Development Commission - Special Meeting - 05 J · Wednesday, June 5, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 15, 2019

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 30, 2019

packet pp.7–10

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 15, 2019

▶ Watch from 0:55 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-30-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

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

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 49:17 Open packet at p.23 ↗

3270 segments .txt ↗

0:24 ↗ okay

0:27 ↗ good evening ladies and gentlemen I'd

0:30 ↗ like to welcome you to this special

0:32 ↗ meeting of the Development Commission

0:33 ↗ for June 5 2019 to discuss the public

0:38 ↗ have a public hearing on the ESCO

0:40 ↗ Highlands retail site development permit

0:43 ↗ the Issaquah highlands medical office

0:44 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:47 ↗ and the Issaquah highland self storage

0:49 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:52 ↗ we have one issue that we need to take

0:55 ↗ care of and that's approval of minutes

0:57 ↗ are there any objections to approving

0:58 ↗ the minutes of a May 30 2019 of May 30

1:02 ↗ 2019 No

1:05 ↗ then by unanimous consent the minutes

1:08 ↗ are approved when we last met miss Kerry

1:10 ↗ was finishing her rebuttal I think was

1:12 ↗ Patrick Malini that's correct

1:15 ↗ and I'll turn the time over to you thank

1:17 ↗ you and we've completed our directive

1:19 ↗ mr. maleeni so I think it's now time for

1:21 ↗ his cross-examination okay I appreciate

1:28 ↗ mr. maleeni could you come back to the

1:30 ↗ stand for just a few minutes

1:41 ↗ mr. Molina can you please uh verify that

1:44 ↗ you continue to be under oath

1:46 ↗ yes furring back to your rebuttal

1:54 ↗ testimony believe that you had testified

1:57 ↗ that you expressed disappointment that

2:01 ↗ city staff had apparently been engaging

2:05 ↗ in in your words behind the scenes

2:09 ↗ communication and assistance with

2:11 ↗ respect to other applicants that was not

2:14 ↗ extended to IHI FC do you recall that

2:17 ↗ testimony yes could you please describe

2:27 ↗ what specific instances you're referring

2:30 ↗ to in regards to that behind the scenes

2:33 ↗ assistance well I was referring to I

2:37 ↗ believe in my testimony two things

2:39 ↗ number one in the November 21st email

2:46 ↗ exchange between director Niven and Miss

2:51 ↗ hime where he confirmed that shelters be

2:59 ↗ application complete pre-applications

3:04 ↗ land use permit applications were vested

3:07 ↗ to the development agreement I mentioned

3:11 ↗ that following that after this

3:16 ↗ litigation started we later saw an

3:20 ↗ addition to that email correspondence

3:23 ↗ that was between mr. Niven and Miss

3:25 ↗ sloman that put caveats on the vesting

3:33 ↗ that were not related to shelter at the

3:36 ↗ time and could you describe those

3:39 ↗ caveats please if you could tell me what

3:43 ↗ the exhibit number is I could just what

3:46 ↗ he said there

3:47 ↗ well believe it you were referring in

3:49 ↗ your original testimony

3:50 ↗ exhibit s4 are you referring to

3:52 ↗ something else in in your comments

3:54 ↗ tonight

4:07 ↗ so I'm looking now at exhibit s4 and a

4:18 ↗ email exchange between director Niven

4:23 ↗ and Miss time there were three emails

4:28 ↗ and the last oh the the exchange of the

4:36 ↗ occurred between them essentially was

4:39 ↗ this time said thanks Keith we have not

4:42 ↗ received any requests for additional

4:44 ↗ info I'm assuming that you mean that the

4:47 ↗ applications are complete invested to

4:49 ↗ the development agreement as stated in

4:52 ↗ the email below and as we discussed in

4:55 ↗ our meeting with you today please

4:56 ↗ confirm and mr. or director Niven

5:00 ↗ responded yes so then and again we

5:05 ↗ didn't see these emails until after this

5:08 ↗ litigation was commenced the following

5:13 ↗ day November 22nd 2017 at 9:29 a.m. miss

5:19 ↗ Loman

5:22 ↗ wrote to rector Niven and said they

5:28 ↗ aren't vested unless the council agrees

5:30 ↗ to the vesting language I'm confused

5:33 ↗ and rector Niven wrote back to her and

5:38 ↗ said they are vested at this moment

5:40 ↗ under the DA if the council removes the

5:44 ↗ proposed vesting language they will lose

5:46 ↗ their vested status and then miss Loman

5:50 ↗ says shouldn't that be clear in the

5:52 ↗ response so that's what I was talking

5:54 ↗ about it do you recall your testimony

5:57 ↗ concerning the excuse me also I was

6:01 ↗ talking about the situation with mr.

6:04 ↗ Haas and the city surf application and

6:06 ↗ that I think is really the focus of my

6:08 ↗ my question to you tonight

6:10 ↗ mr. maleeni you had alluded to the

6:15 ↗ city's communications with mr. Haas as a

6:18 ↗ believe I'm paraphrasing an indication

6:21 ↗ of the city's intent and attempt to

6:25 ↗ facilitate mr. houses development

6:28 ↗ proposal is that an accurate assessment

6:31 ↗ that's correct okay are you aware of any

6:34 ↗ other instance in which the city in your

6:38 ↗ view attempted behind the scenes to

6:40 ↗ assist some other applicant but not ih

6:43 ↗ IFC as the development agreements were

6:46 ↗ winding down yes can you please

6:48 ↗ elaborate on that yes I believe that

6:51 ↗ Sara who was the gee I don't know

6:57 ↗ exactly what her title was but she was

6:59 ↗ involved with Issaquah Highlands owner

7:03 ↗ Association and they were seeking to do

7:07 ↗ development and I believe miss Loman

7:11 ↗ directed her to seek a short plat of her

7:16 ↗ property that would otherwise have been

7:19 ↗ unnecessary in order to ensure that that

7:24 ↗ development would vest against the

7:26 ↗ changes in the regulations and that

7:29 ↗ advice was given several months before

7:32 ↗ the language that changed the vesting

7:37 ↗ was made public so several months before

7:41 ↗ the language that changed the vesting

7:43 ↗ and is that in reference to the staff

7:46 ↗ recommended vesting language for the

7:48 ↗ replacement regulations I believe that I

7:51 ↗ want to say it was February 8 2018 yes

7:54 ↗ and that communication you just referred

7:58 ↗ to occurred several months before that

8:00 ↗ yes and again we weren't made aware of

8:03 ↗ this any of this until the litigation

8:05 ↗ started and we obtained those emails

8:11 ↗ through a Public Records Act request so

8:13 ↗ that several months I'm assuming that

8:16 ↗ recurs that would refer to something

8:18 ↗ that

8:19 ↗ transpired in September or earlier how

8:23 ↗ would you define several without having

8:27 ↗ the documents in front of the email I

8:28 ↗ don't recall the exact date but it was

8:31 ↗ certainly before January it was in 2017

8:35 ↗ thank you do you recall your testimony

8:42 ↗ on rebuttal concerning the Pentagon I'm

8:46 ↗ paraphrasing here for the lack of a time

8:49 ↗ to review the the transcript in any

8:51 ↗ depth the effect that the the city did

8:57 ↗ not to your view deviate at least

8:59 ↗ publicly from mr. Nevins yes email in

9:04 ↗ November 22nd 2017 could you rephrase

9:11 ↗ that sure do you recall your testimony

9:15 ↗ concerning the November 22nd 2017 email

9:19 ↗ from mr. Niven to miss Heim yes okay and

9:23 ↗ I believe and again I'm paraphrasing

9:25 ↗ that you characterized your

9:28 ↗ disappointment or surprise that in your

9:31 ↗ view the city had not publicly corrected

9:35 ↗ that statement at least in the near term

9:38 ↗ following that email exchange do you

9:41 ↗ recall that testimony yes okay if you

9:44 ↗ please refer to exhibit c7

9:58 ↗ and specifically the memorandum

10:01 ↗ contained on pages 2 & 3 of that exhibit

10:26 ↗ you please look at the chart or the

10:29 ↗ table titled table listing all pending

10:33 ↗ permits on page three of that exhibit

10:36 ↗ yes specifically the our right column

10:40 ↗ entitled vested by proposed language yes

10:43 ↗ okay how do you construe the the text

10:47 ↗ that is set forth there so if you look

10:51 ↗ on page one paragraph two second

10:57 ↗ sentence of that paragraph says or

11:02 ↗ actually read the whole paragraph by way

11:04 ↗ of introduction some pending pyramids

11:07 ↗ permits are or could be vested by state

11:10 ↗ law preliminary platshorn agreements

11:13 ↗ building permit at a minimum these would

11:16 ↗ have to be submitted and deemed

11:18 ↗ completed prior to the replacement

11:19 ↗ regulations going into effect so was our

11:26 ↗ understanding as the permits were

11:28 ↗ submitted under the development

11:31 ↗ agreement that were deemed complete

11:33 ↗ prior to the regulations going into

11:35 ↗ effect were vested but the the column

11:40 ↗ that I referred you to on page three

11:42 ↗ specifically indicates that does it not

11:45 ↗ that the applications that shelter had

11:49 ↗ filed were quote vested proposed

11:53 ↗ language yes and at that the time that

11:56 ↗ this memo was written was at the same

11:59 ↗ time that director Nevins wrote his memo

12:04 ↗ and made his presentation to Landon

12:07 ↗ Shore where he said that the staff

12:11 ↗ recommended proposed language vested

12:16 ↗ permits under the development agreement

12:19 ↗ that had complete applications and that

12:21 ↗ in particular SDP permits would be

12:25 ↗ vested for a term of three years after

12:28 ↗ those permits were issued so that's

12:32 ↗ where it says this here at the time this

12:36 ↗ was said it was absolutely consistent

12:38 ↗ with west

12:39 ↗ and our understanding of vesting law did

12:41 ↗ you testify or otherwise address the the

12:44 ↗ City Council's land and Shore Committee

12:46 ↗ at that meeting I did and did that

12:48 ↗ meeting occur in December of 2017 I I

12:53 ↗ can't say for sure I believe it was

12:55 ↗ early to say it was went to several

12:58 ↗ meetings and I testified more than one

13:00 ↗ so investing wine I believe in no event

13:05 ↗ I want to say it was November 21st and I

13:07 ↗ believe there was another one December

13:09 ↗ 8th I can't recall there were also

13:13 ↗ meetings at Landon Shore and in front of

13:16 ↗ the council so without having some

13:20 ↗ chronology in front of me I'm not

13:21 ↗ exactly sure which was which but I did

13:23 ↗ testify on vesting around that time but

13:26 ↗ you would agree wouldn't you mr. maleeni

13:29 ↗ that your testimony to the council

13:31 ↗ occurred after the November 22nd 2017

13:35 ↗ email colloquy between mr. Niven and and

13:37 ↗ miss Loman correct I can't say for sure

13:41 ↗ when I took I can't say what meeting was

13:43 ↗ Landon Shore and what was counsel and I

13:46 ↗ think that I testified on November 21st

13:48 ↗ I think there was a meeting that night

13:51 ↗ and then I also think there was one

13:52 ↗ later but I'm again I'm not sure at

13:57 ↗ those meetings or at one of those

13:59 ↗ meetings mr. maleeni was there another

14:01 ↗ attorney who provided argument to the

14:04 ↗ City Council or the land and Shore

14:06 ↗ committee that was contrary to your

14:08 ↗ position on vesting this rich hill came

14:13 ↗ he was representing the owner of the

14:16 ↗ retail establishment across the street

14:19 ↗ and they were trying to block any

14:24 ↗ development shelters property that would

14:27 ↗ include a retail component yes did mr.

14:29 ↗ Hills argument in position regarding the

14:33 ↗ West main issue comport with yours or

14:35 ↗ was it different it was different could

14:38 ↗ you describe the difference

14:41 ↗ [Laughter]

14:45 ↗ did mr. Hill have some personal

14:49 ↗ familiarity with the West Maine case he

14:51 ↗ was one of the attorneys when he was at

14:53 ↗ foster peper who had argued the case and

14:56 ↗ his position as expressed to the City

14:59 ↗ Council was different than yours that's

15:01 ↗ correct

15:02 ↗ thank you do you recall your testimony

15:09 ↗ regarding the the alleged vesting of

15:12 ↗ pre-application materials under the

15:14 ↗ development agreement as do your

15:20 ↗ understanding mr. maleeni does the 1996

15:22 ↗ Issaquah highlands development agreement

15:24 ↗ contain a provision that specifically

15:27 ↗ purports to vest a pre-application

15:29 ↗ submittal my understanding of the

15:34 ↗ development agreement is that the

15:36 ↗ definitions in section 6 speak in terms

15:40 ↗ of implementing approvals and it's there

15:46 ↗ sometimes it talks about implementing

15:48 ↗ approvals and in other places it talks I

15:52 ↗ believe in 3.23 about applications for

15:55 ↗ implementing approvals and so that's my

15:59 ↗ understanding of the terms that were

16:01 ↗ used in the development does the

16:04 ↗ agreement to your knowledge use the term

16:06 ↗ pre-application in any context yes

16:10 ↗ does it use it in the term in in the

16:12 ↗ context of defining any vested rights or

16:16 ↗ vesting protection for a pre-application

16:18 ↗ submittal so the my understanding of the

16:22 ↗ use of the term is in appendix L on the

16:26 ↗ chart on page 3 of Appendix L it speaks

16:29 ↗ of a possibility of an optional

16:33 ↗ pre-application meeting the issue was

16:37 ↗ how the what the city considered an

16:43 ↗ application for an implementing approval

16:45 ↗ and which is why I discussed that or I

16:56 ↗ said that

16:58 ↗ it was an email that I said but it could

17:00 ↗ have been a letter to director Niven in

17:04 ↗ the early part of December and that was

17:07 ↗ one where he said he would send it to

17:08 ↗ mr. Haney and let us know and the reason

17:10 ↗ was I wanted to confirm that because

17:17 ↗ there was different terminology being

17:19 ↗ used that the vesting that he confirmed

17:23 ↗ shelter had obtained with its pre

17:26 ↗ applications applied to the implementing

17:30 ↗ approvals under the development and so

17:35 ↗ he said if there was a problem with any

17:36 ↗ of that or two words that effect that

17:38 ↗ you know he'd send it on to mr. Haney

17:40 ↗ and if there was any issue with that he

17:42 ↗ he'd let us know and we never heard that

17:44 ↗ mr. maleeni did you construe a mr.

17:48 ↗ Nivens November 22nd 2017 email as a

17:52 ↗ final appealable decision no I did not

18:00 ↗ construe it as a final appealable

18:01 ↗ decision I just construed it as

18:05 ↗ confirming that we were vested I'd like

18:07 ↗ to introduce a new exhibit this is I

18:09 ↗ believe C 66

18:21 ↗ after you've had a chance to review that

18:23 ↗ document mr. maleeni could you please

18:25 ↗ describe it and identify it for the

18:27 ↗ record

19:22 ↗ though this is a January 10th 2018 email

19:29 ↗ from miss Loman

19:31 ↗ - director Niven and myself okay could

19:34 ↗ you please describe the content and

19:36 ↗ context of that email I believe that I'm

19:43 ↗ just going off memory here so but I

19:47 ↗ believe that the context was that

19:53 ↗ shelter had received rejections of its

19:59 ↗ applications based on the fact that the

20:04 ↗ preliminary plat that it had applied for

20:08 ↗ had not been not been approved yet by

20:14 ↗ the city was this email communication

20:19 ↗ between yourself and and miss Loman and

20:22 ↗ mr. Niven something that ultimately

20:25 ↗ culminated in the March 15 2008 teen

20:28 ↗ letter agreement that you testified to

20:31 ↗ it had something to do with it yes I

20:34 ↗ mean it was an explanation I to go step

20:39 ↗ take a step back I couldn't understand

20:41 ↗ and I frankly still can't understand why

20:45 ↗ the preliminary plan had to be finalized

20:50 ↗ or a final plat had to be recorded

20:53 ↗ before the city could accept an

20:57 ↗ application or a site development permit

21:00 ↗ because in my mind there are application

21:05 ↗ criteria that are set out in the city

21:07 ↗ code and if you meet the application

21:11 ↗ criteria by submitting the materials

21:13 ↗ that have been requested it should be a

21:16 ↗ ministerial decision to deem the permit

21:20 ↗ complete and so the whole I what these

21:24 ↗ things seem to be doing in my mind are

21:28 ↗ talking about the city's review for

21:31 ↗ instance concerns about property lines

21:33 ↗ or easements or row

21:35 ↗ that has to do with whether or not the

21:38 ↗ permit should ultimately issue not

21:41 ↗ whether or not a complete application

21:43 ↗ has been submitted Oh

21:47 ↗ given that we were at an impasse and we

21:49 ↗ had gotten 9 rejection letters most of

21:52 ↗ which were based on this idea that

21:57 ↗ somehow you had to have some final

21:59 ↗ action on a planet the idea was well how

22:05 ↗ can we work around that and so that's

22:07 ↗ what this email is part of okay and I

22:11 ↗ respectfully direct your attention to

22:13 ↗ the first bullet point of missile omens

22:16 ↗ January 10th 2018 response to yourself

22:22 ↗ and mr. Niven did you please read that

22:25 ↗ aloud the one that starts the planet yes

22:28 ↗ please Platt is the time that the city

22:32 ↗ and applicant would work through any

22:34 ↗ road improvements some roads are being

22:38 ↗ built by polygons we need to confirm

22:41 ↗ that the roads are correctly based on

22:43 ↗ shelters traffic analysis also there are

22:47 ↗ roads that polygon isn't building slash

22:50 ↗ analyzing such as discovery and an area

22:55 ↗ of roadway easement that would be

22:57 ↗ relinquished back to a retail block this

23:02 ↗ isn't just a risk to shelter by pursuing

23:05 ↗ SDPs before we have resolved roads we

23:09 ↗ may be wasting staffs review time on

23:12 ↗ SDPs whose partial shapes may be altered

23:16 ↗ by the plat thank you did you provide a

23:19 ↗ response and writing back to mrs. Lowman

23:21 ↗ to this January 10th email

23:23 ↗ I don't recall and I'm paraphrasing and

23:30 ↗ doing the best I can to quote the the

23:33 ↗ specific statement that you made but I

23:35 ↗ believe it was something along the lines

23:36 ↗ of a complete permit application

23:40 ↗ determination is a ministerial decision

23:43 ↗ based on a checklist do you recall your

23:46 ↗ testimony to that effect

23:48 ↗ I think I just said it okay okay doing

23:51 ↗ my best to write that down to your

23:54 ↗ understanding and knowledge mr. maleeni

23:56 ↗ does the 1996 Issaquah Islands

23:59 ↗ development agreement contain an

24:01 ↗ applicable checklist for this purpose in

24:04 ↗ regards to determining the completeness

24:07 ↗ for an ASD p or st p application i'm not

24:12 ↗ sure whether it does or not i from I'm

24:15 ↗ not aware trying to think I'm it has

24:19 ↗ appendix L in it but I don't recall if

24:24 ↗ that had specific checklist items in it

24:27 ↗ or not in your reference then to a

24:30 ↗ ministerial decision based on a

24:32 ↗ checklist what checklist would he be

24:34 ↗ referring to well my understanding of

24:38 ↗ vesting law is that the local

24:44 ↗ jurisdiction has the ability to

24:48 ↗ determine the criteria for a complete

24:52 ↗ application so long as it doesn't put a

24:55 ↗ bunch of reconditioning hoops on an

25:00 ↗ applicant that would otherwise delay the

25:02 ↗ vesting and so would and I know that the

25:11 ↗ Issaquah code has visions in it that say

25:16 ↗ that that have the requirements for a

25:20 ↗ complete application do you know and or

25:25 ↗ do you have a position on which document

25:28 ↗ would apply whether it was the code or

25:29 ↗ the development agreement in providing

25:32 ↗ that checklist quote-unquote no as I

25:36 ↗ said I'm not sure if there's one in the

25:39 ↗ development agreement or if the default

25:44 ↗ was to rely on the code the shelters

25:50 ↗ consultants the people who put the

25:52 ↗ application packets together or the ones

25:56 ↗ who address that so I didn't have direct

26:00 ↗ knowledge of which form was being used

26:02 ↗ and who at shelter would have done that

26:04 ↗ would put that together I'm not exactly

26:08 ↗ sure I imagine it would have been part

26:13 ↗ of their development team working with

26:14 ↗ their outside consultants but I don't

26:17 ↗ know myself who that person would have

26:19 ↗ been thank you no further questions I

26:30 ↗ have just one or two questions

26:34 ↗ clarifying questions and Patrick you

26:38 ↗ were asked about any other instances

26:42 ↗ where and I'm gonna paraphrase but mr.

26:44 ↗ Lall had asked you about instances where

26:46 ↗ he'd been disappointed in the behavior

26:49 ↗ that the city was engaging in with

26:50 ↗ respect to shelter versus other

26:52 ↗ applicants and you had named off sera

26:55 ↗ Hoey and then also John Haase where

26:58 ↗ there are others in the Issaquah

26:59 ↗ Highlands that in your opinion were

27:01 ↗ being treated differently than shelter

27:03 ↗ polygon is another example

27:20 ↗ you were also asked about the November

27:22 ↗ 21st email exchange and director Nivens

27:26 ↗ acknowledgement of yes that shelters pre

27:29 ↗ applications were vested was there any

27:32 ↗ question in your mind when you receive

27:33 ↗ that email that director Niven intended

27:36 ↗ for shelters applications to be vested

27:39 ↗ oh that's mean his answer is one word

27:43 ↗ and it's hard to touch an unequivocal

27:48 ↗ yes as anything other than your vested

27:51 ↗ particularly given the specific question

27:55 ↗ that Miss hime had asked are we vested

27:59 ↗ thank you no further questions okay so I

28:04 ↗ think you have additional witness we do

28:07 ↗ and we're gonna call miss hi I'm next

28:09 ↗ and I'm happy to begin or we've only

28:12 ↗ been going for about half an hour so

28:13 ↗ keep it going happy to

29:04 ↗ this time I think you'll need to turn

29:07 ↗ that microphone on this one's on I think

29:10 ↗ yeah

29:23 ↗ do we need to make sure she's under oath

29:26 ↗ yes I can verify it

29:29 ↗ this time you've joined us before for

29:30 ↗ your testimony are you still under oath

29:32 ↗ testifying today I am thank you I'd

29:38 ↗ actually like to start since it's fresh

29:40 ↗ in our minds with the exhibit that the

29:42 ↗ city just introduced c66

29:45 ↗ there's a bullet point one two three

29:50 ↗ bullet points down there were miss

29:52 ↗ sloman rights I've communicated in the

29:55 ↗ pre-op meeting separately with Eric and

29:56 ↗ Tia the problem described above Tia had

29:59 ↗ indicated that there wasn't an

30:00 ↗ expectation of reviewing the STPs until

30:02 ↗ the plat was complete however that was

30:05 ↗ not what was written in the STP recent

30:07 ↗ middle if I had been there I would have

30:08 ↗ been more comfortable with the SD piece

30:10 ↗ is that an accurate statement in your

30:12 ↗ recollection we did have a conversation

30:17 ↗ about the order in which permits would

30:20 ↗ be reviewed and and that's accurate in

30:24 ↗ that it states that we didn't expect the

30:27 ↗ SDPs to be reviewed before the plat

30:29 ↗ however what it leaves out is that we

30:32 ↗ did expect the plat to be reviewed and

30:34 ↗ that didn't happen and so that was what

30:38 ↗ was causing this whole issue that miss

30:40 ↗ Loman was raising about the plat the

30:43 ↗ preliminary plat having not been

30:45 ↗ approved yet so let's talk a little bit

30:50 ↗ about the plat do you recall the

30:53 ↗ testimony from jean lin and director

30:56 ↗ Niven about the statement that shelter

30:58 ↗ included on the plat yes and if you

31:01 ↗ could turn to exhibit s

31:03 ↗ 50 e in your exhibit binder can you

31:52 ↗ describe what's it s tte for us this

31:57 ↗ appears to be our preliminary plot

32:01 ↗ submit all and there's some so many tiny

32:04 ↗ little language there that director

32:07 ↗ Nevin talked about as well as did Miss

32:08 ↗ Lin in their testimony do you who

32:13 ↗ drafted the language that they were

32:14 ↗ referring to yes so I think you're

32:21 ↗ referring to number seven under the

32:23 ↗ notes and I drafted that language did

32:31 ↗ you base it on anything when you were

32:33 ↗ drafting that language I did that

32:35 ↗ language comes directly from the letter

32:38 ↗ that mr. Niven wrote on March 27 2017

32:42 ↗ regarding vesting and how building

32:46 ↗ permits site work permits and SDPs vest

32:50 ↗ through Platts I think but just to

32:54 ↗ confirm it could you turn to s 13 in

32:57 ↗ that same binder please

33:10 ↗ yes is that the letter that you were

33:12 ↗ referring to yes it is and so what what

33:16 ↗ language were you looking at that you

33:18 ↗ were mirroring in the application so in

33:23 ↗ part in the I guess it's the second

33:26 ↗ paragraph the second sentence reads the

33:29 ↗ final plot and building permits will be

33:31 ↗ processed based on the vested to zoning

33:34 ↗ and development standards under the

33:35 ↗ Issaquah Highlands development agreement

33:37 ↗ irrespective of whether the development

33:40 ↗ agreement terminates so long as the

33:41 ↗ final plat is submitted within five

33:44 ↗ years of the preliminary plat approval

33:48 ↗ so did you take that language and

33:51 ↗ essentially rework it on the plantation

33:54 ↗ correct that language and and I think

33:57 ↗ some other language and concepts that

34:00 ↗ are in in this in this letter in your

34:05 ↗ work in the development field

34:08 ↗ how many plot applications do you think

34:10 ↗ you've seen hundreds is it unusual for

34:14 ↗ there to be general notes on a plat that

34:16 ↗ addressed the regulations that apply to

34:18 ↗ them no I mean the general notes section

34:21 ↗ of a plaid rests different things

34:23 ↗ depending on the jurisdiction and and

34:27 ↗ the regulations and the preparer and the

34:29 ↗ situation I mean that's the the place

34:31 ↗ where you put specific things so it's

34:33 ↗ not uncommon at all for there to be

34:36 ↗ something specific about how

34:38 ↗ applications implementing a plat would

34:40 ↗ be reviewed or considered you could turn

34:48 ↗ next now to Exhibit C 49 please

35:10 ↗ okay the document at c49

35:15 ↗ this is an email to me from former mayor

35:22 ↗ fred butler

35:59 ↗ I think woman who passed this one for

36:00 ↗ the moment because we've got the wrong

36:02 ↗ exhibit number here so we'll come back

36:03 ↗ to this one in just a second

36:07 ↗ did you hear miss Loman testifying about

36:10 ↗ the distinction between short plots and

36:12 ↗ preliminary plots I did

36:14 ↗ why did shelter prepare preliminary plot

36:17 ↗ application we prepared a preliminary

36:21 ↗ application at the direction of the city

36:25 ↗ I think both mr. Mulaney and myself have

36:30 ↗ already testified on this that we had

36:32 ↗ initially come in with the idea that we

36:35 ↗ would do a binding site plan or a

36:37 ↗ binding site plan and a plot and at our

36:40 ↗ collaborative meeting with the city the

36:44 ↗ city instructed us to do just the plot

36:48 ↗ application and specifically went into

36:51 ↗ detail about how the process would work

36:53 ↗ as far as the sequence of permits and

36:57 ↗ how that kept the Houston worked and

37:01 ↗ carried through from plat to SDP to

37:05 ↗ building permit when you submit it or

37:08 ↗ when you were first discussing the plant

37:10 ↗ application even prior to submitting

37:12 ↗ what did the city tell you about the

37:14 ↗ complexity of your plot oh they always

37:17 ↗ maintained that it was a very simple

37:19 ↗ plot there really was was not much to it

37:24 ↗ there was utilities are already there

37:27 ↗ and to the site so you're not dealing

37:28 ↗ with any complexities in that regard the

37:31 ↗ right of ways are are large really

37:33 ↗ already constructed with the exception

37:36 ↗ of two small segments or two yeah two

37:40 ↗ small segments of road that will need to

37:42 ↗ be built out with our plat federal and a

37:46 ↗ section of eight do you recall whether

37:50 ↗ the city told you anything about how

37:52 ↗ many rounds of review the city expected

37:54 ↗ to have on your plot allocation they

37:57 ↗ initially told us that they didn't

37:59 ↗ expect to have any round of comments

38:01 ↗ that they thought that they would come

38:03 ↗ back directly with conditions and that

38:06 ↗ we would review conditions and then move

38:08 ↗ forward through the approval process and

38:10 ↗ I think we saw that

38:13 ↗ that was referenced in Miss Lin's notes

38:16 ↗ that are already in the record you

38:22 ↗ mentioned that in your opinion this is a

38:24 ↗ fairly simple plan

38:26 ↗ it's an infill piece the right of ways

38:28 ↗ are mostly constructed how does that

38:30 ↗ compare to polygons plot that we've been

38:32 ↗ talking quite a bit about in this

38:34 ↗ hearing so with with respect to the

38:40 ↗ polygons single-family north platte i

38:43 ↗ would say that that plat is is quite a

38:45 ↗ bit more complex and controversial it

38:48 ↗ had it involved closing down an existing

38:53 ↗ street and turning it into I think what

38:55 ↗ they're calling a linear park so that in

39:00 ↗ its self added a level of complexity and

39:04 ↗ and controversy that definitely wasn't

39:07 ↗ present with our plat

39:10 ↗ did you hear director Niven testify

39:13 ↗ about the alleged complexities of the

39:15 ↗ SDP application submitted by shelter yes

39:20 ↗ did you hear any explanation of why they

39:23 ↗ were complex no I thought he struggled

39:26 ↗ to to try to articulate something and I

39:28 ↗ never heard a reason given I thought it

39:31 ↗ was a particularly odd statement for him

39:33 ↗ to be making given that they really one

39:38 ↗ haven't identified anything particularly

39:40 ↗ complex except for the fact that they

39:43 ↗ were trying to change the regulations

39:45 ↗ that applied to the SDPs midway through

39:48 ↗ the process beyond that I haven't heard

39:51 ↗ anything articulated as a basis for why

39:54 ↗ there were work complex plus it based on

39:58 ↗ the staff reports it looks and the

40:00 ↗ testimony that we've heard it looks like

40:02 ↗ very little to no review has actually

40:05 ↗ been done on our SDP applications so all

40:08 ↗ of the the insufficiency letters that

40:11 ↗ we've been talking about and that are in

40:12 ↗ the record now is that considered permit

40:15 ↗ reviewer is that application review what

40:17 ↗ was the city doing at that point

40:20 ↗ well they were writing the letter as if

40:23 ↗ it were

40:25 ↗ a completeness review which would have

40:28 ↗ been the appropriate review to be doing

40:31 ↗ at that point in time however the issues

40:34 ↗ that they were raising included many

40:36 ↗ that really are project level reviews

40:40 ↗ and in your experience what's the

40:43 ↗ difference between and I'm just talking

40:45 ↗ generally between a completeness review

40:48 ↗ versus a project level review so a

40:51 ↗ completeness review checks for all of

40:53 ↗ the required parts and pieces of an

40:55 ↗ application so that you make sure that

40:57 ↗ you have all of the parts that the city

41:01 ↗ needs to at least commence their their

41:03 ↗ review of the permit and how does that

41:07 ↗ compare to project level review well the

41:10 ↗ project level review is when they're

41:13 ↗ actually analyzing all of the the parts

41:16 ↗ that are there so an example of this

41:21 ↗ would be the the issue that miss Loman

41:25 ↗ raised about an easement that she said

41:27 ↗ was going through a building to me that

41:32 ↗ is a very obvious project level review

41:37 ↗ whereas the completeness review would

41:39 ↗ say does the Platt or site plan show the

41:44 ↗ easements are is the title report

41:47 ↗ included are the exception copies of the

41:50 ↗ exceptions to the title report available

41:52 ↗ or included and it wouldn't get into how

41:56 ↗ a particular easement may or may not

41:58 ↗ impact a potential development and so

42:06 ↗ from what you were saying in terms of

42:08 ↗ the order of operations of those two

42:09 ↗ things which comes first and which comes

42:11 ↗ second completeness review comes first

42:14 ↗ once the application is deemed complete

42:16 ↗ then they start the project level review

42:21 ↗ there's the December 2017 Platts the

42:25 ↗ middle that we've heard about does it

42:26 ↗ reference the SDPs it does it shows the

42:31 ↗ SDP footprints and when we submitted the

42:36 ↗ that supp

42:38 ↗ moment we did it in two ways we went

42:40 ↗ into my building permit calm which is

42:43 ↗ the preferred submission method for the

42:47 ↗ city and we uploaded it into our file

42:50 ↗ there we also wanted to make sure that

42:52 ↗ our project reviewer knew that we had

42:55 ↗ submitted some additional materials so

42:57 ↗ we emailed jean lin who was our planner

43:00 ↗ and explained that we had uploaded the

43:04 ↗ materials we also attached him to that

43:05 ↗ email and explained what they were doing

43:07 ↗ in that they were showing the SDP

43:11 ↗ footprint so that they could see how the

43:13 ↗ SDP is in the plat or consistent

43:16 ↗ did you hear miss lemons testimony

43:18 ↗ suggesting that shelters should have

43:19 ↗ told her when the Supplemental materials

43:21 ↗ were submitted in December of 2017 I did

43:24 ↗ and I thought that was strange because

43:27 ↗ she wasn't our reviewer and we did

43:28 ↗ submit we did go beyond what would have

43:31 ↗ been required and notify our planner

43:36 ↗ directly miss lemon is miss Lynn's boss

43:40 ↗ so if they don't communicate with each

43:42 ↗ other that seems like an internal City

43:45 ↗ issue and not something that we would

43:46 ↗ have needed to correct for is there

43:49 ↗ anything that you're aware of that

43:50 ↗ prohibits an applicant in Issaquah from

43:53 ↗ providing supplementary materials to the

43:54 ↗ city no there's nothing in code that I'm

43:57 ↗ aware of and in fact I think it would be

44:00 ↗ a highly unusual case where an

44:03 ↗ application that goes through review

44:09 ↗ doesn't submit some sort of additional

44:11 ↗ materials at some point that's the

44:15 ↗ normal course of reviewing and revising

44:19 ↗ and eventually getting approval of an

44:22 ↗ application

44:27 ↗ did you hear miss lemons testimony about

44:29 ↗ the timing and comments on shelter spot

44:31 ↗ application yes in your view was her

44:36 ↗ testimony accurate no I I was pretty

44:41 ↗ shocked the first time I heard her

44:44 ↗ review to the plot as being out for

44:46 ↗ Corrections since March of 2018 that's

44:50 ↗ absolutely not an accurate way to

44:53 ↗ describe the state of the platen we've

44:59 ↗ walked through the plant application and

45:01 ↗ your direct testimony and so we don't

45:03 ↗ need to go in excruciating detail into

45:05 ↗ every step along the way but can you

45:07 ↗ describe for us what at a high level

45:10 ↗ what the sequencing the sequencing was

45:12 ↗ of the platt beginning back in January

45:13 ↗ of 2017 sure so in January of 2017 we

45:19 ↗ had a meeting with Keith in which we

45:24 ↗ told him that we were thinking of coming

45:26 ↗ in with a binding site plan for our

45:30 ↗ property and at that meeting he told us

45:34 ↗ that the first step would be the

45:36 ↗ collaborative meeting so we scheduled

45:42 ↗ the collaborative meeting at that

45:45 ↗ meeting as you've heard lots of

45:47 ↗ testimony on was where he encouraged us

45:51 ↗ not to do a binding site plan but just

45:52 ↗ to do a plat and described the how

45:56 ↗ vesting would work for the plat and the

46:02 ↗ the plot and the site development

46:05 ↗ permits and the building permits then as

46:10 ↗ soon as that meeting was done we started

46:12 ↗ so at that meeting they told they

46:13 ↗ explained to us Keith and Lucy explained

46:15 ↗ to us that the process in Issaquah was

46:18 ↗ the collaborative meeting then the

46:20 ↗ pre-op and then after pre-op you could

46:23 ↗ make your final submit all or your

46:26 ↗ fullest of middle rather so as soon as

46:30 ↗ the collaborative meeting was done we

46:32 ↗ started asking for a pre-op and our

46:36 ↗ consultant that was running point on the

46:38 ↗ was not getting a response from the city

46:41 ↗ after multiple attempts he finally got a

46:44 ↗ response that was well you can't

46:47 ↗ schedule your pre-op until you make your

46:50 ↗ preliminary land use application submit

46:53 ↗ all package once you submit that then

46:57 ↗ you can schedule the pre-op that would

46:59 ↗ be out four to six weeks so we

47:04 ↗ immediately started working on all of

47:07 ↗ the elements that were required for that

47:09 ↗ package and as I testified before that's

47:11 ↗ a pretty extensive package we submitted

47:14 ↗ that then we scheduled our pre-op going

47:19 ↗ from memory I want to say it was late

47:22 ↗ May by the time we got a pre-op meeting

47:26 ↗ and then pre-op notes came out in June

47:32 ↗ and we made our full Platts of metal on

47:37 ↗ August 1st immediately after that again

47:42 ↗ our consultant that was running point

47:44 ↗ was asking Miss Lin for a completeness

47:46 ↗ determination we were aware that the

47:50 ↗ development agreement required that the

47:52 ↗ city deem it complete after ten days if

47:54 ↗ they hadn't asked for anything else and

47:57 ↗ they hadn't so what we were trying to

47:59 ↗ get was a letter confirming that it

48:02 ↗ wasn't until October that Miss Lin

48:05 ↗ finally issued that completeness

48:08 ↗ determination on the plat it was back

48:10 ↗ dated to August 11th which is when it

48:13 ↗ would have automatically been deemed

48:14 ↗ complete in that interim period between

48:18 ↗ August 11th and October we had asked

48:21 ↗ multiple occasions she had promised it

48:22 ↗ soon or on several occasions then we we

48:29 ↗ started submitting site development

48:32 ↗ permit applications and we're getting

48:34 ↗ kicked out for for being incomplete

48:39 ↗ because the plat hadn't been processed

48:41 ↗ and he they were articulating some some

48:44 ↗ reasons that were related to not being

48:48 ↗ able to tell

48:50 ↗ how the plat and the SDPs would

48:52 ↗ potentially work together so we made a

48:56 ↗ supplementary submit in December of 2017

49:01 ↗ and then we didn't hear anything from

49:05 ↗ the city on the plat in January in

49:15 ↗ response to one of our submittals of the

49:19 ↗ medical office building SDP we got a

49:24 ↗ comment from the city engineering

49:28 ↗ reviewer that related to transportation

49:31 ↗ analysis and that led to a meeting with

49:36 ↗ the with Doug schlep from the city and

49:38 ↗ our transportation consultant and myself

49:41 ↗ and at that meeting

49:44 ↗ Doug schlep so the meeting came up in

49:47 ↗ the context of the SDP that he was

49:51 ↗ looking at for the medical office

49:52 ↗ building but in that meeting he decided

49:55 ↗ that he wanted to change the direction

49:57 ↗ Doug schlep wanted to change the

50:00 ↗ direction that the city had given to us

50:02 ↗ at our earlier meetings on our

50:04 ↗ preliminary plat as to how they would

50:06 ↗ analyze the traffic the transportation

50:11 ↗ analysis as between the plat and the

50:14 ↗ SDPs so that led to us submitting a

50:19 ↗ supplementary transportation memo on the

50:23 ↗ plat but it really wasn't coming out of

50:25 ↗ a plat comment as mrs. Lowman had

50:27 ↗ indicated it was a comment that came out

50:30 ↗ of the SDPs that led to a complete

50:33 ↗ change in the initial direction that

50:35 ↗ they had given us but still we did it we

50:37 ↗ did it as quickly as we could we

50:39 ↗ submitted it in February still nothing

50:41 ↗ on the plat until just a few days before

50:44 ↗ the replacement regulations were adopted

50:47 ↗ we got notice that a that the city had

50:52 ↗ uploaded into my building permit com the

50:55 ↗ plat with some markups on it

50:59 ↗ so we me and our consultant team

51:03 ↗ - at the comments and decided that we

51:06 ↗ needed some further clarifications from

51:08 ↗ the city so we requested a meeting which

51:11 ↗ I believe we had right at the end of

51:13 ↗ March during that meeting we went

51:18 ↗ through various things we asked if the

51:21 ↗ city would be providing us notes from

51:23 ↗ the meeting as would be normal in a you

51:26 ↗ know in certain circumstances the city

51:29 ↗ said no it's your responsibility to take

51:31 ↗ notes and do what you need to do after

51:34 ↗ this meeting we said great we left that

51:36 ↗ meeting and we started working on

51:39 ↗ revising our plat then a couple weeks

51:42 ↗ later in April we received a follow-up

51:45 ↗ email from I believe it came from Miss

51:48 ↗ Lin that said it was it was follow up on

51:53 ↗ the the meeting that we had had and it

51:55 ↗ gave a new set of comments on the plat

51:58 ↗ which were inconsistent with the

52:00 ↗ previous comments and the meeting that

52:03 ↗ we had had so we were stuck we couldn't

52:06 ↗ do anything at that point so we wrote an

52:10 ↗ email back to the city saying you know

52:14 ↗ here here's that here are the problems

52:16 ↗ that we're running into based on the

52:17 ↗ feedback that you've given us and we

52:21 ↗ need clarification and we need answers

52:23 ↗ you know so that we can resubmit that

52:26 ↗ letter went out in April and we followed

52:30 ↗ up multiple times over the months that

52:32 ↗ followed and we didn't get any response

52:35 ↗ from the city other than promises that

52:38 ↗ didn't end up being kept to give us a

52:40 ↗ response soon until the end of August of

52:45 ↗ 2018 at that point the it wasn't it

52:51 ↗ still wasn't clear and we needed more

52:53 ↗ information we responded back I think in

52:58 ↗ October in early October and then again

53:03 ↗ didn't receive a response until the end

53:07 ↗ of December I believe and then we

53:11 ↗ resubmitted right at the beginning of

53:13 ↗ March

53:15 ↗ and then didn't hear anything I don't

53:21 ↗ think until we got Miss Loehmann's April

53:24 ↗ fourth or fifth letter which we've heard

53:29 ↗ testimony on here and then her April

53:30 ↗ 15th letter when shelter goes through

53:37 ↗ the process of preparing a plat risa

53:40 ↗ middle what's the ballpark of how much

53:44 ↗ that might cost you to go through that

53:46 ↗ process obviously it depends on on the

53:51 ↗ extent of the comments but you're

53:53 ↗ talking about having a full team of

53:55 ↗ consultants working on something so I

53:59 ↗ would say typically $20,000 $30,000

54:04 ↗ depending on what they're asking us to

54:06 ↗ do if you're making revisions to a plat

54:08 ↗ you've got your engineers you've got

54:10 ↗ your transportation engineers you've got

54:12 ↗ your surveyors so it's it's not a small

54:17 ↗ undertaking is it an undertaking that

54:20 ↗ you would generally undertake without

54:24 ↗ clarity in terms of what you needed to

54:26 ↗ do no I mean not only would it not make

54:30 ↗ sense to do that but we didn't have

54:33 ↗ clarity on what regulations were the

54:37 ↗ city was trying to apply based on the

54:39 ↗ comments that they had given us they

54:40 ↗ they were not coming from the code which

54:44 ↗ was the development agreement so we

54:47 ↗ legitimately couldn't do anything until

54:50 ↗ you understand where the requirements

54:52 ↗ are coming from know what's your

54:55 ↗ understanding of where the processing

54:58 ↗ sits today

55:04 ↗ honestly I'm a bit confused we are told

55:08 ↗ that it's gonna go to Development

55:11 ↗ Commission for a hearing or no sorry not

55:16 ↗ a hearing for a community conference but

55:21 ↗ that that can't be scheduled until after

55:24 ↗ this hearing unless we want to put this

55:28 ↗ hearing on hold but then the letter also

55:30 ↗ said that they were going to continue to

55:33 ↗ process other permits while this hearing

55:35 ↗ was going so I honestly I'm I'm a bit

55:37 ↗ confused as to what what and when the

55:40 ↗ city plans to take its next steps the

55:45 ↗ city told shelter when its plat

55:47 ↗ application vests shelter to know

56:02 ↗ I'm about to need to pull up something

56:04 ↗ on the screen and we're about four

56:06 ↗ minutes away from 7:30 would you like to

56:08 ↗ take a break so I can do that during the

56:09 ↗ break and keep us moving why don't we

56:12 ↗ take a ten minute break then okay thank

56:14 ↗ you

56:27 ↗ you

1:07:40 ↗ okay we're back on the air and I'll call

1:07:43 ↗ the meeting back to order thank you so

1:07:46 ↗ we put in exhibit up on the screen s78

1:07:53 ↗ see ya we heard miss Sloman testify

1:07:56 ↗ about an issue regarding a public access

1:07:59 ↗ and utilities easement on the pot did

1:08:02 ↗ you hear that testimony I did can you

1:08:04 ↗ explain your understanding of that

1:08:07 ↗ utility easement and public access

1:08:09 ↗ easement

1:08:10 ↗ sure so there are three possible

1:08:14 ↗ easements that she could be referring to

1:08:16 ↗ and all are basically the same one would

1:08:21 ↗ be for the road segment that you can see

1:08:26 ↗ going through between Block E and block

1:08:28 ↗ D that's a continuation of sixth the

1:08:32 ↗ other would be between Block B and Block

1:08:36 ↗ C there's an extension there for Ellis

1:08:39 ↗ and then the last one is an Road section

1:08:44 ↗ which is actually for half of a road

1:08:46 ↗ because half of the road is on the

1:08:48 ↗ shelter property and half is on the

1:08:51 ↗ polygon property and it runs along the

1:08:53 ↗ backside of blocks B C D and E so it's

1:08:58 ↗ sort of that that's a thin strip that

1:09:02 ↗ you can see along the backsides of those

1:09:04 ↗ blocks so what those easements are they

1:09:08 ↗ were for roads that are constructed by

1:09:11 ↗ polygons as parts of their application

1:09:14 ↗ so the city required polygons to get

1:09:17 ↗ easements from us because we were the

1:09:19 ↗ property owner and those easements

1:09:21 ↗ provide that when the roads are complete

1:09:24 ↗ and accepted by the city that we would

1:09:26 ↗ dedicate the right-of-way to the city

1:09:29 ↗ upon certain conditions so I think the

1:09:36 ↗ issue that miss Lemmon might have been

1:09:38 ↗ referring to

1:09:39 ↗ and I'm guessing on this part is that

1:09:42 ↗ you can see on the ellis the ellis

1:09:46 ↗ section between blocks b and c how its

1:09:49 ↗ wider at

1:09:50 ↗ top and it gets skinnier well the

1:09:53 ↗ easement you can faintly see a dashed

1:09:55 ↗ line the easement actually went straight

1:09:57 ↗ because at the time we dedicated the

1:09:59 ↗ easement to them they didn't know

1:10:01 ↗ exactly what the road configuration

1:10:02 ↗ would look like so when the road gets

1:10:05 ↗ dedicated the the dedication will

1:10:07 ↗ actually follow what the roadway is in

1:10:10 ↗ reality and the rest of the easement

1:10:12 ↗ will will terminate all of this is

1:10:15 ↗ addressed in the easement document

1:10:17 ↗ itself which is why it's a very

1:10:19 ↗ appropriate question to raise in the

1:10:21 ↗ context of a project review and it's

1:10:24 ↗ also a very easy thing to answer by

1:10:26 ↗ looking at the document or instructing

1:10:29 ↗ the city to look at the document to call

1:10:31 ↗ that out as a basis for completeness or

1:10:35 ↗ incompleteness rather there's a bizarre

1:10:37 ↗ to me it doesn't make any sense let's

1:10:44 ↗ turn back to an exhibit that we were

1:10:46 ↗ gonna look at earlier but I gave you the

1:10:48 ↗ wrong number for it so what I meant to

1:10:50 ↗ say was C 41 and what was the the

1:10:55 ↗ document at C 41 so C 41 is a November

1:11:00 ↗ 22nd 2017 letter to Nick Abdul Noor at

1:11:06 ↗ polygon from mr. Niven the shelter

1:11:11 ↗ provided with a copy of this letter

1:11:12 ↗ prior to this hearing I think we got a

1:11:17 ↗ copy through a public records request

1:11:18 ↗ but I'm not in surely entirely sure of

1:11:21 ↗ the timing on that

1:11:22 ↗ do you recall receiving a copy of it

1:11:25 ↗ around the time that it was actually

1:11:26 ↗ sent to probably gone no I do not get a

1:11:31 ↗ copy at that point in time how does the

1:11:35 ↗ letter describe itself in terms of its

1:11:37 ↗ relation to the March 2017 vesting

1:11:40 ↗ determination from director Nibin so in

1:11:43 ↗ the first paragraph there's a sentence

1:11:45 ↗ that reads this letter is supplementary

1:11:48 ↗ to the correspondence of March 27 2017

1:11:51 ↗ which provided you with an

1:11:53 ↗ interpretation of vesting provisions

1:11:55 ↗ related to your West Ridge projects in

1:11:56 ↗ Issaquah Highlands does it overrule the

1:11:59 ↗ March 2017 determination it does not I

1:12:02 ↗ mean in fact that

1:12:04 ↗ that sentence indicates that it only

1:12:07 ↗ supplements it does not replace it in

1:12:10 ↗ any way or roofs in that in any way does

1:12:13 ↗ this letter affect polygons

1:12:16 ↗ single-family North Platte at all it

1:12:20 ↗ does not

1:12:38 ↗ let's turn now if you could open up in

1:12:41 ↗ that binder to exhibit c3 okay and

1:12:58 ↗ what's the document at c3 so this is the

1:13:03 ↗ email exchange between Keith Niven and

1:13:06 ↗ myself which started on November 21st

1:13:10 ↗ and the last exchange is on November

1:13:13 ↗ 22nd where he confirmed the vesting of

1:13:15 ↗ our applications was this email exchange

1:13:22 ↗ memorable yes it was significant because

1:13:26 ↗ it was where he confirmed in writing the

1:13:33 ↗ vesting of our applications which he had

1:13:35 ↗ been telling us verbally that

1:13:37 ↗ preliminary land use applications vest

1:13:40 ↗ in the city of Issaquah because of the

1:13:43 ↗ process that they impose requiring the

1:13:47 ↗ preliminary land use application did you

1:13:52 ↗ have to seek clarity from mr. Niven

1:13:54 ↗ within that email thread I did the first

1:13:57 ↗ time I asked the question he seemed to

1:14:01 ↗ try to dodge a direct answer by saying

1:14:06 ↗ only unless you have received a request

1:14:08 ↗ from city staff for additional

1:14:10 ↗ information these applications are

1:14:12 ↗ viewed as complete per the terms of the

1:14:14 ↗ development agreement which was only

1:14:16 ↗ half of the question I had asked I asked

1:14:18 ↗ if they were complete and vested to the

1:14:22 ↗ development standards in the development

1:14:24 ↗ agreement so I followed up and he gave a

1:14:27 ↗ very short and clear yes and from the

1:14:32 ↗ short and clear yes what was your

1:14:34 ↗ understanding of what that yes meant

1:14:36 ↗ that our applications were vested to the

1:14:38 ↗ development standards in the development

1:14:40 ↗ agreement and that our applications were

1:14:42 ↗ complete if you could turn to see for

1:14:45 ↗ the next exhibit please and what's it c4

1:14:50 ↗ so this is a continuation of that email

1:14:53 ↗ string but I am NOT on it this is goes

1:14:58 ↗ on to an email exchange between Keith

1:15:02 ↗ Nevin and Lucie Sloman from the April 16

1:15:13 ↗ 2019 hearing I'm at page 51 line 3 if

1:15:19 ↗ you could just read beginning at line 3

1:15:22 ↗ through 14 please for us okay question

1:15:26 ↗ was IH ifc courtesy copied or otherwise

1:15:29 ↗ forwarded a copy of that response from

1:15:31 ↗ you answer no question did you follow up

1:15:35 ↗ with IH IFC to clarify your statement or

1:15:38 ↗ your intent answer I don't think so

1:15:41 ↗ question can you explain why you didn't

1:15:44 ↗ follow up answer well I thought they

1:15:47 ↗ asked a very simple question which I

1:15:49 ↗ provided a very simple answer I felt

1:15:51 ↗ like if they didn't understand my answer

1:15:53 ↗ they should have asked for clarification

1:15:55 ↗ on what my intent was Jo me to keep

1:15:59 ↗ going

1:15:59 ↗ okay after you received the director

1:16:04 ↗ Nivens yes and his email did you have

1:16:06 ↗ any questions about what his intent was

1:16:11 ↗ no I don't think it can be more clear we

1:16:14 ↗ asked a question he answered half of it

1:16:16 ↗ I asked him to answer to confirm that

1:16:19 ↗ his answer was with respect to my whole

1:16:22 ↗ question and he confirmed that it was

1:16:24 ↗ was director in evidence response and

1:16:27 ↗ that email consistent with what he had

1:16:29 ↗ told you before about vesting yes I mean

1:16:32 ↗ this the whole reason that that email

1:16:34 ↗ string started was because we had had a

1:16:36 ↗ meeting and he had told us yet again

1:16:38 ↗ that the preliminary land use

1:16:40 ↗ applications best in the city of

1:16:42 ↗ Issaquah and so I asked in the meeting

1:16:45 ↗ are so does that mean that our

1:16:48 ↗ preliminary land use applications and

1:16:50 ↗ our plot application are vested to the

1:16:53 ↗ development agreement and he said yes

1:16:55 ↗ and I said okay can we get that in

1:16:57 ↗ writing and he said send me an email and

1:17:00 ↗ I will confirm so that's what started

1:17:01 ↗ this whole thing it wasn't just

1:17:03 ↗ something I decided to do on my own it

1:17:06 ↗ was follow-up to a conversation and at

1:17:08 ↗ his direction

1:17:34 ↗ okay and I'm gonna ask you to turn now

1:17:36 ↗ to in the same April 16th transcript

1:17:39 ↗ page 67 through 68 and starting with

1:17:47 ↗ lines 21 and ending on line 4 on 68 we

1:17:53 ↗ please read that into the record for us

1:17:54 ↗ and again this is director Newman's

1:17:57 ↗ testimony question did the outcome of

1:18:00 ↗ the landowners decision not to pursue

1:18:02 ↗ the college campus proposal in any way

1:18:04 ↗ affect or influence your subsequent

1:18:06 ↗ treatment of IH IFC's various project

1:18:09 ↗ applications answer no question

1:18:13 ↗ did you ever state to IH IFC that the

1:18:15 ↗ college campus decision would impact

1:18:17 ↗ your treatment of IH IFC's project

1:18:19 ↗ applications answer no is what director

1:18:26 ↗ Niven testified to in that hearing true

1:18:29 ↗ in your opinion no why not because I

1:18:34 ↗ attended multiple meetings with him

1:18:36 ↗ where he referenced the fact that we

1:18:39 ↗ didn't give them the college campus or

1:18:41 ↗ let them do the college campus as the

1:18:44 ↗ basis for our applications not being

1:18:47 ↗ received favorably you also saw that in

1:18:52 ↗ even in miss Linz notes when she was

1:18:55 ↗ brought up to speed on Issaquah

1:18:58 ↗ Highlands and our project in the the

1:19:01 ↗ section that references direction from

1:19:03 ↗ miss Loman she notes that we were

1:19:07 ↗ supposed to give them a college campus

1:19:08 ↗ and we backed out it was clearly

1:19:11 ↗ something that continued to be an issue

1:19:14 ↗ for city staff and our miss --lens note

1:19:18 ↗ so those the notes that are in the

1:19:20 ↗ record already at s 47 yes you could

1:19:25 ↗ turn to see 44 which should be a set of

1:19:29 ↗ meeting minutes

1:19:47 ↗ you turn to the September 21st 2016

1:19:50 ↗ meeting minutes in there please okay you

1:20:11 ↗ look on the third page of those notes

1:20:17 ↗ there's a bullet point that's about

1:20:20 ↗ halfway down the page a little more than

1:20:22 ↗ halfway down the page that starts with

1:20:23 ↗ staff does not and will not we please

1:20:26 ↗ read that bullet point for us staff does

1:20:29 ↗ not and will not support shelters

1:20:31 ↗ proposal for a mixed-use development in

1:20:33 ↗ part because shelter refused the city's

1:20:36 ↗ past overture to tie up shelters

1:20:38 ↗ property for five years while the city

1:20:40 ↗ attempted to market it to an

1:20:42 ↗ institutional user Keith mentioned that

1:20:44 ↗ had shelter made a different decision

1:20:46 ↗ the five year period would have almost

1:20:49 ↗ run by now and that staff might have

1:20:51 ↗ looked more favorably on shelters

1:20:52 ↗ proposal is this one of the instances

1:20:55 ↗ that you were referring to a moment ago

1:20:57 ↗ where director Niven had referred to the

1:21:00 ↗ past decision to not pursue an

1:21:03 ↗ institutional user yes were there other

1:21:05 ↗ instances yes do those also occur in

1:21:10 ↗ meetings that you had with director

1:21:11 ↗ Niven yes let's talk a little bit about

1:21:17 ↗ the replacement regulations

1:21:20 ↗ did you hear testimony from Keith Niven

1:21:23 ↗ and miss Loman that shelter was trying

1:21:25 ↗ to slow down the adoption of the

1:21:27 ↗ replacement regulations yes

1:21:29 ↗ is that true yes why because well for a

1:21:35 ↗ lot of reasons but because the

1:21:38 ↗ replacement regulations were not well

1:21:44 ↗ thought through they were being pushed

1:21:47 ↗ ahead

1:21:47 ↗ quickly in order to terminate the

1:21:49 ↗ development agreement they were not

1:21:53 ↗ being portrayed to the public accurately

1:21:57 ↗ they so for example the goals of the

1:22:04 ↗ replacement regulations were always

1:22:06 ↗ stated from before they were drafted

1:22:08 ↗ until after they were adopted as the

1:22:11 ↗ same even though the content of the

1:22:13 ↗ regulations had changed considerably the

1:22:16 ↗ most glaring example of that is that one

1:22:20 ↗ of the stated goals and there were only

1:22:22 ↗ three or four goals stated was that they

1:22:24 ↗ wanted to create as few non-conforming

1:22:27 ↗ uses as possible yet when it came down

1:22:30 ↗ to it when they decided to impose the

1:22:33 ↗ minimum fer they effectively created

1:22:37 ↗ non-conforming uses for almost every

1:22:39 ↗ non-residential use in Issaquah

1:22:41 ↗ highlands so either they should have

1:22:44 ↗ been acknowledging that they were

1:22:46 ↗ drastically failing at meeting their

1:22:48 ↗ goal or changed that goal but instead

1:22:52 ↗ they just kept saying the same things

1:22:54 ↗ regardless of what the replacement

1:22:55 ↗ regulations were actually doing so that

1:22:59 ↗ was another one of the reasons why we

1:23:01 ↗ asked them to slow down and consider

1:23:03 ↗ what they were doing I was the community

1:23:07 ↗ outreach for the replacement regulations

1:23:09 ↗ what was your perception of that well at

1:23:14 ↗ the point in time that we were asking

1:23:16 ↗ them to slow down we were telling them

1:23:18 ↗ that they owed it to the community to do

1:23:21 ↗ more outreach and really educate people

1:23:23 ↗ as to what they they were saying was the

1:23:26 ↗ original vision because we had done

1:23:28 ↗ extensive outreach to the community and

1:23:30 ↗ had really spent a lot of time there

1:23:32 ↗ talking to people and understanding what

1:23:35 ↗ people wanted in the commercial area of

1:23:40 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands and very few

1:23:43 ↗ people really were wanting huge

1:23:46 ↗ commercial buildings or very dense

1:23:49 ↗ development the majority of what we were

1:23:51 ↗ hearing were people who wanted more

1:23:54 ↗ restaurants more retail more

1:23:55 ↗ entertainment more uses that that they

1:23:59 ↗ and their families would

1:24:00 ↗ use but that feedback was was being

1:24:03 ↗ ignored we were trying to explain that

1:24:07 ↗ really this new zoning didn't allow

1:24:12 ↗ development of additional retail like

1:24:15 ↗ Grand Ridge Plaza which is what's up

1:24:19 ↗ there now so we throughout the process

1:24:23 ↗ we had objected actually from the very

1:24:25 ↗ beginning when they first outlined what

1:24:27 ↗ the process was going to be for adopting

1:24:29 ↗ the replacement regulations we had

1:24:32 ↗ written a letter to the mayor and

1:24:34 ↗ council saying that we did not think it

1:24:36 ↗ was a good idea for there to be a period

1:24:39 ↗ of months and months of time where only

1:24:41 ↗ staff was working on the replacement

1:24:43 ↗ regulations without any interaction with

1:24:46 ↗ the landowners and the community and our

1:24:50 ↗ our concern was ignored did it seem like

1:24:56 ↗ staff was trying to rush the council to

1:24:58 ↗ a decision yes at one point staff even

1:25:03 ↗ sent out an email to the interested

1:25:05 ↗ parties that said that action wouldn't

1:25:08 ↗ be taken at a particular meeting and I

1:25:10 ↗ can't recall the date on off the top of

1:25:12 ↗ my head but it would have probably been

1:25:13 ↗ in December so they sent out the the

1:25:19 ↗ email to the interested parties saying

1:25:20 ↗ it's going to be on the agenda but they

1:25:22 ↗ there won't be any action taken and then

1:25:24 ↗ later that week when the staff memo came

1:25:27 ↗ out it recommended that council take

1:25:30 ↗ action on that night when they had told

1:25:33 ↗ the public that it wouldn't take action

1:25:35 ↗ that night now council did not end up

1:25:36 ↗ taking action that night but still staff

1:25:39 ↗ had recommended it which seemed

1:25:40 ↗ disingenuous to me

1:25:43 ↗ so if shelter had vested applications or

1:25:47 ↗ has busted applications why did it care

1:25:50 ↗ about the replacement regulations why

1:25:52 ↗ was it so involved in that process

1:25:55 ↗ well one our applications don't cover

1:25:57 ↗ every inch of our property but two when

1:26:00 ↗ you own property you you do and you

1:26:04 ↗ should care what the zoning says it

1:26:08 ↗ seemed pretty basic to me

1:26:13 ↗ so did the adoption of the replacement

1:26:16 ↗ regulations matter for shelters busted

1:26:18 ↗ permits no not at all when you have a

1:26:20 ↗ vested application that is what it means

1:26:22 ↗ is that they are vested and are

1:26:24 ↗ considered under the regulations in

1:26:27 ↗ place at the time that they vest

1:26:29 ↗ meaning when regulations change your

1:26:32 ↗ application is still considered under

1:26:34 ↗ the old the old regulations any other

1:26:41 ↗ definition of vesting would actually not

1:26:43 ↗ be vesting at all so when the

1:26:47 ↗ replacement regulations the

1:26:48 ↗ recommendation ultimately changed in

1:26:50 ↗ early 2018

1:26:52 ↗ whydid shelter protest so loudly that

1:26:57 ↗ version of the replacement regulations

1:27:01 ↗ well I think we had been protesting that

1:27:04 ↗ as an option as long as it had been

1:27:07 ↗ proposed as an option so initially there

1:27:10 ↗ was a recommendation of vesting language

1:27:12 ↗ which was consistent with the West Main

1:27:15 ↗ versus Bellevue case and the process

1:27:17 ↗ that is equai uses of requiring a land

1:27:19 ↗ use permit prior to building permit in

1:27:23 ↗ either November or December they started

1:27:25 ↗ having this other option in the

1:27:27 ↗ background that was not the recommended

1:27:29 ↗ option but the you could do this other

1:27:32 ↗ thing we objected to it then - we said

1:27:36 ↗ we support the the recommended option in

1:27:40 ↗ November and by the way you should not

1:27:44 ↗ be considering this other option because

1:27:45 ↗ it's illegal and so why were we

1:27:48 ↗ objecting so loudly in when it changed

1:27:51 ↗ in February because it's an illegal

1:27:54 ↗ option that staff had put forward for

1:27:57 ↗ council to consider your mind is the

1:28:01 ↗ fact that staff had informed you about

1:28:05 ↗ this new option make it any less illegal

1:28:08 ↗ no that's a theme that we've heard in

1:28:12 ↗ the testimony a lot it was you know

1:28:13 ↗ didn't you know didn't they tell you

1:28:15 ↗ just because someone tells you that they

1:28:18 ↗ might do something illegal doesn't make

1:28:20 ↗ it legal it's it's sort of mind-boggling

1:28:23 ↗ to me that that's being put for

1:28:25 ↗ as a justification for taking behavior

1:28:28 ↗ taking action that's just not authorized

1:28:31 ↗ by law did you hear the testimony from

1:28:39 ↗ miss Loman and director Niven about the

1:28:42 ↗ recommendation in terms of the

1:28:43 ↗ replacement regulation language from

1:28:45 ↗ staff I did the recommendation from

1:28:51 ↗ staff for the vesting language change it

1:28:55 ↗ did so as I was just starting to

1:28:58 ↗ describe the the recommendation that

1:29:01 ↗ initially came out in I think October of

1:29:04 ↗ 2017 was to recognize vesting occurs at

1:29:08 ↗ complete preliminary land use

1:29:11 ↗ application and and that SDPs and other

1:29:15 ↗ land use permits best this was based on

1:29:21 ↗ the West Main versus Bellevue case the

1:29:23 ↗ staff explained that as they had many

1:29:25 ↗ times and it was based on the fact that

1:29:28 ↗ they require both a preliminary land use

1:29:31 ↗ application and a site development

1:29:33 ↗ permit application before you can submit

1:29:35 ↗ a building permit that was their

1:29:38 ↗ original recommendation it changed in

1:29:44 ↗ well it changed publicly in February of

1:29:48 ↗ 2018 I think certain parties knew that

1:29:52 ↗ it was changing earlier than that we did

1:29:55 ↗ not I thought that the testimony that

1:30:00 ↗ miss Loman and mr. Niven gave regarding

1:30:04 ↗ the staffs recommendation was not

1:30:08 ↗ accurate because they testified as if

1:30:12 ↗ the counsel went on their own and didn't

1:30:15 ↗ follow staff's recommendation when in

1:30:17 ↗ fact what happened was staff and the

1:30:20 ↗ administration changed their

1:30:21 ↗ recommendation and council acted to

1:30:24 ↗ adopt the staff and administration

1:30:27 ↗ recommendation

1:30:33 ↗ you mentioned that the recommendation

1:30:36 ↗ when it when the recommendation had

1:30:38 ↗ changed that that was possibly

1:30:40 ↗ communicated to others but not to

1:30:42 ↗ shelter who were some of the other

1:30:44 ↗ people that it was communicated to in

1:30:46 ↗ advance of that change it was

1:30:48 ↗ communicated to John Haas in advance

1:30:51 ↗ because they wanted to him to come in

1:30:55 ↗ and get his building permit application

1:30:58 ↗ in so that he could be vested it was

1:31:03 ↗ communicated to Sara Hoey at Issaquah

1:31:09 ↗ Highlands Community Association at some

1:31:12 ↗ point I believe in October she told me

1:31:15 ↗ that she had received a call from Miss

1:31:17 ↗ Sloman telling her that the vesting

1:31:22 ↗ provisions and the replacement

1:31:24 ↗ regulations were likely to change and

1:31:27 ↗ that she should submit a short plat as

1:31:31 ↗ soon as possible

1:31:33 ↗ miss Howie was asking me what I knew

1:31:36 ↗ about this because it seemed very odd to

1:31:38 ↗ her that she would need a short plat

1:31:41 ↗ when she had a small lot on which she

1:31:43 ↗ was trying to build a single building

1:31:45 ↗ she had no need for land division she

1:31:48 ↗ also had concern that you know it was a

1:31:50 ↗ huge additional cost to the Community

1:31:52 ↗ Association and that her consultants

1:31:55 ↗ couldn't act fast enough to get an

1:31:57 ↗ application in invested as Miss lemon

1:32:00 ↗ had suggested outside of the

1:32:05 ↗ conversation that you had with Miss

1:32:06 ↗ Holly or conversations that you had with

1:32:09 ↗ mr. Haas did the city directly tell you

1:32:12 ↗ anything about the replacement

1:32:13 ↗ regulation language changing No did you

1:32:20 ↗ hear director Nevins testimony that

1:32:22 ↗ shelter never supported the originally

1:32:24 ↗ proposed replacement regulations yes

1:32:26 ↗ that true no how did shelters support

1:32:31 ↗ them well I think his he was referring

1:32:34 ↗ to the the vesting language within the

1:32:37 ↗ replacement regulations and he said that

1:32:40 ↗ he didn't think we had ever supported it

1:32:41 ↗ we supported the initial recommending

1:32:44 ↗ both with verbal comments at public

1:32:50 ↗ meetings either at landon shore or at

1:32:51 ↗ council and also in letters and the

1:32:56 ↗ initial recommendation just so that were

1:32:57 ↗ clear in the record what had that

1:32:59 ↗ provided for it provided for vesting of

1:33:02 ↗ preliminary land use applications and

1:33:04 ↗ land use applications in addition to the

1:33:07 ↗ building permit plat and development

1:33:10 ↗ agreements so it recognized those things

1:33:12 ↗ explicitly correct

1:33:29 ↗ right if you could turn now to exhibit

1:33:31 ↗ c7 please this the chart let's see on

1:33:48 ↗ the third page of c7 he's brought up a

1:33:51 ↗ moment ago and the city's

1:33:53 ↗ cross-examination mr. maleeni can you

1:33:56 ↗ describe what this chart is it is a

1:34:01 ↗ chart that was included in a December 12

1:34:04 ↗ 2017 memo from mr. Nevada miss Loman to

1:34:07 ↗ the City Council and it lists all the

1:34:10 ↗ pending permits in Issaquah Islands yeah

1:34:15 ↗ let's see does it have Tallis in here

1:34:17 ↗ too or just I think it's just oh you

1:34:23 ↗ know it's got Tallis in here also

1:34:26 ↗ did you hear miss lemons testimony about

1:34:29 ↗ this table yes what was your reaction to

1:34:36 ↗ this table what do you think of it I

1:34:41 ↗ think that it's missing a column because

1:34:46 ↗ it acts as if there is no zoning or

1:34:50 ↗ regulations in place at the time that

1:34:53 ↗ the table was created which would have

1:34:56 ↗ vested a permit application so I think

1:35:00 ↗ there's a column missing that goes at

1:35:02 ↗ the end that says vested per the

1:35:03 ↗ development agreement and I think many

1:35:05 ↗ of the permits that are listed here

1:35:08 ↗ would have also been checked as being

1:35:12 ↗ vested by the development agreement so I

1:35:16 ↗ think it's an inaccurate depiction of

1:35:19 ↗ the state of affairs at that time

1:35:26 ↗ did this a chart of all of overtime yeah

1:35:31 ↗ I believe that that at various points in

1:35:33 ↗ time the city staff provided it to

1:35:37 ↗ Council

1:35:38 ↗ so that council was tracking the status

1:35:42 ↗ of permits as they progressed as the

1:35:44 ↗ time went on

1:35:45 ↗ so matatus was at the time the

1:35:51 ↗ replacement regulations were drafted as

1:35:54 ↗ soon as the staff got to got to a point

1:36:00 ↗ where all of the applications that were

1:36:03 ↗ not shelters we were attic had let me

1:36:09 ↗ restate that by the time the staff had

1:36:11 ↗ come up with a scheme to recognize

1:36:13 ↗ vesting for all of the permits that were

1:36:15 ↗ not shelters at that point the council

1:36:18 ↗ adopted the replacement regulations and

1:36:22 ↗ the staff then interpreted them as

1:36:25 ↗ removing the vested status of shelters

1:36:30 ↗ applications you could turn back to

1:36:35 ↗ Exhibit C 44 the meeting minutes again

1:36:38 ↗ please when you're there if you can go

1:36:50 ↗ to a meeting on February 15th last year

1:36:56 ↗ of 2018

1:37:08 ↗ okay give me just a second to catch up

1:37:12 ↗ with you here

1:37:19 ↗ can you describe first of all who was at

1:37:22 ↗ this meeting so this was a meeting with

1:37:27 ↗ Mayor Mary Lou Polly and Keith Niven and

1:37:30 ↗ Derek Street and myself why were you

1:37:35 ↗ meeting with the mayor so in early

1:37:39 ↗ February when the announcement came out

1:37:42 ↗ that they had changed the recommended

1:37:46 ↗ vesting language in the replacement

1:37:47 ↗ regulations it indicated that because it

1:37:50 ↗ was a decision made by the

1:37:52 ↗ administration that the mayor had

1:37:54 ↗ offered to discuss with anybody who had

1:37:57 ↗ concerns

1:37:58 ↗ so immediately upon receiving that email

1:38:02 ↗ we started asking for a mayor a meeting

1:38:05 ↗ with the mayor as did a few other

1:38:06 ↗ parties did the mayor indicate whose

1:38:09 ↗ decision it was to change the vesting

1:38:12 ↗ language that was being proposed in the

1:38:13 ↗ replacement regulations she did she

1:38:16 ↗ explained at that meeting that she had

1:38:19 ↗ asked mr. Niven to lay out all of the

1:38:22 ↗ options for vesting for her to choose

1:38:27 ↗ the one that she wanted and so that she

1:38:29 ↗ had made that choice did she have

1:38:34 ↗ anything to say about the West's main

1:38:35 ↗ problem I asked her that specifically I

1:38:38 ↗ said I asked you had a West's main

1:38:42 ↗ problem before which was why the vesting

1:38:45 ↗ language was initially drafted the way

1:38:48 ↗ it was what legal analysis has been done

1:38:51 ↗ to support your new recommendation and

1:38:56 ↗ she said that she was not aware of any

1:38:58 ↗ legal analysis having been done and then

1:39:01 ↗ I believe that mr. Niven indicated that

1:39:03 ↗ they had now sent it to mr. Haney to

1:39:09 ↗ work on that answer after the fact

1:39:12 ↗ because Landon Shore had asked the same

1:39:16 ↗ or similar question

1:39:20 ↗ so I thought it remarkable that they

1:39:22 ↗ would change a recommendation that was

1:39:25 ↗ clearly based on case law without having

1:39:29 ↗ done a legal analysis to make sure that

1:39:32 ↗ the new recommendation was in fact legal

1:39:38 ↗ based on your conversations with the

1:39:41 ↗ mayor in this meeting what was your

1:39:42 ↗ understanding of what the mayor thought

1:39:44 ↗ should happen on shelters property well

1:39:48 ↗ she was clear that she wanted to give

1:39:54 ↗ the citizens what they had expected and

1:39:58 ↗ that her understanding was that because

1:40:00 ↗ Microsoft had owned the property at one

1:40:03 ↗ point that people expected a Microsoft

1:40:05 ↗ campus and that that was what they

1:40:07 ↗ should get

1:40:15 ↗ your experience and developing various

1:40:19 ↗ projects is that consistent with how

1:40:21 ↗ development regulations work no I mean

1:40:27 ↗ development regulations set the

1:40:29 ↗ framework within which development

1:40:31 ↗ occurs it doesn't public opinion can't

1:40:38 ↗ retroactively lis change regulations

1:40:41 ↗ that apply did you inform her that there

1:40:47 ↗ was no minimum or no required in terms

1:40:51 ↗ of a Microsoft type campus required

1:40:54 ↗ campus or density that had to be built

1:40:57 ↗ on shelters property yes so this was

1:41:00 ↗ something that often would come up in

1:41:03 ↗ conversation with various city staff or

1:41:08 ↗ elected officials to some degree that

1:41:13 ↗ you know that there was some amount of

1:41:16 ↗ commercial that we were supposed to

1:41:18 ↗ build there's no requirement in the

1:41:22 ↗ development agreement that any amount of

1:41:24 ↗ commercial gets built so I explained

1:41:28 ↗ that to mayor poly and I think her

1:41:32 ↗ response was that that people would be

1:41:34 ↗ shocked to hear that and and then at

1:41:38 ↗ some point in that meeting also mr.

1:41:40 ↗ Niven told me that we at shelter had

1:41:43 ↗ made our problem worse by buying

1:41:46 ↗ additional development rights from port

1:41:49 ↗ Blakely because in his way of thinking

1:41:52 ↗ because we had purchased more

1:41:54 ↗ development rights we were going to be

1:41:57 ↗ required to build more development

1:42:04 ↗ is it true that just because a property

1:42:06 ↗ owner owns the right to develop a

1:42:08 ↗ certain amount that the property owner

1:42:09 ↗ is forced to actually develop that

1:42:10 ↗ entire amount absolutely not and your

1:42:16 ↗ recollection of this meeting and the

1:42:18 ↗ conversations that you had with the

1:42:20 ↗ mayor mayor poly and director Niven are

1:42:24 ↗ those based on your own independent

1:42:26 ↗ recollection of the meeting yes

1:42:29 ↗ they also based on your notes of the

1:42:30 ↗ meeting yes it was definitely a

1:42:35 ↗ memorable meeting you know we didn't

1:42:38 ↗ have many meetings with the mayor and

1:42:39 ↗ this one was particularly hard to forget

1:42:49 ↗ given the positions that they were

1:42:51 ↗ articulating to us at that meeting we've

1:42:55 ↗ talked about your notes of various

1:42:57 ↗ meetings a great length in this hearing

1:43:00 ↗ or and I think you've touched on this

1:43:02 ↗ before but are are the notes that you

1:43:05 ↗ take are they necessarily exhaustive of

1:43:07 ↗ every single thing that sat in a meeting

1:43:09 ↗ no there's no way I can capture

1:43:13 ↗ everything that's that said I take notes

1:43:15 ↗ by hand typically and then after the

1:43:20 ↗ meeting go back and type them up but

1:43:23 ↗ they're by no means a transcript of what

1:43:26 ↗ happened but they are accurate if you

1:43:30 ↗ but as you testify and you testifying to

1:43:33 ↗ events that happen in these meetings and

1:43:34 ↗ are those are your recollections based

1:43:37 ↗ in part on the notes or independent

1:43:40 ↗ recollections of those meetings I think

1:43:44 ↗ I've used the notes as a way to jog my

1:43:46 ↗ memory but there I also have independent

1:43:49 ↗ recollection of these meetings

1:43:58 ↗ let's talk about building permit

1:44:00 ↗ applications in the city of Issaquah did

1:44:06 ↗ you hear director Niven testify that

1:44:09 ↗ he's now decided that the November 2017

1:44:12 ↗ memo where he and the city attorney said

1:44:15 ↗ that the city has a West main problem is

1:44:16 ↗ inaccurate yes I heard that did he tell

1:44:21 ↗ you that before this hearing nope in the

1:44:23 ↗ hearing was the first time that I had

1:44:25 ↗ heard him say anything about him about

1:44:29 ↗ that memo being inaccurate were there

1:44:33 ↗ opportunities where he could have

1:44:34 ↗ corrected himself absolutely

1:44:36 ↗ pretty much every public meeting after

1:44:40 ↗ that that issue was raised most letters

1:44:43 ↗ that we submitted also raised that or in

1:44:47 ↗ many cases cited to his memo yeah I mean

1:44:53 ↗ it's it would be it would be shocking if

1:44:58 ↗ he actually believed that that was false

1:45:00 ↗ and never took the opportunity to

1:45:02 ↗ correct it in the many months since that

1:45:04 ↗ was issued did you hear director Nevin

1:45:10 ↗ testify now that the city doesn't

1:45:13 ↗ require a land use an approved land use

1:45:15 ↗ permit prior to a building permit yes

1:45:20 ↗ and your experience is that true no does

1:45:28 ↗ the city require a land use permit prior

1:45:29 ↗ to deeming a building permit application

1:45:31 ↗ complete I don't know what they're doing

1:45:35 ↗ today I know that up until this hearing

1:45:38 ↗ started that they absolutely were

1:45:40 ↗ requiring land use permit before

1:45:43 ↗ building permit is that something that

1:45:47 ↗ arises out of the code or guidance or

1:45:51 ↗ both what's your understanding of what

1:45:53 ↗ the city has been relying on to enforce

1:45:56 ↗ that requirement sorry to enforce the

1:46:01 ↗ requirement that a land use permit comes

1:46:03 ↗ before land use permit before a building

1:46:04 ↗ permit well I think that the submittal

1:46:10 ↗ checklist is

1:46:11 ↗ is the most clear indication that that's

1:46:14 ↗ what they've been doing but they also

1:46:21 ↗ would say I mean they told people that

1:46:24 ↗ all the time we've already heard in this

1:46:26 ↗ in this hearing we watched a video of

1:46:30 ↗ miss Loman explaining that at a public

1:46:33 ↗ meeting that the city requires a land

1:46:36 ↗ use permit before building permit they

1:46:38 ↗ called them linked permits and they

1:46:40 ↗ explained that linked permits are what

1:46:43 ↗ caused the issue under the West Main

1:46:45 ↗ versus bellevue case miss Lemmon

1:46:48 ↗ explained that publicly in a in a

1:46:50 ↗ meeting read present at that meeting I

1:46:51 ↗ was in director Nevins said it again in

1:46:55 ↗ his November 2017 memo yes I'm the I'm

1:47:02 ↗ not entirely sure the date of the

1:47:03 ↗ meeting where miss Lemmon stated it it

1:47:06 ↗ might have been the meeting that

1:47:07 ↗ followed that memo the memo may have

1:47:09 ↗ come first but they've said it many

1:47:12 ↗ times and I'd like to look now at a part

1:47:17 ↗ of the code it's 1801 oh five oh and I

1:47:21 ↗ have a copy of it for you just for your

1:47:22 ↗ convenience um Zach do you need a copy

1:47:27 ↗ as well okay so if you could look at

1:47:31 ↗ 1800 105 oh and when I'm looking at

1:47:34 ↗ subpart C 1 a and I'll read it to keep

1:47:40 ↗ things moving along it says what

1:47:41 ↗ constitutes a fully complete burning the

1:47:43 ↗ building permit or sorry permit

1:47:45 ↗ application and it says a building

1:47:47 ↗ permit short flat and or a preliminary

1:47:48 ↗ final plot application is defined is

1:47:51 ↗ fully complete only when all of the

1:47:52 ↗ following conditions are met and that it

1:47:54 ↗ goes through a variety of conditions if

1:47:57 ↗ you could look down at a subsection to

1:48:02 ↗ the says the application includes the

1:48:05 ↗ following items and then see what is

1:48:07 ↗ section C say supporting documents as

1:48:10 ↗ required by submitting requirements

1:48:12 ↗ published by the permit center and in

1:48:15 ↗ your experience you know working through

1:48:17 ↗ the code does that include things like a

1:48:18 ↗ building permit checklist it does I mean

1:48:21 ↗ that's why the city posts them on their

1:48:23 ↗ website

1:48:23 ↗ under the submittal packet requirements

1:48:35 ↗ you hear director Nivens and missile

1:48:38 ↗ omens testimony about that checklist I

1:48:40 ↗ did what was your reaction to the

1:48:43 ↗ testimony surprise

1:48:46 ↗ it seemed again highly unusual for the

1:48:51 ↗ Director of Development Services to act

1:48:53 ↗ as if he had never seen the building

1:48:57 ↗ permit submitted checklist until this

1:49:00 ↗ hearing I believe that's what he

1:49:02 ↗ testified to it it's a normal part of

1:49:08 ↗ the development process and it's

1:49:11 ↗ something that is posted on the city's

1:49:13 ↗ website for applicants to use it's

1:49:16 ↗ something that is used when you submit

1:49:19 ↗ an application so for either of them to

1:49:22 ↗ act as if they were not familiar with

1:49:24 ↗ that document or had never seen it just

1:49:28 ↗ made no sense

1:49:32 ↗ director Nevin go on to testify about

1:49:34 ↗ how that document supplied sorry can you

1:49:38 ↗ say that again after said you just

1:49:40 ↗ explained how director Nevin had

1:49:42 ↗ testified that he wasn't aware of the

1:49:44 ↗ building permit checklist prior to this

1:49:46 ↗ hearing did he go on to explain how the

1:49:48 ↗ city has applied it he did then he later

1:49:51 ↗ testified about the intent of the

1:49:54 ↗ checklist so again

1:49:55 ↗ seemed strange that something that

1:49:57 ↗ you've never seen and are not familiar

1:49:59 ↗ with that then moments later you know

1:50:02 ↗ the intent of that same document

1:50:09 ↗ your experience is the building permit

1:50:12 ↗ checklist just a practical consideration

1:50:14 ↗ as director Devin stated I guess I don't

1:50:20 ↗ really know what he meant by practical

1:50:22 ↗ consideration but it is probably the

1:50:25 ↗ document that most intently guides the

1:50:31 ↗ submit all of any application that's

1:50:34 ↗ that's the list I mean that's the thing

1:50:36 ↗ that you're going through making sure

1:50:38 ↗ that you have every single thing on

1:50:39 ↗ there covered in order to get to

1:50:42 ↗ complete application because again

1:50:45 ↗ you're always you know in the

1:50:47 ↗ development business you're always

1:50:48 ↗ trying to move your applications forward

1:50:50 ↗ as as quickly and smoothly as possible

1:50:52 ↗ so you want to put together the best

1:50:54 ↗ application you can with all the pieces

1:50:57 ↗ that are necessary so that the the

1:51:00 ↗ jurisdiction can review and approve it

1:51:03 ↗ quickly and that the checklists are the

1:51:06 ↗ guide that we all use to do that simply

1:51:11 ↗ submitting materials to the city for a

1:51:15 ↗ building permit in you a vested status

1:51:18 ↗ or does there have to be something more

1:51:20 ↗ your application has to be deemed

1:51:22 ↗ complete in order to vest so complete

1:51:27 ↗ application is always the thing that for

1:51:30 ↗ for purposes of vesting and for purposes

1:51:32 ↗ of just getting your application process

1:51:34 ↗ complete application is always the thing

1:51:36 ↗ that you're seeking submitting an

1:51:37 ↗ application without being able to get to

1:51:39 ↗ completeness has no value to any

1:51:43 ↗ developer or landowner

1:51:46 ↗ why didn't shelter submit for a building

1:51:49 ↗ permit for a variety of reasons but one

1:51:58 ↗ was because the city required a land use

1:52:02 ↗ permit prior to building permit so we

1:52:04 ↗ were trying to do those so that we could

1:52:07 ↗ then submit the building permits once we

1:52:09 ↗ had the land use permits the other

1:52:14 ↗ reason is you have to remember that we

1:52:17 ↗ were working under the development

1:52:19 ↗ agreement development stand

1:52:21 ↗ that was the only set of regulations

1:52:23 ↗ that we had available to us to use the

1:52:27 ↗ development agreement does not

1:52:28 ↗ distinguish between a land use permit

1:52:32 ↗ and a building permit for purposes of

1:52:35 ↗ vesting both are defined as implementing

1:52:37 ↗ approvals and so for us to decide to

1:52:43 ↗ seek one over the other would make no

1:52:45 ↗ sense we would have had to assume that

1:52:49 ↗ the city was going to disregard

1:52:51 ↗ everything in the development agreement

1:52:53 ↗ which was the only code that we had to

1:52:55 ↗ work with but then still recognize

1:52:58 ↗ something under some other law so it it

1:53:03 ↗ just we didn't seek a building permit

1:53:06 ↗ because we were seeking the vesting

1:53:09 ↗ permit according to the regulations that

1:53:11 ↗ applied and because that was the permit

1:53:15 ↗ sequence that the city required so

1:53:18 ↗ earlier in your testimony you had said

1:53:20 ↗ that in January of 2017 when you met

1:53:23 ↗ that director Niven had laid out the

1:53:25 ↗ vesting strategy I'll summarize that for

1:53:28 ↗ you can can you describe that vesting

1:53:32 ↗ strategy or sequence for us yes and I

1:53:35 ↗ think it was actually in the March

1:53:36 ↗ collaboration meeting in in March of

1:53:39 ↗ 2017 but the the vesting strategy that

1:53:43 ↗ he laid out was that we should apply for

1:53:46 ↗ our preliminary plat and that that would

1:53:49 ↗ vest for a five-year period in which we

1:53:51 ↗ would need to submit the final plat the

1:53:54 ↗ final plat would then keep us vested for

1:53:57 ↗ an additional five years within which we

1:54:00 ↗ would need to submit site development

1:54:02 ↗ permits to implement the plat and that

1:54:05 ↗ each of those site development permits

1:54:07 ↗ would be valid for three years and would

1:54:11 ↗ keep that vesting alive for any building

1:54:13 ↗ permits that were submitted within that

1:54:17 ↗ three year so he explained the sequence

1:54:21 ↗ of permits and how the vesting carried

1:54:23 ↗ through from one to the next

1:54:36 ↗ so minute ago we were talking about a

1:54:37 ↗ meeting that you were present at in

1:54:40 ↗ which miss Loman had testified about the

1:54:42 ↗ city's or had told the public at least

1:54:46 ↗ about the city's requirement that an

1:54:49 ↗ applicant have a land use permit prior

1:54:51 ↗ to a building permit yes so that was the

1:54:55 ↗ November 21st 2017 meeting we've heard

1:54:58 ↗ of that before if you could please turn

1:55:01 ↗ to the December 5th hearing transcript

1:55:05 ↗ and I'm looking at

1:56:04 ↗ if you could turn to page 54 of that

1:56:07 ↗ transcript please and start reading just

1:56:14 ↗ read to us paid line 17 through 25

1:56:17 ↗ please and this is Miss lemon

1:56:18 ↗ testimony so line 17 says video is

1:56:22 ↗ played miss Loman we are specific that

1:56:26 ↗ we only are vesting the ones that are

1:56:28 ↗ vested by state law now there was some

1:56:31 ↗ concern or discussion around West Main

1:56:33 ↗ versus Bellevue which is a land use law

1:56:36 ↗ case that if you have linked permits

1:56:38 ↗ that those permits become vested so in

1:56:40 ↗ our case to submit for a building permit

1:56:42 ↗ you have to have an approved land use

1:56:45 ↗ permit so the not what you just read was

1:56:50 ↗ a recording of that of what miss Loman

1:56:53 ↗ had sat at the November 21st 2017

1:56:56 ↗ meeting that we played into the record

1:56:57 ↗ on December 5th is is her statements as

1:57:01 ↗ they're in the record are those

1:57:02 ↗ consistent with your recollection of

1:57:05 ↗ what miss lemon said at that meeting yes

1:57:15 ↗ is that statement from Miss lemon

1:57:18 ↗ consistent with her testimony and

1:57:20 ↗ director Nivens testimony at this

1:57:21 ↗ hearing no you could turn to Exhibit C

1:57:28 ↗ 65 please

1:57:58 ↗ yes

1:57:59 ↗ what's the exhibit at see 65 so this is

1:58:03 ↗ the chart that mrs. Lowman put together

1:58:07 ↗ to demonstrate that there were some

1:58:09 ↗ examples of when she thought a building

1:58:12 ↗ permit and land use permit her building

1:58:16 ↗ permit had been submitted prior to land

1:58:21 ↗ use permit approval what was your

1:58:23 ↗ reaction to this chart when you heard

1:58:25 ↗ miss Lemmon testify about it well I

1:58:29 ↗ thought that the chart actually

1:58:32 ↗ demonstrates that they do not usually

1:58:36 ↗ allow a building permit to be submitted

1:58:40 ↗ prior to land use approval there so if

1:58:45 ↗ you look at the first so let's see one

1:58:47 ↗ two three four five six the first six on

1:58:51 ↗ this list are quite old their range

1:58:56 ↗ between 1998 and 2006 we don't know what

1:59:00 ↗ the city was actually doing or telling

1:59:04 ↗ applicants or what the permit checklist

1:59:06 ↗ said at the time of those applications

1:59:08 ↗ so to me those are not really relevant

1:59:12 ↗ to whether they routinely require the

1:59:16 ↗ land use permit approval prior to

1:59:19 ↗ building permit so then if you take a

1:59:21 ↗ closer look at the the three that are

1:59:23 ↗ left you have one for the Issaquah

1:59:27 ↗ middle school that one if you dig into

1:59:31 ↗ it a little bit there is more

1:59:35 ↗ explanation there that might explain the

1:59:39 ↗ timing of when the building permit was

1:59:41 ↗ allowed to be submitted so there are a

1:59:44 ↗ couple of things to note one is that

1:59:46 ↗ when the school district processes

1:59:48 ↗ applications in the city of Issaquah

1:59:49 ↗ they routinely get modifications to

1:59:54 ↗ the applicable code standards and that's

1:59:57 ↗ been discussed in in open meetings on on

2:00:03 ↗ other topics so there's that

2:00:05 ↗ consideration the fact that it is the

2:00:07 ↗ school district but if you look at just

2:00:09 ↗ the types of approvals there was

2:00:12 ↗ actually both a site development permit

2:00:15 ↗ and a master site plan that this that

2:00:18 ↗ the school district was seeking and so

2:00:20 ↗ when you have those two applications you

2:00:25 ↗ have I'm blanking on the term but

2:00:28 ↗ consolidated permit review so you have a

2:00:31 ↗ master site plan that is a council

2:00:34 ↗ decision and you have an SDP that is a

2:00:38 ↗ commission decision and when you do

2:00:41 ↗ consolidated permit review so that you

2:00:44 ↗ could only so that you can combine and

2:00:46 ↗ have one hearing you just take both

2:00:48 ↗ permits to the higher decision-maker so

2:00:51 ↗ instead they went to a commission for

2:00:53 ↗ recommendation and then the council for

2:00:55 ↗ a decision so if you look at the way the

2:00:57 ↗ dates line up when they let the building

2:01:00 ↗ permit come in was after the I might

2:01:03 ↗ have even been this Commission

2:01:04 ↗ recommended approval of the permit so

2:01:07 ↗ that's the point at which normally the

2:01:10 ↗ SDP would have been decided so when you

2:01:13 ↗ put that in the context of the the

2:01:15 ↗ testimony that miss Loman offered

2:01:18 ↗ earlier in this hearing about you know

2:01:21 ↗ feeling certainty of decisions and

2:01:24 ↗ things that explains the timing and

2:01:28 ↗ they're actually just a few days apart I

2:01:30 ↗ think so to me that's an anomaly that's

2:01:34 ↗ not a an example of how the city does

2:01:37 ↗ business the next one is a duplex that's

2:01:44 ↗ a really small application I don't know

2:01:48 ↗ I don't know that that demonstrates

2:01:51 ↗ again the way the city does business and

2:01:54 ↗ then the last one the sunset way duplex

2:01:56 ↗ that's something that is in processed

2:01:59 ↗ during this hearing when there has been

2:02:01 ↗ a large amount of conversation and

2:02:04 ↗ testimony on what this

2:02:07 ↗ city should be doing with respect to

2:02:10 ↗ their normal operating procedure of

2:02:13 ↗ requiring a land use permit prior to

2:02:16 ↗ building permit so to me this actually

2:02:18 ↗ is a pretty depleted list that doesn't

2:02:20 ↗ really prove what I think miss Lemmon

2:02:25 ↗ intended it to demonstrate and it

2:02:27 ↗ actually shows that they don't allow

2:02:31 ↗ building permits if you if you go all

2:02:33 ↗ the way back to 1998 and this is all you

2:02:35 ↗ can come up with I don't I don't think

2:02:39 ↗ it demonstrates that that's the way they

2:02:40 ↗ do business

2:02:43 ↗ it's 8:30 I can keep going but we're an

2:02:48 ↗ hour past our last breaking time due to

2:02:51 ↗ break or happy to continue either one

2:02:53 ↗ can you give me a sense of how much time

2:02:55 ↗ how much additional time you would like

2:03:00 ↗ multiple pages there's multiple pages

2:03:02 ↗ it's gonna be I'd say another hour or so

2:03:06 ↗ let's take a 10-minute break okay thank

2:03:09 ↗ you

2:03:23 ↗ you

2:14:15 ↗ you

2:16:30 ↗ okay we're back on the air and I'd open

2:16:34 ↗ the meeting miss Carrie you're on Jia

2:16:40 ↗ did you hear director Nivens testimony

2:16:42 ↗ regarding the minimum 1.0 fer that's

2:16:45 ↗ imposed under the replacement

2:16:46 ↗ regulations yes what was your reaction

2:16:53 ↗ to his testimony on that issue can you

2:16:59 ↗ be a little more specific with a

2:17:00 ↗ question sure did you think that his

2:17:04 ↗ testimony was accurate in terms of the

2:17:08 ↗ way that he was characterizing how that

2:17:09 ↗ fer was developed no because he didn't

2:17:15 ↗ explain what had been explained to us

2:17:20 ↗ which was that the minimum fer of one

2:17:23 ↗ was conceived by taking the full

2:17:30 ↗ allowable development that we had and

2:17:33 ↗ applying it to our property and then

2:17:36 ↗ dividing it in half so he thought well

2:17:40 ↗ you had the way he described it to us

2:17:43 ↗ was you have 1.8 million square feet of

2:17:45 ↗ allowable development that you are in

2:17:49 ↗ his terms supposed to build on your

2:17:52 ↗ property and you have nine hundred and

2:17:58 ↗ some thousand square feet of property so

2:18:00 ↗ if we were to require you to build half

2:18:04 ↗ of your allowable development that would

2:18:06 ↗ equal an F AR of one because FA are

2:18:10 ↗ again it reflects the ratio between the

2:18:15 ↗ area of the building and the area of the

2:18:18 ↗ lot the people express concern about the

2:18:23 ↗ 1.0 F they are when staff proposed it

2:18:26 ↗ yes in addition to us others also

2:18:30 ↗ expressed concern you just testified a

2:18:35 ↗ moment ago that staff had developed the

2:18:37 ↗ minimum

2:18:37 ↗ they are based on shelters property is

2:18:40 ↗ that consistent with what director and

2:18:42 ↗ even testified to no I don't think so I

2:18:45 ↗ don't think he ever explained that it

2:18:46 ↗ was directly related to our property so

2:18:49 ↗ although it applies to other properties

2:18:51 ↗ it was come it was developed based on

2:18:56 ↗ particulars with respect to our property

2:18:59 ↗ your experience as a minimum FA are a

2:19:03 ↗ tool that is commonly used by

2:19:05 ↗ jurisdictions no I wouldn't say that

2:19:08 ↗ it's common I I think FA R is a common

2:19:11 ↗ tool that's used but more often it is a

2:19:15 ↗ maximum FA R which is actually what the

2:19:18 ↗ Highlands had in the development

2:19:21 ↗ agreement was a maximum a pair did you

2:19:24 ↗ attend the September 28th 2017 PPC

2:19:28 ↗ meeting I did that was the first hearing

2:19:30 ↗ on the developer their replacement

2:19:33 ↗ regulations and for their record what's

2:19:35 ↗ the PPC planning policy Commission I

2:19:40 ↗ believe

2:19:40 ↗ do you recall director have been talking

2:19:42 ↗ about the minimum F they are at that

2:19:44 ↗ meeting I do

2:19:47 ↗ do you recall Fred Nystrom testifying at

2:19:49 ↗ that meeting that the minimum fer

2:19:51 ↗ affects sheltered differently than

2:19:52 ↗ anyone else in the Highlands yes Fred

2:19:56 ↗ testified we thought accurately on how

2:20:01 ↗ it impacted shelter more significantly

2:20:04 ↗ because we were the major undeveloped

2:20:06 ↗ property in the Highlands have you seen

2:20:09 ↗ the video of that September 28th 2017

2:20:12 ↗ PPC meeting I have where is that

2:20:16 ↗ available it's on the city's YouTube

2:20:20 ↗ channel

2:20:44 ↗ so they put a video that's paused and a

2:20:48 ↗ segment up on the screen and the title

2:20:53 ↗ down below the video it's on the YouTube

2:20:54 ↗ channel it says it's a call planning

2:20:56 ↗ policy Commission September 28th 2017

2:20:59 ↗ jiya is is this the meeting that you

2:21:02 ↗ referred to that you attended and you've

2:21:04 ↗ reviewed the video for yes so I'm gonna

2:21:09 ↗ play I'm just a short clip of this into

2:21:12 ↗ the record and I'll represent for the

2:21:13 ↗ record since this is up on the screen

2:21:15 ↗ that the person on the video talking is

2:21:18 ↗ director Nibin it shows him here working

2:21:21 ↗ as much as y'all love Grand Ridge Plaza

2:21:23 ↗ we were actually kind of disappointed in

2:21:26 ↗ Grand Ridge Plaza and Connie's nodding

2:21:28 ↗ her head and 9 is nodding her head

2:21:30 ↗ because it was less than what we wanted

2:21:33 ↗ but we pushed that developer to give us

2:21:36 ↗ at least one parking structure and

2:21:39 ↗ that's east of the cinema and it's

2:21:43 ↗ because you know we didn't have the

2:21:45 ↗ tools to make them do anything more than

2:21:47 ↗ that and so I guess you know as we're

2:21:50 ↗ sitting here defending putting a new

2:21:51 ↗ tool in place without that they could

2:21:56 ↗ build single-story retail with surface

2:21:59 ↗ parking single-story commercial with

2:22:01 ↗ surface parking and there's nothing to

2:22:03 ↗ stop that you know except for the

2:22:06 ↗ requirement for structured parking and

2:22:08 ↗ putting some sort of minimum if they are

2:22:09 ↗ on the project so CEO do you recall

2:22:20 ↗ Keith Niven making these comments in

2:22:21 ↗ that meeting I do because we had just

2:22:25 ↗ come in to speak with him in early

2:22:30 ↗ September I believe it was on the 7th to

2:22:33 ↗ tell him that we were coming in with

2:22:34 ↗ site development permits for two of our

2:22:38 ↗ applications and the two that we had

2:22:42 ↗ informed him about were the retail which

2:22:46 ↗ we had described as similar to Grand

2:22:48 ↗ Ridge Plaza and complimentary of Grandma

2:22:51 ↗ Ridge Plaza

2:22:53 ↗ and then also our medical office

2:22:55 ↗ building so at the time that this fer

2:22:59 ↗ was introduced

2:23:01 ↗ they were completely aware that we were

2:23:07 ↗ pursuing single-story retail which is

2:23:09 ↗ exactly what he calls out in that clip

2:23:12 ↗ as the thing that he wants to stop the

2:23:16 ↗ end of his statement that we just played

2:23:19 ↗ he said putting some kind of minimum

2:23:22 ↗ that they are on the project did you

2:23:24 ↗ understand that to refer to shelters

2:23:26 ↗ project or some other project

2:23:28 ↗ yeah his reference I think that's a good

2:23:31 ↗ thing to point out it was to project it

2:23:34 ↗ wasn't to it wasn't to all of the

2:23:38 ↗ highlands it wasn't to all of the

2:23:39 ↗ Highlands and talus which is what the

2:23:41 ↗ regulations were to govern

2:23:44 ↗ so it was telling that he referred to

2:23:49 ↗ project when he described the minimum

2:23:53 ↗ fer and why he needed it I'm gonna play

2:23:58 ↗ another clip again this is I'm putting

2:24:00 ↗ up on the screen again a video clip from

2:24:03 ↗ the Issaquah planning policy Commission

2:24:05 ↗ September 28th 2017 is the title of this

2:24:09 ↗ YouTube video and we're playing a clip

2:24:11 ↗ of that beginning at the one hour 24 55

2:24:16 ↗ mark and just a TIA again for the record

2:24:19 ↗ is the video that's up on the screen do

2:24:21 ↗ you recognize this as the video

2:24:23 ↗ recording of that meeting that you've

2:24:24 ↗ reviewed yes it looks like it is by

2:24:28 ↗ blocks so I I don't know they may have

2:24:33 ↗ phasing ideas I'm not sure it worked

2:24:36 ↗ with the scheme that we had seen so I'm

2:24:42 ↗ not quite sure how that

2:24:45 ↗ what they're proposing now could then be

2:24:47 ↗ phased in to meet a higher use of their

2:24:52 ↗ zoning cap

2:24:58 ↗ we have any other areas where with a

2:25:01 ↗ retail zoning we have an FA our minimum

2:25:08 ↗ requirement one the approach I'm taking

2:25:11 ↗ as much as I am not in favor of

2:25:15 ↗ multi-use residential on that property

2:25:18 ↗ to add more residential to the Highlands

2:25:21 ↗ I think it may become difficult to have

2:25:27 ↗ that kind of an FA are in the current

2:25:29 ↗ economic situation without including

2:25:32 ↗ residential in that so I'm trying to

2:25:34 ↗ think if there are other situations

2:25:36 ↗ where retail has required that so I I

2:25:40 ↗ can't imagine if you're not building

2:25:42 ↗ two-story retail when Miss lemon was

2:25:50 ↗ speaking at that meeting she

2:25:53 ↗ acknowledged that she had seen shelters

2:25:55 ↗ proposals she did the very beginning of

2:25:58 ↗ that clip she referenced the proposals

2:26:01 ↗ that she had seen to date so at that

2:26:05 ↗ point she had seen a site plan for our

2:26:14 ↗ medical office proposal SDPs proposal

2:26:20 ↗ and I don't believe she had seen the

2:26:23 ↗ retail proposal but the fact that we had

2:26:25 ↗ described it in the way that we did to

2:26:28 ↗ mrs. Lowman and mr. Niven as being

2:26:31 ↗ comparable to grand rich Plaza was

2:26:34 ↗ indicative that it would not meet an FA

2:26:37 ↗ R of 1 in fact most retail developments

2:26:40 ↗ unless it was a mall an indoor shopping

2:26:44 ↗ mall aren't going to meet an FA R of 1

2:26:46 ↗ under is a cos code so when I heard miss

2:26:51 ↗ Lemmon testify in this hearing that she

2:26:54 ↗ did not know what our proposals were at

2:26:57 ↗ the time that they introduced the fa r I

2:26:59 ↗ found that to be inaccurate and I think

2:27:01 ↗ that this clip demonstrates that she had

2:27:04 ↗ seen a proposal at that time

2:27:07 ↗ and just for the record because I think

2:27:09 ↗ I omitted this in introducing the clip

2:27:11 ↗ played of director Niven speaking I

2:27:14 ↗ believe that was began at the one hour

2:27:16 ↗ twenty two minutes

2:27:17 ↗ and roughly fifty second mark yeah will

2:27:28 ↗ you please turn to exhibit C 61 yes what

2:27:35 ↗ is the document at C 61 this is an email

2:27:39 ↗ exchange between director Niven and

2:27:43 ↗ myself primarily Gary Young and Lucie

2:27:46 ↗ slummin are copied on it and it came out

2:27:51 ↗ of an October 24th 2017 meeting that we

2:27:56 ↗ had with mr. Niven where he asked us to

2:28:03 ↗ come up with an F a are on a

2:28:07 ↗ block-by-block basis that would average

2:28:13 ↗ to an F air of one because he wanted to

2:28:15 ↗ make sure that they got the development

2:28:19 ↗ that he felt that they were entitled to

2:28:23 ↗ under the development agreement or at

2:28:25 ↗ least half of that so he had asked us to

2:28:29 ↗ come up with a proposal on a block by

2:28:30 ↗ block basis that could average to one he

2:28:34 ↗ felt like this would potentially allow

2:28:36 ↗ us to still do some of the residents or

2:28:39 ↗ not residential the it would allow us to

2:28:42 ↗ do some of the retail and just develop

2:28:47 ↗ the other parcels more densely but the

2:28:53 ↗ the driving factor for him was that we

2:28:55 ↗ had to average one over all the blocks

2:28:58 ↗ so that that total amount of minimum

2:29:00 ↗ development was meeting his requirement

2:29:10 ↗ did you hear miss Liu miss Loehmann's

2:29:13 ↗ testimony about this back and forth

2:29:16 ↗ regarding the fer is being cooperative I

2:29:20 ↗ did and I think initially it it was sort

2:29:26 ↗ of cooperative that Keith had asked us

2:29:27 ↗ to do it and we were always looking for

2:29:30 ↗ ways to get things resolved we were not

2:29:34 ↗ wanting to end up in this situation at

2:29:37 ↗ all so when he asked us to look at that

2:29:42 ↗ scenario we did that and we we developed

2:29:45 ↗ something that we thought we could live

2:29:47 ↗ with and we sent it to him of course we

2:29:56 ↗ also as part of this asked him to

2:29:58 ↗ continue to acknowledge what he had

2:30:00 ↗ already been acknowledging which was

2:30:04 ↗ that preliminary land use applications

2:30:06 ↗ would vest so our applications that we

2:30:09 ↗ had already submitted or were in process

2:30:10 ↗ of submitting would be vested under the

2:30:14 ↗ development agreement and this fer would

2:30:18 ↗ apply to future development and/or

2:30:20 ↗ additional development or development on

2:30:22 ↗ blocks that weren't covered by our SDPs

2:30:24 ↗ that were vested so it started off

2:30:27 ↗ collaborative and cooperative and then

2:30:33 ↗ you know it went back we went back and

2:30:35 ↗ forth a couple of times and then

2:30:37 ↗ whenever the next land and shore meeting

2:30:42 ↗ was mr. Nathan called me at I think for

2:30:47 ↗ something the day of that meeting and

2:30:50 ↗ said we want to present your proposal to

2:30:54 ↗ Landon Shore tonight and I was caught

2:30:57 ↗ off guard by that because we hadn't

2:30:58 ↗ really gotten to the point where he had

2:31:00 ↗ indicated for certain that he would

2:31:02 ↗ support it so I asked him are you

2:31:04 ↗ supporting it and he said yes that he

2:31:07 ↗ would support it and I said I explained

2:31:09 ↗ that I wasn't comfortable with it just

2:31:11 ↗ being presented as my proposal that I

2:31:15 ↗ felt that he and I needed to present it

2:31:17 ↗ together as

2:31:18 ↗ something that we had been working on

2:31:20 ↗ and wanted to update Landon Shore on and

2:31:23 ↗ get their input he agreed to that and I

2:31:27 ↗ came to the meeting that evening and

2:31:29 ↗ instead of being allowed to present it

2:31:32 ↗ with mr. Niven he had miss Loman

2:31:35 ↗ presented as part of her presentation

2:31:37 ↗ didn't allow me to have the opportunity

2:31:40 ↗ to answer questions or participate in

2:31:42 ↗ that part in that presentation at all

2:31:45 ↗ and I was totally taken aback by that

2:31:48 ↗ and when it came to public comment

2:31:51 ↗ I called that out that I wanted to

2:31:54 ↗ clarify that that was not something that

2:31:56 ↗ we had proposed on our own as soon as

2:31:59 ↗ there was any pushback or questioning of

2:32:02 ↗ it by Landon Shore committee it became

2:32:07 ↗ mr. Nevin took the position that it was

2:32:11 ↗ my proposal and that I had come up with

2:32:13 ↗ it did you hear the testimony regarding

2:32:21 ↗ the Swedish medical office building

2:32:25 ↗ Gilman lofts Spring Hill Marriott in

2:32:28 ↗ terms of how how they have dealt with FA

2:32:32 ↗ are on those projects yeah I think mr.

2:32:36 ↗ Niven offered those as examples of

2:32:39 ↗ [Music]

2:32:40 ↗ developments which had the F had a

2:32:46 ↗ similar far2 a minimum fer of one

2:32:50 ↗ imposed on them which i don't think is

2:32:52 ↗ accurate and I think it was an issue

2:32:54 ↗ that came up in the context of the

2:32:56 ↗ replacement regulations and educating

2:32:59 ↗ the council and commit council and

2:33:03 ↗ Commission and committees on what an FA

2:33:06 ↗ are was staff often just said well look

2:33:11 ↗ at that building it has an F AR of to

2:33:13 ↗ look at the Costco building it has an

2:33:15 ↗ affair of nine and they would throw out

2:33:17 ↗ these numbers and these buildings

2:33:19 ↗ without offering the two pieces of

2:33:22 ↗ information that you need to understand

2:33:24 ↗ what an FA are does which are lot size

2:33:26 ↗ and building size it's all that does is

2:33:28 ↗ compare the two that's what an FA are

2:33:30 ↗ does

2:33:30 ↗ but they were just giving random

2:33:32 ↗ examples like do you like that building

2:33:34 ↗ because that has an affair of whatever

2:33:36 ↗ it was so I think he did a similar thing

2:33:41 ↗ when he offered those those buildings

2:33:43 ↗ may have the FA RS that he indicated but

2:33:47 ↗ that does not mean that those FA RS were

2:33:50 ↗ mandated as minimums I can't tell from

2:33:52 ↗ what he offered whether they did or did

2:33:55 ↗ not the swedish medical office building

2:33:59 ↗ if he's talking about the one in the

2:34:01 ↗ Issaquah highlands it did not have a

2:34:02 ↗ minimum fa are mandated on it it also is

2:34:05 ↗ it also significant that with the

2:34:08 ↗ swedish building up in Issaquah

2:34:10 ↗ highlands the parking is on is on

2:34:14 ↗ separate lot or lots or at least largely

2:34:18 ↗ on separate Lots which would impact your

2:34:21 ↗ FA our calculation because again under

2:34:23 ↗ Issaquah Code which is somewhat unusual

2:34:25 ↗ in this respect the parking even if it's

2:34:30 ↗ structured doesn't Inc isn't included in

2:34:34 ↗ your FA our calculate calculation this

2:34:38 ↗ is the use matter when we're talking

2:34:40 ↗ about FA RS absolutely an FA our minimum

2:34:44 ↗ FA R is very easy to meet for a

2:34:48 ↗ mixed-use residential building and it's

2:34:50 ↗ that's where you often see FA R is used

2:35:02 ↗ and shelter meet the FA are for its

2:35:04 ↗ retail and medical office building

2:35:05 ↗ applications no it does not meet the

2:35:08 ↗ minimum FA are for for the retail or for

2:35:11 ↗ the medical office the storage

2:35:15 ↗ application meet the minimum FA are yes

2:35:18 ↗ the storage the storage application

2:35:20 ↗ you've got about a hundred and five

2:35:22 ↗ thousand square feet of building on a I

2:35:25 ↗ think it's like 35 thousand square foot

2:35:27 ↗ lot so it clearly exceeds the minimum FA

2:35:33 ↗ are however in the staff reports that

2:35:38 ↗ the staff provided to you for this

2:35:41 ↗ hearing the city incorrectly calls out

2:35:44 ↗ the storage application as not meeting

2:35:46 ↗ the minimum FA are so I'm not quite sure

2:35:48 ↗ what analysis they did to come to that

2:35:50 ↗ conclusion is it feasible for a shelter

2:35:56 ↗ to build 23 acres of storage units no

2:36:00 ↗ it's not economically feasible nor is it

2:36:05 ↗ desired by the community are there other

2:36:14 ↗ elements of the replacement regulations

2:36:15 ↗ that the storage application might not

2:36:17 ↗ comply with yes

2:36:24 ↗ let's talk about the parking standards

2:36:26 ↗ under the replacement regulations why is

2:36:29 ↗ the parking standard problematic the

2:36:35 ↗ parking standard is problematic because

2:36:37 ↗ it dictates that structured parking is

2:36:42 ↗ required in certain circumstances for

2:36:50 ↗ certain types of uses so what happened

2:36:53 ↗ with the adoption of the SIDS and how

2:36:57 ↗ that relates to the replacement

2:36:59 ↗ regulations and the changes over time

2:37:01 ↗ and first can you explain first what the

2:37:02 ↗ SIDS are so the SIDS are the regulations

2:37:05 ↗ that govern the central Issaquah area

2:37:07 ↗ and the replacement regulations

2:37:10 ↗ basically say if something is not

2:37:12 ↗ addressed in the replacement regulations

2:37:14 ↗ then you default to SIDS and if it's not

2:37:17 ↗ addressed they're the new default to

2:37:19 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code so when this

2:37:24 ↗ whole process of drafting the

2:37:27 ↗ replacement regulations started SIDS

2:37:32 ↗ parking regulations were fine they did

2:37:34 ↗ not dictate requirement for structured

2:37:38 ↗ parking at some point in the summer of

2:37:43 ↗ 2017 the city took action to amend the

2:37:48 ↗ SIDS and I don't know the exact timing

2:37:50 ↗ off the top of my head but I believe it

2:37:54 ↗ was right around the time the first

2:37:57 ↗ draft of the replacement regulations

2:37:59 ↗ came out it may have been a little bit

2:38:01 ↗ after that the Sid's got amended to

2:38:07 ↗ impose that that structured parking

2:38:10 ↗ requirement and when that happened the

2:38:13 ↗ discussion at the council or commission

2:38:18 ↗ levels it had started off as a

2:38:21 ↗ requirement for commercial uses for I

2:38:26 ↗ think office

2:38:27 ↗ I think office primarily although I am

2:38:30 ↗ not entirely

2:38:31 ↗ sure but it didn't apply to retail and

2:38:33 ↗ the discussion at the Commission raised

2:38:36 ↗ the idea of retail and then somehow when

2:38:38 ↗ it got to the council they decided to

2:38:40 ↗ just incorporate retail into the

2:38:43 ↗ structured parking requirement despite

2:38:45 ↗ the fact that staff was unable to find

2:38:48 ↗ an example of any jurisdiction in the

2:38:50 ↗ state of Washington that required

2:38:53 ↗ structured parking for retail uses it's

2:38:56 ↗ just simply not feasible it's not

2:38:59 ↗ something that anybody requires anywhere

2:39:01 ↗ so that got adopted I think without but

2:39:06 ↗ maybe without enough attention and then

2:39:08 ↗ it's now applying into an area that is

2:39:13 ↗ going to be developed for retail so it

2:39:17 ↗ it I don't

2:39:18 ↗ it changed mid midstream I guess is the

2:39:23 ↗ point let's shift gears and talk about

2:39:28 ↗ the tallest parcels we heard in mr.

2:39:33 ↗ dibbens and miss lemons testimony about

2:39:36 ↗ the 17b commercial property in talus are

2:39:39 ↗ you familiar with that property yes

2:39:40 ↗ generally you know how long the

2:39:45 ↗ developers and talus were working to

2:39:47 ↗ attract commercial development to that

2:39:49 ↗ community I believe they marketed it as

2:39:51 ↗ office for 20 years are they successful

2:39:55 ↗ no they they tried for 20 years to bring

2:39:59 ↗ an office user to that site and could

2:40:03 ↗ not do it what's become of the property

2:40:06 ↗ now well it was Riis owned with

2:40:11 ↗ replacement regulations and subsequently

2:40:14 ↗ the property owner sold the property to

2:40:18 ↗ the school district and the school

2:40:19 ↗ districts now applying for I believe

2:40:22 ↗ it's a middle school on that site you

2:40:26 ↗ know if the school district is going to

2:40:27 ↗ comply with the 1.0 minimum fa are they

2:40:30 ↗ will not why is that

2:40:33 ↗ that site is approximately nine acres I

2:40:37 ↗ think there's no way that the school a

2:40:42 ↗ school could meet the minimum fer for

2:40:45 ↗ that parcel I've looked at the

2:40:48 ↗ preliminary submittals that they that

2:40:52 ↗ they made initially they indicated that

2:40:55 ↗ they would get to a point seven fer but

2:41:00 ↗ that included some calculation of area

2:41:07 ↗ or exclusion of area that was not

2:41:10 ↗ following code in my opinion the the

2:41:15 ↗ next the middle that I saw that was

2:41:17 ↗ available on the website showed that the

2:41:20 ↗ FA are the minimum fer was not

2:41:22 ↗ applicable

2:41:31 ↗ the director Nibin and his testimony

2:41:34 ↗ summarize testified that no other

2:41:37 ↗ property owners or project applicants

2:41:39 ↗ ever contended that application of the

2:41:41 ↗ FA are structured parking standards

2:41:43 ↗ would render development of their

2:41:45 ↗ projects economically unviable based on

2:41:48 ↗ your understanding of what the school

2:41:49 ↗ districts proposing for 17b is it

2:41:52 ↗ economically viable for them to build to

2:41:54 ↗ a minimum 1.0 fer or incorporate

2:41:56 ↗ structured parking as required

2:41:58 ↗ no the FA are is definitely not viable

2:42:01 ↗ for them the structured parking might be

2:42:03 ↗ viable for them because they're on a

2:42:04 ↗ slope so I mean there's lots of factors

2:42:06 ↗ that go into what's viable and not but

2:42:10 ↗ on a sloped site it's easier to meet a

2:42:13 ↗ structured parking requirement and I

2:42:16 ↗ would point out also that another

2:42:19 ↗ example of a property owner that

2:42:23 ↗ described to the city why a minimum fer

2:42:27 ↗ was not a viable option for their site

2:42:31 ↗ would be John Haas and the city surf

2:42:33 ↗ site he explained several times at

2:42:36 ↗ public meetings why the minimum fer

2:42:41 ↗ would not work on that site the director

2:42:47 ↗ Niven also testified that the city owns

2:42:49 ↗ two properties int Alice what's your

2:42:52 ↗ understanding of how the city came to

2:42:54 ↗ acquire those properties my

2:42:58 ↗ understanding was that they imposed a

2:43:00 ↗ requirement to build retail on a

2:43:06 ↗ developer and the developer was unable

2:43:09 ↗ to build that retail because it was not

2:43:12 ↗ economically viable and so they the city

2:43:16 ↗ offered to have the developer give them

2:43:20 ↗ the property and so that was what

2:43:22 ↗ happened because the retail development

2:43:25 ↗ was not economically viable how's the

2:43:30 ↗ city ever indicated to you what it plans

2:43:31 ↗ to do with those properties in past

2:43:34 ↗ discussions

2:43:35 ↗ mr. Niven had made comments about the

2:43:38 ↗ city never really intending to do

2:43:39 ↗ anything with that property because

2:43:41 ↗ retail is not a viable use there

2:43:49 ↗ did you hear director Nevin testify that

2:43:52 ↗ the Tallis replacement regulations were

2:43:54 ↗ adopted before the Issaquah Highlands

2:43:56 ↗ replacement regulations yes that true

2:43:59 ↗ that's not true the Issaquah Highlands

2:44:03 ↗ replacement regulations were adopted

2:44:05 ↗ first and they delay further delayed

2:44:07 ↗ adoption of the Tallis regulations let's

2:44:13 ↗ turn back to Exhibit C 44 pleas and

2:44:16 ↗ specifically the meeting minutes from

2:44:18 ↗ the November 14th 2016 meeting

2:44:40 ↗ remember November 14 okay and if you

2:44:50 ↗ need to be just a second to flip to it

2:44:51 ↗ myself

2:44:52 ↗ and scrolling back do you see the

2:44:58 ↗ statement in your notes there with

2:45:01 ↗ reference to director Niven and the no

2:45:04 ↗ gap statement that we've discussed in

2:45:07 ↗ your testimony before oh I remember that

2:45:10 ↗ leave it the third bullet point from the

2:45:14 ↗ bottom on the first page yes so it reads

2:45:22 ↗ Keith went on to point out that with

2:45:24 ↗ vesting available under the current da

2:45:26 ↗ there is no in quotations gap and of

2:45:29 ↗ quotations between da and new zoning and

2:45:32 ↗ that the moratorium work plan indicates

2:45:33 ↗ the city will have lifted the moratorium

2:45:35 ↗ before the end of the da's what did you

2:45:40 ↗ understand well first of all did you

2:45:42 ↗ hear directors and tests of a director

2:45:43 ↗ Devin's testimony about this no gap

2:45:45 ↗ reference yeah I did and in his

2:45:48 ↗ testimony seemed to go in a different

2:45:51 ↗ direction that didn't reflect the

2:45:53 ↗ conversation that we had because the

2:45:55 ↗ conversation about there being no gap

2:45:56 ↗ was in response to us raising the issue

2:46:03 ↗ that because we were in a spot where now

2:46:06 ↗ we are focusing on getting commercial

2:46:09 ↗ users there and but everybody knows that

2:46:14 ↗ the the development agreement is going

2:46:17 ↗ to wind down at some point in the

2:46:19 ↗ somewhat near future and they're going

2:46:21 ↗ to adopt replacement regulations we were

2:46:23 ↗ getting a little pushback from from the

2:46:25 ↗ market saying well you know how do we

2:46:27 ↗ know that you can do what this use is

2:46:31 ↗ whatever the one was that we were

2:46:32 ↗ talking to at that point in time and so

2:46:35 ↗ we were we were communicating that to

2:46:38 ↗ mr. Niven that this was a problem for us

2:46:42 ↗ that we felt like we're kind of caught

2:46:44 ↗ in this gap that where there was though

2:46:49 ↗ we had certainty in our ability to vest

2:46:51 ↗ under the development agreement that

2:46:54 ↗ users were perceiving that there there

2:46:57 ↗ wasn't a level of certainty there and

2:46:59 ↗ his response was to point out which what

2:47:02 ↗ we are what we already knew which was

2:47:04 ↗ there's no true gap where you're not

2:47:07 ↗ allowed to vest because you can vest

2:47:09 ↗ under the development agreement today

2:47:11 ↗ and then that development agreement

2:47:14 ↗ stays in place all the way up until the

2:47:16 ↗ date on which the replacement

2:47:18 ↗ regulations go into effect and then

2:47:20 ↗ under the replacement regulations there

2:47:22 ↗ would likewise be ability to vest to

2:47:24 ↗ those so it didn't all the gap

2:47:30 ↗ discussion reflected was him

2:47:33 ↗ specifically acknowledging the ability

2:47:36 ↗ to vest under the development agreement

2:47:40 ↗ that was that gap filling was that

2:47:42 ↗ intended to continue on past the

2:47:44 ↗ adoption of the replacement regulations

2:47:46 ↗ the termination of the development

2:47:48 ↗ agreement well the the vesting obviously

2:47:50 ↗ would carry on beyond the termination if

2:47:55 ↗ you look at the second but the next

2:47:59 ↗ bullet point down actually there's a sub

2:48:00 ↗ bullet point that says Keith said that

2:48:02 ↗ the city attorney has determined that in

2:48:04 ↗ Issaquah the vesting date is pre

2:48:06 ↗ application date in parentheses not

2:48:08 ↗ complete application and a parenthesis

2:48:10 ↗ and then mention that he hasn't gotten

2:48:12 ↗ around to writing that determination

2:48:13 ↗ down yet is that consistent with your

2:48:16 ↗ recollection of what director Nibin side

2:48:18 ↗ yes as I've testified he's on many

2:48:21 ↗ occasions made that statement to us so

2:48:25 ↗ when in November of 2017 in the email

2:48:29 ↗ communications that we've talked a great

2:48:30 ↗ length about on the 21st and 22nd I

2:48:33 ↗ believe when director Niven indicated

2:48:36 ↗ yes that your pre applications were

2:48:38 ↗ vested was there any doubt that pre

2:48:40 ↗ applications vested in your mind no

2:48:48 ↗ did you hear testimony from Miss lemon

2:48:51 ↗ and director Niven that implied that

2:48:53 ↗ they didn't understand vesting yes it's

2:48:56 ↗ not a surprise to you yeah a surprise

2:49:00 ↗ would be an understatement that was

2:49:02 ↗ shocking to hear that as the excuse for

2:49:06 ↗ why we're here today the he's the

2:49:11 ↗ director of development services and

2:49:12 ↗ she's the land development manager and

2:49:15 ↗ for them to claim that they didn't

2:49:18 ↗ understand vesting is outrageous shelter

2:49:24 ↗ written to them explaining what vesting

2:49:27 ↗ is at least from shelters point of view

2:49:29 ↗ many many times there are so many

2:49:32 ↗ letters in the record for the

2:49:36 ↗ replacement regulations that indicate or

2:49:42 ↗ that include us explaining exactly what

2:49:45 ↗ vesting is we also testified many times

2:49:49 ↗ or made public comment at public

2:49:52 ↗ meetings many times that's why I on

2:49:57 ↗ certain occasions brought mr. maleeni to

2:50:00 ↗ the city meetings to either deliver

2:50:06 ↗ comments verbally or to write letters to

2:50:10 ↗ explain exactly what vesting is so to

2:50:15 ↗ say that they could get to this point in

2:50:17 ↗ time and then all of a sudden realized

2:50:20 ↗ that they somehow didn't understand and

2:50:24 ↗ never and it had never occurred to them

2:50:26 ↗ to ask some element of vesting doesn't

2:50:33 ↗ seem believable to me they also often

2:50:35 ↗ testify or not testified they often made

2:50:38 ↗ presentations that included vesting to

2:50:40 ↗ land in Shore to Council and to the

2:50:44 ↗ general public

2:50:47 ↗ director Niven or miss Loman make

2:50:50 ↗ reference to the fact that they were

2:50:51 ↗ consulting with the City Attorney's

2:50:53 ↗ throughout that time on investing

2:50:57 ↗ yes sometimes

2:51:09 ↗ you mentioned when you were describing

2:51:11 ↗ the the sequence of the plot application

2:51:15 ↗ that it had we'd had talked a great

2:51:17 ↗ length about the April 2019 letters that

2:51:21 ↗ were received from Miss Sloman and that

2:51:23 ↗ was one of the points were you kind of

2:51:24 ↗ left off there

2:51:25 ↗ did you hear director Nivens testimony

2:51:27 ↗ related to those letters about applying

2:51:30 ↗ a new process to shelter splat

2:51:33 ↗ application yes is that consistent with

2:51:36 ↗ what he told you in the past

2:51:38 ↗ no the discussions that we had in the

2:51:41 ↗ past meaning before the replacement

2:51:44 ↗ regulations were adopted what he had

2:51:51 ↗ told us was that if the U V DC what was

2:51:55 ↗ disbanded or went away that the city

2:51:58 ↗ might substitute development Commission

2:52:01 ↗ or a different Commission for u V DC

2:52:04 ↗ which obviously made sense to us if a

2:52:09 ↗ commission doesn't exist they can't hear

2:52:10 ↗ our permits and it would make sense to

2:52:12 ↗ have another similar Commission to hear

2:52:15 ↗ them what they are attempting to do with

2:52:18 ↗ our permits now is something totally

2:52:20 ↗ different where you're changing the

2:52:22 ↗ decision-maker and the decision type so

2:52:26 ↗ it's not just a purely you know swapping

2:52:31 ↗ one Commission for another it's it's

2:52:33 ↗ actually changing the type of the permit

2:52:36 ↗ and the decision did you hear director

2:52:42 ↗ Nivens testimony about how polygons

2:52:46 ↗ projects weren't ever appealed yes does

2:52:51 ↗ it make sense to you that those projects

2:52:52 ↗ weren't appealed yes it makes sense they

2:52:56 ↗ appropriately applied the the vesting to

2:53:00 ↗ polygons projects I'm not sure why

2:53:03 ↗ anybody would appeal that you could turn

2:53:08 ↗ to exhibit C 55 please

2:53:19 ↗ and this is an action memo that the city

2:53:22 ↗ introduced as an exhibit in your

2:53:27 ↗ understanding of the development

2:53:28 ↗ agreement does an action memo amend the

2:53:31 ↗ development agreement formally amend it

2:53:33 ↗ I don't I don't think so I don't know

2:53:37 ↗ that action memos are specifically

2:53:39 ↗ referred to in the development agreement

2:53:46 ↗ does the action memo apply to permits or

2:53:50 ↗ does it apply to permit applications

2:53:52 ↗ this particular action memo this action

2:53:55 ↗ memo only applies to issued permits so

2:53:59 ↗ basically what this action memo was

2:54:02 ↗ saying was that since the development

2:54:07 ↗ agreement didn't address the term of

2:54:09 ↗ permits you would default to the

2:54:11 ↗ Issaquah municipal code which put

2:54:13 ↗ timeframes on permits but that the staff

2:54:16 ↗ was deciding that because it was in a

2:54:22 ↗ development agreement they were not

2:54:24 ↗ going to apply expiration dates to those

2:54:28 ↗ permits but that they may at some point

2:54:30 ↗ apply them through the apply expiration

2:54:33 ↗ dates through the termination process

2:54:36 ↗ through the development agreement

2:54:37 ↗ termination process we're talking about

2:54:39 ↗ permits in this action memo are we

2:54:41 ↗ talking about permit applications nope

2:54:43 ↗ only permits and I don't even think that

2:54:46 ↗ they did address that through the

2:54:48 ↗ termination process as the action memo

2:54:50 ↗ indicates they would you please turn to

2:54:55 ↗ Exhibit C 59

2:55:08 ↗ and this is a chart that miss Loman had

2:55:12 ↗ testified that she prepared for this

2:55:14 ↗ year before we dive too far into this

2:55:20 ↗ chart did you hear this woman's

2:55:23 ↗ testimony that there were errors in

2:55:24 ↗ exhibit s 88 that shelter submitted I

2:55:27 ↗ did and specifically I'll represent that

2:55:31 ↗ there were two she had mentioned one

2:55:32 ↗ with block four and then one with the

2:55:34 ↗ townhomes north so let's start with

2:55:37 ↗ block four help you out there's a couple

2:55:41 ↗ exhibits we're gonna look at s 108 and

2:55:44 ↗ 107

2:55:54 ↗ [Applause]

2:56:17 ↗ all right and actually there it see yep

2:56:20 ↗ 107 and 108 okay if you look back at s

2:56:32 ↗ 108 first what's the decision date on

2:56:34 ↗ there the decision date is September 7th

2:56:41 ↗ 2018 and then on s 107 what's the date

2:56:45 ↗ that the application was deemed complete

2:56:56 ↗ for the block for affordable housing the

2:56:59 ↗ application was deemed complete May 16

2:57:01 ↗ 2008 een and so represent that the chart

2:57:05 ↗ made reference to May 16 2008 teen date

2:57:08 ↗ for block four and so just to clarify so

2:57:11 ↗ there's no confusion in the record about

2:57:12 ↗ what was being referenced in that chart

2:57:14 ↗ is that the date that it was the

2:57:16 ↗ application was deemed complete May 16

2:57:18 ↗ 2008 teen is the date the application

2:57:20 ↗ was deemed complete okay and the

2:57:22 ↗ decision date then was sometime later

2:57:24 ↗ September 7th correct based on 108 yes

2:57:32 ↗ okay and then for the townhomes North

2:57:37 ↗ sdp if you could look at s 110

2:57:49 ↗ what's the approval date in that

2:57:50 ↗ document it shows an approval date of

2:57:53 ↗ May 10th 2018 and I'll represent that

2:57:57 ↗ that's the date that was in s 88 on the

2:58:00 ↗ chart what's the date of the actual

2:58:03 ↗ signature on that notice of decision the

2:58:10 ↗ date of the signature is May 21st 2018

2:58:16 ↗ so with s 88 was in presenting that in

2:58:21 ↗ your testimony were you trying to be

2:58:23 ↗ misleading at all about those dates not

2:58:26 ↗ at all I mean it shows an approval date

2:58:29 ↗ of May 10th 2018 and then the other date

2:58:33 ↗ is the date that the chair of the U V DC

2:58:36 ↗ signed off on the decision which I think

2:58:39 ↗ often happens after the meeting so for

2:58:43 ↗ block 4 and townhomes north sdp both of

2:58:46 ↗ those were there was some question about

2:58:49 ↗ the dates were the dates that miss Loman

2:58:51 ↗ had suggested of September 7th for block

2:58:54 ↗ 4 and May 21st for the townhomes North

2:58:57 ↗ but those actually later in time than

2:58:59 ↗ the dates that were shown on s 88 yes

2:59:04 ↗ so as the city continuing to apply the

2:59:08 ↗ development standards and the

2:59:09 ↗ development agreement and process and a

2:59:11 ↗ development agreement under those

2:59:12 ↗ applications for that time yes they were

2:59:16 ↗ let's turn back now to miss Lemmon start

2:59:19 ↗ at C 59 miss Loman had stated a gun'

2:59:26 ↗ paraphrasing in her testimony that this

2:59:27 ↗ was a more accurate representation to

2:59:30 ↗ explain what's happening then

2:59:31 ↗ essentially than what shelter had

2:59:33 ↗ presented and in your testimony

2:59:36 ↗ do you agree with that no I don't it is

2:59:39 ↗ actually a more limited picture that we

2:59:45 ↗ that narrows down what's shown in order

2:59:49 ↗ to come to a certain conclusion that she

2:59:51 ↗ wanted to come to the polygon short plat

2:59:54 ↗ included on that chart it's not were

2:59:58 ↗ there meetings with miss Loman and

3:00:00 ↗ director Niven that are not include

3:00:01 ↗ on that chart many what does this chart

3:00:06 ↗ show about the staffing that the city

3:00:08 ↗ had so this chart shows that the city

3:00:12 ↗ was fully staffed before any of our

3:00:17 ↗ applications came in well I guess are

3:00:22 ↗ the preliminary parts of our the the

3:00:25 ↗ pre-work as miss Loman called it for our

3:00:29 ↗ application occurred earlier on but they

3:00:33 ↗ were fully staffed by July of 2017 which

3:00:36 ↗ was prior to submission of our full

3:00:38 ↗ application for the plat and prior to

3:00:41 ↗ any submissions on the SD piece so when

3:00:45 ↗ we heard testimony about how being

3:00:48 ↗ understaffed was the reason for the lack

3:00:53 ↗ of processing of our permits this chart

3:00:56 ↗ proves that that is not accurate do you

3:01:02 ↗ remember hearing miss lemons testimony

3:01:03 ↗ that there's a gap in shelters meetings

3:01:07 ↗ and work between July 2014 and March

3:01:09 ↗ 2017 I do and I also remember mr. Lowe

3:01:15 ↗ making that point at the very beginning

3:01:17 ↗ of this hearing with through mr. Nevins

3:01:20 ↗ testimony that they were trying to

3:01:23 ↗ allege that we had just not done

3:01:24 ↗ anything for four years at a time so I

3:01:27 ↗ think miss Loman was trying to make that

3:01:30 ↗ point with this chart and in doing so

3:01:33 ↗ she left off many of the meetings that

3:01:35 ↗ we had with the city you know her

3:01:38 ↗ explanation was that she did not

3:01:40 ↗ characterize them as related to

3:01:42 ↗ development of our site I would say that

3:01:45 ↗ every time I met with the city it was

3:01:47 ↗ related to development of our site I

3:01:49 ↗ didn't have any other purpose for

3:01:51 ↗ meeting with the city other than to

3:01:53 ↗ discuss development of this property

3:01:57 ↗ with this with with one exception there

3:02:01 ↗ was one issue related to Issaquah

3:02:03 ↗ Terrace that I met with with them on but

3:02:08 ↗ that was a very discrete issue and it's

3:02:10 ↗ also not shown on this chart

3:02:14 ↗ did you hear miss lemons testimony about

3:02:17 ↗ a theme as she characterized it of don't

3:02:20 ↗ wait till the last minute yes when was

3:02:23 ↗ the last minute did the city ever tell

3:02:25 ↗ you no they never told us when the last

3:02:27 ↗ minute started in fact that was a

3:02:29 ↗ question I wanted to ask miss lemon when

3:02:31 ↗ she made that that testimony I don't

3:02:35 ↗ know where on this chart the last minute

3:02:37 ↗ started no one told us when when it was

3:02:40 ↗ too late to submit again we were

3:02:45 ↗ operating under the development

3:02:46 ↗ agreement which were the only

3:02:48 ↗ regulations that were available and

3:02:51 ↗ applied to our property

3:03:01 ↗ how does the city processed your

3:03:02 ↗ applications within the time frames

3:03:04 ↗ provided for and the development

3:03:06 ↗ agreement no they haven't on any of our

3:03:12 ↗ applications which really everything can

3:03:16 ↗ kind of go back to that as the cause so

3:03:19 ↗ we submitted that plat application in

3:03:22 ↗ August of 2017 after doing months of

3:03:27 ↗ pre-work that wasn't required by the

3:03:29 ↗ development agreement but we did it

3:03:30 ↗ because we were trying to work with the

3:03:34 ↗ city and just get our permit our plat

3:03:36 ↗ approved the development agreement had

3:03:40 ↗ very specific timeframes for review and

3:03:42 ↗ approval over the preliminary plat had

3:03:44 ↗ the city complied with those or had they

3:03:47 ↗ complied with the process which would

3:03:49 ↗ have made all of the pre-work optional

3:03:52 ↗ then we would have already had our plat

3:03:55 ↗ approved at the time we were submitting

3:03:58 ↗ the SDPs which still was within the time

3:04:01 ↗ frame that the development agreement

3:04:02 ↗ development standards applied and had

3:04:05 ↗ the city processed those timely instead

3:04:08 ↗ of repeatedly trying to deem them in

3:04:11 ↗ incomplete we would have had those

3:04:14 ↗ processed and approved prior to adoption

3:04:18 ↗ of the replacement regulations so all of

3:04:20 ↗ this goes back to the city failing to

3:04:24 ↗ follow the development agreement

3:04:32 ↗ did you hear miss lemons testimony that

3:04:35 ↗ she worked on our applications for the

3:04:37 ↗ SDP and ASDP applications until July or

3:04:41 ↗ August of 2018 when director Niven said

3:04:44 ↗ her straight about processing yes

3:04:47 ↗ is that true based on your understanding

3:04:49 ↗ of what the city was doing with shelters

3:04:51 ↗ applications no because we got a letter

3:04:56 ↗ in well so they acknowledged finally

3:05:00 ↗ that our applications were complete in

3:05:05 ↗ March mid March of 2018

3:05:08 ↗ those were the applications that had

3:05:10 ↗ been submitted back in December of 2017

3:05:13 ↗ and originally submitted even before

3:05:15 ↗ that and then between March when they

3:05:20 ↗ were deemed complete and the end of May

3:05:23 ↗ when I got a letter saying you should

3:05:27 ↗ revise your regulation or you should

3:05:30 ↗ revise your applications to comply with

3:05:33 ↗ the replacement regulations please let

3:05:35 ↗ us know if you don't agree I don't think

3:05:38 ↗ any review was done because they were

3:05:41 ↗ telling us to revise them to comply with

3:05:42 ↗ a different set of regulations we

3:05:45 ↗ responded right away and said no we were

3:05:47 ↗ not going to do that because we're

3:05:48 ↗ vested and then we sat and we waited for

3:05:53 ↗ this hearing to start once we found out

3:05:55 ↗ that that was where we were going to go

3:05:56 ↗ which again wasn't until August so I

3:06:00 ↗ don't I didn't hear where any actual

3:06:03 ↗ review of permits happened did you hear

3:06:09 ↗ miss Loman testify that the city had

3:06:11 ↗ retracted its preliminary application

3:06:14 ↗ requirement and specifically with the

3:06:16 ↗ email that's at c50 and the record I did

3:06:20 ↗ hear that and that is absolutely not

3:06:22 ↗ true

3:06:24 ↗ you could turn to c50 please yeah

3:06:42 ↗ so this correspondence happened on

3:06:45 ↗ November well the most recent is as of

3:06:48 ↗ November 1st it actually starts a little

3:06:50 ↗ bit further back did you meet with

3:06:55 ↗ director Niven after this to discuss and

3:07:00 ↗ did you discuss the the pre-application

3:07:01 ↗ requirement on November 6th yes we did

3:07:05 ↗ if you could open up - you can leave

3:07:07 ↗ this open if that's helpful but there's

3:07:11 ↗ also your meeting minutes at c-44 and

3:07:13 ↗ there should be meeting minutes for that

3:07:14 ↗ November 6th meeting this would be

3:07:26 ↗ November 6th of 2017

3:07:36 ↗ [Applause]

3:07:51 ↗ okay many I think you also well you also

3:07:56 ↗ testified about this meeting during your

3:07:59 ↗ February sixth testimony and Miss sloman

3:08:03 ↗ had inferred from your testimony that

3:08:05 ↗ you had essentially said that director

3:08:10 ↗ dividend told you that you didn't have

3:08:12 ↗ to go through a pre application process

3:08:14 ↗ is that true no that's not accurate so

3:08:19 ↗ what happened in this meeting was that

3:08:22 ↗ he acknowledged that the development

3:08:26 ↗ agreement words did not require a pre

3:08:29 ↗ application but that they were imposing

3:08:32 ↗ it anyway and so even though it was

3:08:36 ↗ technically optional that if we elected

3:08:39 ↗ to skip it that they would have no way

3:08:43 ↗ of ever deeming our application complete

3:08:46 ↗ because it would be like it was in a

3:08:48 ↗ foreign language so that was not an

3:08:51 ↗ offer to skip the pre-op that was a

3:08:55 ↗ threat to if you skip if you try to

3:08:58 ↗ enforce your right to not have a

3:09:00 ↗ pre-application meeting I will never

3:09:02 ↗ deem your application complete that was

3:09:05 ↗ the way I understood that communication

3:09:13 ↗ are you aware of any instances later

3:09:16 ↗ after this November 6 meeting where the

3:09:19 ↗ city was requiring three application

3:09:21 ↗ meetings yes so I don't remember the

3:09:27 ↗ exact date but on our storage

3:09:29 ↗ application our consultant again asked

3:09:35 ↗ if we could skip the pre-op and just go

3:09:37 ↗ straight to submit all and what the

3:09:42 ↗ response that he got was Christopher

3:09:46 ↗ right taking this email that is he's

3:09:49 ↗ emailing c50 and cutting and pasting it

3:09:53 ↗ into an email to our consultant Shawn

3:09:56 ↗ and saying here's your answer and that

3:10:03 ↗ we were required to do a pre-op so we

3:10:06 ↗ did at that point in time if we were not

3:10:10 ↗ required to do a pre-op there is no way

3:10:12 ↗ I would have done one

3:10:24 ↗ did the fact that miss lemon didn't cite

3:10:26 ↗ a pre-op response as an item missing

3:10:29 ↗ from the complete application checklist

3:10:32 ↗ for your SDPs and ASD PS mean that the

3:10:35 ↗ city wasn't actually requiring three

3:10:37 ↗ jobs no that the reason why she didn't

3:10:40 ↗ cite those as why she didn't cite lack

3:10:44 ↗ of responses to pre-op comments as an

3:10:49 ↗ item that was missing for our

3:10:51 ↗ applications for SDP was because the

3:10:54 ↗ city was so delinquent in getting us the

3:10:56 ↗ notes from the pre-application meetings

3:10:59 ↗ so there was a lag of I think between 4

3:11:03 ↗ & 8 weeks depending on the application

3:11:05 ↗ between the date when we had the meeting

3:11:08 ↗ and the date when we received then the

3:11:11 ↗ notes so we didn't wait for those notes

3:11:13 ↗ and we submitted and she's right she

3:11:16 ↗ didn't she didn't cite that but that did

3:11:17 ↗ not by any means mean that she didn't

3:11:21 ↗ require a pre-op so I'm getting close to

3:11:26 ↗ the end of this if you'll permit me to

3:11:28 ↗ keep going I think we can wrap it up but

3:11:30 ↗ it's 9:40 - so it would be I'd prefer to

3:11:33 ↗ just keep going through in the hopes

3:11:35 ↗ that I can wrap it up we prefer you keep

3:11:37 ↗ going wonderful Thank You TIA when was

3:11:43 ↗ the first time that you heard that gene

3:11:46 ↗ Linn was your planner the first time I

3:11:49 ↗ heard gene Linn was my planner was oh I

3:11:53 ↗ believe at our pre-op for our plat ok

3:11:59 ↗ did you hear that there was a change at

3:12:01 ↗ any time after that the first I heard of

3:12:05 ↗ that was in the context of this hearing

3:12:07 ↗ when Miss Sloman said that at some point

3:12:11 ↗ she had become the planner on all of our

3:12:13 ↗ applications is that strange that you

3:12:19 ↗ wouldn't know who the the planner was on

3:12:21 ↗ your applications for that period of

3:12:23 ↗ time that is very unusual I have been in

3:12:28 ↗ this business for a long time and I ran

3:12:30 ↗ the land development department for a

3:12:32 ↗ public home builder and I can't think of

3:12:35 ↗ another example

3:12:37 ↗ a time when I or my project manager did

3:12:41 ↗ not know who our planner was that was

3:12:44 ↗ assigned to our application if if your

3:12:47 ↗ planner changes that is something a city

3:12:50 ↗ normally would inform you of so for us

3:12:52 ↗ to find out months after the fact that

3:12:54 ↗ the planner had changed very unusual to

3:13:01 ↗ your knowledge was the city a treating

3:13:02 ↗ in terms of assigning staff resources

3:13:04 ↗ was the city treating other applicants

3:13:07 ↗ such as polygons the same as shelter in

3:13:09 ↗ terms of devoting staff resources to the

3:13:11 ↗ applications no I understood from

3:13:15 ↗ polygon that their projects were removed

3:13:20 ↗ from Miss Lynn and reassigned to other

3:13:24 ↗ planners so that they could be processed

3:13:27 ↗ more quickly and they referred to miss

3:13:30 ↗ Lynn as the Costco planner

3:13:34 ↗ did you hear director Nivens testimony

3:13:36 ↗ that the city didn't process our

3:13:38 ↗ applications in a timely manner because

3:13:41 ↗ of staffing I did and I did not find

3:13:45 ↗ that to be accurate particularly in

3:13:48 ↗ light of the testimony and the chart

3:13:50 ↗ offered by mrs. Lowman

3:13:57 ↗ with shelter ever assigned its own

3:13:59 ↗ project planners to specialized project

3:14:02 ↗ planners to help its projects through

3:14:04 ↗ the process faster I'm not aware of

3:14:09 ↗ anything being done to help us through a

3:14:10 ↗ process faster we had miss Lin as our

3:14:13 ↗ project planner on all of our projects

3:14:16 ↗ well until some unknown date when Leslie

3:14:20 ↗ took them over but nothing that I'm

3:14:24 ↗ aware was done to speed up review of our

3:14:27 ↗ projects turn briefly to the mixed-use

3:14:33 ↗ proposal did you hear miss lemons

3:14:35 ↗ testimony about the community meetings

3:14:37 ↗ that were held for the mixed-use

3:14:38 ↗ proposal I did read about those meetings

3:14:41 ↗ I was not those meeting staff was not at

3:14:44 ↗ those meetings or at least they told us

3:14:46 ↗ that they did not attend we invited them

3:14:48 ↗ to attend they elected not to was miss

3:14:52 ↗ Simmons recollection of the meetings

3:14:54 ↗ accurate no I think she offered two

3:14:58 ↗ articles

3:14:59 ↗ yeah those are in exhibits see 62 and 63

3:15:03 ↗ if we want to turn to those

3:15:17 ↗ so looking specifically at these

3:15:18 ↗ articles that Miss lemon testified about

3:15:20 ↗ and introduced into the record starting

3:15:24 ↗ with C 62 is there anything that well is

3:15:29 ↗ it for starters this is a broad question

3:15:31 ↗ is that accurate and all of it this do

3:15:34 ↗ you or are there things in there that

3:15:36 ↗ are not accurate so C 62 is not accurate

3:15:39 ↗ in that it refers to a proposal to build

3:15:42 ↗ 2,500 residential units that was a

3:15:45 ↗ misunderstanding that some members of

3:15:49 ↗ the public had after that meeting

3:15:52 ↗ because at our initial meeting what we

3:15:54 ↗ were sharing was not a proposal we

3:15:56 ↗ didn't have a map that showed uses or

3:15:58 ↗ anything else we we were sharing market

3:16:01 ↗ data and transportation analysis and

3:16:04 ↗ other community analysis some

3:16:10 ↗ architecture concepts we were seeking

3:16:12 ↗ feedback on the types of uses so the

3:16:16 ↗ 2500 units residential units was

3:16:19 ↗ indicative of what the market forecast

3:16:22 ↗ said that there was a market for on that

3:16:26 ↗ that property we tried to be clear about

3:16:29 ↗ that but clearly you know some people

3:16:31 ↗ misunderstood it I thought it was

3:16:36 ↗ misleading for miss Loman to offer this

3:16:38 ↗ as if it were the proposal because I

3:16:41 ↗ thought that the city was quite clear

3:16:43 ↗ because we had lots of conversations

3:16:45 ↗ with the city that that was never our

3:16:46 ↗ proposal but again this was all related

3:16:51 ↗ to the mixed use proposal which has been

3:16:52 ↗ off the table for a very long time but

3:16:55 ↗ this this article in particular is not

3:16:57 ↗ accurate in the section title and many

3:17:00 ↗ moving parts over there it's on the

3:17:02 ↗ right-hand side kind of close to the

3:17:05 ↗ photos on the page it says explains that

3:17:09 ↗ the ascore Highlands was born with a

3:17:10 ↗ twenty-year development agreement signed

3:17:12 ↗ on June 18 1996 the actual in quotations

3:17:15 ↗ expiration and quotations is in 2017 is

3:17:20 ↗ that accurate that also is not accurate

3:17:22 ↗ so as we've discussed at length building

3:17:25 ↗ or build-out period

3:17:27 ↗ is separate and distinct from

3:17:29 ↗ termination or expiration of the

3:17:31 ↗ development agreement so that part was

3:17:34 ↗ also not accurate and then if you go to

3:17:39 ↗ c63 the other article did this woman's

3:17:49 ↗ testimony accurately characterized with

3:17:52 ↗ this article actually says so my

3:17:59 ↗ recollection is no this article I think

3:18:02 ↗ actually is relatively accurate and and

3:18:08 ↗ if you look at the timing of it it was

3:18:10 ↗ from February of 2017 so this was

3:18:13 ↗ written after we went back to the

3:18:16 ↗ community so we went in May and said

3:18:19 ↗ here's the data and tell us what you

3:18:22 ↗ want we came back in July and said you

3:18:25 ↗ know here's what we think we could do

3:18:28 ↗ tell us what you think then we had focus

3:18:31 ↗ groups in August and then we went back

3:18:34 ↗ to the city they said they would never

3:18:36 ↗ be supportive so just do something

3:18:39 ↗ that's allowed under the development

3:18:40 ↗ agreement and so in I think it was

3:18:44 ↗ January of 2017 we we went back to the

3:18:47 ↗ community because we felt like we had

3:18:49 ↗ started this dialogue and we owed it to

3:18:50 ↗ the community to fill them in on what

3:18:52 ↗ had happened and we explained that the

3:18:55 ↗ city wasn't supportive of the mixed-use

3:18:57 ↗ and so we were pursuing the commercial

3:19:00 ↗ and retail uses under the development

3:19:02 ↗ agreement and that the first thing that

3:19:03 ↗ they were going to see was a plat that

3:19:05 ↗ we would be applying for shortly so this

3:19:08 ↗ article is written after that I think

3:19:10 ↗ the way that that miss Loman

3:19:15 ↗ characterized it was as if this article

3:19:18 ↗ was showing the scale back from 2500

3:19:22 ↗ units to 1,800 units which isn't

3:19:24 ↗ accurate what this article actually

3:19:26 ↗ demonstrates is that we were very public

3:19:29 ↗ in our intent to pursue uses under the

3:19:33 ↗ development agreement exactly as the

3:19:35 ↗ city had instructed us to

3:19:40 ↗ did you hear the questions that mr. Lall

3:19:45 ↗ was asking mr. maleeni regarding rich

3:19:49 ↗ Hills statements given in the December

3:19:52 ↗ 2017 meeting to the city I did were you

3:19:58 ↗ present at that meeting that rich Hill

3:19:59 ↗ was speaking at I was and I thought that

3:20:05 ↗ rich Hills testimony demonstrated that

3:20:11 ↗ he did not understand the facts of how

3:20:16 ↗ things are in Issaquah so his

3:20:19 ↗ description of what a pre-op is was

3:20:23 ↗ consistent with what would be typical in

3:20:27 ↗ other jurisdictions and it was

3:20:30 ↗ absolutely not consistent with what a

3:20:33 ↗ pre-application or preliminary land use

3:20:35 ↗ application is in the city of Issaquah

3:20:38 ↗ so to me his his testimony or his

3:20:43 ↗ comments that he offered were based on

3:20:47 ↗ incorrect facts and so it they just

3:20:51 ↗ weren't relevant in that route in that

3:20:53 ↗ respect so when mr. Mulaney said Rich's

3:20:56 ↗ testimony was wrong I think that is the

3:21:00 ↗ the primary thing that he's referring to

3:21:03 ↗ was if you assumed that a pre-op was an

3:21:06 ↗ informal conversation sketch on the back

3:21:09 ↗ of a napkin and he was saying that those

3:21:11 ↗ things shouldn't shouldn't vest that

3:21:13 ↗ somebody shouldn't be able to vest by

3:21:15 ↗ having a meeting where you just had a

3:21:16 ↗ conversation that's not what a

3:21:19 ↗ preliminary land use application is in

3:21:21 ↗ Issaquah who did Rich Hill represent at

3:21:25 ↗ that time he represented Regency centers

3:21:29 ↗ which is the Grand Ridge Plaza owner and

3:21:32 ↗ he may have also been representing

3:21:34 ↗ Safeway I'm not entirely certain which

3:21:36 ↗ is the grocer that's up there in both of

3:21:39 ↗ those clients of his or potential

3:21:42 ↗ clients of his were adamant that the

3:21:46 ↗ city had promised them that there would

3:21:48 ↗ be no additional retail

3:21:50 ↗ Issaquah Highlands and that the city

3:21:52 ↗ should do anything that they needed to

3:21:54 ↗ do to block our proposal for retail

3:22:33 ↗ I have no further questions terrific

3:22:41 ↗ so I think due to our it's probably not

3:22:46 ↗ a convenient time to start mr. well what

3:22:49 ↗ are your thoughts I would concur on that

3:22:52 ↗ mr. chairman and I think I'm not sure

3:22:55 ↗ what we have scheduled tentatively for

3:22:58 ↗ our next meeting that my assumption is

3:22:59 ↗ that I would be able to wrap up with

3:23:00 ↗ them given that we've reached basically

3:23:06 ↗ reached the agreed time that we we will

3:23:08 ↗ be continuing the public hearing on

3:23:10 ↗ tonight's agenda to July 2nd I

3:23:12 ↗ understand that the parties all the

3:23:15 ↗ parties and commissioners will be

3:23:17 ↗ available so that's correct and with

3:23:23 ↗ that the with all due respect we did

3:23:27 ↗ exchange some emails with miss Loman on

3:23:30 ↗ this issue where as we've stated before

3:23:33 ↗ where this process has been very very

3:23:36 ↗ long and caused a lot of damages for a

3:23:38 ↗ shelter it's very expensive to go

3:23:40 ↗ through this month after month and it's

3:23:42 ↗ a lot to put all of you through as well

3:23:44 ↗ we had suggested a couple of other dates

3:23:47 ↗ of the 19th the 24th and we're told that

3:23:51 ↗ there were some people available but

3:23:53 ↗ it's not clear who or whether there

3:23:55 ↗ would still be a quorum available to

3:23:56 ↗ make a decision on those dates and just

3:23:59 ↗ happen as far as I know haven't received

3:24:01 ↗ a response to that so we were hoping to

3:24:03 ↗ get some clarification on whether those

3:24:04 ↗ dates might be sooner available dates

3:24:06 ↗ for us rather than July 2nd as far as I

3:24:13 ↗ know the the again the dates were

3:24:17 ↗ selected by the number of people that

3:24:20 ↗ could be here at that on those nights

3:24:22 ↗ and they weren't people weren't

3:24:25 ↗ available well I think our concern is we

3:24:27 ↗ specifically asked whether there would

3:24:29 ↗ be a quorum and haven't received an

3:24:32 ↗ answer and if there would be a quorum we

3:24:34 ↗ would respectfully request that you go

3:24:36 ↗ ahead even if not everyone could be here

3:24:42 ↗ but miss Lemmon speak to excite know

3:24:44 ↗ that you guys were even floated those

3:24:46 ↗ days I think there were other issues

3:24:47 ↗ with room availability and the attorneys

3:24:49 ↗ availability but Lizzie do you want to

3:24:51 ↗ speak to that so I had not received a

3:25:01 ↗ question related to a quorum I did

3:25:03 ↗ identify that 24th we had a challenge

3:25:10 ↗ with the meeting room we were able to

3:25:13 ↗ potentially identify an alternative

3:25:17 ↗ meeting room but not the availability of

3:25:20 ↗ all five commissioners I don't know

3:25:24 ↗ whether the other four commissioners

3:25:29 ↗ were available because my understanding

3:25:31 ↗ was that we were having all five of

3:25:35 ↗ commissioners present to debate based on

3:25:38 ↗ the extent

3:25:46 ↗ so obviously our choice would be to have

3:25:48 ↗ all the commissioners that have sat

3:25:51 ↗ through this to be able to continue in

3:25:58 ↗ the deliberation at the same time we

3:26:00 ↗ understand the need for expedited

3:26:04 ↗ conclusion of this process so I guess

3:26:08 ↗ I'll ask the commissioners if there's a

3:26:10 ↗ consensus that we could try to modify

3:26:14 ↗ that go back and look for maybe a sooner

3:26:19 ↗ date and decided we we need four

3:26:23 ↗ commissioners to have a quorum and would

3:26:28 ↗ you agree to the proceeding was just a

3:26:32 ↗ quorum as opposed to all being here I

3:26:34 ↗ would not I don't think it's fair to the

3:26:38 ↗ commissioners who've sat up here for

3:26:40 ↗ eight months listening to this hearing

3:26:42 ↗ the same arguments over and over and

3:26:45 ↗ over again and then be told that because

3:26:48 ↗ you want to expedite it we're not gonna

3:26:49 ↗ have all five commissioners deliberated

3:26:51 ↗ on theirs don't think that's fair at all

3:26:53 ↗ I wouldn't agree to it okay I concur as

3:27:01 ↗ well I think that all the perspectives

3:27:03 ↗ on the Commission are very valuable for

3:27:05 ↗ this decision okay the decision is that

3:27:10 ↗ we'll proceed with the number of

3:27:12 ↗ commissioners that we have and it looks

3:27:14 ↗ like July 2nd will be the date of the

3:27:19 ↗ next meeting thank you and we'll be in

3:27:25 ↗ the council chambers at 6:30 we hope

3:27:27 ↗ that we'll be able to conclude the

3:27:29 ↗ hearing on that night now with that

3:27:31 ↗ tonight's meeting is adjourned thank you

3:27:48 ↗ 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