Development Commission - Special Meeting - 30 M · Thursday, May 30, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board 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 May 15, 2019

packet pp.7–10

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-15-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

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

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.23 ↗

3052 segments .txt ↗

0:31 ↗ all right

0:33 ↗ we're on the air and so I'd like to call

0:36 ↗ to order the special meeting the

0:38 ↗ continuation of the May 15 2000

0:42 ↗ Highlands retail this Co Highlands

0:43 ↗ medical office administrative site

0:46 ↗ development permit and the Issaquah

0:47 ↗ Highlands self storage administrative

0:49 ↗ site development permit I'm going to ask

0:52 ↗ we have some minutes to approve but I'm

0:54 ↗ going to ask if there are any objections

0:55 ↗ or discussion to approving the minutes

0:58 ↗ on May 15th nope

1:02 ↗ hearing none and by unanimous consent

1:04 ↗ the minutes are approved so when we

1:07 ↗ adjourned last I think mr. Schneider was

1:09 ↗ rebutting miss Loman so we'll continue

1:11 ↗ that process now Thank You minister so I

1:21 ↗ just have a few questions based on miss

1:24 ↗ Loman Cerreta direct testimony at the

1:26 ↗ end of the last hearing miss Loman I've

1:28 ↗ opened the city's book of exhibits to

1:31 ↗ c65 your convenience which is the chart

1:36 ↗ that you prepared the same day as the

1:39 ↗ last hearing and introduced on your

1:41 ↗ redirect testimony that correct yes so

1:48 ↗ free of the I'm still under oath

1:53 ↗ thank you sorry excuse me thank you so

1:57 ↗ three of the projects on here are one

2:02 ↗ years old

2:03 ↗ do you have any personal knowledge of

2:05 ↗ those projects are you asking was I

2:09 ↗ involved in any of these projects yes

2:13 ↗ some of the later the more recent ones

2:16 ↗ but not some of the 20-year old ones No

2:18 ↗ okay how about those that are more than

2:21 ↗ ten years old the ones from 2000 2005

2:25 ↗ and 2006 were you personally involved in

2:28 ↗ assessing those applications no what did

2:33 ↗ the code say

2:34 ↗ 1998 or 2006 about complete applications

2:38 ↗ do you know about I'm sorry say that

2:42 ↗ again about what did the code say about

2:45 ↗ when an application could be submitted

2:48 ↗ in any of the years before 2015 do you

2:52 ↗ know what the code said I believe the

2:55 ↗ language was the same or very close to

2:58 ↗ the same as 1801 oh five oh that you

3:02 ↗ could submit a building permit at any

3:03 ↗ time okay what about eighteen oh four oh

3:06 ↗ nine oh I don't know that off the top of

3:08 ↗ my head I haven't looked it up as the

3:11 ↗ city ever abided by eighteen oh four oh

3:13 ↗ nine oh so unless you refresh my memory

3:17 ↗ of what that says I'm unable to answer

3:20 ↗ that question

3:21 ↗ it's exhibit s 177 if you want to turn

3:23 ↗ to it please I'm sorry s what 177 being

3:42 ↗ told I may have the wrong number but I

3:43 ↗ yeah I think I don't think we go up and

3:45 ↗ down high fiume s 117

4:04 ↗ yes I well based on the way it is

4:12 ↗ written in s in the exhibit that cheap

4:15 ↗ shared it would indicate that it was

4:19 ↗ adopted in 1996 before any of the

4:21 ↗ applications on your chart yes and my

4:27 ↗ question was has the city ever abided by

4:30 ↗ 1804 oh and I know in your experience I

4:35 ↗ don't know whether we breath prints that

4:38 ↗ I'm sure that we have referenced 1801

4:40 ↗ o5o

4:41 ↗ it is there any reason that you are

4:45 ↗ unaware of or that the city has not to

4:50 ↗ your knowledge applied 1804 oh and I

4:53 ↗ know to permit applications

5:00 ↗ well I so I have only been working with

5:07 ↗ the DSD since 2012 so that limits some

5:15 ↗ of my experience with the fuller is qua

5:20 ↗ Municipal Code I do note that 1804 o9o

5:25 ↗ is entitled concurrent building permit

5:28 ↗ review option so as an option it might

5:32 ↗ not be exercised that often well as I

5:36 ↗ understand it if you've been involved in

5:38 ↗ your current role since 2012 then you

5:43 ↗ certainly were in your present role when

5:47 ↗ the three most recent applications on

5:49 ↗ your chart were processed correct yes

5:52 ↗ and you have any knowledge of whether

5:59 ↗ the building official was involved in

6:01 ↗ any of those applications as 1804 when I

6:04 ↗ know States he should be so Development

6:11 ↗ Services was created to combine three

6:15 ↗ different well actually four different

6:18 ↗ groups and the building official would

6:21 ↗ have been a part of the department

6:24 ↗ whether the building official was

6:26 ↗ consulted I wouldn't know okay well if

6:30 ↗ the building official wasn't insulted

6:33 ↗ what was the authority on which these

6:36 ↗ applications assuming your chart is

6:38 ↗ accurate on which those applications

6:40 ↗ were accepted 1801 oh five oh that a

6:45 ↗ building permit can be accepted at any

6:47 ↗ time hey so do your knowledge you talked

6:54 ↗ about being involved more than once with

6:56 ↗ the city for over 20 years to your

6:58 ↗ knowledge has the city ever enforced

7:00 ↗ applied made use of eighteen oh four oh

7:03 ↗ nine oh I don't I don't know

7:13 ↗ none of these projects are in the

7:15 ↗ highlands correct no they are not okay

7:21 ↗ and the three most recent ones in one of

7:25 ↗ them is the middle school and

7:26 ↗ application presumably submitted by the

7:28 ↗ school district yes and the other two

7:32 ↗ are duplexes yes

7:36 ↗ which are approved administrative Lee

7:39 ↗ the land use permit yes and if the

7:43 ↗ building official as far as you know was

7:45 ↗ not involved who made the decision to

7:47 ↗ accept these I don't know that the

7:53 ↗ building permit the building official

7:55 ↗ was not involved I just I I know that

7:59 ↗ there was discussion when sunset way

8:01 ↗ duplex was submitted but I was not

8:04 ↗ involved in a conversation with the

8:06 ↗ building official so I do not know

8:08 ↗ whether he was involved or not did you

8:11 ↗ make the decision to accept the

8:12 ↗ applications

8:13 ↗ I was consulted but not I don't think I

8:20 ↗ made the final decision no who did make

8:22 ↗ the decision I don't know

8:31 ↗ it may have been the building official I

8:33 ↗ just don't know why don't we turn to

8:36 ↗ Exhibit C 44 which are as Himes notes

8:40 ↗ that you testified to at the end of the

8:43 ↗ last year and specifically her notes

8:47 ↗ from the March 21st 2017 meeting with

8:51 ↗ new and

9:08 ↗ I know when you get there please see 44

9:22 ↗ and you said March 21st yes 2017 maybe a

9:27 ↗ third of the way through the notes

9:51 ↗ you in response to questions from mr.

9:56 ↗ Lau talked about the fourth bullet point

10:04 ↗ you want to read that to us again please

10:11 ↗ Keith added that his belief is that we

10:14 ↗ vest to land use regulations but not to

10:16 ↗ process so he thinks that if they later

10:19 ↗ change process including getting rid of

10:22 ↗ UV DC which they want to do

10:24 ↗ we'd have to follow the code okay and I

10:28 ↗ understand any of your testimony last

10:30 ↗ time is this was offered to demonstrate

10:32 ↗ that my client should have known that

10:34 ↗ they don't guess to process is that a

10:37 ↗ fair characterization I don't remember

10:43 ↗ the context in which we discuss this but

10:46 ↗ it might have been you were present at

10:48 ↗ this hearing correct yes so you assuming

10:52 ↗ that mr. Niven actually meant that you

10:57 ↗ don't invest a process for any

10:59 ↗ applications including Platts and you

11:02 ↗ knew that that was the position of your

11:07 ↗ department in March of 2017 correct I

11:14 ↗ was present and heard this yes okay and

11:17 ↗ yet you treated polygon as vested to

11:19 ↗ process for an entire year after that

11:21 ↗ didn't you didn't we already go through

11:23 ↗ this glowing you need to answer my

11:26 ↗ question not argue with me you treated

11:28 ↗ polygon is vested for an entire year

11:30 ↗ after March 21st 2017 correct well the

11:40 ↗ development agreement was still in place

11:43 ↗ it didn't even reach build-out until

11:46 ↗ later that year

11:51 ↗ well let me correct my question you

11:53 ↗ actually treated polygon as vested for

11:57 ↗ two years after this day did you until

11:59 ↗ March of 2019 a year more than a year

12:04 ↗ after the development agreement

12:05 ↗ terminated and and I think that's the

12:08 ↗ important part of your statement which

12:10 ↗ is that the the neither the build-out

12:15 ↗ nor the termination of the development

12:17 ↗ agreement had been reached at March 21st

12:21 ↗ 2017 it was almost a year later yes and

12:26 ↗ a year later when it the development

12:29 ↗ agreement terminated you treated polygon

12:31 ↗ for the subsequent year until just a

12:34 ↗ couple of months ago as vested to

12:36 ↗ process and it was only when polygons

12:39 ↗ applications have been processed that

12:41 ↗ you told my client it was not vested to

12:43 ↗ process correct so I was present for

12:50 ↗ this I did drop remember this when I was

12:52 ↗ working with polygon as I've tested by

12:55 ↗ multiple times I did that in error and

12:58 ↗ in spite of your statement we did not

13:02 ↗ consider this to be a worse process we

13:07 ↗ actually considered the replacement

13:08 ↗ regulations to be a better process that

13:11 ↗ we would have preferred to use with

13:13 ↗ polygons but we did not think that we

13:17 ↗ could that was an error on my part an

13:20 ↗ error you corrected as soon as polygons

13:22 ↗ at finished process that you'd finished

13:25 ↗ processing polygons applications correct

13:27 ↗ that was not the reason that that change

13:29 ↗ occurred is that correct that's when it

13:31 ↗ happened that is correct that is when it

13:33 ↗ happened so I'd finally like to turn to

13:36 ↗ exhibit s 13 113 please which is the

13:40 ↗ email you sent to miss Heim that

13:42 ↗ attaches your letter telling my client

13:46 ↗ that were not vested to process for the

13:48 ↗ plat application

13:57 ↗ thank you okay I'm at s 113 okay and

14:04 ↗ it's we were here last time a couple of

14:07 ↗ weeks ago what have you done to process

14:09 ↗ my clients plat application I've been

14:12 ↗ writing the staff report have you then

14:15 ↗ decided what my client is vested to and

14:17 ↗ not vested - by virtue of its platen I

14:23 ↗ am still in the process of writing the

14:26 ↗ staff report the staff report will

14:29 ↗ address the things that are related to

14:32 ↗ the plat I have not completed that staff

14:37 ↗ report does that mean you have not

14:40 ↗ decided what my client is vested - and

14:42 ↗ not vested - and it's plat application I

14:45 ↗ think that will be in the staff report

14:48 ↗ that doesn't answer my question

14:50 ↗ have you decided or not decided it's not

14:53 ↗ my individual decision it would be my

14:56 ↗ decision in consultation with the

14:58 ↗ director in the city attorney has that

15:00 ↗ decision been made I'm still drafting

15:04 ↗ the staff report the last time I think

15:06 ↗ you testified you were drafting a

15:08 ↗ community meeting memo is that different

15:10 ↗ than the staff report no I am drafting

15:14 ↗ the staff report for the community

15:16 ↗ conference meeting and when are you

15:19 ↗ going to finish that staff report and

15:21 ↗ submit it

15:26 ↗ I am waiting to see when this series of

15:31 ↗ meetings is going to conclude so we can

15:33 ↗ schedule that meeting after we have

15:37 ↗ concluded this particular series

15:48 ↗ at the end of your letter which is part

15:52 ↗ of the exhibit s 1:13 you put in bold

15:56 ↗ emphasize type that your letter cannot

15:59 ↗ be appealed correct I said I think I

16:06 ↗ said that it was not an appealable

16:08 ↗ decision and help me understand why you

16:17 ↗ know my client believes the process is

16:20 ↗ unlawful correct I know your conte your

16:26 ↗ client thinks this disagrees with this

16:28 ↗ but you know my client believes it is

16:31 ↗ vested both to its plat application and

16:34 ↗ to the STP and ASDP applications that

16:38 ↗ are the subject of this hearing we've

16:40 ↗ been doing so since September correct

16:43 ↗ yes I do know that why why doesn't the

16:48 ↗ city want to resolve the legality of the

16:51 ↗ process before it objects my client two

16:54 ↗ months of process that may be illegal I

16:57 ↗ would respectfully object to that

16:59 ↗ question I mean it presupposes an

17:02 ↗ illegal in its conclusion and I would

17:05 ↗ respectfully ask for him to either

17:06 ↗ rephrase it or withdraw it I think I was

17:10 ↗ very careful careful to say that may be

17:12 ↗ illegal and that's the point it the

17:15 ↗ legality of the process has not been

17:17 ↗ resolved and my question is why is the

17:21 ↗ city insisting on subjecting my client

17:24 ↗ to a process that may be illegal in not

17:27 ↗ wanting the issue of its legality

17:29 ↗ resolved before the process and I think

17:32 ↗ it the same objection

17:33 ↗ I would I would make again mr. chairman

17:35 ↗ it essentially is a loaded legal

17:37 ↗ question that presupposes a legal

17:40 ↗ conclusion and asked the witness to to

17:42 ↗ provide a legal conclusion the witness

17:45 ↗ has already testified that she is a

17:46 ↗ layperson no legal training well I

17:49 ↗ respectfully disagree with everything

17:51 ↗ mr. lell just said this witness has

17:53 ↗ testified at length that she's making

17:57 ↗ decisions about process she wrote a

17:59 ↗ letter about process

18:00 ↗ and I'm asking a very simple and direct

18:03 ↗ and unobjectionable question about why

18:06 ↗ she and her letter and why the city for

18:08 ↗ purposes of this hearing is insisting on

18:11 ↗ subjecting this to a process that may be

18:13 ↗ illegal instead of getting the legality

18:16 ↗ resolved before the process I think I'm

18:19 ↗ entitled to an answer to that question I

18:24 ↗ think that the objection should be

18:28 ↗ upheld and it is illegal asking for a

18:31 ↗ legal opinion from miss Loman and I

18:33 ↗ would ask you to if I could either

18:35 ↗ change change or change your question or

18:38 ↗ I will course abide by your ruling but I

18:42 ↗ respectfully disagree it's not a legal

18:44 ↗ question and it's a question about

18:47 ↗ motivation and justification on a policy

18:51 ↗ level for why the city is taking this

18:53 ↗ course and again we've we've repeatedly

18:56 ↗ had objections to legal questions when

18:58 ↗ we have witnesses testifying about legal

19:01 ↗ opinions on when their attorney asks the

19:04 ↗ questions but again this is not a legal

19:06 ↗ question it's a policy question and I

19:08 ↗ think I'm entitled to an answer to and

19:10 ↗ if if you decide otherwise then I think

19:14 ↗ I'm finished okay I finished with miss

19:20 ↗ Loman yes okay

19:26 ↗ mr. chairman I have a very few questions

19:28 ↗ and redirect if I could please okay

19:30 ↗ thank you I was too eager I'm miss lemon

19:35 ↗ could I please draw your attention back

19:37 ↗ to Exhibit C 65 Exhibit C 65 it's the

19:51 ↗ the chart yes you recall the questions

20:07 ↗ that mr. Schneider just asked you

20:09 ↗ concerning that document and the

20:12 ↗ reference to your personal knowledge of

20:15 ↗ the the applications that are are sited

20:18 ↗ in that document do you recall that yes

20:20 ↗ okay how did you compile this document

20:25 ↗ so the city has for probably at least 20

20:32 ↗ years used a permit tracking database so

20:38 ↗ for the land use permits I looked in the

20:42 ↗ database for the approved date and then

20:46 ↗ searched for the documents that the

20:53 ↗ notice of decision or other similar

20:56 ↗ documents that were saved there to

20:58 ↗ confirm those dates for the building

21:02 ↗ permit I had to rely on the database

21:07 ↗ because once permits have been well

21:11 ↗ other than the sunset way duplex which

21:14 ↗ is currently in review once a permit has

21:18 ↗ been approved we don't keep the previous

21:24 ↗ the original submittals and so we don't

21:28 ↗ have other I've looked at the documents

21:31 ↗ that are attached and there aren't any

21:34 ↗ documents that

21:36 ↗ provide that information did you

21:38 ↗ personally review access and review the

21:41 ↗ database that you just referenced yes

21:43 ↗ and in reference to all of the the

21:46 ↗ permit applications that were cited in

21:49 ↗ Exhibit C 65 you personally reviewed the

21:52 ↗ city's databases yes I relied on other

21:56 ↗ staff to identify the permits because

21:59 ↗ there's no way to search for them but I

22:02 ↗ personally reviewed to ensure that they

22:05 ↗ were relevant to the topic at hand and

22:09 ↗ to clarify then is it your testimony of

22:12 ↗ miss Loman that the the references in

22:16 ↗ relation to the the permit permit

22:18 ↗ numbers and dates that are set forth in

22:21 ↗ Exhibit C 65 are accurate to the best of

22:23 ↗ your knowledge and belief yes thank you

22:25 ↗ and then drawing your attention to your

22:28 ↗ testimony a few minutes ago concerning

22:30 ↗ the two Code sections cited on exhibit s

22:35 ↗ 117 and specifically IMC 1804 o 90

22:40 ↗ can you please refer to that what was

22:44 ↗ the exhibit number again s 117 okay yes

23:01 ↗ in your experience and to your knowledge

23:04 ↗ has the city ever required or does the

23:07 ↗ city require a land-use notice of

23:10 ↗ application as a prerequisite for a

23:12 ↗ developer to submit a building permit I

23:16 ↗ don't know I'm not usually in charge of

23:18 ↗ making those decisions do you have you

23:21 ↗ ever informed an applicant that a

23:23 ↗ requirement to that effect would be

23:25 ↗ enforced we we've strongly encouraged

23:29 ↗ them not to do it we've expressed

23:31 ↗ concern with them doing it and what

23:34 ↗ would the reason for that encouragement

23:35 ↗ be because the land use permit can

23:44 ↗ change the nature of the building permit

23:48 ↗ and as MS hime testified it's very

23:50 ↗ expensive to put building permits

23:52 ↗ together and so we encourage applicants

23:55 ↗ to wait at least until later in the

23:58 ↗ process to to be sure that it that they

24:08 ↗ know what the conditions of land use

24:10 ↗ approval are however as with the case

24:14 ↗ with the sunset duplex they felt it was

24:17 ↗ important to bring it in at the same

24:19 ↗ time as their building permit to ensure

24:21 ↗ they were vested thank you with respect

24:27 ↗ to your testimony in response to mr.

24:29 ↗ Schneider's questions regarding the the

24:32 ↗ process used to review and render a

24:38 ↗ decision on IH IFC's preliminary

24:41 ↗ platypus agent I believe you stated that

24:44 ↗ in your in your view the replacement

24:46 ↗ regulations would be a quote better

24:49 ↗ end quote process is that an accurate

24:51 ↗ characterization yes we even tried to

24:55 ↗ figure out how we could use it for

24:58 ↗ polygons permits because we felt that it

25:01 ↗ was easier and more predictable so to

25:07 ↗ ensure that I'm following you the reason

25:10 ↗ that it was a better process in your

25:11 ↗ view is that it would be more predict

25:13 ↗ and easier yes it didn't involve going

25:17 ↗ to council which had multiple steps and

25:21 ↗ it was hard to predict how long it would

25:24 ↗ take to get through that process so the

25:28 ↗ city's decision to utilize the

25:31 ↗ replacement regulation procedures for

25:34 ↗ processing the IHI FC preliminary plat

25:38 ↗ was essentially in your words an attempt

25:42 ↗ to provide them with a better procedure

25:44 ↗ more efficient we have an ongoing series

25:48 ↗ of leading questions I have to object

25:51 ↗ fair enough I would throw that question

25:53 ↗ miss miss Loman would using and you in

25:59 ↗ your view would using the replacement

26:01 ↗ regulation procedural standards to

26:05 ↗ process IH IFC's preliminary plat

26:08 ↗ application benefit IH IFC from an

26:11 ↗ efficiency standpoint yes would it

26:14 ↗ benefit IHI of see from a clarity

26:16 ↗ section again we're asking leading

26:18 ↗ questions and it's it's an issue that I

26:22 ↗ didn't ask any questions about so we're

26:25 ↗ exploring add in effect a new topic I

26:28 ↗ would disagree with that mr. mr.

26:30 ↗ chairman but I'm happy to terminate

26:31 ↗ there please do thank you thank you

26:34 ↗ missing me and miss Loman was the city's

26:37 ↗ final rebuttal witness so we would yield

26:40 ↗ to the applicants counsel for the

26:42 ↗ follow-up question if I may

26:45 ↗ miss woman I don't think you answered

26:48 ↗ mr. lele's question about whether you'd

26:52 ↗ ever told an applicant that they

26:54 ↗ wouldn't submit a building to permit

26:59 ↗ until they have a land use approval

27:00 ↗ have you told an applicant that or not I

27:05 ↗ you're asking me to remember everything

27:07 ↗ I've ever said and I don't remember you

27:12 ↗ don't remember one way or the other what

27:14 ↗ you told an applicant that they couldn't

27:17 ↗ apply for a building permit without a

27:18 ↗ land use to

27:19 ↗ I I don't I know I did not tell your

27:24 ↗ client that thank you that's all

27:27 ↗ no further questions yeah so mr.

27:34 ↗ Schneider do you have additional

27:36 ↗ witnesses I think that's where we're

27:39 ↗ going with this we do yes we can start

27:41 ↗ with our rebuttal witnesses

27:42 ↗ so our first is Derrick Strait

28:02 ↗ a second

28:35 ↗ make sure I am the right guy alright so

28:50 ↗ um Derek straight as a new witness for

28:53 ↗ us so if we could get him sworn in

28:55 ↗ please by the court reporter I do thank

29:09 ↗ you and Derek do you mind if I call you

29:11 ↗ Derek J do not if you could please state

29:15 ↗ your full name and your current employer

29:17 ↗ and then also your job title for the

29:19 ↗ record please Derek straight and

29:21 ↗ president of shelter Holdings and have

29:25 ↗ you reviewed the testimony from prior

29:27 ↗ prior development Commission hearings

29:28 ↗ I have specifically have you reviewed

29:31 ↗ Keith Nivens testimony I have angiomas

29:34 ↗ testimony I have Gary Young's testimony

29:37 ↗ yes I'd like to start with talking a

29:40 ↗ little bit about your background in your

29:42 ↗ professional work history can you

29:44 ↗ describe for us starting with kind of

29:48 ↗ your first development related work

29:50 ↗ experience what that was and just

29:52 ↗ explained generally who you worked for

29:53 ↗ when it was in your roles I began

29:57 ↗ working for polygon northwest in 2007 at

30:02 ↗ the time were primarily developing for

30:05 ↗ sale housing and rental rental housing I

30:08 ↗ worked in various roles there in sales

30:12 ↗ development management and then in 2012

30:18 ↗ took over the division president role

30:21 ↗ and then I left that business in 2016

30:27 ↗ and then joined shelter holdings later

30:30 ↗ in the year in 2016 and a shelter would

30:34 ↗ have been your responsibilities over the

30:36 ↗ course of this project so roughly 2013

30:39 ↗ to present actually I guess we should

30:40 ↗ divide it up based on what you just said

30:42 ↗ so from October 2016 to present at

30:45 ↗ shelter would have been your

30:46 ↗ responsibilities my responsibilities

30:48 ↗ from so again this would be from October

30:50 ↗ of 2016 was responsible for a high level

30:56 ↗ sort of oversight and strategy to move

31:00 ↗ the 20 acres or so that that we owned

31:04 ↗ along and develop those that property so

31:08 ↗ that was October 2016 to present with

31:11 ↗ shelter is that correct correct okay and

31:13 ↗ then earlier on did you have any

31:15 ↗ involvement with this project my

31:17 ↗ involvement began in early to mid 2013

31:24 ↗ when we we as polygons had the property

31:27 ↗ under contract to purchase with

31:29 ↗ Microsoft from Microsoft pardon it was

31:34 ↗ at the time 63 acres the whole property

31:37 ↗ we at polygon had from 2013 then 2016 I

31:44 ↗ was primarily focused on development of

31:46 ↗ the residential portion of the property

31:48 ↗ which would be 40 acres approximately do

31:51 ↗ you recall this times testimony about

31:53 ↗ the split between shelter and polygon I

31:56 ↗ do how did your role change or what

31:58 ↗ happened with your employment when that

31:59 ↗ split occurred so I had been focusing on

32:03 ↗ really the overall entire property up

32:06 ↗ until 2014 at that point the property

32:11 ↗ was split 20 acres was essentially kept

32:16 ↗ with shelter Holdings 40 acres was

32:19 ↗ - William Lyon the eventual purchaser of

32:21 ↗ polygon and I began to exclusively focus

32:25 ↗ on the residential that would be October

32:29 ↗ of about October of 2004 14 August of

32:34 ↗ 2014

32:35 ↗ sorry so starting with the 2013 to 2014

32:38 ↗ timeframe that you worked on this

32:42 ↗ specific project in the highlands what

32:44 ↗ did you do kind of on a day to day basis

32:46 ↗ in terms of your role at polygon during

32:48 ↗ that time I was managing the overall

32:51 ↗ operation of of the kind of the

32:55 ↗ Washington division so we developed

32:58 ↗ between 500 and 700 units a year so I

33:01 ↗ was managing kind of the overall

33:04 ↗ entitlement development construction

33:06 ↗ sales process and it was that across

33:10 ↗ both the company and then also for this

33:12 ↗ project specifically primarily at a high

33:14 ↗ level across the company I was involved

33:16 ↗ with some high-level planning

33:18 ↗ discussions with with staff and then

33:21 ↗ beginning in the fall of 2016 when you

33:24 ↗ came back to shelter came to shelter

33:26 ↗ rather what has your involvement been in

33:29 ↗ this particular project primarily again

33:32 ↗ high level strategy

33:40 ↗ do you have experience working with

33:42 ↗ local jurisdiction as jurisdictions

33:44 ↗ other than the city of Issaquah I do and

33:47 ↗ on what types of projects for sale

33:51 ↗ single-family for sale townhouse

33:55 ↗ garden-style apartments for sale condo

34:00 ↗ some mixed-use residential commercial

34:04 ↗ mid-rise type projects if you had to

34:07 ↗ guess how many different cities and

34:08 ↗ counties have you worked with in your

34:09 ↗ career and I can count

34:18 ↗ 1e 222 so I would be cities counties not

34:24 ↗ including water jurisdictions or you

34:27 ↗ know utility purveyors what types of

34:30 ↗ projects have you worked on specifically

34:32 ↗ in the Asuka Highlands not including the

34:35 ↗ the three projects that we're discussing

34:37 ↗ today worked on on seven other projects

34:41 ↗ in the esquel Highlands for sale

34:44 ↗ townhouse for sale single-family being

34:49 ↗ the the two primary and then one one

34:53 ↗ rental residential project outside of

34:57 ↗ the squall and Spadina Squad and what

34:59 ↗ was the name of that project outside of

35:01 ↗ the Highlands it was we call it as a

35:06 ↗ Cuates it was part of the lakeside

35:07 ↗ former lakeside property so with your

35:11 ↗ experience working in roughly 22

35:14 ↗ different jurisdictions is there

35:16 ↗ anything different about working on a

35:17 ↗ project in Issaquah compared to other

35:19 ↗ jurisdictions there is pretty much all

35:25 ↗ all jurisdictions begin with their their

35:29 ↗ code as

35:31 ↗ kind of the backbone under which we

35:36 ↗ would we would develop a project we

35:39 ↗ would meet with staff and they would

35:41 ↗ help us you know work directly through

35:44 ↗ the nuances of code in Issaquah the code

35:48 ↗ is kind of I think viewed as more of a

35:50 ↗ guideline in the starting point to

35:53 ↗ negotiate candidly either things that

35:56 ↗ that staff wants to see or doesn't want

35:58 ↗ to see on the property have you worked

36:02 ↗ with director Niven and miss Loman

36:04 ↗ before have you work with them often I

36:07 ↗ worked with them more often at polygon

36:13 ↗ can't say the frequency what is your

36:17 ↗ experience been working with them I

36:19 ↗ think it's it's been difficult

36:24 ↗ inconsistent arbitrary application of

36:28 ↗ the code I think being the the

36:32 ↗ administrators of of that code and I

36:34 ↗ think our general experience being

36:36 ↗ difficult in the city felt that it was a

36:40 ↗ not an easy process have you ever

36:44 ↗ communicated that to either of them not

36:47 ↗ not directly why not in in each case as

36:52 ↗ you said we've had you know eight

36:54 ↗ projects that we worked on in the past

36:56 ↗ in the city and you know we felt I felt

36:59 ↗ that communicating that directly would

37:01 ↗ potentially jeopardize any relationship

37:03 ↗ and potentially risk you know not

37:06 ↗ getting projects approved your

37:10 ↗ experience do you think other developers

37:12 ↗ feel the same I believe so I'd like to

37:16 ↗ turn to an exhibit that's already in the

37:17 ↗ record at s 111

37:25 ↗ okay and I'd like to look specifically

37:35 ↗ at the July 2nd 2013 email partly down

37:39 ↗ the page there at 5:20 p.m. so and I can

37:44 ↗ give you a second to review this and

37:45 ↗ there's a lot of text throughout that

37:46 ↗ document but after you've had a chance

37:49 ↗ to review and does this email reflect

37:51 ↗ conversations that you were having with

37:53 ↗ the city around that time 2013 July of

37:56 ↗ 2013

38:02 ↗ yes it does can you please describe for

38:06 ↗ us I'm kind of what those conversations

38:08 ↗ were just at a general level so at this

38:11 ↗ timeframe in July of 2013 we would have

38:16 ↗ had the property under contract to

38:18 ↗ purchase but but we did not own the

38:20 ↗ property yet and if I recall we were

38:24 ↗ working with city staff to try to better

38:29 ↗ understand the uses that were allowed on

38:32 ↗ the property so they uses you trying to

38:36 ↗ set the zoning of the property or owning

38:40 ↗ the allowable density the allowable

38:45 ↗ types of uses residential versus

38:47 ↗ commercial as well as you know what

38:50 ↗ development regulations or unique

38:52 ↗ characteristics the property might have

38:53 ↗ from a regulation perspective around

38:56 ↗ this time when you were looking into the

38:58 ↗ zoning allowable development did

39:01 ↗ polygons have confirmation from the city

39:03 ↗ that residential development was an

39:05 ↗ allowed use on the property at at the

39:09 ↗ time of this conversation on July I

39:11 ↗ don't believe we did know and at this

39:14 ↗ time again how large was the property

39:16 ↗ are we talking about the 21 acres that

39:18 ↗ we have today or is it something it was

39:20 ↗ the full 63 acres at that time this was

39:23 ↗ before the polygon display correct

39:28 ↗ did you ask the city around this time

39:30 ↗ what you could do with the property we

39:32 ↗ did what did the city tell you do you

39:34 ↗ remember we initially we met we Gary

39:39 ↗ Young and myself met with director Niven

39:43 ↗ and Bob Harrison who I believe was the

39:47 ↗ city administrator at the time believed

39:50 ↗ that meeting took place in late June and

39:53 ↗ we were we were told at the time I mean

39:57 ↗ that the only allowable use on the

40:01 ↗ property was commercial and I believe

40:04 ↗ specifically office commercial in your

40:08 ↗ experience is it common to meet with

40:10 ↗ cities early in a due diligence process

40:12 ↗ it is we like to get a sense of just

40:18 ↗ again the city staff tends to have the

40:20 ↗ best understanding and knowledge of of

40:23 ↗ code and we often rely on the sort of

40:26 ↗ early conversations to kind of guide our

40:27 ↗ thinking and thought process on a

40:29 ↗ property and so you mentioned that you

40:32 ↗ were told that the property was only

40:35 ↗ available for commercial did that

40:40 ↗ understanding change later on in time I

40:42 ↗ did we spent a fair amount of time

40:46 ↗ looking through the development giving

40:50 ↗ ourselves

40:50 ↗ consulting outside counsel and

40:52 ↗ determined and determined that

40:55 ↗ eventually we could in fact develop

40:57 ↗ residential and on the property or

40:59 ↗ wasn't allowed use I should say so

41:03 ↗ before you discovered that residential

41:05 ↗ wasn't allowed use on the property what

41:08 ↗ sorts of conversations were you having

41:10 ↗ with the city about the commercial

41:11 ↗ versus residential development

41:18 ↗ if you want to fully understand yeah did

41:22 ↗ the fact that this city told you that

41:24 ↗ the property was only available for

41:26 ↗ commercial development inform your

41:29 ↗ conversations with the city at all it

41:33 ↗ did I mean I think we we presumed at

41:35 ↗ that point that that during that period

41:37 ↗ commercial use was the only allowed use

41:41 ↗ and if we wanted to develop something

41:43 ↗ other than that residential that we

41:46 ↗ would have to receive city approval from

41:51 ↗ that or for that rather and so we were

41:53 ↗ discussing avenues with the city with

41:57 ↗ which to receive their support so if

42:00 ↗ we're looking back at the exhibit in

42:02 ↗ front of you specifically the July 2013

42:05 ↗ at 6:30 54 a.m. excuse me

42:09 ↗ there's an email there and we can talk

42:12 ↗ about the details of it in a minute but

42:14 ↗ is that arising out of that context of

42:17 ↗ the city essentially telling you that

42:19 ↗ commercial was the only option on the

42:21 ↗ property this email would have been

42:26 ↗ based on that understanding yes so can

42:28 ↗ you describe what your understanding of

42:31 ↗ the deal that director Niven was

42:33 ↗ proposing at that time is what was he

42:35 ↗ asking for what was he trying to get out

42:38 ↗ of it as my understanding based on on

42:42 ↗ this and and with previous discussions

42:45 ↗ the city wanted 31 acres essentially

42:49 ↗ half the property to be sold to them for

42:56 ↗ twelve million dollars which is

42:59 ↗ essentially 19 million dollars less than

43:02 ↗ I believe director Newman's sort of

43:06 ↗ opinion of fair market value at that

43:09 ↗ time in exchange for allowing us to

43:11 ↗ develop as I understood at residential

43:13 ↗ on the other half of the property so if

43:17 ↗ you look down there he's got an email

43:19 ↗ address to you and it says Derrick and

43:22 ↗ it has starts with thank you that has

43:24 ↗ one two three paragraphs to it so

43:26 ↗ looking at the last sentence of the

43:28 ↗ second paragraph

43:30 ↗ and it starts with if this is the best

43:32 ↗ can you read that for us if this is the

43:41 ↗ best pros we can draft then I think the

43:43 ↗ city will let the land sit and wait for

43:45 ↗ commercial do you recall keeping even

43:48 ↗ telling you this I do what did you

43:51 ↗ understand that to mean I understood

43:54 ↗ that to mean that if we were not willing

43:57 ↗ to sell or gift a portion of the

44:01 ↗ property at below market value that the

44:04 ↗ city wasn't interested in seeing an

44:06 ↗ alternative proposal that provided

44:09 ↗ residential or anything other than

44:10 ↗ commercial use if you look down at the

44:14 ↗ second paragraph

44:15 ↗ it's the third it's kind of starts right

44:18 ↗ in the middle thirds last sentence it

44:20 ↗ starts with the property should be you

44:22 ↗ see that it says I do there's nothing to

44:25 ↗ read it yes please

44:27 ↗ the property should be an outright give

44:29 ↗ parenthesis think donation with no

44:32 ↗ clawback for polygons in other words if

44:34 ↗ the rezone is what the city gives then

44:37 ↗ we get the property with rights to

44:38 ↗ purchase seventy seven hundred twenty

44:40 ↗ thousand square feet from you for twelve

44:42 ↗ million five the economics wrong then

44:44 ↗ lot style in that conversation do you

44:48 ↗ recall Keith Nevins saying that I don't

44:52 ↗ recall having a verbal conversation but

44:54 ↗ I mean I recall this email call this

44:55 ↗ email yeah so when he's saying an

44:57 ↗ outright give think donation with no

44:59 ↗ clawback for polygons is what was your

45:03 ↗ understanding of what that meant my

45:06 ↗ understanding of that was that the city

45:09 ↗ would need a again a gift of some type

45:16 ↗ whether it be deeply discounted sale

45:18 ↗ price or free property in exchange for

45:21 ↗ supporting a reason and then the reason

45:25 ↗ that you're referencing what would that

45:27 ↗ reason have entailed

45:30 ↗ from my recollection we were looking to

45:33 ↗ build 365 residential units on a portion

45:37 ↗ of the property and so just for

45:41 ↗ clarification is that rezone tied to the

45:42 ↗ fact that you believe that only

45:44 ↗ commercial could be developed there

45:45 ↗ based on what the city had told you that

45:47 ↗ was our understanding at the time and

45:48 ↗ that was the reason for pursuing that

45:50 ↗ reason yes let's turn now to a different

45:58 ↗ Exhibit C 45 different book here yeah

46:03 ↗ we're looking for

46:15 ↗ [Applause]

46:22 ↗ excuse me Jackie could you reiterate

46:25 ↗ what exhibit that was sure it's c-45

46:27 ↗ thank you okay got it okay can you

46:35 ↗ describe for us what the exhibit at sea

46:38 ↗ 45 is I'll give you a chance to review

46:49 ↗ it's an email exchange between myself

46:53 ↗ and then John Hempleman who if I recall

46:57 ↗ correctly was city's council acting City

47:00 ↗ Council at the time Bob Harrison and

47:04 ↗ director Niven and if you look at the

47:07 ↗ August 22nd 2013 at 1:29 p.m. emails

47:12 ↗ from John Hempleman he says these are my

47:15 ↗ comments on their Vice draft of the LOI

47:17 ↗ and he goes into talking about an LOI

47:19 ↗ what's an LOI I'd say it's a letter of

47:24 ↗ intent I'm generally a kind of a

47:27 ↗ high-level non-binding document that two

47:32 ↗ parties would utilize to try to reach

47:34 ↗ kind of a high level understanding of a

47:36 ↗ deal so this week do you recall

47:39 ↗ discussing an LOI with the city at this

47:41 ↗ time I do are you aware of the parties

47:45 ↗ the city and polygon at this time I'm

47:47 ↗ actually executing an LOI I don't not to

47:50 ↗ my knowledge and I believe we did do you

47:53 ↗ recall what happened after this email

47:55 ↗ exchange and the letter of intent that

47:58 ↗ was drafted well I don't believe we ever

48:04 ↗ reached consensus on a letter of intent

48:08 ↗ and so eventually we felt that

48:13 ↗ development of the property under the

48:16 ↗ terms of the development agreement which

48:19 ↗ I believe at this point we had come to

48:20 ↗ understand we actually could develop

48:22 ↗ residential would make more sense than

48:25 ↗ trying to enter into a new agreement of

48:28 ↗ some type with the city

48:32 ↗ and did the fact that you as you testify

48:35 ↗ discovered that you could actually build

48:37 ↗ residential development on that property

48:39 ↗ inform that decision at least in part

48:41 ↗ certainly in part if I recall we had

48:49 ↗ continued ongoing discussions with the

48:51 ↗ city between this period and I can't

48:55 ↗ recall when those discussions finally

48:58 ↗ kind of ceased but it was certainly a

49:00 ↗ topic that was continually discussed

49:02 ↗ between us in the city for a period of

49:04 ↗ time after this that fairly common for

49:06 ↗ you to have a back-and-forth discourse

49:07 ↗ with the city about big-picture issues

49:09 ↗ sure so director Niven I'm gonna

49:16 ↗ paraphrase had indicated in his

49:17 ↗ testimony there stated in his testimony

49:20 ↗ that you had indicated to him that there

49:22 ↗ was not enough opportunity or time to

49:25 ↗ build out the 1.2 million square feet of

49:27 ↗ entitlement that shelter had is that

49:30 ↗ summary of mr. dibbens testimony is is

49:33 ↗ what mr. Nevins said accurate I think it

49:38 ↗ I think it misconstrues the the intent

49:41 ↗ of certainly my intent and in that

49:43 ↗ conversation I mean for context we as a

49:47 ↗ company in Washington I believe in 2013

49:50 ↗ had built somewhere between 1.5 and 1.6

49:54 ↗ million square feet in a year so from a

49:57 ↗ capacity standpoint that certainly

49:59 ↗ wasn't the issue I think what I was I

50:00 ↗ was trying to intimate was that you know

50:03 ↗ the the office market specifically in

50:05 ↗ Issaquah didn't have capacity to absorb

50:07 ↗ 1.2 million feet in a short period of

50:11 ↗ time on the city had expressed some

50:12 ↗ desire to see you know higher density on

50:17 ↗ the site and they would they expressed

50:19 ↗ interest in seeing that 1.2 million feet

50:20 ↗ built out and based on on market demand

50:24 ↗ it was our belief that you know it would

50:27 ↗ take many years for that amount of

50:29 ↗ office to actually get absorbed so that

50:31 ↗ was the intent I think of that that

50:33 ↗ comment when you're looking at overall

50:35 ↗ timeframes for development and what

50:39 ↗ sorts of concerns do you have in terms

50:41 ↗ of wanting to ensure certainty

50:45 ↗ are there pressures from others external

50:47 ↗ to your shelter or that time polygon to

50:49 ↗ have that kind of certainty I'm not sure

50:54 ↗ I fully understand the question so when

50:56 ↗ you're in your when you're looking at a

50:59 ↗ project and you're looking at kind of

51:00 ↗ the feasibility of the project and how

51:02 ↗ it's going to move forward what sorts of

51:05 ↗ external users or lenders or folks like

51:11 ↗ that inform your process who do you look

51:13 ↗ to I mean certainly everything from

51:17 ↗ equity partners to to our to our lenders

51:22 ↗ to contractors all sort of drive that

51:30 ↗ process if I if I follow your question

51:31 ↗ correctly do they do they expect or ask

51:34 ↗ for a certain degree of certainty yeah

51:36 ↗ absolutely I mean I think we we have to

51:40 ↗ be able to represent at a point in time

51:43 ↗ well any developer would relatively

51:46 ↗ early in the process that you know the

51:49 ↗ rules and regulations under which a

51:52 ↗ property can be developed and and and

51:54 ↗ the eventual outcome of that are

51:56 ↗ relatively well known and quantified the

51:59 ↗ city ever tell you that you didn't that

52:01 ↗ you being polygons or sheltered didn't

52:03 ↗ have enough time to develop under the

52:05 ↗ development agreement no and we were

52:08 ↗ never candidly concerned about vested

52:12 ↗ rights or getting to a point of not

52:16 ↗ having enough time to perfect those

52:17 ↗ vested rights and you know certainly any

52:20 ↗ comments about you know the office

52:23 ↗ development and and the time there or

52:25 ↗ any sort of discussion of extension was

52:28 ↗ not a pertinent develop vested rights

52:31 ↗ and was primarily focused on again just

52:33 ↗ the market and when you say that you

52:37 ↗ weren't concerned about vested rights or

52:40 ↗ vested rights important to your company

52:42 ↗ extraordinarily important we just felt

52:44 ↗ that the development agreement which was

52:46 ↗ the code that we were developing under

52:48 ↗ at the time was very clear on those

52:51 ↗ rights and so we trusted that thank you

52:54 ↗ no further questions me

52:57 ↗ mr. well thank you very briefly mr.

53:08 ↗ Strait I believe that you testified that

53:10 ↗ there was a meeting between yourself mr.

53:14 ↗ Niven and former city administrator Bob

53:17 ↗ Harrison in approximately June 2013 is

53:22 ↗ that roughly correct I believe that's

53:25 ↗ the correct timeline and is it accurate

53:27 ↗ that your testimony is that the city

53:31 ↗ either mr. Harrison or mr. Niven told

53:34 ↗ shelter or polygon that that only

53:38 ↗ commercial would be allowed on the

53:39 ↗ property at that point that was the

53:42 ↗ substantive and referring to exhibit s

53:49 ↗ 111 this was the email exchange from

53:52 ↗ July of 2013

53:54 ↗ mm-hmm is is that in your view a

53:58 ↗ document that documents that exchange or

54:03 ↗ was there some other written

54:04 ↗ communication that would that would

54:07 ↗ indicate that that communication

54:09 ↗ occurred

54:16 ↗ offhand I believe this is the only

54:21 ↗ communication that I haven't written in

54:23 ↗ communication in front of me and I'm

54:24 ↗ fairly certain in my review of mr.

54:27 ↗ Young's testimony that he testified too

54:29 ↗ similar okay I'm sorry could you repeat

54:31 ↗ that

54:32 ↗ oh I said this is I believe that this is

54:34 ↗ probably the first written exchange to

54:36 ↗ that effect and my recollection of mr.

54:40 ↗ Young's testimony was that he he

54:41 ↗ testified to the same same effect okay

54:44 ↗ are you aware of any other written

54:46 ↗ documentation to that effect not a fan

54:58 ↗ and your testimony was that you oversaw

55:01 ↗ the residential entitlement what you

55:04 ↗ described approximately I think he said

55:07 ↗ forty acres of polygons property up into

55:12 ↗ yeah up to 2016 that's correct

55:15 ↗ okay and what residential entitlement

55:18 ↗ existed once that twenty acres was

55:21 ↗ acquired by shelter with respect to the

55:27 ↗ twenty acres with respect to the with

55:29 ↗ respect to the forty acres with respect

55:31 ↗ to the forty at that point I believe

55:33 ↗ there were two hundred and sixty five

55:36 ↗ units of allowed residential density on

55:39 ↗ the site that were transferred from port

55:42 ↗ Blakely as the master developer and I do

55:45 ↗ not believe at that time any additional

55:49 ↗ TDRs had been approved for use on the

55:51 ↗ site were additional and TDRs just to

55:55 ↗ clarify was a transfer of development

55:57 ↗ rights that correct were TDR

56:00 ↗ subsequently authorized for that as a

56:03 ↗ receiving site I believe they were I I

56:07 ↗ don't I don't recall it exactly when

56:09 ↗ okay do you have any rough approximation

56:12 ↗ of how many would have been transferred

56:15 ↗ I believe the I believe 100 was always

56:19 ↗ the number that was discussed is one

56:23 ↗ hundred police help one hundred

56:25 ↗ residential units one hundred

56:27 ↗ residential units is how much

56:30 ↗ residential entitlement did did the

56:33 ↗ owner have at this point in 2013 that

56:38 ↗ would be the owner of the property

56:39 ↗ correct

56:40 ↗ Microsoft under the agreement yes they

56:43 ↗ did not have any residential entitlement

56:45 ↗ okay believe that there was some you

56:48 ↗ indicated that you didn't review the

56:49 ↗ transcript for these proceedings I did

56:52 ↗ didn't memorize it though fair enough do

56:53 ↗ you recall the testimony concerning the

56:56 ↗ three residential units that were

56:58 ↗ allowed as entitlement under that

57:01 ↗ agreement approximately that time

57:06 ↗ I recall that I recall that there were

57:10 ↗ three units that were sort of I believe

57:12 ↗ my recollection was that port Blake we

57:14 ↗ still held those but I don't believe at

57:17 ↗ the time that they were entitled on the

57:19 ↗ site but I could be mistaken okay and

57:21 ↗ what was the ultimate plan of the the

57:25 ↗ the proposal that that your company

57:29 ↗ wanted with respect to a particular

57:31 ↗ number of residential units did you have

57:33 ↗ a specific outcome in mind we at what

57:39 ↗ period of time this plus approximately

57:42 ↗ 2013-2014 by October of 2013 when we had

57:52 ↗ closed on the property we were seeking

57:56 ↗ 365 and have you turned to the two

58:09 ↗ Issaquah highland connection articles

58:13 ↗ that were submitted into evidence as

58:15 ↗ Exhibit C 62 and C 63 could you briefly

58:24 ↗ review those

58:57 ↗ yeah as it relates to shelters

59:01 ↗ development intent or are those Issaquah

59:08 ↗ Highlands connections articles roughly

59:11 ↗ accurate any review I'm gonna object I

59:13 ↗ didn't ask anything about Exhibit C 62 C

59:15 ↗ 63 or the mixed-use proposal that

59:18 ↗ they're talking about it's outside of

59:19 ↗ the scope of his testimony

59:20 ↗ this is mr. chairman going to the the

59:23 ↗ larger issue that was very clearly from

59:25 ↗ the scope of the direct rebuttal

59:27 ↗ testimony which is the the history of

59:29 ↗ polygons and shelter and and the

59:32 ↗ acquisition of the the entitlement

59:35 ↗ history that I was asking about was

59:37 ↗ actually predating all this I didn't get

59:39 ↗ into into anything after I'm roughly the

59:42 ↗ 2013 timeframe with mr. Strait as I

59:45 ↗ understand it that's correct

59:47 ↗ please stop that question that that's

59:50 ↗ not an appropriate question Thank You

59:53 ↗ mr. Strait you indicated I believe that

59:56 ↗ your experience was in developing

1:00:00 ↗ commercial property is that correct

1:00:02 ↗ residential exclusively not exclusively

1:00:05 ↗ how do you have any experience in

1:00:09 ↗ developing commercial mixed use

1:00:14 ↗ commercial yes stand-alone commercial

1:00:17 ↗ yes could you describe that experience

1:00:20 ↗ and clarify please how much experience

1:00:26 ↗ do you have in developing commercial

1:00:34 ↗ developed overseeing the development I

1:00:40 ↗ think of six different projects that had

1:00:43 ↗ mixed-use commercial commercial

1:00:45 ↗ components and one approximately has

1:00:47 ↗ that occurred in your group the first

1:00:50 ↗ project began in 2012 or 13

1:00:55 ↗ so at as polygon we did we did some

1:00:58 ↗ commercial mixed use commercial and then

1:01:00 ↗ that carried on till today thank you no

1:01:06 ↗ further questions well we've been going

1:01:11 ↗ for an hour it seems like prior to

1:01:13 ↗ calling the second witness or lost on

1:01:18 ↗ the process a little bit but let's take

1:01:19 ↗ a five-minute break

1:01:39 ↗ you

1:06:26 ↗ you

1:06:34 ↗ you

1:06:38 ↗ you

1:06:42 ↗ you

1:07:32 ↗ you

1:07:54 ↗ you

1:08:49 ↗ what kind of protection you have and

1:08:57 ↗ we're back on the air so miss Carrie

1:08:59 ↗ would you continue thank you yes we just

1:09:02 ↗ have a brief minute of redirect with mr.

1:09:06 ↗ straight so Derek you were asked about

1:09:09 ↗ residential entitlement is there a

1:09:12 ↗ difference between residential

1:09:13 ↗ entitlement and allowed use residential

1:09:16 ↗ allowed use under the development

1:09:17 ↗ agreement there is you clarify what that

1:09:21 ↗ distinction is without getting into the

1:09:25 ↗ nuance of the development agreement

1:09:28 ↗ residential entitlement were essentially

1:09:31 ↗ units of density either commercial or

1:09:34 ↗ residential that could be allocated

1:09:37 ↗ across the the various portions of the

1:09:40 ↗ property in the highlands and allowable

1:09:43 ↗ uses were actually the types of uses

1:09:45 ↗ that could be allowed on a specific

1:09:47 ↗ property assuming that you had

1:09:49 ↗ residential or retail or commercial

1:09:52 ↗ entitlement to actually use there yeah I

1:09:55 ↗ even may have been mixing the phrases

1:09:56 ↗ when I asked you that question so we

1:09:58 ↗ have residential entitlement and then

1:10:00 ↗ the allowable use on the property is

1:10:02 ↗ that the correct two terms as my

1:10:04 ↗ understanding yes and you mentioned that

1:10:06 ↗ there was 365 units of residential that

1:10:10 ↗ were ultimately developed by polygon

1:10:12 ↗ I apologize actually that was my

1:10:14 ↗ assumption from what I heard where they

1:10:16 ↗ ultimately developed they are many were

1:10:19 ↗ developed some are still in the process

1:10:21 ↗ of being developed do you know if

1:10:24 ↗ polygons ever had to make a deal with

1:10:25 ↗ the city for a 19 million dollar gift

1:10:28 ↗ that Keith Niven had initially asked for

1:10:30 ↗ to make that happen those 365 units I'm

1:10:32 ↗ fairly certain they did not thank you no

1:10:36 ↗ further questions

1:10:39 ↗ okay thank you so you have more

1:10:43 ↗ witnesses yes

1:10:45 ↗ so our next witness is going to be Eric

1:10:46 ↗ Evans

1:10:56 ↗ I do mr. Evans do you mind if I call you

1:11:11 ↗ Eric tonight

1:11:12 ↗ no thank you will you please state your

1:11:15 ↗ full name your current employer and your

1:11:17 ↗ job title there for the record so the

1:11:19 ↗ benefit the record my name is Eric Evans

1:11:21 ↗ I am employed with shelter holdings and

1:11:26 ↗ I am a part of the development team and

1:11:28 ↗ I work with Tia and Derek and Gary have

1:11:32 ↗ you reviewed testimony from the prior

1:11:34 ↗ development Commission hearings I have

1:11:37 ↗ specifically have you reviewed Keith

1:11:39 ↗ Nivens testimony I have have you

1:11:43 ↗ reviewed Tia Himes testimony yes and

1:11:46 ↗ have you reviewed Gary Young's testimony

1:11:48 ↗ I did will you please I'm starting back

1:11:54 ↗ in history and coming up to date

1:11:55 ↗ describe at a high level for us your

1:11:57 ↗ professional work experience what roles

1:12:01 ↗ have you held at what companies how long

1:12:02 ↗ have you worked there I have been in the

1:12:05 ↗ development business for approximately

1:12:07 ↗ 30 years I spent the first part of my

1:12:10 ↗ career ten years with a private

1:12:12 ↗ development company developing

1:12:15 ↗ master-planned communities and

1:12:17 ↗ residential and commercial developments

1:12:18 ↗ here in the Pacific Northwest I held the

1:12:21 ↗ role as a project manager when were you

1:12:25 ↗ at that company from 1989 to 1999 yeah

1:12:34 ↗ and then to go ahead and say what about

1:12:37 ↗ after that where did you go next

1:12:39 ↗ following the Leavitt companies

1:12:42 ↗ I was the land acquisition and

1:12:44 ↗ development manager for a nationally

1:12:45 ↗ traded public home builder by the name

1:12:47 ↗ of semtex homes with a division office

1:12:50 ↗ here in Washington and we managed a

1:12:53 ↗ variety of master-planned communities

1:12:55 ↗ and residential developments in

1:12:57 ↗ throughout the Puget Sound region and

1:13:00 ↗ what dates roughly did that range from

1:13:02 ↗ that would have been 1989 to

1:13:05 ↗ approximately 2002 and just to clarify

1:13:09 ↗ because he said 1989 for the first

1:13:11 ↗ position so 1999 is right I'm sorry

1:13:14 ↗ thank you no just wanted to clarify and

1:13:16 ↗ then after that from 2002 on where were

1:13:19 ↗ you lat um I was the president of a

1:13:21 ↗ small land development company known as

1:13:23 ↗ Devlin and we did a variety of suburban

1:13:27 ↗ infill in Seattle and in Oregon and

1:13:31 ↗ following Devlin I spent five years as

1:13:37 ↗ development director of imagine housing

1:13:39 ↗ developing affordable mixed-use veterans

1:13:44 ↗ homeless and special needs housing for

1:13:47 ↗ imagine housing roughly when did you

1:13:50 ↗ hold that role from when to when

1:13:52 ↗ approximately see that would have been I

1:13:56 ↗ want to say 2007 to 2012 okay and then

1:14:05 ↗ how about from 2012 on in 2012 mr. young

1:14:12 ↗ approached and Eric approached as

1:14:14 ↗ whether they were at polygon approached

1:14:17 ↗ me at imagine housing to see if we could

1:14:20 ↗ redevelop the South Kirkland

1:14:21 ↗ park-and-ride

1:14:22 ↗ as a mixed use mixed income project and

1:14:26 ↗ 532 stall garage for King County Metro

1:14:30 ↗ following the complete snack garage they

1:14:32 ↗ offered me an opportunity to work with

1:14:34 ↗ polygon and in 2013 I came on board with

1:14:39 ↗ polygon and managed a large infill

1:14:46 ↗ development in Seattle up in the Ravenna

1:14:50 ↗ neighborhood 3 acre redevelopment and

1:14:53 ↗ then and a large mess large 70 acre

1:14:57 ↗ brownfield redevelopment in Everett and

1:15:01 ↗ after shelter holdings came to be did

1:15:05 ↗ you stay at polygon or did you go to

1:15:07 ↗ shelter following the sale of

1:15:09 ↗ polygons to William Lyon I had the

1:15:12 ↗ fortunate pleasure to transition with

1:15:14 ↗ Gary young and a few others in the

1:15:17 ↗ formation of shelter Holdings have you

1:15:22 ↗ been involved in the project that we're

1:15:24 ↗ talking about this evening in the

1:15:25 ↗ Issaquah Highlands when you were working

1:15:28 ↗ both at polygon and at shelter I was not

1:15:31 ↗ involved with Issaquah project while I

1:15:33 ↗ was at polygon I was occupied with the

1:15:37 ↗ large project in Seattle and the one in

1:15:39 ↗ Everett following the sale in 2014 I

1:15:48 ↗ started to participate in the Highlands

1:15:52 ↗ redevelopment and what if your you've

1:15:59 ↗ described a lot of different work

1:16:01 ↗ experience and what have your

1:16:02 ↗ responsibilities at shelter been over

1:16:05 ↗ the course of this project at shelter

1:16:10 ↗ Holdings I've been responsible for the

1:16:13 ↗ development construction of a number of

1:16:18 ↗ mixed use mixed income developments in

1:16:20 ↗ Seattle Redmond and in Portland as well

1:16:26 ↗ as in variety other cities with respect

1:16:30 ↗ to ethical Highlands my engagement began

1:16:39 ↗ around 2014 have you worked with other

1:16:45 ↗ people at shelter on the Issaquah

1:16:47 ↗ Highlands project in addition to Gary T

1:16:54 ↗ and Derek no just those and I might have

1:16:58 ↗ missed that earlier in your testimonies

1:16:59 ↗ there were those kind of the three main

1:17:00 ↗ people that you worked with correct and

1:17:07 ↗ going back to kind of your overall

1:17:10 ↗ experience how many different

1:17:12 ↗ jurisdictions have you worked in over

1:17:14 ↗ the course of your career

1:17:17 ↗ more than I can remember I've worked in

1:17:20 ↗ every all the five western counties in

1:17:23 ↗ the Petersons region I've worked in a

1:17:28 ↗ number of cities in Oregon and the

1:17:30 ↗ number of counties in Oregon and all of

1:17:32 ↗ the esight cities here in the Freestyle

1:17:35 ↗ region Bellevue Redmen Kirkland still

1:17:38 ↗ call me Newcastle

1:17:40 ↗ North Bend mr. Cole have you worked with

1:17:45 ↗ development agreements before I have all

1:17:51 ↗ of the master plan communities that I

1:17:53 ↗ worked in they had underlying develop

1:17:55 ↗ agreements concomitant agreements in

1:18:00 ↗ your experience has there been anything

1:18:03 ↗ different about working on a project in

1:18:05 ↗ Issaquah compared to other jurisdictions

1:18:07 ↗ that you've worked in yes it was

1:18:12 ↗ difficult a lot of jurisdictions have

1:18:20 ↗ evolved or changed to the point where

1:18:25 ↗ land-use decisions like this go before

1:18:28 ↗ Hearing Examiner as opposed to a body

1:18:33 ↗ like this applications have become very

1:18:35 ↗ technical very complex so the

1:18:39 ↗ development commission is a difficult

1:18:44 ↗ process it was when I did the last

1:18:49 ↗ development that my experience in 1989

1:18:52 ↗ in Issaquah YESCO also tends to look at

1:18:56 ↗ code and applications as a starting

1:19:01 ↗ point for extraction at times extortion

1:19:06 ↗ under the guise of collaboration not a

1:19:10 ↗ lot of C's do that

1:19:15 ↗ you have direct experience working with

1:19:18 ↗ director Niven and miss Loman I do what

1:19:23 ↗ type of experience have you had have you

1:19:24 ↗ been to meetings with them or something

1:19:26 ↗ else I have I believe attended

1:19:30 ↗ approximately five meetings with

1:19:33 ↗ director Niven and approximately three

1:19:35 ↗ meetings with had these meetings been

1:19:41 ↗ related to the projects we're talking

1:19:43 ↗ about tonight or something else they

1:19:45 ↗ have been related to the Highlands

1:19:47 ↗ projects beginning roughly in 2013 to

1:19:54 ↗ the 2014 timeframe what's your

1:19:58 ↗ understanding of what polygon and layer

1:20:00 ↗ shelter when it became shelter owning

1:20:02 ↗ the property we're trying to do with the

1:20:04 ↗ property at that time what sort of

1:20:07 ↗ conversations were they having with the

1:20:08 ↗ city the 2013 discussions were before my

1:20:15 ↗ engagement when I became involved in

1:20:20 ↗ 2014 we began to engage a variety of

1:20:26 ↗ experts to study the markets we retained

1:20:30 ↗ a variety of professionals Kinser group

1:20:34 ↗ community attributes we engaged some

1:20:38 ↗ brokers to help inform us on what the

1:20:40 ↗ market might be for the property so that

1:20:44 ↗ we could make an informed decision as to

1:20:47 ↗ how to move the project forward and so

1:20:53 ↗ the initial efforts on my end were

1:20:56 ↗ directed in terms of primarily market

1:20:58 ↗ research and

1:21:02 ↗ what the market was telling us I'd like

1:21:12 ↗ to turn now to an exhibit that's already

1:21:15 ↗ in the record at sea so we're at sea 48

1:21:42 ↗ and I'm looking specifically the c48 has

1:21:45 ↗ a number of pages to it but I'm looking

1:21:47 ↗ at that first couple of pages do you

1:21:50 ↗ recognize these I do what are they

1:21:55 ↗ these are meeting minutes that I wrote

1:21:58 ↗ following a meeting on September 9th of

1:22:01 ↗ 2014 and I do not see a date on these

1:22:07 ↗ how do you know that it was from

1:22:08 ↗ September 9th at the time I tended to

1:22:13 ↗ name files with a certain convention so

1:22:16 ↗ the file name for this document if you

1:22:20 ↗ look on its how its saved as a PDF has

1:22:25 ↗ the actual date

1:22:26 ↗ oh nine oh nine 2014 on it was this a

1:22:34 ↗ memorable meeting for you it was it was

1:22:37 ↗ the first meeting that I had met the

1:22:43 ↗ mayor friend Butler as well as deputy

1:22:49 ↗ administrator Bob Harrison and I believe

1:22:55 ↗ Keaton of them do you regularly take

1:22:58 ↗ meeting minutes when you meet with city

1:22:59 ↗ staff for city officials I do projects

1:23:04 ↗ along evolve a lot of players and team

1:23:06 ↗ members and minutes are a good way to

1:23:08 ↗ share what happened in meetings as

1:23:11 ↗ others potentially will will pick up and

1:23:15 ↗ work on things that are discussed at a

1:23:17 ↗ meeting do you keep your notes in the

1:23:21 ↗ regular course of business I do and when

1:23:27 ↗ you're talking about the others that are

1:23:29 ↗ part of your team what sorts of people

1:23:31 ↗ are involved in that in a distant the

1:23:35 ↗ Derrick Gary it's not uncommon for

1:23:39 ↗ meetings to have

1:23:42 ↗ information discussion points that I

1:23:44 ↗ have a bearing on architects engineers

1:23:47 ↗ planners attorneys a wide variety of

1:23:52 ↗ professionals so the meeting minutes

1:23:53 ↗ tend to be a good resource for all of

1:23:57 ↗ those disciplines let's talk a little

1:24:00 ↗ bit about this September 9th 2014

1:24:02 ↗ meeting and who is at the meeting to

1:24:05 ↗ your recollection in addition to myself

1:24:09 ↗ Gary young mayor Butler Bob Harrison and

1:24:15 ↗ Keith Niven were what I remember and I

1:24:19 ↗ believe that's what's shown on the notes

1:24:24 ↗ and it is from from shelter so it was

1:24:28 ↗ you and Gary young from shelter who was

1:24:31 ↗ primarily leading this meeting Gary

1:24:33 ↗ young and you were taking the notes

1:24:36 ↗ correct so around this time you

1:24:44 ↗ mentioned that they'd be doing some

1:24:45 ↗ market research have you also been

1:24:48 ↗ talking with the city about what their

1:24:50 ↗ plans were or what their hoped for plans

1:24:53 ↗ were for shelters property in that area

1:24:57 ↗ a little bit of context if I could about

1:25:04 ↗ this time there was a concerted effort

1:25:07 ↗ by a number of high-profile individuals

1:25:11 ↗ at Microsoft University of Washington

1:25:14 ↗ and the state to try to locate an

1:25:18 ↗ International College that would support

1:25:21 ↗ Microsoft and that would be connected to

1:25:24 ↗ the University and that College was an

1:25:31 ↗ International College was something that

1:25:33 ↗ a number of cities were looking and

1:25:35 ↗ vying to try to attract to their city

1:25:38 ↗ and at this time the there was a strong

1:25:43 ↗ desire communicated to me at the meeting

1:25:48 ↗ that the city wanted to pursue that

1:25:50 ↗ option in Issaquah Highlands what did

1:25:57 ↗ you and Gary tell the city in this

1:25:59 ↗ meeting at that time really before the

1:26:07 ↗ September meeting it had become

1:26:10 ↗ increasingly clear that the

1:26:13 ↗ International College was going to land

1:26:17 ↗ a mixed-use master plan development in

1:26:25 ↗ Bellevue called the spring district it

1:26:27 ↗ was on a light rail station that was

1:26:31 ↗ going to go through the property and

1:26:32 ↗ connect to Microsoft so it was clear to

1:26:37 ↗ Gary and our group that the college was

1:26:42 ↗ not going to come to miss Akua and we

1:26:47 ↗ were concerned Gary was concerned that

1:26:50 ↗ if we were to go down this path

1:26:53 ↗ we'd be setting expectations about

1:26:55 ↗ something that really was never going to

1:26:57 ↗ happen and so the purpose of the meeting

1:27:00 ↗ was to communicate that this College was

1:27:05 ↗ really not going to happen here and it

1:27:07 ↗ was not an option that we were willing

1:27:10 ↗ to entertain looking down in your notes

1:27:15 ↗ and it's on page 2 section 4.0 it's the

1:27:20 ↗ section titled initial Issaquah response

1:27:24 ↗ do you recall how director Niven

1:27:26 ↗ responded to this news that you weren't

1:27:28 ↗ going to entertain a college campus

1:27:31 ↗ option

1:27:34 ↗ I do mr. Niven as well as mr. Harrison

1:27:40 ↗ were both upset you described their

1:27:45 ↗ physical reaction specifically director

1:27:48 ↗ Nivens at the time he got up from his

1:27:51 ↗ chair and communicated that we would

1:27:58 ↗ never be able to develop anything but

1:28:00 ↗ office on the property and that he was

1:28:06 ↗ very upset about that was the behavior

1:28:17 ↗ that he displayed in that meeting

1:28:18 ↗ typical for his behavior in your

1:28:20 ↗ experience as I said I've only been to

1:28:25 ↗ five or six meetings with mr. Niven that

1:28:29 ↗ was the first there has been one other

1:28:36 ↗ instance in a meeting where this type of

1:28:40 ↗ behavior was exhibited but otherwise no

1:28:49 ↗ looking through your notes and

1:28:51 ↗ specifically in that section of the

1:28:53 ↗ response and initial Issaquah response

1:28:55 ↗ if director Niven had reacted that way

1:28:58 ↗ why is it not stated in your notes when

1:29:05 ↗ we shared these notes with professionals

1:29:09 ↗ we don't want to create a perception or

1:29:14 ↗ characterize people in a way that makes

1:29:17 ↗ it more difficult to work with staff or

1:29:22 ↗ our elected officials so we try to I try

1:29:26 ↗ to with meeting minutes stick to just

1:29:29 ↗ the points and not the emotion

1:29:35 ↗ so is the fact that his emotional

1:29:39 ↗ response and physical reaction is not in

1:29:41 ↗ your notes does that mean it didn't

1:29:42 ↗ happen

1:29:44 ↗ it happened

1:29:53 ↗ how did mayor butler respond this was my

1:30:00 ↗ first interaction with Miss with Mayor

1:30:03 ↗ Butler I was rather surprised he handled

1:30:07 ↗ himself quite well he calmed the meeting

1:30:11 ↗ down and set a framework for which we

1:30:17 ↗ could move forward with the city he set

1:30:20 ↗ out that and communicated to mr.

1:30:24 ↗ Harrison and mr. Niven that he didn't

1:30:27 ↗ want staff going down a path for a

1:30:30 ↗ campus if it wasn't going to happen and

1:30:33 ↗ that the course of action was that it

1:30:36 ↗ was our property and that we should come

1:30:38 ↗ forward to the city with our proposal

1:30:41 ↗ that they would consider and that's my

1:30:44 ↗ perspectives seemed like a very

1:30:48 ↗ diplomatic political and professional

1:30:51 ↗ response looking at section 6.0 of your

1:30:58 ↗ notes it says city of Issaquah rebuttal

1:31:01 ↗ hears that it's about the bottom of page

1:31:03 ↗ four and there's points 1 & 2 so the

1:31:07 ↗ first point there says Keith Niven

1:31:09 ↗ reiterated that retail can't be placed

1:31:11 ↗ on the commercial campus only office is

1:31:15 ↗ that true what what your record of Keith

1:31:19 ↗ Nevins saying isn't asking if your notes

1:31:21 ↗ are accurate but is what Keith Niven

1:31:22 ↗ what reflects he said accurate it is a

1:31:28 ↗ retail can't be placed on the commercial

1:31:31 ↗ office that is my recollection and that

1:31:34 ↗ is what the note says the development

1:31:38 ↗ agreement in terms of allowed uses

1:31:41 ↗ there's a certain exhibit with the

1:31:43 ↗ development agreement that sets forth

1:31:44 ↗ the allowed uses for Issaquah Highlands

1:31:48 ↗ for property and retail is an allowed

1:31:52 ↗ use on the property in addition

1:32:00 ↗ that's enough and just to clarify

1:32:03 ↗ because I may have confused it with my

1:32:04 ↗ questioning but did you say retail is

1:32:06 ↗ and allowed you so it is okay and so

1:32:10 ↗ that contradicts what Keith Niven was

1:32:12 ↗ saying and that meeting is that correct

1:32:13 ↗ correct okay then that second point that

1:32:17 ↗ he makes says Keith Niven indicated that

1:32:20 ↗ the proposed flats don't have

1:32:21 ↗ concurrency do you recall him saying

1:32:23 ↗ that I do is that accurate it is not you

1:32:30 ↗ explain a little bit why I can when the

1:32:39 ↗ original Issaquah Highlands development

1:32:41 ↗ agreement was developed it was

1:32:46 ↗ originally is probably many of you know

1:32:49 ↗ was in King County and a variety of

1:32:55 ↗ environmental work under a very complex

1:32:58 ↗ environmental impact statement was done

1:33:00 ↗ to model all of the impacts that the

1:33:05 ↗ master-planned community would have that

1:33:11 ↗ impact analysis along with the

1:33:14 ↗ development agreement set forth a

1:33:15 ↗ framework under which all of Issaquah

1:33:17 ↗ Islands could be developed and be deemed

1:33:21 ↗ concurrent for all of future

1:33:24 ↗ applications if I could pass for just a

1:33:28 ↗ second what is concurrency what does it

1:33:30 ↗ mean to be concurrent when we develop

1:33:37 ↗ applications and we submit them to

1:33:40 ↗ cities they are entrusted with

1:33:45 ↗ responsibility to make a determination

1:33:47 ↗ whether or not infrastructure that is

1:33:52 ↗ needed to serve a potential application

1:33:55 ↗ is or will be in place within a certain

1:33:58 ↗ horizon when the development will be

1:34:01 ↗ developed and they issue certificates of

1:34:04 ↗ concurrency to evidence that

1:34:09 ↗ a project can be developed with adequate

1:34:12 ↗ infrastructure so going back to your

1:34:15 ↗ testimony thank you you had just

1:34:17 ↗ explained that there was an initial

1:34:20 ↗ framework set up for to kind of set the

1:34:22 ↗ groundwork for this concurrency and so

1:34:25 ↗ going back to my original question of

1:34:27 ↗ why mr. nevan's statement wasn't

1:34:29 ↗ accurate why is it not accurate that the

1:34:31 ↗ proposed pots don't have concurrency

1:34:34 ↗ because the original framework for issue

1:34:38 ↗ islands addressed all of the impacts

1:34:41 ↗ associated with planned entitlement

1:34:44 ↗ including traffic schools water power

1:34:48 ↗ all of the of those elements they were

1:34:50 ↗ already all addressed correct if these

1:34:55 ↗ things weren't accurate why would

1:34:56 ↗ director Niven have said them was he

1:35:07 ↗ saying them calmly I would say no my

1:35:14 ↗ experience has been that at times when

1:35:22 ↗ they don't like the answer they get the

1:35:27 ↗ approach is to try to pressure an

1:35:31 ↗ applicant towards a conclusion that

1:35:34 ↗ isn't consistent with code or

1:35:37 ↗ regulations so did you view this as an

1:35:43 ↗ an attempt by director Niven to pressure

1:35:45 ↗ you towards a different conclusion and

1:35:48 ↗ and to try to bolster the the option of

1:35:52 ↗ potentially allowing someone else to

1:35:54 ↗ step in our shoes

1:35:55 ↗ to try to pursue a college application

1:36:00 ↗ was he calm when he was saying these

1:36:02 ↗ things do you remember I would say no

1:36:05 ↗ how would you describe him agitated and

1:36:08 ↗ upset did you you mentioned earlier that

1:36:14 ↗ you had reviewed Gary's testimony your

1:36:16 ↗ Jung's testimony did you specifically

1:36:18 ↗ review his testimony describing how mr.

1:36:21 ↗ Niven director Nevin reacted at this

1:36:23 ↗ meeting I did do you agree with his

1:36:25 ↗ description I do so what happened after

1:36:30 ↗ this point after this meeting concluded

1:36:33 ↗ as I said it was a difficult meeting

1:36:36 ↗ while mayor Butler outlined a fairly

1:36:40 ↗ good path forward the area and the group

1:36:45 ↗ felt it would be good for a cooling-off

1:36:47 ↗ period time to kind of regroup and so

1:36:53 ↗ following that cooling-off period we

1:36:57 ↗ came back to the city and Keith to try

1:37:00 ↗ to plot a new course where we might come

1:37:02 ↗ forward with a plan for how we might

1:37:06 ↗ develop the 20 acres of his

1:37:08 ↗ Highlands that we owned you could turn

1:37:13 ↗ now to Exhibit C 44

1:37:24 ↗ and d44 has a number of meeting minutes

1:37:29 ↗ in it if you could turn specifically to

1:37:31 ↗ the May 18 2016 meeting

1:37:43 ↗ [Applause]

1:37:55 ↗ may may 18th May 18th of 2016 okay okay

1:38:01 ↗ thank you do you recall being at this

1:38:05 ↗ meeting is this one of the meetings that

1:38:07 ↗ you were present at and I'll give you a

1:38:10 ↗ second you're welcome to review the

1:38:12 ↗ notes take your time

1:38:46 ↗ [Applause]

1:39:06 ↗ okay so do you recall being at this

1:39:09 ↗ meeting I do and that I'll just reflect

1:39:13 ↗ that the notes indicate that you're one

1:39:14 ↗ of the the people that attended that

1:39:15 ↗ meeting did you take these notes I did

1:39:18 ↗ not if you could go to the very last

1:39:22 ↗ page of those meeting minutes the last

1:39:25 ↗ bullet point it starts with KN stated

1:39:29 ↗ first of all who do you understand KN to

1:39:32 ↗ be that would be director Niven Keith

1:39:34 ↗ sniffing KN will you please read that

1:39:37 ↗ last bullet point to us

1:39:40 ↗ KN stated that the city does not care

1:39:43 ↗ about the market or market research and

1:39:45 ↗ he's not interested in hearing anything

1:39:48 ↗ further about it mr. rector Nevin calm

1:39:51 ↗ when he said this to you no how did he

1:39:55 ↗ behave he was upset you say he was upset

1:40:02 ↗ did he physically react to it at all I

1:40:04 ↗ don't remember if he got up my

1:40:09 ↗ recollection is that the market research

1:40:13 ↗ that we had done with Kinser group and

1:40:15 ↗ others had concluded the point here that

1:40:20 ↗ the office market was not supported and

1:40:27 ↗ that particular statement was not one

1:40:30 ↗ that mr. Niven wanted to entertain or

1:40:34 ↗ felt was one of 19 so he reacted in here

1:40:40 ↗ words in an angry way is that accurate

1:40:42 ↗ I think it would say was probably more

1:40:45 ↗ upset and annoyed is that one of the

1:40:49 ↗ instances that you were describing

1:40:51 ↗ earlier when you said that he had

1:40:52 ↗ exhibited behavior that was maybe

1:40:55 ↗ outside of the norm yes

1:40:58 ↗ if you could turn now to the September

1:41:02 ↗ 21st 2016 meeting notes and the same

1:41:04 ↗ same exhibit okay and if you look and

1:41:20 ↗ I'm just taking a minute to turn to it

1:41:22 ↗ but I think it's on the third page of

1:41:26 ↗ those actually before we get there you

1:41:30 ↗ are listed as one of the people that

1:41:32 ↗ attended this meeting but do you recall

1:41:34 ↗ being at the meeting do you have a

1:41:35 ↗ personal recollection of that I do and

1:41:40 ↗ turning to what I was just about to ask

1:41:41 ↗ you about if you go to the third page

1:41:45 ↗ there's a bullet point about halfway

1:41:47 ↗ down the page that starts with staff

1:41:49 ↗ does not and will not will you please

1:41:52 ↗ read that to us yes staff does not and

1:41:58 ↗ will not support shelters proposal for a

1:42:00 ↗ mixed-use development in part because

1:42:03 ↗ shelter refused the city's past overture

1:42:05 ↗ to tie up shelters property for a five

1:42:08 ↗ year window while the city attempted to

1:42:11 ↗ market it to an additional users Keith

1:42:16 ↗ mentioned that had shelter made a

1:42:18 ↗ different decision the five year period

1:42:20 ↗ would have been almost run by now and

1:42:22 ↗ that staff might have looked more

1:42:24 ↗ favorably on shelters proposal and just

1:42:28 ↗ to clarify for the record I think there

1:42:30 ↗ was one statement in there every said

1:42:31 ↗ and it says five years in the statement

1:42:34 ↗ I think you said something slightly

1:42:35 ↗ different but I just wanted to clarify

1:42:38 ↗ that in the first sentence and then at

1:42:40 ↗ that last part

1:42:42 ↗ it says institutional user at the end is

1:42:44 ↗ is that consistent with your memory of

1:42:47 ↗ what you were discussing it is you

1:42:51 ↗ remember this statement being made at

1:42:53 ↗ the meeting I do do you remember who

1:42:56 ↗ said it I do he was director Niven

1:43:07 ↗ and if you go further down on the next

1:43:11 ↗ page page four of the same notes there's

1:43:16 ↗ a bullet point that's I think the third

1:43:17 ↗ bullet point down from the top it begins

1:43:19 ↗ with Patrick questioned what will happen

1:43:22 ↗ do you see that I do you please read

1:43:25 ↗ that to us Patrick

1:43:32 ↗ question what will happen to projects

1:43:35 ↗ festered under the DEA he said that if a

1:43:39 ↗ project invested under the DEA it will

1:43:42 ↗ remain invested for the term of the

1:43:44 ↗ vested vesting permit lucy pointed out

1:43:48 ↗ that once zoning changes the permits do

1:43:52 ↗ not have to be extended

1:43:54 ↗ you remember this exchange between

1:43:56 ↗ Patrick and Keith I do what did you

1:44:01 ↗ understand that director Niven was

1:44:02 ↗ telling you that exactly what it says

1:44:12 ↗ that second sentence they're correct

1:44:18 ↗ in your 30 years of working in

1:44:21 ↗ development have you ever heard of the

1:44:23 ↗ word divested before no and with respect

1:44:26 ↗ to vested rights does it ever come up no

1:44:29 ↗ you know the whole purpose of the

1:44:34 ↗ vesting in our business is to make sure

1:44:37 ↗ that when you submit an application

1:44:40 ↗ you're judged and evaluated based on the

1:44:44 ↗ rules and regulations that are on the

1:44:46 ↗ books at the time you file the

1:44:47 ↗ application there's there's no it's

1:44:51 ↗ never been never come across any

1:44:54 ↗ experience where that isn't the case

1:44:55 ↗ thank you no further questions mr.

1:45:01 ↗ chairman I think it would it would

1:45:02 ↗ facilitate and make much more efficient

1:45:04 ↗ on my cross-examination if we could take

1:45:06 ↗ a brief five-minute recess and allow me

1:45:09 ↗ to confer with my client okay let's take

1:45:12 ↗ a five-minute recess thank you

1:45:41 ↗ yeah

1:45:54 ↗ you

1:47:45 ↗ you

1:49:48 ↗ you

1:50:08 ↗ you

1:52:45 ↗ you

1:52:48 ↗ you

1:54:04 ↗ okay let's call the meeting back to

1:54:06 ↗ order mr. Lowe Thank You mr. Evans I

1:54:16 ↗ believe that you testified in relation

1:54:19 ↗ to the city of Issaquah that they

1:54:24 ↗ engaged in some type of to use your

1:54:26 ↗ words extortion or extraction do you

1:54:29 ↗ remember that testimony I do okay do

1:54:32 ↗ those terms extortion or extraction up

1:54:37 ↗ here in your September 9th 2014 meeting

1:54:42 ↗ minutes that are before you had Exhibit

1:54:45 ↗ C 48 and if you need a moment to look

1:54:47 ↗ please do so

1:56:12 ↗ I don't see the words extraction or

1:56:16 ↗ extortion in my meds

1:56:18 ↗ thank you did you ever write a letter a

1:56:21 ↗ memorandum or email or any other written

1:56:24 ↗ communication to the city of Issaquah

1:56:26 ↗ that accused the city of extortion or

1:56:32 ↗ impermissible or illegal extraction not

1:56:41 ↗ to my knowledge are you aware of any

1:56:43 ↗ such communication in writing from any

1:56:46 ↗ other member of shelter holding

1:56:57 ↗ can you ask that question again sorry

1:56:59 ↗ are you aware of any email letter

1:57:04 ↗ memorandum or any other writing sent by

1:57:09 ↗ shelter Holdings to the city of Issaquah

1:57:12 ↗ contending that the city engaged in some

1:57:16 ↗ type of extortion or impermissible

1:57:18 ↗ extraction I have no knowledge of such a

1:57:23 ↗ letter thank you I'd like to turn your

1:57:29 ↗ attention please

1:57:30 ↗ back to Exhibit C 48 the meeting minutes

1:57:35 ↗ from September 9th of 2014 I believe

1:57:42 ↗ that you indicated in your testimony in

1:57:44 ↗ reference to that meeting that both mr.

1:57:47 ↗ Niven and mr. Harrison were upset does

1:57:52 ↗ that accurately reflect your testimony

1:57:54 ↗ it does okay I believe you also

1:57:56 ↗ testified that mr. Niven got up out of

1:57:59 ↗ his chair at that meeting in anger as he

1:58:04 ↗ did okay is that referenced anywhere in

1:58:07 ↗ your September 9th 2014 meeting minutes

1:58:25 ↗ it is not okay

1:58:33 ↗ is there any indication in those

1:58:37 ↗ September 9th 2014 meeting notes that

1:58:41 ↗ mr. Nevins was angry or expressed his

1:58:44 ↗ anger

1:59:02 ↗ I would say that statements that mr.

1:59:06 ↗ Niven would know not to be true which

1:59:10 ↗ would mean that the that retail can't be

1:59:14 ↗ de placed on the campus that there is no

1:59:17 ↗ concurrency are for me evidence that

1:59:23 ↗ reflects the anger and emotion that was

1:59:27 ↗ present at the meeting so if I

1:59:30 ↗ understand your your answer mr. Evans

1:59:34 ↗ mr. Nevins expressed his anger by the

1:59:38 ↗ substance of his comments rather than

1:59:41 ↗ some type of a physical reaction is that

1:59:44 ↗ is that accurate no okay could you

1:59:48 ↗ please clarify my original question to

1:59:51 ↗ you was whether or not mr. Nivens

1:59:56 ↗ manifestation of his alleged anger

1:59:58 ↗ appears in your meeting notes your

2:00:01 ↗ question as to whether it appears in the

2:00:04 ↗ meeting notes the answer I would offer

2:00:09 ↗ is it does not appear in the meeting

2:00:12 ↗ notes in terms of a description of mr.

2:00:15 ↗ nevan's behavior and I believe you also

2:00:19 ↗ testified in in relation to that

2:00:21 ↗ September 9th 2014 meeting that mr.

2:00:25 ↗ Nevins stated that shelter would not be

2:00:29 ↗ able to develop anything but office on

2:00:32 ↗ its Issaquah Islands property is that

2:00:35 ↗ correct yes okay are you aware of any

2:00:38 ↗ written communication from mr. Niven

2:00:41 ↗ that conveyed that point

2:00:47 ↗ No are you aware of any written

2:00:52 ↗ communication from shelter to the city

2:00:54 ↗ that acknowledged mr. Niven allegedly

2:01:00 ↗ said that can you sure restate that

2:01:06 ↗ question are you aware of any letter or

2:01:09 ↗ memorandum or email from shelter to the

2:01:12 ↗ city of Issaquah that referred to mr.

2:01:16 ↗ Nivens alleged statement concerning

2:01:19 ↗ shelters in ability to develop of

2:01:23 ↗ anything but office on the Issaquah

2:01:26 ↗ islands property other than these

2:01:28 ↗ minutes no thank you

2:01:35 ↗ did you circulate these meeting notes

2:01:37 ↗ from the September 9th 2014

2:01:42 ↗ meeting internally at shelter I did and

2:01:47 ↗ was mr. young Gary young included in the

2:01:51 ↗ the group to whom you circulated the

2:01:54 ↗ notes that he was did mr. young make any

2:01:59 ↗ correction to these meeting notes he did

2:02:03 ↗ not did any other member shelter make

2:02:07 ↗ any correction to these meeting notes

2:02:09 ↗ they did not did any member of shelter

2:02:13 ↗ or including mr. young voice any

2:02:16 ↗ objection to these meeting notes when

2:02:19 ↗ they were internally circulated no were

2:02:23 ↗ these meeting notes circulated to the

2:02:25 ↗ city of Issaquah they were not so if I

2:02:33 ↗ could turn your attention please to page

2:02:35 ↗ 5 of Exhibit C 48 and specifically in

2:02:40 ↗ cell number 7.0 the reference there

2:02:45 ↗ beginning with these minutes are

2:02:48 ↗ intended to reflect the discussion

2:02:50 ↗ backslash agreements reached at the

2:02:54 ↗ meeting if any exceptions are taken

2:02:57 ↗ please email any Corrections or comments

2:03:01 ↗ to yourself at at shelter Holdings com

2:03:07 ↗ if I understand your prior testimony

2:03:10 ↗ these meeting notes were only circulated

2:03:14 ↗ to shelter is that correct I believe

2:03:20 ↗ they would have been shared with our

2:03:23 ↗ attorney okay thank you

2:03:26 ↗ was there anyone to your knowledge that

2:03:28 ↗ was not either an employee or official

2:03:31 ↗ of shelter or under contract with

2:03:33 ↗ shelter that received a copy of these

2:03:36 ↗ meeting notes through your circulation

2:03:41 ↗ not that I know of

2:03:47 ↗ do you recall your testimony regarding

2:03:50 ↗ retail as an allowed use of the Asuka

2:03:53 ↗ Highlands property I do okay

2:04:00 ↗ did shelter have any retail entitlement

2:04:04 ↗ under the Issaquah Highlands development

2:04:06 ↗ agreement as of the time that this

2:04:08 ↗ september 9th 2014 meeting occurred the

2:04:20 ↗ description of retail for many people is

2:04:29 ↗ a broad description the definition of

2:04:33 ↗ commercial as i recall and the

2:04:35 ↗ development agreement incorporates a

2:04:38 ↗ variety of uses that are crucial in

2:04:43 ↗ nature but are also retail

2:04:45 ↗ establishments let me rephrase the

2:04:49 ↗ question does the Issaquah highlands

2:04:51 ↗ development agreement to your

2:04:53 ↗ understanding specifically refer to

2:04:56 ↗ retail as an entitlement to which

2:05:00 ↗ shelter could develop as of the

2:05:04 ↗ September 9th 2014 meeting

2:05:12 ↗ I'd have to revisit the documents

2:05:17 ↗ associated with the development

2:05:19 ↗ agreement the allowed uses and to answer

2:05:23 ↗ the question fair enough

2:05:26 ↗ did shelter purchase retail entitlement

2:05:30 ↗ from port Blakely we subsequently did

2:05:33 ↗ yes

2:05:34 ↗ and when approximately was that

2:05:36 ↗ acquisition I don't recall there is a

2:05:43 ↗ document that evidences that but I you

2:05:50 ↗ need to provide do you know if that

2:05:55 ↗ acquisition occurred before or after the

2:05:58 ↗ September 9th 2014 meeting it would have

2:06:02 ↗ occurred after do you know why shelter

2:06:07 ↗ acquired that retail entitlement from

2:06:10 ↗ port Blakely I do can you explain that

2:06:13 ↗ please at the time

2:06:22 ↗ we were engaging with the community if I

2:06:26 ↗ recall and we wanted to be able to

2:06:30 ↗ represent that what could be done and

2:06:33 ↗ that we had control of all the remaining

2:06:38 ↗ development rights that would be

2:06:40 ↗ developed that we're still outstanding

2:06:42 ↗ and port Blakely had a fairly large

2:06:45 ↗ amount of retail and through the course

2:06:48 ↗ of discussions with the community a

2:06:50 ↗ variety of people had communicated the

2:06:52 ↗ desire for a number of retail type uses

2:06:56 ↗ when shelter acquired that retail

2:07:00 ↗ entitlement from port Blakely was the

2:07:04 ↗ entitlement referred to it as a retail

2:07:07 ↗ quote unquote or some other category of

2:07:10 ↗ entitlement

2:07:12 ↗ I'd have to view the document again do

2:07:17 ↗ you recall your testimony a few minutes

2:07:19 ↗ ago regarding the Issaquah Highlands

2:07:21 ↗ environmental impact statement I do have

2:07:25 ↗ you personally read the environmental

2:07:27 ↗ impact statement for the Issaquah

2:07:29 ↗ Islands in its totality no but in

2:07:31 ↗ sections yes which sections did you read

2:07:36 ↗ it's been a while and it is an old

2:07:40 ↗ document but I would have read a variety

2:07:45 ↗ of summary pages from the Feis as well

2:07:51 ↗ as some of the technical appendices and

2:07:54 ↗ when approximately did you read that

2:07:55 ↗ document it would have been in 2013-2014

2:07:59 ↗ I call your attention please to page

2:08:05 ↗ four of the September 9 2014 meeting

2:08:11 ↗ notes in cell 6.0 and subsection number

2:08:16 ↗ 2 beginning with the words Keith Niven

2:08:19 ↗ indicated this is at the bottom of page

2:08:22 ↗ 4 and could you please read that

2:08:26 ↗ statement for me Heath Nevin indicated

2:08:29 ↗ that

2:08:29 ↗ proposed Platts don't have concurrency

2:08:32 ↗ did shelter ever challenge that

2:08:36 ↗ statement by mr. Niven at the meeting

2:08:49 ↗ mr. Niven was quite animated and it and

2:08:53 ↗ we did not challenge him on the

2:08:57 ↗ statement did shelter after the

2:09:00 ↗ September 9 2014 meeting ever send a

2:09:04 ↗ letter or an email or a memorandum to

2:09:07 ↗ the city challenging mr. nevan's

2:09:09 ↗ statement

2:09:21 ↗ and

2:09:23 ↗ no I would say though that as part of

2:09:28 ↗ the community outreach we did a variety

2:09:32 ↗ of traffic modeling and all of that

2:09:37 ↗ information that we developed reinforced

2:09:41 ↗ that the project had concurrency it was

2:09:46 ↗ eventually acknowledged through the

2:09:50 ↗ course of discussions who acknowledged

2:09:52 ↗ staff I'm sorry

2:09:55 ↗ staff city staff correct and do you know

2:09:57 ↗ how they acknowledged it by accepting

2:10:00 ↗ the applications was there anything in

2:10:03 ↗ writing that specifically addressed that

2:10:05 ↗ concurrency point the applications have

2:10:08 ↗ a variety of traffic studies that were

2:10:10 ↗ submitted in relationship to them mr.

2:10:14 ↗ Evans do you recall your testimony

2:10:16 ↗ concerning the the market analysis that

2:10:19 ↗ was performed I do

2:10:21 ↗ did shelter ever ask Kinser or another

2:10:25 ↗ consultant to perform a market

2:10:28 ↗ assessment or evaluation specifically

2:10:31 ↗ regarding commercial development on the

2:10:34 ↗ Issaquah Highlands property we did what

2:10:38 ↗ was that report or what was that

2:10:39 ↗ evaluation Kenter provided Market

2:10:42 ↗ Analysis for office medical office in

2:10:46 ↗ addition we engaged with the Broderick

2:10:48 ↗ group who had attempted to lease a

2:10:53 ↗ variety of office uses in Issaquah

2:10:56 ↗ include did the Broderick is the

2:11:01 ↗ Broderick or Roderick Roderick the with

2:11:04 ↗ a beat correct was the the Broderick

2:11:06 ↗ groups findings distilled to a

2:11:10 ↗ particular report or analysis and in

2:11:13 ↗ writing no how was it conveyed how were

2:11:16 ↗ the conclusions of that analysis

2:11:18 ↗ conveyed to shelter through us a meeting

2:11:23 ↗ and who attended that meeting myself and

2:11:27 ↗ I build and I don't remember who else do

2:11:31 ↗ you call when that meeting occurred

2:11:34 ↗ there were a few but it would have been

2:11:37 ↗ in 2013 2014 by the conclusions of the

2:11:44 ↗ Brodrick group's analysis referred to in

2:11:49 ↗ any written documents that you're aware

2:11:52 ↗ of held by Sheldor holdings no the

2:11:57 ↗ representative the president of the

2:11:58 ↗ Broadrick group recommended that we get

2:12:01 ↗ in touch with a gentleman from CB re who

2:12:06 ↗ had done a variety of medical office

2:12:09 ↗ leasing as a good resource for us as we

2:12:14 ↗ study potential medical office as a

2:12:16 ↗ commercial use on the property and in

2:12:18 ↗ what were the substantive conclusions or

2:12:21 ↗ recommendations of the Broderick group

2:12:23 ↗ that as it relates to commercial it was

2:12:29 ↗ not an economically viable option as

2:12:32 ↗ there were a variety of choices for

2:12:37 ↗ commercial users in the i-90 corridor

2:12:40 ↗ closer in in Bellevue and that the large

2:12:43 ↗ institutional users with the economic

2:12:48 ↗ trends and the type of businesses were

2:12:52 ↗ focusing their investments in central

2:12:55 ↗ core of South Lake Union did shelter

2:12:59 ↗ ever retained I believe you referred to

2:13:02 ↗ it as CB re to perform a an additional

2:13:06 ↗ analysis or evaluation no did you have

2:13:09 ↗ communications with CBRE regarding that

2:13:12 ↗ topic we did and what were the substance

2:13:16 ↗ of those communications we were pleased

2:13:18 ↗ to find that there was more market

2:13:22 ↗ response for medical office than we

2:13:27 ↗ realized

2:13:28 ↗ and how much more the Kinser report

2:13:32 ↗ documented up to 120,000 square feet and

2:13:38 ↗ when approximately did those discussions

2:13:40 ↗ with CBRE occur 2013 through

2:13:44 ↗ mm it may be as late as 17 and were

2:13:48 ↗ those communications verbal or oral only

2:13:53 ↗ or were they distilled into memoranda

2:13:58 ↗ letters or emails

2:14:00 ↗ I'm verbal there may be email

2:14:05 ↗ correspondence do you recall the

2:14:10 ↗ specific individuals that sheltered

2:14:13 ↗ communicated with at CBRE regarding

2:14:16 ↗ those issues off top my head no but I

2:14:18 ↗ can find them okay thank you are you

2:14:21 ↗ aware from your listening to the

2:14:23 ↗ testimony or review of the record and

2:14:24 ↗ this proceedings whether or not those

2:14:26 ↗ are in evidence

2:14:30 ↗ I'd have to that I can't answer

2:14:34 ↗ can I have you please turn to page five

2:14:37 ↗ of your September 9th 2014 meeting notes

2:14:44 ↗ and in cell 6.0 at the top of page 5 if

2:14:51 ↗ you could please read aloud paragraph

2:14:57 ↗ numbers 4 5 & 6 if I'm following page 5

2:15:09 ↗ please in section 6 on bullet points 4 5

2:15:12 ↗ & 6 4 begins Mayor Butler indicated that

2:15:17 ↗ he was disappointed but we appreciate

2:15:21 ↗ the work and all that you are doing and

2:15:24 ↗ wants you to work for the best outcome

2:15:27 ↗ number 5

2:15:29 ↗ mayor Butler indicated that Bob and

2:15:31 ↗ Keith may not agree but that the

2:15:34 ↗ situation is that shelter isn't

2:15:36 ↗ interested in pursuing this and that the

2:15:38 ↗ city has to respect it and work forward

2:15:42 ↗ number 6 Bob acknowledged that it is up

2:15:45 ↗ to shelter Holdings to come in then and

2:15:48 ↗ discuss what it wants to do and then up

2:15:51 ↗ to the city to work accordingly

2:15:55 ↗ do those statements as you've read them

2:15:57 ↗ to your understanding and recollection

2:16:00 ↗ accurately reflect what was said at the

2:16:05 ↗ at that point in the meeting they do

2:16:07 ↗ okay and it it appears from the the

2:16:10 ↗ following a paragraph number seven that

2:16:13 ↗ immediately following those statements

2:16:15 ↗ the meeting adjourned

2:16:16 ↗ is that also accurate it is okay so

2:16:22 ↗ based on what you just recited and

2:16:25 ↗ quoted from cell number six is there

2:16:30 ↗ anything in what you just described that

2:16:34 ↗ would indicate any sort of antagonism or

2:16:38 ↗ anger by the city or did the meeting end

2:16:43 ↗ on a positive note

2:16:51 ↗ I would not say that the meeting ended

2:16:53 ↗ on a positive note it was a difficult

2:17:02 ↗ information to deliver and I think

2:17:04 ↗ that's referenced in notes and that once

2:17:09 ↗ it was clear to the mayor that we

2:17:12 ↗ weren't interested entertaining the

2:17:13 ↗ concept and that the ball was in our

2:17:17 ↗ court the meeting adjourned

2:17:19 ↗ and really the emotions needed to settle

2:17:22 ↗ out for everyone to cool off so that we

2:17:25 ↗ could come back and have productive

2:17:27 ↗ discussion on know a path forward but

2:17:29 ↗ it's your testimony isn't it mr. Evans

2:17:32 ↗ that the the final comments in this

2:17:36 ↗ September 9th 2014 meeting according to

2:17:39 ↗ your notes which you again indicated are

2:17:41 ↗ accurate the mayor of the city of

2:17:44 ↗ Issaquah concluded his comments by

2:17:47 ↗ saying that the the city has to respect

2:17:49 ↗ shelters position and work forward is

2:17:53 ↗ that is that true that is okay and mr.

2:17:56 ↗ Harrison's final comments and apparently

2:17:59 ↗ a meeting immediately before the meeting

2:18:01 ↗ adjourned

2:18:01 ↗ was that he acknowledged that it was up

2:18:05 ↗ to shelter to come in and discuss what

2:18:08 ↗ it wants to do and then up to the city

2:18:09 ↗ to work accordingly that's what your

2:18:12 ↗ notes say isn't it that is what the

2:18:14 ↗ notes say okay thank you no further

2:18:16 ↗ questions it's correct I have just a few

2:18:20 ↗ on redirect

2:18:27 ↗ Eric and we heard a couple questions

2:18:30 ↗ about your meeting minutes and

2:18:36 ↗ specifically the ones we were just

2:18:37 ↗ talking about from the September 9th

2:18:39 ↗ 2014 meeting our meeting minutes the

2:18:42 ↗ only memory that you have at that

2:18:43 ↗ meeting or do you have an independent

2:18:44 ↗ recollection of that meeting as well I

2:18:47 ↗ have a very distinct memory of the

2:18:49 ↗ meeting beyond the minutes and as I

2:18:52 ↗ indicated the intent of the minutes were

2:18:56 ↗ to represent business points and not to

2:19:00 ↗ characterize emotions or behaviors that

2:19:05 ↗ might make it difficult for people who

2:19:08 ↗ follow us and have to prepare

2:19:10 ↗ applications or develop strategies that

2:19:12 ↗ might come away with the wrong

2:19:15 ↗ impression of a particular official or

2:19:19 ↗ elected or a staff member looking at the

2:19:26 ↗ paragraphs that we were just talking

2:19:28 ↗ about four five six and then the meeting

2:19:31 ↗ adjourned in paragraph seven those

2:19:33 ↗ paragraphs that you noted were accurate

2:19:37 ↗ to your recollection of the end of the

2:19:39 ↗ meeting they say anything about director

2:19:41 ↗ Nivens behavior at the end of that

2:19:43 ↗ meeting those bullet points do not you

2:19:51 ↗ recall what his demeanor was at the end

2:19:54 ↗ of the meeting both

2:20:00 ↗ it was my recollection is that Keith was

2:20:05 ↗ still upset that they weren't given the

2:20:12 ↗ option to pursue mr. Harrison appeared

2:20:18 ↗ to defer more directly to the mayor's

2:20:22 ↗ direction and I feel like some of that

2:20:26 ↗ is a function of the roles in that as

2:20:30 ↗ development service director and

2:20:32 ↗ economic development director Keith was

2:20:35 ↗ probably more vested in the drive to

2:20:39 ↗ accommodate a college for economic

2:20:43 ↗ development issues where Bob Harrison

2:20:46 ↗ was more directed on managing the city

2:20:58 ↗ you're asked a number of questions about

2:21:01 ↗ communications from shelter on various

2:21:03 ↗ issues have you been involved in every

2:21:06 ↗ single communication from shelter that

2:21:08 ↗ goes out to the city on this project I

2:21:10 ↗ have not thank you no further questions

2:21:13 ↗ very briefly if I could mr. chairman

2:21:17 ↗ just one or two follow-up questions if I

2:21:20 ↗ could

2:21:20 ↗ okay mr. Evans at the time of the

2:21:23 ↗ September 9th 2014 meeting were you

2:21:29 ↗ aware that mr. Niven was not the

2:21:32 ↗ community development director of the

2:21:33 ↗ city of Issaquah I am okay but you

2:21:37 ↗ referred to him as the community

2:21:39 ↗ development directors who are correct at

2:21:41 ↗ that time he had not been elevated to

2:21:45 ↗ the position of both economic

2:21:47 ↗ development director and director of

2:21:49 ↗ development services thank you no

2:21:51 ↗ further questions further thank you okay

2:21:56 ↗ give another witness okay

2:21:59 ↗ we'd like to call Patrick Delaney please

2:22:02 ↗ [Applause]

2:22:18 ↗ just as a logistical matter it's about

2:22:21 ↗ three minutes to nine do you want me to

2:22:23 ↗ go for a while and take a break you

2:22:26 ↗ preferred for us to just go straight

2:22:27 ↗ through to the end how long do you think

2:22:31 ↗ you're going to take knowing the

2:22:34 ↗ estimates that we give you it may take

2:22:35 ↗ through the end I'd love to be finished

2:22:37 ↗ sooner than that why don't we take a

2:22:39 ↗ five-minute break and then we'll proceed

2:22:42 ↗ okay thank you thank you

2:23:01 ↗ you

2:23:23 ↗ you

2:23:26 ↗ you

2:24:19 ↗ you

2:27:03 ↗ you

2:27:25 ↗ you

2:28:13 ↗ you

2:30:18 ↗ you

2:30:47 ↗ you

2:30:55 ↗ you

2:31:03 ↗ you

2:31:18 ↗ you

2:31:23 ↗ you

2:31:44 ↗ you

2:31:56 ↗ you

2:31:58 ↗ you

2:32:11 ↗ you

2:32:13 ↗ I don't call the meeting back to order

2:32:25 ↗ thank you did

2:32:46 ↗ [Applause]

2:32:55 ↗ we are on the air about you okay thank

2:32:59 ↗ you so right before we took our break

2:33:02 ↗ Patrick Mulaney was sworn in he's been

2:33:05 ↗ with us once before so we'll just pick

2:33:07 ↗ up with his testimony

2:33:09 ↗ Patrick I'd like to start first with

2:33:12 ↗ talking about some of director Nivens

2:33:14 ↗ testimony with respect to mitigation

2:33:18 ↗ director Niven and I'm gonna paraphrase

2:33:20 ↗ a phrase here it had testified that you

2:33:22 ↗ had provided an analysis of what shelter

2:33:24 ↗ is vested to but he didn't specify a

2:33:26 ↗ specific exhibit or anything in the

2:33:28 ↗ record if you had to guess that it could

2:33:32 ↗ you turn to s 29 and tell me if that's

2:33:34 ↗ the analysis that you prepared

2:34:02 ↗ [Applause]

2:34:23 ↗ yes so exhibit s29 is a May 12 2007 teen

2:34:32 ↗ letter that I wrote at the invitation of

2:34:36 ↗ mr. Niven following the I believe it was

2:34:40 ↗ either a collaboration meeting or a

2:34:42 ↗ pre-application meeting on the

2:34:45 ↗ preliminary plat where the topic of

2:34:52 ↗ mitigation came up and so mr. Nevin

2:34:56 ↗ asked me to prepare to go through the

2:35:01 ↗ development agreement and prepare an

2:35:03 ↗ outline of areas of the development

2:35:08 ↗ agreement that referenced mitigation so

2:35:12 ↗ that we could have a framework for

2:35:15 ↗ further discussion on what mitigation

2:35:19 ↗ should carry forward for impacts that

2:35:22 ↗ had been already been mitigated so

2:35:25 ↗ that's what this document is and and I

2:35:30 ↗ should have asked you this at the outset

2:35:32 ↗ but have you even present at some of the

2:35:35 ↗ hearings yes I was the president at the

2:35:38 ↗ one I testified at and have you read the

2:35:41 ↗ transcripts for the other hearings yes I

2:35:44 ↗ have and so do you recall from reading

2:35:49 ↗ the transcripts that directive intested

2:35:51 ↗ that he had discussed your analysis with

2:35:54 ↗ the city attorney and that the city

2:35:56 ↗ attorney wanted to have you mr. maleeni

2:35:58 ↗ provide a legal basis for the rationale

2:36:01 ↗ that was provided in that

2:36:02 ↗ analysis of that letter that you drafted

2:36:04 ↗ yes and I recall conversations I believe

2:36:08 ↗ was a telephone conversation with mr.

2:36:10 ↗ Nevin to that effect and director Nevin

2:36:15 ↗ also testified that things kind of left

2:36:17 ↗ off at that point but did you actually

2:36:20 ↗ provide any sort of rationale or legal

2:36:23 ↗ basis I did I provided a fairly lengthy

2:36:28 ↗ document that analyzed the concept of

2:36:33 ↗ mitigation and under our CW 80 - OH - oh

2:36:39 ↗ and under both state and federal

2:36:44 ↗ constitutional protections because that

2:36:48 ↗ deal with Nexus and rough

2:36:49 ↗ proportionality and also say that a

2:36:54 ↗ government can't impose mitigation

2:36:56 ↗ requirements that aren't related to the

2:36:59 ↗ actual impacts of a development I

2:37:01 ↗ believe that was in a letter from

2:37:04 ↗ somewhere around November 21st 2017

2:37:08 ↗ could you turn to s33 please is that the

2:37:17 ↗ letter that's 33 that you were just

2:37:20 ↗ referencing yes that's correct it's

2:37:22 ↗ about six pages long and as I mentioned

2:37:27 ↗ it goes through 82 o2o constitutional

2:37:31 ↗ limitations on development mitigation

2:37:36 ↗ violation of Washington's constitutional

2:37:39 ↗ vagueness doctrine and RCW 6440 do you

2:37:45 ↗ agree suggestion in his testimony that

2:37:48 ↗ the city was waiting on shelter to

2:37:50 ↗ provide a legal basis for vesting to

2:37:52 ↗ mitigation no I think this summarizes

2:37:55 ↗ the legal requirements to link

2:38:01 ↗ mitigation to actual impacts of a

2:38:03 ↗ development and once mitigation has

2:38:06 ↗ already been created you can't require a

2:38:08 ↗ developer to do it all over again

2:38:14 ↗ did you hear Eric Evans testimony this

2:38:17 ↗ evening about concurrency I did have you

2:38:22 ↗ reached out to the city about the issue

2:38:25 ↗ of concurrency under the development

2:38:27 ↗ agreement I'm trying to remember

2:38:32 ↗ specifically about the what we discussed

2:38:37 ↗ at that time I guess we didn't talk

2:38:40 ↗ about it in terms of concurrency

2:38:42 ↗ particularly since the city has kind of

2:38:44 ↗ a new and novel system that combines

2:38:48 ↗ impact fees and concurrency all into one

2:38:52 ↗ kind of one bucket and then they also

2:38:55 ↗ have a citywide concept so what my

2:39:00 ↗ understanding of the development

2:39:00 ↗ agreement was was that there a certain

2:39:03 ↗ number of trips that were created by the

2:39:06 ↗ millions of dollars of road improvements

2:39:08 ↗ that were done and associated with in

2:39:11 ↗ association with the agreement and that

2:39:14 ↗ that mitigation is defined in the

2:39:19 ↗ development agreement as part of the

2:39:22 ↗ development standards that are vested to

2:39:25 ↗ through and implementing approval which

2:39:27 ↗ is another defined term in the agreement

2:39:29 ↗ that encompasses a number of different

2:39:34 ↗ permits including preliminary plats and

2:39:37 ↗ site development permits so we did

2:39:40 ↗ discuss it in the in the concept of this

2:39:45 ↗ minute these trips have already been

2:39:47 ↗ created in the city system and millions

2:39:49 ↗ of dollars was spent to create them and

2:39:52 ↗ the question was how do those trips then

2:39:56 ↗ get allocated across shelters property

2:39:59 ↗ through the implementing approvals

2:40:05 ↗ so just to clarify and I know you

2:40:08 ↗ testified that the concurrency issue can

2:40:10 ↗ be a paraphrase a little bit complicated

2:40:12 ↗ in terms of how it comes up in the city

2:40:14 ↗ of Vista quoi

2:40:15 ↗ but was that part of the discussions

2:40:17 ↗ that you've had with the city over the

2:40:19 ↗ last few years yes I'd like to turn now

2:40:28 ↗ to a new exhibit it's gonna be exhibit

2:40:32 ↗ c4

2:40:57 ↗ director Niven had testified about this

2:41:01 ↗ email exchange it comes up in a couple

2:41:03 ↗ of exhibits in the record but if you

2:41:06 ↗ could just just set the context for us

2:41:08 ↗ describe what this email exchange is

2:41:10 ↗ that's c4 yes so this originally had to

2:41:17 ↗ do with I believe Miss Himes

2:41:21 ↗ communication with director Niven

2:41:26 ↗ regarding the various preliminary land

2:41:30 ↗ use applications that were filed that

2:41:36 ↗ the city required to be filed as a

2:41:38 ↗ prerequisite to shelter being able to

2:41:42 ↗ come in and file its actual site

2:41:45 ↗ development and administrative site

2:41:47 ↗ development permit applications and as

2:41:51 ↗ was discussed in several meetings and in

2:41:57 ↗ some of the other communications the

2:42:00 ↗ city's position was that preliminary

2:42:04 ↗ land use permit applications were vest

2:42:08 ↗ were actually vested in the city because

2:42:13 ↗ as mr. Nevins said in his November 17

2:42:17 ↗ memo to the land and shore committee

2:42:20 ↗ both he and the city attorney had

2:42:23 ↗ decided that if they didn't allow

2:42:27 ↗ vesting of those permits because the

2:42:29 ↗ process was so long and involved they

2:42:35 ↗ could have a problem meeting the

2:42:37 ↗ requirements of the West Main versus

2:42:39 ↗ bellevue case so this email exchange

2:42:45 ↗ starts out with miss hi I'm explaining

2:42:50 ↗ these are the various preliminary

2:42:52 ↗ applications we have for the for the

2:42:55 ↗ three site development permits and then

2:42:58 ↗ the preliminary plat as well and she's

2:43:01 ↗ asking for confirmation as to whether or

2:43:05 ↗ not

2:43:05 ↗ those various permit applications have

2:43:09 ↗ been deemed complete so that they would

2:43:11 ↗ be vested to the terms of the

2:43:13 ↗ development agreement so if you go to

2:43:17 ↗ the email on November 21st at 5:30 4

2:43:25 ↗ p.m. from TIA to Keith Niven mm-hmm she

2:43:29 ↗ says thanks Keith we have not received

2:43:30 ↗ any requests for additional info I am

2:43:33 ↗ assuming that you mean that the

2:43:35 ↗ applications are complete and vested to

2:43:36 ↗ the development agreement as stated in

2:43:38 ↗ the email below and as we discussed in

2:43:40 ↗ our meeting with you today please

2:43:41 ↗ confirm the duteous statements are those

2:43:45 ↗ consistent with your recollection of

2:43:46 ↗ what was discussed in that meeting yes I

2:43:50 ↗ mean we had a meeting to kind of figure

2:43:52 ↗ out where things were visa vie vesting

2:43:57 ↗ and prior to the exchange that you just

2:44:03 ↗ read director Niven had said Tia unless

2:44:08 ↗ you have received a request from city

2:44:10 ↗ staff for additional information these

2:44:12 ↗ applications are viewed as complete per

2:44:15 ↗ the terms of the development agreement

2:44:16 ↗ so my understanding of the the next

2:44:20 ↗ communication the one that you just read

2:44:22 ↗ was miss hime was just confirming with

2:44:30 ↗ mr. Niven that yes that we are complete

2:44:32 ↗ and divested to the development

2:44:34 ↗ agreement she asked for clarification

2:44:36 ↗ yeah it was yeah I would just say that I

2:44:40 ↗ mean he said that you were you have a

2:44:42 ↗ complete application per the terms of

2:44:44 ↗ the development agreement and so she

2:44:47 ↗ just says I assume they're complete

2:44:49 ↗ invested and then his response is yes

2:44:54 ↗ did you understand director Nevins

2:44:56 ↗ answer yes yes that based on everything

2:45:01 ↗ that we had been told and the city's

2:45:03 ↗ process and recognition of pre

2:45:08 ↗ applications as vesting that we were

2:45:11 ↗ vested to the terms of the development

2:45:13 ↗ agreement which was consistent with my

2:45:16 ↗ understanding

2:45:17 ↗ so I will also say I didn't see this

2:45:22 ↗ last part of this email this November

2:45:24 ↗ 22nd part between mr. Niven and mrs.

2:45:28 ↗ Lowman until after this litigation

2:45:30 ↗ started this wasn't provided to shelter

2:45:33 ↗ and it was very disappointing for me

2:45:36 ↗ personally to see this because we were

2:45:40 ↗ never told and certainly not at this

2:45:42 ↗ time that quote they are vested at the

2:45:45 ↗ moment under the DA if counsel removes

2:45:48 ↗ the proposed vesting language they will

2:45:51 ↗ lose their vested status and so it was

2:45:55 ↗ pretty disheartening after all the work

2:45:57 ↗ that had gone into everything to see

2:45:59 ↗ that we were being told one thing and

2:46:02 ↗ that there was another something else

2:46:06 ↗ going on behind the scenes I guess is

2:46:08 ↗ how I'd put it

2:46:09 ↗ so his April 16th testimony in front of

2:46:14 ↗ this Development Commission director

2:46:16 ↗ Niven and said you know we that he had

2:46:20 ↗ asked we had asked a very simple

2:46:21 ↗ question and he said which I provided a

2:46:24 ↗ very simple answer I felt like if they

2:46:26 ↗ didn't understand my answer they should

2:46:28 ↗ have asked for clarification on what my

2:46:30 ↗ intent was and I'll represent that

2:46:32 ↗ that's referencing this email exchange

2:46:34 ↗ where he says yes that the pre-ops were

2:46:37 ↗ vested was this unclear in any way to

2:46:41 ↗ you what director Niven meant no I mean

2:46:44 ↗ if you look at Miss times what the

2:46:47 ↗ question she asked are our applications

2:46:50 ↗ complete and vested to the development

2:46:52 ↗ agreement and he unequivocally says yes

2:46:55 ↗ there isn't a lot of room for

2:46:57 ↗ interpretation there

2:47:03 ↗ did you have a follow-up conversation

2:47:05 ↗ with director Niven anyways I did I and

2:47:11 ↗ I believe though I'm not sure exactly

2:47:13 ↗ I believe I wrote an email to him and I

2:47:20 ↗ also I may have written a letter I can't

2:47:24 ↗ remember but what I wanted to make sure

2:47:30 ↗ was that the terms of the development

2:47:35 ↗ agreement speak to what what is the

2:47:37 ↗ defined term is called an implementing

2:47:39 ↗ approval and I wanted to make sure that

2:47:44 ↗ there wasn't any ambiguity that what we

2:47:49 ↗ what director Niven had said we had just

2:47:52 ↗ vested was considered by the city to

2:47:56 ↗ qualify as implementing approvals such

2:48:00 ↗ that the terms of the development

2:48:02 ↗ agreement would apply

2:48:09 ↗ did director Niven respond to your

2:48:12 ↗ outreach I did respond and he I believe

2:48:16 ↗ he said I'll pass this along to the city

2:48:20 ↗ attorney and let you know if there's any

2:48:22 ↗ follow-up was there any need for

2:48:27 ↗ additional discussion we never heard

2:48:29 ↗ back from the city on that there was

2:48:31 ↗ never any follow-up from them so should

2:48:35 ↗ the city do anything to indicate that

2:48:37 ↗ director Nivens in your words clear yes

2:48:41 ↗ had changed at all

2:48:44 ↗ no our understanding was we were vested

2:48:46 ↗ to the valve an agreement

2:48:57 ↗ let's talk a little bit about

2:48:59 ↗ preliminary plots and short plots and we

2:49:02 ↗ heard some testimony I guess I would say

2:49:04 ↗ that at you know later on in February I

2:49:07 ↗ believe it was February 8th when they

2:49:09 ↗ came up with the new replacement

2:49:10 ↗ regulations and so there was a change in

2:49:13 ↗ the position later on so it wasn't like

2:49:16 ↗ forever we knew that but at that point

2:49:19 ↗ in time they the city there was no

2:49:24 ↗ indication that we weren't vested later

2:49:26 ↗ on they started talking about vesting as

2:49:27 ↗ a policy choice and and changed the

2:49:30 ↗ language so but that was as they were

2:49:33 ↗ closer to adopting that replaced my

2:49:36 ↗ regulations so turning to that's

2:49:41 ↗ pulmonary pots in short pots miss Loman

2:49:44 ↗ had testified that you had given what

2:49:47 ↗ she characterized as misleading

2:49:48 ↗ testimony on some of polygons flats

2:49:52 ↗ whether they were short pots our

2:49:53 ↗ preliminary thoughts do you do you

2:49:58 ↗ recall giving any misleading testimony

2:49:59 ↗ no what's that what is a short plan

2:50:04 ↗ what's a preliminary pock need something

2:50:05 ↗ that works well both a short plat and a

2:50:08 ↗ preliminary plat are methods of land

2:50:11 ↗ division that are approved under state

2:50:14 ↗ law our CWA 57:18 and so a short plat is

2:50:26 ↗ the 58 17 allows local governments to

2:50:31 ↗ adopt regulations for both preliminary

2:50:34 ↗ plots and short plots they both divide

2:50:36 ↗ property the short plat is typically

2:50:41 ↗ four Lots or less and a long plat or

2:50:44 ↗ preliminary the preliminary applied

2:50:46 ↗ application is if you have more than

2:50:48 ↗ four Lots the major distinction is that

2:50:53 ↗ well both the short plat and a

2:50:55 ↗ preliminary plat have to meet

2:50:57 ↗ requirements for public health and

2:50:59 ↗ safety

2:51:00 ↗ for instance you have to show things

2:51:02 ↗ like sewer service and you

2:51:04 ↗ that it's not going to be detrimental

2:51:06 ↗ the process is a little bit different

2:51:09 ↗ typically there's a hearing examiner

2:51:11 ↗ process and council approval for a

2:51:13 ↗ preliminary plat and there's some type

2:51:16 ↗ of administrative process for a short

2:51:18 ↗ flag but the bottom line is they're both

2:51:21 ↗ involved with how you can create legal

2:51:23 ↗ lots in the state of Washington if you

2:51:27 ↗ could turn to there's a binder that has

2:51:29 ↗ the testimony in it we're going to turn

2:51:33 ↗ to your testimony from January 16th I

2:51:52 ↗ think I said the 16th but it would be

2:51:55 ↗ the oh no no no 16th is your day

2:51:58 ↗ yeah so if you could flip in there for

2:52:00 ↗ me we're going to go to page 76 76 ok

2:52:36 ↗ okay are you there

2:52:38 ↗ Haman alright so um page 76 and actually

2:52:43 ↗ it's starting on 75 I'll just represent

2:52:46 ↗ we were talking about a new exhibit s 36

2:52:48 ↗ and I had asked you to please describe

2:52:52 ↗ what's at exhibit 36 and can you read

2:52:56 ↗ your response starting at line 3 on 76

2:52:59 ↗ down to line 24 sure answer yes this is

2:53:07 ↗ a March 2018 letter from myself to Miss

2:53:10 ↗ Sloman and even though shelter had

2:53:13 ↗ obtained confirmation from the city that

2:53:15 ↗ it was vested to the development

2:53:17 ↗ agreement because of its SDP

2:53:19 ↗ pre-application he was also trying to

2:53:22 ↗ obtain confirmation that its sdp

2:53:25 ↗ applications themselves were also deemed

2:53:27 ↗ complete invested and we got caught up

2:53:31 ↗ in kind of a circular loop because the

2:53:34 ↗ city miss Sloman kept rejecting the

2:53:37 ↗ applications is incomplete because she

2:53:40 ↗ said that shelter she couldn't deem are

2:53:42 ↗ the SDP applications complete because

2:53:46 ↗ the preliminary plat had not been

2:53:48 ↗ finalized and some of the rejection

2:53:51 ↗ letters she said that the final plat had

2:53:53 ↗ to be obtained which it would have been

2:53:57 ↗ an event that wouldn't have happened

2:53:58 ↗ until you know five or more years into

2:54:01 ↗ the future and so what she was doing was

2:54:04 ↗ saying that she couldn't analyze the

2:54:05 ↗ SDPs

2:54:06 ↗ because the preliminary plat had not

2:54:08 ↗ been approved which was a position that

2:54:12 ↗ was absolutely contrary to how the city

2:54:14 ↗ had handled the polygon sdp applications

2:54:16 ↗ in one case they actually approved the

2:54:19 ↗ SDP before the preliminary plant had

2:54:21 ↗ even been applied for so it was inked it

2:54:24 ↗ was an inconsistent treatment of similar

2:54:27 ↗ similarly situated applicants looking at

2:54:31 ↗ that last arch it's the second to last

2:54:33 ↗ sentence and that explanation beginning

2:54:35 ↗ at line 21 you note a case

2:54:37 ↗ that the city had approved the SDP

2:54:40 ↗ before a preliminary plat did you mean

2:54:42 ↗ preliminary plat or something else there

2:54:43 ↗ well the the polygon applications it's a

2:54:52 ↗ little bit confusing because what

2:54:54 ↗ polygons actually did it it is typically

2:54:57 ↗ like a short plat as if somebody has an

2:54:59 ↗ extra big lot and they think they can

2:55:02 ↗ have another house so they take their

2:55:04 ↗ lot and carve it into two Lots and they

2:55:06 ↗ can build two homes polygons had a much

2:55:10 ↗ more complicated process because what it

2:55:12 ↗ did was it first did a short plat to

2:55:16 ↗ make three very large Lots and then it

2:55:19 ↗ put a preliminary plat on one of them

2:55:21 ↗ and two townhomes which I believe were

2:55:25 ↗ put it on the other two properties with

2:55:28 ↗ site development permits so it is true

2:55:32 ↗ that the city approved the SDP before

2:55:36 ↗ the preliminary plat but for the piece

2:55:40 ↗ of property actually at issue it was

2:55:42 ↗ first a short plat but as I testified

2:55:46 ↗ before both the short plat and the long

2:55:50 ↗ plat create legal Lots in Washington and

2:55:54 ↗ as far as the timing of whether or not

2:55:59 ↗ the city could review an SDP permit

2:56:02 ↗ before the subdivision action had

2:56:04 ↗ occurred that's what I was trying to get

2:56:07 ↗ at and so it's a distinction without a

2:56:10 ↗ difference because and also there's no

2:56:14 ↗ requirement and that I'm aware of either

2:56:17 ↗ in city code and certainly not in the

2:56:19 ↗ development agreement that requires you

2:56:22 ↗ to have either approved preliminary plat

2:56:26 ↗ or a final plat as miss Loman had said

2:56:30 ↗ in one letter before the city could even

2:56:33 ↗ review a SDP I didn't even review the

2:56:38 ↗ point was it's a complete application so

2:56:42 ↗ it's just to accept an application that

2:56:45 ↗ meets the the check boxes

2:56:49 ↗ of what a complete application package

2:56:51 ↗ should have so but that was I know

2:56:55 ↗ that's kind of a convoluted answer but

2:56:59 ↗ questions based on that and the first

2:57:02 ↗ one is is if it's a distinction without

2:57:05 ↗ a difference does it change anything

2:57:06 ↗ about your prior testimony at 76 about

2:57:09 ↗ the inconsistent treatment of shelter

2:57:12 ↗ compared to polygons you know I mean the

2:57:16 ↗ point was we got I believe 9 or more

2:57:22 ↗ incomplete application letters on our

2:57:25 ↗ permits of metals and most of them were

2:57:29 ↗ based on this idea that somehow we had

2:57:31 ↗ to have either a fully approved

2:57:34 ↗ preliminary plat or even more a final

2:57:38 ↗ plan which in Washington law in order to

2:57:45 ↗ get a final plant you have to build out

2:57:47 ↗ all of the infrastructure and so it's

2:57:51 ↗ such an onerous process that Washington

2:57:53 ↗ law gives you 10 years to do that to 5

2:57:56 ↗ years on a preliminary plat and five

2:57:57 ↗ years on a final plant so in in one of

2:58:00 ↗ the letters that we received

2:58:03 ↗ basically mrs. Lowman was saying I can't

2:58:06 ↗ look at your I can't even tell you you

2:58:07 ↗ have a complete application until 10

2:58:10 ↗ years down the road and that's just it's

2:58:14 ↗ not consistent with Washington law at

2:58:16 ↗ all was Miss lemons review of the SDP

2:58:21 ↗ and ASTP applications

2:58:23 ↗ you mentioned this distinction a minute

2:58:24 ↗ ago about review for completeness versus

2:58:27 ↗ something else was her review consistent

2:58:30 ↗ with her what you would expect for a

2:58:31 ↗ review for completeness or was it

2:58:33 ↗ looking more like review for a full

2:58:35 ↗ application it was her review or the the

2:58:39 ↗ things that she was mentioning in her

2:58:40 ↗ letters was review for permit approval

2:58:44 ↗ it wasn't a complete application each

2:58:49 ↗ jurisdiction is supposed to come up with

2:58:51 ↗ a checklist of the items you need for a

2:58:54 ↗ complete application if you provide

2:58:57 ↗ those items it's a ministerial

2:59:00 ↗ determination it's

2:59:01 ↗ okay is there a site plan yes there's a

2:59:04 ↗ site plan you know is there

2:59:10 ↗ authorization to proceed by the property

2:59:12 ↗ owner yes there's that and if you do all

2:59:14 ↗ those things then the application is

2:59:16 ↗ complete that doesn't mean you're going

2:59:18 ↗ to be granted a permit necessarily and

2:59:20 ↗ there may be modifications and changes

2:59:23 ↗ that happen along the way before you you

2:59:25 ↗ do get a permit but the point is that

2:59:29 ↗ your application is deemed complete for

2:59:31 ↗ vesting permits upon submission of that

2:59:34 ↗ complete application

2:59:38 ↗ [Music]

2:59:53 ↗ did you review or hear the testimony

2:59:56 ↗ from director Niven and miss Loman about

2:59:58 ↗ the building permit checklist that we've

3:00:01 ↗ talked about a number of times in the

3:00:02 ↗ theory yes then that's I believe if you

3:00:06 ↗ want to open up it said exhibit s9

3:00:41 ↗ there you go didn't you ever tell you or

3:00:53 ↗ tell shelter that it needed a building

3:00:55 ↗ permit application a complete building

3:00:58 ↗ permit application in order to vest no

3:01:04 ↗ shelter decide on the process of

3:01:09 ↗ pursuing a preliminary plat and then the

3:01:11 ↗ SDP and a SDP applications to vest its

3:01:14 ↗ projects was that informed by anything

3:01:17 ↗ that the city told them well I mean the

3:01:19 ↗ first thing we did was read the

3:01:20 ↗ development agreement and I think one of

3:01:25 ↗ the reasons I was retained by shelter

3:01:27 ↗ was I had worked with the city on

3:01:30 ↗ writing the Costco development agreement

3:01:32 ↗ so I was fairly some familiar with

3:01:34 ↗ development agreements and working in

3:01:37 ↗ the city of Issaquah and so we looked at

3:01:40 ↗ the development agreement ourselves and

3:01:42 ↗ particularly the I think it's section

3:01:46 ↗ 3.2 3 which is on vesting of development

3:01:50 ↗ standards and mitigation and the

3:01:53 ↗ definitions in Section 6 particularly

3:01:56 ↗ the definitions of implementing

3:01:58 ↗ approvals and development standards and

3:02:01 ↗ then we met with the city I want to say

3:02:05 ↗ the first time was in late 2016 and and

3:02:13 ↗ then early in 2017 I believe we met

3:02:16 ↗ again and we had thought about the idea

3:02:20 ↗ of a binding site plan because that was

3:02:24 ↗ listed as an implementing approval in

3:02:25 ↗ the development agreement but director

3:02:28 ↗ Niven suggested that shelter pursue a

3:02:32 ↗ preliminary plat along with its site

3:02:36 ↗ development permits and in the March

3:02:41 ↗ 21st 2017 meeting we had he explained

3:02:46 ↗ the

3:02:47 ↗ a Chanel 4 why that would vest those

3:02:50 ↗ permits through building permit under

3:02:53 ↗ the terms of the development agreement

3:02:54 ↗ and that explanation that he gave in

3:02:58 ↗ that meeting was consistent with Alma it

3:03:02 ↗ was almost verbatim with the March 27

3:03:06 ↗ 2017 letter that he sent to polygon

3:03:09 ↗ where he discussed vesting of

3:03:12 ↗ preliminary Platts and site development

3:03:14 ↗ permits and made the same

3:03:17 ↗ representations so what does that

3:03:19 ↗ sequence look like the first sequence

3:03:23 ↗ would be well I mean you can submit your

3:03:26 ↗ preliminary plat and site development

3:03:28 ↗ permits simultaneously or you could do

3:03:31 ↗ them serially but the idea would be that

3:03:35 ↗ you would get your preliminary plat and

3:03:39 ↗ your site development permit and under

3:03:43 ↗ the development agreement all of those

3:03:45 ↗ things vest and then you would get your

3:03:48 ↗ building permit later the reason being

3:03:51 ↗ that the preliminary plat and the site

3:03:54 ↗ development permit are going to inform

3:03:56 ↗ the building permit so for instance you

3:04:00 ↗ wouldn't go in for a building permit if

3:04:03 ↗ you didn't know what your landscaping

3:04:04 ↗ and setbacks were because you'd spend

3:04:07 ↗ all these this money on extraordinarily

3:04:11 ↗ detailed drawings of how your building

3:04:15 ↗ would be constructed you know down to

3:04:18 ↗ where the light switch is going

3:04:20 ↗ everything else and then you'd have to

3:04:22 ↗ tear them all up if you found out you

3:04:24 ↗ needed a 20 foot buffer instead of a 10

3:04:26 ↗ foot buffer or something like that so

3:04:27 ↗ the process would be divide your land

3:04:31 ↗ understand the layout conceptual layout

3:04:35 ↗ of everything and then go in for the

3:04:37 ↗ permit oftentimes people when they're

3:04:42 ↗ kind of partway through this happens in

3:04:44 ↗ the city of seattle of these am up

3:04:46 ↗ permit which is similar to the SDP

3:04:49 ↗ permits here but people will submit

3:04:51 ↗ their building permit when in the later

3:04:53 ↗ phases of the analysis of their

3:04:56 ↗ land use permit or their my permit

3:04:58 ↗ because it helps expedite the process

3:05:01 ↗ but you wanted you want to know what the

3:05:03 ↗ envelope looks like before you start

3:05:05 ↗ trying to do detail building

3:05:16 ↗ did you hear mr. Niven director Nivens

3:05:19 ↗ testimony regarding his November 2017

3:05:23 ↗ memo addressing the West main problem of

3:05:27 ↗ the city where he is sunshine I'm

3:05:29 ↗ paraphrasing said that it was wrong I

3:05:31 ↗ didn't hear it but I read it

3:05:36 ↗ did he ever inform you or inform shelter

3:05:40 ↗ to your knowledge that he had decided

3:05:43 ↗ that his memo was wrong no I in fact you

3:05:47 ↗ know director Nevin had encouraged

3:05:51 ↗ shelter to come to that meeting and

3:05:53 ↗ support the city's position in that memo

3:05:56 ↗ and I got up and testified because I

3:05:59 ↗ thought it was absolutely consistent

3:06:00 ↗ with Washington's vesting law so he was

3:06:03 ↗ wrong I guess he was trying to say I was

3:06:06 ↗ wrong too because I believe that what

3:06:09 ↗ the city said about West Main in that

3:06:11 ↗ memo is absolutely a correct

3:06:12 ↗ interpretation of Washington law you got

3:06:19 ↗ have been testified in support of it and

3:06:20 ↗ but at any point down the road prior to

3:06:22 ↗ this development Commission hearing had

3:06:25 ↗ he come back to you and said I made a

3:06:26 ↗ mistake no I hadn't I never heard that

3:06:30 ↗ until I saw his testimony to that effect

3:06:33 ↗ and certainly not at no time during the

3:06:37 ↗ process of you know up and through the

3:06:40 ↗ replacement regulations was that ever

3:06:41 ↗ communicated to shelter if it had been

3:06:48 ↗ communicated to shelter what do you

3:06:50 ↗ think the reaction would have been

3:06:51 ↗ I the incredulity I would say I mean

3:06:56 ↗ it's I've read West Main it's no

3:07:02 ↗ exaggeration to say I've read it 50

3:07:04 ↗ times so I'm pretty familiar with what

3:07:06 ↗ it says and it's a very clear articulate

3:07:11 ↗ opinion about how vested rights are

3:07:14 ↗ protected by the Constitution in

3:07:16 ↗ Washington and that you vest on the date

3:07:19 ↗ certain of submitting a application for

3:07:22 ↗ a vesting permit

3:07:27 ↗ did you review your here miss Loehmann's

3:07:31 ↗ testimony from May 7th regarding the

3:07:34 ↗ collaboration and pre-application

3:07:36 ↗ meeting requirement I reviewed it yes

3:07:39 ↗ and if you could look at her if she

3:07:44 ↗ testified to an exhibit at c50 if we can

3:07:47 ↗ pull that open back c50 has multiple

3:08:10 ↗ pages but if you look at page 3 they

3:08:15 ↗ have page numbers on the bottom and I'm

3:08:17 ↗ looking at an email from October 27th at

3:08:19 ↗ 1:48 p.m. and I'll just read it into to

3:08:24 ↗ keep us moving along but miss Loman had

3:08:27 ↗ written to TIA

3:08:28 ↗ with respect to the meetings that they

3:08:31 ↗ were discussing their marked optional

3:08:33 ↗ and that decision is at our discretion

3:08:35 ↗ did you understand from what the city

3:08:39 ↗ had told you at that point or any time

3:08:41 ↗ after that three applications or these

3:08:44 ↗ collaboration meetings were optional by

3:08:46 ↗ any means according to the city no I

3:08:49 ↗ mean this I looked at the appendix l and

3:08:52 ↗ the development agreement and my

3:08:54 ↗ interpretation of the flowchart

3:08:57 ↗ I think it's on page three of appendix L

3:08:59 ↗ was that the applicant had the option of

3:09:04 ↗ participating in those types of meeting

3:09:07 ↗ I believe for preliminary plats or for

3:09:12 ↗ full SDPs

3:09:14 ↗ collaboration meetings aren't mentioned

3:09:16 ↗ at all in the development agreement but

3:09:19 ↗ my understanding from talking with

3:09:23 ↗ people at shelter and their consultants

3:09:25 ↗ was the city was demanding that they go

3:09:28 ↗ through those processes and that they

3:09:31 ↗ were refusing to intake application

3:09:34 ↗ materials until those meetings were

3:09:37 ↗ had occurred even though the scheduling

3:09:41 ↗ in took you know several weeks or months

3:09:44 ↗ to accomplish is your understanding that

3:09:48 ↗ these were required meetings by the city

3:09:50 ↗ ever changed

3:09:51 ↗ no they continued to and you know we

3:09:56 ↗ pointed out that they it appeared to be

3:09:58 ↗ clear violations of Appendix L and I

3:10:01 ↗ believe there were several times when

3:10:04 ↗ the city acknowledged that they were but

3:10:07 ↗ in one letter than I recall director

3:10:11 ↗ Nevins said the only remedy was that you

3:10:13 ↗ get your permit fees back let's turn to

3:10:20 ↗ an exhibit marked s 36 it should be the

3:10:24 ↗ March fifteenth twenty eighteen letter

3:10:49 ↗ so we've heard well represent we've

3:10:51 ↗ heard rebuttal testimony from both

3:10:54 ↗ director David and miss Loman regarding

3:10:56 ↗ this letter did you review their

3:10:59 ↗ testimony on this issue on this letter

3:11:00 ↗ yes and and your January 16th testimony

3:11:10 ↗ you gave us an explanation of how this

3:11:12 ↗ letter came to be so I won't ask you to

3:11:16 ↗ repeat yourself too much there but can

3:11:18 ↗ you remind us just kind of at a high

3:11:20 ↗ level how this letter came into

3:11:23 ↗ existence yes so this letter agreement

3:11:29 ↗ was an attempt to try to get around the

3:11:32 ↗ issue of the city rejecting our

3:11:37 ↗ application materials because there

3:11:41 ↗ hadn't been either a final there hadn't

3:11:45 ↗ been an approval of our final of our

3:11:48 ↗ preliminary plat or recording of our

3:11:51 ↗ final plan and so one purpose of the

3:11:55 ↗ letter was to try to set that issue

3:11:59 ↗ aside and then another purpose I think

3:12:04 ↗ who was more the city was interested in

3:12:06 ↗ was they didn't want to be in violation

3:12:12 ↗ of the processing time lines for the SDP

3:12:19 ↗ and ASDP applications and so this letter

3:12:23 ↗ provides that from the date its executed

3:12:28 ↗ that there would be a sequencing of the

3:12:31 ↗ review process whereby the plat would be

3:12:34 ↗ reviewed first before the site

3:12:37 ↗ development permit applications so and

3:12:40 ↗ then in addition to that

3:12:44 ↗ think it's paragraphs six and seven

3:12:46 ↗ hours six and seven it's basically a

3:12:53 ↗ reservation of Rights where the parties

3:12:58 ↗ are reserving their their various rights

3:13:02 ↗ for instance what we're trying to say

3:13:04 ↗ there is even though we've agreed to

3:13:08 ↗ this modified process that doesn't

3:13:10 ↗ comply with appendix L going forward we

3:13:13 ↗ aren't leaving our rights to contest

3:13:16 ↗ that the city was in violation of

3:13:18 ↗ appendix L person you know preceding the

3:13:23 ↗ signing of the agreement you can leave

3:13:31 ↗ that one open but could you also open up

3:13:33 ↗ it gets the binder right underneath it

3:13:37 ↗ Exhibit C 43

3:13:54 ↗ and and I'm just gonna quickly Zahl so

3:14:00 ↗ to c-54 so you have c43 which I'll

3:14:03 ↗ represent you testified about in your

3:14:06 ↗ prior testimony and then 54

3:14:11 ↗ if you flip back and forth is 54 just a

3:14:16 ↗ subpart of 43

3:15:06 ↗ so as as best as I can tell what

3:15:11 ↗ happened first was I had a lengthy

3:15:13 ↗ conversation with miss Loman about you

3:15:18 ↗ know kind of conceptually what might go

3:15:21 ↗ into the document that eventually became

3:15:27 ↗ exhibit that s 36 that's 36 that's the

3:15:35 ↗ March 15 2018 letter and it looks like

3:15:43 ↗ exhibit this C or s s c c 43 is my

3:15:53 ↗ bullet points with Miss Loehmann's some

3:15:57 ↗ thoughts that she had on them

3:15:59 ↗ and I it looks like that there are some

3:16:04 ↗ and it's easier to see because there in

3:16:07 ↗ green there Exhibit C 54 is the bullet

3:16:14 ↗ points with additional comments from

3:16:16 ↗ miss Loman that she in her lynnie ated

3:16:19 ↗ in green okay and if we're looking so

3:16:22 ↗ let's look at C 54 okay and in her

3:16:26 ↗ rebuttal testimony miss Loman had read

3:16:28 ↗ to us based on the current draft of the

3:16:31 ↗ of the replacement regulations if those

3:16:33 ↗ changed significantly we would have to

3:16:35 ↗ revisit this we all need that caveat I

3:16:37 ↗ see you have that below what did you

3:16:40 ↗ understand that she was referencing is

3:16:42 ↗ that caveat below so

3:16:45 ↗ [Music]

3:16:52 ↗ the caveat below is my second to last

3:16:57 ↗ bullet point and it's the letter

3:17:00 ↗ agreement would be contingent and

3:17:02 ↗ include a reservation of Rights whereby

3:17:04 ↗ the agreement would terminate and IHI F

3:17:07 ↗ would be free to pursue all available

3:17:10 ↗ remedies and appeal in the event there

3:17:13 ↗ are material changes to the vesting

3:17:15 ↗ provision in the proposed post

3:17:17 ↗ development agreement zoning regulations

3:17:19 ↗ as the current staff proposed vesting

3:17:21 ↗ language is consider consistent with the

3:17:24 ↗ city's existing vesting regulations and

3:17:26 ↗ IH if's

3:17:28 ↗ understanding of vesting law so what we

3:17:32 ↗ were saying was at that point in time we

3:17:36 ↗ agree with you about what washington

3:17:38 ↗ vesting law says and again that's

3:17:41 ↗ consistent with why i testified to about

3:17:43 ↗ the November 17th memo and the city's

3:17:48 ↗ interpretation of their obligations

3:17:50 ↗ under the West Main case and so we were

3:17:54 ↗ saying were ok with this but if there's

3:17:57 ↗ some drastic change and somehow you know

3:18:02 ↗ somebody tries to claim that were

3:18:04 ↗ unvested we aren't waiving our rights to

3:18:07 ↗ contest that so what was the date of

3:18:10 ↗ this email exchange that email was

3:18:13 ↗ [Music]

3:18:15 ↗ January 12 2018 was when Lucy sent hers

3:18:23 ↗ back I sent mine was sent the same day

3:18:26 ↗ so I sent mine at 144 and she responded

3:18:29 ↗ about an hour later is that before or

3:18:32 ↗ after the administration changed its

3:18:34 ↗ recommendation on vesting language well

3:18:37 ↗ I believe that behind the scenes they

3:18:41 ↗ were working with other applicants like

3:18:43 ↗ the city serve people around that time

3:18:47 ↗ to inform them of the change but they

3:18:50 ↗ didn't notify shelter or publicly

3:18:53 ↗ disclosed the change until right it

3:18:57 ↗ might have been February 6 but I think

3:18:59 ↗ it was February 8 so

3:19:02 ↗ publicly and as far as shelter knew we

3:19:05 ↗ were still operating under the

3:19:08 ↗ assumptions that we had been operating

3:19:10 ↗ under earlier about vesting so that

3:19:15 ↗ caveat language did that ultimately get

3:19:17 ↗ incorporated in some fashion into the

3:19:19 ↗ final agreement

3:19:21 ↗ it did its paragraph six of the final

3:19:27 ↗ agreement it said the party's ignorant

3:19:29 ↗ so by this time now the new replacement

3:19:36 ↗ regulation language that come out and

3:19:38 ↗ the staff had had reversed its position

3:19:44 ↗ on what washington vesting law means and

3:19:47 ↗ so this this paragraph now says the

3:19:50 ↗ parties acknowledged that the council

3:19:52 ↗ has not yet adopted replacement

3:19:54 ↗ regulations for the Grand Ridge

3:19:56 ↗ development agreement thus depending on

3:19:58 ↗ the language ultimately adopted the

3:20:01 ↗ parties may have differing positions

3:20:03 ↗ regarding the effect of the replacement

3:20:05 ↗ regulations on IHI F's proposed

3:20:08 ↗ development therefore both parties

3:20:11 ↗ reserve all legal and equitable rights

3:20:13 ↗ positions and remedies and execution of

3:20:15 ↗ this letter agreement shall not be

3:20:17 ↗ construed as a waiver of either parties

3:20:19 ↗ respective legal lights rights positions

3:20:22 ↗ and remedies including without

3:20:24 ↗ limitation the legal requirements of the

3:20:27 ↗ development agreement the effect of the

3:20:28 ↗ replacement regulations or vesting so is

3:20:35 ↗ it fair for me to summarize out as

3:20:37 ↗ essentially just a reservation of rights

3:20:39 ↗ of the parties yes

3:20:45 ↗ and I think before I I ask another

3:20:48 ↗ question and get too far along here it

3:20:49 ↗ is 956 I think it's and won't be able to

3:20:54 ↗ wrap up in the four minutes that we have

3:20:55 ↗ to the close I can keep going until the

3:20:58 ↗ very end or if we need to attend to

3:21:00 ↗ anything else I'm happy to stop here

3:21:02 ↗ it's how much long how much more time do

3:21:04 ↗ you need how much more time do I think

3:21:08 ↗ I'm gonna say about 15 to 20 minutes it

3:21:10 ↗ could go on for a little while okay so

3:21:13 ↗ it might be a good time to stop and I

3:21:17 ↗ appreciate that I appreciate your

3:21:18 ↗ awareness of the time and we have

3:21:21 ↗ reached a reasonably Durning time and

3:21:24 ↗ we'll be continuing the public hearing

3:21:25 ↗ on tonight's agenda into a future date

3:21:28 ↗ and I understand that the Commission and

3:21:30 ↗ the parties are next available to

3:21:31 ↗ continue these hearings on the evening

3:21:33 ↗ of June 5th is that correct

3:21:37 ↗ okay and so when all is said and done

3:21:43 ↗ how much time will the parties need to

3:21:45 ↗ complete their examination of the

3:21:47 ↗ remaining rebuttal witnesses do we have

3:21:49 ↗ a sense of that I anticipate that we can

3:21:52 ↗ complete our rebuttal testimony in the

3:21:54 ↗ next hearing my hope would be that we

3:21:56 ↗ would get through everybody well we'll

3:21:58 ↗ be calling miss hyeme as a rebuttal

3:21:59 ↗ witness after we finished up with mr.

3:22:02 ↗ maleeni and at that point we anticipate

3:22:04 ↗ being done with our rebuttal witnesses

3:22:09 ↗ so is it going to take more than three

3:22:13 ↗ out and we've got three hours on the

3:22:15 ↗ fifth hour testimony that we present

3:22:17 ↗ won't but I can't speak to how long the

3:22:19 ↗ cross-examination might take and it's

3:22:22 ↗ impossible to estimate that

3:22:24 ↗ unfortunately without having heard it I

3:22:26 ↗ would roughly estimate approximately

3:22:28 ↗ twenty to twenty to thirty minutes

3:22:31 ↗ in cross-examination of mr. maleeni and

3:22:34 ↗ I would based on past experience it

3:22:37 ↗ estimated at least that amount of time

3:22:39 ↗ for Miss hime

3:22:39 ↗ I'm concerned that if we don't you know

3:22:44 ↗ from past experience the time constraint

3:22:48 ↗ may be more than we can complete on the

3:22:51 ↗ fifth and so it may be important to look

3:22:54 ↗ for one

3:22:55 ↗ more time one more meeting before we can

3:22:57 ↗ conclude and start our deliberations is

3:22:59 ↗ that seem reasonable we can set a

3:23:02 ↗ tentative date and find out when people

3:23:05 ↗ are available and if we don't need it we

3:23:06 ↗ could always cancel it yes I think

3:23:09 ↗ that's great if I may ask a clarifying

3:23:10 ↗ question is the Commission intending to

3:23:14 ↗ deliberate in a session within the final

3:23:17 ↗ hearing that we could set and be

3:23:18 ↗ concluded with deliberation within that

3:23:20 ↗ time or is that a process that's going

3:23:22 ↗ to be ongoing after that I I think our

3:23:25 ↗ intention would be to start as soon as

3:23:27 ↗ that testimony is done we will start our

3:23:29 ↗ deliberation but not begin I'm not

3:23:33 ↗ exactly sure how long it's going to take

3:23:34 ↗ us to deliberate so I would think the

3:23:38 ↗ best course of action would be to set -

3:23:40 ↗ to set a temper a preliminary date one

3:23:43 ↗ more meeting after the fifth and if we

3:23:47 ↗ don't need it we can always cancel it I

3:23:49 ↗ agree completely

3:23:52 ↗ agreed okay so I think with that we can

3:24:01 ↗ convene your parent and turn thank you

3:24:08 ↗ you

3:24:13 ↗ 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 Jeffrey Dunbar

City Attorney’s Office Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Tia Heim

Shelter Holdings Ben Rush Zachary Lell

City Attorney’s Office Brooke Shore Ray Liaw

Van Ness Feldman

LLP Mark Rigos

Alternate Jacquie Quarré

Foster Pepper PLLC Arthur Schulte

Alternate Patrick Schneider

Foster Pepper PLLC Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate 1