Development Commission - Special Meeting - 20 M · Wednesday, March 20, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

Issaquah Highlands Retail (High Street Collection) Site Development Permit, Application No. SDP18-00001; PRJ17-00027 Issaquah Highlands Medical Office Administrative Site Development Permit, (Q)* Application No. ASDP18-00007; PRJ17- Issaquah Highlands Self-Storage Administrative Site Development Permit, (Q)* Application No. ASDP18-00006; PRJ17- Mar. 20, 2019]

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.23 ↗

3461 segments .txt ↗

0:22 ↗ [Applause]

0:24 ↗ that's

0:28 ↗ Direct

0:31 ↗ okay well good evening ladies and

0:33 ↗ gentlemen it's uh time for us to get

0:35 ↗ started and uh appreciate everybody for

0:39 ↗ being here we're going to uh we're

0:41 ↗ continuing in the process of uh

0:44 ↗ developing a record and we have some uh

0:47 ↗ direct examination of a witness but uh

0:49 ↗ this public hearing is open for the

0:52 ↗ discussion of isqua Highlands retail

0:54 ↗ Isco Highland's medical office

0:55 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:57 ↗ and Isco Highland Self Storage

0:59 ↗ administrative site site permit as we

1:01 ↗ ended last night we were in direct

1:03 ↗ examination of Mr Gary Young And so uh

1:07 ↗ Miss K I would ask you to proceed yes

1:11 ↗ thank you pardon me Mr chair um if I may

1:14 ↗ just just as a housekeeping matter I

1:16 ↗ apologize to interrupt um there was an

1:19 ↗ issue that arose some of the discussion

1:23 ↗ last night raised the question

1:25 ↗ of you know whether the staff reports

1:28 ↗ and all their attachment ments were

1:31 ↗ marked in a particular and designated

1:33 ↗ way as part of the record I believe your

1:35 ↗ the commission's council addressed that

1:38 ↗ and

1:40 ↗ um I would like to address that at the

1:42 ↗ beginning just to make sure it's clear

1:43 ↗ on the record I have copies of all of

1:47 ↗ the staff reports with their attachments

1:49 ↗ that I certainly happy to offer into the

1:52 ↗ record I believe they're actually part

1:53 ↗ of the record already because the copy

1:55 ↗ that I have was circulated with the

1:57 ↗ first agenda and they have numbering on

2:00 ↗ them so I know that they've been

2:02 ↗ referred to but just to make it

2:04 ↗ absolutely clear for the record I would

2:06 ↗ propose that um I offer those staff

2:09 ↗ reports together with all their

2:10 ↗ attachments and designate them in a way

2:13 ↗ that makes the most sense uh you may

2:16 ↗ have some ideas your Council may have

2:18 ↗ some ideas on how best to do that um so

2:21 ↗ I'd like to just address that so the

2:23 ↗ records clear on that yeah and I'll just

2:26 ↗ jump in here because I wanted to make

2:29 ↗ sure that we have the we um the

2:31 ↗ Commissioners have't in fact been

2:33 ↗ looking at the staff report from day one

2:35 ↗ with all the attachments um connected to

2:37 ↗ it I actually had a numbering system um

2:40 ↗ I think there's just been some confusion

2:42 ↗ with the shared one drive link that that

2:45 ↗ effectively omitted that I think that's

2:47 ↗ what's happened so um I've actually

2:49 ↗ brought Co copies for Council to review

2:52 ↗ just it's just a it's a proposed

2:54 ↗ numbering system so that you guys can

2:55 ↗ see how we keep it straight it's got all

2:57 ↗ of the documents titled and dated so

2:59 ↗ I'll give you each a copy of this and

3:01 ↗ you can review it I think that this

3:03 ↗ should probably satisfy everyone's

3:05 ↗ concerns but again it tracks to the

3:07 ↗ original staff report that was submitted

3:09 ↗ on night one of the proceeding that the

3:11 ↗ Commissioners have been reviewing so

3:12 ↗ I'll give you each a copy and then

3:14 ↗ everyone can make sure they're okay with

3:16 ↗ that thank you thank

3:28 ↗ you

3:33 ↗ ready to proceed yes okay um so we're

3:39 ↗ here again with uh Gary Young um Gary if

3:41 ↗ you could please just confirm again for

3:43 ↗ us that you were uh sworn in last night

3:45 ↗ and that you're still testifying under

3:47 ↗ oath I am Gary Young and I was uh sworn

3:50 ↗ in last night and testifying under oath

3:53 ↗ thank you um Gary we left off uh talking

3:57 ↗ a little bit about your experience last

3:59 ↗ night

4:00 ↗ one of the things that you had mentioned

4:02 ↗ um was that you worked in Canada for a

4:05 ↗ while prior to coming to the United

4:07 ↗ States and working here um roughly when

4:10 ↗ was that uh 1978 in the fall is when we

4:13 ↗ came from Calgary here to Seattle to B

4:17 ↗ and um when you came to the United

4:19 ↗ States and started working in the United

4:20 ↗ States um what did you do to get up to

4:23 ↗ speed with um the laws here well I we

4:26 ↗ had two Parcels of land projects that we

4:29 ↗ were proceeding to develop uh in in this

4:32 ↗ area one was actually in where city of

4:34 ↗ samamish is now and the other in Federal

4:37 ↗ Way and in coming to this area my

4:41 ↗ responsibilities were to oversee that

4:42 ↗ development so one of the very first

4:44 ↗ things I got it involved with was just

4:47 ↗ understanding entitlement processing

4:49 ↗ risk and and specifically really vesting

4:53 ↗ to I we were a public company I had to

4:55 ↗ report to a board of directors and I

4:58 ↗ just we needed to understand that each

5:00 ↗ step of the way that we were taking was

5:03 ↗ uh was was uh safe and and secure for

5:06 ↗ the company so uh that that was my first

5:09 ↗ introduction to a topic that's still

5:12 ↗ continuing in your years of experience

5:16 ↗ um and how many years roughly of

5:17 ↗ experience do you have that's roughly

5:19 ↗ over 45 years now have you um ever dealt

5:23 ↗ with a local jurisdiction or a city um

5:27 ↗ divesting you or taking away vested

5:29 ↗ right

5:30 ↗ I've never heard of that word actually

5:32 ↗ till uh this process that we've been in

5:35 ↗ and the answer is no we've I've never

5:37 ↗ been in that

5:40 ↗ experience let's talk a little bit about

5:42 ↗ development agreements not necessarily

5:44 ↗ the one that we're talking about here in

5:46 ↗ particular but just in general um have

5:49 ↗ you worked with development agreements

5:50 ↗ other than the one in the isqua

5:52 ↗ highlands yes over the years we've done

5:54 ↗ many many different types of projects

5:56 ↗ that uh encourage the use of a

5:58 ↗ development agreement and in the early

6:00 ↗ days before development agreements

6:02 ↗ really came to the Forefront they were

6:04 ↗ called concominant zoning agreements and

6:07 ↗ my first experience with that was in the

6:09 ↗ city of Kirkland and we were developing

6:13 ↗ a property and resoning a property that

6:15 ↗ was right at the Gateway to the city

6:16 ↗ where the Shell gas station in The Keg

6:19 ↗ is on Lake Washington Boulevard and it

6:20 ↗ was very sensitive and the neighbors

6:21 ↗ were concerned about what would happen

6:23 ↗ and it was a perfect opportunity to use

6:25 ↗ that type of format which is expanded

6:27 ↗ now to a development agreement

6:31 ↗ and in working with um those different

6:33 ↗ types of agreements over the years um

6:36 ↗ did any of the cities or local

6:38 ↗ jurisdictions that you were dealing with

6:40 ↗ um mention this concept of divesting

6:42 ↗ under those agreements

6:46 ↗ never what are some of the um benefits

6:49 ↗ and reasons why a property owner or the

6:52 ↗ city or Community might enter into a

6:54 ↗ development agreement why use them I

6:56 ↗ think um maybe just an outline would be

6:58 ↗ that when a property has an opportunity

7:01 ↗ for for different types of uses or it's

7:04 ↗ high-profile uh there are a number of

7:08 ↗ disciplines involved and so we first of

7:10 ↗ all start with the residents in the area

7:11 ↗ the neighbors people uh that are

7:14 ↗ concerned about the property you talked

7:16 ↗ the city itself in representing uh their

7:19 ↗ planning and what they want to see

7:21 ↗ accomplished and then from the

7:22 ↗ developers point of view we have uh to

7:25 ↗ be able to be assure assure our lenders

7:28 ↗ who are lending US money to proed with

7:29 ↗ the development that the the project if

7:33 ↗ it's a larger one that's over going to

7:35 ↗ take a long time uh has a pathway uh

7:38 ↗ through completion and a logical

7:41 ↗ transparent process so uh there's no

7:43 ↗ concerns whatsoever that things may not

7:46 ↗ go the way they should uh it's it's

7:48 ↗ really certainty and uh and and

7:52 ↗ providing the opportunity to to be sure

7:55 ↗ that uh the project will go

7:57 ↗ ahead and you talked a minute there

8:00 ↗ about um lenders can you expand on that

8:02 ↗ a little bit and just kind of the the

8:04 ↗ property owner side of why a development

8:07 ↗ agreement and Reliance on one might be

8:09 ↗ important well the all all projects need

8:13 ↗ financing and all projects need to have

8:17 ↗ uh sort of defined definitions so if

8:19 ↗ you're looking at a condominium uh

8:20 ↗ development for example they uh the real

8:25 ↗ estate as it goes through the process

8:26 ↗ and as the Condominiums are built all of

8:29 ↗ the uh foundation for that land use runs

8:32 ↗ through with the project to the ultimate

8:33 ↗ owners of those Condominiums and so uh

8:36 ↗ it's very important that um all of the

8:39 ↗ basis for the for the property and the

8:41 ↗ land use and the zoning um is in in

8:44 ↗ place and so development agreements just

8:46 ↗ provide an opportunity to be sure that

8:49 ↗ things happen the way they're intended

8:51 ↗ and also just for attention to detail

8:53 ↗ it's a great opportunity to be able to

8:55 ↗ implement special changes and and uh

8:58 ↗ steps that would not be in a zoning

9:01 ↗ process because zoning is Broad and

9:04 ↗ would be very specific to the property

9:06 ↗ and from the lenders point of view they

9:08 ↗ just need to know that there will never

9:10 ↗ be issues or concerns or anything that

9:13 ↗ could happen that would affect the

9:14 ↗ project because that's their

9:18 ↗ security let's talk a little bit about

9:21 ↗ um the the history of this property um

9:24 ↗ I'll I'll represent for you and actually

9:26 ↗ I think you were here were you here for

9:28 ↗ most of Miss heim's test testimony yes

9:29 ↗ it was just with the exception of an

9:31 ↗ hour and a half on one date so I'll

9:35 ↗ represent that um we heard Miss Tia Miss

9:38 ↗ Heim to testify about how the property

9:40 ↗ was acquired from Microsoft in 2013 yes

9:43 ↗ and then transferred to

9:45 ↗ IHC uh in 2014 yes do you agree with

9:49 ↗ that with her kind of summary of the

9:50 ↗ dates and the history yes she covered it

9:52 ↗ well okay and um at the September 26

9:57 ↗ 2018 development commission hearing in

9:59 ↗ this hearing um were you present for

10:01 ↗ that one yes I was do you recall Mr L's

10:05 ↗ um statements and I'll I'll paraphrase

10:08 ↗ to the um to the extent that shelter had

10:11 ↗ 20 years plus to file its applications

10:13 ↗ for development on this property did you

10:15 ↗ hear that statement I did hear that made

10:17 ↗ me feel

10:18 ↗ older um is that is that really true no

10:22 ↗ um when did ihfc and or shelter will

10:26 ↗ again refer to them interchangeably

10:27 ↗ actually acquire this property so was

10:29 ↗ 2013 and then a transition in 2014 so

10:33 ↗ it's just four years five years now

10:37 ↗ let's um let's talk a little bit about

10:38 ↗ what happened in those four or five

10:40 ↗ years or so since shelters own the

10:42 ↗ property um I'd like to introduce a new

10:45 ↗ exhibit for the record um and this one

10:48 ↗ let me just double check our

10:57 ↗ numbering I have 110 is the last of the

11:00 ↗ exib is that consistent everyone

11:05 ↗ else the commission has 110 is the last

11:07 ↗ exhibit so the

11:10 ↗ S11 thank

11:27 ↗ you

11:35 ↗ okay so Gary when you've had a chance to

11:38 ↗ look at this document um can you and I

11:41 ↗ want you specifically to turn to the

11:43 ↗ second page of it um can you describe

11:47 ↗ what the um email on the second page

11:50 ↗ dated July

11:52 ↗ 2nd and uh at 8:00 a.m. um kind of give

11:57 ↗ us the the background of who's on the

12:00 ↗ email and what you were all discussing

12:03 ↗ this is an email from Keith nien to

12:06 ↗ Derek Strait with a copy to myself and

12:09 ↗ Bob Harrison and it's regarding um the

12:15 ↗ Microsoft

12:16 ↗ property and uh it's it's kind of giving

12:20 ↗ uh an overview of

12:22 ↗ commentary really coming from um an

12:26 ↗ initial meeting that we had uh with u

12:31 ↗ with the city do you want me to add a

12:33 ↗ little well I think for um for starters

12:36 ↗ let's just for the record remind us who

12:38 ↗ is uh Derek Strait on that email so

12:41 ↗ Derek Strait on this email is my

12:43 ↗ associate working uh with me and at that

12:45 ↗ time we were

12:48 ↗ polygon and um how about Bob Harrison

12:51 ↗ who was that at that time I believe the

12:53 ↗ correct title was city manager but he

12:55 ↗ was

12:56 ↗ um the I believe manager of the city at

12:59 ↗ that

13:01 ↗ time and so um excuse me um if you look

13:06 ↗ at that email there's a couple couple

13:08 ↗ sentences that I want you to take a look

13:10 ↗ at um first of all if you can go to the

13:14 ↗ second paragraph and then the last

13:16 ↗ sentence it starts with if this is um

13:19 ↗ can you read that sentence for us if

13:21 ↗ this is the best proposal we can draft I

13:24 ↗ think the city will let the land sit and

13:26 ↗ wait for a

13:27 ↗ commercial will you give us a little bit

13:29 ↗ of of background on why director nian

13:32 ↗ was making that statement from your

13:34 ↗ perspective from my perspective um we

13:38 ↗ had met prior and uh it was a very kind

13:42 ↗ of unusual meeting for our experience we

13:44 ↗ had worked very hard to secure an

13:47 ↗ agreement with Microsoft which is a very

13:49 ↗ challenging thing to do and so we had

13:52 ↗ we're very excited and we had this

13:54 ↗ agreement we were coming to the city to

13:56 ↗ talk about the property which for us was

13:59 ↗ uh just an incredible location and

14:01 ↗ opportunity for development and in that

14:04 ↗ first meeting when we met uh we

14:07 ↗ essentially were asked to consider

14:09 ↗ giving half of the property to the city

14:11 ↗ essentially uh donating it and our sort

14:14 ↗ of Jaws dropped and and uh we were there

14:19 ↗ to to listen and and it was our first

14:21 ↗ meeting and so moving through that first

14:25 ↗ meeting then and moving to this we we

14:28 ↗ started trying to look at ways to um

14:32 ↗ look at what the city was asking and the

14:34 ↗ concept was to that the city was focused

14:38 ↗ and specifically I think Keith was

14:39 ↗ focused on a university and providing a

14:42 ↗ campus for a

14:45 ↗ university so when director nen's saying

14:48 ↗ that um I I think the city will let the

14:51 ↗ land sit and wait for commercial what

14:54 ↗ did you understand that to

14:55 ↗ mean that would be something somewhat

14:59 ↗ disastrous to someone coming in uh in

15:02 ↗ all my experience of working in some 35

15:04 ↗ cities and all the different projects

15:06 ↗ that I'd Undertake and and particularly

15:09 ↗ this property being so Urban and

15:12 ↗ essentially flat and and and and and

15:15 ↗ ready for development um having uh a

15:20 ↗ city official say well we'll just wait

15:22 ↗ for commercial when we had already done

15:26 ↗ some preliminary market assessment and

15:28 ↗ and we knew that that just straight

15:31 ↗ commercial use would be extremely

15:34 ↗ difficult to the scale of this property

15:36 ↗ because of the sheer magnitude of the

15:38 ↗ property and so we uh were trying to

15:41 ↗ look at at the options to be able to do

15:44 ↗ a holistic development so this was uh

15:46 ↗ very

15:48 ↗ disappointing if you look at the uh

15:51 ↗ third paragraph in that

15:53 ↗ email um there's and I'm looking at the

15:55 ↗ sentence kind of Midway through that

15:57 ↗ paragraph that starts with with the

15:59 ↗ property should be can you read that for

16:01 ↗ us please the property should be an

16:04 ↗ outright give bracket think donation

16:08 ↗ close bracket with no clawback for

16:12 ↗ polygon what did you understand that to

16:14 ↗ me and director nen statement that uh

16:17 ↗ the property should be an outright give

16:18 ↗ think donation so now um we're looking

16:22 ↗ at a situation we're in feasibility with

16:24 ↗ the property owning a about to purchase

16:28 ↗ the property

16:29 ↗ and looking at the fact that Microsoft I

16:31 ↗ don't think has ever given anything away

16:33 ↗ so we're

16:34 ↗ paying above market value in my opinion

16:37 ↗ just because it's such a difficult

16:39 ↗ property uh well the property itself is

16:42 ↗ a very good property but difficult to

16:43 ↗ purchase so Microsoft knew that they had

16:46 ↗ a very very strong asset and so then to

16:49 ↗ come to the city and be essentially told

16:52 ↗ okay let's just carve up a large portion

16:55 ↗ of that property uh and donate it

16:59 ↗ um was just uh it's just not

17:02 ↗ feasible did you understand what

17:05 ↗ director nen was saying there about an

17:06 ↗ outright give think donation was he

17:09 ↗ being literal about that I think he

17:10 ↗ absolutely meant that we needed to make

17:12 ↗ a donation and give some of the property

17:16 ↗ to the city and that clearly was was in

17:19 ↗ the discussion except our challenge was

17:21 ↗ to figure out how we could take a few

17:24 ↗ acres of land and and possibly donate it

17:27 ↗ to offset uh that by other uh gains for

17:31 ↗ the property but for the conversation to

17:34 ↗ start at 30 acres and then to go and

17:36 ↗ bounce around to a whole series of

17:39 ↗ different uh acreage sizes it was it was

17:42 ↗ really really

17:49 ↗ difficult I'd like to talk next about a

17:51 ↗ meeting that um happened a little bit

17:53 ↗ after this July 2013 email um in

17:58 ↗ September and I have some uh meeting

18:00 ↗ minutes from that meeting that I'll

18:03 ↗ distribute this is not in the binder so

18:05 ↗ far

18:15 ↗ umed

18:20 ↗ thanks so in these um we're we're not

18:24 ↗ introducing as an exhibit this is just

18:25 ↗ to help refresh Gary's memory as he mov

18:28 ↗ along here um but Gary can you start for

18:31 ↗ us by just explaining what these minutes

18:33 ↗ are so that we know um what you're

18:35 ↗ referencing if you need to as you

18:37 ↗ testify these uh these minutes are

18:41 ↗ reflecting a meeting that was held on

18:46 ↗ September the 9th in my memory now I

18:50 ↗ think it was 2:30 p.m. I'll talk a

18:53 ↗ little slower on on September the 9th

18:56 ↗ and it was um it's very clear in my mind

18:59 ↗ because I keep a just a time record of

19:02 ↗ my meetings meeting

19:04 ↗ schedule and that day we we were excited

19:09 ↗ to share the news uh relative to our

19:13 ↗ transition of our company to shelter and

19:16 ↗ selling a portion of our property the um

19:19 ↗ property the Microsoft property having

19:22 ↗ part of that being retained by polygon

19:25 ↗ and that shelter would have 20 two acres

19:29 ↗ of property to proceed with and so the

19:32 ↗ objective of that meeting was to do an

19:34 ↗ overview of that

19:37 ↗ situation do you know who prepared these

19:39 ↗ meeting minutes these minutes uh were

19:42 ↗ prepared by Eric

19:44 ↗ Evans who is Eric Evans Eric Evans works

19:47 ↗ with me and uh he's an employee at that

19:50 ↗ time he was with uh polygon and and

19:55 ↗ worked in a Development Group and and

19:58 ↗ now he with shelter and he oversees our

20:00 ↗ construction and development for many of

20:03 ↗ our

20:04 ↗ projects did you review these notes at

20:06 ↗ the time they were created yes I did and

20:10 ↗ are these notes uh something that would

20:11 ↗ be kept in the normal course of Business

20:13 ↗ by shelter

20:18 ↗ yes you mentioned that this was a a

20:20 ↗ memorable meeting um can we let's start

20:25 ↗ at the beginning and you you mentioned

20:26 ↗ it a minute ago about kind of why you

20:28 ↗ came in to talk to the city but um what

20:31 ↗ was going on with the the property in

20:33 ↗ polygon and shelter at that

20:36 ↗ time

20:38 ↗ um excuse me we we were uh in the

20:43 ↗ process of um had already defined

20:47 ↗ polygon had its residential area in the

20:50 ↗ property and we had our uh remaining 22

20:53 ↗ acres and uh we were um

21:00 ↗ in in the point of of meeting with

21:02 ↗ Swedish and and and getting a better

21:05 ↗ understanding of the opportunities for

21:07 ↗ the

21:07 ↗ property and um we had also in the

21:11 ↗ process through the previous meetings

21:14 ↗ that we had with the

21:15 ↗ city uh had come to the realization that

21:20 ↗ the economic viability of gifting a

21:23 ↗ portion of the land just would not work

21:26 ↗ and so in this meeting we um expressed

21:30 ↗ Our concern that the campus idea would

21:34 ↗ not be uh feasible and also expressed

21:39 ↗ Our concern that we couldn't go ahead

21:41 ↗ with that concept

21:44 ↗ even uh with with that basis uh because

21:47 ↗ we felt that would be disingenuous to

21:49 ↗ the community to move ahead with a a

21:51 ↗ program that couldn't work financially

21:53 ↗ or feasibly for

21:55 ↗ us how did the city react to that news

21:58 ↗ it was of all my 35 years of meetings uh

22:03 ↗ probably one of the worst experiences

22:05 ↗ I've had and that was from the context

22:08 ↗ that uh unfortunately Keith just lost it

22:11 ↗ I mean he just got extremely upset uh

22:15 ↗ and I don't know what words you want to

22:17 ↗ describe when someone gets that upset

22:19 ↗ but blood pressure up face uh just

22:23 ↗ really upset ready to just leave the

22:26 ↗ meeting and um

22:28 ↗ and that was just very disappointing

22:30 ↗ because we were wanting to have a

22:34 ↗ relationship and to move ahead in a good

22:39 ↗ way how did uh mayor Butler react in all

22:43 ↗ of

22:44 ↗ this I think he was a bit scared and he

22:47 ↗ just uh

22:49 ↗ immediately stepped up and and uh tried

22:52 ↗ to mitigate the situation um it was it

22:55 ↗ was it was testy so he

22:59 ↗ essentially asked his staff to to calm

23:03 ↗ down so if you look at the last page of

23:06 ↗ your meeting minutes for this meeting on

23:07 ↗ page

23:12 ↗ five

23:14 ↗ um did did mayor Butler indicate you

23:17 ↗ know what the city what he thought the

23:19 ↗ city needed to do going

23:22 ↗ forward no I I don't think that's you

23:26 ↗ know his job maybe per se but but he

23:30 ↗ just indicated that um shelter Holdings

23:34 ↗ is not interested in pursuing the

23:36 ↗ college and that the city needed to

23:38 ↗ respect the the decision of shelter

23:42 ↗ Holdings when when you left this meeting

23:44 ↗ were you left with the impression that

23:46 ↗ the city was going to respect that

23:48 ↗ decision and work collaboratively with

23:51 ↗ shelter I I felt very uncomfortable um

23:55 ↗ because Keith essentially is the

23:57 ↗ GateKeeper to the city uh in terms of

24:00 ↗ Planning Development the person we have

24:02 ↗ to interface with every day and uh and

24:06 ↗ the mayor was I think trying to be

24:08 ↗ polite and in the mayor's role but we

24:11 ↗ don't work with the mayor so um after uh

24:16 ↗ having this happen at this meeting it

24:19 ↗ put us in a very very difficult position

24:21 ↗ because we own the property and and now

24:23 ↗ we had to figure out how we were going

24:25 ↗ to kind of mitigate and try to figure

24:27 ↗ out a solution

24:31 ↗ so following this meeting after um after

24:35 ↗ that incident uh what happened over the

24:38 ↗ course of the next year or so so 2014 to

24:42 ↗ 2015 um did you have more

24:44 ↗ interactions with the city for a period

24:46 ↗ of time very limited we we felt really

24:50 ↗ we needed to distance ourselves a little

24:52 ↗ bit uh at least for a period of months

24:56 ↗ um and uh we started proceeding with our

25:00 ↗ work which was to look at all the

25:02 ↗ explore the options it takes a great

25:05 ↗ deal of energy in time to to look at a

25:07 ↗ 22 acre property and and know that

25:11 ↗ there's different opinions about that

25:12 ↗ property and to try to figure out what

25:15 ↗ the viable uh Solutions are for us to be

25:19 ↗ able to proceed so that's what we were

25:21 ↗ doing that's what we worked on for that

25:23 ↗ next uh year you mentioned a a need to

25:26 ↗ distance your Stu uh why was that just

25:29 ↗ because of just how badly that meeting

25:31 ↗ had

25:37 ↗ gone in terms of how how badly that

25:39 ↗ meeting had gone um what were your

25:41 ↗ concerns coming out of

25:43 ↗ it well

25:45 ↗ just what would happen to us I mean

25:48 ↗ would would um would

25:50 ↗ we were we being penalized were we being

25:53 ↗ put in a position where it didn't matter

25:55 ↗ how long it took but um the only use

25:58 ↗ that the city could Envision for the

26:01 ↗ property which we didn't really know

26:03 ↗ exactly what that was but our

26:05 ↗ understanding was it was a use that

26:07 ↗ would be basically a large user like uh

26:10 ↗ Microsoft coming back uh to provide um a

26:15 ↗ single-purpose use on the property and

26:17 ↗ yet uh the entire um market area for the

26:21 ↗ Seattle area had shifted already to a

26:25 ↗ focus in downtown Seattle and the major

26:28 ↗ employment centers and all the

26:30 ↗ development was occurring there and

26:33 ↗ there were no companies uh interested at

26:35 ↗ all in coming to isqua for that kind of

26:38 ↗ scale or that type of development and so

26:41 ↗ the concern was that uh we suddenly had

26:44 ↗ a property that we believe would be just

26:46 ↗ a great opportunity to collaborate and

26:49 ↗ work with the city and now we had a

26:51 ↗ property that was essentially

26:56 ↗ handtied

27:02 ↗ so you mentioned um taking some time to

27:04 ↗ to go back and do the research

27:07 ↗ um and uh we also heard a Miss Heim

27:12 ↗ testify I'll represent that you had

27:14 ↗ started shelter had started looking at a

27:16 ↗ mixed use project um do you recall kind

27:18 ↗ of roughly the time frame of of the

27:21 ↗ mixed use project and how that came to

27:22 ↗ be yes um the is when Tia came on board

27:28 ↗ working for us in April of 2015 it was

27:31 ↗ kind of in that period that we were

27:33 ↗ doing research and we were looking at

27:34 ↗ all of our options and and uh we had

27:37 ↗ done uh we have we have uh access to

27:41 ↗ many many different companies because

27:43 ↗ over the years we've been building and

27:45 ↗ we have a lot of experience just

27:47 ↗ internally but we wanted to be very

27:49 ↗ sensitive to the fact that the city if

27:52 ↗ we just walked in the door and said well

27:53 ↗ this is the market and this is what we

27:55 ↗ feel they would just be suspicious so we

27:58 ↗ wanted to be very careful to align

28:01 ↗ ourselves with well-respected

28:04 ↗ Consultants that typically were uh hired

28:08 ↗ by public jurisdictions and cities as

28:10 ↗ opposed to developers uh so we'd have

28:13 ↗ the highest possible level of

28:14 ↗ credibility so in that process uh we

28:18 ↗ asked our uh uh identified one of them

28:21 ↗ being kiner and and they uh we asked

28:23 ↗ them to do research in all the levels of

28:26 ↗ uh use for this property including

28:28 ↗ retail office commercial and and uh give

28:32 ↗ their uncan their candid assessment with

28:35 ↗ supported by all their

28:37 ↗ research did you hear Miss heim's

28:39 ↗ testimony about the community outreach

28:41 ↗ that occurred for this mixed use

28:43 ↗ proposal yes um and we did a

28:46 ↗ considerable amount of Outreach and I

28:48 ↗ was very involved with that um given

28:51 ↗ your involvement can you describe um for

28:53 ↗ us kind of what that process looked like

28:55 ↗ yes um the initial steps to prepare for

28:59 ↗ a process like that involved hundreds of

29:01 ↗ thousands of dollars of pulling these

29:03 ↗ consultant teams together we had huitt

29:06 ↗ which was the um uh Park

29:10 ↗ designer uh outdoor space designer for

29:13 ↗ is Highlands very well respected a very

29:15 ↗ busy company taking projects that are in

29:18 ↗ other cities other countries uh but we

29:20 ↗ have good relationship with them and

29:22 ↗ they they got excited about helping to

29:24 ↗ participate and work with us and we had

29:26 ↗ win a very respected uh architect in

29:30 ↗ Seattle and he uh was busy as you know

29:33 ↗ there's so much going on in this area at

29:35 ↗ that time and so they got on board and

29:37 ↗ then it was a matter of of working with

29:40 ↗ the market information and working with

29:43 ↗ the the concept and so uh we progressed

29:48 ↗ through that and and our objective in

29:50 ↗ our first meeting uh was to be able to

29:55 ↗ bring all the information we had

29:58 ↗ to um to the the residents of the

30:02 ↗ community and uh and let them guide us

30:07 ↗ uh with what they felt was really

30:09 ↗ important and maybe what wasn't so

30:11 ↗ important and backing up just a step we

30:14 ↗ were doing that because in the process

30:17 ↗ of uh of talking to the city we had

30:21 ↗ realize that we uh Keith had essentially

30:25 ↗ said you you've got to um go out and

30:28 ↗ reach the community and and uh that's

30:31 ↗ the step that you need to take and that

30:33 ↗ was at a point when we had had time

30:37 ↗ quite a few months later later in 2015

30:39 ↗ to come and meet with

30:42 ↗ him did you hear um direct director nian

30:45 ↗ testify earlier in these hearings that

30:47 ↗ the mixed use proposal didn't get strong

30:49 ↗ Community

30:50 ↗ Support yes is that true no and why not

30:56 ↗ um the evolution of that process so um

31:02 ↗ April well was May 4th our first meeting

31:05 ↗ uh extremely well attended and then we

31:09 ↗ took all of the information we had

31:12 ↗ different groups all set up for feedback

31:14 ↗ for people interested in whatever it was

31:16 ↗ traffic or whether it was Parks or the

31:18 ↗ retail uses or office or whatever all

31:20 ↗ those teams and we went away and we came

31:23 ↗ back and held a second meeting in July

31:26 ↗ and at that meeting uh people got pretty

31:30 ↗ excited about the opportunities because

31:32 ↗ we provided for uh incredible Parks

31:36 ↗ Amphitheater uh all the things that were

31:39 ↗ on the list that people had written on

31:41 ↗ boards that they wanted we tried to

31:43 ↗ incorporate the majority of those into

31:45 ↗ our plan and the most important part of

31:49 ↗ this conversation and for the community

31:50 ↗ at that time was that we did have a

31:53 ↗ large residential component and the

31:56 ↗ reason we had that large residential

31:57 ↗ component covers maybe three main points

32:01 ↗ one is we were providing 4,000 parking

32:04 ↗ stalls literally under the substructure

32:07 ↗ of that entire property of the 22 plus

32:09 ↗ acres and the cost of that is is

32:13 ↗ extremely high and the offset to that

32:16 ↗ cost was going to be providing senior

32:19 ↗ housing a whole variety of housing uses

32:22 ↗ above that to help offset the cost of

32:24 ↗ the parking but in addition to that we

32:26 ↗ were Kitty corner to the parking ride

32:28 ↗ and i' had already spent a number of

32:30 ↗ years working with Metro we had rebuilt

32:33 ↗ the South Kirkland parking ride and we

32:35 ↗ were awarded that as in a competition

32:38 ↗ essentially and had built the 500 stall

32:40 ↗ garage we had a very good relationship

32:42 ↗ with Metro they were very excited about

32:44 ↗ continuing to expand and see more

32:47 ↗ parking available in this area and we

32:49 ↗ were going to provide parking to help

32:51 ↗ that situation as well so moving along

32:54 ↗ uh we went through all those steps uh

32:57 ↗ with our plans and uh the community some

33:01 ↗ people didn't like the idea of the

33:03 ↗ amount of of the residential but people

33:06 ↗ mostly recognize that you need some

33:08 ↗ residential in in the retail setting

33:10 ↗ because we had a lot of retail inders

33:13 ↗ that the city the community wanted to

33:15 ↗ sustain that in the evenings we have to

33:17 ↗ have more people and so it was a very

33:20 ↗ good Urban plan uh out of that process

33:24 ↗ we then broke into specific groups we

33:26 ↗ had very transparent communication for

33:29 ↗ everybody to communicate with us and in

33:31 ↗ August end of July August we had four

33:34 ↗ different uh special charet groups with

33:37 ↗ 20 plus people people that were

33:39 ↗ interested no matter who we didn't

33:41 ↗ screen or you know if anyone was didn't

33:43 ↗ want it whoever wanted to come was

33:45 ↗ invited and uh we got very good input

33:48 ↗ and so that just leaves me to the

33:51 ↗ conclusion that it's exactly the case

33:53 ↗ you see in Seattle right now where we

33:55 ↗ our only solution is density to handle

33:57 ↗ our our our our Housing Solutions and

34:01 ↗ this is an urban we look at isqua

34:03 ↗ Highlands as a as a beautiful uh master

34:06 ↗ plan Community but this property that we

34:08 ↗ have happens to be the urban portion of

34:11 ↗ that community and with already with an

34:13 ↗ incredible hospital and future plans for

34:16 ↗ that expansion medical office all of

34:18 ↗ these uses make nothing but imminent

34:21 ↗ sense but to have no opportunity to

34:24 ↗ provide housing uh when you have a

34:27 ↗ situation of the need for closer uh

34:31 ↗ employment opportunities affordable

34:33 ↗ housing all those issues um it's just

34:36 ↗ very

34:38 ↗ unfortunate so you mentioned um in there

34:41 ↗ the that there would be in this mix use

34:43 ↗ development there' be parking stalls

34:45 ↗ senior housing uh Parks an

34:48 ↗ Amphitheater um going to the the housing

34:52 ↗ piece of it when we're talking about

34:53 ↗ housing units in this context of a mixed

34:55 ↗ use development what what do those look

34:57 ↗ like are they single family homes are

34:59 ↗ they town homes are they condos they

35:02 ↗ they would all be essentially they would

35:04 ↗ be above the main platform of the

35:07 ↗ development whatever that uh took on it

35:09 ↗ was extremely well thought out but it

35:11 ↗ would be uh different levels of types of

35:15 ↗ housing could be um above if I can if

35:18 ↗ I'm correctly describing this it would

35:20 ↗ be mixed use form of of development that

35:24 ↗ we see in many of urban areas of the

35:26 ↗ city where the housing is above the

35:28 ↗ retail and the and the different Park

35:33 ↗ areas and then what other types of um if

35:36 ↗ the mixed use proposal had gone through

35:38 ↗ what other types of amenities would

35:40 ↗ shelter have been providing to the

35:41 ↗ community there well we were there was a

35:44 ↗ conversation towards uh Fitness and

35:47 ↗ swimming and uh and and

35:51 ↗ entertainment uh place for kids to go uh

35:54 ↗ a lot of teenagers in the community

35:56 ↗ there were

35:57 ↗ that really wanted to try to improve the

35:59 ↗ opportunities for their kids to be able

36:01 ↗ to stay within the community and also to

36:04 ↗ be in an environment where there's an

36:06 ↗ interaction where the parents and the

36:08 ↗ friends are seeing the kids as opposed

36:10 ↗ to kids just going off the grid and

36:12 ↗ going into other parts of the city

36:13 ↗ leaving the hill uh this was uh this

36:17 ↗ concept was embraced by a lot of

36:19 ↗ people what happened to this

36:22 ↗ proposal sadly um when uh we got

36:26 ↗ completed through that process and then

36:29 ↗ we had a meeting in the fall essentially

36:33 ↗ we were told that the uh residential

36:37 ↗ component uh was not acceptable and so

36:40 ↗ that project couldn't possibly work

36:42 ↗ without it and we were told that we if

36:45 ↗ we wanted to proceed with this

36:47 ↗ development that we needed to uh focus

36:50 ↗ on the live work play concept and focus

36:54 ↗ our property on the work component with

36:56 ↗ which took us back to uh the commercial

37:00 ↗ component but then trying to figure out

37:02 ↗ well what would that really look like

37:05 ↗ because I think at that point we had the

37:07 ↗ 1.2 plus 6 so we had 1.8 million feet

37:11 ↗ well there's no way that the scale of

37:14 ↗ this is so difficult to talk about

37:16 ↗ because we we're looking at numbers of

37:18 ↗ city blocks so it's it most of the

37:22 ↗ experience in this city is one project

37:24 ↗ one building and it gets built but here

37:28 ↗ we're carefully planning a very large

37:30 ↗ scale development that requires uh a

37:34 ↗ huge amount of infrastructure and it's a

37:36 ↗ type of situation where when once you

37:38 ↗ start you want everything to work and to

37:40 ↗ fit so uh we're forced then to really

37:43 ↗ look at a situation of what I would call

37:45 ↗ Baby Steps we we can't go with the scale

37:48 ↗ that we could have gone with mixed use

37:51 ↗ so then we have to transition our uses

37:53 ↗ and figure out the the depth of the

37:55 ↗ market and that's what we started

37:57 ↗ working

38:04 ↗ on in in your opinion um you mentioned

38:07 ↗ this work Focus that the city had for

38:11 ↗ shelter's property um what did you

38:14 ↗ understand the city's vision of that

38:16 ↗ work Focus to look

38:18 ↗ like it really over and over again I was

38:21 ↗ really told that it needed to be

38:24 ↗ something like a Microsoft or a it's

38:27 ↗ large single uh employer which was

38:31 ↗ totally foreign I mean we have to think

38:34 ↗ the plan of Vis Islands was

38:37 ↗ conceptualized in another era of time I

38:41 ↗ mean the Amazon experience all the

38:43 ↗ things that are going on in today's

38:44 ↗ world didn't even exist and so now we've

38:48 ↗ seen an evolution of the community and

38:50 ↗ in a beautiful Evolution it's it's an

38:52 ↗ incredible neighborhood and uh now uh uh

38:57 ↗ we're kind of looking it's almost like

38:59 ↗ in a dinosaur approach we're saying okay

39:00 ↗ well we're just going to go back to a

39:02 ↗ past era and so uh this this was the

39:06 ↗ difficulty and this is what point blank

39:07 ↗ we were being told so it it it just gave

39:10 ↗ more and more consternation as you Trail

39:12 ↗ through all this hearing process that

39:14 ↗ you've been listening to of of of we

39:18 ↗ were we continually were given or talked

39:20 ↗ about different opportunities but then

39:22 ↗ when we did the research and we came

39:24 ↗ with the factual information then we

39:26 ↗ just hit a a brick wall and it was well

39:29 ↗ no you just have to go back and and do

39:31 ↗ the original no matter how long you know

39:34 ↗ 20 years whatever it takes and that's

39:36 ↗ just not appropriate in today's

39:44 ↗ world what did the city tell shelter to

39:47 ↗ do after this after they rejected this

39:50 ↗ proposal how did they say to go

39:53 ↗ forward well the next step was

39:57 ↗ um to uh to come up with a a plan that

40:01 ↗ incorporated uh different

40:03 ↗ uses and uh so that's what we we started

40:07 ↗ to do did the city make any reference to

40:10 ↗ the development agreement and how that

40:11 ↗ might play into that yes the the we had

40:16 ↗ over the time period a series of

40:18 ↗ different discussions relating to the

40:19 ↗ development agreement just because from

40:21 ↗ our point of view as we're working with

40:24 ↗ retailers and companies that are

40:25 ↗ interested in being part of our

40:27 ↗ community they look at 5 10 15E Horizons

40:32 ↗ well they knew that the development

40:34 ↗ agreement that existed um was coming to

40:37 ↗ had a timeline so we were all cognizant

40:41 ↗ always to know that we needed to

40:44 ↗ establish a new timeline so that we

40:47 ↗ could attract even if we were having the

40:50 ↗ lucky card of a single user that showed

40:52 ↗ up they would want that and so in that

40:56 ↗ process proc our thinking and

40:58 ↗ discussions were always around just

41:00 ↗ extending the time for the development

41:02 ↗ agreement or having a development

41:03 ↗ agreement similar to the hospital but at

41:06 ↗ no time ever did a question of vesting

41:10 ↗ ever came up because it was never never

41:12 ↗ a

41:14 ↗ consideration and you say it was never a

41:16 ↗ consideration um never a consideration

41:20 ↗ why well because a project is vested at

41:24 ↗ the point of application we had a

41:25 ↗ develop agreement we assured over and

41:28 ↗ over again that the development

41:30 ↗ agreement when it was revised would be

41:33 ↗ totally the same agreement that was all

41:35 ↗ part of our reaching out to the

41:37 ↗ community and being with the community

41:39 ↗ they were very concerned that suddenly

41:41 ↗ things could change and suddenly there

41:43 ↗ could be a whole new type of development

41:45 ↗ going on in the community um that

41:48 ↗ wouldn't even be close to what the

41:49 ↗ vision of the community was and we

41:50 ↗ assured the community that Our intention

41:52 ↗ was always to carry forward with the

41:55 ↗ spirit of the design guidelines and the

41:57 ↗ and all the parts that make is Highland

42:00 ↗ so

42:05 ↗ incredible so you went back to back to

42:08 ↗ the drawing board um our and we're we're

42:11 ↗ here talking about a few of the STP and

42:13 ↗ ASP

42:15 ↗ applications um are those applications

42:17 ↗ and the plat application that we've

42:19 ↗ heard about um are those the product

42:21 ↗ that came out of going back and

42:23 ↗ re-evaluating and developing something

42:25 ↗ new yeah yes we carefully went to the um

42:29 ↗ to to the market and and and uh worked

42:32 ↗ very hard to have and we'd already been

42:34 ↗ working for a long time but we we were

42:37 ↗ working with uh what we felt was viable

42:40 ↗ and we were on this timeline and and

42:44 ↗ trying to get something started because

42:46 ↗ we would already now own this property

42:47 ↗ for quite a few

42:49 ↗ years has shelter had um end users so

42:53 ↗ potential tenants or others like that um

42:55 ↗ approach shelter about the property on a

42:58 ↗ regular basis and just this month

43:00 ↗ there's there are many people looking

43:02 ↗ now uh because this area is so uh

43:06 ↗ focused and the entire world is looking

43:07 ↗ at Seattle because of the phenomenon of

43:09 ↗ what's Happening Here and um so we have

43:13 ↗ uh we have uh a lot of different

43:15 ↗ opportunities and the sad thing is here

43:17 ↗ we are in this process this hearing

43:19 ↗ alone you know start in September and uh

43:22 ↗ we're just going to go into a process

43:24 ↗ and then I'll go into another process

43:26 ↗ every single person that is interested

43:28 ↗ in development and a retailer whoever

43:32 ↗ all they want to know is what is the

43:34 ↗ timeline what assurances can you give us

43:37 ↗ what confidence can we have to proceed

43:40 ↗ and at this point in time when you have

43:41 ↗ a developer in litigation with a city

43:43 ↗ people just step back and say well let

43:45 ↗ us know when you when you fix the

43:55 ↗ problem and just so that we're so that

43:57 ↗ it's clear for the record because I used

43:59 ↗ kind of a a term that we may be familiar

44:01 ↗ with but an end users what are end users

44:03 ↗ for a project like this what does that

44:05 ↗ look like so it could be um uh just your

44:09 ↗ your restaurants or your your health

44:12 ↗ club or whoever uh the medical office

44:15 ↗ facilities there's there's a lot of uh

44:18 ↗ change going on in the medical uh office

44:21 ↗ community and given um just it's a

44:25 ↗ really a blessing to have uh Swedish

44:28 ↗ hospital here and and given the growth

44:30 ↗ of the area uh this is something that's

44:33 ↗ very interesting for for all of us and

44:36 ↗ as we all Age We Care a lot more about

44:38 ↗ this as well so there are uh great

44:42 ↗ opportunities uh in in this community to

44:45 ↗ help address those needs as people are

44:47 ↗ aging in the community and also for our

44:49 ↗ young

44:51 ↗ people let's turn to the meeting Minutes

44:55 ↗ book that that we've been referencing

44:58 ↗ that's been entered as an exhibit now

45:01 ↗ let me grab it for

45:06 ↗ you oh it's hiding over

45:10 ↗ here you go um and if you could turn in

45:14 ↗ there to the September 21st 2016 meeting

45:24 ↗ please

45:47 ↗ are you on that page with me now yes uh

45:50 ↗ September the 21st

45:52 ↗ 2016 meeting attended by Keith nien Lucy

45:56 ↗ slowman Patrick melany Gary Young Eric

45:58 ↗ Evans sorry and tia Heim okay and um you

46:03 ↗ mentioned that you were present for um

46:06 ↗ most of Miss heim's testimony were you

46:09 ↗ here for her testimony on January 15th

46:11 ↗ of 2019 yes it was and did you hear her

46:15 ↗ testify about what went on in this

46:17 ↗ meeting yes do you agree with her

46:20 ↗ testimony

46:22 ↗ yes let's talk about um just a couple

46:25 ↗ points point in here um if you could

46:27 ↗ turn first to page

46:29 ↗ two um

46:32 ↗ and we'll look one two three four five

46:36 ↗ bullet points down um and if if you

46:40 ↗ could just read actually just read that

46:41 ↗ whole paragraph for us please Keith said

46:44 ↗ Keith said that all your mitigation will

46:48 ↗ evaporate and disappear because the

46:51 ↗ city's new concurrency system has no

46:54 ↗ relevance to vested trips however he

46:59 ↗ acknowledged that the city can't make

47:01 ↗ land owners pay again something that the

47:05 ↗ landowner has already paid for so there

47:09 ↗ might be some number of trips vested in

47:12 ↗ the overlay but they may be directional

47:16 ↗ only so let's talk a little bit about

47:19 ↗ the different parts of this

47:21 ↗ um what did you understand it to mean

47:24 ↗ when Keith and actually for to start

47:27 ↗ with is this what Keith said do you

47:28 ↗ recall him saying this yes and what was

47:32 ↗ your understanding of um what he meant

47:34 ↗ when he said that all your mitigation

47:36 ↗ will evaporate and disappear well it was

47:40 ↗ kind of a shock to us because through

47:42 ↗ the course of the many years that we'd

47:45 ↗ already been working together we were

47:47 ↗ always assured that our mitigation which

47:50 ↗ essentially when we bought the property

47:52 ↗ all of the infrastructure that was

47:54 ↗ installed and planned for for the future

47:57 ↗ were part of uh what we were buying

48:00 ↗ that's what we were paying for and it

48:02 ↗ even was more sensitive to us because

48:05 ↗ when we bought the property we were

48:08 ↗ waved the conditions that Microsoft had

48:10 ↗ in place to protect itself uh for

48:13 ↗ traffic impacts caused by Future

48:14 ↗ development by Swedish and we totally

48:17 ↗ waved that uh and and if uh we had not

48:21 ↗ bought the property Swedish probably

48:23 ↗ wouldn't exist in the purchase of their

48:25 ↗ next piece because uh Microsoft would

48:27 ↗ never have agreed to allow the

48:29 ↗ additional traffic and counts coming

48:31 ↗ from that development so we wave those

48:33 ↗ opportunities those are assets to us

48:36 ↗ those are uh that's what we have to work

48:38 ↗ with with the property so to suddenly

48:40 ↗ now come and here oh your mitigation

48:43 ↗ will evaporate and disappear um that

48:46 ↗ that is uh probably the worst that

48:50 ↗ that's millions of dollars of impact to

48:53 ↗ us then he goes on here to says uh he

48:57 ↗ acknowledged that the city can't make

48:59 ↗ land owners pay again something that the

49:01 ↗ land owner has already paid for what did

49:04 ↗ you understand that to mean in light of

49:06 ↗ his prior statement so it's a complete

49:10 ↗ contrast so now it's sort of like okay

49:13 ↗ now uh maybe there's a little hope of

49:16 ↗ consideration so in the process of

49:19 ↗ working the difficulty we've had is we

49:22 ↗ have these discussions and there' be a

49:24 ↗ negative and then there'd be oh well

49:26 ↗ maybe we can do this and in that process

49:29 ↗ of the years the the what we wanted was

49:32 ↗ just let's define what we can do let's

49:35 ↗ establish the the the ground rules and

49:38 ↗ let's move ahead but continually back

49:40 ↗ and forth if you've cells have now

49:42 ↗ witnessed through this entire process

49:44 ↗ there's a continual back and

49:51 ↗ forth let's look at the next page page

49:53 ↗ three please um

49:59 ↗ looking at the fifth bullet point down

50:02 ↗ um and if you could look at the second

50:06 ↗ sentence and just read for us it starts

50:07 ↗ with in Keith's opinion in Keith's

50:09 ↗ opinion council is invested in the

50:12 ↗ commercial designation for shelter's

50:14 ↗ property and the council members are

50:17 ↗ willing to let shelter's property sit

50:19 ↗ undeveloped to see that Vision

50:21 ↗ accomplished do you remember director

50:23 ↗ Nan saying this yes

50:27 ↗ what did you understand him to mean by

50:29 ↗ this well I think it's what I had

50:32 ↗ expressed earlier as we were going

50:33 ↗ through the community meetings um and

50:37 ↗ specifically council member Stacy

50:39 ↗ Goodman and uh Mary L PA they they were

50:43 ↗ not interested in seeing us proceed with

50:45 ↗ residential in the community and so we

50:48 ↗ were being told that we needed to stay

50:51 ↗ with the commercial to succeed which

50:53 ↗ again for the reasons I gave earlier is

50:56 ↗ extremely complicated and for us now

50:59 ↗ moving through a series of years of

51:01 ↗ working with this we're really feeling

51:04 ↗ that we were being

51:06 ↗ essentially

51:08 ↗ um uh can't think of the word right off

51:11 ↗ hand but just put in a very very

51:14 ↗ difficult position kind of hand tied not

51:16 ↗ being able to proceed and and it was um

51:19 ↗ it seemed to be

51:21 ↗ deliberate and I'm going to take you

51:24 ↗ away from the notes for just a second

51:25 ↗ and take you back to what's now exhibit

51:29 ↗ s111 um you had read a section of this

51:33 ↗ email the July 2nd 2013 at 8: a.m. email

51:37 ↗ um and will you just read this this

51:40 ↗ sentence again that um begins with if

51:42 ↗ this is the best proposal we can

51:45 ↗ draft if this is the best if this is the

51:48 ↗ best proposal we can draft I think the

51:50 ↗ city will let the land sit and wait for

51:53 ↗ commercial so I guess moving ahead in

51:56 ↗ time to this part that I've just been

51:59 ↗ referring to it's like deja vu it's like

52:01 ↗ we've got all this effort we spent a

52:04 ↗ huge amount of money gone through all

52:06 ↗ these steps and it's kind of like I'm

52:07 ↗ back in square

52:09 ↗ one uh huge impact to us very very uh

52:14 ↗ difficult and and Keith was driving that

52:17 ↗ uh

52:19 ↗ process you could look just a couple

52:21 ↗ bullet points down now to the bullet

52:23 ↗ point that starts with on the same page

52:26 ↗ says staff does not and will not uh can

52:28 ↗ you read that for us please staff does

52:30 ↗ not and will not support shelter's

52:32 ↗ proposal for a mixed use development in

52:34 ↗ part because shelter refused the city's

52:37 ↗ past Overture to tie up shelter's

52:39 ↗ property for 5 years while the city

52:43 ↗ attempted to Market it to an

52:46 ↗ Institutional user Keith mentioned that

52:48 ↗ shelter made a different decision the

52:51 ↗ 5-year period would have almost run out

52:54 ↗ by now

52:55 ↗ and that staff might have looked more

52:58 ↗ favorably on shelter's

53:02 ↗ proposal do you remember director nian

53:04 ↗ saying this

53:11 ↗ yes and I'm going to um reference now

53:14 ↗ the January 15 2019 transcript of um our

53:19 ↗ hearing um and I'm specifically looking

53:21 ↗ at page 94 starting on line 23

53:26 ↗ and then um the part that we're going to

53:27 ↗ talk about is going to run on to 95

53:30 ↗ lines 1 through 8 um can you read that

53:32 ↗ for us please answer yes at this meeting

53:36 ↗ they told us or Keith told us that the

53:39 ↗ staff does not and will not support our

53:42 ↗ proposal for a mixed use development

53:46 ↗ then he went on to say that that was in

53:49 ↗ part because shelter had refused the

53:51 ↗ city's past Overture to tie up shelter

53:55 ↗ property for 5 years while the city

53:58 ↗ attempted to Market it to a college or

54:04 ↗ university is um did were you here to

54:06 ↗ hear that testimony yes I was and I'll

54:09 ↗ represent that that was from Miss heim's

54:12 ↗ testimony um is that consistent with

54:14 ↗ your recollection of this meeting

54:24 ↗ yes

54:28 ↗ if you could continue on there I think

54:31 ↗ um where you left

54:35 ↗ off and he he sat there and looked at

54:40 ↗ Gary and he told him that if he had just

54:44 ↗ made a different decision the 5-year

54:46 ↗ period would be running and the

54:48 ↗ application would be treated

54:51 ↗ differently it was really a pretty

54:53 ↗ shocking statement for me to here so

54:56 ↗ when Miss Heim is saying he who who's

54:58 ↗ that referring to in your understanding

55:00 ↗ Keith nian do you recall him saying that

55:07 ↗ yes were you also shocked by that

55:09 ↗ statement absolutely it's it's

55:12 ↗ um it it's just like we had had such a

55:16 ↗ difficult start and then we'd gone

55:17 ↗ through uh really putting our best foot

55:20 ↗ forward in so many ways and had done

55:22 ↗ everything we possibly could uh to now

55:26 ↗ fall in line with the the desire that

55:29 ↗ the city had and we're still finding

55:32 ↗ ourselves facing uh

55:34 ↗ potentially uh not being able to go

55:37 ↗ ahead and I'm mindful of our time we're

55:40 ↗ we're getting pretty close to wrapping

55:42 ↗ it up so just letting you know since

55:43 ↗ we're almost an hour in or so right now

55:46 ↗ PR continue please thank you um so then

55:49 ↗ turning to the next page of these notes

55:51 ↗ page

55:52 ↗ four um

55:56 ↗ let's look at the first bullet point

55:58 ↗ there um and I'll just read this part

56:01 ↗ for you um it says Gary asked how

56:03 ↗ shelter can protect its current

56:05 ↗ contractual rights uh Keith responded

56:08 ↗ that when the da expires shelter shelter

56:11 ↗ will lose its contractual rights and the

56:12 ↗ council will zone shelter's property

56:15 ↗ Heath said that at that point shelter

56:17 ↗ would be at in quotations at the whim of

56:19 ↗ the

56:20 ↗ council um so with that first part it

56:23 ↗ says that you were asking about how

56:25 ↗ shelter could protect its contractual

56:27 ↗ rights what did what did you mean by

56:28 ↗ that at that time I think it's just our

56:31 ↗ zoning and and uh understanding just uh

56:36 ↗ mitigation all of the all of the pieces

56:39 ↗ that we had and so with zoning can you

56:42 ↗ explain for us what what that means in

56:43 ↗ terms of what you as a developer are

56:46 ↗ looking at and what you're trying to

56:47 ↗ figure out in terms of your contractual

56:48 ↗ rights is that vesting or is that

56:50 ↗ something else no it's not vesting at

56:52 ↗ all it's just being assured that as we

56:54 ↗ move ahead that the property uh will

56:59 ↗ from from day one it was it was we had

57:02 ↗ always been assured that the original uh

57:06 ↗ ISO Highland development agreement would

57:07 ↗ be upheld and that we would be able to

57:10 ↗ proceed with that development agreement

57:12 ↗ which was Our intention working with the

57:14 ↗ city and so that is what we uh work

57:18 ↗ under um I don't uh know what else I

57:22 ↗ could

57:23 ↗ say look down at the the third bullet

57:26 ↗ point down the page um it's the one that

57:29 ↗ starts with Patrick

57:30 ↗ questioned will you read that one for us

57:33 ↗ please Patrick questioned what will

57:35 ↗ happen to projects vested under the da

57:38 ↗ Keith said that if a project is vested

57:41 ↗ under the da it will remain vested for

57:43 ↗ the term of the vesting permit and so do

57:47 ↗ you recall that exchange between Patrick

57:50 ↗ and oh represent that's Patrick melany

57:53 ↗ um and Keith director dor nian yes I do

57:57 ↗ is this consistent with with what you

57:59 ↗ heard them say yes what did you

58:01 ↗ understand director nien to mean by

58:03 ↗ that that's what we always assumed that

58:07 ↗ you um we were vested under the

58:08 ↗ development agreement and we remain

58:10 ↗ vested for the term based on the fact

58:12 ↗ that we if we make an application and uh

58:15 ↗ we best under the rules and regulations

58:18 ↗ at that

58:23 ↗ time let turn now to the November 14th

58:28 ↗ 2016 notes please

58:38 ↗ so all

58:42 ↗ right so um who was this meeting with on

58:46 ↗ November 14th

58:47 ↗ 2016 um meeting with Keith nen myself

58:53 ↗ Patrick and Tia

58:57 ↗ and if you go down to um the

59:02 ↗ one the fifth bullet point down it's the

59:05 ↗ one that starts with Keith went on to

59:06 ↗ point out yes um can you read that first

59:09 ↗ sentence of that bullet point please

59:11 ↗ Keith went on to point out that with

59:14 ↗ festing available under current da there

59:17 ↗ is no gap between da and new zoning and

59:22 ↗ that the moratorium work plan indicates

59:25 ↗ that the city will have lifted the

59:27 ↗ moratorium before the end of the

59:34 ↗ Das is this um are these notes is this

59:37 ↗ consistent with what you recall director

59:39 ↗ Nan telling you in this meeting

59:43 ↗ yes what did you understand it to mean

59:46 ↗ by uh his statement that there's no gap

59:48 ↗ between the da and new

59:50 ↗ zoning um he's saying that don't worry

59:54 ↗ just go ahead and and proceed and

59:57 ↗ everything will be in place but the

59:59 ↗ meeting started and part of our concern

1:00:02 ↗ was we were trying to pull together our

1:00:04 ↗ tenants and our plan for the potential

1:00:06 ↗ for office um and having shelv our whole

1:00:11 ↗ mixed use concept but in working with

1:00:14 ↗ whichever uh retail users we'd have and

1:00:17 ↗ office users they wanted to know well

1:00:21 ↗ what uh regulations would they be

1:00:23 ↗ working on which was our development

1:00:25 ↗ agreement which was coming to an end

1:00:27 ↗ which we either wanted to extend or have

1:00:30 ↗ a new one and Keith is saying well don't

1:00:32 ↗ worry it just it'll just carry forward

1:00:34 ↗ and and the zoning will fall into

1:00:37 ↗ place so don't so you're saying don't

1:00:39 ↗ worry just carry forward why was Keith

1:00:42 ↗ saying don't

1:00:43 ↗ worry essentially he was always assuring

1:00:45 ↗ us that we'd uh be able to develop

1:00:50 ↗ uh in the future based on the original

1:00:53 ↗ isal Highlands development agreement and

1:00:55 ↗ that was always the case always the

1:00:59 ↗ discussions and is that um does that

1:01:02 ↗ have anything to do with the vesting or

1:01:03 ↗ is that for some other

1:01:05 ↗ reason well um the vesting is is there

1:01:10 ↗ uh we never worried about that but our

1:01:12 ↗ concern was that uh we just wanted to be

1:01:16 ↗ able to assure uh for future planning

1:01:18 ↗ because of the scale and the size and

1:01:20 ↗ now we had the scale down so we had the

1:01:22 ↗ remaining portions the to plan for that

1:01:26 ↗ we could represent uh what would be

1:01:28 ↗ happening based on on existing zoning or

1:01:32 ↗ the development agreement that would

1:01:34 ↗ exist so we needed certainty we needed

1:01:37 ↗ to be able to have that

1:01:44 ↗ completed so leaving this meeting you

1:01:46 ↗ know after Keith made this statement

1:01:48 ↗ that um you know with vesting available

1:01:51 ↗ under the current da there is no gap

1:01:53 ↗ between the da and new zoning um were

1:01:57 ↗ you relying on that

1:02:00 ↗ statement in terms of the

1:02:02 ↗ vesting well I wasn't ever thinking

1:02:05 ↗ about vesting

1:02:07 ↗ really that one more time I was not

1:02:10 ↗ thinking about

1:02:11 ↗ vesting and why weren't you thinking

1:02:13 ↗ about

1:02:14 ↗ vesting because in 45 years of business

1:02:18 ↗ uh I've never ever had a vesting issue

1:02:23 ↗ with any jurisdiction or City

1:02:25 ↗ and so um my uh position was simply

1:02:32 ↗ trying to establish the the other

1:02:36 ↗ components which are the zoning and the

1:02:37 ↗ other uh components so that we would be

1:02:40 ↗ able to represent to uh our lenders and

1:02:44 ↗ everybody that we would do business with

1:02:47 ↗ that these were the that this was

1:02:50 ↗ essentially the development agreement

1:02:52 ↗ was in in place and at at this time um

1:02:55 ↗ this was November of

1:02:57 ↗ 2016 is this um before the applications

1:03:02 ↗ that were all talking about here today

1:03:03 ↗ so the um well we're not talking about

1:03:05 ↗ the preliminary plat necessarily in this

1:03:08 ↗ uh hearing but the preliminary plat that

1:03:10 ↗ shelter submitted the asps the

1:03:14 ↗ sdps um is that before all of those were

1:03:17 ↗ submitted and beginning to be processed

1:03:19 ↗ I believe so

1:03:23 ↗ yeah let turn and actually we have one

1:03:26 ↗ more one more thing I want to talk about

1:03:27 ↗ um with you about this meeting um if you

1:03:29 ↗ can look down to near the bottom of the

1:03:32 ↗ page there's a hollow bullet point it

1:03:33 ↗ starts with Keith said that on the first

1:03:36 ↗ page

1:03:37 ↗ there

1:03:39 ↗ um What did the what did Keith director

1:03:42 ↗ nien have to say about when a permit

1:03:47 ↗ application would

1:03:49 ↗ vest um which bullet are

1:03:53 ↗ you

1:04:01 ↗ Keith said that the City attorney had

1:04:03 ↗ determined that in isqua the vesting

1:04:05 ↗ date is pre-application

1:04:08 ↗ date not complete application and then

1:04:11 ↗ mentioned that he hasn't gotten around

1:04:13 ↗ to writing that determination

1:04:15 ↗ yet is that consistent with what you

1:04:18 ↗ recall director Nan telling you

1:04:22 ↗ yes is this the only time that director

1:04:25 ↗ Nan said that uh pre-application is the

1:04:27 ↗ vesting date complete pre-application we

1:04:30 ↗ had had that

1:04:32 ↗ conversation numbers of different times

1:04:35 ↗ I'm sorry just to make sure it's really

1:04:36 ↗ clear for the sorry we had that

1:04:38 ↗ conversation a number of different times

1:04:40 ↗ thanks

1:04:52 ↗ Gary let's turn um

1:04:54 ↗ finally to the March 21st 2017 meeting

1:04:58 ↗ in here so you're going to flip a couple

1:04:59 ↗ Pages

1:05:19 ↗ back I'm sorry Jackie could you repeat

1:05:21 ↗ the date please again oh sure March 21st

1:05:28 ↗ 2017 okay and let's look at the second

1:05:31 ↗ bullet point there um but for starters

1:05:34 ↗ um this is the the top of this reads

1:05:38 ↗ that it's the meeting city of isqua

1:05:39 ↗ collaboration meeting for our bsp and

1:05:41 ↗ plat application and then it has a list

1:05:44 ↗ of attendees um could you just review

1:05:46 ↗ that for a moment and uh confirm that

1:05:49 ↗ you remember those folks being present

1:05:51 ↗ yes I remember the meeting and it was an

1:05:53 ↗ important meeting meeting for the

1:05:55 ↗ proceeding forward with the

1:05:58 ↗ plat if you look at that second bullet

1:06:00 ↗ point there um it it gives a description

1:06:04 ↗ and I'll just read it for you so um to

1:06:07 ↗ keep keep things moving along it says

1:06:08 ↗ City indicated that they would support a

1:06:10 ↗ plat to create the lots and that this

1:06:12 ↗ would be the simplest path Heath

1:06:15 ↗ acknowledged that a plat would vest for

1:06:17 ↗ 5 years and then 5 year from the final

1:06:19 ↗ plat date and added that we could get

1:06:21 ↗ vested for an additional 3 years by

1:06:23 ↗ filing site site development plan after

1:06:26 ↗ the final

1:06:27 ↗ plat um is that statement that I just

1:06:29 ↗ read is that consistent with your

1:06:32 ↗ recollection of what director nen said

1:06:33 ↗ in that meeting yes it

1:06:42 ↗ is then if you go down to um it's the

1:06:47 ↗ third from the bottom bullet point and

1:06:49 ↗ it begins with Keith and Lucy confirmed

1:06:52 ↗ yes um and again and I'll read this one

1:06:54 ↗ for you it says Keith and Lucy confirmed

1:06:56 ↗ that the pplat would follow the process

1:06:59 ↗ in the da and Keith added that if the da

1:07:02 ↗ is terminated while we are in process

1:07:04 ↗ that we are vested with one caveat if

1:07:07 ↗ they get rid of the UV DC he says that

1:07:10 ↗ they have the right to substitute the DC

1:07:12 ↗ for UV

1:07:14 ↗ DC is that consistent with um what you

1:07:16 ↗ recall director nian and Miss lman

1:07:19 ↗ stating in that meeting yes it is can

1:07:21 ↗ you explain um what you understood that

1:07:24 ↗ to mean their statements well it meant

1:07:27 ↗ that we're um there there could be a

1:07:30 ↗ change in in the process uh leaving the

1:07:34 ↗ local UVC Group which we had gotten to

1:07:37 ↗ know uh to uh group that was more

1:07:41 ↗ Citywide and so um that that would be

1:07:44 ↗ the only change that we'd really have to

1:07:46 ↗ be concerned about uh for processing

1:07:49 ↗ future applications everything else

1:07:51 ↗ would stay intact

1:07:57 ↗ let's flip to the the second page of

1:07:59 ↗ those notes um and I'm looking

1:08:04 ↗ at six bullet points down the page it's

1:08:08 ↗ the the line that starts with Lucy

1:08:11 ↗ outlined will you please read just that

1:08:13 ↗ bullet point for me please Lucy outlined

1:08:16 ↗ the plat process as follows and said

1:08:19 ↗ should be 6 months start to

1:08:22 ↗ finish is that consistent with what you

1:08:24 ↗ recall Miss slowman telling you in the

1:08:26 ↗ meeting

1:08:29 ↗ yes has that process taken six months

1:08:32 ↗ we're still here it's so much much

1:08:38 ↗ longer coming full circle um back to

1:08:41 ↗ something that we discussed in respect

1:08:44 ↗ to the September 21st 2016

1:08:47 ↗ meeting um you had mentioned that uh

1:08:51 ↗ these these statements made by director

1:08:53 ↗ Nan about about the past proposal and

1:08:56 ↗ had shelter made a different

1:08:58 ↗ decision that perhaps the city would be

1:09:00 ↗ treating shelter's proposal differently

1:09:03 ↗ is that something that was expressed

1:09:06 ↗ just once to

1:09:07 ↗ you no there were different times that

1:09:11 ↗ that conversation one just strikes in

1:09:13 ↗ the back of my mind uh him referring to

1:09:15 ↗ a pivot point uh as we were um you know

1:09:20 ↗ proceeding so I was reminded um I I

1:09:23 ↗ think several

1:09:26 ↗ times thank you that's

1:09:29 ↗ all thank

1:09:31 ↗ you we've been going for just a little

1:09:34 ↗ bit over an hour and I think it might be

1:09:36 ↗ before we started our cross-examination

1:09:38 ↗ if we took a short 10-minute break Mr

1:09:41 ↗ chair yes just real quick since we have

1:09:42 ↗ members of the public here it might be

1:09:44 ↗ good to explain how we're running the

1:09:45 ↗ meeting tonight and when they would have

1:09:47 ↗ an opportunity to um provide comment so

1:09:51 ↗ my understanding and correct me if I'm

1:09:52 ↗ wrong we you finish the uh testimony of

1:09:56 ↗ Mr Young we're going to give the city an

1:09:58 ↗ opportunity to cross-examine Mr Young

1:10:00 ↗ maybe a short

1:10:02 ↗ rebuttle uh and then or redirect and

1:10:05 ↗ then um there would be an opportunity

1:10:06 ↗ for the public to comment so once we

1:10:08 ↗ finish with Mr Young that's right that's

1:10:10 ↗ right and we do appreciate your presence

1:10:11 ↗ here and St sorry that we're having to

1:10:14 ↗ belabor this a little bit but it just

1:10:16 ↗ will take some time so I'd ask Mr L to

1:10:18 ↗ give us a best estimate of time to I

1:10:21 ↗ would estimate approximately a half hour

1:10:23 ↗ to 40 minut Mr chairman okay so we're

1:10:25 ↗ probably looking at 45 minutes or so to

1:10:29 ↗ um and for the record the city does not

1:10:32 ↗ have an objection if the commission

1:10:33 ↗ would like to take public comment we're

1:10:35 ↗ happy to um uh undergo our our uh

1:10:39 ↗ cross-examination of Mr Young after the

1:10:42 ↗ public testimony portion if that's the

1:10:44 ↗ we just soon get get that over so let

1:10:47 ↗ let's go ahead so we'll take a 10-minute

1:10:49 ↗ break and then it'll be about 40 45

1:10:52 ↗ minutes for your comments

1:10:54 ↗ thank you so let's take a break thank

1:10:56 ↗ you thank

1:11:22 ↗ you

1:21:05 ↗ okay we're back on the air so it's time

1:21:07 ↗ to resume our meeting and uh Mr L I

1:21:09 ↗ think it's your turn thank you Mr

1:21:12 ↗ chairman good evening Mr Yan good

1:21:15 ↗ evening believe you testified under

1:21:17 ↗ direct examination that you have been in

1:21:19 ↗ attendance for all or at least the the

1:21:21 ↗ vast majority of the proceedings of this

1:21:23 ↗ hearing is that correct yes with the

1:21:25 ↗ exception of one meeting when I came

1:21:27 ↗ late I was about hour and 45 minutes

1:21:30 ↗ late just to confirm then you were in

1:21:33 ↗ attendance uh during the previous

1:21:36 ↗ hearing installments when Mr nen

1:21:39 ↗ testified is that correct yes I was you

1:21:43 ↗ are you an attorney no have you received

1:21:45 ↗ legal training in land use

1:21:48 ↗ law um I don't think

1:21:51 ↗ so

1:21:56 ↗ how did shelter come again to own the

1:21:58 ↗ isqua highlands property that's at issue

1:22:00 ↗ in this

1:22:02 ↗ proceeding how did shelter come to own

1:22:05 ↗ it yes could you describe the

1:22:06 ↗ acquisition process who shelter

1:22:09 ↗ purchased it from what the negotiation

1:22:12 ↗ process for that acquisition involved

1:22:14 ↗ well the initial purchase was by

1:22:17 ↗ poon and in the entity that is described

1:22:22 ↗ in the record and then through the

1:22:24 ↗ process of the sale of

1:22:28 ↗ polygon a portion larger portion of the

1:22:31 ↗ land was retained by polygon and the

1:22:34 ↗ residual 22 Acres which we're referring

1:22:37 ↗ to here uh stayed with shelter and the

1:22:41 ↗ the the the two relevant dates for those

1:22:44 ↗ transactions if I understood your

1:22:46 ↗ testimony and the previous testimony of

1:22:48 ↗ witnesses was approximately 2013 and

1:22:51 ↗ 2014 is that correct yes

1:22:54 ↗ yes was shelter aware of the 1996 isqua

1:22:58 ↗ Highlands development agreement when it

1:23:00 ↗ acquired the

1:23:02 ↗ property yes how did it become aware of

1:23:05 ↗ that

1:23:07 ↗ agreement just that was the agreement

1:23:10 ↗ for the development of the community so

1:23:12 ↗ it was the first thing you look

1:23:15 ↗ at did you did shelter obtain a copy of

1:23:19 ↗ that document by pulling a title report

1:23:22 ↗ was it part of the shelter's due

1:23:23 ↗ diligence do you recall specific I would

1:23:26 ↗ just characterize it as part of due

1:23:28 ↗ diligence but you were aware of it

1:23:30 ↗ before the property was

1:23:31 ↗ acquired yes were you also aware that

1:23:35 ↗ the buildout period specified in the

1:23:38 ↗ development agreement was scheduled to

1:23:40 ↗ expire in

1:23:42 ↗ 2017 that was never clear to me at that

1:23:46 ↗ point in time for sure um when did you

1:23:49 ↗ become aware of that fact I couldn't

1:23:51 ↗ tell you off

1:23:54 ↗ hand before or during shelter's

1:23:57 ↗ acquisition of the property did shelter

1:23:59 ↗ have any Communications with the seller

1:24:01 ↗ regarding the mitigation that had

1:24:03 ↗ previously been provided under the 1996

1:24:06 ↗ development

1:24:07 ↗ agreement I'm not sure what you mean uh

1:24:11 ↗ there was testimony you may recall

1:24:13 ↗ previously about mitigation yes

1:24:16 ↗ and among other things you had I

1:24:20 ↗ believe testified or knowledged Miss

1:24:22 ↗ heim's meeting notes that Mr nien at one

1:24:25 ↗ point had indicated that mitigation that

1:24:27 ↗ had previously been provided under the

1:24:30 ↗ development agreement would quote

1:24:31 ↗ unquote evaporate do you recall that

1:24:33 ↗ testimony yes I do so my question to you

1:24:36 ↗ is before or during shelter's

1:24:39 ↗ acquisition of the property uh Zach we

1:24:42 ↗ have a problem we've started without the

1:24:44 ↗ court reporter it seems I guess no one

1:24:46 ↗ noticed that oops uh oh I'm I'm happy to

1:24:52 ↗ uh to begin my questioning I'm only

1:24:54 ↗ about three or four questions down the

1:24:56 ↗ the list if that's amendable to the the

1:24:59 ↗ commission for purposes of the record

1:25:01 ↗ sure yeah so are you going to restart if

1:25:04 ↗ I could okay yeah if if there's no

1:25:06 ↗ objection it seems like that would be

1:25:07 ↗ the appropriate means of correcting the

1:25:09 ↗ issue are you feeling

1:25:15 ↗ okay okay

1:25:18 ↗ okay so probably the best solution is to

1:25:21 ↗ just restart

1:25:22 ↗ okay and I apologize for not paying

1:25:24 ↗ attention no no that's okay no objection

1:25:26 ↗ thank you for calling that to our

1:25:28 ↗ attention

1:25:29 ↗ certainly um again sorry for the

1:25:32 ↗ redundancy Mr Young um have you been in

1:25:35 ↗ attendance for all of the proceedings of

1:25:37 ↗ this hearing yes with the exception of

1:25:39 ↗ an hour and 45 minutes for one meeting

1:25:41 ↗ and Have you listened to all the

1:25:43 ↗ testimony of the other Witnesses yes I

1:25:45 ↗ have including the testimony provided in

1:25:48 ↗ the previous hearing installments by Mr

1:25:51 ↗ nibon yes

1:25:53 ↗ are you an attorney

1:25:55 ↗ no have you received legal training in

1:25:57 ↗ land use law not that I'm aware

1:26:04 ↗ of could you describe the time frame and

1:26:08 ↗ the process by which shelter came to own

1:26:10 ↗ the isqua highlands property at issue in

1:26:12 ↗ these proceedings the time frame 2013

1:26:16 ↗ and

1:26:19 ↗ 2014 and who did shelter acquire the

1:26:22 ↗ property

1:26:24 ↗ from the from the

1:26:27 ↗ Microsoft and that was in 2013

1:26:30 ↗ specifically yes it was under a

1:26:32 ↗ different entity well the entity that's

1:26:35 ↗ excuse me that's in the

1:26:38 ↗ record and what again occurred in

1:26:41 ↗ 2014 in

1:26:42 ↗ 2014 um

1:26:45 ↗ polygon uh was purchased by the William

1:26:47 ↗ Lion Company and at that time um the

1:26:51 ↗ larger portion of the Microsoft property

1:26:54 ↗ was retained by polygon and the smaller

1:26:57 ↗ portion which is what we're discussing

1:27:00 ↗ here in this process the 22 Acres was uh

1:27:03 ↗ retained by

1:27:05 ↗ shelter in an entity to be correct it's

1:27:08 ↗ not specifically shelter was shelter

1:27:12 ↗ aware of the 1996 isqua Highlands

1:27:14 ↗ development agreement when it acquired

1:27:16 ↗ the property yes how did shelter become

1:27:19 ↗ aware of that document just as a course

1:27:22 ↗ due

1:27:23 ↗ diligence do you recall was it provided

1:27:25 ↗ specifically to you as part of the due

1:27:28 ↗ diligence process by the seller it's the

1:27:31 ↗ the process normally in most

1:27:34 ↗ Acquisitions is the the buyer is

1:27:36 ↗ responsible for doing all the research

1:27:39 ↗ and so we did that did you review the

1:27:42 ↗ development agreement at the time of

1:27:44 ↗ purchase as part of your due diligence

1:27:46 ↗ process did I personally review it or

1:27:48 ↗ shelter uh well we have a team and uh

1:27:52 ↗ a number of people uh reviewed various

1:27:55 ↗ components of it it's a very extensive

1:27:57 ↗ document so um I can't testify as to

1:28:01 ↗ whether every page was reviewed or yeah

1:28:04 ↗ were you part of that review team uh I

1:28:07 ↗ was on the uh at the maybe the senior

1:28:10 ↗ level maybe more in an advisory capacity

1:28:12 ↗ not um reviewing every part of it so

1:28:17 ↗ shelter was aware of the 96 development

1:28:19 ↗ agreement uh were you also aware of the

1:28:23 ↗ the buildout period identified in the

1:28:25 ↗ agreement and that it was scheduled to

1:28:27 ↗ expire in

1:28:28 ↗ 2017 at the time um I don't think there

1:28:32 ↗ was Clarity that there was a specific uh

1:28:35 ↗ date for the buildout period um and it

1:28:38 ↗ was later in the process when that

1:28:41 ↗ discussion came up I think there were

1:28:42 ↗ different interpretations as to what

1:28:44 ↗ that buildout period

1:28:48 ↗ was I'm sorry that's just for my memory

1:28:52 ↗ appreciate the

1:28:53 ↗ clarification uh before or during

1:28:55 ↗ shelter's acquisition of the property in

1:28:58 ↗ 2013 or 14 did shelter have any

1:29:01 ↗ Communications with the seller regarding

1:29:04 ↗ mitigation that had previously been

1:29:06 ↗ provided under the 1996 development

1:29:10 ↗ agreement the the seller uh sold us the

1:29:14 ↗ property with um all of the the rights

1:29:18 ↗ that the seller had and so that's what

1:29:21 ↗ we

1:29:22 ↗ analyzed in our feasibility and and

1:29:25 ↗ determined you recall if mitigation

1:29:28 ↗ previously provided mitigation was part

1:29:30 ↗ of that process absolutely part of that

1:29:33 ↗ review and were any of those

1:29:35 ↗ Communications and review documents

1:29:37 ↗ distilled to

1:29:40 ↗ writing I don't believe

1:29:43 ↗ so do you recall the substance of those

1:29:46 ↗ Communications regarding mitigation what

1:29:48 ↗ was what was stad and by who no

1:29:55 ↗ was mitigation under the 1996

1:29:58 ↗ development agreement addressed in the

1:30:01 ↗ purchase and sale transactional

1:30:02 ↗ documents when shelter polygon acquired

1:30:05 ↗ the

1:30:06 ↗ property specifically identified as a

1:30:09 ↗ evaluation

1:30:10 ↗ component

1:30:13 ↗ um it would be I'm sorry you're asking

1:30:16 ↗ it was would you mind rephrasing the

1:30:18 ↗ question just so I understand that I'm

1:30:20 ↗ approaching it correctly when shelter

1:30:22 ↗ acquired the property yes was any value

1:30:27 ↗ assigned in the transactional documents

1:30:30 ↗ between the seller and the purchaser

1:30:33 ↗ that specifically addressed mitigation

1:30:37 ↗ that had previously been provided under

1:30:38 ↗ the development agreement I think the

1:30:41 ↗ best way I can answer that is that in

1:30:43 ↗ the feasibility work there was the

1:30:45 ↗ determination of of the um

1:30:50 ↗ mitigation and so so that would be the

1:30:54 ↗ step do you recall if there were any

1:30:55 ↗ contingencies in the transactional

1:30:58 ↗ documents for this purchase and sale

1:31:00 ↗ transaction uh specifically related to

1:31:04 ↗ the mitigation issue I do not

1:31:13 ↗ recall believe your Council handed you a

1:31:16 ↗ copy of

1:31:17 ↗ a July 8th 203 13 through July 2nd 2013

1:31:26 ↗ uh email exchange ending with a Monday

1:31:30 ↗ July 8th 2013 message from uh Derek

1:31:33 ↗ Strait and I believe that document was

1:31:36 ↗ marked as uh exhibit S11 do you still

1:31:40 ↗ have a copy of that yes I have it here

1:31:42 ↗ thank you can I ask you to refer down on

1:31:45 ↗ the first page of that document in the

1:31:48 ↗ email from Derek Strait primarily

1:31:51 ↗ addressed to Keith nien but also

1:31:53 ↗ courtesy copi to yourself and Bob

1:31:55 ↗ Harrison on July 2nd 2013 do you see

1:31:59 ↗ that document um I'm not I think I do um

1:32:04 ↗ this is July Tuesday July

1:32:06 ↗ 2nd 20 p.m. correct and beginning with

1:32:10 ↗ the paragraph reading first as it

1:32:13 ↗ pertains to market value could you

1:32:16 ↗ please

1:32:17 ↗ read the first three sentences of that

1:32:21 ↗ paragraph to

1:32:50 ↗ me

1:32:56 ↗ um you want three sentences

1:32:59 ↗ ending where uh if you could read

1:33:02 ↗ through the word schedule at the end of

1:33:06 ↗ the third sentence I'm part sorry at the

1:33:09 ↗ the end of the U fourth

1:33:13 ↗ sentence okay first as it pertains to

1:33:17 ↗ market value our purchase of blocks 21

1:33:19 ↗ and 22 should be the yard stick

1:33:22 ↗ this was a public process with a

1:33:24 ↗ property that had entitlement and

1:33:26 ↗ several buyers at the table in this case

1:33:29 ↗ we purchased roughly 9.5 acres for 12

1:33:32 ↗ million plus 2.5 million in fees payable

1:33:36 ↗ to Port

1:33:37 ↗ Blakeley at

1:33:39 ↗ 14.5 million for 9.5 Acres our per acre

1:33:44 ↗ price was 1.5 26 million we also had

1:33:49 ↗ short feasibility time frames and

1:33:51 ↗ closing schedule thank you the reference

1:33:54 ↗ in what you the statement that you just

1:33:57 ↗ read to we purchased roughly 9.5 acres

1:34:02 ↗ for 12 million plus 2.5 million in fees

1:34:07 ↗ payable to Port Blakeley could you

1:34:10 ↗ explain to me what that is in in

1:34:12 ↗ reference to who's the we in that

1:34:15 ↗ sentence

1:34:17 ↗ um I'm

1:34:20 ↗ thinking

1:34:22 ↗ that that is um polygon and the purchase

1:34:26 ↗ of blocks 21 and

1:34:29 ↗ 22 and is that figure $112 million plus

1:34:34 ↗ 2.5 million in

1:34:36 ↗ fees uh is that accurate your knowledge

1:34:40 ↗ well this was Derek's email and I I

1:34:45 ↗ can't verify outside of reading what he

1:34:49 ↗ wrote do you have any knowledge that

1:34:52 ↗ would indicate that that reference is

1:34:55 ↗ inaccurate as a statement of of what

1:34:58 ↗ polygon paid in acquiring the property I

1:35:01 ↗ can't say either way um this is a

1:35:05 ↗ comment but when you're purchasing real

1:35:07 ↗ estate there's all kinds of costs and

1:35:09 ↗ factors I think the way I read this

1:35:12 ↗ dereck's trying to express a point in a

1:35:16 ↗ in a the best way he can uh in a general

1:35:20 ↗ way

1:35:21 ↗ um cuz these are rounded numbers as I

1:35:24 ↗ would see but I I can't say whether how

1:35:28 ↗ close are accurate I have I have no

1:35:31 ↗ memory of of that do you know what was

1:35:34 ↗ referred to uh through the reference of

1:35:37 ↗ 2.5 million in fees as part of that

1:35:40 ↗ purchase

1:35:41 ↗ price um it it relates to

1:35:46 ↗ uh uh I believe um no I can't really I

1:35:51 ↗ can't really

1:35:52 ↗ Define that okay thank

1:36:05 ↗ you you recall Mr nien testimony from

1:36:09 ↗ the September 26th 2018 hearing

1:36:13 ↗ regarding shelters original efforts to

1:36:16 ↗ gain community and City support for a a

1:36:19 ↗ mixed and or residential use proposal

1:36:23 ↗ that would have uh exceeded shelter's

1:36:25 ↗ original entitlement and for the record

1:36:27 ↗ Council this would be at the September

1:36:29 ↗ 26th transcript at uh Pages 104 through

1:36:33 ↗ 108 I guess I'd have to read it to just

1:36:36 ↗ my Council will hand you a copy of that

1:36:38 ↗ for reference 104 104 to

1:36:45 ↗ 108 thank you do you mind pointing to

1:36:50 ↗ page 104 right there

1:36:53 ↗ and and I don't need you to read that

1:36:55 ↗ aloud I'm sorry I'm sorry Mr Young I

1:36:58 ↗ don't need you to read that aloud I'm

1:36:59 ↗ just asking you to re familiarize

1:37:00 ↗ yourself with his testimony so I'm

1:37:02 ↗ looking at page 104 yes through

1:37:06 ↗ 108 through

1:37:20 ↗ 108

1:37:50 ↗ e

1:38:20 ↗ for

1:38:50 ↗ for

1:39:20 ↗ for

1:39:50 ↗ for

1:40:19 ↗ for

1:40:38 ↗ okay thank you Mr nian testified that

1:40:41 ↗ shelter acquired the property in

1:40:43 ↗ approximately 2013 and the testimony

1:40:45 ↗ that you just read approximately four

1:40:48 ↗ years before the expiration of the

1:40:49 ↗ buildout period do you agree with that

1:40:52 ↗ General

1:40:54 ↗ assessment um well I wasn't I can't well

1:40:59 ↗ I can't testify as to the what I agree

1:41:02 ↗ on the end of the build though period

1:41:04 ↗ but I guess um we started in

1:41:15 ↗ 2013 is that your answer yes thank you

1:41:18 ↗ Mr nippen also testified and this is a

1:41:20 ↗ direct quote on page 105 that instead of

1:41:25 ↗ submitting permit applications to

1:41:27 ↗ develop its property expeditiously after

1:41:29 ↗ it acquired the property ihfc instead

1:41:32 ↗ sought some type of rezone or Amendment

1:41:35 ↗ to the agreement is that an accurate

1:41:38 ↗ statement from your sorry but I'm not

1:41:40 ↗ fine which line are you starting from

1:41:42 ↗ that's from uh line 11 through line 15

1:41:45 ↗ 11 on page 105

1:41:49 ↗ correct

1:42:03 ↗ and I'm sorry you're how far did you

1:42:05 ↗ read down to

1:42:06 ↗ 15 yes just the five lines and your

1:42:10 ↗ question agree with Mr nen's

1:42:14 ↗ statement no you tell me why you

1:42:17 ↗ disagree with

1:42:18 ↗ it well it's

1:42:21 ↗ kind of taken out of context here

1:42:22 ↗ instead of submitting permit

1:42:24 ↗ applications develop this property

1:42:27 ↗ expeditiously

1:42:29 ↗ um for a development of the scale and

1:42:31 ↗ size um the first thing you do is to

1:42:36 ↗ start working with the city and

1:42:38 ↗ determining What U the basic Pro

1:42:42 ↗ property can uh be developed as and

1:42:44 ↗ there's a whole series of steps and a

1:42:46 ↗ lot of time which is what we were

1:42:49 ↗ doing so so I would say we were working

1:42:52 ↗ expeditiously to develop a plan for our

1:42:55 ↗ property and entertaining as I've

1:42:57 ↗ expressed earlier tonight multiple

1:42:59 ↗ different meetings to to achieve that

1:43:02 ↗ goal but it could not be uh summarized

1:43:05 ↗ in this way did shelter submit permit

1:43:08 ↗ applications to develop its property

1:43:11 ↗ under its then existing entitlement

1:43:14 ↗ under the development

1:43:16 ↗ agreement I'm not really understanding

1:43:18 ↗ your question we we did were here

1:43:21 ↗ tonight reviewing our applications and

1:43:23 ↗ those applications for tonight's

1:43:24 ↗ proceeding were submitted in

1:43:27 ↗ 2017 yes I'm asking you after you

1:43:30 ↗ acquired the property after shelter

1:43:32 ↗ acquired the property in 2013 or 2014

1:43:36 ↗ yes did you proceed to file permit

1:43:38 ↗ applications to develop the property in

1:43:41 ↗ a manner that would have been allowed

1:43:43 ↗ under the development agreement at that

1:43:45 ↗ time um as you've heard Tia's testimony

1:43:49 ↗ and mine

1:43:51 ↗ um the time period from 2013 to 17 was

1:43:56 ↗ going through all the steps to be able

1:43:58 ↗ to to get to that step so that was a

1:44:01 ↗ huge effort on our part so I would say

1:44:04 ↗ expeditious and and

1:44:06 ↗ extensive this is not one lot or one

1:44:09 ↗ office building on a corner this is uh

1:44:13 ↗ just the retail component is 11

1:44:16 ↗ buildings um this property is is the

1:44:19 ↗ magnitude of so difficult to talk about

1:44:21 ↗ because of the scale and the size of it

1:44:24 ↗ and so it it really can't be referred to

1:44:26 ↗ in talking about did you file a permit

1:44:28 ↗ or not it it's a it has to be a

1:44:31 ↗ carefully thought out property and U for

1:44:34 ↗ that reason we had to go through those

1:44:36 ↗ years of work and and we've explained

1:44:40 ↗ what happened in that process and those

1:44:42 ↗ years of work I believe that you're

1:44:44 ↗ referring to involved the community

1:44:46 ↗ outreach efforts by shelter as one

1:44:51 ↗ step and was the end goal or objective

1:44:55 ↗ of shelter from that community outreach

1:44:58 ↗ effort uh intended to result in a a

1:45:02 ↗ modification of the development

1:45:04 ↗ agreement to allow a particular type of

1:45:07 ↗ use that was not otherwise allowed at

1:45:09 ↗ the

1:45:10 ↗ time um I don't know quite how to answer

1:45:14 ↗ that question I don't I don't remember

1:45:17 ↗ what the technical step would be in that

1:45:20 ↗ process process um but it was

1:45:26 ↗ um

1:45:29 ↗ um a process that we would

1:45:33 ↗ follow with the city if the city was in

1:45:36 ↗ agreement so is it your understanding

1:45:39 ↗ that the city would have had to have

1:45:41 ↗ approved U that type of use and that

1:45:44 ↗ would have been a change from what was

1:45:46 ↗ allowed at the time under the

1:45:47 ↗ development agreement the the

1:45:49 ↗ residential component to the scale would

1:45:51 ↗ have required some

1:45:53 ↗ additional and do you remember what type

1:45:56 ↗ of approval would have been required by

1:45:58 ↗ the city in order to authorize that type

1:46:00 ↗ of residential component that you

1:46:03 ↗ referred to I'd have to defer to Tia you

1:46:05 ↗ don't recall if hand

1:46:08 ↗ no do you know if staff could have

1:46:11 ↗ approved that type of change or whether

1:46:14 ↗ that was something that the city council

1:46:15 ↗ would have had to done I can't really

1:46:16 ↗ comment because i' want to understand

1:46:18 ↗ what I'm commenting on and you

1:46:34 ↗ how long again did shelter's attempts to

1:46:36 ↗ gain community support for the uh mixed

1:46:39 ↗ use or residential development plan last

1:46:44 ↗ approximately

1:46:46 ↗ well I think um we started

1:46:51 ↗ initial

1:46:53 ↗ work

1:46:56 ↗ 200 way 156 and then through that time

1:47:00 ↗ period to the end of 16 but we we've

1:47:05 ↗ been participating in active in the

1:47:07 ↗ community since we got involved with the

1:47:09 ↗ property we support um the Highland days

1:47:13 ↗ and were in in part of the community and

1:47:15 ↗ we we had other developments that we

1:47:17 ↗ were working on in the community so

1:47:21 ↗ part of community outreach is is being

1:47:23 ↗ involved the community aware of the

1:47:24 ↗ community so um I'd say it's it's a

1:47:29 ↗ longer period than than that so I'm I'm

1:47:32 ↗ sorry approximately how long was that

1:47:35 ↗ community outreach period I think I

1:47:37 ↗ would call our community outreach period

1:47:39 ↗ started in the third 2013 I mean when we

1:47:42 ↗ bought the property we we're already

1:47:45 ↗ developing in the community and we're

1:47:47 ↗ already working to understand what the

1:47:50 ↗ needs of the community are and when did

1:47:53 ↗ that community outreach effort

1:47:56 ↗ terminate I don't know if it's I don't

1:47:59 ↗ wouldn't call it terminated now I mean I

1:48:02 ↗ think we're in a community outreach

1:48:03 ↗ period one one other um thing to

1:48:06 ↗ remember is that when we essentially

1:48:09 ↗ were told that this the residential

1:48:12 ↗ component uh would not be acceptable to

1:48:15 ↗ the council and to proceed with um the

1:48:19 ↗ the commercial opponent we had a

1:48:23 ↗ community outreach meeting that

1:48:26 ↗ January to go to the community to

1:48:29 ↗ explain what had happened because they

1:48:31 ↗ were all waiting to see our mixed use

1:48:34 ↗ proposal proceed January of 2015 no that

1:48:37 ↗ would have been 16 I believe I have to

1:48:40 ↗ think about this for would have been and

1:48:43 ↗ just to clarify your testimonies let me

1:48:45 ↗ think for a minute this would

1:48:48 ↗ be um if we

1:48:52 ↗ had our meetings in 16 so it would have

1:48:55 ↗ been in

1:48:56 ↗ 17 January yes just to clarify what I

1:49:00 ↗ understood your testimony to be you

1:49:03 ↗ indicated that shelters community

1:49:05 ↗ outreach efforts

1:49:07 ↗ to gain support for potential

1:49:10 ↗ residential uses are still ongoing even

1:49:12 ↗ today um I wouldn't no I I'd say to

1:49:18 ↗ correctly answer that we

1:49:20 ↗ shifted to the

1:49:23 ↗ commercial uh the applications that we

1:49:25 ↗ have in front of us when did you but end

1:49:29 ↗ your cere efforts

1:49:31 ↗ to obtain Community Support specifically

1:49:34 ↗ for the M mixed use

1:49:37 ↗ residential well I

1:49:40 ↗ think

1:49:42 ↗ that um I would Define that is is when

1:49:45 ↗ we we reached out to the public and had

1:49:47 ↗ that that public open house we had

1:49:49 ↗ started with with our applications and

1:49:51 ↗ said that these would be coming and and

1:49:54 ↗ um and uh that would be the point where

1:49:57 ↗ we put our focus on the commercial part

1:50:00 ↗ and approximately what time frame that's

1:50:02 ↗ in the spring of 17 or spring of 2017

1:50:06 ↗ okay if I'm I'm just um struggling a

1:50:10 ↗ little bit with that date of that that

1:50:11 ↗ community outreach meeting so that would

1:50:13 ↗ be the driver and do you recall a

1:50:16 ↗ particular impetus for changing shelters

1:50:19 ↗ Focus in that way what was the the

1:50:22 ↗ driving the the driver was that we were

1:50:26 ↗ completely rejected we were told that

1:50:28 ↗ the the mayor essentially said that uh

1:50:32 ↗ the council was not interested in any

1:50:33 ↗ residential in the community and we were

1:50:35 ↗ told that we needed to

1:50:38 ↗ um proceed with another

1:50:42 ↗ alternative and that was essentially

1:50:44 ↗ Keith specifically directing us and

1:50:46 ↗ telling us that information I think

1:50:48 ↗ that's important in this discussion is

1:50:51 ↗ that he essentially told us this was the

1:50:55 ↗ information that he had and this was the

1:50:58 ↗ direction he was giving us and this uh

1:51:01 ↗ information that Mr nian had did did you

1:51:04 ↗ understand that to be coming originally

1:51:07 ↗ from the city council or from the city

1:51:12 ↗ Administration or neither or both I

1:51:14 ↗ think probably

1:51:17 ↗ both did shelter ever directly approach

1:51:22 ↗ the isqua city council during this

1:51:24 ↗ period and uh vet the mixed use

1:51:28 ↗ residential Proposal with the council

1:51:30 ↗ itself I think um through the public

1:51:34 ↗ process and the the open houses council

1:51:37 ↗ members attended and uh we had the

1:51:40 ↗ opportunity to communicate with

1:51:41 ↗ different council

1:51:48 ↗ members

1:51:53 ↗ you're presumably aware that there's

1:51:55 ↗ been much discussion both in your own

1:51:57 ↗ testimony and the the testimony I

1:52:00 ↗ believe you heard from Miss Heim

1:52:01 ↗ regarding the uh the allegation that the

1:52:05 ↗ city

1:52:06 ↗ had essentially required or compelled

1:52:09 ↗ the U shelter or polygon to give or

1:52:12 ↗ donate or Reserve portions of its

1:52:14 ↗ property for a potential college or

1:52:17 ↗ university in exchange for allowing uses

1:52:20 ↗ on the site do you recall that testimony

1:52:23 ↗ and for council's benefit that's at

1:52:25 ↗ least for purposes of Miss heim's

1:52:27 ↗ transcript at the um January 15th

1:52:30 ↗ transcript at 74 and 76 you recall that

1:52:33 ↗ Mr Young um from the

1:52:37 ↗ um the notes that we had read earlier

1:52:40 ↗ this evening if that's what you're

1:52:41 ↗ referring to

1:52:43 ↗ yes do you have personal Recollections

1:52:46 ↗ of those discussions

1:52:48 ↗ where City

1:52:51 ↗ allegedly required shelter to donate

1:52:54 ↗ property in the manner that was

1:52:56 ↗ suggested

1:52:59 ↗ yes apart from your testimony here

1:53:02 ↗ tonight um in answering U Miss K's

1:53:06 ↗ questions were there other

1:53:09 ↗ Communications from the city that

1:53:11 ↗ conveyed that same

1:53:13 ↗ point you're aware of I not sure what

1:53:16 ↗ your question is so there are many many

1:53:18 ↗ Communications as we see them all

1:53:22 ↗ here were there anything was there any

1:53:24 ↗ other Communication in writing apart

1:53:26 ↗ from what has been submitted into

1:53:27 ↗ evidence in this proceeding that you're

1:53:29 ↗ aware of I I couldn't speak to that

1:53:31 ↗ because there's just so much

1:53:41 ↗ information I'm going to introduce a new

1:53:45 ↗ exhibit and ask my co-counsel to hand

1:53:48 ↗ this to you and to the development

1:54:02 ↗ commission this is uh for the record a

1:54:04 ↗ two-page email

1:54:07 ↗ string on August 22nd

1:54:12 ↗ 2013

1:54:14 ↗ involving several individuals but

1:54:17 ↗ primarily uh Derek Strait uh John

1:54:21 ↗ hempleman Bob

1:54:23 ↗ h e n yourself and madori Dylan do you

1:54:28 ↗ recognize this document I'm just looking

1:54:31 ↗ at it now for a minute sure please take

1:54:33 ↗ your time I'd also note that you were

1:54:36 ↗ listed as a courtesy copy recipient in

1:54:38 ↗ this email

1:54:48 ↗ chain

1:55:18 ↗ for

1:55:48 ↗ for

1:56:18 ↗ for

1:56:42 ↗ okay thank you I'm now going to be

1:56:44 ↗ introducing a separate August 2nd 2013

1:56:49 ↗ docu doent entitled letter of intent to

1:56:52 ↗ amend Grand Ridge annexation and

1:56:54 ↗ development

1:56:58 ↗ agreement and this is marked as exhibit

1:57:10 ↗ c46 are you familiar with this document

1:57:12 ↗ Mr Young um I just need a

1:57:18 ↗ minute

1:57:20 ↗ [Applause]

1:57:48 ↗ for

1:58:18 ↗ for

1:58:43 ↗ um it's been quite a few years

1:58:47 ↗ so um there were many many documents

1:58:50 ↗ that that

1:58:52 ↗ uh and discussions in that time period

1:58:56 ↗ so go ahead what is your question thank

1:58:58 ↗ you could you look back on the uh August

1:59:02 ↗ 22nd 2013 Email exchange on c45 and

1:59:07 ↗ specifically on the bottom of page two

1:59:10 ↗ the message from Derek Strait to Bob

1:59:13 ↗ Harrison Keith nien Jay hempleman and

1:59:16 ↗ yourself as a courtesy copy recipient

1:59:20 ↗ I'm sorry this is the bottom of page two

1:59:22 ↗ correct this is the

1:59:24 ↗ 757 a.m. email message from Thursday

1:59:28 ↗ August 22nd 2013 okay do you see that

1:59:31 ↗ yes could you please read the first

1:59:33 ↗ sentence of Mr Strait's

1:59:35 ↗ email gentlemen draft Loi is attached is

1:59:40 ↗ that what you're asking me to read in

1:59:41 ↗ the interest of trying to get this

1:59:44 ↗ signed and is Loi an acronym for letter

1:59:47 ↗ of intent as far as you understand Mr

1:59:49 ↗ Young yes okay can I have you look back

1:59:52 ↗ to exhibit c46 please the letter of

1:59:55 ↗ intent to amend the Grand Ridge

1:59:58 ↗ annexation and development

2:00:01 ↗ agreement yes to whom is this document

2:00:08 ↗ addressed uh city of

2:00:11 ↗ isqua and the specific salutation is

2:00:15 ↗ dear Ava do you know who Ava refers to

2:00:19 ↗ um I'm assuming it might be the

2:00:22 ↗ mayor but I'm not sure would it be Ava

2:00:26 ↗ frisinger I think possibly but there

2:00:29 ↗ might be a different person I don't know

2:00:31 ↗ and could you please go to the the the

2:00:34 ↗ back page the final page of that

2:00:36 ↗ document and look at the signatory Block

2:00:40 ↗ on the left upper portion of that

2:00:43 ↗ document yes is that you in the

2:00:45 ↗ signatory block Gary a young of polygon

2:00:48 ↗ yep

2:00:50 ↗ and is believe that you testified that

2:00:54 ↗ Derek Strait was an associate or a

2:00:56 ↗ subordinate of yours at that time is

2:00:58 ↗ that correct yes thank you could you

2:01:01 ↗ describe what this letter of

2:01:04 ↗ intent was

2:01:07 ↗ proposing um it was

2:01:10 ↗ proposing

2:01:12 ↗ um a series of steps for

2:01:15 ↗ exchanging providing for the

2:01:18 ↗ college

2:01:19 ↗ uh on 20 acre portion of the site could

2:01:22 ↗ you please read subsection one on the

2:01:26 ↗ first page of that document beginning

2:01:28 ↗ with to

2:01:30 ↗ partner to partner with the city in

2:01:33 ↗ order to make an approximately 20 acre

2:01:36 ↗ portion of the site available for

2:01:38 ↗ purchase for a designated period of time

2:01:40 ↗ to attract a College University or other

2:01:43 ↗ commercial user thank you i' now like to

2:01:47 ↗ introduce a new exhibit this will be

2:01:51 ↗ exhibit

2:01:54 ↗ c47 and I apologize if this is redundant

2:01:57 ↗ but I'm going to provide it to you

2:01:59 ↗ regardless it may already be in the

2:02:13 ↗ record this is a December 18 2015 letter

2:02:19 ↗ to City of isqua development services

2:02:24 ↗ department on

2:02:26 ↗ ihi Commercial LLC letterhead is that

2:02:30 ↗ your signature at the bottom of this

2:02:32 ↗ letter Mr Young yes you recall this

2:02:35 ↗ letter uh not right off the top of my

2:02:38 ↗ head but I'm reading it thank you I'll

2:02:40 ↗ give you a few moments to ref

2:02:41 ↗ familiarize yourself with the

2:02:47 ↗ document

2:03:17 ↗ for

2:03:24 ↗ okay yes could you please read the third

2:03:27 ↗ and fourth sentences of that first

2:03:30 ↗ paragraph out

2:03:31 ↗ loud third which where would you want me

2:03:34 ↗ to start beginning with the buildout

2:03:47 ↗ period

2:03:52 ↗ the buildout period under the original

2:03:55 ↗ da expires in

2:03:58 ↗ 2017 and what do the next sentence

2:04:00 ↗ provide the planning and development of

2:04:02 ↗ the ihif property will need to occur

2:04:05 ↗ over a longer period of time than

2:04:08 ↗ remains under the original da thank you

2:04:11 ↗ what was the purpose of sending this

2:04:13 ↗ letter to the city of isqua on December

2:04:15 ↗ 18th 2015 this this letter followed

2:04:19 ↗ um series of meetings that we had um to

2:04:24 ↗ move to

2:04:27 ↗ um

2:04:31 ↗ uh the just thinking of my timeline

2:04:37 ↗ here to move forward with our U the

2:04:41 ↗ results of our market research and to

2:04:43 ↗ start our community

2:04:46 ↗ outreach and is it an accurate

2:04:49 ↗ characterization based on the content of

2:04:52 ↗ the first paragraph of this letter Mr

2:04:53 ↗ Young that you were formally asking the

2:04:56 ↗ city to entertain a new development

2:04:59 ↗ agreement for the isqua highlands

2:05:01 ↗ property well over in that period of

2:05:04 ↗ time we'd had meetings with Keith and

2:05:09 ↗ discussed different ways to

2:05:13 ↗ um work with the development agreement

2:05:16 ↗ one of which would have been to use the

2:05:19 ↗ development agreement for the um Swedish

2:05:22 ↗ hospital and other was to extend um the

2:05:28 ↗ existing and here I just have to read it

2:05:35 ↗ again so we're looking at a new

2:05:37 ↗ development agreement to be able to move

2:05:40 ↗ ahead which was essentially Keith's

2:05:42 ↗ direction to us that Keith's direction

2:05:44 ↗ to us that we um should proceed on that

2:05:47 ↗ basis is there any reference in this

2:05:50 ↗ letter to any direction that you

2:05:52 ↗ received to that effect from Mr nian

2:05:54 ↗ it's just my recollection of the

2:05:56 ↗ meetings that we had had prior thank you

2:05:59 ↗ I'd like to shift gears and briefly

2:06:03 ↗ return back to a subject of much

2:06:08 ↗ discussion in these proceedings and this

2:06:10 ↗ was again brought out under your direct

2:06:13 ↗ testimony on this evening and this

2:06:17 ↗ apparently concern returned a a meeting

2:06:21 ↗ I believe it was on September 9th

2:06:25 ↗ 2013 where director nian was I believe

2:06:29 ↗ in your words very angry and I want to

2:06:32 ↗ hopefully paraphrase you accurately but

2:06:34 ↗ I believe you indicated that he was

2:06:37 ↗ uh Angry than you'd ever seen anyone in

2:06:40 ↗ a meeting or words to that effect is

2:06:42 ↗ that an accurate

2:06:43 ↗ characterization

2:06:45 ↗ okay could you please describe

2:06:49 ↗ how Mr nien appeared and sounded or

2:06:52 ↗ Andor sounded angry at that

2:06:54 ↗ meeting

2:06:56 ↗ um raised voice um just

2:07:01 ↗ complexion um the experience that I

2:07:05 ↗ think if we have experience of being

2:07:07 ↗ with someone that's angry that those all

2:07:10 ↗ of those did he yell at

2:07:13 ↗ you voice was raised did he curse at you

2:07:17 ↗ I do not remember

2:07:19 ↗ I don't think don't think so

2:07:22 ↗ no did he ever refuse to meet with you

2:07:26 ↗ after that uh as a further manifestation

2:07:29 ↗ of his

2:07:30 ↗ anger

2:07:33 ↗ um I don't believe so did he ever hang

2:07:35 ↗ up the phone on you no I'd like to refer

2:07:40 ↗ you back to

2:07:41 ↗ the meeting minutes that occurred I

2:07:45 ↗ believe for this meeting and I believe

2:07:47 ↗ you have a copy of them or you should

2:07:48 ↗ have a copy uh your Council distributed

2:07:51 ↗ them I believe but did not formally

2:07:52 ↗ enter them into evidence uh it's

2:07:55 ↗ entitled shelter Holdings LLC Microsoft

2:07:59 ↗ commercial meeting minutes with the

2:08:02 ↗ attendees listed as mayor Fred Butler

2:08:04 ↗ Keith nien Bob Harrison Gary Young and

2:08:08 ↗ Eric Evans do you have that document yes

2:08:10 ↗ thank you we'd like to actually

2:08:12 ↗ introduce this into evidence please and

2:08:14 ↗ I believe this would be exhibit

2:08:17 ↗ c48

2:08:19 ↗ I believe you testified Mr Young that Mr

2:08:21 ↗ Evans prepared these meeting minutes is

2:08:23 ↗ that correct yes did you participate in

2:08:26 ↗ drafting them at all uh reviewing I'm

2:08:29 ↗ sorry reviewing the minutes you did

2:08:30 ↗ review them okay were there revisions

2:08:32 ↗ made to the meeting minutes after you

2:08:34 ↗ review them do you recall um I don't

2:08:37 ↗ think uh I I can't recall

2:08:40 ↗ directly Eric does very good job of

2:08:42 ↗ keeping minutes so

2:08:45 ↗ Eric minutes to your understanding are

2:08:48 ↗ are are accurate as drafted yes okay is

2:08:52 ↗ the meeting that's being described here

2:08:53 ↗ the same one that Mr nien allegedly

2:08:56 ↗ became very angry in the way that you

2:08:57 ↗ described previously yes is there any

2:09:00 ↗ reference to Mr niven's anger or any

2:09:04 ↗ manifestation of his anger in these

2:09:06 ↗ meeting

2:09:07 ↗ minutes um I don't I'd have to read

2:09:11 ↗ every please please do

2:09:17 ↗ okay

2:09:47 ↗ for

2:10:17 ↗ for

2:10:47 ↗ for

2:11:17 ↗ for

2:11:47 ↗ for

2:12:07 ↗ so the I think the point of intensity

2:12:10 ↗ was page four of five

2:12:13 ↗ 6.0 Keith Nan reiterate that retail

2:12:16 ↗ can't be placed on the commercial campus

2:12:18 ↗ only office and that was in

2:12:21 ↗ extreme uh intensity Keith nian

2:12:24 ↗ indicated that the proposed plots uh

2:12:28 ↗ don't have concurrency and so um in

2:12:33 ↗ minute the minutes that we've kept uh

2:12:36 ↗ for all of our meetings that we have

2:12:38 ↗ we've never

2:12:40 ↗ um uh gone to characterize individuals

2:12:44 ↗ or or emotional Expressions um um we try

2:12:49 ↗ to keep our minutes uh based to the

2:12:52 ↗ factual information that that's there so

2:12:55 ↗ it would be totally out of the ordinary

2:12:57 ↗ to to say something that we were all

2:13:00 ↗ there uh we knew what happened and um

2:13:04 ↗ and so the purpos of the minutes are to

2:13:07 ↗ be able to identify the key points that

2:13:09 ↗ were said and not how they were said

2:13:13 ↗ could you please turn to the first page

2:13:15 ↗ of the meeting minutes in section 2.

2:13:18 ↗ Z I'm sorry um I'm going

2:13:24 ↗ one to P 2.0 yes history correct and the

2:13:31 ↗ third item beginning with Gary Young

2:13:33 ↗ acknowledged could you please read that

2:13:34 ↗ aloud G young acknowledge the support of

2:13:37 ↗ the staff specifically Keith nen through

2:13:39 ↗ the process this was at the meeting that

2:13:42 ↗ Mr nien became very angry this was at

2:13:44 ↗ the beginning okay could you also then

2:13:46 ↗ turn to page

2:13:49 ↗ three and under the 4.0 heading read

2:13:54 ↗ item number seven beginning with Keith

2:13:56 ↗ nen offered Keith Keith n nen offered

2:13:59 ↗ that they thought they had a gentleman's

2:14:01 ↗ agreement and referenced an earlier

2:14:03 ↗ email thank

2:14:09 ↗ you and that just to explain the context

2:14:12 ↗ that was in the context of why we were

2:14:16 ↗ having the meeting and I was my concern

2:14:18 ↗ was expressing that we could not go

2:14:20 ↗ forward with the college uh program

2:14:24 ↗ because we were first of all the

2:14:27 ↗ structure of the transaction was not

2:14:29 ↗ feasibly economically feasible for us

2:14:32 ↗ and then secondly we were aware that the

2:14:34 ↗ city of BBY was already way down the

2:14:36 ↗ road with a new College proposal and

2:14:39 ↗ that the likelihood of this would be

2:14:41 ↗ almost zero and we could not um

2:14:45 ↗ represent that to the community and so

2:14:47 ↗ that's why we said what we said and just

2:14:50 ↗ so I'm clear Mr Young Mr nen's response

2:14:53 ↗ at subsection 7 in the 4.0 cell

2:14:58 ↗ that Mr nian off offered that they

2:15:01 ↗ thought they had a gentleman's agreement

2:15:04 ↗ that was uh Mr nen's response is that

2:15:08 ↗ correct I believe so yeah okay thank you

2:15:11 ↗ I'd like to now uh offer a new exhibit

2:15:16 ↗ c49

2:15:24 ↗ yeah this is an email chain for the

2:15:27 ↗ record beginning on October 5th

2:15:30 ↗ 2016 and ending October 25th

2:15:35 ↗ 2016 uh the most recent email in the

2:15:39 ↗ chain dated October 25th 2016 was from

2:15:43 ↗ mayor Fred Butler or then mayor Fred

2:15:46 ↗ Butler addressed to to Tia Heim Eileen

2:15:49 ↗ Barber Mariah batis Stacy Goodman TOA

2:15:53 ↗ Marts Mary lupal Billy Ramos Paul

2:15:58 ↗ winterstein Mayor and city council with

2:16:00 ↗ a courtesy copy to yourself Mr nien

2:16:05 ↗ Emily Moon Lucy slowman Patrick malany

2:16:09 ↗ do you recognize this document Mr Young

2:16:12 ↗ yes did you describe this document for

2:16:15 ↗ me what's going on here this this is a

2:16:18 ↗ letter from the mayor essentially on

2:16:21 ↗ behalf of the

2:16:22 ↗ city

2:16:24 ↗ um and let me just read

2:16:46 ↗ the

2:17:16 ↗ for

2:17:19 ↗ so this was

2:17:23 ↗ the the uh message that for all the work

2:17:26 ↗ that we've done on our community

2:17:27 ↗ outreach uh that that program uh this is

2:17:31 ↗ not supported by the

2:17:33 ↗ administration uh our vision for the

2:17:35 ↗ property that was the collective vision

2:17:37 ↗ of results of working with the community

2:17:40 ↗ and input from the

2:17:41 ↗ community um and then it says you also

2:17:44 ↗ asked for a 20-year development

2:17:46 ↗ agreement to allow for your build out of

2:17:48 ↗ the

2:17:49 ↗ property so and just to clarify you did

2:17:53 ↗ you characterize this uh email response

2:17:55 ↗ from mayor Butler as essentially

2:17:58 ↗ declining the mixed use residential

2:18:02 ↗ proposal that at that point shelter had

2:18:04 ↗ been um engaged in community outreach

2:18:08 ↗ efforts on yes thank

2:18:15 ↗ you that will conclude my questioning

2:18:18 ↗ thank you very much Mr very

2:18:21 ↗ much I'll have a brief redirect I

2:18:24 ↗ believe but um I wanted to request a

2:18:26 ↗ break for our court reporter just for

2:18:28 ↗ maybe five minutes so that we can get

2:18:30 ↗ some air okay how what kind of timeline

2:18:34 ↗ are you thinking your redirect I think

2:18:36 ↗ 15 minutes it won't take me very long

2:18:38 ↗ okay 15 real minutes really you can hold

2:18:40 ↗ me to it okay I do that appreciate the

2:18:42 ↗ public for hanging with us we'll get to

2:18:45 ↗ you let's take a five minute break our

2:18:46 ↗ our court report reporter the the

2:18:49 ↗ there's a literal transcript ver

2:18:51 ↗ verbatim transcript being kept in our

2:18:53 ↗ court reporter is a little under the

2:18:54 ↗ weather so we'd like to acknowledge give

2:18:57 ↗ her five minutes to kind of collect

2:18:59 ↗ herself so thank you five minute we take

2:19:02 ↗ a five minute

2:19:16 ↗ break

2:27:01 ↗ okay we're back on the air and back in

2:27:03 ↗ session thank you um so we're starting

2:27:05 ↗ with a redirect of Mr Young um Gary if

2:27:09 ↗ you could look at the exhibit that was

2:27:11 ↗ marked as c47 it should be the uh

2:27:15 ↗ December 18 2015 letter yes I have it in

2:27:18 ↗ front of me so a minute ago when you

2:27:21 ↗ were testifying um you mentioned that

2:27:23 ↗ this uh arose out of something with

2:27:25 ↗ director nien and Swedish or a hospital

2:27:28 ↗ can can you give us a little bit more

2:27:30 ↗ context for how this letter came to be

2:27:32 ↗ uh the letter came to be as we were um

2:27:35 ↗ exploring the ways to proceed as you can

2:27:37 ↗ see in this letter and in meeting with

2:27:39 ↗ Keith um he was uh very pleased with the

2:27:44 ↗ Swedish Hospital development agreement

2:27:47 ↗ and so essentially uh said that for us

2:27:51 ↗ to take it we got a copy of that

2:27:53 ↗ agreement and to rework the agreement so

2:27:57 ↗ that it would work applicably to our

2:27:59 ↗ property so that was what got us to this

2:28:02 ↗ discussion where is the Swedish property

2:28:04 ↗ in relation to shelter immediate it's

2:28:07 ↗ adjacent uh to the I guess would it be

2:28:10 ↗ to South or um there's a vacant land and

2:28:13 ↗ then and then the hospital itself did

2:28:17 ↗ this discussion about um either a new

2:28:19 ↗ development agreement or an extension of

2:28:21 ↗ a development agreement um did that have

2:28:24 ↗ anything to do with vesting

2:28:27 ↗ no

2:28:29 ↗ um we we always have uh worked on the

2:28:33 ↗ basis that um we vested to the

2:28:37 ↗ development

2:28:38 ↗ agreement so earlier in your testimony

2:28:41 ↗ um if if I heard this right you had

2:28:44 ↗ testified along the lines of that you

2:28:46 ↗ didn't didn't care about vesting um was

2:28:49 ↗ it that you didn't care about it or um

2:28:51 ↗ can you clarify that that statement in

2:28:53 ↗ like what you just said it sounds very

2:28:54 ↗ odd for me to make a comment perhaps

2:28:56 ↗ that that I don't care we uh are very uh

2:29:00 ↗ obviously concerned about um that and

2:29:04 ↗ the vesting and so maybe for

2:29:06 ↗ clarification we have always proceeded

2:29:09 ↗ on the basis of our understanding for my

2:29:12 ↗ entire career but going specifically to

2:29:15 ↗ the development agreement

2:29:17 ↗ uh we vest to the development agreement

2:29:20 ↗ and so um that's uh just

2:29:23 ↗ our our our assumption and belief and uh

2:29:29 ↗ added in numerous discussions with Keith

2:29:34 ↗ uh the discussion was always that the

2:29:37 ↗ we'd be working under the development

2:29:38 ↗ agreement we'd be investing to the

2:29:40 ↗ development agreement it was never

2:29:41 ↗ really a discussion the discussion about

2:29:44 ↗ timelines was always just to have an

2:29:47 ↗ agreement in place that ran forward for

2:29:50 ↗ future future

2:29:53 ↗ use So when you say um when you said

2:29:56 ↗ just a moment ago vesting to the

2:29:58 ↗ development agreement um was there any

2:30:00 ↗ question in your mind that uh vested

2:30:04 ↗ rights that were vested under the

2:30:06 ↗ development agreement would continue on

2:30:09 ↗ after the expiration of the development

2:30:11 ↗ agreement I I always assumed they'd

2:30:13 ↗ always continue

2:30:14 ↗ on if we made our application in the

2:30:17 ↗ process we continue on and under the

2:30:20 ↗ development

2:30:22 ↗ agreement and uh is that something that

2:30:25 ↗ you had been told by director nen as

2:30:27 ↗ well

2:30:45 ↗ yes

2:30:48 ↗ that did those statements by director

2:30:49 ↗ Nan did that happen in any of the

2:30:51 ↗ meetings that we talked about earlier in

2:30:52 ↗ your testimony yes we turn to the

2:30:56 ↗ meeting minutes please again that

2:31:02 ↗ binder

2:31:06 ↗ B

2:31:08 ↗ oh yours is right here you got

2:31:12 ↗ it I can stay there so we're going to

2:31:15 ↗ turn to

2:31:17 ↗ [Music]

2:31:19 ↗ um M really

2:31:32 ↗ quick the

2:31:35 ↗ um November 14 2016 meeting notes

2:31:45 ↗ please

2:32:10 ↗ you go um and I want to turn back to

2:32:15 ↗ this bullet point uh one two three

2:32:17 ↗ bullet points from the bottom starts

2:32:19 ↗ with Keith went on to point out we we

2:32:21 ↗ talked about this um earlier in your

2:32:24 ↗ testimony um but and I just asked you a

2:32:27 ↗ question about if if Keith had made

2:32:29 ↗ mention of

2:32:31 ↗ um the vesting continuing on after

2:32:34 ↗ expiration is this one of those

2:32:36 ↗ instances yes and can you explain what

2:32:39 ↗ director nen told you in this

2:32:42 ↗ meeting that essentially um we are we

2:32:47 ↗ we're vested we proceed under the

2:32:49 ↗ development agreement and there's no Gap

2:32:51 ↗ it's it's

2:32:56 ↗ there thank you I have no further

2:33:00 ↗ questions no reir or no no no further

2:33:04 ↗ across from the city thank you oh great

2:33:06 ↗ okay well thank you uh that brings us

2:33:09 ↗ the point where the public has an

2:33:11 ↗ opportunity to voice their opinion and

2:33:13 ↗ so we would uh encourage you what we

2:33:15 ↗ would like you to do is we don't have a

2:33:17 ↗ signin sheet but we because we are

2:33:19 ↗ taking a Verbatim testimony we would

2:33:21 ↗ like you to come up and state your name

2:33:24 ↗ and then spell it so that uh our

2:33:26 ↗ recorder can get it right and then uh

2:33:28 ↗ make your comment there's a number of

2:33:30 ↗ people so we would ask that you try to

2:33:31 ↗ limit your com your comments to about

2:33:33 ↗ five minutes if that'll work so uh you

2:33:35 ↗ can self self decide who goes first uh

2:33:38 ↗ we're ready for

2:33:45 ↗ you

2:33:46 ↗ [Laughter]

2:33:58 ↗ good evening I'm Fred nrom 391 Southeast

2:34:01 ↗ Sycamore Creek Lane where I've been for

2:34:03 ↗ 35 years in

2:34:05 ↗ isqua wasn't too long ago that I sat in

2:34:07 ↗ your chairs and this very room and

2:34:10 ↗ listen to the debate over the launching

2:34:13 ↗ and the start of the um Isa Highlands

2:34:18 ↗ and I followed the development very

2:34:21 ↗ closely over the past 20 some years what

2:34:25 ↗ was true

2:34:26 ↗ then remains true now in that for the 20

2:34:31 ↗ years of development agreement has been

2:34:33 ↗ in place the city was consistent in

2:34:37 ↗ telling developers and later builders

2:34:39 ↗ that when their project was vested the

2:34:42 ↗ city would not mess around with their

2:34:44 ↗ development rights

2:34:47 ↗ without that trust there never would

2:34:50 ↗ have been anything built in the

2:34:54 ↗ highlands I've watched and been a part

2:34:56 ↗ of the maturation of the Highlands for

2:34:58 ↗ these many years I've managed a home

2:35:02 ↗ there for people with developmental

2:35:04 ↗ disabilities and I've served on the

2:35:05 ↗ highlands Council so I had a bird's eye

2:35:08 ↗ view of the things that were going on

2:35:10 ↗ there including the many it's add into

2:35:12 ↗ the many meetings that were referenced

2:35:14 ↗ here tonight on uh

2:35:16 ↗ usability that was proposed by shelter

2:35:20 ↗ Holdings um other than that I have no

2:35:24 ↗ Financial stake in any piece of property

2:35:28 ↗ or any part of a development in the

2:35:30 ↗ highlands I'm here as an interested

2:35:32 ↗ citizen my wife asked me tonight she

2:35:34 ↗ said why are you leaving the sunny back

2:35:37 ↗ porch we're sitting on tonight and going

2:35:39 ↗ down to the meeting and I said I told

2:35:42 ↗ her that I'm very

2:35:44 ↗ disappointed in the loss of trust and

2:35:47 ↗ integrity and confidence that we're

2:35:50 ↗ experiencing on a national level with

2:35:51 ↗ our politicians every day and another

2:35:54 ↗ Distortion some truths are twisted up so

2:35:57 ↗ it's hard to tell what's right and

2:35:59 ↗ what's

2:36:00 ↗ wrong and I don't want any part of that

2:36:03 ↗ in the community that I love not a

2:36:06 ↗ single ounce of

2:36:08 ↗ it I'm sure you know that in the world

2:36:11 ↗ of building and development a vesting is

2:36:16 ↗ a legal commitment it's something the

2:36:19 ↗ Builder can take to the bank and use it

2:36:22 ↗ to fund homes or buildings for

2:36:26 ↗ businesses a vesting says that I the

2:36:29 ↗ city have put you through incredible

2:36:33 ↗ hurdles so that you can get your project

2:36:37 ↗ approved and now that you've been

2:36:39 ↗ approved you have the right to develop

2:36:42 ↗ your proposal and further you have the

2:36:45 ↗ ability and the right to do it when

2:36:47 ↗ you're ready

2:36:48 ↗ to vesting is a

2:36:51 ↗ core nationally recognized planning

2:36:54 ↗ document it carries the weight in the

2:36:57 ↗ impact of a

2:37:00 ↗ promise consistent consistently over the

2:37:04 ↗ past decade I have heard staff and

2:37:06 ↗ council members directly say that the

2:37:10 ↗ isqua highlands development agreement

2:37:13 ↗ when it when it expires every single

2:37:16 ↗ landowner would be treated with

2:37:18 ↗ consistently they would carry their same

2:37:20 ↗ vesting and Zoning into the new

2:37:24 ↗ agreement with the city of

2:37:26 ↗ isua and I'm sure that they believe that

2:37:29 ↗ when they said it because it was very

2:37:33 ↗ consistent now we're at one of those

2:37:35 ↗ moral

2:37:37 ↗ Crossroads where the highly unusual idea

2:37:41 ↗ has spawned within the city that they

2:37:44 ↗ can backtrack on a decade of adherence

2:37:48 ↗ to vesting rules and instead make the

2:37:51 ↗ claim that they have the ability to

2:37:53 ↗ cancel or I love the term

2:37:56 ↗ devest the developer of their agreed

2:38:01 ↗ developmental rights now let that

2:38:04 ↗ concept sink in for a little bit if you

2:38:06 ↗ will they have the right to change the

2:38:08 ↗ playing field on a personal note think

2:38:11 ↗ about it this way you found a beautiful

2:38:12 ↗ lot in

2:38:14 ↗ esqua and it's permitted to have a

2:38:18 ↗ three-bedroom twostory 3000t home on it

2:38:22 ↗ so you buy that

2:38:24 ↗ home and then later you get a notice

2:38:27 ↗ from the city it's sort of a whoops um

2:38:31 ↗ we've we have unpermitted

2:38:33 ↗ you and now what you can build is a

2:38:36 ↗ th000 square ft one-bedroom

2:38:39 ↗ Rambler same

2:38:42 ↗ situation so

2:38:44 ↗ remember that behind all the city claims

2:38:47 ↗ of their

2:38:48 ↗ rights and while what they are doing is

2:38:51 ↗ De permitting in a major way a very

2:38:55 ↗ important part of our

2:38:57 ↗ community in my heart I know this is

2:39:01 ↗ wrong it's deceitful it lacks integrity

2:39:04 ↗ and worse yet it messes up the entire

2:39:07 ↗ trust relationship between the the

2:39:10 ↗ builders and the

2:39:12 ↗ municipalities I hope that you don't

2:39:15 ↗ wait

2:39:16 ↗ one more moment condoning this

2:39:18 ↗ Distortion of good standard business

2:39:22 ↗ practices thank

2:39:35 ↗ you hello good evening Vis it um my name

2:39:39 ↗ is Tracy corett t r a c y c o r g i a t

2:39:45 ↗ i work for the Poly Clinic I'm the vice

2:39:47 ↗ president of development there and we're

2:39:49 ↗ a Physician Group um based predominantly

2:39:52 ↗ in Seattle we serve about 220,000

2:39:54 ↗ patients there about 10% of our patients

2:39:57 ↗ are on the east side so we've for some

2:40:00 ↗ time now wanted to expand and build a

2:40:02 ↗ multip specialty um clinic on the east

2:40:06 ↗ side and we're in the midst of making

2:40:08 ↗ that decision I came tonight because the

2:40:11 ↗ the property that's been in discussion

2:40:12 ↗ is one that's been of interest to us

2:40:14 ↗ especially with it proximity to Swedish

2:40:16 ↗ where we admit our patients um and I was

2:40:20 ↗ mostly interested in is that a property

2:40:22 ↗ that's going to be available because

2:40:24 ↗ we're we're in the throws of wanting to

2:40:26 ↗ do this in the next year um I hadn't

2:40:29 ↗ planned on commenting but thought Mr

2:40:31 ↗ Young's um comment was really important

2:40:36 ↗ that we need to know if things are going

2:40:38 ↗ to be able to happen um for people who

2:40:40 ↗ are going to come in and we're no

2:40:42 ↗ Microsoft you know but we bring jobs we

2:40:44 ↗ bring healthare care that our reearch

2:40:46 ↗ shows the community needs um the

2:40:49 ↗ research we've done says you could use

2:40:51 ↗ 25 plus uh primary care physicians um we

2:40:55 ↗ won't bring that many but um the

2:40:56 ↗ community is underserved in that you

2:40:58 ↗ need rheumatologists you need

2:40:59 ↗ cardiologists you need neurologists um

2:41:03 ↗ there are other things you need as well

2:41:05 ↗ and that's what the research shows and

2:41:06 ↗ I'm sure your community is getting them

2:41:07 ↗ now but they're driving for them and I

2:41:09 ↗ think as a Northbend resident I have

2:41:11 ↗ really enjoyed over the last 20 years

2:41:13 ↗ going into Seattle less and getting all

2:41:15 ↗ my services here and I think the Swedish

2:41:17 ↗ Hospital has been an amazing um

2:41:20 ↗ contribution to the community and um we

2:41:23 ↗ would want to complement that and put

2:41:25 ↗ Specialties there that maybe they don't

2:41:27 ↗ serve or um me the community needs more

2:41:29 ↗ so um we are in the next 30 to 60 days

2:41:32 ↗ making a decision on whether our East

2:41:34 ↗ Side will be Bellevue or isqua um this

2:41:37 ↗ is the place that seems to make the most

2:41:40 ↗ sense in isqua and you know how this

2:41:43 ↗ turns out in the next um month or so

2:41:45 ↗ probably makes a difference on that

2:41:47 ↗ decision for us so thank you for your

2:42:03 ↗ consideration thank you Commissioners

2:42:05 ↗ I'm Charlie Connor c h a r l i e c o n n

2:42:09 ↗ r um I was a resident of isqua for many

2:42:13 ↗ years raised my children here

2:42:16 ↗ um and um I'm also in the Home Building

2:42:19 ↗ business so I'm a uh concerned citizen

2:42:23 ↗ here as a concerned

2:42:25 ↗ citizen um one of the thing that's

2:42:27 ↗ really important and and we've heard

2:42:29 ↗ this earlier um from Gary is

2:42:34 ↗ predictability um we need a set of rules

2:42:37 ↗ that we can follow and we need to know

2:42:40 ↗ that there will be Integrity in the

2:42:42 ↗ process and that if we follow the rules

2:42:46 ↗ and we work with the jurisdiction we can

2:42:48 ↗ get a project approve and build uh

2:42:52 ↗ whatever it is that we are

2:42:53 ↗ building um whether that's single family

2:42:57 ↗ residential or um commercial or anything

2:43:02 ↗ um and without a set of rules and

2:43:04 ↗ without being able to rely on vesting

2:43:07 ↗ then I'm fearful for where our industry

2:43:10 ↗ will go for many

2:43:12 ↗ reasons um it's very difficult to do any

2:43:19 ↗ kind of a land use project nowadays uh

2:43:22 ↗ my father started in the late 50s and it

2:43:24 ↗ was it was pretty quick uh to get things

2:43:27 ↗ approved very few inspections we built a

2:43:30 ↗ lot of great homes those are now the

2:43:32 ↗ affordable housing out there uh we have

2:43:36 ↗ a a real shortage of housing so I'm

2:43:38 ↗ disappointed to hear that this project

2:43:41 ↗ won't have housing in it but my main

2:43:44 ↗ concern is that we need to be able to

2:43:46 ↗ rely on a set of rules we need to be

2:43:48 ↗ able to rely on vesting and if we can't

2:43:52 ↗ then how are we going to produce

2:43:55 ↗ whatever products that we need from a

2:43:56 ↗ land use

2:43:58 ↗ standpoint uh because there's just so

2:44:00 ↗ much risk inherent in the construction

2:44:04 ↗ itself now there's political risk and

2:44:07 ↗ where does that drive us to it does it

2:44:09 ↗ drive us to the larger and larger

2:44:13 ↗ entities that are building

2:44:15 ↗ uh lack of local players in the market

2:44:19 ↗ like myself who've been here for uh now

2:44:22 ↗ in the second generation of the business

2:44:24 ↗ it further concentrates the business

2:44:26 ↗ into the larger players who have more

2:44:29 ↗ Capital can spend years and that money

2:44:31 ↗ doesn't necessarily stay here uh because

2:44:35 ↗ it's out of multinational corporations

2:44:37 ↗ or national corporations publicly traded

2:44:40 ↗ corporations we need to keep building

2:44:43 ↗ companies like mine viable and I just

2:44:47 ↗ see that if if if vesting is overturned

2:44:52 ↗ in this case that is a terrible

2:44:53 ↗ precedent to set for uh our locality for

2:44:58 ↗ our society um so thank you for the

2:45:02 ↗ opportunity to speak thank

2:45:12 ↗ you hi there my name is Mike zaluski z l

2:45:17 ↗ e

2:45:18 ↗ wski um I'm a resident of um uh 943 3rd

2:45:23 ↗ Avenue Northeast in West Highlands Park

2:45:26 ↗ um as a West Highlands Park resident

2:45:28 ↗ we've been trying to follow a lot of the

2:45:30 ↗ development around us pretty closely

2:45:32 ↗ over the last several years between the

2:45:34 ↗ Wester Ridge Development and um the

2:45:37 ↗ North and South along with the shelter

2:45:39 ↗ holding so I've been able to attend the

2:45:42 ↗ town meetings that you have and it's it

2:45:44 ↗ was really informative

2:45:46 ↗ um so I actually found the pictures I

2:45:50 ↗ had on my phone back in July of 2015

2:45:53 ↗ that I I don't know if that was actually

2:45:55 ↗ the last town meeting or not but it had

2:45:58 ↗ the concepts of of um what was going to

2:46:01 ↗ be built on the property so my comments

2:46:04 ↗ don't necessarily have to do with any of

2:46:05 ↗ the vesting or the legal legalities that

2:46:08 ↗ we're talking about here but more of

2:46:09 ↗ what's being built on the property it

2:46:12 ↗ feels like um being part of the process

2:46:14 ↗ of of other um development subjects it

2:46:19 ↗ seems like a lot of the minds are made

2:46:21 ↗ up and the the process is is in is

2:46:24 ↗ ongoing that um there's really no room

2:46:27 ↗ for any changes at that point so I

2:46:29 ↗ wanted to get my comments on record now

2:46:32 ↗ if there's any opportunities for for

2:46:35 ↗ change in what's actually built on the

2:46:37 ↗ property and the one that I'm

2:46:39 ↗ specifically interested in that um is

2:46:42 ↗ adjacent to West Highlands Park um it'll

2:46:45 ↗ be adjacent to the affordable housing on

2:46:48 ↗ the Westridge development and then at

2:46:50 ↗ the entrance of the new Westridge South

2:46:52 ↗ that ex exists now is the block E9 with

2:46:56 ↗ the um proposal for a storage

2:46:59 ↗ facility um at during the 2015 Concepts

2:47:04 ↗ it had to do with U or the the plan was

2:47:07 ↗ some multi-story town homes and I

2:47:09 ↗ understand that residential is not part

2:47:11 ↗ of this plan but um that actually didn't

2:47:14 ↗ seem so bad compared to something like a

2:47:16 ↗ storage facility and most of the folks

2:47:19 ↗ that I talk to around the area aren't

2:47:20 ↗ really interested in that type of um

2:47:24 ↗ structure there and that it it there's

2:47:27 ↗ already a storage facility less than a

2:47:29 ↗ half a mile away in the highlands

2:47:31 ↗ already um it just doesn't seem to fit

2:47:34 ↗ the character of the area and so I would

2:47:37 ↗ request and fellow neighbors would

2:47:38 ↗ request of shelter could maybe put the

2:47:41 ↗ thinking caps back on and and think of

2:47:43 ↗ some other options there that might be

2:47:45 ↗ more cohesive with a residential

2:47:48 ↗ surrounding um with the idea of

2:47:51 ↗ hopefully having some good amount of

2:47:52 ↗ open space so that that's kind of my

2:47:55 ↗ main comment here is if we can just

2:47:58 ↗ revisit what we're developing around

2:47:59 ↗ that block E9 to be uh more conducive to

2:48:03 ↗ residential living

2:48:13 ↗ thanks

2:48:15 ↗ hi this one or this one doesn't matter I

2:48:19 ↗ guess work uh my name is Jonathan Leon

2:48:21 ↗ Wing j n a t h n last name Leon Wing l i

2:48:25 ↗ space o n space w i n

2:48:28 ↗ g I live on 45545 I

2:48:33 ↗ um I am I appreciate and understand the

2:48:35 ↗ need for developers to have

2:48:37 ↗ predictability but there are needs for

2:48:39 ↗ there is a need for and a reason for

2:48:41 ↗ expiry and permit should be modified and

2:48:43 ↗ cancelled to accommodate the city and

2:48:46 ↗ the residents needs the mayor the city

2:48:48 ↗ council isqu government the main

2:48:51 ↗ responsibility is to the residents and

2:48:53 ↗ should have the best the residents best

2:48:55 ↗ interest at

2:48:57 ↗ heart

2:48:58 ↗ but I I know their concerns here about

2:49:01 ↗ festing but I cannot really speak to

2:49:03 ↗ that I'm not lawyer or anything but my

2:49:05 ↗ main comment is just like Mike is um

2:49:08 ↗ regarding storage facility I think the

2:49:10 ↗ plans like asdp

2:49:13 ↗ 18-6 um excuse me sorry I'm going to

2:49:16 ↗ speak

2:49:17 ↗ slower um where do you want me to

2:49:20 ↗ [Music]

2:49:24 ↗ restart I'll start from uh so I know

2:49:27 ↗ there are concerns about vesting can't

2:49:29 ↗ really speak to that I'm not really a

2:49:31 ↗ lawyer and I don't really understand

2:49:32 ↗ that part too much um but my main

2:49:35 ↗ comment is the storage facility that

2:49:37 ↗ even Mike brought up um I think the

2:49:40 ↗ permit well you guys know what the

2:49:42 ↗ permit number is and everything um um

2:49:45 ↗ and I don't really have a concern about

2:49:47 ↗ the clinic uh and actually would

2:49:49 ↗ appreciate having a medical clinic

2:49:51 ↗ nearby and uh not needing to go so far

2:49:54 ↗ um assuming that they follow the ihca

2:49:57 ↗ rules but my main my main concern is uh

2:50:01 ↗ the stor facility I'm looking at

2:50:03 ↗ property values it's um I think that's

2:50:06 ↗ going to lower the property values

2:50:08 ↗ nearby um it makes the the neighborhood

2:50:11 ↗ less desirable I also have concerns

2:50:13 ↗ regarding the noise level

2:50:15 ↗ um and whether the whether we can

2:50:17 ↗ actually make sure and ensure that they

2:50:19 ↗ confirm to the noise levels and I think

2:50:22 ↗ that right now the um we have

2:50:24 ↗ regulations in place that has to meet uh

2:50:26 ↗ 45 DB or lower and I'm not sure whether

2:50:29 ↗ a storage facility can really take care

2:50:31 ↗ of

2:50:32 ↗ that uh to reiterate what Mike had said

2:50:35 ↗ I don't believe there's a need for a

2:50:37 ↗ second storage facility when there's one

2:50:38 ↗ in the community nearby and I don't

2:50:41 ↗ really think that it's going to meet the

2:50:43 ↗ character of the community and for those

2:50:45 ↗ reasons I would like to ask that the

2:50:48 ↗ developer reconsiders this um thank you

2:50:52 ↗ for very much for your

2:50:56 ↗ time thank

2:51:06 ↗ you hello everyone my name is z Prasad

2:51:09 ↗ Ram I'll spell that out s a t h y a p R

2:51:15 ↗ A I'm sorry you need to speak in the

2:51:16 ↗ microphone they can't hear you and

2:51:19 ↗ there's two there so whichever one best

2:51:21 ↗ fits I'm sa Prasad Raman uh I'll spell

2:51:25 ↗ my name for you it's s a t h y a p r a s

2:51:31 ↗ a d that's just my first name and then

2:51:33 ↗ my last name is Raman r a m a s e s h a

2:51:40 ↗ n i blame my parents for all of

2:51:43 ↗ it so uh I've been a isqua resident

2:51:46 ↗ since April of last year I live in one

2:51:48 ↗ of the Polygon Homes and my address is

2:51:51 ↗ 401 5th Avenue

2:51:52 ↗ Northeast um I just like a couple of my

2:51:56 ↗ neighborhood uh friends I don't know

2:51:58 ↗ much about the vesting I'm not here to

2:52:00 ↗ talk about that either but I am

2:52:02 ↗ concerned about the proposal to develop

2:52:05 ↗ a storage unit right across from where

2:52:08 ↗ our homes are um like some of the

2:52:10 ↗ reasons that have already been expressed

2:52:12 ↗ I think it's redundant there is a

2:52:14 ↗ storage facility less than half a mile

2:52:16 ↗ away just in the highlands there's

2:52:17 ↗ another one I think close to Gilman

2:52:19 ↗ Boulevard and Front Street in isqua so

2:52:22 ↗ from a utility standpoint we gain

2:52:24 ↗ nothing out of it uh secondly I do think

2:52:27 ↗ there is a property value issue having a

2:52:29 ↗ giant storage facility in front of all

2:52:31 ↗ these homes um and we know home prices

2:52:33 ↗ have been really high lately so we would

2:52:35 ↗ not want anything to diminish the value

2:52:37 ↗ of those home prices for us so that is a

2:52:39 ↗ problem the third thing is uh the

2:52:42 ↗ opportunity cost there is a bigger need

2:52:44 ↗ for more useful things I think parents

2:52:48 ↗ would be happy if there was some sort of

2:52:50 ↗ a child care facility pet owners may be

2:52:53 ↗ happy if there was some sort of a pet

2:52:56 ↗ pet care facility or there could be more

2:52:58 ↗ restaurants bars just more retail in

2:53:01 ↗ general is a better Direction because

2:53:03 ↗ you've increased the footprint of

2:53:05 ↗ residence now you probably need a bigger

2:53:08 ↗ footprint for retail that matches up

2:53:10 ↗ with the number of homeowners that are

2:53:12 ↗ there that is likely going to make more

2:53:13 ↗ people happy happy and bring more jobs

2:53:16 ↗ bring more make the community more

2:53:18 ↗ vibrant and be overall more

2:53:20 ↗ useful um that's the number one thing I

2:53:23 ↗ want to object to the uh storage

2:53:25 ↗ facility and I hope um there some way we

2:53:28 ↗ can walk away from that decision um

2:53:32 ↗ secondly as far as the hospital goes I

2:53:34 ↗ do welcome that coming into our

2:53:36 ↗ neighborhood um I do have one concern um

2:53:39 ↗ I think that from a traffic flow

2:53:40 ↗ standpoint that could cause a huge jam

2:53:43 ↗ on Discovery and Highland that traffic

2:53:45 ↗ light so if there is any I think there

2:53:48 ↗ should be careful consideration into how

2:53:50 ↗ that building is designed so that we

2:53:53 ↗ don't congest that uh traffic light

2:53:55 ↗ because that would really cause a huge

2:53:57 ↗ problem for homeowners in that

2:53:59 ↗ particular area getting in and out of

2:54:01 ↗ the uh the devopment uh in the morning

2:54:03 ↗ and in the evening so those are the two

2:54:06 ↗ things that I wanted to address uh thank

2:54:07 ↗ you for your time thank

2:54:13 ↗ you

2:54:20 ↗ good evening my name is Jeff Walker it's

2:54:23 ↗ g e FF last name Walker w l k r I live

2:54:28 ↗ at 2001 16th Court Northeast up in isqua

2:54:32 ↗ Highlands um all right this is kind of

2:54:35 ↗ difficult for me I'll be honest with you

2:54:38 ↗ and I'll try and try and take you

2:54:39 ↗ through it a little bit I've been a

2:54:41 ↗ resident of isqua islands for just over

2:54:43 ↗ 20 years now um one of the longest

2:54:45 ↗ residents there I've been on the Urban

2:54:47 ↗ Village Development commission for 19

2:54:50 ↗ years chairman for the last 10 or

2:54:54 ↗ so um for those that have followed the

2:54:57 ↗ UVC um uh will probably note that I have

2:55:04 ↗ been a strong proponent of the

2:55:06 ↗ development agreement in terms of the

2:55:09 ↗ balance of residential uh

2:55:13 ↗ commercial uh um all the different uses

2:55:15 ↗ that we have up there for live work and

2:55:17 ↗ play Community sociable public realm

2:55:19 ↗ plazas everything that we're we're doing

2:55:21 ↗ I've been a very strong comp proponent

2:55:23 ↗ of keeping that balance in

2:55:25 ↗ check um over the years we've had many

2:55:29 ↗ many more residential units being built

2:55:32 ↗ over the commercial stuff and we kept um

2:55:35 ↗ pushing off that balance for for a long

2:55:37 ↗ time people also note that I have been a

2:55:40 ↗ very strong proponent of property owners

2:55:43 ↗ rights um um if somebody has

2:55:45 ↗ entitlements or rights on their property

2:55:48 ↗ um I've not been one to Advocate uh

2:55:51 ↗ taking those away or diminishing them uh

2:55:54 ↗ for the good of the community because I

2:55:57 ↗ I believe that you know they buy and

2:55:58 ↗ they um invest uh with good in good

2:56:02 ↗ faith on the stuff that they say they're

2:56:03 ↗ going to do so this is really hard for

2:56:06 ↗ me because I've spent many years with Mr

2:56:09 ↗ nien and miss slowman and their their

2:56:11 ↗ teams who and they've worked tirelessly

2:56:14 ↗ and uh sometimes I'm shocked at how long

2:56:17 ↗ and hard they work on things and how

2:56:20 ↗ much compromise they provide and how

2:56:22 ↗ much guidance they provide and sometimes

2:56:24 ↗ how much you know sometimes frustrating

2:56:26 ↗ us as a as a um both a community and a

2:56:29 ↗ and a uh

2:56:31 ↗ commission um because it's a challenging

2:56:34 ↗ project um on the flip side uh shelter

2:56:37 ↗ Holdings uh specifically reached out to

2:56:39 ↗ me and a few other people a lot of other

2:56:41 ↗ people really and asked what we would be

2:56:44 ↗ interested in seeing on the property um

2:56:48 ↗ they've been very respectful to me and

2:56:50 ↗ others um I thought they were very

2:56:53 ↗ misguided and they know this we've been

2:56:54 ↗ very straightforward about this but uh

2:56:56 ↗ when they proposed the 1800 units

2:56:59 ↗ knowing that we only had they only had

2:57:01 ↗ three uh entitlement for three um I was

2:57:04 ↗ very very adamant about the fact that I

2:57:06 ↗ didn't want to see any more residential

2:57:08 ↗ units uh given that balance statement I

2:57:10 ↗ made earlier and I really really wanted

2:57:12 ↗ to see office commercial

2:57:16 ↗ retail so getting to the point I'm not

2:57:19 ↗ going to talk about vesting that I'll

2:57:21 ↗ let that play out from a legal

2:57:22 ↗ standpoint I'm not going to um talk

2:57:25 ↗ about the end of the development

2:57:26 ↗ agreement I that's not my place to

2:57:28 ↗ discuss but I will say and this won't be

2:57:30 ↗ new for shelter to hear

2:57:32 ↗ but I'm quite disappointed in in what

2:57:36 ↗ they are planning to build um whether

2:57:39 ↗ it's a storage unit uh the large parking

2:57:41 ↗ lot single single story retail uh to

2:57:44 ↗ mirror

2:57:45 ↗ or um complement what's already there at

2:57:48 ↗ Grand Ridge because we all know that

2:57:50 ↗ Grand Ridge uh Plaza was supposed to be

2:57:53 ↗ something different we tried really hard

2:57:54 ↗ for years to get it to be something

2:57:56 ↗ different than what it ended up being

2:57:57 ↗ which is okay now I I really like how it

2:58:00 ↗ functions but there there are better

2:58:02 ↗ ways to do things

2:58:04 ↗ so I don't have any I can't take one

2:58:07 ↗ side or the other I I see both sides of

2:58:09 ↗ the argument I again I'm not going to

2:58:10 ↗ talk about vesting I want to see how

2:58:12 ↗ that plays out but if it's in fact um uh

2:58:16 ↗ if in fact they end up with the rights

2:58:18 ↗ that they um um they believe they have

2:58:22 ↗ um I am not one to take away or even

2:58:24 ↗ propose taking away their right to do

2:58:26 ↗ something I would implore them to also

2:58:29 ↗ reconsider um see what might be feasible

2:58:31 ↗ uh economically uh around office around

2:58:34 ↗ campus around Child Care around retail

2:58:37 ↗ around restaurants I think we're missing

2:58:39 ↗ a really huge opportunity to do things

2:58:41 ↗ like multi-story building with a rooftop

2:58:44 ↗ restaurant bars places for music all of

2:58:47 ↗ those things and um none of this is new

2:58:50 ↗ information for for Tia and Gary none of

2:58:53 ↗ this is new

2:58:54 ↗ information uh for Lucy and Keith um but

2:58:57 ↗ I just wanted to share my my opinion on

2:58:59 ↗ on

2:59:00 ↗ this however it lays out uh legally I I

2:59:04 ↗ fully support um but I really would like

2:59:06 ↗ to see a reconsideration of what's built

2:59:08 ↗ there thank you very

2:59:12 ↗ much

2:59:18 ↗ I think we've heard from everybody from

2:59:20 ↗ the

2:59:21 ↗ public uh I lost your I lost

2:59:26 ↗ your letter so my email

2:59:31 ↗ yeah so

2:59:35 ↗ I does this seem to be a reasonable time

2:59:38 ↗ to conclude early for the first

2:59:42 ↗ time

2:59:46 ↗ it does Mr chairman um could we clarify

2:59:48 ↗ the logistics of scheduling for purposes

2:59:51 ↗ of the next installment I I think that

2:59:53 ↗ was an open-ended uh point when we last

2:59:56 ↗ reconvened before we get to scheduling

2:59:58 ↗ could we clarify what documents uh the

3:00:02 ↗ staff are submitting into the record as

3:00:06 ↗ part of the public comment there was a

3:00:09 ↗ package on our table when we got here um

3:00:13 ↗ that I assume purports to be the the

3:00:17 ↗ comments the written comments that have

3:00:19 ↗ been received but I think we need some

3:00:20 ↗ testimony about that and uh the first

3:00:24 ↗ item in the package is a February 88th

3:00:28 ↗ 2018 letter from Rich Hill who is a land

3:00:32 ↗ use attorney on speaking on behalf of

3:00:34 ↗ Regency centers and um my understanding

3:00:38 ↗ is there is a cover email sent within

3:00:40 ↗ the last day or

3:00:42 ↗ two submitting this uh document that's

3:00:46 ↗ more than a year old and I think the

3:00:47 ↗ cover email needs to be part of the

3:00:50 ↗ submitt if if this 2018 document is

3:00:53 ↗ going to be included as well so I think

3:00:56 ↗ we we need to make it absolutely clear

3:00:59 ↗ on the record what is being offered by

3:01:02 ↗ staff and if um it needs to be a

3:01:06 ↗ complete transmitt not just the February

3:01:09 ↗ 2018 document if that is part of the

3:01:12 ↗ submitt

3:01:17 ↗ yeah L Lucy could you give us a

3:01:19 ↗ clarification on it and and Miss Heim

3:01:22 ↗ points out to me that she's looked at

3:01:24 ↗ the one drive link that was sent out and

3:01:27 ↗ the documents that are on that appear to

3:01:29 ↗ be different than the documents that are

3:01:31 ↗ in this package so again we have a need

3:01:33 ↗ for

3:01:35 ↗ clarification so over the

3:01:39 ↗ course

3:01:40 ↗ [Music]

3:01:41 ↗ um over the course course of uh the

3:01:46 ↗ application processing the application

3:01:48 ↗ we have received emails um which I had

3:01:52 ↗ collected um this afternoon a number of

3:01:55 ↗ letters and uh came in via email some to

3:02:00 ↗ Keith nen one to uh the general

3:02:04 ↗ DSD uh email and one to me and uh

3:02:08 ↗ because these came in around 4:30 this

3:02:11 ↗ afternoon I was not studying them in

3:02:14 ↗ detail um Mr Snider's point is well

3:02:17 ↗ taken I assumed this was a new letter

3:02:20 ↗ and didn't look at it closely I'd be

3:02:22 ↗ glad to provide the cover emails uh for

3:02:25 ↗ any documents that were received late

3:02:28 ↗ this

3:02:29 ↗ afternoon um so that uh there the the

3:02:34 ↗ full transmitt is complete

3:02:37 ↗ okay and Miss hman pointed out to me

3:02:40 ↗ apparently on the one drive there's um

3:02:44 ↗ uh there's a 2016 email for example so

3:02:47 ↗ my suggestion is that any document that

3:02:52 ↗ staff intend to submit as part of a

3:02:54 ↗ public comment and I many meetings ago I

3:02:58 ↗ objected to any public comment as part

3:03:00 ↗ of this C judicial hearing so I hope

3:03:02 ↗ that uh ongoing objection is recognized

3:03:05 ↗ but I think we have to have absolute

3:03:06 ↗ clarity about what's in the record and

3:03:09 ↗ if the one drive documents are supposed

3:03:11 ↗ to be part of the record we all need to

3:03:12 ↗ see what they are in written form as

3:03:14 ↗ well so perhaps this issue can be

3:03:17 ↗ deferred until the next meeting we can

3:03:19 ↗ all have an agreed upon

3:03:21 ↗ package sure that makes sense that's

3:03:26 ↗ fine and then as long as we're on the

3:03:28 ↗ record could we clarify uh who is

3:03:31 ↗ keeping the record the official record

3:03:34 ↗ of this

3:03:36 ↗ proceeding in terms of the exhibits

3:03:40 ↗ yes so the exhibits are delivered to um

3:03:45 ↗ the city support services staff who uh

3:03:50 ↗ scan and uh compile them and upload them

3:03:55 ↗ to the one Drive

3:03:56 ↗ Link I have been preparing the exhibit

3:04:00 ↗ list because they don't understand they

3:04:03 ↗ aren't familiar with the documents um so

3:04:06 ↗ my role is only to look at a document

3:04:09 ↗ that is on the one drive and identify it

3:04:13 ↗ its

3:04:15 ↗ name so is if I can just I would like to

3:04:19 ↗ understand so is are the documents on

3:04:22 ↗ the one drive then going to be the

3:04:23 ↗ official record of this proceeding or is

3:04:27 ↗ is Mrs Lea keeping a hard copy that's

3:04:29 ↗ the official record or what the official

3:04:32 ↗ written record is being kept by the city

3:04:34 ↗ clerk's office the one Drive Link is

3:04:36 ↗ being made available for Courtesy with

3:04:39 ↗ respect to all the commission members to

3:04:41 ↗ ensure that they have copies to review

3:04:42 ↗ as well as the parties for review at

3:04:45 ↗ this point in time the record is still

3:04:46 ↗ open so for purposes of clarifying

3:04:49 ↗ particularly these comment letters are

3:04:51 ↗ excellent example of that we may still

3:04:53 ↗ receive those up until the close of the

3:04:55 ↗ proceeding so there's fully opportunity

3:04:57 ↗ in fact my office realized with the um

3:05:00 ↗ staff report and the attachments I

3:05:02 ↗ didn't realize were not on the One Drive

3:05:03 ↗ Link we need to do some clean up so this

3:05:06 ↗ is not what you see on the one drive

3:05:08 ↗ link is not static at this point in time

3:05:11 ↗ until we close the record and it's my

3:05:13 ↗ intent to go through it um to make sure

3:05:16 ↗ that what I've been collecting in

3:05:17 ↗ written form is consistent with what the

3:05:20 ↗ city has and is uploaded um I think

3:05:22 ↗ given the concerns we will probably give

3:05:24 ↗ each party the opportunity to make

3:05:27 ↗ corrections to that record before we

3:05:28 ↗ close it okay thank you and just to Dove

3:05:32 ↗ tail on that point Miss Leo I mean I've

3:05:35 ↗ reviewed the list that you've handed me

3:05:36 ↗ that's the going to be the official

3:05:38 ↗ exhibit C1 correct all the items on the

3:05:41 ↗ list those are what those are what we

3:05:43 ↗ received from the city staff as part of

3:05:46 ↗ their City report and so I wanted each

3:05:49 ↗ party to have an opportunity to R what

3:05:51 ↗ we had received what we think how it

3:05:53 ↗ should be labeled for administrative

3:05:56 ↗ purposes for clarity so again same thing

3:05:58 ↗ if anyone has any concerns with respect

3:06:00 ↗ to administratively or substantively

3:06:02 ↗ what you're seeing please let me know or

3:06:05 ↗ let us know it at Future proceeding so

3:06:07 ↗ we can get that clear so we'll address

3:06:09 ↗ that at a future proceeding yeah so if

3:06:11 ↗ if I wanted to give everyone time to

3:06:13 ↗ look at it it's not a quick look but if

3:06:15 ↗ anyone has any concerns or objections to

3:06:18 ↗ or recommendations for how we rber

3:06:20 ↗ things that's fine thank

3:06:28 ↗ you

3:06:31 ↗ okay uh so we've basically thinking that

3:06:37 ↗ we can uh adjourn tonight's meeting but

3:06:39 ↗ we still need to make some decisions on

3:06:41 ↗ future date and we uh I understand that

3:06:44 ↗ the parties have been that may be

3:06:45 ↗ available to continue these hearings

3:06:48 ↗ April 16th is that

3:06:51 ↗ correct that's my

3:06:54 ↗ understanding that datea is no longer

3:06:56 ↗ available for me I I I was under the

3:06:58 ↗ impression that we were going to be

3:06:59 ↗ convening on April 30th and May

3:07:01 ↗ 1st no I I never heard those dates that

3:07:05 ↗ was a communication with staff I thought

3:07:08 ↗ so

3:07:11 ↗ um so I thought that April 16th was

3:07:15 ↗ still uh a valid date as of uh last

3:07:19 ↗ night um and then uh we had floated uh

3:07:25 ↗ dates of the uh

3:07:29 ↗ 28th no 29th 30th and 1st uh we do not

3:07:33 ↗ have a quorum on the 29th uh we do have

3:07:38 ↗ barely a quorum on the 30th and we

3:07:41 ↗ already have a matter scheduled on the 1

3:07:45 ↗ so

3:07:47 ↗ um M Lea and I have discussed uh if

3:07:51 ↗ there

3:07:51 ↗ were go ahead oh yeah we decided the

3:07:56 ↗ first would not work um although I think

3:07:59 ↗ that might be moot if this was

3:08:01 ↗ predicated on the parties probably

3:08:02 ↗ needing at least more than one more

3:08:05 ↗ night to present rebuttal Witnesses but

3:08:07 ↗ um so we we were coming in hoping the

3:08:10 ↗ 16th and the 30th might work but that

3:08:14 ↗ sounds like it might not the 16th is not

3:08:16 ↗ if it's if it's absolutely necessary I

3:08:18 ↗ can do some reshuffling that wouldn't be

3:08:20 ↗ my preference but I I don't think we

3:08:23 ↗ have any other dates that have been

3:08:25 ↗ suggested to us as available from staff

3:08:28 ↗ or the parties before April 30th

3:08:30 ↗ otherwise um correct so are we just to

3:08:34 ↗ be clear are we looking at the 16th the

3:08:36 ↗ 29th and the 30th just the 16th and the

3:08:39 ↗ 30th we don't have a quorum on the 29th

3:08:41 ↗ with the commission

3:08:44 ↗ and I again you know I I understand

3:08:46 ↗ everybody's schedules and the challenges

3:08:48 ↗ with a lot of people involved but um i'

3:08:51 ↗ really implore the city and the

3:08:53 ↗ development commission if there's any

3:08:54 ↗ way that we can get hearing dates

3:08:55 ↗ earlier and we've said it before but

3:08:57 ↗ this is an issue that's costing $100,000

3:09:01 ↗ a month and carrying costs and it's now

3:09:03 ↗ been a year since we received an April

3:09:07 ↗ letter with investing determination so

3:09:09 ↗ we've been dealing with this for a year

3:09:12 ↗ now

3:09:13 ↗ um if there's any way that we can get an

3:09:15 ↗ additional hearing date so that we can

3:09:17 ↗ get 3 days in April and wrap this up

3:09:19 ↗ within the next month we would be

3:09:21 ↗ extremely appreciative of

3:09:25 ↗ that well uh it sounds like it's

3:09:28 ↗ possible for us to get the

3:09:31 ↗ 16th and uh I think it will take some

3:09:34 ↗ internal work to try to figure out what

3:09:36 ↗ other days may be available can we ask

3:09:39 ↗ have we already asked done uh know

3:09:43 ↗ surveys to find out who's available or

3:09:45 ↗ was the 29th the 29th the uh or the 30th

3:09:49 ↗ the only other day available or that

3:09:51 ↗ that's I believe the city pulled the

3:09:53 ↗ April 24th the first two weeks of

3:09:56 ↗ April um I and I don't know availability

3:09:59 ↗ of the room beyond that and the and and

3:10:02 ↗ and other parties but both two weeks of

3:10:05 ↗ first two weeks of April were

3:10:07 ↗ out April 24th

3:10:09 ↗ was 29th with no

3:10:11 ↗ quorum if there are other dates you can

3:10:15 ↗ all stly check our calendars so I think

3:10:17 ↗ for for our needs we need uh a next one

3:10:21 ↗ day that we can continue this to which

3:10:24 ↗ sounds like it's the 16th uh we can I

3:10:28 ↗ can go back and review uh the polling

3:10:31 ↗ that we've done uh to see if there's

3:10:34 ↗ anything between the 16th and the 30th

3:10:38 ↗ um I just can't do it off the top of my

3:10:40 ↗ head understand that so let's let's do

3:10:42 ↗ that let's agree to the 16th and in the

3:10:45 ↗ interim look for at least two more days

3:10:49 ↗ in the in the month of April to be able

3:10:51 ↗ to complete that well I think we've got

3:10:53 ↗ the 30th I we'll see if there is a third

3:10:55 ↗ date I just I can't commit at this time

3:10:58 ↗ the 30th is fine and I think that we had

3:11:00 ↗ expressed our availability on the 1 as

3:11:02 ↗ well um that last week would be a little

3:11:05 ↗ B the first has a commitment already um

3:11:09 ↗ I I think we probably may need to make a

3:11:10 ↗ note especially if we end up with a

3:11:12 ↗ another date in April that commissioner

3:11:13 ↗ Morgan actually cannot be here on April

3:11:15 ↗ 30th we would be running without

3:11:17 ↗ commissioner Morgan and so to the extent

3:11:18 ↗ we'd get to the point of deliberations

3:11:20 ↗ we would actually need to end that night

3:11:22 ↗ because commissioner Morgan wants to be

3:11:24 ↗ a part of that deliberation but and we

3:11:26 ↗ want him to be part of that deliberation

3:11:28 ↗ well but if that if we were able to

3:11:30 ↗ conclude by April 30th we we hadn't

3:11:32 ↗ talked to the city about next available

3:11:34 ↗ dates but we'd certainly try to make it

3:11:36 ↗ happen as soon as possible so that we

3:11:38 ↗ could convene and and make that decision

3:11:40 ↗ or the commission can make that decision

3:11:46 ↗ so we're in agreement the the 16th and

3:11:48 ↗ the 30th and one other

3:11:50 ↗ day the best we can if we can pull that

3:11:53 ↗ off is that correct

3:11:56 ↗ yes we appreciate your adjusting your

3:11:59 ↗ schedule Mr L to be able to pull that

3:12:01 ↗ off so uh I think with that Mr chair yes

3:12:05 ↗ one point um I think we might need to

3:12:07 ↗ close the public comment portion of the

3:12:10 ↗ hear public comment portion is closed

3:12:12 ↗ thank you

3:12:14 ↗ again thank you very much for your time

3:12:16 ↗ and trying to to schedule all this I

3:12:18 ↗ know it's difficult and I'm I'm sorry

3:12:20 ↗ we're having to push on it it's just

3:12:22 ↗ that there's a considerable burden on us

3:12:24 ↗ as well to be here understand and

3:12:26 ↗ appropriate so with that let's uh

3:12:29 ↗ consider ourselves adjourned thank you

3:12:31 ↗ thank

3:12:41 ↗ 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 (16)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Keith Niven

Econ. & Dev. Srcs. Dir. Mel Morgan

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present: Richard Sanford Jeffrey Dunbar

City Attorney’s Office Tia Heim

Shelter Holdings Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Zachary Lell

City Attorney’s Office Randolph Harrison Ray Liaw

Van Ness Feldman

LLP Jasmina Mihova Jackie Quarré

Foster Pepper PLLC Mark Rigos

Alternate Patrick Schneider

Foster Pepper PLLC Ryan Roeter

Alternate Gary Young

Shelter Holdings Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate