Development Commission - Special Meeting - 15 M · Wednesday, May 15, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 10, 2018

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 30, 2019

packet pp.7–10

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 10, 2018

▶ Watch from 0:46 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-30-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes of May 7, 2019

packet pp.11–14

▶ Watch from 5:46 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 05-07-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 PM Council Chambers May 7, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

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

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 10:46 Open packet at p.23 ↗

3932 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ all right good evening ladies and

0:14 ↗ gentlemen it's time to

0:17 ↗ call to order the special meeting of the

0:20 ↗ development commission for the

0:21 ↗ discussion of public hearings on

0:23 ↗ issaquah highlands retail issue

0:25 ↗ highlands medical office administrative

0:27 ↗ site development permit and squat

0:29 ↗ highlands self-storage administrative

0:31 ↗ site development permit

0:33 ↗ uh before we get started there are a

0:35 ↗ couple of administrative issues that we

0:36 ↗ need to take care of and it's including

0:38 ↗ approval of some minutes from april 30th

0:41 ↗ and may 7th so

0:43 ↗ commissioners

0:46 ↗ mr chairman we approve the minutes of

0:48 ↗ the april 30th 2019 meeting

0:51 ↗ second

0:53 ↗ is there any discussion

0:55 ↗ all those in favor of approving the

0:58 ↗ minute say aye

0:59 ↗ aye opposed

1:00 ↗ okay motion passes how about the minutes

1:02 ↗ of may 7th

1:06 ↗ mr chair i move that we approve the

1:08 ↗ meeting minutes from

1:10 ↗ the may 7th meeting second well good uh

1:13 ↗ any discussion

1:15 ↗ all those in favor of approving the

1:17 ↗ minutes of may 7th please say aye

1:19 ↗ aye opposed

1:21 ↗ motion carries

1:23 ↗ without further ado i think mr snyder we

1:25 ↗ are still in the notion of uh

1:29 ↗ cross-examination of miss lucy sloman

1:33 ↗ solomon could you

1:35 ↗ turn to

1:38 ↗ s113 please which is the

1:41 ↗ letter you wrote to my client

1:45 ↗ could you speak up i'm sorry i couldn't

1:47 ↗ i'm sorry

1:48 ↗ i apologize i'd like to

1:51 ↗ begin more or less where we left off

1:53 ↗ with exhibit 113

1:55 ↗ the letter that you wrote on april 15

1:58 ↗ informing my client they're not bested

2:00 ↗ to process

2:13 ↗ could you give me the number again now

2:15 ↗ that i have the notebook 113. yes s113

2:19 ↗ um

2:20 ↗ 133

2:25 ↗ yeah

2:26 ↗ s113 could i could uh i interject and

2:30 ↗ make sure that we still have you under

2:33 ↗ oath is there

2:34 ↗ we want to do that i am still interested

2:42 ↗ for the chairman's request could you

2:44 ↗ please acknowledge that you continue to

2:45 ↗ be under oath from your prior

2:47 ↗ proceedings i do

2:49 ↗ thank you

2:53 ↗ okay

2:54 ↗ and i'd like you to turn to the last

2:55 ↗ page of your letter please

3:01 ↗ and i want to ask you about the language

3:04 ↗ that you

3:06 ↗ put in bold

3:08 ↗ telling my client that your letter

3:11 ↗ is not an appealable decision

3:18 ↗ you know my client

3:19 ↗ believes they are vested to

3:22 ↗ process under the development agreement

3:25 ↗ do you not

3:27 ↗ i know that that's what they're

3:28 ↗ ascertaining yes okay and

3:31 ↗ so

3:32 ↗ why did you decide not to let them

3:35 ↗ appeal your decision to the contrary

3:37 ↗ until after you had put them through the

3:39 ↗ process that they believed to be

3:41 ↗ unlawful

3:43 ↗ i believe that this note is consistent

3:46 ↗ with the hearing examiner's decision on

3:49 ↗ previous

3:50 ↗ requests by your client that certain

3:54 ↗ letters

3:55 ↗ and communications

3:58 ↗ are not appealable

4:00 ↗ well the hearing examiner

4:04 ↗ in my recollection decided that

4:06 ↗ your department had not made an

4:08 ↗ appealable decision

4:12 ↗ and

4:13 ↗ are you saying that you didn't have any

4:14 ↗ choice and that you've uh to make it

4:17 ↗ appealable or not

4:20 ↗ i think we we were just trying to be

4:23 ↗ clear about how we viewed this

4:25 ↗ communication okay well by not making it

4:27 ↗ an appealable decision you agree to you

4:29 ↗ not that my client has to go through

4:32 ↗ the process and the replacement

4:34 ↗ regulations before it can

4:37 ↗ make its arguments why the process is

4:39 ↗ illegal just like we've been doing for

4:42 ↗ the last nine months here correct

4:44 ↗ that would be the conclusion yes i'm

4:46 ↗ sorry that would be the conclusion yes

4:49 ↗ and so what have you done anything since

4:51 ↗ the last hearing to move forward with

4:54 ↗ the processing of my client's plat

4:56 ↗ application yes

4:57 ↗ what have you done

4:59 ↗ i've been working on

5:01 ↗ trying to find models for community

5:05 ↗ conferences to discuss

5:07 ↗ how that process would apply in this

5:09 ↗ circumstance since we're doing it under

5:12 ↗ the replacement regulations this is

5:14 ↗ somewhat new

5:17 ↗ have you

5:18 ↗ written the staff report no i've been

5:20 ↗ formatting finding the correct format

5:22 ↗ for the staff report okay and

5:25 ↗ have you made a decision as to what my

5:28 ↗ client is and is not vested to pursuant

5:30 ↗ to its plat application

5:36 ↗ um

5:39 ↗ [Music]

5:42 ↗ i wouldn't i would cover that in the

5:43 ↗ staff report

5:45 ↗ i'm sorry i would cover that in the

5:47 ↗ staff report

5:48 ↗ well

5:49 ↗ my question was have you made a decision

5:52 ↗ by tonight

5:54 ↗ about the application submitted 21

5:56 ↗ months ago about what

5:59 ↗ is vested and what is not

6:03 ↗ i'm i'm unclear why i'm being asked to

6:05 ↗ explain that for a plat

6:08 ↗ related to these permits well either you

6:10 ↗ or mr niven made that objection months

6:13 ↗ ago and i responded to it and i think

6:15 ↗ you need to answer the question

6:17 ↗ ms

6:18 ↗ sloman how can you process that let me

6:21 ↗ ask a different question how can you

6:23 ↗ process a plaid application if you

6:25 ↗ haven't decided what my client has

6:27 ↗ vested to

6:30 ↗ well my understanding is that you are

6:32 ↗ vested to the

6:35 ↗ i thought the april 4th 2018

6:39 ↗ letter identified that

6:42 ↗ i my understanding is that you are

6:44 ↗ vested to those things that state law

6:47 ↗ allows you to vest to for a preliminary

6:50 ↗ plat

6:51 ↗ which has to do with what is

6:55 ↗ shown in your original plat middle

6:59 ↗ well i'm asking you

7:02 ↗ what that means in terms of my clients

7:04 ↗ plat application

7:08 ↗ what my client submitted

7:11 ↗ we've already heard testimony that my

7:13 ↗ client's plat application reflects the

7:17 ↗ footprints of the

7:18 ↗ sdp applications that are before this

7:22 ↗ hearing are you not

7:24 ↗ have you made a decision about whether

7:26 ↗ those

7:27 ↗ buildings are vested or not

7:29 ↗ i think we've spoken to that previously

7:32 ↗ that that was not in the original

7:34 ↗ submittal

7:35 ↗ okay so ms loman you um

7:39 ↗ why don't we turn for a moment to the

7:41 ↗ chart that you submitted and prepared

7:43 ↗ last time exhibit c 59 can you pull that

7:47 ↗ up please

8:07 ↗ i know

8:13 ↗ okay

8:14 ↗ so you testified a couple of times at

8:17 ↗ the last hearing that you believe this

8:19 ↗ chart was more accurate than the

8:21 ↗ materials that ms heim prepared and

8:23 ↗ submitted

8:25 ↗ some cases yes how did you decide uh

8:29 ↗ what to include and what to not include

8:31 ↗ on

8:33 ↗ on your

8:34 ↗ exhibit c-59 that you prepared for this

8:36 ↗ hearing

8:38 ↗ so um the permits

8:41 ↗ um that i included were the ones that i

8:46 ↗ was aware that your client had spoken to

8:49 ↗ as

8:50 ↗ comparable

8:52 ↗ or

8:52 ↗ [Music]

8:53 ↗ not comparable permits to

8:56 ↗ their permits

8:59 ↗ well i'm not

9:00 ↗ well

9:01 ↗ one of the permits that you didn't

9:03 ↗ include in here

9:05 ↗ correct me if i'm wrong is the plaid

9:07 ↗ application that we've submitted by

9:09 ↗ polygon that we've had testimony about

9:12 ↗ at this hearing

9:13 ↗ that you approved after you had pre

9:16 ↗ approved the stps

9:18 ↗ or the sdp on one of the lots in that

9:20 ↗ short plaque correct

9:23 ↗ i did not include the short plat

9:26 ↗ i

9:27 ↗ was focused on the

9:31 ↗ larger land use permits and not all the

9:34 ↗ short flats and lot line adjustments

9:36 ↗ that we had received now we spoke about

9:38 ↗ that separately

9:40 ↗ for shelters applications how did you

9:42 ↗ decide which

9:44 ↗ meetings with the city to include and

9:46 ↗ which not to include

9:48 ↗ i tried to include the ones that i found

9:51 ↗ in my notes and my calendar

9:53 ↗ well there are a number of meetings uh

9:56 ↗ that you attended with

9:58 ↗ shelter about its applications that are

10:01 ↗ not on here isn't that correct

10:04 ↗ not that i'm aware of i tried to be

10:08 ↗ complete in the

10:10 ↗ meetings that i identified okay would

10:12 ↗ you pull up exhibit c44 please which are

10:15 ↗ the minutes that ms heim prepared of her

10:19 ↗ meetings with you that the city offered

10:21 ↗ into evidence

10:32 ↗ okay

10:33 ↗ and would you turn to um

10:37 ↗ the notes for 5 18

10:39 ↗ 2016

10:41 ↗ and see whether they reflect the meeting

10:43 ↗ with shelter that you attended

11:16 ↗ i'm sorry all right this is in c44

11:20 ↗ um

11:21 ↗ the last

11:22 ↗ item that's in here is 215 18.

11:26 ↗ i'm asking about 16 may

11:30 ↗ may 18 2016.

11:32 ↗ oh 16.

11:43 ↗ okay

11:44 ↗ isn't that a meeting that you attended

11:48 ↗ according to ms heim's notes

11:53 ↗ yes i

11:54 ↗ did not include meetings as i testified

11:56 ↗ last time i did not include meetings

11:59 ↗ that i thought were related to the

12:01 ↗ development agreement but rather

12:03 ↗ processing

12:04 ↗ of

12:05 ↗ permit applications

12:07 ↗ we're at all of the meetings with at

12:10 ↗ least by 2016

12:12 ↗ with

12:13 ↗ a shelter about

12:15 ↗ the applications that it intended to

12:17 ↗ submit and wanted to submit

12:20 ↗ my memory was that did not begin until

12:24 ↗ sometime in 2017

12:28 ↗ well

12:30 ↗ you let's look at your exhibit c-59 miss

12:33 ↗ heim you've included a

12:36 ↗ meeting from june of 2016 under the

12:39 ↗ heading of general planning correct yes

12:43 ↗ well didn't you just describe the

12:45 ↗ meeting that on in may

12:47 ↗ that you didn't include wouldn't that

12:49 ↗ fit under the column of general planning

12:52 ↗ under your description of it

12:55 ↗ as i said i i haven't read through these

12:58 ↗ minutes so i don't

13:00 ↗ i don't specifically remember that

13:02 ↗ meeting

13:03 ↗ what i had referenced was

13:07 ↗ at the time that

13:08 ↗ not when we were discussing a new

13:10 ↗ development agreement or an extension of

13:12 ↗ the development agreement but specific

13:15 ↗ pieces related

13:18 ↗ to how the land might be configured

13:22 ↗ or the um

13:25 ↗ specific permits that they were

13:27 ↗ preparing to support and i think my

13:28 ↗ specific question ms sloman was wouldn't

13:32 ↗ that meeting as you described it fit

13:34 ↗ under the heading of a general planning

13:35 ↗ meeting i have not read these minutes so

13:38 ↗ i'm not able to respond if you would

13:40 ↗ like to give me a few minutes i will try

13:42 ↗ and look it through them

13:43 ↗ well why don't we turn to the minutes

13:45 ↗ for july 6 2016 and see if that's

13:48 ↗ another meeting that you attended that

13:50 ↗ isn't on your chart

13:52 ↗ so if you would like me to respond about

13:55 ↗ these i would need to have an

13:56 ↗ opportunity to review the meeting

13:59 ↗ minutes

14:00 ↗ i

14:01 ↗ tried to parse them

14:03 ↗ based on which ones seem to be

14:05 ↗ development agreement related versus

14:07 ↗ permit related but

14:09 ↗ i

14:10 ↗ have not reviewed these meeting minutes

14:12 ↗ so i am not these meeting notes i am not

14:14 ↗ able to respond instantaneously i'm all

14:18 ↗ i'm asking you is whether that describes

14:19 ↗ the meeting that you were at miss loman

14:21 ↗ on july 6 of 2016. can you confirm that

14:25 ↗ to be the case

14:26 ↗ that these meeting minutes

14:30 ↗ the notes show that i was there

14:33 ↗ yes

14:41 ↗ yes this these meeting notes show that i

14:44 ↗ was there okay and how about the meeting

14:47 ↗ on

14:47 ↗ september 21st of 2016 is that another

14:51 ↗ meeting

14:52 ↗ that you attended that isn't on exhibit

14:54 ↗ c-59

14:57 ↗ i am listed as an attendee in the notes

15:00 ↗ yes okay

15:02 ↗ so

15:02 ↗ again you included under the general

15:05 ↗ planning column for my client a meeting

15:08 ↗ in may of tooth or excuse me

15:11 ↗ yes may of 2016

15:15 ↗ is your explanation for

15:18 ↗ not including these others then that you

15:19 ↗ didn't remember them

15:22 ↗ no i categorized them differently

15:25 ↗ well again that brings me back to the

15:27 ↗ question even under the characterization

15:29 ↗ that you gave us

15:30 ↗ they appear to fit under the general

15:32 ↗ planning column that's your

15:34 ↗ determination having had a chance to

15:36 ↗ review these

15:37 ↗ meeting notes i have not had a chance to

15:39 ↗ review these meeting notes miss sloman

15:41 ↗ you testified that you didn't include

15:44 ↗ things in this chart that

15:49 ↗ were about

15:50 ↗ specific applications if your

15:53 ↗ characterization is these meetings

15:55 ↗ weren't about specific applications then

15:57 ↗ how can they not have been about general

15:59 ↗ planning for shelters property when what

16:02 ↗ i meant by general planning was looking

16:04 ↗ at

16:05 ↗ configurations

16:07 ↗ for all of the property or

16:10 ↗ specific

16:12 ↗ plans

16:13 ↗ for individual pieces of property

16:16 ↗ i

16:18 ↗ don't know based on

16:21 ↗ being given dates that i attended

16:23 ↗ meetings whether i made an error or

16:27 ↗ whether you were categorizing them

16:29 ↗ different than i intended

16:31 ↗ okay well can we agree that there

16:33 ↗ we've already had testimony in this

16:36 ↗ record about meetings that you had with

16:39 ↗ my client that are not on this chart

16:44 ↗ i attended meetings that are not on this

16:46 ↗ chart i would have i would assume that

16:49 ↗ that is because i did not think that

16:51 ↗ they were consistent with the intent of

16:53 ↗ the chart when i created it well i

16:55 ↗ thought the intent of the chart was to

16:57 ↗ give us an accurate summary more

16:59 ↗ accurate than we had given of your

17:01 ↗ communications with my client about

17:03 ↗ these applications

17:08 ↗ yes about these and other applications

17:12 ↗ um not about the development agreement

17:14 ↗ yeah i'm

17:15 ↗ handing you what we've marked as exhibit

17:17 ↗ s126 this is a news of it

17:27 ↗ tell us what this is please

17:31 ↗ it looks like a

17:33 ↗ meeting that

17:38 ↗ i

17:39 ↗ set up

17:40 ↗ on september 7 2017 the subject of which

17:44 ↗ is end of da's and shelter holdings

17:47 ↗ property this is a meeting you set up in

17:49 ↗ september of 2017 and it's not on your

17:52 ↗ chart either correct

17:55 ↗ i would not expect it to be because when

17:57 ↗ it says end of da's that is end of

18:00 ↗ development agreements and

18:02 ↗ i am

18:04 ↗ guessing

18:05 ↗ that this meeting had to do with the

18:07 ↗ replacement regulations

18:10 ↗ based on the

18:11 ↗ subject that's identified solomon this

18:14 ↗ meeting is from september

18:17 ↗ of 2017 september 7th

18:21 ↗ what state were the replacement

18:23 ↗ regulations in at that point in time

18:28 ↗ the replacement regulations were going

18:32 ↗ through the

18:34 ↗ urban village development commission and

18:36 ↗ planning policy commission they had the

18:39 ↗ city

18:40 ↗ released a draft of the replacement

18:42 ↗ regulations yes i believe we did in

18:45 ↗ mid-august okay and this is it but your

18:49 ↗ subject is a description of end of da's

18:52 ↗ and shelter holdings property correct

18:55 ↗ that is the subject yes okay and you

18:57 ↗ knew sheldor holdings was

18:59 ↗ submitting applications uh

19:02 ↗ to vest to the development agreement

19:04 ↗ correct

19:05 ↗ i

19:06 ↗ don't know that i knew that i knew that

19:08 ↗ they were submitting applications at

19:10 ↗ some point in the near future yes but

19:13 ↗ sloman

19:15 ↗ are you trying to tell

19:17 ↗ us that you believed in september of

19:20 ↗ 2017 that shelter was submitting

19:23 ↗ applications for the replacement

19:24 ↗ regulations that hadn't been adopted yet

19:29 ↗ no

19:31 ↗ may i finish

19:33 ↗ what i think when

19:35 ↗ again i have no notes in front of me i

19:37 ↗ do not have my notes in front of me

19:40 ↗ based on the title

19:41 ↗ i would assume that

19:44 ↗ like trimet properties at alice

19:47 ↗ we were meeting with those applicants

19:50 ↗ who had undeveloped property and were

19:54 ↗ had questions concerns and comments

19:56 ↗ related to the replacement regulations

19:59 ↗ and ideas about what uses

20:02 ↗ what development standards and they were

20:05 ↗ asking questions and discussing that

20:07 ↗ with us not necessarily any specifics

20:10 ↗ about the properties ms slimming didn't

20:12 ↗ you just describe a meeting with trimet

20:16 ↗ we had meetings with trimet we had

20:18 ↗ meetings with your client okay and i'm

20:20 ↗ asking about this meeting do you have

20:22 ↗ any memory of this meeting other than

20:25 ↗ what

20:25 ↗ the the title the subject line of the

20:30 ↗ email tells us no

20:33 ↗ um

20:34 ↗ you put on

20:35 ↗ exhibit

20:57 ↗ going back to exhibit c59 miss loman you

21:00 ↗ put on here in the last column the end

21:02 ↗ of the build-out period why did you

21:03 ↗ include that

21:05 ↗ i thought it might be a useful piece of

21:07 ↗ information

21:09 ↗ in what way

21:12 ↗ just marking different things that were

21:14 ↗ taking place

21:19 ↗ and the end of the build-out period was

21:21 ↗ one of the things that

21:23 ↗ occurred and it provides information

21:26 ↗ about what was happening the larger

21:28 ↗ context do you attach any legal

21:30 ↗ significance to the end of the build-out

21:32 ↗ period

21:34 ↗ it is the city's contention that that is

21:38 ↗ when the contract ended and after that

21:42 ↗ circumstances changed

21:44 ↗ i thought the city's contention was the

21:46 ↗ contract ended on march 28th when the

21:49 ↗ replacement regulations took effect

21:52 ↗ well i think they're different

21:54 ↗ don't know what the right word is

21:59 ↗ there was a guarantee a

22:03 ↗ level of confidence or predictability

22:06 ↗ through the end of the build-out period

22:08 ↗ and then a level of uncertainty

22:10 ↗ between the

22:12 ↗ end of the build-out period

22:15 ↗ and

22:16 ↗ when the replacement regulations were

22:17 ↗ adopted

22:18 ↗ and

22:24 ↗ are you saying that this uh period has

22:26 ↗ significance for the vesting issue that

22:28 ↗ this hearing is about i believe so

22:32 ↗ did you hear mr nibben's testimony about

22:34 ↗ that issue

22:36 ↗ yes

22:37 ↗ mr nevin testify that it did not have

22:40 ↗ significance for the vesting issue that

22:42 ↗ this hearing is about

22:44 ↗ i'm not sure that he said that it did

22:46 ↗ not have significance

22:50 ↗ your chart indicates that by the time

22:52 ↗ my client submitted its applications

22:55 ↗ you were fully staffed correct

22:59 ↗ we had the staff positions filled yes

23:02 ↗ and you said one of the themes when you

23:05 ↗ introduced this chart was that one

23:08 ↗ shouldn't wait to the last minute do you

23:10 ↗ recall seeing that yes

23:12 ↗ so

23:13 ↗ in looking at this chart i see several

23:15 ↗ applications by polygon that were

23:17 ↗ submitted well after hours and have been

23:19 ↗ processed to

23:21 ↗ approval so

23:22 ↗ is there a different last minute for

23:25 ↗ polygon than for shelter

23:29 ↗ so as we have discussed at length

23:34 ↗ polygons permits were linked

23:36 ↗ to a development agreement that was

23:39 ↗ executed with the city

23:42 ↗ related to

23:44 ↗ affordable housing and transfer of

23:46 ↗ development rights

23:48 ↗ yes and we've heard testimony

23:50 ↗ including testimony from mr niven

23:53 ↗ that that development agreement does not

23:55 ↗ refer to vesting

23:58 ↗ but i understand

23:59 ↗ the city's position is that that

24:02 ↗ development agreement that doesn't refer

24:04 ↗ to best invest polygon to the

24:06 ↗ development agreement but not my client

24:09 ↗ but nonetheless

24:12 ↗ what does that have to do with

24:14 ↗ when

24:15 ↗ it's too late to apply and when it isn't

24:20 ↗ i'm sorry i didn't follow that question

24:23 ↗ what is the distinction that you drew

24:25 ↗ between

24:26 ↗ investing pursuant to a development

24:29 ↗ agreement that doesn't mention vesting

24:32 ↗ and my client

24:34 ↗ asserting it's vested to the development

24:36 ↗ agreement what does

24:38 ↗ that distinction have to do with the

24:39 ↗ fact that you process polygons

24:42 ↗ applications submitted after hours to

24:45 ↗ completion

24:46 ↗ and none of our applications are

24:48 ↗ anywhere near completion

24:54 ↗ i'm still having a hard time tracking

24:56 ↗ your question i believe the distinction

24:59 ↗ that you're asking about is

25:04 ↗ that the

25:05 ↗ city

25:06 ↗ identified that

25:09 ↗ polygons permits were

25:12 ↗ vested

25:13 ↗ based on their development agreement

25:17 ↗ your applicant's applications your

25:19 ↗ clients applications were not vested

25:23 ↗ beyond the build-out period

25:26 ↗ of the isqua highlands development

25:28 ↗ agreement

25:30 ↗ and again

25:40 ↗ i fail to understand

25:42 ↗ why

25:43 ↗ the development agreement we're talking

25:45 ↗ about has any effect on the processing

25:48 ↗ speed

25:54 ↗ you i'll make one more attempt and i'll

25:56 ↗ rephrase the question please explain if

25:59 ↗ you can

26:00 ↗ why the development agreement

26:03 ↗ one versus the other has any effect on

26:05 ↗ how quickly you process the applications

26:13 ↗ so um

26:19 ↗ we would have to look at the

26:21 ↗ applications individually

26:24 ↗ your

26:26 ↗ clients

26:27 ↗ land use permits the ones the site

26:30 ↗ development and

26:32 ↗ administrative site development permits

26:34 ↗ that we are reviewing now were

26:36 ↗ determined to be complete in

26:39 ↗ mid-march

26:41 ↗ and when we asked you to update them

26:45 ↗ consistent with the development of

26:47 ↗ regulations

26:50 ↗ your client declined and so that sent us

26:54 ↗ into the process we are now in of trying

26:57 ↗ to

26:58 ↗ process them

27:02 ↗ in a much bigger context

27:06 ↗ let's let's talk about the plat

27:08 ↗ and compare the two plats ms sloman

27:14 ↗ platt

27:16 ↗ for polygon the single family north

27:18 ↗ platte

27:20 ↗ that vested to the development agreement

27:23 ↗ that

27:24 ↗ shelter believes it's vested to correct

27:30 ↗ west ridge north single family vested to

27:32 ↗ the issaquah highlands development

27:34 ↗ agreement yes okay

27:36 ↗ and it submitted uh one month before we

27:39 ↗ did

27:42 ↗ back

27:44 ↗ july rather than on august 1st of 2017.

27:48 ↗ yes

27:50 ↗ and it was

27:52 ↗ given final approval by the

27:55 ↗ city council

27:59 ↗ last summer correct yes

28:05 ↗ you shifted staff resources around to

28:08 ↗ process polygons applications

28:10 ↗ or quickly didn't you

28:13 ↗ no i shifted staff resources around

28:16 ↗ based on their experience

28:19 ↗ and their workloads

28:21 ↗ yeah i have two new exhibits and a lot

28:23 ↗ to offer

28:25 ↗ this one first

28:30 ↗ [Applause]

28:36 ↗ will be 127 and 128.

28:56 ↗ why don't you take a moment to look at

28:58 ↗ this please

29:20 ↗ yeah there's actually an attachment

29:23 ↗ exhibit which

29:25 ↗ is not stable

29:41 ↗ and while we're at it let's pass

29:57 ↗ [Applause]

30:14 ↗ so

30:28 ↗ um

30:36 ↗ do you recognize these uh documents ms

30:39 ↗ loman

30:40 ↗ sort of

30:43 ↗ they're quite dense so i haven't worked

30:45 ↗ my way entirely through them it seems

30:48 ↗ like they

30:49 ↗ are related

30:51 ↗ yes and i'll represent to you you can

30:54 ↗ confirm this that

30:56 ↗ 127 is an email exchange between you and

31:00 ↗ jean lynn

31:02 ↗ that that includes much of the content

31:05 ↗ in 128 which was

31:08 ↗ an email um

31:11 ↗ that was sent to mr abdelhower at

31:15 ↗ polygon

31:17 ↗ with the content that you and ms lane

31:19 ↗ had worked out in 127.

31:21 ↗ so if you can take a moment to confirm

31:23 ↗ what i just represented please

31:43 ↗ [Applause]

32:01 ↗ um

32:42 ↗ okay i sort of have a grasp of them

32:49 ↗ um

32:54 ↗ isn't it fair that what these two

32:55 ↗ documents demonstrate ms

32:58 ↗ sloman is that you shifted uh two

33:01 ↗ planners valerie porter

33:03 ↗ and dan martinez on to polygons projects

33:06 ↗ so they could move along more quickly in

33:08 ↗ response to complaints from polygon

33:11 ↗ no

33:13 ↗ we made the shift because the number of

33:16 ↗ permits that gene was assigned as our

33:19 ↗ only senior planner was too much

33:22 ↗ and so we were trying jean and i were

33:26 ↗ trying to go through

33:28 ↗ her permits

33:29 ↗ and identify which ones she would retain

33:33 ↗ and which ones

33:35 ↗ could conceivably be handed off to other

33:38 ↗ planners

33:40 ↗ and what you handed off to other

33:41 ↗ planners were polygon projects correct

33:44 ↗ and city surf

33:48 ↗ she asked to retain your plat

33:52 ↗ okay and

33:53 ↗ city surf is also on c-59 correct

34:00 ↗ yes

34:02 ↗ and

34:05 ↗ it was granted final approval in october

34:08 ↗ of 2017.

34:11 ↗ yes a month after this email to polygon

34:18 ↗ ah

34:21 ↗ approximately it appears so okay why

34:24 ↗ don't you read to us please um

34:28 ↗ why don't we do it from s-128 i believe

34:30 ↗ the same language is in both it's

34:33 ↗ towards the bottom of the first page of

34:35 ↗ s128 the paragraph entitled staffing

34:41 ↗ while we are currently fully staffed

34:43 ↗ several of us including myself are new

34:46 ↗ and still in the process of ramping up

34:48 ↗ to optimum service levels as the

34:50 ↗ anticipated workloads for all five

34:53 ↗ projects exceed the capacity for any one

34:55 ↗ planner we are looking at bringing in

34:58 ↗ two newer planners to assist valerie

35:00 ↗ porter and dan martinez with lucy and

35:03 ↗ myself continue to stay of all involved

35:05 ↗ to provide guidance

35:07 ↗ staffing for projects is identified in

35:09 ↗ the project section below

35:12 ↗ okay and so

35:15 ↗ are these five polygon projects you're

35:17 ↗ talking about

35:19 ↗ well we're writing to polygons so we're

35:21 ↗ speaking of polygons projects okay

35:24 ↗ and are

35:25 ↗ all five of those projects on your

35:27 ↗ exhibit c-59

35:31 ↗ um where is the list of projects oh on

35:34 ↗ pages two and three

35:36 ↗ no i'm looking at your exhibits in 59

35:38 ↗ your chart

35:41 ↗ okay

35:42 ↗ um

35:43 ↗ so i'm sorry now i'm looking at c-59

35:45 ↗ tell me which projects you're referring

35:47 ↗ to asking you whether the five polygon

35:49 ↗ projects you referred to and

35:52 ↗ or specifically ms lin referred to

35:56 ↗ are on your exhibit c-59

36:15 ↗ yes it appears they are i only see four

36:18 ↗ polygon projects that

36:20 ↗ were still in process in september of

36:26 ↗ 2017. is there a fifth one on here

36:32 ↗ i don't i'm sorry i don't understand the

36:34 ↗ question

36:35 ↗ you asked me if the five

36:38 ↗ permits that are shown that are listed

36:41 ↗ in gene lynn's email

36:43 ↗ are on c59 and i said yes

36:46 ↗ and then you were asking

36:49 ↗ if um

36:51 ↗ some of them

36:52 ↗ if one of them was still in process in

36:54 ↗ september 2018 was that the question no

36:58 ↗ i was in response to your testimony

37:01 ↗ that all five projects to that

37:03 ↗ polygons that she was referring to are

37:06 ↗ on c-59 i was saying i only see four

37:09 ↗ polygon projects and i was asking

37:12 ↗ what the fifth one is

37:26 ↗ so if i start on page two of jean's

37:30 ↗ uh list

37:32 ↗ south town homes construction permits

37:35 ↗ 109 townhouses

37:37 ↗ that is listed on c59 as town home south

37:41 ↗ stp 16

37:44 ↗ 0001

37:46 ↗ single family north platte listed in her

37:50 ↗ email is listed as

37:53 ↗ westridge single family north

37:56 ↗ pp17 one two three

37:59 ↗ one zero zero zero zero

38:02 ↗ one

38:02 ↗ on c-59 lucy they were having a hard

38:05 ↗ time hearing you i'm sorry they're

38:07 ↗ having a hard time hearing oh thank you

38:12 ↗ north town homes

38:16 ↗ sdp

38:17 ↗ in which is with 111 town homes in s 128

38:23 ↗ is

38:28 ↗ i believe town homes north

38:31 ↗ sdp 17002

38:35 ↗ and c59

38:38 ↗ affordable block 4 asdp in s128

38:43 ↗ is block 4 asdp 18-004

38:49 ↗ and track d preliminary plat

38:52 ↗ in s128 is

38:55 ↗ trac

38:59 ↗ zero dpp18001

39:01 ↗ well so

39:03 ↗ again there are five

39:05 ↗ i i apparently didn't follow your

39:08 ↗ testimony so so if if you look on c59

39:12 ↗ the five permits that are referred to

39:16 ↗ in um

39:19 ↗ in in gene lynn's email are the five

39:23 ↗ permits other than westridge south

39:27 ↗ westridge single-family south they have

39:29 ↗ slightly different names the names

39:31 ↗ evolved over time

39:34 ↗ well

39:37 ↗ again i'm

39:38 ↗ confused because we're talking about

39:41 ↗ five permits in process in september of

39:44 ↗ 2017

39:46 ↗ and your chart only shows four polygon

39:49 ↗ permits in process at that time

39:52 ↗ so is the chart wrong or

39:55 ↗ what

39:59 ↗ i um

40:09 ↗ oh

40:14 ↗ so

40:16 ↗ i think the confusion may come that

40:20 ↗ the

40:21 ↗ c59 was showing land use permits

40:26 ↗ south town homes construction permits

40:29 ↗ that's what she calls the construction

40:30 ↗ permits in jean lynn's letter which is

40:33 ↗ the first permit listed ordy you can see

40:36 ↗ under status it says sdp approved

40:40 ↗ so

40:41 ↗ it was discussing the construction

40:44 ↗ permits for south town homes not the

40:47 ↗ land use permit

40:52 ↗ okay so

40:54 ↗ why was jean lynn involved in

40:57 ↗ reviewing construction permits if the

40:59 ↗ land use approval was granted in july of

41:02 ↗ 2016 more than a year before she wrote

41:05 ↗ her email

41:08 ↗ because the land use permit had been

41:10 ↗ approved and polygon was submitting

41:12 ↗ construction permits

41:14 ↗ the planner who

41:18 ↗ was the lead on this land use permit was

41:21 ↗ no longer working for the city and

41:24 ↗ the

41:25 ↗ construction permits were assigned to

41:27 ↗ her

41:28 ↗ what what review does a land use planner

41:31 ↗ give to applications for construction

41:33 ↗ permits

41:35 ↗ we're reviewing against the land use

41:38 ↗ permit

41:40 ↗ conditions we're reviewing for

41:43 ↗ setbacks landscape

41:48 ↗ trails

41:52 ↗ other site improvements as well as

41:54 ↗ building any conditions from the land

41:56 ↗ use permit that related to conditions

42:00 ↗ and um did the two planners who

42:04 ↗ were assigned a polygon according to

42:07 ↗ these emails uh signed a polygon were

42:10 ↗ they ever assigned to work for shelter

42:14 ↗ um dan martinez and valerie porter yes

42:18 ↗ no they had did not have sufficient

42:21 ↗ experience for the level of complexity

42:23 ↗ of shelters permits um

42:27 ↗ did you at some point take over personal

42:29 ↗ review of shelter's applications from

42:31 ↗ gene lin

42:35 ↗ i took over the preliminary plat when it

42:38 ↗ was resubmitted yes

42:42 ↗ so when was that

42:44 ↗ in march

42:46 ↗ so ms lynn

42:48 ↗ processed all

42:49 ↗ of shelter's applications until march of

42:52 ↗ this year

42:53 ↗ i was discussing the plat the land use

42:56 ↗ permits

42:57 ↗ i'm not sure whether gene worked on

43:00 ↗ those

43:02 ↗ once

43:03 ↗ shelter had identified that they were

43:05 ↗ not going to use the replacement

43:06 ↗ regulations

43:08 ↗ isn't it isn't it accurate that no one

43:10 ↗ except you has processed

43:13 ↗ the applications at issue in this

43:15 ↗ hearing

43:22 ↗ jean

43:24 ↗ lynn

43:25 ↗ worked on the pre-app

43:28 ↗ submittals

43:32 ↗ and when the

43:35 ↗ i can't remember what may or may not

43:37 ↗ have happened relative to the sdps and

43:41 ↗ asdp's

43:43 ↗ once they were submitted

43:46 ↗ well

43:49 ↗ let me make my question more specific

43:52 ↗ ms loman isn't it true that at least

43:54 ↗ since

43:56 ↗ replacement regulations were enacted

43:59 ↗ no one in your department has

44:02 ↗ done anything to process any of the sdp

44:05 ↗ applications at issue in this hearing

44:07 ↗ except yourself

44:11 ↗ since the replacement regulations went

44:14 ↗ into effect

44:15 ↗ i have handled the

44:19 ↗ sdps and asdps that this these

44:23 ↗ uh this public hearing is

44:25 ↗ that are subject to this public hearing

44:27 ↗ yes okay so let's turn for a moment to

44:30 ↗ the

44:31 ↗ chart the colored chart that i

44:34 ↗ identified as an attachment to

44:37 ↗ exhibit

44:39 ↗ s2127 do you recognize this

44:42 ↗ i i imagine that i've seen it since it

44:45 ↗ was attached to the email i haven't

44:47 ↗ probably seen it since then

44:49 ↗ okay and now and then

44:51 ↗ and it's it's labeled jeans project

44:54 ↗ timelines yes

44:56 ↗ and the first

44:57 ↗ uh date on it is august 7 of 2017. yes

45:02 ↗ um shelters uh platt is sort of right in

45:06 ↗ the middle of that chart correct

45:10 ↗ yes

45:11 ↗ okay and um

45:14 ↗ there's there's a column

45:16 ↗ in

45:18 ↗ a yellow orange color

45:21 ↗ under august 7 that says

45:24 ↗ reap what does that mean

45:32 ↗ don't know this was not my chart so i'm

45:35 ↗ not sure what she intended by that i

45:38 ↗ don't remember when your

45:40 ↗ client may have submitted a pre-app

45:43 ↗ okay well we've

45:44 ↗ had witnesses testify in this hearing

45:47 ↗ that

45:49 ↗ your department later retroactively

45:52 ↗ deemed the application complete as of

45:54 ↗ august 1. do you recall that i recall

45:57 ↗ that although it's incorrect

46:01 ↗ we did not retroactively deem it

46:03 ↗ complete the development agreement

46:05 ↗ states that if you

46:07 ↗ your app if a applicant does not receive

46:10 ↗ a request for additional information

46:12 ↗ within 10 days

46:14 ↗ of a permit being submitted it is

46:17 ↗ automatically deemed complete and your

46:20 ↗ client i as i understand it

46:23 ↗ they were not communicating with me but

46:25 ↗ as i understand it

46:28 ↗ insisted on having a letter of

46:30 ↗ completeness and so

46:32 ↗ at the time when

46:34 ↗ jean prepared that letter she dated it

46:37 ↗ when it would have automatically been

46:39 ↗ complete per the development agreement

46:43 ↗ so again specifically the first

46:45 ↗ documentation from your

46:47 ↗ department that the application was

46:49 ↗ complete came in october correct

46:52 ↗ it may have been i didn't write that

46:54 ↗ letter i don't have it in front of me

46:56 ↗ okay and so

46:58 ↗ this is gene's timeline for shelter she

47:02 ↗ when does she

47:04 ↗ anticipate issuing the staff report

47:08 ↗ in december of 2017. yes this is the

47:12 ↗ staff report that you haven't started

47:14 ↗ drafting yet

47:17 ↗ i don't agree with the way you're

47:19 ↗ characterizing that have you started

47:21 ↗ drafting the staff report i have started

47:23 ↗ working on the staff report have you

47:24 ↗ started drafting the staff report ms

47:26 ↗ sloman

47:27 ↗ i have started working on the community

47:30 ↗ conference

47:32 ↗ memo does that mean you have not started

47:34 ↗ writing the staff report i would not

47:36 ↗ write a staff report before an action

47:39 ↗ that's required to take place first and

47:41 ↗ when do you anticipate

47:43 ↗ writing the staff report that ms lynn

47:46 ↗ anticipated in 2017

47:51 ↗ well so this um document if if it is at

47:55 ↗ uh

47:56 ↗ i don't know what date it was prepared

47:59 ↗ maybe that's clear in one of these

48:00 ↗ emails but if we assume since the first

48:03 ↗ week

48:04 ↗ that is shown on this timeline is

48:07 ↗ august 7th that means that this was

48:10 ↗ likely prepared

48:12 ↗ in early august days after the permit

48:15 ↗ was submitted before ms lynn had an

48:17 ↗ opportunity

48:19 ↗ to review it and to determine

48:21 ↗ that

48:23 ↗ she needed additional information

48:25 ↗ so this may have been a

48:28 ↗ concept of how she

48:30 ↗ anticipated doing it

48:32 ↗ and that changed when she

48:35 ↗ did the review

48:39 ↗ so

48:40 ↗ why don't you turn to exhibit uh 127

48:43 ↗ miss loman and

48:45 ↗ second page where jean lynn is

48:49 ↗ sending you an email

48:51 ↗ attaching to you a copy of her project

48:54 ↗ timeline

48:56 ↗ okay what's the date of that september

48:58 ↗ 8th

49:06 ↗ and what

49:08 ↗ review are you just referring to when

49:12 ↗ miss lin would have realized that her

49:14 ↗ timeline was unrealistic

49:20 ↗ when

49:22 ↗ the planner and the engineer

49:25 ↗ as well as other assigned reviewers

49:29 ↗ have completed their review of a permit

49:34 ↗ they would send out comments

49:37 ↗ well what cut what comments are you

49:39 ↗ referring to and when were they sent out

49:42 ↗ so the comments on the

49:46 ↗ preliminary plat

49:48 ↗ there was an engineering email that i

49:50 ↗ believe went out in january and then a

49:54 ↗ set of marked up plans that went out in

49:57 ↗ march 2018.

50:01 ↗ so

50:03 ↗ you've revert a couple of times to this

50:04 ↗ engineering review

50:06 ↗ ms loman do you have a copy of that

50:09 ↗ not with me this evening no i don't

50:11 ↗ believe my client has seen any

50:13 ↗ engineering review comments

50:16 ↗ so

50:17 ↗ perhaps you could find those

50:19 ↗ that you've referred to

50:21 ↗ all right i believe they

50:23 ↗ may have gone to the engineer

50:26 ↗ for the platte but

50:28 ↗ i don't know that for certain

50:30 ↗ so the first

50:32 ↗ comments on the plaid application itself

50:34 ↗ are the ones that were sent in march

50:38 ↗ not if an email went to the engineer who

50:41 ↗ i believe applied for the permit

50:43 ↗ uh in january

50:46 ↗ well

50:47 ↗ i'm let's leave those engineering

50:49 ↗ comments that we haven't seen to the

50:51 ↗ side for one moment i'm talking about

50:53 ↗ land use review now

50:55 ↗ the land use review the first and only

50:58 ↗ communication regarding the land use

51:00 ↗ issues was in march of 2018 correct the

51:04 ↗ marked up plans were in march of

51:07 ↗ i don't think that's the only

51:09 ↗ communication

51:11 ↗ so did my client receive anything before

51:14 ↗ it got those marked up plans in march of

51:16 ↗ 2018. i'm not the permit lead i don't

51:20 ↗ know all the dates or activities

51:23 ↗ associated with the permit

51:26 ↗ i thought you became the permit lead on

51:28 ↗ the plat did i misunderstand

51:31 ↗ i did in 2019.

51:34 ↗ so um

51:36 ↗ what is this community conference memo

51:39 ↗ that you

51:41 ↗ started apparently started drafting

51:44 ↗ i'm sorry say that again you referred to

51:46 ↗ this

51:47 ↗ i believe to a community conference memo

51:50 ↗ instead of a

51:51 ↗ staff report for the subdivision did i

51:54 ↗ misunderstand

51:55 ↗ so for a community conference

51:59 ↗ which is the first step in reviewing

52:02 ↗ a plat application under the replacement

52:04 ↗ regs the first step is the community

52:07 ↗ conference and a memo is sent

52:10 ↗ to the development commission

52:12 ↗ and does

52:14 ↗ what does that memo talk about does it

52:16 ↗ talk about

52:19 ↗ what my client is vested to

52:22 ↗ no

52:23 ↗ so what does it talk about

52:26 ↗ i believe according to the imc it talks

52:28 ↗ about

52:34 ↗ there's some

52:35 ↗ general terms used which i am not

52:37 ↗ recalling specifically um

52:44 ↗ elements that

52:47 ↗ comply and don't comply i'm not i really

52:49 ↗ don't remember i haven't uh i looked at

52:52 ↗ it earlier this week or last week but i

52:55 ↗ don't remember the exact words

52:57 ↗ well

52:58 ↗ have you drafted this memo i've started

53:01 ↗ working on this memo

53:04 ↗ okay so ms sloman um

53:09 ↗ can you find please

53:12 ↗ uh the

53:15 ↗ notice of application

53:17 ↗ that your department mailed for

53:20 ↗ my clients plat

53:24 ↗ can you

53:25 ↗ give me

53:26 ↗ a well it's in the record twice i think

53:29 ↗ one of them is s one

53:50 ↗ okay

53:52 ↗ um

54:00 ↗ [Applause]

54:02 ↗ have you decided that my client is not

54:05 ↗ vested to what is illustrated on that

54:07 ↗ notice of application

54:13 ↗ i would be glad in through the plat

54:15 ↗ process to talk about this

54:18 ↗ our position has been stated in these

54:21 ↗ proceedings

54:23 ↗ that this was not part of the original

54:25 ↗ submittal

54:27 ↗ and that we

54:31 ↗ do not think that that gives it

54:34 ↗ standing

54:35 ↗ but

54:36 ↗ you know the the issue i'm having is

54:40 ↗ you're asking me to

54:42 ↗ um make

54:43 ↗ declarative statements about things

54:46 ↗ before i have completed my review

54:49 ↗ well ms sloman it's 21 months since we

54:53 ↗ submitted the platt application

54:55 ↗ and you just i think acknowledged again

54:57 ↗ you haven't decided what we're vested to

55:02 ↗ so 21 months of which 12 months it was

55:05 ↗ out for corrections

55:07 ↗ this woman you've already

55:09 ↗ acknowledged that that's not true

55:13 ↗ so

55:14 ↗ i'm sorry say that again said you've

55:15 ↗ already acknowledged that that is not

55:18 ↗ true that is a gross exaggeration based

55:20 ↗ on your own prior to testimony isn't

55:23 ↗ that fair

55:24 ↗ i don't know what that means that that

55:26 ↗ that is not true could you clarify

55:29 ↗ please

55:29 ↗ yes what is the 12-month period when

55:33 ↗ you sent out corrections and my client

55:36 ↗ was doing nothing in response i did not

55:39 ↗ say your client was doing nothing in

55:40 ↗ response

55:42 ↗ may i finish please

55:44 ↗ i would we were waiting for a

55:46 ↗ resubmittal we

55:48 ↗ received we sent the comments

55:51 ↗ we were slow to respond the first time

55:54 ↗ and then about every two months we had

55:57 ↗ an exchange with your client asking for

56:01 ↗ clarifications and additional

56:03 ↗ information

56:05 ↗ after

56:06 ↗ multiple exchanges we received new

56:09 ↗ drawings revised drawings

56:14 ↗ and how long was the period of time

56:17 ↗ within that 12-month period when you

56:19 ↗ were slow to respond

56:30 ↗ i don't know exactly five months six

56:32 ↗ months

56:37 ↗ out

56:45 ↗ ms solomon you testified last time and i

56:47 ↗ apologize i'm

56:50 ↗ trying to find the testimony here but

56:52 ↗ you testified

56:53 ↗ that one of the problems with

56:56 ↗ our platt application it was in the

56:59 ↗ context of why you were explaining

57:02 ↗ why

57:04 ↗ uh you were

57:05 ↗ withholding a determination of

57:08 ↗ completeness for the stp applications it

57:10 ↗ was because of the

57:12 ↗ of the pending um

57:16 ↗ it was because the plot had not been

57:18 ↗ approved yet

57:20 ↗ and you gave an example of a problem

57:23 ↗ uh that the uh application showed some

57:28 ↗ sort of easement in the location of a

57:30 ↗ building

57:31 ↗ you recall that testimony

57:33 ↗ yes um there was

57:36 ↗ on the drawings

57:38 ↗ shown a public access

57:40 ↗ easement

57:41 ↗ uh in the area of parking

57:46 ↗ and i believe a corner of a building

57:49 ↗ okay well the

57:50 ↗ the uh the building that you apparently

57:54 ↗ are referring to in your testimony

57:57 ↗ didn't appear on the august application

58:00 ↗ did it

58:03 ↗ no

58:03 ↗ it only appeared on the december

58:07 ↗ supplemental

58:09 ↗ submittal correct well

58:12 ↗ true however

58:14 ↗ the

58:16 ↗ site development permit for the retail

58:21 ↗ stp

58:22 ↗ when i was reviewing that for

58:25 ↗ sufficiency

58:28 ↗ i was looking at the

58:31 ↗ area

58:32 ↗ that was shown and i could see

58:35 ↗ comparing the two

58:37 ↗ prior to

58:39 ↗ the footprints being added

58:42 ↗ by your client

58:44 ↗ that there was a public access easement

58:47 ↗ in the area where

58:53 ↗ other uses such as required parking

58:57 ↗ were shown

58:58 ↗ and i was concerned that

59:01 ↗ that relied on a council determination

59:06 ↗ well

59:08 ↗ ms loman you you think i think you just

59:11 ↗ testified that you were reviewing our

59:13 ↗ plat application

59:15 ↗ together with the sdp applications and

59:18 ↗ that they were consistent with one

59:20 ↗ another correct no

59:22 ↗ i was saying the opposite

59:26 ↗ i i don't understand what you mean by

59:28 ↗ consistent i guess well they apparently

59:31 ↗ they both showed a building in the same

59:32 ↗ location

59:34 ↗ is that there i was not using i don't

59:37 ↗ think i was using the december plans i

59:39 ↗ think i was using the august plans and i

59:42 ↗ don't remember

59:43 ↗ whether the public access easement

59:45 ↗ whether it was shown on the plat or on

59:48 ↗ the site development permit

59:50 ↗ ms loman again maybe we should take a

59:52 ↗ break and i'll find the testimony but

59:54 ↗ you testified that it was the plat

59:57 ↗ application

59:58 ↗ that showed this discrepancy and that's

1:00:01 ↗ or this what you'd

1:00:03 ↗ termed to be an inconsistency and that

1:00:05 ↗ was one of the reasons that you couldn't

1:00:08 ↗ process

1:00:10 ↗ the sdps it was because of the plat

1:00:13 ↗ application isn't that what you said

1:00:15 ↗ last time

1:00:16 ↗ so

1:00:18 ↗ this has all been as you have identified

1:00:21 ↗ going on for a long time and i have

1:00:23 ↗ spent time

1:00:25 ↗ during these proceedings looking at the

1:00:28 ↗ various plat applications that have come

1:00:31 ↗ in august 1st august 28th december and

1:00:35 ↗ march

1:00:36 ↗ and

1:00:38 ↗ at the time that i was reviewing the

1:00:41 ↗ site development permit i was

1:00:46 ↗ i had to have been looking that was

1:00:48 ↗ submitted in november of 2017 so i had

1:00:51 ↗ to have been using either the august 1st

1:00:54 ↗ or august 28th

1:00:56 ↗ submittal a plat submittal and was

1:00:59 ↗ concerned to see

1:01:01 ↗ that there was an easement that i did

1:01:04 ↗ not know if it would be released and

1:01:06 ↗ therefore it created uncertainty with

1:01:09 ↗ the site development permit

1:01:12 ↗ subsequently i was able

1:01:15 ↗ to look at it

1:01:17 ↗ in your more recent submittals and see

1:01:19 ↗ that a corner of a building was shown

1:01:22 ↗ uh in that

1:01:25 ↗ easement area

1:01:28 ↗ okay so this woman i'll find the

1:01:30 ↗ testimony on the break um

1:01:33 ↗ i'm happy to move on to another exhibit

1:01:34 ↗ or we can take the break now it's your

1:01:37 ↗ choice

1:01:38 ↗ this would be a good time to take a 10

1:01:40 ↗ minute break appreciate it thank you

1:12:14 ↗ okay we're back on the order

1:12:16 ↗ back on the air and i'll call the

1:12:17 ↗ meeting door

1:12:21 ↗ [Applause]

1:12:24 ↗ a copy of the transcript

1:12:26 ↗ from the last time i'd like you to turn

1:12:28 ↗ to page 22 where you were testifying

1:12:31 ↗ please okay

1:12:32 ↗ and

1:12:35 ↗ your testimony starts on page 21 where

1:12:38 ↗ you're

1:12:39 ↗ uh

1:12:40 ↗ testifying that mr mullaney gave

1:12:42 ↗ misleading and or incorrect testimony

1:12:45 ↗ and i'll get back to that but as part of

1:12:47 ↗ your

1:12:49 ↗ testimony on that issue you started

1:12:52 ↗ talking about the contrast between

1:12:54 ↗ polygon short plat and

1:12:57 ↗ shelter's preliminary plat and so

1:13:00 ↗ i'd like you can

1:13:02 ↗ you can read more of it if you want but

1:13:04 ↗ i would like you to specifically

1:13:07 ↗ read what you testified last two

1:13:08 ↗ beginning at line 15 on page 22.

1:13:12 ↗ shelter's preliminary plat on the other

1:13:14 ↗ hand being a

1:13:16 ↗ was full preliminary

1:13:17 ↗ complicated there

1:13:19 ↗ because we aren't the decision maker we

1:13:21 ↗ don't know what the outcome is going to

1:13:23 ↗ be the plat showed a public access

1:13:26 ↗ easement on areas that had parking in

1:13:28 ↗ the corner of a building we had no idea

1:13:31 ↗ if that was going to be released and so

1:13:33 ↗ there was a great deal more uncertainty

1:13:35 ↗ that came with a preliminary plat than a

1:13:37 ↗ short flat okay so we also i think

1:13:41 ↗ opened in front of you

1:13:43 ↗ speed things along a copy of

1:13:46 ↗ city exhibit 14 which is the plat

1:13:50 ↗ application

1:13:52 ↗ you could take a look at that please

1:13:58 ↗ okay

1:13:58 ↗ and i think this is the one that was uh

1:14:02 ↗ in november or december of 2017.

1:14:06 ↗ would you find forest please where the

1:14:09 ↗ platte shows a public access easement on

1:14:13 ↗ areas that had parking in the corner of

1:14:14 ↗ the building

1:14:17 ↗ this is only one page of the december

1:14:20 ↗ submittal and it isn't shown on that

1:14:22 ↗ page

1:14:23 ↗ you can look anywhere in this middle you

1:14:25 ↗ want i'm asking you there's only c14

1:14:27 ↗ only has one page

1:14:30 ↗ the c15 is the next page so i think the

1:14:33 ↗ entire submittal is there

1:14:36 ↗ i

1:14:38 ↗ i'd like you to identify what you were

1:14:40 ↗ referring to when you gave the testimony

1:14:43 ↗ last time

1:14:44 ↗ okay

1:14:57 ↗ and then when you find it if you could

1:14:58 ↗ identify the page please

1:15:03 ↗ so on in

1:15:05 ↗ c15

1:15:06 ↗ the very first page

1:15:10 ↗ which is

1:15:12 ↗ labeled c-15 core preliminary plaid high

1:15:15 ↗ street collection at isqua highlands

1:15:18 ↗ i don't see a label on what this sheet

1:15:21 ↗ is

1:15:22 ↗ so i'm looking on

1:15:25 ↗ gosh this is tiny

1:15:27 ↗ uh

1:15:29 ↗ lot 5

1:15:32 ↗ which is

1:15:34 ↗ south of ellis drive

1:15:38 ↗ and across

1:15:43 ↗ towards the west end of that block it

1:15:45 ↗ says public access and utility

1:15:49 ↗ easement and it points

1:15:51 ↗ from

1:15:52 ↗ the arrows i believe

1:15:55 ↗ point from the

1:15:56 ↗ north side of ellis drive

1:15:59 ↗ to a dotted line

1:16:02 ↗ south of the

1:16:04 ↗ south edge of ellis drive

1:16:26 ↗ okay so what is the easement that you're

1:16:28 ↗ you're referring to ms sloman

1:16:34 ↗ a public access and utility easement

1:16:38 ↗ is that an easement that the city

1:16:41 ↗ required my client to

1:16:45 ↗ dedicate

1:16:48 ↗ i don't know

1:16:57 ↗ didn't your department require polygon

1:17:00 ↗ to get that easement from shelter as a

1:17:02 ↗ condition of

1:17:03 ↗ one of their approvals

1:17:07 ↗ i don't know that we required it i

1:17:10 ↗ wasn't the planner on that permit so i

1:17:13 ↗ don't know the process by which this

1:17:16 ↗ easement was

1:17:18 ↗ recorded

1:17:19 ↗ and didn't that wasn't that easement

1:17:23 ↗ worded in such a way that it went away

1:17:25 ↗ when a public street was dedicated

1:17:28 ↗ i don't know i have i was not at that

1:17:32 ↗ point reviewing the plot and i have not

1:17:35 ↗ dug into that level of detail well ms

1:17:37 ↗ loman you you testified last time that

1:17:40 ↗ one of the reasons that you

1:17:42 ↗ weren't deeming my clients stp

1:17:44 ↗ applications was complete

1:17:47 ↗ because the plat showed a public access

1:17:49 ↗ easement on areas that had parking in

1:17:51 ↗ the corner of a building correct yes

1:17:54 ↗ and so you were obviously reviewing the

1:17:57 ↗ platte application that showed a level

1:17:59 ↗ of detail including

1:18:02 ↗ buildings

1:18:03 ↗ and access easements

1:18:06 ↗ and streets and parking and all of that

1:18:08 ↗ correct

1:18:09 ↗ now i was i was looking at it

1:18:13 ↗ at the level of this kind of drawing

1:18:17 ↗ i was not

1:18:18 ↗ opening up the recorded documents i was

1:18:23 ↗ looking at it and seeing what

1:18:26 ↗ information was provided on an overview

1:18:28 ↗ sheet such as this okay and isn't

1:18:31 ↗ everything i just described

1:18:33 ↗ building footprints parking access

1:18:36 ↗ easements isn't everything

1:18:38 ↗ illustrated on the document that you

1:18:40 ↗ referred to

1:18:42 ↗ so the document i'm looking at c15 does

1:18:45 ↗ not have building footprints on it

1:18:50 ↗ let me say that this the particular

1:18:52 ↗ sheet that i am looking at at this time

1:18:55 ↗ and see if the rest of c15

1:18:58 ↗ is not here it's just that single sheet

1:19:01 ↗ well the what is the date of this

1:19:03 ↗ material

1:19:05 ↗ december i think 15 2017 those are

1:19:09 ↗ really tiny little numbers okay

1:19:11 ↗ before you

1:19:13 ↗ gave the public notice that included the

1:19:15 ↗ building footprints correct

1:19:20 ↗ was this drawing

1:19:24 ↗ created before the public

1:19:28 ↗ notice

1:19:29 ↗ that went out

1:19:31 ↗ is that your question

1:19:34 ↗ i don't think it was my that was my

1:19:36 ↗ specific question but if

1:19:38 ↗ if you want to acknowledge that to be

1:19:40 ↗ the case that's fine

1:19:44 ↗ so the date on this drawing is december

1:19:47 ↗ 15 2017 i think and i believe public

1:19:51 ↗ notice went out later in december

1:19:54 ↗ so yes this drawing was created before

1:19:57 ↗ the public notice went out okay so you

1:20:00 ↗ referred uh before the break ms loman to

1:20:04 ↗ mr niven's april 4 2018 letter as having

1:20:08 ↗ informed us what we're vested to

1:20:12 ↗ i

1:20:13 ↗ do not have that letter in front of me i

1:20:15 ↗ believe it spoke to some of the

1:20:18 ↗ standards and vesting provisions but i

1:20:21 ↗ do not remember the specifics

1:20:24 ↗ i thought that it i thought it had

1:20:26 ↗ information that might be relevant to

1:20:28 ↗ the question you were asking me again

1:20:30 ↗ i've been asking multiple questions

1:20:31 ↗ about what my client is vested to under

1:20:34 ↗ the plat

1:20:35 ↗ and in response to one of those

1:20:36 ↗ questions you said

1:20:39 ↗ mr niven described it in his letter

1:20:41 ↗ isn't that correct i

1:20:44 ↗ if if i made such a general statement

1:20:46 ↗ that may have been inaccurate what i was

1:20:48 ↗ trying to indicate was that i remembered

1:20:51 ↗ that that april 4 2018 letter

1:20:54 ↗ had some

1:20:55 ↗ information on vesting and the plot i

1:20:58 ↗ don't remember the specifics

1:21:00 ↗ that april 4 letter is the only

1:21:04 ↗ communication

1:21:06 ↗ the city has given to my client

1:21:08 ↗ telling us what we are vested to or not

1:21:11 ↗ vested to under the plat is that fair

1:21:22 ↗ i don't know

1:21:24 ↗ would you turn to

1:21:26 ↗ mr nevin's letter it's exhibit s30

1:21:50 ↗ foreign

1:21:58 ↗ [Applause]

1:22:00 ↗ okay

1:22:21 ↗ hmm

1:22:26 ↗ okay so first of all i want to turn your

1:22:28 ↗ attention to the top of page two of mr

1:22:30 ↗ nibban's april fourth letter

1:22:34 ↗ you read the first sentence on that page

1:22:36 ↗ please pursuant to imc

1:22:41 ↗ 18.19c.280 is adopted by ordinance

1:22:44 ↗ number 2830 the city considers ihifc's

1:22:49 ↗ preliminary plat application

1:22:51 ↗ permit number pp17-0002

1:22:56 ↗ to be vested to the extent indicated

1:22:59 ↗ below okay and then if you could turn

1:23:01 ↗ over please to

1:23:04 ↗ the bottom of page four of the letters

1:23:06 ↗ section five

1:23:11 ↗ okay

1:23:12 ↗ okay and

1:23:13 ↗ uh

1:23:14 ↗ why don't you read uh

1:23:16 ↗ what mr niven wrote there read that

1:23:18 ↗ first paragraph the one that begins

1:23:19 ↗ under the state law

1:23:22 ↗ under the state law standards adopted in

1:23:24 ↗ imc 18.19 c.280 a complete subdivision

1:23:29 ↗ application vests the underlying

1:23:31 ↗ proposal quote only at a very general

1:23:34 ↗ level close quote

1:23:36 ↗ i.e to the land uses allowed under the

1:23:38 ↗ municipalities current regulations

1:23:41 ↗ semicolon

1:23:42 ↗ [Music]

1:23:43 ↗ parentheses no

1:23:45 ↗ quote

1:23:46 ↗ any specific project will still have to

1:23:49 ↗ meet the development standards at the

1:23:50 ↗ time the building permit

1:23:52 ↗ with building permit underlined is filed

1:23:55 ↗ period close quote

1:23:57 ↗ and that's a citation to a case alliance

1:24:00 ↗ investment you don't need to read the

1:24:02 ↗ whole citation pick up again where mr

1:24:04 ↗ niven's sentence is

1:24:06 ↗ where a platt application actually

1:24:09 ↗ identifies a specific development plan

1:24:11 ↗ or concept such as building foot backs

1:24:14 ↗ setbacks etc

1:24:16 ↗ quote

1:24:17 ↗ what is vested is what is sought in the

1:24:19 ↗ application for a plat close quote

1:24:22 ↗ so mr niven said that where

1:24:25 ↗ he quoted the noble manor case that

1:24:27 ↗ where a plat application actually

1:24:28 ↗ identifies

1:24:30 ↗ specific development planner concepts

1:24:32 ↗ such as building footprints setbacks etc

1:24:36 ↗ that's what you vest too with the plaid

1:24:38 ↗ application correct

1:24:40 ↗ i think his wording is here

1:24:42 ↗ okay didn't i fairly summarize it

1:24:46 ↗ uh i suppose okay and the materials that

1:24:49 ↗ we were just looking at

1:24:51 ↗ uh that you

1:24:53 ↗ referred to in your testimony last time

1:24:55 ↗ with the plaid application materials

1:24:57 ↗ that you had in front of you in

1:25:00 ↗ november

1:25:01 ↗ and december before you sent the public

1:25:03 ↗ notice they showed a great deal of

1:25:05 ↗ detail in addition to building

1:25:06 ↗ footprints correct

1:25:09 ↗ so your

1:25:11 ↗ clients submitted additional unrequested

1:25:15 ↗ materials that were beyond the scope of

1:25:18 ↗ what was submitted

1:25:19 ↗ in august

1:25:22 ↗ when the permit was deemed complete ms

1:25:24 ↗ lohmann would you answer my question

1:25:26 ↗ please in

1:25:28 ↗ when you

1:25:30 ↗ before you sent out the public notice

1:25:32 ↗ you had a

1:25:34 ↗ thoroughly detailed plat application

1:25:37 ↗ that gives considerable more detail than

1:25:40 ↗ mr nevin's letter says is required to

1:25:43 ↗ vest isn't that correct

1:25:47 ↗ your client was hoping to submit that to

1:25:50 ↗ vest to an additional level of detail

1:25:53 ↗ beyond what they originally submitted i

1:25:55 ↗ would assume this solomon would you

1:25:57 ↗ answer my question please didn't you

1:25:59 ↗ have

1:26:01 ↗ a detailed thorough plot application

1:26:06 ↗ before you send out the public notice

1:26:09 ↗ i would say it was beyond the detail

1:26:12 ↗ that we need for the plat i would not

1:26:14 ↗ say it was thorough i would say it was

1:26:16 ↗ excessive

1:26:18 ↗ okay and

1:26:20 ↗ you had you've had that detail

1:26:23 ↗ for a year and a half

1:26:25 ↗ and as you told us earlier tonight you

1:26:27 ↗ have not decided what that detail we are

1:26:30 ↗ vested to correct

1:26:32 ↗ i'm not prepared to make a statement in

1:26:34 ↗ these proceedings that are not about the

1:26:37 ↗ plat

1:26:38 ↗ regarding

1:26:38 ↗ [Music]

1:26:39 ↗ matters that we will deal with through

1:26:41 ↗ the plat application review and decision

1:26:45 ↗ are you declining and refusing to answer

1:26:47 ↗ my question mr sloman

1:26:55 ↗ could you state your question again

1:26:56 ↗ please

1:26:58 ↗ well why don't we have the court

1:26:59 ↗ reporter read it back please

1:27:46 ↗ it's

1:28:05 ↗ so

1:28:13 ↗ [Applause]

1:28:37 ↗ i know we're not that far in but my days

1:28:40 ↗ are just taking a quick break so that he

1:28:41 ↗ has time to

1:28:43 ↗ correct the technical issue and

1:28:46 ↗ no objection from the city five minutes

1:28:49 ↗ five minutes to let's take a break for

1:28:50 ↗ five minutes

1:34:24 ↗ okay we're back on the air so i'll call

1:34:26 ↗ the meeting back to order

1:34:57 ↗ would you please re instruct the

1:34:58 ↗ recorder

1:35:02 ↗ question please

1:35:08 ↗ okay all right

1:35:11 ↗ okay

1:35:27 ↗ so uh this woman after this interval i i

1:35:30 ↗ don't specifically remember the the

1:35:32 ↗ question i asked so you don't have to

1:35:35 ↗ answer it

1:35:36 ↗ um

1:35:37 ↗ but let me try it again

1:35:40 ↗ um

1:35:53 ↗ the plot application materials that

1:35:56 ↗ you referred to in your testimony last

1:35:59 ↗ time

1:36:01 ↗ as an example of why you aren't willing

1:36:04 ↗ to

1:36:07 ↗ eam

1:36:10 ↗ shelter's sdp applications as complete

1:36:16 ↗ in fact provided a detailed

1:36:20 ↗ set of plans and informations

1:36:23 ↗ that is consistent with the sdp

1:36:25 ↗ applications isn't that fair

1:36:27 ↗ no

1:36:29 ↗ the

1:36:30 ↗ sdp

1:36:31 ↗ submittals that

1:36:33 ↗ i was reviewing came in in late november

1:36:37 ↗ before

1:36:39 ↗ your client

1:36:41 ↗ unilaterally submitted these additional

1:36:44 ↗ materials

1:36:45 ↗ and so at the time i was looking at the

1:36:49 ↗ august submittals

1:36:51 ↗ uh trying to understand how they related

1:36:54 ↗ to the

1:36:56 ↗ november sdp submittals

1:36:59 ↗ ms sloman i don't think you answered my

1:37:01 ↗ question my question was about

1:37:04 ↗ the material you had in november

1:37:07 ↗ that we were talking about before the

1:37:09 ↗ break that you referred to in your

1:37:11 ↗ testimony last time

1:37:13 ↗ that material

1:37:15 ↗ is consistent with my client's stp

1:37:17 ↗ applications is it not

1:37:21 ↗ so i think before the

1:37:23 ↗ 10-minute break i

1:37:26 ↗ maybe more accurately characterized what

1:37:29 ↗ i was trying to say

1:37:31 ↗ there

1:37:32 ↗ there are

1:37:33 ↗ two things kind of happening because of

1:37:35 ↗ the period of time we're looking at

1:37:38 ↗ there was what materials i looked at in

1:37:41 ↗ november when two of the site

1:37:44 ↗ development permits were submitted

1:37:47 ↗ and those the only plaque materials that

1:37:50 ↗ were available

1:37:51 ↗ were the august to august plat

1:37:54 ↗ submittals which did not show building

1:37:56 ↗ footprints but did show the public

1:37:58 ↗ access easement

1:38:01 ↗ when i testified last time i think i was

1:38:04 ↗ thinking more comprehensively

1:38:06 ↗ based on all of your plat submittals

1:38:10 ↗ and what i could see in the more

1:38:14 ↗ in the december and march plat

1:38:16 ↗ submittals

1:38:17 ↗ relative to this easement

1:38:20 ↗ and the uh buildings and parking and

1:38:23 ↗ detail that you refer to

1:38:25 ↗ and the sloman you're still not

1:38:26 ↗ answering my question i'm trying which

1:38:28 ↗ is a simple one

1:38:30 ↗ materials that you and by you i mean not

1:38:33 ↗ only you personally but your department

1:38:35 ↗ had

1:38:37 ↗ november of 2017

1:38:40 ↗ are consistent with my client's sdp

1:38:43 ↗ applications and show

1:38:45 ↗ a great deal of detail about

1:38:48 ↗ building footprints roads easements

1:38:52 ↗ parking and so forth isn't that

1:38:54 ↗ accurate

1:38:55 ↗ no

1:38:56 ↗ the plot with that level of detail was

1:38:59 ↗ not submitted until december

1:39:02 ↗ a document that you were testifying

1:39:04 ↗ about you told us had a november date on

1:39:07 ↗ it

1:39:08 ↗ correct

1:39:12 ↗ i'm i'm confused i don't the november

1:39:16 ↗ uh

1:39:17 ↗ permits that i'm referring to are the

1:39:20 ↗ site development and administrative site

1:39:23 ↗ development permits that were

1:39:25 ↗ the first two that came in came in in

1:39:28 ↗ november

1:39:29 ↗ i don't know the 20th the 23rd

1:39:31 ↗ there was no new platt materials

1:39:34 ↗ submitted in november there was only the

1:39:37 ↗ plat materials from

1:39:38 ↗ august let me

1:39:41 ↗ correct my question then

1:39:44 ↗ in december you had not only the

1:39:47 ↗ detailed stp application materials

1:39:51 ↗ that you also had plat a plat

1:39:53 ↗ application that was consistent with

1:39:55 ↗ those materials correct

1:39:59 ↗ we did

1:40:00 ↗ as i think i have testified previously

1:40:04 ↗ i

1:40:06 ↗ i did not get noticed that those new

1:40:09 ↗ platt materials had come in in december

1:40:12 ↗ i was not reviewing

1:40:15 ↗ the plat at that time i was not aware

1:40:18 ↗ that those materials had been submitted

1:40:21 ↗ i was reviewing

1:40:23 ↗ the

1:40:24 ↗ stp submittals

1:40:27 ↗ against the previous letters that had

1:40:30 ↗ been sent out i don't think that i was

1:40:32 ↗ pulling up

1:40:34 ↗ the new platts and metal materials that

1:40:36 ↗ had come in

1:40:38 ↗ subsequently okay so

1:40:41 ↗ uh

1:40:42 ↗ i think you

1:40:44 ↗ agreed that you had those that

1:40:46 ↗ information in december by you i mean

1:40:48 ↗ your department

1:40:50 ↗ and when you testified last time about

1:40:53 ↗ a problem with the plat you were in fact

1:40:56 ↗ referring then to the stp application

1:40:59 ↗ and not the plat application

1:41:02 ↗ so without looking at those materials i

1:41:05 ↗ don't know which materials had the

1:41:08 ↗ easement i know that the august

1:41:11 ↗ plat showed the public access easement

1:41:15 ↗ i mean i should say i feel fairly

1:41:16 ↗ confident i haven't looked at it in many

1:41:19 ↗ many months

1:41:21 ↗ the

1:41:23 ↗ sdp i don't know if it showed the

1:41:26 ↗ public access easement or not

1:41:29 ↗ i would have to go back and look at

1:41:31 ↗ those documents to be able to

1:41:33 ↗ conclusively answer your question my

1:41:35 ↗ question i think right now is a simple

1:41:37 ↗ one and i'm just trying to find out what

1:41:39 ↗ last time

1:41:40 ↗ about issues raised by the platte

1:41:42 ↗ whether you were referring to the platte

1:41:44 ↗ application as you said or whether that

1:41:47 ↗ was a mistake and you were referring to

1:41:49 ↗ the sdp application

1:41:52 ↗ so

1:41:53 ↗ i was referring

1:41:56 ↗ at

1:41:58 ↗ so i was conflating a number of things

1:42:01 ↗ and so i can understand that's confusing

1:42:04 ↗ my

1:42:05 ↗ initial

1:42:06 ↗ awareness of the public access easement

1:42:09 ↗ i believe was when i began looking

1:42:13 ↗ at the

1:42:15 ↗ november

1:42:17 ↗ stp and asdp submittals

1:42:20 ↗ however by the time i was testifying

1:42:23 ↗ last time i had looked at many different

1:42:26 ↗ plats and sdps

1:42:29 ↗ and had seen among those many documents

1:42:33 ↗ that the

1:42:34 ↗ surface parking the corner of a building

1:42:36 ↗ and the public access easement overlaid

1:42:39 ↗ each other i at this point am not clear

1:42:42 ↗ which document i was looking at when i

1:42:44 ↗ was referencing that

1:42:46 ↗ last time because i was not speaking to

1:42:49 ↗ it

1:42:50 ↗ as

1:42:51 ↗ a specific submittal i was speaking to

1:42:54 ↗ it as a concern about whether the

1:42:58 ↗ that public access easement would be

1:43:00 ↗ released

1:43:02 ↗ and that

1:43:03 ↗ at that point in time having seen many

1:43:05 ↗ documents i could see that there was

1:43:07 ↗ overlap between some of the elements you

1:43:10 ↗ your client was showing

1:43:12 ↗ and that public access easement

1:43:21 ↗ would you turn the exhibit at 65 please

1:43:38 ↗ so

1:43:54 ↗ um

1:44:17 ↗ up

1:44:26 ↗ okay

1:44:28 ↗ so this is an email from you to gene

1:44:30 ↗ lynn

1:44:34 ↗ um

1:44:36 ↗ it's i think so the um part of the uh

1:44:40 ↗ two and cc and from are cut off so it's

1:44:43 ↗ it's hard for me to see the whole thing

1:44:45 ↗ but

1:44:46 ↗ it in the body of the text it does say

1:44:48 ↗ gene

1:44:49 ↗ and lucy okay and you told jean that she

1:44:52 ↗ did a great job of getting out a

1:44:54 ↗ combined notice of applications

1:44:57 ↗ for three permits

1:44:59 ↗ including the shelter high street plat

1:45:02 ↗ i did

1:45:04 ↗ and then you say the date on the

1:45:06 ↗ document says december 27 of 2017

1:45:10 ↗ uh it does um

1:45:16 ↗ then you say now that we have these

1:45:17 ↗ three permits assigned to three

1:45:19 ↗ different planners can you catch us up

1:45:21 ↗ on what has

1:45:22 ↗ as and hasn't happened associated with

1:45:24 ↗ this

1:45:27 ↗ it does okay so when you told her that

1:45:30 ↗ she'd done a nice job had you reviewed

1:45:33 ↗ the

1:45:35 ↗ notice of application that you

1:45:37 ↗ complimented her on

1:45:38 ↗ i uh did not uh i had i believe written

1:45:42 ↗ the text for

1:45:45 ↗ westridge north

1:45:46 ↗ i believe she had written a text for

1:45:49 ↗ high street i provided her with the

1:45:52 ↗ exhibit for westridge north i believe

1:45:55 ↗ she provided the exhibit for the shelter

1:45:59 ↗ platt i did not look at the exhibit part

1:46:01 ↗ i was looking at the text part

1:46:04 ↗ okay so when you complimented her on a

1:46:06 ↗ nice job you hadn't in fact reviewed

1:46:08 ↗ what she'd sent out

1:46:10 ↗ as i said i reviewed the text part but

1:46:13 ↗ not the exhibit part

1:46:15 ↗ so i'm sorry which of these plots did

1:46:17 ↗ you

1:46:18 ↗ write the text for i believe westridge

1:46:21 ↗ north

1:46:22 ↗ single family

1:46:23 ↗ didn't you testify last time that you

1:46:26 ↗ wrote the text for the high street plat

1:46:29 ↗ i if i i don't remember so i i don't

1:46:32 ↗ remember testifying to that or that i

1:46:34 ↗ wrote the text with that okay but the

1:46:37 ↗ high street your testimony last time

1:46:39 ↗ will speak for itself that the high

1:46:41 ↗ street platte is the shelter plaque

1:46:43 ↗ correct

1:46:47 ↗ shelter high street platte is your

1:46:49 ↗ client's plot

1:46:55 ↗ why don't we turn to another exhibit

1:46:57 ↗ that you prepared miss loma and offered

1:47:00 ↗ last time it's exhibit c60 could you

1:47:03 ↗ turn to that for a moment

1:47:31 ↗ okay

1:47:34 ↗ okay so uh

1:47:36 ↗ remind us what this document is that you

1:47:38 ↗ prepared why you prepared

1:47:40 ↗ i was trying to illustrate the timing of

1:47:43 ↗ when pre-application

1:47:47 ↗ packages were submitted when

1:47:49 ↗ pre-application meetings took place when

1:47:52 ↗ site development

1:47:54 ↗ permits were submitted

1:47:56 ↗ when

1:47:57 ↗ sufficiency letters went out

1:48:00 ↗ and

1:48:01 ↗ relative

1:48:03 ↗ so when those actions took place

1:48:06 ↗ relative to

1:48:08 ↗ communications between your client and

1:48:10 ↗ the city regarding

1:48:12 ↗ uh whether

1:48:14 ↗ a pre-app was actually required

1:48:16 ↗ okay so

1:48:18 ↗ in the right hand column

1:48:21 ↗ you have an entry

1:48:23 ↗ i believe what it tells us is that on

1:48:26 ↗ november 6 of 2017

1:48:30 ↗ you wrote keith says no pre-op required

1:48:33 ↗ that is what it says okay so

1:48:36 ↗ i haven't been able to find a document

1:48:38 ↗ dated november 6 of 2017 that says that

1:48:42 ↗ have you offered that

1:48:43 ↗ document into the record no your client

1:48:46 ↗ testified to that

1:48:52 ↗ which

1:48:53 ↗ you're saying miss heim testified that

1:48:56 ↗ that's my memory yes okay

1:48:59 ↗ remember when she did that

1:49:01 ↗ um there were many evenings so i don't

1:49:03 ↗ remember specifically which one okay

1:49:05 ↗ would you turn please to exhibit

1:49:08 ↗ c50

1:49:19 ↗ okay

1:49:20 ↗ so

1:49:23 ↗ you believe

1:49:27 ↗ that

1:49:28 ↗ keith told us that no mr nevin told us

1:49:31 ↗ no pre-op was required based on

1:49:33 ↗ your remembrance of ms heim's testimony

1:49:37 ↗ yes when you prepared this chart did you

1:49:39 ↗ go to the transcript to see whether your

1:49:42 ↗ memory was consistent to what she

1:49:43 ↗ testified to well i prepared that

1:49:46 ↗ exhibit a number of weeks ago i believe

1:49:48 ↗ i don't know whether i looked at the

1:49:50 ↗ transcript or my notes from the evening

1:49:53 ↗ okay

1:49:54 ↗ so why don't we talk about exhibit c50

1:49:57 ↗ for a moment

1:49:59 ↗ um you recognize this

1:50:02 ↗ i do it's an email chain uh back and

1:50:05 ↗ forth

1:50:06 ↗ between you and mr nimbin and copies to

1:50:10 ↗ well it's there are several

1:50:13 ↗ people

1:50:14 ↗ involved uh you mr niven

1:50:17 ↗ uh

1:50:18 ↗ patrick mullaney james haney the city

1:50:21 ↗ attorney emily moon bob harris and john

1:50:23 ↗ shaw correct

1:50:25 ↗ the

1:50:26 ↗ last email on november 1st was from

1:50:30 ↗ keith to tia

1:50:33 ↗ and with cc's as you identified so let's

1:50:36 ↗ turn to the third page of this exhibit

1:50:40 ↗ um the top email on that page is one

1:50:43 ↗ from you to tia heim correct yes

1:50:46 ↗ why don't you read what you wrote there

1:50:48 ↗ to ms heim

1:50:50 ↗ the city's position is that meetings we

1:50:53 ↗ are discussing with you are provided in

1:50:55 ↗ the development agreement though they

1:50:56 ↗ have different names they are marked

1:50:58 ↗ optional and that decision is at our

1:51:01 ↗ discretion we believe they benefit

1:51:03 ↗ everyone in improving the conformance of

1:51:05 ↗ the sdp submittal to the development

1:51:07 ↗ agreement regards

1:51:09 ↗ okay so on october 27 2017 you were

1:51:15 ↗ telling ms hein were you not that

1:51:19 ↗ it was up to the city your discretion

1:51:21 ↗ whether they had to uh participate in a

1:51:24 ↗ pre-app correct

1:51:26 ↗ on october 27th yes okay

1:51:29 ↗ and then

1:51:34 ↗ let's turn to what mr niven said in the

1:51:36 ↗ email on november 1

1:51:39 ↗ that he sent to ms hyman copied you and

1:51:42 ↗ the others we've referred to

1:51:46 ↗ so

1:51:50 ↗ mr niven uh begins does he not by saying

1:51:57 ↗ your first i'll quote your first point

1:51:59 ↗ is that the pre-application is listed in

1:52:02 ↗ the agreement as optional

1:52:04 ↗ period this is true and then he refers

1:52:07 ↗ to pin excel correct

1:52:09 ↗ yes and then why don't you read what mr

1:52:11 ↗ niven wrote in the next two paragraph

1:52:14 ↗ in the next paragraph next two

1:52:15 ↗ paragraphs however since port blakely

1:52:18 ↗ chose to stop funding the mdrt as a

1:52:20 ↗ separate permitting entity within the

1:52:22 ↗ city administration changes had to be

1:52:25 ↗ made the city funded a reorganization

1:52:28 ↗ study performed by moss adams in

1:52:30 ↗ november 2011 that looked at how the

1:52:32 ↗ city could continue to permit the

1:52:34 ↗ remaining projects in issaquah highlands

1:52:36 ↗ with existing city staff it was decided

1:52:39 ↗ in 2012 that the mdrt would cease to

1:52:42 ↗ exist and permitting of the remaining

1:52:44 ↗ isqua highlands projects would be

1:52:46 ↗ undertaken by city staff under existing

1:52:49 ↗ city processing the pre-application

1:52:51 ↗ meeting is not optional it is a required

1:52:54 ↗ part of the process city staff use these

1:52:56 ↗ meetings to help define the requirements

1:52:58 ↗ for a complete land use permit submittal

1:53:01 ↗ one of the reasons lucy stated that the

1:53:03 ↗ pre-app meeting was mandatory is for

1:53:05 ↗ this reason in other words neither lucy

1:53:08 ↗ nor i can envision how to determine a

1:53:10 ↗ complete project submittal without

1:53:12 ↗ having a pre-application meeting to my

1:53:14 ↗ knowledge all land use applications in

1:53:17 ↗ isqa highlands have gone through a

1:53:18 ↗ pre-application meeting the city views

1:53:21 ↗ this meeting as necessary to be able to

1:53:23 ↗ efficiently process permit applications

1:53:26 ↗ okay so

1:53:28 ↗ mr niven refers to you saying that the

1:53:31 ↗ pre-apps are mandatory

1:53:34 ↗ and he says that neither you nor he can

1:53:37 ↗ envision how to determine a complete

1:53:39 ↗ project submittal without having a

1:53:41 ↗ pre-application meeting right

1:53:44 ↗ in this email on november 1st

1:53:47 ↗ but again

1:53:49 ↗ you don't have any city document you

1:53:51 ↗ don't have any independent regulation

1:53:53 ↗ you don't have any basis for saying

1:53:56 ↗ we're preparing this chart saying that

1:53:58 ↗ keith says no pre-op required except

1:54:00 ↗ your memory of

1:54:02 ↗ this heim's testimony well i would

1:54:04 ↗ disagree

1:54:06 ↗ there was miss heim's testimony but also

1:54:09 ↗ um which is the pre-app chart that we

1:54:12 ↗ were oh here it is c60

1:54:16 ↗ that's what i'm referring to um

1:54:18 ↗ so um the

1:54:20 ↗ pre-application as shown on c60 for the

1:54:25 ↗ retail

1:54:26 ↗ the pre-app was submitted on october

1:54:28 ↗ 23rd

1:54:30 ↗ the

1:54:31 ↗ site development permit was submitted on

1:54:33 ↗ the 22nd

1:54:35 ↗ the letter on the site development

1:54:37 ↗ permit

1:54:39 ↗ being insufficient went out on december

1:54:41 ↗ 1st

1:54:43 ↗ and the pre-application meeting did not

1:54:45 ↗ take place until the 5th in the letter

1:54:48 ↗ on december 1st

1:54:50 ↗ while we identified many elements that

1:54:53 ↗ were insufficient

1:54:55 ↗ related to the sdp applications the

1:54:57 ↗ preapp was not one of those

1:55:02 ↗ so by december 1st it was very clear to

1:55:04 ↗ me

1:55:05 ↗ that the we were not requiring the

1:55:08 ↗ pre-application meeting

1:55:10 ↗ and did not include that as an item in

1:55:13 ↗ that letter

1:55:16 ↗ okay so

1:55:18 ↗ the evidence that you're relying on in

1:55:20 ↗ addition to your memory of miss heim's

1:55:21 ↗ testimony is a

1:55:24 ↗ document that doesn't refer to

1:55:27 ↗ the pre-app as something

1:55:30 ↗ that

1:55:33 ↗ needs to happen

1:55:34 ↗ you're it's basically a negative

1:55:37 ↗ because it doesn't refer to a pre-app

1:55:39 ↗ that means the city told my client that

1:55:41 ↗ pre-app wasn't needed

1:55:45 ↗ in the sufficiency letter we

1:55:47 ↗ as we've identified

1:55:49 ↗ the submittal requirements are

1:55:54 ↗ a

1:55:55 ↗ guide

1:55:57 ↗ for

1:55:58 ↗ all the many things that we may need to

1:56:01 ↗ review each individual permit and as we

1:56:04 ↗ review an application we're looking

1:56:08 ↗ at the submittal requirements to

1:56:09 ↗ determine whether certain elements that

1:56:12 ↗ are listed on there are applicable to

1:56:14 ↗ that particular permit

1:56:16 ↗ and

1:56:18 ↗ based on

1:56:19 ↗ uh the discussions that had taken place

1:56:24 ↗ previously i did not identify that a

1:56:27 ↗ pre-app meeting was necessary

1:56:30 ↗ because i understood that we had

1:56:33 ↗ moved past

1:56:34 ↗ the previous emails and

1:56:37 ↗ concurred with your client okay and i'm

1:56:41 ↗ first of all your chart demonstrates

1:56:43 ↗ that a p pre-app meeting happened for

1:56:45 ↗ all of

1:56:47 ↗ my clients sdp applications correct

1:56:51 ↗ yes

1:56:52 ↗ at

1:56:53 ↗ even though they were no longer being

1:56:55 ↗ required

1:56:57 ↗ and

1:56:58 ↗ the

1:56:59 ↗ exhibit c50

1:57:02 ↗ in which mr niven tells

1:57:05 ↗ is heim that

1:57:07 ↗ in effect

1:57:08 ↗ an application can't be deemed complete

1:57:10 ↗ without a

1:57:12 ↗ the app meeting

1:57:15 ↗ that's the only

1:57:18 ↗ communication i'm aware of in the record

1:57:22 ↗ on this issue

1:57:25 ↗ so

1:57:26 ↗ again i just want to make sure that

1:57:29 ↗ we're not missing anything you can't

1:57:30 ↗ point to any

1:57:32 ↗ communication to my client in writing

1:57:37 ↗ that says

1:57:39 ↗ that rescinds what mr nibben said on

1:57:41 ↗ november 1st

1:57:43 ↗ modifies it changes it

1:57:45 ↗ says your department can

1:57:48 ↗ germinate application is complete

1:57:50 ↗ without a pre-app there is no such

1:57:51 ↗ document correct

1:57:54 ↗ i've already testified that

1:57:58 ↗ your client tia heim testified otherwise

1:58:03 ↗ sloman my question was whether there is

1:58:05 ↗ a city document that revises what mr

1:58:09 ↗ nibben said in his november 1st

1:58:16 ↗ a city dot and when you say city

1:58:18 ↗ document could you help me understand

1:58:20 ↗ what you mean by that

1:58:22 ↗ a document prepared by the city

1:58:28 ↗ communicated to my client

1:58:30 ↗ so um

1:58:34 ↗ mr nivin's

1:58:36 ↗ email on the first says it is optional

1:58:39 ↗ but we still consider it mandatory

1:58:41 ↗ miss heim

1:58:43 ↗ in i think her meeting notes but i'm not

1:58:46 ↗ certain but in her testimony said that

1:58:49 ↗ she was told that by mr niven on the 6th

1:58:52 ↗ which is why that date is listed here

1:58:55 ↗ and then

1:58:56 ↗ by not including it as an element in our

1:59:00 ↗ insufficiency letter

1:59:03 ↗ that reiterated that we were not

1:59:05 ↗ requiring that

1:59:08 ↗ i take that as a no there is no city

1:59:10 ↗ document

1:59:12 ↗ since what you referred to

1:59:14 ↗ is miss heim's note correct

1:59:17 ↗ well the letter didn't require it

1:59:21 ↗ letter didn't talk about it one way or

1:59:22 ↗ another did it

1:59:24 ↗ no

1:59:28 ↗ so

1:59:29 ↗ solomon last time you talked about

1:59:33 ↗ the city having accepted a building

1:59:36 ↗ permit and a land use application

1:59:39 ↗ in addition to

1:59:42 ↗ veil project that we

1:59:45 ↗ previously talked about and that the

1:59:47 ↗ city was conducting concurrent review

1:59:50 ↗ recall your testimony on that issue i

1:59:53 ↗ recall we talked about it i'm not sure i

1:59:55 ↗ remember all the details of it well i'm

1:59:58 ↗ going to be your testimony and you told

2:00:00 ↗ us

2:00:01 ↗ by way of an example of how the city

2:00:03 ↗ doesn't enforce the requirement that you

2:00:08 ↗ have to have a land use decision before

2:00:11 ↗ you can apply for a building permit you

2:00:12 ↗ referred to a project currently

2:00:15 ↗ being given concurrent review by your

2:00:18 ↗ department correct

2:00:20 ↗ are you referring to vail or another

2:00:22 ↗ project i'm referring to another project

2:00:24 ↗ that you referred to last time without

2:00:27 ↗ identifying for us

2:00:29 ↗ i may not have identified it last time i

2:00:32 ↗ did

2:00:33 ↗ look at that

2:00:34 ↗ subsequently what's the name of that

2:00:37 ↗ project

2:00:39 ↗ um i believe it's called the sunset

2:00:41 ↗ duplex

2:00:44 ↗ and um

2:00:49 ↗ as i'm at my request printed out today

2:00:53 ↗ a

2:00:58 ↗ on the city's website a an active

2:01:01 ↗ projects list

2:01:04 ↗ that

2:01:05 ↗ document

2:01:06 ↗ contained what you just referred to

2:01:09 ↗ i

2:01:10 ↗ don't know

2:01:11 ↗ the active projects list is not

2:01:14 ↗ comprehensive it doesn't include every

2:01:16 ↗ project

2:01:17 ↗ it

2:01:19 ↗ contains a selection of projects and so

2:01:22 ↗ i don't know whether that project is

2:01:24 ↗ listed or not okay well i'm going to

2:01:26 ↗ represent to you that this project list

2:01:29 ↗ i'm happy to make it an exhibit does not

2:01:31 ↗ include any

2:01:34 ↗ project that as you described it in your

2:01:36 ↗ testimony last time

2:01:38 ↗ um

2:01:40 ↗ so would you give us again the the

2:01:42 ↗ details that of this project that you

2:01:44 ↗ described with the concurrent review

2:01:47 ↗ the the

2:01:48 ↗ recent one that we're talking about the

2:01:50 ↗ sunset duplex if that's what you talked

2:01:53 ↗ about last time yes sunset what i think

2:01:55 ↗ it's called the sunset duplex

2:01:59 ↗ and the

2:02:02 ↗ applicants submitted their land use

2:02:06 ↗ permit

2:02:08 ↗ and

2:02:10 ↗ it has not yet been approved but their

2:02:14 ↗ building permit has been

2:02:17 ↗ submitted and is currently in review

2:02:22 ↗ and

2:02:24 ↗ what do you know about this project

2:02:31 ↗ it's on sunset way it's a duplex um it

2:02:35 ↗ is

2:02:37 ↗ four stories tall which is why the uh

2:02:41 ↗ property owner

2:02:42 ↗ or the heir

2:02:44 ↗ submitted the

2:02:46 ↗ building permit because they had heard

2:02:49 ↗ that the city might change the

2:02:51 ↗ regulations to not allow four-story

2:02:53 ↗ buildings

2:02:54 ↗ and so they wanted to

2:02:57 ↗ submit a land use permit to be vested

2:03:01 ↗ okay and

2:03:02 ↗ do you have personal knowledge of this

2:03:04 ↗ application

2:03:07 ↗ i have been working with a staff person

2:03:09 ↗ who's reviewing it

2:03:11 ↗ who's that staff person

2:03:13 ↗ valerie porter is the planner there is

2:03:16 ↗ also

2:03:17 ↗ an engineer and a plans examiner and

2:03:20 ↗ other city staff that i am not sure who

2:03:22 ↗ those people are okay and

2:03:25 ↗ who made the decision to accept

2:03:28 ↗ building permit application

2:03:31 ↗ despite what's on the city's web page

2:03:34 ↗ well consistent with 1801.050

2:03:40 ↗ we

2:03:41 ↗ i don't know who it may have been the

2:03:43 ↗ permit tech it may have been the

2:03:45 ↗ building official it may have been the

2:03:46 ↗ planner i

2:03:48 ↗ was not

2:03:54 ↗ all i heard was these had both been

2:03:56 ↗ submitted and we discussed how

2:03:59 ↗ to uh do that review concurrently and it

2:04:02 ↗ proceeded

2:04:03 ↗ okay and so if i look up this project on

2:04:07 ↗ the city's

2:04:08 ↗ web page it will reflect what you just

2:04:11 ↗ testified to

2:04:13 ↗ uh

2:04:14 ↗ i don't know that it's on the active

2:04:16 ↗ projects um i assume that you could find

2:04:19 ↗ it through

2:04:20 ↗ mybuildingpermit.com but i don't know

2:04:22 ↗ the level of information that's

2:04:24 ↗ accessible to the public

2:04:47 ↗ what goes on the active projects list

2:04:53 ↗ well

2:04:54 ↗ i would say moderate to large size

2:04:55 ↗ projects i uh the permit oversight

2:04:59 ↗ coordinator is the person

2:05:01 ↗ who

2:05:02 ↗ manages that map

2:05:04 ↗ and so i don't fully know how she makes

2:05:08 ↗ that determination

2:05:39 ↗ so miss loman you've

2:05:48 ↗ going back to your chart again the one

2:05:50 ↗ that you prepared for this hearing which

2:05:53 ↗ is

2:05:56 ↗ do you mean the large one a large one

2:05:58 ↗ yes okay

2:05:59 ↗ here it is

2:06:01 ↗ can you give me the number

2:06:02 ↗ yeah c-59 okay

2:06:14 ↗ is it your

2:06:16 ↗ testimony

2:06:18 ↗ that

2:06:18 ↗ all of the projects on this chart that

2:06:21 ↗ you prepared

2:06:23 ↗ were treated the same way by your

2:06:25 ↗ department

2:06:30 ↗ well it depends on what you mean by

2:06:32 ↗ treat the same way we try and process

2:06:35 ↗ all of the permits based on their

2:06:37 ↗ complexity

2:06:39 ↗ their

2:06:41 ↗ their need for corrections

2:06:44 ↗ the there are many different factors

2:06:46 ↗ that come into play

2:06:47 ↗ in

2:06:48 ↗ terms of how long it takes to

2:06:51 ↗ process a permit

2:06:53 ↗ i believe that that is

2:06:57 ↗ not based on

2:06:59 ↗ i think you've used the word

2:07:00 ↗ discrimination i do not believe that

2:07:02 ↗ there is discrimination but that does

2:07:04 ↗ not mean

2:07:05 ↗ each of them are processed in an

2:07:07 ↗ identical amount of time

2:07:10 ↗ so

2:07:11 ↗ again you you didn't

2:07:13 ↗ treat any of these applicants

2:07:15 ↗ uh

2:07:20 ↗ no favoritism to any of them it you

2:07:23 ↗ simply applied the regulations in the

2:07:25 ↗ same even-handed way

2:07:27 ↗ [Music]

2:07:29 ↗ we applied the regulations in an

2:07:31 ↗ even-handed way yes i believe so

2:07:34 ↗ i'm going to hand out two exhibits

2:07:36 ↗ please

2:07:52 ↗ okay

2:08:04 ↗ so

2:08:17 ↗ asking to meet with you

2:08:20 ↗ is that correct

2:08:21 ↗ i believe you said ms sloman i think you

2:08:23 ↗ mean miss heim i apologize yes

2:08:26 ↗ miss heim is asking to meet with you

2:08:28 ↗ miss sloman

2:08:30 ↗ uh early next week

2:08:34 ↗ to clarify what is

2:08:36 ↗ required for the mob the medical office

2:08:38 ↗ building application

2:08:44 ↗ yes

2:08:45 ↗ and

2:08:46 ↗ your response again just the first

2:08:48 ↗ sentence of your response is you're not

2:08:50 ↗ able to meet early next week

2:08:52 ↗ yes what's the date of your

2:08:55 ↗ email to

2:08:56 ↗ ms heim the 26th

2:08:59 ↗ i want to hand out exhibit s

2:09:02 ↗ 180 or excuse me s130 please

2:09:22 ↗ s130 is an email from

2:09:26 ↗ an email exchange between you and john

2:09:28 ↗ haas correct

2:09:32 ↗ um

2:09:33 ↗ after john emails it to forwards that i

2:09:36 ↗ assume to tia the first

2:09:40 ↗ the next uh email is from me to john

2:09:43 ↗ haas okay

2:09:44 ↗ and

2:09:49 ↗ why don't we go down to the bottom of

2:09:51 ↗ the first page in the top of the second

2:09:53 ↗ page

2:09:55 ↗ you emailed mr haas on

2:09:59 ↗ january 22nd or excuse me january 27th

2:10:02 ↗ correct

2:10:05 ↗ that was on the 27th yes that was the

2:10:07 ↗ day after you told ms sloman in exhibit

2:10:10 ↗ s-129 that you weren't able to meet

2:10:13 ↗ early next week

2:10:15 ↗ so that's miss heim again um

2:10:18 ↗ uh

2:10:19 ↗ uh yes i did say that okay and then so

2:10:22 ↗ what did you tell mr

2:10:24 ↗ haas a day later

2:10:26 ↗ you could read the first sentence of

2:10:28 ↗ your email to him the next day

2:10:31 ↗ on the 27th yes

2:10:34 ↗ i'm out of the office starting wednesday

2:10:36 ↗ but i would very much like to meet with

2:10:38 ↗ you monday or tuesday to discuss the

2:10:39 ↗ status of your project

2:10:41 ↗ so on friday you tell miss heim that you

2:10:44 ↗ can't meet with her next week and the

2:10:46 ↗ next day you

2:10:47 ↗ tell mr haas you would very much like to

2:10:50 ↗ meet with him to discuss the status of

2:10:53 ↗ his project correct

2:10:56 ↗ that is correct

2:10:58 ↗ and in fact mr haas's project

2:11:02 ↗ was

2:11:03 ↗ reviewed and approved

2:11:07 ↗ in the space of um

2:11:12 ↗ it may be the quickest turnaround and

2:11:14 ↗ review of any of the projects on your

2:11:16 ↗ exhibit c-59 correct

2:11:19 ↗ it might be i haven't i don't have

2:11:22 ↗ specific

2:11:23 ↗ lengths of time on here

2:11:25 ↗ okay and you were in fact reaching out

2:11:28 ↗ to mr haas repeatedly to make sure that

2:11:31 ↗ he vested

2:11:33 ↗ correct

2:11:34 ↗ i was trying to make sure that mr haas

2:11:38 ↗ understood the implications

2:11:41 ↗ of

2:11:43 ↗ things that were happening

2:11:45 ↗ he was not a land use attorney

2:11:48 ↗ he

2:11:50 ↗ never brought a land use attorney to any

2:11:52 ↗ of our meetings

2:11:54 ↗ and this was as i understood it the

2:11:57 ↗ first project that he

2:11:59 ↗ had a

2:12:01 ↗ development project he had gone through

2:12:03 ↗ so i was concerned that he might not

2:12:05 ↗ understand

2:12:07 ↗ the implications of what was happening

2:12:10 ↗ well he was specifically

2:12:14 ↗ questioning you about vesting wasn't he

2:12:17 ↗ i don't know i have not read this email

2:12:20 ↗ why don't you look uh turn to the third

2:12:22 ↗ page and his

2:12:25 ↗ email to you the day before you

2:12:28 ↗ emailed him saying you would very much

2:12:30 ↗ like to meet with him on monday or

2:12:31 ↗ tuesday

2:12:33 ↗ and he's he's asking you about statutory

2:12:36 ↗ or case law regarding vesting isn't he

2:12:47 ↗ [Applause]

2:12:53 ↗ yes he is

2:13:02 ↗ so this woman um

2:13:05 ↗ you testified

2:13:06 ↗ last time about how

2:13:11 ↗ could i add one thing to that discussion

2:13:14 ↗ because you've characterized that i

2:13:17 ↗ treated john haas differently than your

2:13:19 ↗ client

2:13:20 ↗ and i would like to add that

2:13:24 ↗ based on one of the

2:13:27 ↗ exhibits that the city provided

2:13:30 ↗ at our last meeting

2:13:32 ↗ an email between myself and patrick

2:13:35 ↗ mullaney

2:13:37 ↗ discussing the terms of the letter that

2:13:40 ↗ would ultimately provide your client

2:13:44 ↗ with

2:13:46 ↗ a complete application

2:13:48 ↗ patrick was

2:13:50 ↗ he and i began

2:13:52 ↗ the email that was submitted last time

2:13:55 ↗ those emails were from january 12th i

2:13:57 ↗ don't know the exhibit number

2:14:00 ↗ i can look it up if that's useful to you

2:14:02 ↗ but

2:14:03 ↗ while i was waiting for that letter to

2:14:05 ↗ be

2:14:07 ↗ completed

2:14:08 ↗ my concern with meeting with your client

2:14:13 ↗ was that i was not able to

2:14:16 ↗ proceed until that letter was completed

2:14:20 ↗ i don't believe i said that here i don't

2:14:22 ↗ know because i haven't read it in detail

2:14:24 ↗ but i knew that that that would was

2:14:27 ↗ taking place and that was going to be

2:14:30 ↗ the tool to get us to your clients

2:14:33 ↗ applications for sdps and asdp's deemed

2:14:36 ↗ complete

2:14:38 ↗ so ms sloman um

2:14:40 ↗ you testified last time at length that

2:14:46 ↗ if the administration or if the city

2:14:49 ↗ council had

2:14:50 ↗ accepted

2:14:52 ↗ the administration's

2:14:54 ↗ recommendation regarding vesting

2:14:57 ↗ that

2:14:58 ↗ we wouldn't be here

2:15:00 ↗ that correct

2:15:02 ↗ well i said that initially and then i

2:15:04 ↗ said we would be here with a different

2:15:07 ↗ kind of meeting on the permits okay but

2:15:10 ↗ the point is you were telling us last

2:15:12 ↗ time that

2:15:14 ↗ the administration uh

2:15:18 ↗ recommended one thing and the council

2:15:20 ↗ chose to do something else correct

2:15:25 ↗ in

2:15:27 ↗ 2017

2:15:28 ↗ the administration

2:15:30 ↗ had recommended one form

2:15:32 ↗ of vesting language and that was not the

2:15:35 ↗ vesting language that was ultimately

2:15:37 ↗ adopted

2:15:39 ↗ the

2:15:41 ↗ administration

2:15:42 ↗ including you and mr niven

2:15:45 ↗ changed its recommendation in early 2018

2:15:48 ↗ correct

2:15:49 ↗ yes

2:15:50 ↗ yeah although i i would

2:15:53 ↗ i am not a part of the administration i

2:15:55 ↗ am a part of the city

2:15:57 ↗ and so uh that recommendation is

2:16:00 ↗ the administration's recommendation

2:16:03 ↗ miss loman you are part of the

2:16:04 ↗ administration everyone who isn't part

2:16:07 ↗ of the council is part of the executive

2:16:09 ↗ branch of city government who reports to

2:16:11 ↗ the mayor isn't that correct

2:16:14 ↗ i don't think i'm part of the executive

2:16:16 ↗ branch i do report to the mayor that is

2:16:19 ↗ correct okay well

2:16:22 ↗ i submit you are part of the

2:16:23 ↗ administration and if you

2:16:25 ↗ um

2:16:27 ↗ don't want to accept that we will we'll

2:16:29 ↗ deal with that later but nonetheless the

2:16:32 ↗ administration whether you consider

2:16:33 ↗ yourself part of it or not in fact

2:16:36 ↗ changed its recommendation in early 2018

2:16:40 ↗ and what the council adopted was what

2:16:42 ↗ the administration recommended correct

2:16:45 ↗ yes

2:16:46 ↗ and so who

2:16:48 ↗ made the change in who decided that the

2:16:51 ↗ administration's recommendation had

2:16:53 ↗ changed

2:16:56 ↗ there were a number of people discussing

2:16:59 ↗ that and

2:17:01 ↗ i don't know whether i was a part of

2:17:03 ↗ that discussion

2:17:05 ↗ well

2:17:06 ↗ isn't in fact true

2:17:09 ↗ that

2:17:09 ↗ the

2:17:11 ↗ heir the new mayor

2:17:13 ↗ decided

2:17:14 ↗ that the administration was changing its

2:17:16 ↗ recommendation

2:17:19 ↗ i don't know that she decided that

2:17:21 ↗ unilaterally i think she decided that

2:17:24 ↗ as we often do we have a

2:17:27 ↗ by we it's as i said i don't know that i

2:17:30 ↗ was a part of that conversation but a

2:17:32 ↗ number of people were talking

2:17:34 ↗ about whether that would continue to be

2:17:37 ↗ the city's recommendation

2:17:40 ↗ the the mayor you will agree is part of

2:17:42 ↗ the administration correct yeah

2:17:45 ↗ okay so why don't we go back to exhibit

2:17:47 ↗ s-130 again

2:17:48 ↗ which is your email exchange with mr

2:17:51 ↗ haas in which you told him you

2:17:54 ↗ very much to like to meet with him on

2:17:55 ↗ monday or tuesday

2:17:58 ↗ okay

2:17:59 ↗ and so

2:18:00 ↗ the last email in this chain is one that

2:18:03 ↗ you sent to him

2:18:04 ↗ on january 29th what which was monday

2:18:09 ↗ correct yes

2:18:10 ↗ and oh wait

2:18:12 ↗ um

2:18:13 ↗ oh the last email yes okay and you were

2:18:16 ↗ responding to an email from mr haas the

2:18:18 ↗ same day

2:18:20 ↗ who

2:18:23 ↗ i'll read it he says lucy what was the

2:18:25 ↗ administration's reason for taking the

2:18:27 ↗ vesting

2:18:28 ↗ options off the table

2:18:30 ↗ the only negative feedback i heard was

2:18:32 ↗ from craig ramey at the council meeting

2:18:35 ↗ correct is that what he said yeah he

2:18:37 ↗ does say that on monday okay and then

2:18:39 ↗ how did you respond to john haas

2:18:42 ↗ i don't know these kinds of changes

2:18:44 ↗ happen with changes in administration i

2:18:46 ↗ believe you should contact the mayor and

2:18:48 ↗ discuss it with her

2:18:49 ↗ however i would like to meet with you

2:18:51 ↗ tomorrow if possible to discuss the

2:18:53 ↗ status of your project okay so you

2:18:55 ↗ reiterate your request to meet with him

2:18:58 ↗ and you say he should contact the mayor

2:19:02 ↗ if he has questions about the change in

2:19:05 ↗ the recommendation regarding vesting

2:19:07 ↗ correct

2:19:08 ↗ i did

2:19:10 ↗ and was that an accurate statement on

2:19:12 ↗ your part

2:19:15 ↗ which part

2:19:16 ↗ that

2:19:18 ↗ the mayor

2:19:20 ↗ was the person responsible for the

2:19:22 ↗ change in the administration's position

2:19:24 ↗ regarding vesting i don't think that's

2:19:27 ↗ what this says well you're right that's

2:19:29 ↗ not the literal language that's my

2:19:31 ↗ inference from what you intended did you

2:19:34 ↗ intend something differently

2:19:36 ↗ i intended that the mayor was

2:19:40 ↗ willing or asked to be the

2:19:43 ↗ person who would explain that not that

2:19:46 ↗ the mayor was

2:19:49 ↗ the only

2:19:50 ↗ person who had

2:19:52 ↗ you know was was the only person who had

2:19:54 ↗ made this decision

2:19:57 ↗ so what communications did you have

2:19:59 ↗ personally with the mayor about this

2:20:03 ↗ i'm not sure i had any

2:20:05 ↗ what was the basis for you telling mr

2:20:07 ↗ haas that he should contact the mayor

2:20:09 ↗ and discuss it with her

2:20:12 ↗ um

2:20:16 ↗ uh i think that we

2:20:19 ↗ anticipated that

2:20:21 ↗ um

2:20:24 ↗ various

2:20:25 ↗ property owners would want to discuss

2:20:28 ↗ that change with someone and we

2:20:31 ↗ discussed how best to approach that and

2:20:37 ↗ the

2:20:38 ↗ language that's in here is

2:20:42 ↗ what we decided was the best way to

2:20:44 ↗ communicate with applicants or property

2:20:46 ↗ owners who was the we were referring to

2:20:49 ↗ who did you

2:20:51 ↗ discuss

2:20:53 ↗ who was the we who decided that the

2:20:55 ↗ mayor would answer questions about the

2:20:57 ↗ change in recommendation i don't know

2:20:59 ↗ who decided that i believe when i asked

2:21:03 ↗ mr because i believe i said something

2:21:05 ↗ similar in my interested parties email

2:21:09 ↗ and

2:21:09 ↗ [Music]

2:21:11 ↗ mr niven and i were discussing

2:21:14 ↗ um

2:21:16 ↗ anticipating that there would be

2:21:18 ↗ concerns and i said what do you think we

2:21:19 ↗ should say and we talked about it and

2:21:22 ↗ this was

2:21:23 ↗ um

2:21:24 ↗ and he may have even talked to

2:21:27 ↗ the

2:21:28 ↗ deputy city director and or the deputy

2:21:31 ↗ city administrator and the mayor i don't

2:21:34 ↗ know but in the process of trying to

2:21:36 ↗ determine the best way to communicate

2:21:38 ↗ with the interested parties

2:21:40 ↗ that was the conclusion we reached

2:21:43 ↗ so this email to mr haas is based on a

2:21:46 ↗ conversation you had with mr nevin

2:21:52 ↗ ultimately yes but i think there were

2:21:54 ↗ several conversations that took place

2:21:56 ↗ that culminated with that conversation

2:21:59 ↗ well i'm asking you who you who in the

2:22:01 ↗ administration

2:22:03 ↗ you discussed this issue with the change

2:22:06 ↗ in the recommendation regarding vesting

2:22:08 ↗ you've identified mr niven who else

2:22:11 ↗ i did not talk to anyone else in the

2:22:13 ↗ administration

2:22:15 ↗ so you had a series of conversations

2:22:17 ↗ with mr nibbet

2:22:19 ↗ yes and i understood he was talking with

2:22:22 ↗ others in the administration

2:22:24 ↗ and did mr

2:22:25 ↗ niven tell you

2:22:26 ↗ [Music]

2:22:27 ↗ what the mayor's position was on this

2:22:34 ↗ i don't remember

2:22:36 ↗ that he i don't remember something that

2:22:39 ↗ specific no okay but it's from mr niven

2:22:42 ↗ who you

2:22:44 ↗ learned that it was the mayor who was

2:22:45 ↗ going to answer questions correct

2:22:48 ↗ yes

2:22:49 ↗ and who do you consider to be part of

2:22:51 ↗ the administration

2:22:53 ↗ if you're not part of it

2:22:54 ↗ i consider people in the executive suite

2:22:57 ↗ the mayor the

2:23:00 ↗ city administrator the deputy city

2:23:02 ↗ administrator

2:23:07 ↗ some of the assistants to the

2:23:11 ↗ mayor or the city administrator i don't

2:23:12 ↗ remember the exact titles of the people

2:23:16 ↗ is mr niven part of the administration

2:23:18 ↗ in your view

2:23:21 ↗ i do not i consider him a department

2:23:24 ↗ director

2:23:26 ↗ which is

2:23:27 ↗ different than

2:23:30 ↗ who i consider as part of the executive

2:23:32 ↗ office

2:23:34 ↗ okay so

2:23:35 ↗ you don't consider mr gibbon part of the

2:23:37 ↗ administration

2:23:38 ↗ you know you're asking me to put such a

2:23:40 ↗ fine point on it and i i don't think

2:23:43 ↗ about it at this level of detail

2:23:47 ↗ is there anything in a code or a

2:23:50 ↗ director's rule or any kind of writing

2:23:53 ↗ that says who is

2:23:54 ↗ in and who is out the of the

2:23:56 ↗ administration

2:23:58 ↗ i would not know that

2:24:11 ↗ when the

2:24:13 ↗ before you before you proceed we've been

2:24:15 ↗ going for a bit longer now it seems like

2:24:18 ↗ it might be a good if you're going to

2:24:19 ↗ change

2:24:20 ↗ direction a little bit it might be a

2:24:21 ↗ good time to take a 10 minute break if

2:24:23 ↗ you would

2:24:26 ↗ agree thank you thank you

2:24:28 ↗ [Music]

2:35:03 ↗ all right we're back on the air and

2:35:04 ↗ let's come back to order please

2:35:12 ↗ i

2:35:13 ↗ have a new exhibit we're passing out

2:35:15 ↗ it'll be s131

2:35:20 ↗ thank you

2:35:29 ↗ sorry

2:35:34 ↗ this is a memo from you to the

2:35:37 ↗ land and short committee dated january

2:35:39 ↗ 30 2018.

2:35:44 ↗ was that a question yes

2:35:46 ↗ so i'd like to direct your attention to

2:35:48 ↗ page two

2:35:50 ↗ section three entitled investing

2:35:57 ↗ okay

2:35:59 ↗ [Applause]

2:36:01 ↗ don't you read the last

2:36:06 ↗ sentence of that the sentence begins

2:36:08 ↗ with the word however about two-thirds

2:36:10 ↗ of the way down

2:36:12 ↗ however after consideration and comments

2:36:14 ↗ received the administration has

2:36:16 ↗ recommended not expanding or continuing

2:36:18 ↗ the vesting which naturally terminates

2:36:21 ↗ with the end of the contract i.e the

2:36:23 ↗ development agreement vesting would be

2:36:25 ↗ limited to that required by state law

2:36:29 ↗ so when you wrote this sentence who did

2:36:31 ↗ you mean by the

2:36:34 ↗ administration

2:36:36 ↗ i've been informed that i am part of the

2:36:38 ↗ administration so i concede to that

2:36:42 ↗ uh in this case

2:36:44 ↗ uh it

2:36:46 ↗ was

2:36:47 ↗ the same conversations that we've

2:36:49 ↗ already gone through

2:36:52 ↗ it was i am writing a memo to

2:36:55 ↗ communicate

2:36:57 ↗ a larger group's conversation

2:37:01 ↗ your personal communications were only

2:37:03 ↗ with mr niven

2:37:05 ↗ yes

2:37:06 ↗ as i remember them

2:37:08 ↗ did you discuss the vesting issue with

2:37:10 ↗ any of the council members

2:37:14 ↗ not

2:37:15 ↗ outside of the not that i remember

2:37:19 ↗ outside of the

2:37:22 ↗ meetings

2:37:23 ↗ didn't have a meeting with the

2:37:26 ↗ with miss goodman in her

2:37:28 ↗ office

2:37:32 ↗ i've

2:37:32 ↗ never

2:37:34 ↗ been to ms goodman's office you didn't

2:37:37 ↗ have a meeting with her in any other

2:37:38 ↗ location about

2:37:41 ↗ the vesting issue

2:37:44 ↗ gosh i don't know um

2:37:47 ↗ i don't remember that

2:37:49 ↗ if you have a record showing otherwise

2:37:52 ↗ i've forgotten

2:37:53 ↗ that i met with her i don't remember

2:37:55 ↗ that

2:37:58 ↗ the question is based on statements that

2:38:00 ↗ mr nevin made to my clients so

2:38:03 ↗ we'll be presenting that in

2:38:06 ↗ uh in our rebuttal uh testimony i'm just

2:38:08 ↗ asking you now whether you remember

2:38:11 ↗ such a meeting i don't um

2:38:16 ↗ last time during your testimony you

2:38:18 ↗ presented uh

2:38:20 ↗ two

2:38:22 ↗ newspaper articles do you recall that

2:38:24 ↗ yes

2:38:25 ↗ um

2:38:28 ↗ about meetings that my client had with

2:38:32 ↗ the community that you didn't attend

2:38:34 ↗ yes

2:38:36 ↗ uh

2:38:37 ↗ what's your relationship with the editor

2:38:39 ↗ of that

2:38:42 ↗ i'll use the word newspaper

2:38:50 ↗ she served on the urban village

2:38:53 ↗ development commission for a number of

2:38:56 ↗ years

2:38:58 ↗ where i was frequently before her

2:39:01 ↗ she served on the city council

2:39:05 ↗ she

2:39:07 ↗ writes

2:39:10 ↗ articles for the various newspapers and

2:39:13 ↗ she would

2:39:17 ↗ contact me to

2:39:20 ↗ discuss those articles or

2:39:22 ↗ to interview for content

2:39:25 ↗ and i believe one time we went and saw

2:39:28 ↗ an urban planning movie together

2:39:31 ↗ in fact she

2:39:33 ↗ runs the content of her articles about

2:39:36 ↗ land use issues by you before she

2:39:38 ↗ publishes them is that fair

2:39:41 ↗ sometimes she asks me to fact check them

2:39:49 ↗ were you involved in the preparation of

2:39:51 ↗ the two articles that you offered into

2:39:53 ↗ evidence last time

2:39:55 ↗ i do not remember seeing those before

2:39:57 ↗ they were published

2:40:01 ↗ when did you first

2:40:02 ↗ see those articles

2:40:05 ↗ as i just said i don't believe i saw

2:40:07 ↗ them before they were published

2:40:10 ↗ you saw them back

2:40:12 ↗ when they were published

2:40:15 ↗ i

2:40:16 ↗ believe

2:40:17 ↗ so

2:40:18 ↗ i don't know for sure but i believe that

2:40:21 ↗ i read them around that time

2:40:26 ↗ so you testified last time that you were

2:40:29 ↗ critical of mr melania's testimony and

2:40:32 ↗ that it was misleading what did he

2:40:34 ↗ testify to that was the basis for your

2:40:36 ↗ comment that he gave misleading

2:40:38 ↗ testimony i believe he my memory is that

2:40:41 ↗ he characterized

2:40:43 ↗ what was the short plot for polygon as a

2:40:46 ↗ preliminary plat

2:40:49 ↗ well

2:40:52 ↗ the city

2:40:53 ↗ gives preliminary approval to both

2:40:57 ↗ flats and long plats short flats and

2:41:00 ↗ long plats doesn't it

2:41:02 ↗ i don't know what that means

2:41:05 ↗ preliminary approval

2:41:09 ↗ or a long plat

2:41:12 ↗ there's a hearing

2:41:14 ↗ let me be more technically correct for a

2:41:16 ↗ long subdivision there's a hearing in

2:41:18 ↗ front of a body such as the city council

2:41:21 ↗ or the hearing examiner and they make a

2:41:23 ↗ decision about

2:41:26 ↗ they grant preliminary approval and tell

2:41:28 ↗ the applicant what he the applicant has

2:41:30 ↗ to do before he or she can record the

2:41:33 ↗ final plot correct

2:41:35 ↗ yes

2:41:36 ↗ doesn't the exact same same thing happen

2:41:38 ↗ with a short plot it just happens

2:41:40 ↗ administratively rather than in front of

2:41:43 ↗ a quasi-judicial body

2:41:47 ↗ well land use permit decisions identify

2:41:52 ↗ whether a permit is approved or not

2:41:54 ↗ approved and if it is approved whether

2:41:56 ↗ it is approved with conditions

2:41:59 ↗ a short plat

2:42:02 ↗ notice

2:42:03 ↗ or

2:42:04 ↗ decision

2:42:06 ↗ is made by staff

2:42:09 ↗ and it may or may not contain

2:42:11 ↗ conditions i would

2:42:13 ↗ typically not expect it to contain

2:42:15 ↗ conditions

2:42:17 ↗ whereas a preliminary plaque because i

2:42:19 ↗ mean because a short flat would be

2:42:22 ↗ recorded there is no subsequent process

2:42:25 ↗ like a final plot

2:42:26 ↗ a preliminary plat is

2:42:30 ↗ the hearing

2:42:32 ↗ maybe before a commission or a hearing

2:42:34 ↗ examiner

2:42:35 ↗ and the decision is either by a hearing

2:42:37 ↗ examiner or the city council

2:42:40 ↗ and it does contain conditions

2:42:42 ↗ i think the distinction that i was

2:42:44 ↗ attempting to make was

2:42:46 ↗ that

2:42:47 ↗ because the decision maker in a long

2:42:51 ↗ subdivision

2:42:52 ↗ is not staff we do not know what the

2:42:56 ↗ outcome of that decision will be

2:42:58 ↗ well again what i'm trying to understand

2:43:00 ↗ is the basis for your

2:43:02 ↗ saying that mr m miss mr mullaney gave

2:43:05 ↗ misleading testimony

2:43:07 ↗ and

2:43:08 ↗ what i've heard is

2:43:12 ↗ you're suggesting that heath didn't

2:43:15 ↗ understand the difference between a

2:43:17 ↗ platt and a long flat i mean a short

2:43:19 ↗ plaid in a long flat no i'm sure mr

2:43:21 ↗ mullaney knows the difference between

2:43:23 ↗ the two i think he

2:43:25 ↗ either

2:43:26 ↗ misremembered or was misinformed about

2:43:29 ↗ what the permit was that polygon process

2:43:32 ↗ that he was referring to

2:43:35 ↗ so you're you think he referred to a

2:43:37 ↗ long plat when he

2:43:39 ↗ should have referred to a short flat i

2:43:41 ↗ believe so yes

2:43:43 ↗ did you review his testimony before you

2:43:45 ↗ testified last time

2:43:48 ↗ again i was referring to my notes

2:43:57 ↗ again just just to be clear you're not

2:44:00 ↗ suggesting are you that

2:44:02 ↗ well first of all let me let me

2:44:04 ↗ represent to you that under state law

2:44:06 ↗ the plat is the document that is

2:44:08 ↗ recorded

2:44:10 ↗ um

2:44:11 ↗ that actually

2:44:13 ↗ one finds when one goes to

2:44:15 ↗ records and elections to see what

2:44:18 ↗ lots were created

2:44:21 ↗ are you saying that when there's a short

2:44:24 ↗ flat involved the city

2:44:27 ↗ doesn't

2:44:28 ↗ exercise any review over whether that

2:44:30 ↗ plot as recorded is consistent with the

2:44:34 ↗ decision that the city made

2:44:38 ↗ i'm not following that question could

2:44:40 ↗ you restate it please again i understood

2:44:43 ↗ you to say that

2:44:45 ↗ a short flat is a one-step process that

2:44:47 ↗ you make an administrative decision and

2:44:50 ↗ then you're done with it

2:44:52 ↗ and what i'm suggesting is that in fact

2:44:56 ↗ the city

2:44:57 ↗ whether it's a short platter a long plat

2:45:00 ↗ imposes conditions and then before you

2:45:02 ↗ allow the

2:45:04 ↗ plot to be recorded

2:45:07 ↗ and actually create the lots you make

2:45:09 ↗ sure that the conditions that were

2:45:11 ↗ imposed in the short flat decision or

2:45:13 ↗ complied with isn't that fair

2:45:21 ↗ you're

2:45:22 ↗ correct on a short flat

2:45:26 ↗ in the city because there's usually

2:45:29 ↗ there is often

2:45:31 ↗ a delay

2:45:33 ↗ well not often there can be a delay

2:45:36 ↗ between when the decision is issued

2:45:40 ↗ and

2:45:41 ↗ the

2:45:43 ↗ property owner or applicant decides to

2:45:46 ↗ actually

2:45:48 ↗ formally short plat the property

2:45:51 ↗ at issaquah highlands it is

2:45:55 ↗ in my memory i i don't remember that

2:45:58 ↗ happening it is typically that we are

2:46:00 ↗ getting

2:46:01 ↗ um

2:46:03 ↗ we're making a decision the mylars are

2:46:07 ↗ submitted with all the corrections

2:46:10 ↗ that have been given

2:46:12 ↗ i don't know that we're typically

2:46:15 ↗ using the notice of decision to convey

2:46:18 ↗ the conditions we are typically

2:46:21 ↗ providing those as

2:46:23 ↗ comments

2:46:24 ↗ to be corrected before

2:46:27 ↗ the

2:46:29 ↗ mylars are recorded

2:46:33 ↗ so when you've testified that

2:46:35 ↗ all of your processing of polygons

2:46:38 ↗ applications pursuant to the procedures

2:46:40 ↗ in the development agreement was a

2:46:42 ↗ mistake have you notified polygon of

2:46:45 ↗ your mistake

2:46:47 ↗ so i don't know that i said that all of

2:46:49 ↗ their processing of their permits was

2:46:52 ↗ incorrect

2:46:55 ↗ i

2:46:59 ↗ in terms of their two preliminary plats

2:47:04 ↗ i believe after

2:47:06 ↗ that that i wouldn't have known that

2:47:08 ↗ until after the

2:47:10 ↗ appeal period

2:47:12 ↗ so my guess is that the appeal period

2:47:15 ↗ had closed so my guess is i haven't

2:47:18 ↗ communicated that to them

2:47:20 ↗ you're guessing you haven't told them

2:47:22 ↗ that the process was unlawful given your

2:47:24 ↗ current view of things unlawful i don't

2:47:27 ↗ know that i would say unlawful

2:47:30 ↗ it was an error

2:47:32 ↗ i don't know that i have communicated

2:47:34 ↗ that to them

2:47:37 ↗ so you said

2:47:39 ↗ you weren't sure

2:47:42 ↗ all of the polygon

2:47:44 ↗ projects had been

2:47:47 ↗ process pursuant to the development

2:47:49 ↗ agreement procedures

2:47:51 ↗ which one was not

2:47:56 ↗ i'm sorry could you state that again

2:47:58 ↗ please i'm just trying to understand

2:48:00 ↗ what distinction you drew do you are you

2:48:03 ↗ saying that

2:48:04 ↗ some of the polygon

2:48:07 ↗ projects on your chart

2:48:12 ↗ are not processed pursuant to the

2:48:14 ↗ procedures in the development agreement

2:48:18 ↗ i think i was trying to

2:48:22 ↗ identify that as i testified last time i

2:48:26 ↗ the two preliminary plats

2:48:29 ↗ the west ridge north single family and

2:48:32 ↗ parcel d

2:48:34 ↗ that those were processed using the

2:48:37 ↗ procedures

2:48:39 ↗ of the isqua highlands development

2:48:40 ↗ agreement when they should have been

2:48:42 ↗ processed using the replacement

2:48:44 ↗ regulations

2:48:46 ↗ well in fact you treated all of polygons

2:48:49 ↗ applications on your chart as vested to

2:48:53 ↗ process the procedures in the

2:48:55 ↗ development agreement didn't you

2:48:57 ↗ yes and i think there

2:49:00 ↗ you do not agree with our uh

2:49:03 ↗ characterization or our identification

2:49:06 ↗ that the affordable housing

2:49:08 ↗ development agreement tied many of their

2:49:12 ↗ permits

2:49:13 ↗ to the process

2:49:15 ↗ under

2:49:16 ↗ the isqua highlands development

2:49:18 ↗ agreement

2:49:19 ↗ well this woman again you have testified

2:49:22 ↗ that it's now your opinion that one camp

2:49:26 ↗ has to process

2:49:27 ↗ so

2:49:28 ↗ are you saying it's different according

2:49:30 ↗ to

2:49:31 ↗ whether one vested to the development

2:49:34 ↗ agreement or to another document

2:49:37 ↗ that you can best to process pursuant to

2:49:39 ↗ one but not pursuant to the other

2:49:52 ↗ i'm sorry can you state that question

2:49:54 ↗ again please

2:49:56 ↗ you we

2:49:59 ↗ you've testified at length particularly

2:50:01 ↗ at the last hearing

2:50:02 ↗ it's now your opinion arrived at some

2:50:04 ↗ time

2:50:06 ↗ presumably in march of this year

2:50:09 ↗ certainly within the last few months

2:50:11 ↗ that one cannot vest a process

2:50:14 ↗ and you i believe just drew a

2:50:17 ↗ distinction and said

2:50:19 ↗ that one can best to process if one

2:50:22 ↗ tested if polygon vested to this other

2:50:25 ↗ development agreement

2:50:28 ↗ not to the issaquah highlands

2:50:29 ↗ development agreement and i'm just

2:50:31 ↗ trying to clarify that that's what you

2:50:33 ↗ said

2:50:35 ↗ i i take your point um

2:50:43 ↗ i i don't know

2:50:46 ↗ we have focused on the plaits

2:50:49 ↗ we have not focused on the other permits

2:50:52 ↗ in terms of whether

2:50:54 ↗ the

2:50:55 ↗ processing was correct or not and so i

2:50:58 ↗ don't have an answer at this time

2:51:39 ↗ okay thank you ms loman that's all i

2:51:40 ↗ have for this evening

2:51:45 ↗ mr chairman i'm happy to begin my

2:51:46 ↗ redirect if that's uh the commission's

2:51:49 ↗ preference that's our preference thank

2:51:51 ↗ you

2:51:55 ↗ miss loma do you recall your

2:51:58 ↗ testimony in response to

2:52:01 ↗ applicant counsel's questions concerning

2:52:04 ↗ the

2:52:06 ↗ extent to which the city determined that

2:52:10 ↗ their projects

2:52:11 ↗ vest to

2:52:13 ↗ substance at least with respect to their

2:52:15 ↗ plaque as opposed to procedural

2:52:18 ↗ matters

2:52:20 ↗ their testimony or mine their questions

2:52:22 ↗ and your testimony yes okay

2:52:25 ↗ and if i understood your testimony your

2:52:28 ↗ position was that

2:52:32 ↗ for purposes of the plat

2:52:35 ↗ the city would deem

2:52:38 ↗ the

2:52:39 ↗ plaid application to be vested to

2:52:41 ↗ substance under the development

2:52:43 ↗ agreement

2:52:44 ↗ but not to procedures once the

2:52:46 ↗ development agreement expired is that

2:52:48 ↗ correct that's what we said about do you

2:52:50 ↗ remember that yes

2:52:51 ↗ back and forth between yourself and mr

2:52:53 ↗ schneider on that point yes

2:52:56 ↗ and the insinuation that that was

2:52:57 ↗ inconsistent with the city's previous

2:52:59 ↗ position do you recall that

2:53:02 ↗ from the questioning

2:53:07 ↗ yes i think so could you please turn to

2:53:09 ↗ exhibit c44

2:53:16 ↗ i closed it too soon

2:53:18 ↗ [Applause]

2:53:20 ↗ these are the various meeting notes or

2:53:23 ↗ minutes that were introduced into

2:53:25 ↗ evidence

2:53:26 ↗ originally prepared by ms heim

2:53:29 ↗ could you please turn to the

2:53:31 ↗ meeting

2:53:32 ↗ minutes from

2:53:34 ↗ the march 21st 2017 meeting

2:53:50 ↗ yes

2:53:51 ↗ what's the

2:53:53 ↗ the heading

2:53:55 ↗ it was the march 21st 2017. thank you

2:54:01 ↗ what's the heading of that document ms

2:54:03 ↗ sloman meeting city of issaquah

2:54:06 ↗ collaborative collaboration meeting for

2:54:09 ↗ our bsp and platt application could you

2:54:12 ↗ please turn to the

2:54:14 ↗ fourth bullet point

2:54:16 ↗ of that document and read aloud the text

2:54:18 ↗ beginning with keith added

2:54:21 ↗ keith added that his belief is that we

2:54:23 ↗ vest to land use regulations but not to

2:54:26 ↗ process so he thinks that if they later

2:54:28 ↗ change process including get a getting

2:54:31 ↗ rid of uvdc which they want to do we'd

2:54:34 ↗ have to follow the code thank you

2:54:42 ↗ do you remember the original testimony

2:54:45 ↗ you gave

2:54:46 ↗ regarding exhibits

2:54:48 ↗ c64

2:54:50 ↗ the

2:54:52 ↗ version of the development agreement

2:54:54 ↗ that i believe you indicated was

2:54:56 ↗ listed on the city's website and made

2:54:58 ↗ publicly available that way yes do you

2:55:00 ↗ remember mr schneider's

2:55:03 ↗ questioning of you concerning that

2:55:04 ↗ document yes okay

2:55:08 ↗ in your understanding ms sloman is the

2:55:11 ↗ document

2:55:14 ↗ referenced at exhibit c64

2:55:17 ↗ more complete and more up-to-date

2:55:20 ↗ and more current

2:55:22 ↗ than the version of the development

2:55:24 ↗ agreement that is contained at exhibit

2:55:27 ↗ s-25

2:55:29 ↗ yes

2:55:30 ↗ i uh

2:55:32 ↗ subsequent to my testimony last time

2:55:34 ↗ looked at this document more closely to

2:55:39 ↗ consider

2:55:41 ↗ mr snyder's

2:55:44 ↗ and what i noticed is that about 80 to

2:55:47 ↗ 90 percent

2:55:48 ↗ of the

2:55:51 ↗ track change track changes that are in

2:55:54 ↗ here

2:55:56 ↗ are

2:55:57 ↗ followed by

2:55:59 ↗ uh one of two references it's either

2:56:04 ↗ am

2:56:05 ↗ or amm which stands for an

2:56:07 ↗ administrative minor modification and

2:56:10 ↗ it's the specific number of

2:56:13 ↗ that permit that changed text

2:56:16 ↗ or the other reference is

2:56:18 ↗ often action memo

2:56:21 ↗ i think even some of the major

2:56:23 ↗ modifications that were approved by

2:56:25 ↗ council

2:56:27 ↗ are some of them are also referred to in

2:56:29 ↗ here so

2:56:31 ↗ while it is correct this was never

2:56:33 ↗ formally adopted because i believe the

2:56:35 ↗ master developer did not want to

2:56:38 ↗ invest in that i think what we were

2:56:40 ↗ trying to do with this document was

2:56:44 ↗ up to the date when we

2:56:47 ↗ stopped we had compiled

2:56:50 ↗ changes

2:56:52 ↗ and referenced them so that if someone

2:56:54 ↗ questioned that reference they or that

2:56:57 ↗ change they could go uh look at it for

2:57:00 ↗ themselves and see if they felt that

2:57:02 ↗ this was an accurate representation and

2:57:05 ↗ approximately how long has that document

2:57:08 ↗ been publicly accessible on the city's

2:57:11 ↗ website

2:57:14 ↗ i think we put it up around the time

2:57:16 ↗ that the replacement regulations were

2:57:19 ↗ being reviewed so probably sometime in

2:57:21 ↗ 2017 but i don't remember exactly has

2:57:24 ↗ anyone ever objected to the city to your

2:57:26 ↗ knowledge

2:57:27 ↗ regarding the

2:57:29 ↗ accuracy or completeness of that web

2:57:32 ↗ document not that i'm aware of

2:57:42 ↗ okay you were again recall your

2:57:44 ↗ testimony concerning

2:57:46 ↗ the

2:57:48 ↗ the extent to which the city treated the

2:57:50 ↗ polygon applications as being vested to

2:57:53 ↗ the procedures under the development

2:57:55 ↗ agreement

2:57:56 ↗ yes

2:57:57 ↗ okay

2:58:00 ↗ and if i understood your testimony ms

2:58:03 ↗ sloman you indicated that that in

2:58:05 ↗ retrospect it was a mistake to process

2:58:09 ↗ the polygon

2:58:11 ↗ applications under those procedures

2:58:13 ↗ plats yes

2:58:15 ↗ okay

2:58:15 ↗ i think that was the only part that we

2:58:17 ↗ were talking about at that time

2:58:34 ↗ i'd like to call your attention to your

2:58:37 ↗ april 15

2:58:38 ↗ 2019 letter i believe that's at

2:58:42 ↗ exhibit s 113.

2:59:02 ↗ okay

2:59:04 ↗ do you recall your testimony regarding

2:59:06 ↗ this

2:59:08 ↗ some of it yes

2:59:14 ↗ could i please turn your attention to

2:59:17 ↗ the

2:59:18 ↗ quotation and citation on page one of

2:59:21 ↗ your letter to imc

2:59:23 ↗ 1819b 280 about

2:59:26 ↗ halfway down the page yes okay

2:59:30 ↗ in the reference in number three of that

2:59:34 ↗ quotation to

2:59:35 ↗ development agreement per rcw 3670 b

2:59:40 ↗ 180 do you see that yes

2:59:48 ↗ i'm going to

2:59:49 ↗ hand you a electronic version of the

2:59:54 ↗ cited rcw provision could you please

2:59:56 ↗ read rcw 3670v 180 allowed

3:00:07 ↗ is that the thing under notes that's in

3:00:10 ↗ findings

3:00:25 ↗ uh 36.70.180

3:00:29 ↗ development agreements dash effect

3:00:32 ↗ unless amended or terminated a

3:00:35 ↗ development agreement is enforceable

3:00:37 ↗ during its term by a party to the

3:00:39 ↗ agreement

3:00:40 ↗ a development agreement and the

3:00:41 ↗ development standards in the agreement

3:00:43 ↗ govern during the term of the agreement

3:00:46 ↗ or for all that

3:00:49 ↗ or for all or that part of the build-out

3:00:52 ↗ period specified in the agreement and

3:00:54 ↗ may not be subject to an amendment

3:00:57 ↗ to a zoning ordinance or development

3:00:59 ↗ standard or regulation

3:01:01 ↗ or a new zoning ordinance or development

3:01:04 ↗ standard or regulation adopted after the

3:01:07 ↗ effective date of the agreement a permit

3:01:10 ↗ or approval issued by the county or city

3:01:13 ↗ after the execution of the development

3:01:15 ↗ agreement must be consistent with the

3:01:17 ↗ development agreement

3:01:22 ↗ are you aware of any other provision of

3:01:25 ↗ the replacement regulations chapter

3:01:28 ↗ 1819bimc

3:01:30 ↗ that

3:01:31 ↗ cites

3:01:34 ↗ provision of the rcw concerning

3:01:36 ↗ development agreements

3:01:39 ↗ i don't know

3:01:40 ↗ there might be something in the

3:01:42 ↗ introductory material

3:01:44 ↗ are you aware of any other citation to

3:01:47 ↗ 3670b rcw in the replacement regulations

3:01:51 ↗ i would doubt it but i don't know for

3:01:54 ↗ certain thank you

3:01:57 ↗ turning to the final page of your

3:02:01 ↗ april 15 2019 letter again exhibit s 113

3:02:06 ↗ and the

3:02:07 ↗ bolded asterisked text

3:02:10 ↗ beginning with please note

3:02:14 ↗ right above the signature block uh-huh

3:02:17 ↗ do you remember your

3:02:18 ↗ questioning on that point from mr

3:02:21 ↗ schneider yes okay

3:02:23 ↗ [Applause]

3:02:27 ↗ miss lemon are to your knowledge are any

3:02:29 ↗ of your letters appealable decisions

3:02:32 ↗ under the issaquah municipal code

3:02:35 ↗ that's not my understanding of what is

3:02:37 ↗ an appealable it's not a decision so

3:02:40 ↗ that it is not appealable okay

3:02:47 ↗ has ihifc attempted to appeal

3:02:50 ↗ staff letters before

3:02:52 ↗ yes could you describe that please

3:02:56 ↗ i believe that the april 4 2018 letter

3:03:00 ↗ that mr niven issued

3:03:03 ↗ was appealed and i believe there may

3:03:05 ↗ have been another letter that was also

3:03:07 ↗ appealed

3:03:11 ↗ do you know the outcome of the

3:03:14 ↗ administrative appeal filed by ihifc of

3:03:16 ↗ the april 4 2018 letter

3:03:19 ↗ that the hearing examiner denied

3:03:22 ↗ that appeal okay

3:03:24 ↗ do you recall another appeal by ihisc of

3:03:28 ↗ the

3:03:29 ↗ september

3:03:30 ↗ 2018 staff reports prepared by staff

3:03:34 ↗ uh in in relation to this hearing

3:03:36 ↗ yes

3:03:37 ↗ and what was the disposition of that

3:03:39 ↗ administrative appeal that was also

3:03:41 ↗ denied because a decision hadn't been

3:03:44 ↗ issued

3:03:46 ↗ so in both of those situations that you

3:03:48 ↗ just testified to ihifc

3:03:52 ↗ attempted to appeal writings by city

3:03:55 ↗ staff that were ultimately found

3:03:58 ↗ unappealable by the hearing examiner if

3:04:01 ↗ i understand that's my understanding i

3:04:03 ↗ have not read those decisions in any

3:04:05 ↗ detail

3:04:06 ↗ did that history factor into your

3:04:10 ↗ decision to include this bolded language

3:04:12 ↗ at the end of your

3:04:14 ↗ april 15 2019 letter

3:04:17 ↗ uh yes because i think we were

3:04:20 ↗ concerned that this

3:04:22 ↗ might be construed the same way and

3:04:25 ↗ since we had had those two decisions by

3:04:28 ↗ the hearing examiner we thought that

3:04:30 ↗ this

3:04:30 ↗ was cons this language was consistent

3:04:32 ↗ with that

3:04:33 ↗ okay did you feel that language was

3:04:35 ↗ necessary in order to prevent ihifc from

3:04:38 ↗ filing yet another appeal well i don't

3:04:41 ↗ know that they're welcome to file an

3:04:43 ↗ appeal to anything that they choose to

3:04:46 ↗ file an appeal on i think we wanted to

3:04:49 ↗ based on the hearing examiner's previous

3:04:51 ↗ decisions

3:04:52 ↗ communicate that we felt that this fell

3:04:54 ↗ into the same categories as previous

3:04:57 ↗ decisions thank you

3:04:59 ↗ and when you say the same category do

3:05:01 ↗ you mean a category of non-appealable

3:05:03 ↗ writings yes thank you

3:05:06 ↗ um could i turn your attention to

3:05:08 ↗ exhibit c59 the multicolored chart that

3:05:11 ↗ was introduced into evidence at the

3:05:14 ↗ previous hearing

3:05:20 ↗ oh i'm sorry i'm in this

3:05:23 ↗ notebook

3:05:35 ↗ okay

3:05:38 ↗ believe that you testified that this

3:05:41 ↗ didn't include a reference to the

3:05:44 ↗ polygon short plant is that correct yes

3:05:46 ↗ and could you again explain why not

3:05:49 ↗ well i don't think we were saying this

3:05:51 ↗ was the complete universe of every

3:05:53 ↗ permit that had been received

3:05:56 ↗ i think

3:05:57 ↗ while it is true that shelter had

3:06:01 ↗ testified

3:06:02 ↗ their witnesses had testified about the

3:06:04 ↗ short flat

3:06:07 ↗ we felt that the

3:06:09 ↗ permits on this chart would reflect the

3:06:12 ↗ larger land use permits and that smaller

3:06:15 ↗ permits such as short plats lot line

3:06:18 ↗ adjustments

3:06:19 ↗ etc

3:06:20 ↗ were not

3:06:23 ↗ germane to what we were trying to

3:06:24 ↗ represent

3:06:26 ↗ okay thank you

3:06:28 ↗ i'm going to

3:06:29 ↗ distribute a new exhibit

3:06:33 ↗ and this will be

3:06:35 ↗ i believe

3:06:36 ↗ numbers exhibit c65

3:06:51 ↗ [Applause]

3:07:03 ↗ this document is a sampling of permits

3:07:10 ↗ where

3:07:10 ↗ the building permit was submitted

3:07:14 ↗ and either routed or deemed complete and

3:07:17 ↗ by routing that means it's been deemed

3:07:19 ↗ complete

3:07:21 ↗ prior to the approval date of the land

3:07:24 ↗ use permit did you create this document

3:07:26 ↗ i did

3:07:28 ↗ using information from not just my

3:07:31 ↗ information

3:07:33 ↗ when did you create this document

3:07:35 ↗ [Music]

3:07:36 ↗ today okay

3:07:39 ↗ and do you recall

3:07:41 ↗ the

3:07:42 ↗ questioning from mr schneider and your

3:07:45 ↗ answers concerning the veil project

3:07:48 ↗ and

3:07:49 ↗ the

3:07:51 ↗ interplay if any between the

3:07:55 ↗ commercial

3:07:56 ↗ project submittal checklist we've been

3:07:58 ↗ referring to as the web document

3:08:01 ↗ and the city's

3:08:02 ↗ willingness their ability

3:08:04 ↗ to accept a building permit application

3:08:08 ↗ before a land use notice of appeal has

3:08:10 ↗ been issued i i recall that conversation

3:08:14 ↗ with that in mind could you please

3:08:17 ↗ explain the content of the

3:08:20 ↗ new exhibit that i just handed you

3:08:23 ↗ sure um

3:08:25 ↗ you know at the time that i testified uh

3:08:28 ↗ last time

3:08:30 ↗ vail was the one that had come to mind

3:08:34 ↗ mr snyder had questioned the

3:08:38 ↗ whether it really illustrated what

3:08:40 ↗ we thought it illustrated i mentioned

3:08:43 ↗ the sunset way duplex project which at

3:08:45 ↗ the time i did not remember the name of

3:08:49 ↗ so subsequent to our last meeting

3:08:52 ↗ i

3:08:53 ↗ spoke with several

3:08:55 ↗ staff

3:08:57 ↗ long time

3:08:59 ↗ planners in development services

3:09:03 ↗ because there is no easy way to find

3:09:06 ↗ these permits there is they're not

3:09:08 ↗ tagged in any way there's no way to

3:09:10 ↗ search our permit database

3:09:12 ↗ so we had to rely on

3:09:15 ↗ staff's memory

3:09:17 ↗ of

3:09:18 ↗ permits that might be illustrative of

3:09:22 ↗ building permits being

3:09:25 ↗ submitted and routed prior to land use

3:09:28 ↗ permit approval and so using the

3:09:31 ↗ information that the

3:09:34 ↗ these various staff

3:09:36 ↗ provided me i then

3:09:38 ↗ went into our permit database to confirm

3:09:43 ↗ the permit numbers the submittal dates

3:09:46 ↗ or approval dates or routing dates as

3:09:48 ↗ shown here

3:09:49 ↗ so just to clarify ms sloman

3:09:52 ↗ the

3:09:53 ↗ permit numbers and routing

3:09:56 ↗ identification information and the other

3:09:58 ↗ identifiers

3:10:00 ↗ in the chart that were discussing

3:10:03 ↗ were actually verified by you personally

3:10:06 ↗ yes okay

3:10:08 ↗ is this an exhaustive list of

3:10:13 ↗ projects for which a

3:10:15 ↗ building permit application

3:10:18 ↗ was allowed to be submitted

3:10:20 ↗ without the requirement for a

3:10:22 ↗ notice of decision for a corollary land

3:10:25 ↗ use permit i i can't say

3:10:28 ↗ i guess the two things i can say is it's

3:10:31 ↗ not that common an occurrence because

3:10:33 ↗ most applicants

3:10:35 ↗ don't want to

3:10:37 ↗ risk

3:10:38 ↗ as ms heim identified the expense of

3:10:42 ↗ preparing

3:10:43 ↗ a

3:10:44 ↗ building permit without the competence

3:10:46 ↗ of the

3:10:48 ↗ land use permit approval

3:10:50 ↗ however they are able to do so and some

3:10:54 ↗ choose to go ahead and do it

3:10:58 ↗ and

3:10:59 ↗ the

3:11:01 ↗ sunset duplex is one in which they were

3:11:03 ↗ submitted very close together

3:11:08 ↗ the other thing is as i mentioned that

3:11:10 ↗ these are

3:11:12 ↗ um not tagged in any way so we have to

3:11:15 ↗ rely on staff's memory of

3:11:18 ↗ permits and

3:11:20 ↗ so we had to go searching um to try and

3:11:23 ↗ find them there's no easy way to pull

3:11:25 ↗ them up but you just to clarify you did

3:11:28 ↗ personally search and you did personally

3:11:30 ↗ verify that information correct so um i

3:11:33 ↗ was given a list by various staff

3:11:35 ↗ members and based on that list

3:11:39 ↗ then i went in and looked at each

3:11:42 ↗ of these permits to

3:11:44 ↗ confirm

3:11:46 ↗ the

3:11:47 ↗ land use permit

3:11:49 ↗ number

3:11:50 ↗ the type the approval date

3:11:53 ↗ the building permit number

3:11:55 ↗ the submittal date

3:11:57 ↗ and actually i was not provided with the

3:11:59 ↗ routing information so i had to go into

3:12:02 ↗ our permit tracking program to identify

3:12:06 ↗ that routing date

3:12:08 ↗ thank you

3:12:10 ↗ do you recall your testimony in response

3:12:13 ↗ to mr schneider's

3:12:15 ↗ questioning concerning the

3:12:17 ↗ the

3:12:18 ↗ public access and utilities easement

3:12:22 ↗ shown on the

3:12:24 ↗ shelter property

3:12:25 ↗ could you please describe that again

3:12:28 ↗ the permit the

3:12:30 ↗ pedestrian or public access easement i i

3:12:34 ↗ had it written down as the public access

3:12:36 ↗ and utilities easement you're right that

3:12:39 ↗ is what the notation was on the drawing

3:12:41 ↗ that we referenced could you again

3:12:45 ↗ describe

3:12:47 ↗ that easement and its origins

3:12:50 ↗ how it came to be i don't actually know

3:12:54 ↗ i assume as mr

3:12:57 ↗ snyder

3:12:58 ↗ indicated that it was a result of the

3:13:02 ↗ work that polygon was doing

3:13:05 ↗ on their property

3:13:07 ↗ but

3:13:08 ↗ who instigated that conversation with

3:13:10 ↗ shelter

3:13:12 ↗ how that unfolded i i don't have any

3:13:15 ↗ direct knowledge of do you know if

3:13:17 ↗ polygon ever objected to that

3:13:21 ↗ not that i'm aware of

3:13:23 ↗ has shelter objected to them

3:13:26 ↗ not that i'm aware of

3:13:31 ↗ do you remember your testimony this

3:13:33 ↗ evening concerning the december 15 2017

3:13:38 ↗ supplemental submittal

3:13:41 ↗ that ihifc filed in relation to its flat

3:13:45 ↗ application yes okay

3:13:48 ↗ do you remember the this

3:13:50 ↗ characterization of that document by

3:13:53 ↗ mr schneider and his questioning as

3:13:55 ↗ being quote detailed and thorough

3:13:58 ↗ quote yes i remember him saying that is

3:14:01 ↗ that an accurate characterization

3:14:08 ↗ it's very detailed um

3:14:11 ↗ it is um

3:14:13 ↗ the the information that was provided in

3:14:16 ↗ the august submittal

3:14:18 ↗ um while it may not have all been

3:14:20 ↗ correct or answered every question

3:14:23 ↗ was sufficient for us to have

3:14:27 ↗ processed a plat we did not need the

3:14:30 ↗ additional information

3:14:33 ↗ that was added to the december submittal

3:14:36 ↗ to be able to process the plat did you

3:14:38 ↗ request that information or did the city

3:14:40 ↗ request that information not that i'm

3:14:42 ↗ aware of

3:14:44 ↗ and this submittal

3:14:46 ↗ in december of 2017 of this document

3:14:50 ↗ occurred when in relation to the

3:14:52 ↗ build-out period under the development

3:14:54 ↗ agreement it occurred after the

3:14:56 ↗ build-out period approximately how long

3:14:58 ↗ after

3:15:01 ↗ three months thank you

3:15:04 ↗ could you please

3:15:05 ↗ turn your attention now to exhibit s 65

3:15:46 ↗ please

3:15:51 ↗ sorry still trying to

3:15:54 ↗ wrestle the pages

3:15:58 ↗ so this email

3:16:00 ↗ um

3:16:03 ↗ i sent this email to

3:16:06 ↗ jean lynn

3:16:11 ↗ about a month or

3:16:13 ↗ five weeks maybe

3:16:15 ↗ after

3:16:16 ↗ the notice of applications went out for

3:16:22 ↗ three different permits

3:16:23 ↗ she

3:16:26 ↗ did the notice of a combined notice of

3:16:29 ↗ application on three permits and

3:16:32 ↗ i was complimenting her because i knew

3:16:35 ↗ that

3:16:36 ↗ she was doing work for

3:16:39 ↗ more than just her own projects and she

3:16:42 ↗ had provided an overview map and some

3:16:44 ↗ other things like that

3:16:46 ↗ so let's uh

3:16:47 ↗ explore that for a minute when you were

3:16:50 ↗ complimenting ms lynn

3:16:52 ↗ through your

3:16:53 ↗ great job or good job email message what

3:16:56 ↗ did you intend to convey by that

3:17:00 ↗ well the you know that she had had she

3:17:02 ↗ was doing work for other staff such as

3:17:06 ↗ myself

3:17:07 ↗ she was

3:17:09 ↗ [Music]

3:17:10 ↗ she had prepared i believe that she was

3:17:12 ↗ the one who prepared the map showing how

3:17:14 ↗ the three pieces

3:17:16 ↗ uh related to each other which i believe

3:17:18 ↗ was also included

3:17:20 ↗ and

3:17:21 ↗ um

3:17:22 ↗ that the textual part of the notice of

3:17:25 ↗ application

3:17:28 ↗ that she had done i thought was a good

3:17:31 ↗ representation of what was happening

3:17:33 ↗ with that

3:17:34 ↗ permit i believe that you testified in

3:17:37 ↗ response to applicant counsel's

3:17:39 ↗ questions that

3:17:41 ↗ you had not personally reviewed

3:17:44 ↗ shelter's december 15 2017 supplemental

3:17:49 ↗ submittal

3:17:50 ↗ before you sent that email to ms lynn is

3:17:52 ↗ that correct right i'm not sure when i

3:17:55 ↗ became aware of that um

3:17:58 ↗ [Music]

3:18:00 ↗ submittal um it was very likely that i

3:18:03 ↗ was unaware of it even at this time in

3:18:06 ↗ february

3:18:07 ↗ so just to clarify if i understand your

3:18:09 ↗ your

3:18:10 ↗ testimony ms sloman your congratulatory

3:18:13 ↗ email to ms lynn had nothing to do with

3:18:15 ↗ the substance of the notice of

3:18:18 ↗ application

3:18:20 ↗ well i i'm not sure i would agree with

3:18:22 ↗ that i think it had to do

3:18:24 ↗ potentially with the substance of the

3:18:26 ↗ textual part the front

3:18:29 ↗ of the

3:18:31 ↗ notice of application

3:18:34 ↗ i don't know where that exhibit is but

3:18:36 ↗ the front is all the words that describe

3:18:38 ↗ the project and

3:18:40 ↗ um the interplay and of different

3:18:44 ↗ permits and i thought that she had done

3:18:46 ↗ a good job using that form it may have

3:18:48 ↗ been the first time she sent out a

3:18:50 ↗ notice of application

3:18:51 ↗ um given that she'd only worked for the

3:18:54 ↗ city about six months

3:18:57 ↗ i did not focus on the maps

3:19:01 ↗ that seemed that that

3:19:05 ↗ was taking a map and attaching it to all

3:19:07 ↗ the

3:19:08 ↗ textual description and i think i was

3:19:10 ↗ focused on the textual part of it

3:19:18 ↗ there's been a lot of testimony about

3:19:21 ↗ whether and to what extent the city

3:19:25 ↗ informed ihifc that pre-application

3:19:28 ↗ conference was

3:19:29 ↗ required

3:19:30 ↗ do you recall that or a pre-application

3:19:32 ↗ submittal yes

3:19:33 ↗ and do you recall your own

3:19:35 ↗ questioning and answers on that point i

3:19:37 ↗ believe so okay

3:19:40 ↗ for clarification did the city

3:19:42 ↗ originally tell ihifc

3:19:44 ↗ that pre-op was required yes okay do you

3:19:48 ↗ know approximately when that

3:19:50 ↗ statement would have occurred

3:19:53 ↗ well miss heim originally the the i

3:19:56 ↗ believe the emails that i found where

3:19:58 ↗ she questioned

3:20:01 ↗ our requirement was that took place in

3:20:03 ↗ october

3:20:05 ↗ end of october 2017.

3:20:08 ↗ okay

3:20:09 ↗ and is it your testimony miss

3:20:12 ↗ sloman that

3:20:13 ↗ that statement was retracted by the city

3:20:18 ↗ yes um because

3:20:21 ↗ um

3:20:22 ↗ while um

3:20:24 ↗ there's there's um director niven's

3:20:28 ↗ november 1st email which we've read and

3:20:30 ↗ which has

3:20:33 ↗ two different kinds of statements in it

3:20:36 ↗ there's ms heim's

3:20:38 ↗ testimony

3:20:40 ↗ as i recall it

3:20:41 ↗ saying that it was november 6

3:20:46 ↗ but at the time when i issued the

3:20:50 ↗ sufficiency or insufficiency letter

3:20:52 ↗ on the first two site development

3:20:55 ↗ permits that shelter had submitted

3:20:58 ↗ i did not identify that the pre-app

3:21:00 ↗ meetings had not taken place

3:21:03 ↗ and i am

3:21:05 ↗ very confident that i would not have

3:21:08 ↗ unilaterally

3:21:10 ↗ made that decision

3:21:12 ↗ or

3:21:13 ↗ that i would not have included it if i

3:21:16 ↗ was not

3:21:17 ↗ if i felt that that was an outstanding

3:21:19 ↗ item

3:21:21 ↗ you say that with certainty yes i'm

3:21:23 ↗ sorry yes okay

3:21:28 ↗ and what was the date of that letter

3:21:31 ↗ december 1st okay

3:21:36 ↗ [Applause]

3:21:39 ↗ could you turn to exhibit c50 i believe

3:21:41 ↗ this was the

3:21:43 ↗ email

3:21:44 ↗ from mr nibben that you were referring

3:21:46 ↗ to but i want to verify that

3:21:50 ↗ sorry which exit exhibit c50

3:22:09 ↗ i'm at c50

3:22:11 ↗ c50 yes

3:22:16 ↗ i'm there

3:22:17 ↗ thank you was this the email message

3:22:19 ↗ that you were referring to yes okay yes

3:22:22 ↗ i'd like to

3:22:23 ↗ direct your attention to the second

3:22:26 ↗ paragraph of that email message from mr

3:22:29 ↗ niven to ms heim with you as a courtesy

3:22:32 ↗ copy recipient along with

3:22:34 ↗ various other people

3:22:36 ↗ and the text that reads

3:22:38 ↗ your first point is that the

3:22:41 ↗ pre-application meetings are listed in

3:22:43 ↗ the agreement as quote optional

3:22:47 ↗ this is true

3:22:48 ↗ parentheses appendix l

3:22:51 ↗ page l4 and paren do you see that

3:22:54 ↗ language i do

3:22:58 ↗ and then could you please look at the

3:23:01 ↗ fourth

3:23:02 ↗ paragraph

3:23:04 ↗ beginning with the text under existing

3:23:07 ↗ city processing

3:23:09 ↗ the city the pre-application meeting is

3:23:11 ↗ not optional it is a required part of

3:23:14 ↗ the process miss flemit how do you

3:23:17 ↗ construe the reference to existing city

3:23:20 ↗ processing in that statement

3:23:23 ↗ what is that a reference to in your to

3:23:25 ↗ your knowledge is that the city's code

3:23:27 ↗ or is that something else

3:23:31 ↗ well

3:23:40 ↗ well i think that

3:23:43 ↗ it's difficult for me to speak to this

3:23:45 ↗ because i didn't write it

3:23:47 ↗ um

3:23:48 ↗ my

3:23:49 ↗ uh

3:23:50 ↗ i think it was common practice that we

3:23:53 ↗ had a pre-app meeting at least in

3:23:55 ↗ certain parts of the city

3:23:58 ↗ and that we

3:24:00 ↗ found that

3:24:03 ↗ necessary and useful

3:24:06 ↗ i don't know exactly what director niven

3:24:10 ↗ meant specifically by this text but i

3:24:12 ↗ guess that's what i take away from it

3:24:14 ↗ do you construe understand what you're

3:24:16 ↗ saying about not being able to read mr

3:24:18 ↗ niven's mind but do you construe the

3:24:21 ↗ first reference the reference that i had

3:24:23 ↗ you look at

3:24:25 ↗ in the second paragraph

3:24:27 ↗ as

3:24:28 ↗ mr niven

3:24:30 ↗ retracting

3:24:32 ↗ the city's previous statement that a

3:24:34 ↗ pre-application was required

3:24:37 ↗ well it certainly seems to acknowledge

3:24:39 ↗ what the development agreement says

3:24:43 ↗ thank you

3:25:00 ↗ and then finally with respect to

3:25:03 ↗ your relationship with the editor of the

3:25:08 ↗ connections

3:25:10 ↗ publication do you recall your testimony

3:25:12 ↗ on that point yes

3:25:14 ↗ can you please again describe

3:25:16 ↗ what relationship you have with that

3:25:17 ↗ individual it's collegial

3:25:21 ↗ she's very interested in planning

3:25:25 ↗ she and i had worked together

3:25:28 ↗ professionally

3:25:30 ↗ over the years when she was on the urban

3:25:32 ↗ village development commission when she

3:25:35 ↗ was on the council

3:25:37 ↗ and

3:25:42 ↗ we enjoyed many of the same interests

3:25:45 ↗ and

3:25:47 ↗ found those conversations helpful in

3:25:51 ↗ discussing various issues we didn't

3:25:52 ↗ always agree but we they were

3:25:54 ↗ enlightening

3:25:56 ↗ thank you my final question is have you

3:26:00 ↗ been present for all of these

3:26:02 ↗ proceedings yes did you

3:26:05 ↗ listen to mr nibben's

3:26:07 ↗ testimony in the september and or

3:26:10 ↗ october

3:26:11 ↗ hearings concerning his interpretation

3:26:14 ↗ of the development agreement regarding

3:26:16 ↗ vesting

3:26:18 ↗ yes

3:26:19 ↗ do you agree or disagree with mr niven

3:26:21 ↗ testimony

3:26:23 ↗ well i can't say i remember

3:26:26 ↗ exactly what he said at that time

3:26:29 ↗ so um

3:26:33 ↗ i i don't know that i can i i don't

3:26:36 ↗ remember thinking

3:26:37 ↗ what um so i assume that i agreed with

3:26:41 ↗ it but i don't recall specifically what

3:26:45 ↗ he was testifying to thank you no

3:26:47 ↗ further questions

3:26:50 ↗ the timing is good

3:26:54 ↗ mr schneider do you have a lot of

3:26:55 ↗ comments to make

3:26:57 ↗ i i would say i probably

3:27:00 ↗ just on the new stuff that was

3:27:01 ↗ introduced the new exhibits and

3:27:04 ↗ that's why i probably have 15 minutes

3:27:07 ↗ across

3:27:10 ↗ i would suggest we do it next time

3:27:15 ↗ and in light of how long things took

3:27:17 ↗ tonight i

3:27:18 ↗ no longer feel confident we're going to

3:27:19 ↗ get done next time

3:27:22 ↗ i

3:27:23 ↗ think we all desperately want to but i

3:27:25 ↗ i'm not confident it's going to happen

3:27:27 ↗ so i would request as a

3:27:32 ↗ basis needed that we

3:27:34 ↗ schedule one more hearing so two more

3:27:37 ↗ the one that i understand

3:27:39 ↗ scheduled for the 30th and then one more

3:27:42 ↗ after that just in case we needed

3:27:44 ↗ okay so

3:27:46 ↗ uh

3:27:47 ↗ mr lal does that

3:27:49 ↗ timeline seem to be consistent with what

3:27:51 ↗ your interests are

3:27:53 ↗ uh it is i think it's a it's an accurate

3:27:55 ↗ or at least a realistic estimate of what

3:27:57 ↗ will be necessary given the history here

3:27:59 ↗ i don't know how many

3:28:01 ↗ um

3:28:02 ↗ rebuttal witnesses that the applicant

3:28:04 ↗ intends to call my recollection is that

3:28:06 ↗ it was in the neighborhood of three to

3:28:07 ↗ five

3:28:08 ↗ i think we're at three

3:28:11 ↗ three uh

3:28:13 ↗ and um

3:28:15 ↗ but then they'll be your costs so i i

3:28:17 ↗ would agree with mr snyder that out of

3:28:19 ↗ an abundance of caution scheduling an

3:28:21 ↗ additional hearing date makes sense

3:28:23 ↗ excuse me we have four revolted

3:28:25 ↗ witnesses so i think we need to schedule

3:28:28 ↗ the second hearing

3:28:29 ↗ so we

3:28:31 ↗ have reached the time to adjourn and

3:28:33 ↗ we'll be continuing the public hearing

3:28:34 ↗ on tonight's agenda to a future date and

3:28:37 ↗ my understanding is that

3:28:39 ↗ the commission the commission is next

3:28:41 ↗ available continue on may 30th

3:28:45 ↗ that's correct and

3:28:46 ↗ we will be searching for

3:28:49 ↗ another meeting after may 30th

3:28:51 ↗ to

3:28:53 ↗ continue

3:28:56 ↗ that sound correct

3:28:58 ↗ i will reconvene on may 30th to

3:29:03 ↗ complete the testimony and and may

3:29:06 ↗ probably go to another meeting to begin

3:29:09 ↗ our deliberations so

3:29:12 ↗ let's consider ourselves adjourned thank

3:29:15 ↗ you thank you

3:29:32 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (15)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Keith Niven

Econ. & Dev. Srcs. Dir. Mel Morgan

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present: Richard Sanford Tia Heim

Shelter Holdings Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Zachary Lell

City Attorney’s Office Ben Rush Ray Liaw

Van Ness Feldman

LLP Brooke Shore Jacquie Quarré

Foster Pepper PLLC Mark Rigos

Alternate Patrick Schneider

Foster Pepper PLLC Arthur Schulte

Alternate Gary Young

Shelter Holdings [audience] Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate 1