring to

2:03:44 ↗ and are you generally familiar with that

2:03:47 ↗ document um

2:03:49 ↗ generally are you aware of any provision

2:03:52 ↗ of that development agreement that cites

2:03:56 ↗ or otherwise refers to

2:04:01 ↗ the commercial and multifam building

2:04:04 ↗ permit submittal requirements contained

2:04:07 ↗ at exhibit

2:04:11 ↗ [Applause]

2:04:20 ↗ S9 for

2:04:58 ↗ can you ask that question

2:05:00 ↗ again my specific question is whether

2:05:03 ↗ you're aware of any provision of the

2:05:06 ↗ isqua Highlands development agreement

2:05:08 ↗ that is contained at exhibit

2:05:11 ↗ s25 that cites or otherwise

2:05:14 ↗ references the commercial and multifam

2:05:18 ↗ building permit submitt requirements

2:05:20 ↗ that is contained at

2:05:24 ↗ exhibit

2:05:29 ↗ S9 um I'm not aware of a citation to

2:05:34 ↗ that specific document I'm not sure if

2:05:36 ↗ that document existed at the time the

2:05:38 ↗ development agreement was signed thank

2:05:41 ↗ you could you please turn to page 22 of

2:05:44 ↗ the development agreement at exhibit s25

2:05:53 ↗ and read the first sentence allowed of

2:05:56 ↗ section

2:05:58 ↗ 5.10 entitled

2:06:10 ↗ integration

2:06:12 ↗ um I can read this section and I would

2:06:15 ↗ like to also for the record provide a

2:06:17 ↗ little bit of context but it says this

2:06:20 ↗ agreement represents the entire

2:06:22 ↗ agreement of the parties with respect to

2:06:23 ↗ the subject matter here of there are no

2:06:26 ↗ other agreements oral or written except

2:06:28 ↗ as expressly set forth here

2:06:30 ↗ in U Mr chairman we're at the 8:35 Mark

2:06:35 ↗ it's been another hour of of uh

2:06:37 ↗ testimony and I think it would be a

2:06:39 ↗ logical breaking point if the commission

2:06:40 ↗ would like to take another recess I'm

2:06:43 ↗ I'm happy to to do that or to keep going

2:06:44 ↗ if that's your preference well I'm

2:06:46 ↗ getting mindful of of time and uh you

2:06:50 ↗ know we've

2:06:52 ↗ ask for public input tomorrow and so I

2:06:56 ↗ think we'd be willing to

2:06:57 ↗ go we'd be willing to go longer if we

2:07:00 ↗ can be sure to try to get done tonight

2:07:02 ↗ what we need to do if we if you think

2:07:04 ↗ you're going to be able to complete

2:07:06 ↗ within the time given then then yeah

2:07:09 ↗ let's take a break I I'm fairly

2:07:11 ↗ confident that I will be able to do that

2:07:13 ↗ thank you okay just as a matter of

2:07:15 ↗ course though we have another witness to

2:07:17 ↗ call as well were we planning on trying

2:07:19 ↗ to accomplish that before the public

2:07:22 ↗ comment yes okay so is that will that

2:07:25 ↗ happen at the outset of Tomorrow

2:07:26 ↗ evening's hearing okay that that would

2:07:28 ↗ be the plan if but we would hope that it

2:07:31 ↗ wouldn't take the full three hours or

2:07:34 ↗ what three and a half hours our our

2:07:36 ↗ direct examination will not I can't say

2:07:38 ↗ on Cross what the city will

2:07:40 ↗ do my assumption is that we would very

2:07:43 ↗ easily get to the public testimony

2:07:44 ↗ portion of of the hearing tomorrow yeah

2:07:47 ↗ I have no idea what kind of input The

2:07:48 ↗ public's going to have but we I'm obl

2:07:51 ↗ ated to give them that opportunity and

2:07:53 ↗ make sure there's an adequate enough

2:07:54 ↗ time so let's take it let's take a

2:07:57 ↗ 10-minute break now and then we'll

2:08:20 ↗ resume

2:08:50 ↗ e

2:09:20 ↗ e

2:09:50 ↗ e

2:10:20 ↗ e

2:10:50 ↗ e

2:11:20 ↗ e

2:11:50 ↗ e

2:12:20 ↗ e

2:12:50 ↗ e

2:13:20 ↗ e

2:13:50 ↗ e

2:14:20 ↗ e

2:14:50 ↗ e

2:15:19 ↗ e

2:15:49 ↗ e

2:16:19 ↗ e

2:16:49 ↗ e

2:17:19 ↗ e

2:17:49 ↗ e

2:18:19 ↗ e e

2:19:09 ↗ good job getting back and we're back in

2:19:11 ↗ session thank you Mr chairman Miss I

2:19:14 ↗ believe you stated in your prior

2:19:15 ↗ testimony and this is a paraphrase that

2:19:18 ↗ it was quite expensive and involved and

2:19:21 ↗ or involved to to pull together a a

2:19:24 ↗ building permit submitt do you recall

2:19:26 ↗ that testimony yes I believe you

2:19:30 ↗ indicated that again I'm paraphrasing

2:19:33 ↗ and and doing my best to recollect but I

2:19:35 ↗ believe that you said it was several

2:19:37 ↗ hundreds of thousands of dollars is that

2:19:41 ↗ accurate yes

2:19:45 ↗ and with respect to the several hundreds

2:19:48 ↗ of thousands of dollars is that of

2:19:50 ↗ function of the city's building permit

2:19:54 ↗ application fee or is this that just the

2:19:57 ↗ cost of preparing the permit submitt in

2:20:01 ↗ the first

2:20:02 ↗ place um I mean that's just a rough

2:20:05 ↗ order of magnitude of what it what goes

2:20:08 ↗ into a commercial building permit

2:20:11 ↗ application can you expand on that and

2:20:13 ↗ explain what what does go into a

2:20:15 ↗ building permit application submitt that

2:20:18 ↗ would cost that much money well I mean

2:20:21 ↗ you have to design and

2:20:23 ↗ engineer um a a major commercial

2:20:27 ↗ structure so you have Architects and

2:20:29 ↗ engineers and um all of that costs money

2:20:33 ↗ and that was the rough order of

2:20:36 ↗ magnitude estimate that um applies to a

2:20:40 ↗ building permit

2:20:45 ↗ application did shelter ever prepare a

2:20:49 ↗ building permit application

2:20:51 ↗ or AA Highland

2:20:53 ↗ Property we've prepared lots of building

2:20:56 ↗ permit applications in our respective

2:20:58 ↗ careers when you're talking about our

2:21:00 ↗ development team um if you're asking for

2:21:02 ↗ these STP applications no we never

2:21:04 ↗ prepared a building permit

2:21:12 ↗ application is it a fair statement that

2:21:15 ↗ shelter declined to submit and prepare a

2:21:18 ↗ building permit application for its is

2:21:20 ↗ Highlands property because shelter

2:21:22 ↗ didn't want to risk such a large

2:21:25 ↗ expenditure without first knowing that

2:21:27 ↗ the proposed site configuration of the

2:21:29 ↗ underlying property was acceptable to

2:21:31 ↗ the city no that's not a fair

2:21:34 ↗ characterization what's unfair about

2:21:37 ↗ it we did not prepare a building permit

2:21:42 ↗ application because everything that we

2:21:45 ↗ heard saw and read from the city

2:21:47 ↗ indicated that a site development permit

2:21:48 ↗ was required first we submitted those

2:21:51 ↗ site development permit applications

2:21:52 ↗ under the development agreement before

2:21:54 ↗ the replacement regulations went into

2:21:56 ↗ effect and the development agreement is

2:21:58 ↗ quite clear that those sdp applications

2:22:02 ↗ are implementing approvals and

2:22:03 ↗ implementing approvals vest to the

2:22:05 ↗ development standards under the

2:22:07 ↗ development

2:22:14 ↗ agreement in your

2:22:17 ↗ March 5th testimony and I believe this

2:22:20 ↗ is on page 94 for uh council's reference

2:22:25 ↗ believe you stated that the addition of

2:22:27 ↗ a minimum F requirement in the

2:22:29 ↗ replacement regulations was quote aimed

2:22:32 ↗ at preventing retail development on our

2:22:35 ↗ property and quote do you have a copy of

2:22:37 ↗ the transcript or would you like one I

2:22:39 ↗ don't that would be great if you could

2:22:40 ↗ give me a

2:22:43 ↗ copy the

2:22:49 ↗ trans for

2:22:59 ↗ [Applause]

2:23:18 ↗ [Applause]

2:23:38 ↗ and I apologize for the uh the Mis

2:23:40 ↗ citation it's actually the February 5th

2:23:43 ↗ uh 2019 transcript at page 94 do you see

2:23:47 ↗ the reference that I've highlighted for

2:23:48 ↗ you uh to that effect Miss he

2:24:13 ↗ [Applause]

2:24:19 ↗ yes you explain what you meant by that

2:24:23 ↗ [Applause]

2:24:28 ↗ testimony so that is a piece of my

2:24:32 ↗ testimony that was um in response to a

2:24:37 ↗ question about how floor area ratio or

2:24:40 ↗ far Works

2:24:43 ↗ um when

2:24:45 ↗ the floor the minimum floor area ratio

2:24:48 ↗ was introduced into the replacement

2:24:50 ↗ regulations just several days before the

2:24:52 ↗ PPC hearing on the replacement

2:24:55 ↗ regulations um it was within I think two

2:24:59 ↗ weeks of the date on which we had

2:25:01 ↗ informed the city that we were coming in

2:25:04 ↗ with uh sdp applications including the

2:25:07 ↗ sdp application for retail which we

2:25:12 ↗ explained to him would to City staff

2:25:15 ↗ including Keith nien would um be very

2:25:18 ↗ similar in nature to the Grand rdge

2:25:20 ↗ Plaza and was intended to complement um

2:25:24 ↗ that existing Center so he knew that we

2:25:27 ↗ were proposing what would be mostly

2:25:30 ↗ single story retail at the PPC hearing

2:25:33 ↗ um at near the end of September

2:25:36 ↗ 2017 when there was discussion on the

2:25:39 ↗ minimum F Keith explained that he needed

2:25:43 ↗ it as a tool to stop single or single

2:25:46 ↗ story um retail development which he

2:25:49 ↗ didn't think was desirable in the

2:25:51 ↗ highlands so on that in late September

2:25:54 ↗ 2017 he testified that that um or he

2:25:59 ↗ explained rather to the PPC that that

2:26:03 ↗ was one of the reasons why he had

2:26:05 ↗ introduced the F then again in February

2:26:09 ↗ of

2:26:10 ↗ 2018 at the isqua Highlands Community

2:26:13 ↗ meeting he explained that in response to

2:26:16 ↗ the applications that he was seeing

2:26:18 ↗ which at that point he had all of our

2:26:19 ↗ applications in front of him um the fa

2:26:24 ↗ minimum F was necessary to stop the

2:26:28 ↗ undesirable

2:26:31 ↗ development so that's what that

2:26:33 ↗ statement is based on did you interpret

2:26:36 ↗ that statement from Mr nien as referring

2:26:40 ↗ specifically to IH ifc's

2:26:45 ↗ property which statement are you asking

2:26:49 ↗ about the intent to stop retail

2:26:52 ↗ development again I'm paraphrasing well

2:26:54 ↗ we were the only undeveloped property in

2:26:56 ↗ isqua Highlands that had retail

2:26:58 ↗ development so yes it was definitely

2:27:00 ↗ intended to apply to our property

2:27:22 ↗ are R treating yeah please thank

2:27:30 ↗ you Miss I'm I'm handing you a copy of

2:27:34 ↗ the city's land use code and I'd like to

2:27:39 ↗ refer your attention please to section

2:27:42 ↗ 1819

2:27:44 ↗ C 140 subsection C could you please read

2:27:49 ↗ that subsection allowed for

2:27:51 ↗ me okay but this is not the section of

2:27:54 ↗ the replacement regulations that applies

2:27:56 ↗ to isqua Highlands I don't think that's

2:27:58 ↗ correct okay so we're talking about a

2:28:01 ↗ section that doesn't apply to these

2:28:03 ↗ permits that's correct okay so you want

2:28:06 ↗ me to read 1819 C1 140 subsection C yes

2:28:11 ↗ thank you floor area ratio far a minimum

2:28:15 ↗ far of 1.0 is required for

2:28:17 ↗ non-residential development or

2:28:19 ↗ Redevelopment

2:28:20 ↗ thank you could you read down at the

2:28:22 ↗ very end of that section of code and

2:28:26 ↗ read the legislative history

2:28:28 ↗ parenthetical as to what ordinance

2:28:31 ↗ adopted this

2:28:34 ↗ section ORD 2840 Section

2:28:39 ↗ 1 in parentheses it says exh period a

2:28:44 ↗ end parentheses

2:28:47 ↗ 2018 thank you could you please turn to

2:28:49 ↗ the first page of the underlying code

2:28:52 ↗ chapter IMC chapter 1819 C and read the

2:28:57 ↗ title of that chapter to

2:29:05 ↗ me 1819 C Talis replacement regulations

2:29:09 ↗ subsequent to development agreement

2:29:13 ↗ termination

2:29:16 ↗ so the F provision that you just quoted

2:29:20 ↗ in subsection C of section 140 is that

2:29:24 ↗ identical to the F provision that is

2:29:29 ↗ contained in the replacement

2:29:31 ↗ regulations I I don't know without

2:29:33 ↗ comparing them side by side but could

2:29:35 ↗ you please turn to uh

2:29:38 ↗ IMC

2:29:41 ↗ 189b the preceeding chapter

2:29:52 ↗ and read for the

2:29:54 ↗ record IMC 1819 B 140 subsection

2:30:00 ↗ C floor area ratio F period a period r

2:30:04 ↗ period a minimum far of 1.0 is required

2:30:08 ↗ for non-residential development or

2:30:11 ↗ Redevelopment and could you please turn

2:30:13 ↗ to the first page of that chapter and

2:30:16 ↗ read the title of that

2:30:18 ↗ chapter that chapters isqua

2:30:21 ↗ Highlands wash dot TDR and to

2:30:25 ↗ replacement regulations subsequent to

2:30:27 ↗ development agreement

2:30:30 ↗ termination could you please turn to the

2:30:32 ↗ legislative history parenthetical

2:30:36 ↗ following

2:30:38 ↗ section 1819 B 140 and read that

2:30:46 ↗ [Applause]

2:30:53 ↗ says or 2830 Section

2:30:58 ↗ 1 parentheses exh period

2:31:02 ↗ a end parentheses

2:31:06 ↗ 2018 Miss H I've just had you read the F

2:31:10 ↗ provisions of two different code

2:31:13 ↗ chapters that were adopted in 2018 one

2:31:16 ↗ under ordinance number uh 2830 the isqua

2:31:21 ↗ Highland replacement regulations and one

2:31:23 ↗ under ordinance number

2:31:25 ↗ 2840 the Talis area replacement

2:31:29 ↗ regulations do you agree that both of

2:31:32 ↗ those F Provisions are functionally

2:31:36 ↗ identical the text of them is the same

2:31:38 ↗ they're they're not functionally

2:31:39 ↗ identical because there's different um

2:31:42 ↗ amounts of uh I guess in the replacement

2:31:45 ↗ regulations there zoning caps that apply

2:31:48 ↗ to the undeveloped property so

2:31:50 ↗ functionally they're not the same but do

2:31:51 ↗ you agree that the text of both of those

2:31:54 ↗ F Provisions is identical yes that's

2:31:56 ↗ what I said so do you agree then that

2:32:00 ↗ the same F provision that the city

2:32:03 ↗ adopted in 2018 for the isqua highlands

2:32:06 ↗ area is the exact same text as the F

2:32:10 ↗ provision the city adopted in 2018 for

2:32:13 ↗ the Talis

2:32:14 ↗ area I think that's the same question

2:32:17 ↗ that yes the text in both of the

2:32:19 ↗ sections is the same thank

2:32:20 ↗ [Applause]

2:32:43 ↗ you if the city of isqua was

2:32:46 ↗ specifically targeting IH ifc's property

2:32:50 ↗ by imposing this F requirement can you

2:32:54 ↗ explain why they also imposed the exact

2:32:56 ↗ same text an F requirement against an

2:33:00 ↗ entirely different area of the

2:33:02 ↗ city well I think that's a kind of

2:33:05 ↗ simple explanation that when they

2:33:07 ↗ started the replacement regulations it

2:33:09 ↗ was one set of replacement regulations

2:33:12 ↗ that was going to apply to both um Talis

2:33:15 ↗ and isqua Highlands and the other

2:33:18 ↗ development agreements or for

2:33:19 ↗ development agreement areas referenced

2:33:21 ↗ in that title um so the

2:33:26 ↗ initial the initial portion of the code

2:33:30 ↗ development process was just one it

2:33:32 ↗ wasn't until quite late in the process

2:33:34 ↗ that they got split into two um so I

2:33:38 ↗ think that explains why the text is

2:33:41 ↗ identical so it's your belief or

2:33:44 ↗ position that the city retained this F

2:33:47 ↗ minimum requirement for the Talis area

2:33:51 ↗ after the

2:33:53 ↗ two bodies of regulations were split or

2:33:56 ↗ divided

2:34:00 ↗ um because it was an oversight is that

2:34:02 ↗ what you were

2:34:04 ↗ intending I'm not sure I can't testify

2:34:07 ↗ on the details of the Talis portion once

2:34:09 ↗ it split off from isqua Highlands but I

2:34:12 ↗ did not um get the sense that it was as

2:34:16 ↗ controversial in the um

2:34:20 ↗ Talis situation because there was really

2:34:23 ↗ only one property that was undeveloped

2:34:28 ↗ in that area most of that is developed

2:34:31 ↗ as single family homes or town homes or

2:34:34 ↗ apartments too I guess or or maybe it's

2:34:36 ↗ senior living but you do you do agree

2:34:40 ↗ that it's the exact same F requirement

2:34:42 ↗ imposed in both Talis and isqua

2:34:45 ↗ Highlands under those two code

2:34:47 ↗ sections right what I was just

2:34:49 ↗ explaining was was the chances of it

2:34:51 ↗ applying to anyone were pretty slim in

2:34:55 ↗ Talis and so the implication and whether

2:34:58 ↗ anybody would care enough to ask the

2:35:00 ↗ city or point out to the council

2:35:03 ↗ that it was or wasn't I I don't have an

2:35:05 ↗ opinion on whether it was necessary or

2:35:08 ↗ controversial in the Talis

2:35:14 ↗ example I have you turned to uh exhibit

2:35:18 ↗ S11

2:35:38 ↗ do you identify this document please um

2:35:41 ↗ it's an email chain related to our High

2:35:43 ↗ Street collection preliminary

2:35:46 ↗ plat could you please turn to the bottom

2:35:49 ↗ of page one and describe for me or

2:35:53 ↗ explain to me the reference

2:35:55 ↗ to

2:35:58 ↗ amm's contained there

2:36:21 ↗ um so the reference to amm is a

2:36:25 ↗ reference to um I think they're

2:36:29 ↗ administrative

2:36:31 ↗ modification I I don't know the exact

2:36:33 ↗ terminology but they're administrative

2:36:34 ↗ modifications to the development

2:36:37 ↗ standards essentially for all intents

2:36:39 ↗ and purposes an amendment of the

2:36:41 ↗ development

2:36:42 ↗ agreement

2:36:44 ↗ um it's an amendment of the development

2:36:48 ↗ standards and so there's only certain

2:36:50 ↗ portions of the development standards

2:36:52 ↗ that could be subject to a an

2:36:54 ↗ amm and the the reference I believe at

2:36:56 ↗ the bottom of exhibit F excuse me

2:37:00 ↗ S1 uh is

2:37:02 ↗ to five amms that have been provided to

2:37:06 ↗ us I'm assuming that means shelter

2:37:08 ↗ correct correct could you please

2:37:10 ↗ describe that what those five amms were

2:37:13 ↗ and so we had requested clarification on

2:37:17 ↗ the road standard because the comments

2:37:19 ↗ that we got back on the plat didn't

2:37:21 ↗ match any of the road standards that

2:37:23 ↗ were in the development agreement

2:37:26 ↗ exhibits that or appendix the appendix

2:37:29 ↗ to the development agreement that

2:37:31 ↗ contained the road standards didn't

2:37:32 ↗ match the comments that we received from

2:37:34 ↗ the city as to what they were asking us

2:37:36 ↗ to construct with our plat so we asked

2:37:40 ↗ then for them to provide the um amms

2:37:44 ↗ that

2:37:45 ↗ modified the standards that we saw in

2:37:48 ↗ the development agreement so they had

2:37:49 ↗ provide so what this is referencing is

2:37:51 ↗ they had provided five amm that that um

2:37:55 ↗ potentially changed the development

2:37:58 ↗ standards with respects to the road

2:38:03 ↗ um in our property it didn't fully

2:38:06 ↗ answer the question answer all of our

2:38:08 ↗ questions about what the road needed to

2:38:10 ↗ look like because there were other

2:38:12 ↗ issues that tied into the um Road design

2:38:16 ↗ that were still outstanding

2:38:19 ↗ had shelter previously requested other

2:38:22 ↗ amms regarding its property apart from

2:38:25 ↗ the ones that are referenced in your um

2:38:28 ↗ in your email message no I mean we had

2:38:31 ↗ well maybe no isn't the accurate answer

2:38:34 ↗ we had gone through two previous

2:38:36 ↗ meetings before putting our application

2:38:38 ↗ in with the city where we showed um the

2:38:42 ↗ the road and part of the purposes or the

2:38:45 ↗ the roads rather and part of the purpose

2:38:48 ↗ that the city documents state for a a

2:38:51 ↗ pre-application meeting is to get all of

2:38:53 ↗ that stuff out on the table and by all

2:38:55 ↗ of that stuff I mean all of the

2:38:57 ↗ applicable um regulations that might

2:39:00 ↗ apply uh to the property so we were not

2:39:03 ↗ aware of anything that changed the um

2:39:08 ↗ the development agreement standards and

2:39:10 ↗ the city didn't provide those in the two

2:39:12 ↗ meetings that we had had when we got the

2:39:14 ↗ comments back we were confused and

2:39:16 ↗ thought well there must be modifications

2:39:18 ↗ that we're not aware which is why we

2:39:20 ↗ asked for those

2:39:53 ↗ do you recall your testimony concerning

2:39:55 ↗ the

2:39:57 ↗ um optional pardon me optional

2:40:01 ↗ or is it depending on the

2:40:04 ↗ characterization

2:40:05 ↗ mandatory um nature of the

2:40:08 ↗ pre-application conferences for stps and

2:40:10 ↗ asps under the development agreement I

2:40:13 ↗ believe that you had characterized it as

2:40:17 ↗ being optional you recall that

2:40:21 ↗ testimony um if you're going to ask me

2:40:23 ↗ about specific testimony can we look at

2:40:25 ↗ it I will come back to that

2:40:27 ↗ one thank

2:40:34 ↗ you I'm going to hand you a copy of the

2:40:37 ↗ February 20 or February 6th uh

2:40:40 ↗ transcript and I'd like you to look at

2:40:43 ↗ page 21 please okay

2:40:49 ↗ reference there I believe to Mr nien

2:40:54 ↗ admonishing you to have people come and

2:40:58 ↗ stop poking at us and I'm paraphrasing

2:41:00 ↗ do you see that

2:41:06 ↗ testimony yes what did what did that

2:41:10 ↗ mean what was that reference to poking

2:41:12 ↗ at

2:41:16 ↗ us um well I think he he said to stop

2:41:20 ↗ poking at us and stop asking people to

2:41:22 ↗ come speak so I understood that to mean

2:41:26 ↗ that he wanted us to not to encourage

2:41:30 ↗ anyone to participate in the public

2:41:33 ↗ process that was occurring with respect

2:41:34 ↗ to the replacement regulations if they

2:41:36 ↗ agreed with the comments that we were

2:41:40 ↗ making had

2:41:42 ↗ shelter asked or

2:41:45 ↗ directed people to come to meetings and

2:41:52 ↗ testify on its behalf or provide comment

2:41:55 ↗ in a certain way or to a certain effect

2:41:58 ↗ well I mean the replacement regulations

2:42:00 ↗ were not something that was only for our

2:42:03 ↗ property right it applied to the whole

2:42:05 ↗ isqua Highlands um the only people that

2:42:09 ↗ shelter can direct to do to to come to

2:42:12 ↗ meetings are our own staff or our

2:42:15 ↗ Consultants um and so if you're asking

2:42:19 ↗ if we directed members of the public no

2:42:22 ↗ did we have discussions with members of

2:42:24 ↗ the public absolutely our whole approach

2:42:27 ↗ to development is always to interact

2:42:30 ↗ with the public and and to um to make

2:42:34 ↗ sure they're informed you know we were

2:42:36 ↗ vocal that we with the city that we did

2:42:39 ↗ not feel like they were doing a good job

2:42:41 ↗ of informing the community of the

2:42:43 ↗ changes that they were making and the

2:42:45 ↗ impact that that would have on the

2:42:47 ↗ community and so certain members of the

2:42:50 ↗ community when we um had discussions

2:42:53 ↗ with them and filled them in on what was

2:42:55 ↗ going on chose of their own volition to

2:42:57 ↗ come to meetings do you recall which

2:43:01 ↗ specific members of the community you

2:43:03 ↗ had those discussions with no we had

2:43:05 ↗ discussions with many many members of

2:43:07 ↗ the

2:43:15 ↗ community can I have you please look at

2:43:18 ↗ exhibit test

2:43:29 ↗ 31 could you please describe and

2:43:31 ↗ identify this document

2:43:56 ↗ this is a letter

2:43:59 ↗ from our attorney Patrick melany to Mr

2:44:03 ↗ James Haney at Ogden Murphy and

2:44:11 ↗ Wallace and what does this letter do

2:44:14 ↗ what's the purpose of this letter the

2:44:17 ↗ letter states the purpose of this letter

2:44:18 ↗ is to to explain ihif commercial's

2:44:21 ↗ position on both the vesting for the

2:44:23 ↗ proposed zoning and the vesting under

2:44:26 ↗ the grand rdge da and to solicit your

2:44:29 ↗ input so that the both parties can

2:44:32 ↗ hopefully obtain Clarity and reach

2:44:34 ↗ timely agreement on the application

2:44:37 ↗ vesting rules and

2:44:39 ↗ process thank you I just handed you a

2:44:42 ↗ copy of the February 6 2019 transcript

2:44:46 ↗ and I'm going to respectfully refer your

2:44:49 ↗ attention to your testimony on page 10

2:44:53 ↗ and I've highlighted that for you do you

2:44:54 ↗ see

2:44:57 ↗ that

2:45:08 ↗ mhm

2:45:10 ↗ yes was your

2:45:12 ↗ statement that I've highlighted there in

2:45:15 ↗ reference to Mr mean's October 25th 201

2:45:19 ↗ 17

2:45:24 ↗ letter we get some clarification on

2:45:27 ↗ what's highlighted in that document I

2:45:28 ↗ don't have I'm sorry it's in front of

2:45:29 ↗ your your client I believe it's the the

2:45:32 ↗ reference to um this was a request for

2:45:34 ↗ interpretation on vesting okay Tia do

2:45:37 ↗ you have the Lin so he's the highlighted

2:45:40 ↗ section is on um page 10 lines 3 through

2:45:47 ↗ six but the question you just asked me

2:45:50 ↗ causes me to flip back because you're

2:45:53 ↗ asking sorry can you ask the question

2:45:55 ↗ again I got distracted was

2:45:57 ↗ this statement that I've highlighted

2:46:00 ↗ concerning the alleged request for an

2:46:03 ↗ interpretation on vesting and again

2:46:04 ↗ paraphrasing is that in reference to Mr

2:46:07 ↗ mean's October 25th 2017 letter

2:46:29 ↗ um yes this section that's highlighted

2:46:31 ↗ is referring to this letter as asking

2:46:35 ↗ for interpretation on vesting and who is

2:46:38 ↗ the primary recipient of this

2:46:42 ↗ letter of the October 25th 20 2017

2:46:46 ↗ letter yes the letter that's identified

2:46:48 ↗ as exist

2:46:49 ↗ S31 the letter is addressed to the City

2:46:56 ↗ attorney and it's copied to Keith nen

2:47:12 ↗ [Applause]

2:47:20 ↗ [Applause]

2:47:22 ↗ I would like to turn your attention back

2:47:24 ↗ again to exhibit

2:47:26 ↗ s25 the isqua highlands development

2:47:35 ↗ [Applause]

2:47:37 ↗ agreement and just for clarity that's

2:47:39 ↗ it's a portion of the agreement it's not

2:47:40 ↗ the entire agreement thank you um is

2:47:43 ↗ there anything in this document Miss

2:47:45 ↗ Heim that you're aware of that would

2:47:47 ↗ define the stand standard for a

2:47:50 ↗ complete asdp or sdp

2:47:56 ↗ application um I believe that appendix L

2:48:00 ↗ defines complete application

2:48:20 ↗ could you read to me the portion of

2:48:22 ↗ exhibit or I'm sorry appendix L that uh

2:48:25 ↗ defines what a complete application is

2:48:27 ↗ in that context

2:48:52 ↗ um so I am in appendix L part

2:48:57 ↗ two section three it's titled sufficient

2:49:01 ↗ application decision

2:49:05 ↗ okay it says within 10 calendar days of

2:49:08 ↗ receiving an application or modification

2:49:11 ↗ request the responsible official shall

2:49:13 ↗ determine if the information contained

2:49:15 ↗ in the application or modification

2:49:17 ↗ request submitted by the the developer

2:49:19 ↗ is sufficient including the necessary

2:49:21 ↗ sepa

2:49:22 ↗ documents um as used in this appendix L

2:49:25 ↗ sufficient in

2:49:27 ↗ quotes shall mean the required

2:49:30 ↗ submission materials are sufficiently

2:49:32 ↗ complete to allow continued

2:49:35 ↗ processing just to clarify you construe

2:49:37 ↗ that provision that text that you just

2:49:39 ↗ quoted as embodying the development

2:49:43 ↗ agreements standards for a complete

2:49:46 ↗ application no you asked me if there was

2:49:48 ↗ a reference in the development agreement

2:49:50 ↗ that I was aware of that that addressed

2:49:53 ↗ um complete application and so this is a

2:49:57 ↗ section that I am aware of um and that's

2:50:00 ↗ all that I testified to thank you thank

2:50:03 ↗ you for the clarification is there any

2:50:04 ↗ other provision in the development

2:50:06 ↗ agreement that bears on the issue of a

2:50:09 ↗ complete application

2:50:34 ↗ um without doing a thorough review of

2:50:37 ↗ the development agreement that's the

2:50:39 ↗ only one that I can think of off the top

2:50:40 ↗ of my head thank you could you please

2:50:42 ↗ turn to exhibit

2:50:44 ↗ s36 this is a redundant um exhibit it

2:50:48 ↗ was also included as an attachment to

2:50:50 ↗ the city's staff report but I think for

2:50:52 ↗ ease of reference um if you could just

2:50:54 ↗ turn to the version of this document

2:50:56 ↗ that was submitted by the applicant

2:50:58 ↗ again

2:51:01 ↗ s36 yes could you please identify this

2:51:04 ↗ document um this is a letter agreement

2:51:07 ↗ between uh ihif commercial and the

2:51:12 ↗ city thank you and who are the

2:51:14 ↗ signatories of this

2:51:17 ↗ agreement um

2:51:20 ↗ well Patrick molan Gary Young and Keith

2:51:23 ↗ niban did you please turn to page two of

2:51:28 ↗ this document and read to

2:51:30 ↗ me aloud section

2:51:35 ↗ six the parties acknowledge that Council

2:51:38 ↗ has not yet adopted replacement

2:51:39 ↗ regulations for the grand rdge

2:51:41 ↗ development agreement thus depending on

2:51:43 ↗ the language ultimately adopted the

2:51:44 ↗ parties may have different positions

2:51:47 ↗ regarding the effect of their

2:51:48 ↗ replacement regulations on ihf's

2:51:51 ↗ proposed development therefore both

2:51:53 ↗ parties Reserve all legal and Equitable

2:51:55 ↗ rights positions and remedies and

2:51:58 ↗ execution of this letter agreement shall

2:52:00 ↗ not be construed as waiver of either

2:52:03 ↗ party's respective legal rights

2:52:05 ↗ positions and remedies including without

2:52:07 ↗ limitation the legal requirements of the

2:52:09 ↗ development agreement the effect of the

2:52:11 ↗ replacement regulations or

2:52:13 ↗ vesting thank you

2:52:28 ↗ Miss if a land use application is not

2:52:32 ↗ vested what happens to that land use

2:52:35 ↗ application if the permitting

2:52:37 ↗ jurisdiction adopts new

2:52:40 ↗ regulations while that application is in

2:52:43 ↗ process

2:52:50 ↗ I think it would probably depend on the

2:52:53 ↗ jurisdiction under state law what would

2:52:55 ↗ happen to that

2:52:58 ↗ application I'm not exactly sure what

2:53:01 ↗ state law you're referring

2:53:04 ↗ to does the state law vested rights

2:53:08 ↗ Doctrine provide any protection

2:53:13 ↗ for land use

2:53:16 ↗ applications other than building permits

2:53:20 ↗ and plat applications to your

2:53:24 ↗ knowledge yes it provides protection to

2:53:27 ↗ development agreements with respect to

2:53:29 ↗ vesting and does the state law provide

2:53:34 ↗ vesting protection for expired

2:53:36 ↗ development agreements in your

2:53:39 ↗ opinion um can you ask that question

2:53:43 ↗ again do the state vested rights

2:53:45 ↗ Doctrine and your belief or your

2:53:47 ↗ position provide vesting protection for

2:53:50 ↗ expired development

2:53:55 ↗ agreements um I think that that question

2:54:00 ↗ doesn't make a lot of sense but I think

2:54:03 ↗ that if a development agreement provides

2:54:06 ↗ for an

2:54:07 ↗ application for that an application

2:54:10 ↗ vests Upon A Certain event if that event

2:54:13 ↗ happens and the application is

2:54:16 ↗ vested even if the development agreement

2:54:19 ↗ terminates or

2:54:21 ↗ expires um as the case may

2:54:24 ↗ be it doesn't impact the vesting of that

2:54:28 ↗ application under the development

2:54:31 ↗ agreement and that's exactly the

2:54:33 ↗ position that was outlined by Mr nien in

2:54:36 ↗ his uh March 2017 letter that explained

2:54:42 ↗ uh the vesting under the development

2:54:44 ↗ agreement and what would happen after

2:54:47 ↗ the development agreement was um

2:54:50 ↗ terminated and replaced with replacement

2:54:53 ↗ regulations I have no further questions

2:54:55 ↗ Mr chairman thank you

2:55:04 ↗ missim so I think we have time for

2:55:08 ↗ redirect yes we do um ti do have just a

2:55:12 ↗ couple quick questions

2:55:22 ↗ so a little while back uh Mr L asked you

2:55:27 ↗ a couple questions about whether you

2:55:28 ↗ informed any of the city attorneys

2:55:31 ↗ before you had meetings with director

2:55:33 ↗ nian regarding the applications um or

2:55:36 ↗ anything else for that matter um based

2:55:39 ↗ on your experience working in isqua is

2:55:42 ↗ would you say that it's common place for

2:55:44 ↗ attorneys to meet with director Nan or

2:55:46 ↗ other staff without necessarily

2:55:47 ↗ informing the city

2:55:49 ↗ attorneys um

2:55:51 ↗ yes and were there any reasons that

2:55:53 ↗ maybe why you wouldn't be reaching out

2:55:55 ↗ to uh the City attorney is ahead of

2:55:57 ↗ meeting with director

2:55:59 ↗ niban well I think as I explained I was

2:56:03 ↗ acting as part of the development team

2:56:06 ↗ um and and working on advancing

2:56:09 ↗ applications I mean that is the normal

2:56:13 ↗ way that that I would conduct business

2:56:16 ↗ um

2:56:18 ↗ when you're when you're reaching out and

2:56:20 ↗ um working on these applications are you

2:56:22 ↗ acting in an attorney role or some other

2:56:25 ↗ role no I'm just acting as the member of

2:56:27 ↗ a of the development team at

2:56:30 ↗ shelter did director Nan ever indicate

2:56:33 ↗ whether uh attorneys needed to be

2:56:35 ↗ present for those meetings No in fact on

2:56:38 ↗ multiple occasions we requested that the

2:56:40 ↗ City attorney meet with us and we were

2:56:43 ↗ never granted that

2:56:46 ↗ um we he never attended any of the

2:56:49 ↗ meetings um I know that our outside

2:56:53 ↗ attorney Mr melany reached out to him on

2:56:56 ↗ many occasions we didn't see the City

2:56:58 ↗ attorney show up at a meeting um until

2:57:02 ↗ we made more formal actions under the

2:57:06 ↗ development agreement for dispute

2:57:08 ↗ resolution did director nian or any

2:57:12 ↗ other staff member that you were meeting

2:57:13 ↗ with express any concern that Jim Haney

2:57:17 ↗ or another City attorney wasn't

2:57:18 ↗ participating in these

2:57:20 ↗ meetings no not at all I mean quite the

2:57:23 ↗ contrary I think Mr nian seemed to want

2:57:26 ↗ to um just keep things moving on its own

2:57:30 ↗ without input from the city attorney

2:57:32 ↗ with respect to actually attending our

2:57:34 ↗ meetings

2:58:00 ↗ no further

2:58:01 ↗ questions no redirect Mr

2:58:04 ↗ chairman so that's a bit of a shocker

2:58:07 ↗ but I have to appreciate it U so I think

2:58:11 ↗ we're at the point where the applicant

2:58:13 ↗ could call their next Witness

2:58:19 ↗ yes we'll um we'll get started with u Mr

2:58:21 ↗ Gary Young's testimony at this

2:58:26 ↗ time actually if you don't mind it'll

2:58:28 ↗ take me just a minute to move my

2:58:29 ↗ materials and everything so I think if

2:58:31 ↗ we want to take a break for maybe five

2:58:32 ↗ minutes why don't we take a 5 minute

2:58:34 ↗ break that'd be

2:58:47 ↗ good

2:59:17 ↗ e

2:59:47 ↗ e

3:00:16 ↗ e

3:00:46 ↗ e

3:01:16 ↗ e

3:01:46 ↗ e

3:02:16 ↗ e

3:02:46 ↗ e

3:03:16 ↗ e e

3:03:50 ↗ all right we're back in session okay

3:03:53 ↗ thank you so at this time um we'd like

3:03:56 ↗ to call Shelter would like to call our

3:03:57 ↗ next witness Mr Gary Young um and um if

3:04:01 ↗ you wouldn't mind our court reporter can

3:04:02 ↗ you swear him in

3:04:05 ↗ please youly swear the testimony you're

3:04:08 ↗ about to give in this cause will be the

3:04:10 ↗ truth the whole truth and nothing but

3:04:11 ↗ the trth I do thank

3:04:14 ↗ you um so Mr Young do you mind if I call

3:04:17 ↗ you Gary during this yes that's fine

3:04:20 ↗ thank you uh for the record will you

3:04:22 ↗ please state your name and um your

3:04:24 ↗ current employer and role there uh Gary

3:04:27 ↗ Young uh founding partner of shelter

3:04:31 ↗ Holdings and when did you first become a

3:04:34 ↗ founding partner of shelter Holdings uh

3:04:36 ↗ roughly

3:04:39 ↗ 2014 before and actually before we go

3:04:42 ↗ there as as a founding partner in the

3:04:44 ↗ company um what's in general Your Role

3:04:46 ↗ what do you do for the

3:04:48 ↗ company um as I'm aging I'm becoming

3:04:52 ↗ more of an advisory capacity but also

3:04:55 ↗ one of the major Financial owners with

3:04:57 ↗ my partner Jeff so um my work kind of

3:05:01 ↗ entails advisory and then overseeing all

3:05:03 ↗ of our programs and we also do a fair

3:05:05 ↗ amount of philanthropic

3:05:07 ↗ work and um we've heard ihfc commercial

3:05:11 ↗ mentioned a few times um is that a

3:05:14 ↗ subsidiary company of shelter Holdings

3:05:16 ↗ what's the relationship there

3:05:19 ↗ um are they is ihfc essentially part of

3:05:22 ↗ shelter yes okay thanks so I'm going to

3:05:24 ↗ refer to them interchangeably as we're

3:05:26 ↗ talking so if you say shelter you can

3:05:28 ↗ assume it's both um so before 2014 when

3:05:33 ↗ uh you started with shelter can you

3:05:35 ↗ describe for us what your professional

3:05:37 ↗ experience was it makes me feel very old

3:05:40 ↗ um I guess I um started in the real

3:05:44 ↗ estate Building Development business

3:05:46 ↗ probably 45 over 45 years ago started in

3:05:49 ↗ Canada Vancouver graduated from college

3:05:53 ↗ in real estate and then U worked for a

3:05:55 ↗ company in Canada that eventually uh

3:05:57 ↗ moved me to Seattle area and that was in

3:06:00 ↗ 1978 and then uh carried forward and

3:06:04 ↗ joined polygon in 1980 and in that

3:06:07 ↗ course of time my involvement primarily

3:06:10 ↗ is is um buying different uh pieces of

3:06:15 ↗ real estate uh that would be related to

3:06:17 ↗ then planning going through all the

3:06:19 ↗ steps uh through to the construction

3:06:22 ↗ side so my role was always involved with

3:06:25 ↗ everything right up to the point of

3:06:27 ↗ construction so a lot of work a lot of

3:06:29 ↗ cities entitlement those kinds of things

3:06:31 ↗ and types of projects uh ranged in the

3:06:34 ↗ early years with master plan communities

3:06:36 ↗ and uh those types of development and

3:06:39 ↗ then um it was very exciting to get

3:06:42 ↗ involved in the polygon program because

3:06:44 ↗ we were actually building quite a few of

3:06:46 ↗ the Office Buildings you see as you

3:06:48 ↗ drive along the freeway here in

3:06:50 ↗ 405 uh and I90 were built by us over the

3:06:54 ↗ years and uh in Kirkland and other

3:06:56 ↗ communities and we also evolved into

3:06:59 ↗ apartment and high-rise development and

3:07:02 ↗ a whole broad range of mixed use types

3:07:05 ↗ of development and and uh started our

3:07:07 ↗ first single family and master plan

3:07:09 ↗ Community developments in the '90s

3:07:13 ↗ um and just to explain for the record

3:07:16 ↗ you mentioned master plan community

3:07:17 ↗ ities what are those master plan

3:07:19 ↗ Community would be an example would be

3:07:23 ↗ Maple Rich Highlands where we uh took a

3:07:26 ↗ property that was part of the 4:1

3:07:28 ↗ program uh in the county where we

3:07:31 ↗ provided uh for a development on 150

3:07:34 ↗ acres and set aside over 600 acres for

3:07:36 ↗ open space in that case to protect the

3:07:38 ↗ headwaters of the Cedar River and so

3:07:40 ↗ that would be a comprehensive

3:07:41 ↗ development where we'd be looking at all

3:07:43 ↗ the environmental we did full e in that

3:07:46 ↗ property and planning uh how the the

3:07:49 ↗ development itself would would impact

3:07:51 ↗ the community

3:07:54 ↗ surrounding if you had to give an

3:07:55 ↗ estimate how many projects would you say

3:07:57 ↗ you've worked on and built in your

3:08:00 ↗ career it's uh it's it's definitely more

3:08:04 ↗ than 75 probably over 100 and uh maybe

3:08:08 ↗ three projects a year or 45 years it

3:08:10 ↗ just is pretty amazing uh in all

3:08:12 ↗ different uh types of

3:08:15 ↗ jurisdictions and how does that compare

3:08:17 ↗ compared to um kind of the average of

3:08:19 ↗ What developers might develop in terms

3:08:21 ↗ of the number of buildings over their

3:08:23 ↗ careers in your experience I'm feeling

3:08:25 ↗ nervous um I think uh I've been very

3:08:29 ↗ fortunate um when we talk about

3:08:31 ↗ development um there are many um phrases

3:08:36 ↗ that go with that term and our company I

3:08:40 ↗ think and our experience is a little

3:08:41 ↗ more unique because we actually have

3:08:44 ↗ been seing things through from the

3:08:46 ↗ beginning to the end and often have in

3:08:49 ↗ many cases have kept our assets and so

3:08:51 ↗ in that case each of these projects that

3:08:54 ↗ have been involved with required fair

3:08:56 ↗ amount of consideration in terms of the

3:08:58 ↗ risk components and and putting the

3:09:00 ↗ project together and then the financial

3:09:02 ↗ components and carrying them through so

3:09:04 ↗ it's different than kind of a resume of

3:09:06 ↗ projects where a person's been involved

3:09:08 ↗ with uh many people can be involved with

3:09:10 ↗ a lot of different projects but uh it's

3:09:13 ↗ not that often where you get to be

3:09:15 ↗ involved all the way through and and be

3:09:17 ↗ involved with pretty well every

3:09:20 ↗ piece so and you mentioned that um

3:09:22 ↗ beginning to end so does shelters stick

3:09:24 ↗ with a lot of their projects after

3:09:26 ↗ they're developed yes over the time

3:09:28 ↗ period especially with our mixed use

3:09:30 ↗ multif family those types of projects

3:09:32 ↗ and when I say stick with just to

3:09:34 ↗ clarify um what does that mean it means

3:09:37 ↗ that we would uh manage to own the asset

3:09:40 ↗ and and hold it in our portfolio and we

3:09:43 ↗ operate a um a group here that maintains

3:09:46 ↗ our property and um and some of them for

3:09:50 ↗ many many years both here in the state

3:09:51 ↗ and in

3:09:53 ↗ Oregon so in developing these hundreds

3:09:56 ↗ of different projects um how many local

3:09:59 ↗ cities would you estimate you've worked

3:10:01 ↗ with um just a rough guess would be

3:10:03 ↗ easily maybe over 35 um cities locally

3:10:08 ↗ here isqua we started our first

3:10:10 ↗ developments in isqua 1992 roughly um

3:10:14 ↗ and carrying on through Kirkland bellw

3:10:17 ↗ uh going all the way through the

3:10:18 ↗ counties King County s homish County and

3:10:21 ↗ then into Pierce County and then into

3:10:23 ↗ this into Oregon I spent quite a bit of

3:10:25 ↗ time in the Portland area we started our

3:10:28 ↗ business there roughly early 90s 92 91

3:10:32 ↗ 992 I started spending quite a bit of

3:10:35 ↗ time there so um it's just touching on a

3:10:39 ↗ few out of all those cities and projects

3:10:42 ↗ you you mentioned you know over 100

3:10:44 ↗ projects roughly 35 Plus different

3:10:46 ↗ cities have you ever been involved in

3:10:48 ↗ litigation against a city or a local

3:10:50 ↗ jurisdiction before other than this

3:10:52 ↗ current dispute

3:10:54 ↗ never how does shelter typically work

3:10:57 ↗ with cities and communities when you're

3:10:58 ↗ planning a development we work very

3:11:01 ↗ collaboratively um it's um just our

3:11:05 ↗ culture and our belief that uh first of

3:11:09 ↗ all we generally have been involved with

3:11:10 ↗ properties that can be complicated um

3:11:13 ↗ and nowadays pretty well most pieces of

3:11:16 ↗ real estate are complic at but in the

3:11:18 ↗ earlier days there were other choices

3:11:21 ↗ but um for that reason we would always

3:11:24 ↗ be very engaging particularly with our

3:11:27 ↗ neighbors neighborhood groups um at kind

3:11:30 ↗ of all levels what be it environmental

3:11:32 ↗ whatever it was

3:11:33 ↗ at can you give uh maybe just one

3:11:36 ↗ example of that collaborative

3:11:38 ↗ interaction on another project pretty

3:11:40 ↗ exciting one one one was Maple Valley

3:11:43 ↗ where I stood alone when we made the

3:11:45 ↗ proposal for uh this would be land that

3:11:48 ↗ would be outside of the urban growth

3:11:49 ↗ boundary uh 650 acres and I'll never

3:11:53 ↗ forget when I went to uh the hall at the

3:11:56 ↗ Wilderness golf course and it was myself

3:11:59 ↗ alone and roughly 200 people that

3:12:01 ↗ weren't that interested in development

3:12:03 ↗ and uh so it was quite an exciting

3:12:04 ↗ evening and after about an hour when

3:12:07 ↗ people had really kind of vented and and

3:12:11 ↗ express some of their concerns then

3:12:13 ↗ someone said well we should at least let

3:12:15 ↗ the guy say something and so that case

3:12:18 ↗ uh I kind of laid out her concept and it

3:12:20 ↗ was kind of an unusual experience in

3:12:23 ↗ that um the environmental groups that

3:12:26 ↗ were there were extremely interested in

3:12:28 ↗ our proposal because we were

3:12:29 ↗ holistically taking care of the the open

3:12:32 ↗ space areas and and planning for

3:12:34 ↗ development in in the right location and

3:12:36 ↗ and actually uh decided to to support us

3:12:40 ↗ and that was pretty exciting event what

3:12:44 ↗ came of that project that was Maple Rich

3:12:46 ↗ Highland and we ended up overseeing the

3:12:49 ↗ development of all that property in

3:12:51 ↗ roughly over 500 homes and and uh some

3:12:55 ↗ pretty incredible open space areas and

3:12:57 ↗ and uh we pioneered uh some of the

3:13:00 ↗ technology relative to that time uh

3:13:03 ↗ there was a lot of science around

3:13:06 ↗ infiltration and uh and the King County

3:13:10 ↗ staff had never really had the

3:13:11 ↗ opportunity to test some of their

3:13:13 ↗ theories in terms of how well just

3:13:16 ↗ different Pawn systems could work if we

3:13:17 ↗ did it naturally and and uh so we

3:13:20 ↗ decided to take the lead in those steps

3:13:23 ↗ and then a big factor was protecting the

3:13:25 ↗ headwaters for the Cedar River and so we

3:13:27 ↗ had locked down uh those land areas uh

3:13:31 ↗ which was a big

3:13:34 ↗ accomplishment have you experienced um

3:13:37 ↗ successes using that same type of

3:13:38 ↗ collaborative engagement in other

3:13:40 ↗ jurisdictions other projects well I

3:13:42 ↗ think pretty well every single project

3:13:44 ↗ we've built um has been done on that

3:13:46 ↗ flat form and I think that's maybe why

3:13:49 ↗ we've

3:13:51 ↗ um uh been why I guess I'm still

3:13:55 ↗ standing and why we still have the

3:13:57 ↗ opportunity to participate in the

3:13:59 ↗ communities that we participate in um uh

3:14:03 ↗ that's probably the easiest

3:14:06 ↗ answer how so let's talk a little bit

3:14:08 ↗ about your involvement um shelter's

3:14:10 ↗ involvement in the isqua highlands or um

3:14:14 ↗ well you mentioned starting kind of with

3:14:15 ↗ isqua in general in 199 2 what are some

3:14:18 ↗ projects that shelter's been a part of

3:14:19 ↗ in isqua um started with spy glass Hill

3:14:24 ↗ and that was just off Newport and uh

3:14:27 ↗ just really kind of adjacent to the very

3:14:30 ↗ controversial property that just uh

3:14:33 ↗ finally got uh placed into the park

3:14:36 ↗ system uh and then across the street uh

3:14:39 ↗ with

3:14:40 ↗ um uh it was Sun point or S Amish Point

3:14:45 ↗ um and we went through that was was in '

3:14:47 ↗ 92 and then '94 and then we uh did uh

3:14:52 ↗ our first developments in the isal

3:14:54 ↗ highlands area roughly 2011 with Forest

3:14:57 ↗ Ridge the first uh uh subdivision that

3:15:01 ↗ we got involved with which was a

3:15:03 ↗ stepping stone then to moving to our Isa

3:15:06 ↗ Terrace which is not specifically in Isa

3:15:08 ↗ Island but it's immediately Jason across

3:15:10 ↗ from the parking ride which was the Lee

3:15:13 ↗ property which is a large hole in the

3:15:14 ↗ ground that we filled and and and uh

3:15:17 ↗ created a really nice Housing

3:15:19 ↗ Development so just based on the dates

3:15:21 ↗ of some of those

3:15:23 ↗ 9294 2011 um were those projects were

3:15:27 ↗ you participating as part of polygon at

3:15:29 ↗ that time initially they were polygon

3:15:32 ↗ yes and and those that I

3:15:35 ↗ mentioned and um what other sorts of

3:15:37 ↗ projects has um and maybe we covered

3:15:39 ↗ them all actually as I'm going through

3:15:41 ↗ the list but um are there any other

3:15:42 ↗ projects that polygon's um built with

3:15:45 ↗ your participation in the Highland

3:15:47 ↗ well um in those early years in in the

3:15:50 ↗ city we're we always are very involved

3:15:53 ↗ uh with the communities themselves and

3:15:56 ↗ and organizations in the community so

3:15:58 ↗ one of our uh first uh housing uh

3:16:02 ↗ projects that was pretty exciting for us

3:16:03 ↗ was Life Enrichment options the first

3:16:06 ↗ home for Life Enrichment options we

3:16:08 ↗ built in 2002 roughly and that was uh a

3:16:13 ↗ case where uh Rose finegan had started

3:16:17 ↗ this organization she's very well known

3:16:19 ↗ in this community we're sad that she

3:16:20 ↗ passed this year passed and uh her

3:16:23 ↗ husband Leo and we have a close friend

3:16:26 ↗ that's has a developly disabled child so

3:16:29 ↗ we we started with uh right across from

3:16:31 ↗ AA frisinger house uh and built acquired

3:16:35 ↗ the land and worked through a process

3:16:36 ↗ and the city was very cooperative and

3:16:38 ↗ waving uh permit fees and so that was

3:16:41 ↗ the first Leo house and we built that

3:16:43 ↗ entirely from the resources of our sub

3:16:45 ↗ trades and our staff and compan and

3:16:47 ↗ donated that essentially 100% to Leo and

3:16:49 ↗ that became a stepping stone uh for Leo

3:16:52 ↗ then to have an asset base to be able to

3:16:54 ↗ be a nonprofit and we've been involved

3:16:57 ↗ in every home built since and then

3:16:59 ↗ financially we're uh significant

3:17:01 ↗ supporters uh on a 5-year plan now as

3:17:04 ↗ Leo moves ahead looking at the

3:17:06 ↗ excitement of going on actually in ISO

3:17:07 ↗ Highlands for the next Leo house that'll

3:17:09 ↗ be built and the house in squami so in

3:17:13 ↗ addition we're very active with East

3:17:15 ↗ Side baby corner

3:17:17 ↗ uh Village Theater Rob's a good friend

3:17:20 ↗ and neighbor for a long time and we're

3:17:22 ↗ um been supporting they have such an

3:17:24 ↗ amazing youth program here in isal the

3:17:27 ↗ isal school Foundation is very important

3:17:30 ↗ to us uh I I personally serve and was

3:17:33 ↗ board chair for reer Scholars a special

3:17:35 ↗ education program that we started over

3:17:38 ↗ 16 years ago uh I was came in about a

3:17:41 ↗ year two years after that started for

3:17:42 ↗ all non-white kids in the Seattle school

3:17:45 ↗ system area and it's it's an amazing

3:17:47 ↗ program now we have over 600 kids that

3:17:50 ↗ would be low-income families where they

3:17:53 ↗ would never have had the chance to get

3:17:55 ↗ to College who are now college graduates

3:17:57 ↗ we have over 250 colleges including

3:18:00 ↗ Harvard uh that have taken our kids and

3:18:03 ↗ put them through the program and we

3:18:04 ↗ start when they're 11 years of age and

3:18:06 ↗ see them right through to the end and uh

3:18:09 ↗ we're involved now this is kind of

3:18:11 ↗ interesting with the historic group in

3:18:13 ↗ isaa I'm in this um the

3:18:17 ↗ there's a group of us that are helping

3:18:19 ↗ to steer a a program that'll help us

3:18:23 ↗ preserve uh and the existing Museum and

3:18:27 ↗ and and provide for future uh historic

3:18:30 ↗ uh preservation here in the area

3:18:31 ↗ including isal Highlands and all the

3:18:34 ↗ excitement of what's happened in ISO

3:18:35 ↗ Highlands over the

3:18:37 ↗ years so those were it sounds like some

3:18:39 ↗ of the organizations around isqua um

3:18:42 ↗ does shelter commonly partner with

3:18:44 ↗ Community organizations yes in every

3:18:46 ↗ Community uh probably over 40

3:18:48 ↗ organizations we're actively involved

3:18:50 ↗ with right

3:18:55 ↗ now so I'm mindful of the time we have a

3:18:58 ↗ a couple of um logistical things that we

3:19:01 ↗ need to discuss before we close and I'm

3:19:04 ↗ at a good breaking point right now um I

3:19:07 ↗ can continue on for a couple minutes if

3:19:09 ↗ you want me to or we can break and talk

3:19:10 ↗ about

3:19:14 ↗ logistics what kind of timeline are you

3:19:16 ↗ I would I'd like you to keep going if if

3:19:18 ↗ it won't be excessively

3:19:21 ↗ late uh well I won't finish with his

3:19:25 ↗ testimony tonight um if we keep going we

3:19:28 ↗ because we've got about 10 minutes left

3:19:30 ↗ and I would run fairly well over I think

3:19:32 ↗ trying to get through all of his

3:19:33 ↗ testimony this

3:19:38 ↗ evening just Logistics what Logistics we

3:19:42 ↗ want to go

3:19:44 ↗ beyond would want to go beyond t okay so

3:19:48 ↗ if this is a good time to break it

3:19:49 ↗ sounds like it's probably a good time to

3:19:51 ↗ break okay thank

3:19:55 ↗ you so um first logistical question so

3:19:59 ↗ there's two things that I think we need

3:20:00 ↗ to discuss and open up to the city too

3:20:03 ↗ um the the first is kind of our order of

3:20:06 ↗ operations for tomorrow evening um we've

3:20:09 ↗ started with uh Gary's testimony this

3:20:12 ↗ evening and we would be happy to

3:20:14 ↗ continue with that after we take public

3:20:17 ↗ comment tomorrow if the city's open to

3:20:18 ↗ that the the thought just being to make

3:20:21 ↗ sure that there's actually time for the

3:20:23 ↗ public comment process and then we could

3:20:24 ↗ follow on with his testimony after that

3:20:27 ↗ um but I I'll I'll step into this I

3:20:31 ↗ think we'd like to have all the

3:20:32 ↗ testimony completed before we have the

3:20:35 ↗ public testimony okay so we'll start

3:20:37 ↗ with him tomorrow evening right correct

3:20:39 ↗ that would be that would be my

3:20:42 ↗ choice can I ask a clarifying question

3:20:45 ↗ yep how long do you expect for Mr

3:20:48 ↗ Young's remaining direct examination I

3:20:52 ↗ would say um from here out between 30

3:20:54 ↗ and 45

3:20:56 ↗ minutes I can't imagine that the city's

3:20:59 ↗ cross-examination would take that long

3:21:01 ↗ and my assumption okay now I'm going to

3:21:02 ↗ step in a little bit and say we've we've

3:21:04 ↗ dealt with the time from lawyers in the

3:21:07 ↗ past and so I would ask you to really

3:21:09 ↗ think about that because I don't want to

3:21:11 ↗ have the public come and not be able to

3:21:12 ↗ be able to provide their comment

3:21:14 ↗ tomorrow night and I want all the

3:21:15 ↗ comment all the testimony given before

3:21:18 ↗ the Public Public input is provided

3:21:20 ↗ certainly um and we'll do our best to

3:21:22 ↗ move you know expediently through

3:21:24 ↗ everything is there a certain Target

3:21:26 ↗ time that we all have in mind for to

3:21:27 ↗ start the public I I don't have any idea

3:21:29 ↗ how many people from the public may show

3:21:31 ↗ up and

3:21:32 ↗ so I would like to have at least an hour

3:21:35 ↗ so okay U

3:21:38 ↗ you just I'm just guessing I don't know

3:21:42 ↗ well well we will be mindful of that and

3:21:44 ↗ and do our best to move it along as

3:21:45 ↗ expediently as possible through his

3:21:47 ↗ direct um and then and the city will be

3:21:50 ↗ equally Mindful and do our best to move

3:21:52 ↗ through our cross-examination with that

3:21:54 ↗ I'll due haste

3:21:57 ↗ okay so uh I wanted to be recorded that

3:22:02 ↗ we were 10 minutes early from being done

3:22:04 ↗ tonight and I appreciate that we have

3:22:07 ↗ one other matter to discuss um

3:22:08 ↗ scheduling logistics for future um

3:22:11 ↗ development commission hearings so um I

3:22:14 ↗ Believe Miss Heim was communicating with

3:22:17 ↗ Miss slman about dates and we weren't

3:22:19 ↗ able to to reach a clear resolution on

3:22:21 ↗ the next set of dates just based on

3:22:23 ↗ witness availability um some of the

3:22:26 ↗ concern for us I think it was the 16th

3:22:28 ↗ and the 17th that was proposed so far

3:22:30 ↗ from the city um was about Mr Young's

3:22:34 ↗ availability it sounds like we're going

3:22:36 ↗ to get through all of his testimony

3:22:37 ↗ tomorrow which is great um we'll have to

3:22:41 ↗ assess from there whether he needs to

3:22:42 ↗ come back to testify but we just wanted

3:22:44 ↗ to get a sense of if there are

3:22:46 ↗ alternative dates from the city that we

3:22:48 ↗ could get something scheduled sooner

3:22:50 ↗ than those or um or if the commission's

3:22:52 ↗ available any sooner than

3:22:55 ↗ that um so the first two weeks of April

3:23:01 ↗ we have various people who are not

3:23:03 ↗ available so the 16th and 17th was the

3:23:07 ↗ first opening um however we were also I

3:23:13 ↗ at the end of today

3:23:16 ↗ um in response to that um have we're

3:23:20 ↗ testing April 28th and 2 or 29th and

3:23:25 ↗ 30th I believe um the went out to the

3:23:28 ↗ Commissioners and I sent an email to

3:23:34 ↗ miss it went out

3:23:37 ↗ late after 5 o'

3:23:42 ↗ ohy I

3:23:44 ↗ may just saying

3:23:48 ↗ and so are there um it sounds like no

3:23:51 ↗ but are there any earlier dates than the

3:23:52 ↗ 16th and 17th both the first and the

3:23:55 ↗ second we have

3:23:58 ↗ people

3:24:01 ↗ okay so um are you available for both of

3:24:05 ↗ those

3:24:10 ↗ times okay so I think we should at least

3:24:13 ↗ be scheduling for the 16th um it's

3:24:16 ↗ sounds like both Miss Heim and Mr Young

3:24:18 ↗ are not going to be available on the

3:24:20 ↗ 17th um again we we would be happy to do

3:24:24 ↗ it sooner than that because we can make

3:24:25 ↗ a lot of sooner dates happen if there

3:24:27 ↗ are any available and we'd really prefer

3:24:30 ↗ to have this wrapped up as soon as

3:24:32 ↗ possible um so if there's alternative

3:24:34 ↗ dates that we can come up with you know

3:24:36 ↗ before tomorrow evening's hearing and we

3:24:38 ↗ can talk about those i' really implore

3:24:41 ↗ you to to check schedules to see if

3:24:43 ↗ that's a possibility um if not I guess

3:24:45 ↗ we'll have to talk about a date after

3:24:47 ↗ the after the 16th a bad time with

3:24:49 ↗ spring break so that's that's kind of

3:24:51 ↗ where we're dealing with weeks yeah

3:24:55 ↗ so so we will we will work on that I

3:24:58 ↗ guess I'm not exactly sure how we'll do

3:25:00 ↗ that but if there is a earlier date

3:25:02 ↗ possibly I think I think only would be

3:25:05 ↗ next week so I I don't I don't think

3:25:08 ↗ that's possible

3:25:10 ↗ um and so with the first two weeks of

3:25:14 ↗ April out due to spring break um the

3:25:17 ↗ week of 16th the 16th and 17th okay okay

3:25:22 ↗ Mr chair can we can we find out we find

3:25:25 ↗ out like what the next steps are after

3:25:27 ↗ so finished testimony public hearing and

3:25:30 ↗ then what else do we need done well my

3:25:33 ↗ understanding and I don't want to

3:25:34 ↗ misstate anything that Mr L said last

3:25:36 ↗ time but it sounded like after the

3:25:38 ↗ public testimony we'll have the

3:25:40 ↗ opportunity to call rebuttal Witnesses

3:25:42 ↗ and at least as of last time the city

3:25:44 ↗ had indicated that they had at at least

3:25:47 ↗ a hearings worth of rebuttal witnesses

3:25:49 ↗ to get

3:25:51 ↗ through that's the city's intent we

3:25:53 ↗ would have at least two and possibly

3:25:55 ↗ three rebuttal Witnesses at this point

3:25:57 ↗ okay so and then we would have to assess

3:25:59 ↗ whether we need to call rebuttal

3:26:01 ↗ Witnesses ourself which depends in part

3:26:02 ↗ on what we hear in that

3:26:06 ↗ hearing okay okay so it looks like the

3:26:11 ↗ we've reached the agreed on agreed upon

3:26:13 ↗ time to adjourn for tonight's meeting

3:26:16 ↗ and

3:26:16 ↗ the public hearing on tonight's agenda

3:26:18 ↗ will be continued to a special meeting

3:26:21 ↗ of the commission on March 20th or

3:26:23 ↗ tomorrow in the council chambers at 6:30

3:26:25 ↗ so the meeting is now adjourned thank

3:26:27 ↗ you thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (17)

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 [Geoff Walker

UVDC Chair, audience]