I Object

This is going to be seriously boring to probably everyone else, but it occupied a significant amount of my time and energy this year that I must document it.  I think it’s also important that my kids remember that their Mom felt so strongly about something that she was wiling to stand alone and fight for what she thought was right.

There’s a parcel of property adjacent to our neighborhood that has been slated for affordable housing.  We’ve known that for years.  About five years ago a company tried to come in and build a 161-unit complex and was asking the city for several tax exemptions to make that possible.  The community, in particular some members of our neighborhood, fought that development and in the end it wasn’t profitable enough for the company and they backed out.

Fast forward to this July when we received a notice of a development application for a 191-unit complex with units as large as five-bedrooms.  (Don’t even get me started about how ridiculous it is that there would be five or even four bedroom units in an affordable housing complex cause it makes my blood boil).  We were not thrilled about that possibility and several of us set up a meeting with the mayor and the city development director to discuss our concerns.  In preparation for the meeting I read though mounds of background information, the building application, etc… Most residents left the meeting feeling defeated and that nothing they could say would stop this development from going in.  I too felt the city wanted to make this happen, but I still had hope that there were justifiable reasons why the scale of the proposed development needed to be reduced. 

The developer was requesting four modifications to the development agreement. 

1. Minor Modification to establish net developable acreage which would allow them to increase the total number of units allowed on parcel from the current range of 80-159 units to the requested 191 units
2. Increase retaining walls heights from the current limit of 6 feet to 13+ feet
3. Hearing Examiner approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to permit four-story building heights (current limit is three-stories)
4. Mixed Use Consistency Review to determine consistency of the proposed development with the SR II Development Standards

We had two weeks to submit our concerns in writing.  Nearly 40 community members did so.  The city was to consider those letters in determining whether to approve the first two modifications desired by the builder.  On September 29 we received notification that the city had approved points #1 and #2 – any appeals to the city’s decision needed to be received by October 13.  I knew there were valid points why the approval should not have been issued, but it had been months since I’d dug into those massive pile of documents and legal mumbo-jumbo and I was dreading having to refamiliarize myself with everything in order to submit an appeal.  As the deadline neared, I called the city development director (who signed the approvals) and found out that if an appeal was received they city would be required to bring in a hearing examiner to make the final decision.  That’s when I knew I had to make sure an appeal was received.  I knew MANY people shared my concerns and opposed the development, but the time it takes to get involved would discourage just about anyone.  I spent days researching the issues and submitted by appeal at 11:48pm on October 13 – just 12 minutes before the deadline.

Two weeks later, on October 26 I received an email from the city development director that stated,

“For your October 13, 2017 emailed appeal of the Panorama Apartments Minor Modification and Wall Height Waiver approval actions, the City is scheduling an open record appeal hearing with the Hearing Examiner on Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 6:00 pm here in the Snoqualmie Council Chambers at City Hall, 38624 SE River Street.  The public notice for that is published in the newspaper tomorrow and attached here for you.  The City also mails public notice, posts the site, posts several places in the City, places the notice on the City website and eblasts it.”

This was the goal – to bring the decision to a Hearing Examiner with the hopes they would be able to look at both sides of the issue and make the decision that would be best for our city and its residents.  I opened the attached document (which was mailed to residents, posted throughout city, and eblasted) and read,

“The Minor Modification (MOD 2017-0001) and Wall Height Waiver (WHW 17-0001) were approved by the Community Development Director on Thursday, September 28, 2017. The MOD and WHW were appealed by Holly Fletcher on Friday, October 13, 2017.

The requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requires a hearing before and decision by the Snoqualmie Hearing Examiner. Per Snoqualmie Municipal Code Section 14.30.130(E), the open record hearing on the appeal of the MOD and WHW are being combined with the open record hearing on the CUP.”

I stopped there and sent the document to Justin freaking out that they called me out by name. After I’d calmed myself down a bit I reopened the document and continued reading,

“The hearing on the appeal of the Minor Modification (MOD 2017-0001) and Wall Height Waiver (17-0001) (both Category I permit decisions) will be an open record appeal hearing; however, the public comment period on the Minor Modification and Wall Height Waiver has closed, and participation at the open record appeal hearing will be limited to the appellant, Holly Fletcher; the City of Snoqualmie; and the applicant, Panorama Apartments, LLC.”

WHAT??  I had no idea that by submitting my appeal that I would be an active participant in the hearing and that because I was the only appeal received I would be the only resident allowed to speak at the hearing.  I freaked out. When word got out residents were also upset that they would not be allowed to voice their concerns.  They thought that the letters submitted in July would be enough to give them a voice. My appeal was even posted online (including my personal email address).

So the first week of November was completely overwhelming for me.  I spent countless hours sorting through documents and trying to formulate arguments for every point I’d made.  Community members were also sending me information they wanted to have presented.  I don’t think I’d ever been more stressed in my entire life.  It was up to me to communicate each and every reason the city’s decision needed to be reversed.  I had great points; however, I knew I was the underdog.  Both the city and the developer have the resources and experts to back their reasoning. 

November 8 came.  I got to city hall early and was approached by a finely dressed young man who already knew my name (and likely much, much more) – he was one of the developer’s fancy lawyers.  He handed me a thick 5-inch binder of documents that he would be referring to throughout the hearing.  {Man, that would have been handy to have more than five minutes before go time).

I got settled on at my desk and tried to keep my nerves in check by visiting with some of the community members there to support me.  The examiner was very nice.  I played on my lack of legal background, which I think gave me some leeway when I didn’t necessarily follow protocol.  He made it clear the burden of proof was on me as the appellant – no pressure, right? I presented the information I’d prepared.  There were a few items I wasn’t allowed to discuss since they weren’t specifically mentioned in my letter of appeal, but I had them in my written evidence so they were still submitted in a roundabout way.  After my remarks both the city and the developer had the option to cross-examine me.  Then the city presented, called their witness and then cross-examination then the developer presented, called three witnesses, then cross-examination.  The cross-examination party totally took me off guard.  I definitely had points I wanted to make after each party presented their evidence, but the trick is that I can only ask questions.  Forming my comment into a question was tricky and flubbed me up on more than one occasion.  Total amateur!  Both parties submitted several additional documents as evidence and both had expert witnesses they called to the podium.  Yep, me against all that.

The initial purpose of the hearing was to address request #3 which had to be decided by an hearing examiner; however, because I appealed the approval of requests #1 and #2 my appeal needed to be heard first.  We took the entire three hours going back and forth on the appeal that we weren’t able to move onto request #3 that evening and it was rescheduled for the following week.  It was a long three hours, but aside from the cross-examination business I felt I made strong points and was able to do so in a professional, respectable manner. 

At the end of the hearing the examiner mentioned he would give us a week to submit our post-hearing briefs.  Um, what?  Apparently this brief would be our last opportunity to submit our reasoning why our desired results should be granted.  No new evidence, no repeating what we’d already said, it was an opportunity to support and defend all that had happened at the hearing.  Had I known I’d have to submit a brief about the last three torturous hours I’d have taken better notes.  I was hoping they’d share the recording of the meeting with us to refer to preparing my brief, but it wasn’t posted online until weeks later.  So again, another rough week for me as I tried to recall what was presented and read though all the new evidence and documents I didn’t have access to until the hearing.

I wasn’t able to attend the hearing examination for point #3 the next week – I was actually grateful I had another commitment.  My brain was fried by that point and I was happy to leave the arguments on that point to the other community members who were itching to be heard. Besides that I still had that blasted post-hearing brief to write. Ugh!

I submitted my brief on the day it was due and at the end of that day I received via email the briefs from both the city and the developer.  It took me days to even open up their briefs because the entire purpose of their briefs was to discredit everything I said.  My name must be mentioned over a hundred times in those documents.  I still haven’t read through them entirely. What I did read just frustrated me.  The lawyers involved should actually thank me because the amount of time they put into preparing for the hearing examination and the billable hours they racked in working on their lengthy briefs surely helped pay their bills. 

So, here we are five weeks later and I still haven’t heard a decision from the examiner.  Honestly, I’m not very optimistic that he will overturn the city’s decisions.  I feel strongly that I shared valid reasoning why it should be, but unfortunately it can all be ignored.  I can’t even begin to estimate the time I put into this whole saga.  It will be disappointing if it doesn’t make a difference in the shape of what is built on this parcel.  But I do take comfort that if it goes ahead as planned and the city finds themselves with a serious traffic issue and more students then they can accommodate that my name will be there for all to see that someone did stand as a voice of reasoning and tried to shape the development into something better suited for our city.

I would love nothing more than to never have to look at these documents again, but if you recall there is still request #4 that will need to be addressed by the city after the first three requests are finalized.  And guess what?  That request/decision is also appealable.