Hearing Examiner - Regular Meeting

Good morning, folks. I see we have 17 participants here on the online platform, and there may be some people there in the public hearing room. Um, for the record, my name is Gary McLean hearing examiner for the city of Kirkland. And we've come together today for the continuation and conclusion of the appeal hearing, I believe, uh, regarding, uh, an appeal of a short plat known as the Finn Hill eight short plat. And, uh, let's see before today date, we concluded on Wednesday afternoon. with some testimony, and the appellant reserved the right to call one witness, their transportation expert, for rebuttal testimony, and I was informed yesterday that they wanted to move forward and do that, so we're here today to hear from the last witness to be called by Ms. Justina's transportation expert. Mr. Telligan will be doing his... examination of that witness on rebuttal testimony this morning. And then if we have any other logistical procedural issues, we can address those at the conclusion of our business today. Before we start, are there any other documents that I need to be aware of? There was a CR2A agreement that that was handed to me on Wednesday regarding the south hedge and issues there. So I don't know if anything new was generated to clarify or amplify anything or if that just stands as is. And if there's anything new, y'all can let me know that. And as well, one thing I did say, I will address with you all whether you all want to do closing briefs and that kind of issue. So make sure we cover that. And if I forget it and start saying goodbye to everybody, somebody raise their hand and let me know. So let me check to see who's online, because right now I don't see everybody. Okay, Mr. Tellegen's there. There's Mr. Gribben, and I can see Ms. Kroll now. I'm going to have to change my settings so I can see all of you. Okay, much better. Now everybody's here. Very good. All right, so you all heard my summary. Mr. Tellegen, did I get that right? You want to call one witness today, and are they online and ready to roll?

Good morning, Mr. Examiner. Yes, this is Brian Tellegen on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Justina. Yes, Mr. Haynes is online. I would like to say, I guess, two things preceding his testimony. One, I believe Mr. Haynes is en route to Wild Waves for a family outing. So he's sort of, I think he might be on his cell phone. Hopefully we don't have any technical difficulties, but just to make you aware of that. Number two, you asked about additional documents. Yes. And I had prepared an illustrative exhibit to sort of guide part of Mr. Haynes' testimony today. The illustrative exhibit contains just sort of simple line drawings of various sort of conceptual configurations of the road leading into this development, just outlining the shape to guide my discussion with him. I can either address that now or I can address it at the appropriate point in his testimony. I have provided that exhibit to counsel for the opposing parties this morning at nine o'clock.

And I assume you generated that based on exhibits that are in the record, like proposed site plans or the short plant itself. Correct.

Well, so I traced out sort of the general shape of the proposed road, and then I sort of augmented it in two ways, not to be hyper-technical, just to conceptually visualize the general shape of the road alternatives that we're discussing.

And you did couch it as an illustrative exhibit just to aid with the testimony. Okay.

It's simply to aid in the testimony. It is captioned as an illustrative. It is not for evidentiary purposes.

I'll let counsel make objections as they deem necessary. But in my mind's eye, I'm pretty familiar with the layout and what you all talked about before. So we'll see how it goes. But I don't think that sounds unreasonable. So, okay.

Very good.

All right. Any procedural issues, Mr. Gribben or Ms. Kroll, that I need to be mindful of before we start today? Are you all ready to move forward?

Yep, none for me, and I don't anticipate any issues with the illustrative exhibit, but we'll raise them if it comes up.

Thank you, Mr. Gribben. Appreciate that. Ms. Kroll?

On behalf of the city, we're ready to go. I don't anticipate any problems with Mr. Tellegen's illustrative exhibit. I do appreciate and thank him for sending it to us today before it started so we could take a look at it. And if it is entered as an illustrative exhibit, I don't have any objection.

Okay. All right. So, Mr. Tellegen, if you're ready, and Mr. Haynes, I see your name. I don't see a face because I'm told you're on the telephone. Oh, there you are. Okay. So are you ready, Mr. Tellegen? Should I go ahead and put him under oath? Ready to roll? I'm ready to roll. Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr. Haynes, if you'd raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give today would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Tellegen.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Haynes. It looks like you're not in a vehicle today. Are you not traveling to Wild Waves?

Not currently, yes.

He's in those comfortable Mercedes, what do you call those, fancy van things. That must be what he's in.

Well, thank you for making the time today. Now, I'll try and be quick with my testimony with you, Mr. Haynes. Yesterday, or I'm sorry, yesterday, on Wednesday, as part of your testimony, we talked about the sort of shape of the driveway. Going into the proposed development site along the panhandle that sort of connects the project site to Northeast 117th Street, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, I'm going to pull up on my screen. I'm going to do a screen share. This is Appellants Exhibit A6. Are you able to see this on your screen?

I am.

I'm going to zoom in here. This is exhibit A6, sheet C06. This is the short plan set. Now, if I zoom in, we had spent some time talking about the fact that the development site is connected to Northeast 117th Street by a long 15-foot wide sort of panhandle of land, correct?

That's correct.

And we had talked about how within that panhandle, the driveway sort of leading to these four new lots, generally speaking, is going to be a 10-foot paved driveway for at least most of the length of that panhandle. But then as we see here where it says vehicle pullout area, we see... I guess we've been referring to it as a bump out, a portion of that driveway that expands to 15 feet, the full width of that panhandle, correct?

That's my understanding, yes. Okay.

Now, in the course of my examination of you on Wednesday, we had sort of talked about alternative ways of sort of configuring the driveway. And one of those alternatives that you had suggested, excuse me, was not to have a five foot bump out on one side of that 10 foot driveway, but rather to sort of center the 10 feet paved width within the panhandle and have it sort of bump out to a smaller degree on both sides to again have that wider 15 foot area. Is that right?

Yes.

OK, now I would like, this is where I'm going to shift to our illustrative exhibit. And here's what I have prepared. This says at the top, Appellant's Illustrative Exhibit. And I've sort of created this by generally tracing the outline here in the left. This is sort of my tracing of the shape of that driveway and then copying over the sort of dimensional requirement or the dimensional standards or measurements that we see on exhibit A6. And we see in this case, generally speaking, on the left, a 10-foot driveway, denoted by 10, the 10 feet here. And then it winds out to 15 feet in the middle. And I've also copied over on the side, I've rounded, the length of these various segments. So the bump out, it shows on A6, is approximately 33 feet long. And then south of that, that's sort of the, generally speaking, the 10 foot area south of the 15 foot bump out is approximately 74 feet long. Does that look about accurate to you?

Yes.

And I've labeled that as short flat plans, sheet C6, exhibit A6. Now, your proposal, or at least one of your proposals, was instead of having it this way with the 10-foot bumped right up against Ms. Justina's property, that maybe we provide some relief by moving the 10-foot stretch to the center. you know centered within that panhandle and then have a bump out to a smaller degree on both sides to allow two-way traffic and i sort of denoted that with the center image here labeled appellant proposal same basic dimensions where the bump out area is 33 feet long and then the area south of that is 74 feet long and we narrow from 10 feet we widen i guess from 10 feet to 15 feet as we travel north through that through that alternative do you see that

I see that.

Okay. Now, is that a fair, at least conceptual representation of the alternative that you had sort of noted in your testimony as being sort of an alternative way of providing two-way traffic similar to what the plan set show, but sort of being able to move that 10 feet over a little bit from Ms. Justina's property?

Yes, from a practical standpoint, whether the driveway is in the center or to one side, you still bump out to 15 feet for two-way traffic.

Okay, very good. And if we think about the maneuverability of cars traveling through this particular, down this driveway, is there any real difference in the ability of cars to navigate these two different alternatives?

In the center alternative, it's actually a little bit easier for drivers to navigate this movement because they're not moving over so far into that extra five feet. Each driver is expected to move over just two and a half feet each to make that passing maneuver in the very rare instance that that occurs.

And why do you say in the very rare instance where that occurs?

Well, according to the traffic assessment that was done by the city's traffic consultant, they showed even in the peak hour, which is the worst of the worst traffic hour, in a 60-minute period, there were approximately three drivers, I believe, leaving the development site and two drivers entering. So in 60 minutes, you have a total of five trips using this driveway. The likelihood that two drivers are crossing each other's paths in the worst of the worst hour is very, very low. Thank you.

Now, after your testimony yesterday, the city called as a witness Mr. Thang Nguyen, who is the city's transportation engineer. I understand that you had left the hearing at that time. However, yesterday I had emailed the city and they sort of very kindly sent me a link to the video recording of yesterday's hearing and i passed that along to you were you able to uh listen to mr thang wen's uh testimony in that video i was Very good. So yesterday, Mr. Wynn spoke to this alternative that we had proposed, and I had asked him a series of questions about it. He had recommended that it was not feasible. And one of the things he said during his testimony was that if you went with our proposal of sort of. Instead of widening the driveway five feet on one side, if instead you were to widen it, say, two and a half feet on both sides to have that wider area for two-way traffic, one of the things he told me, and I confirmed with him, is that in his opinion, if we were to go with this center alternative, in reality, that 15-foot wide area would need to be much longer than 30 feet, and he testified there would, in fact, need to be 75 feet to 100 feet long and he testified that was for maneuverability to allow the cars to maneuver around each other in using that configuration that the wider area would have to be 75 to 100 feet long and i'm wondering do you have an opinion on that issue Oh, and I should say, I've denoted that here on the right-hand side of the illustrative as the city response. And I've denoted that with basically a copy of the same center alternative, but with this center area widened out to 75 to 100 feet, again, using the approximate dimensions that we see on the site plan.

Yeah, excuse me. Yeah, I think a few things come to mind. First, I would say that extending the width to 15 feet for that length of space seems like an unreasonable design for the amount of traffic that's expected to use the driveway. Additionally, the impacts of the width of that driveway to the local area means you reduce things like landscape area that is shown on the plan set currently. And if we think about the sight lines and the sort of visual space that drivers travel through, if it feels like a more narrow space, drivers tend to drive slower. And on a driveway like this, we don't want people increasing their speeds because it's so wide and open. And so by extending the width of the driveway this long, I would be concerned that speeds may increase along the driveway.

Very good. So thank you for those points. But what I'd like to drill down on is that Mr. Wynn testified that there was something about this design of having a bump out on both sides, such that in order for two cars to physically navigate it, to make that maneuver, as he put it, that center area would need to be widened. And I guess from a sort of turning radius perspective or from a from from cars maneuver from a maneuverability perspective is there any reason why we would actually need to extend that center 15 foot area out so much in order to allow cars to maneuver and pass each other in that sort of scenario no there is not And he also had indicated that in doing sort of, you know, in that part of at least his analysis, he said that he had not actually done the calculations, but it was his estimate that it would need to be 75 to 100 feet long. He had indicated that it had something to do with the length of cars. And I asked him what that length was. And he had indicated, according to AASHTO, when you're doing your turning radius, you should be assuming vehicles are 19 feet long. Do you have an opinion on that?

You know, I do. I believe 19 feet long in this instance is a very conservative estimate. And so then I did some research into Kirkland City Code and I saw that they were recommending using a 16 foot long vehicle length for any turning movement analysis that should be required.

Very good. And do you know where you found that reference to 16 feet?

I believe it was in Kirkland zoning code, but I don't remember off the top of my head which one it was.

Okay, I'm gonna pull up here, exhibit A14. This is policy R4. This was already put in as an exhibit. I'm gonna go down, let's see here.

Oh, this only has up to page nine.

Mr. Examiner, I would ask, I've just noticed that exhibit, that policy R4. What exhibit number are you? A14.

So let me go there. Yeah. And in my book, it stops at page nine.

yes and so i've just noticed that when we pull it up online it actually has 10 pages which i believe is where mr um haynes got that i'm wondering if we could if i could move to admit the entire document any objection uh just looking at the exhibit we identified r4 uh no objection to the extent the city's policy r4 does indeed contain 10 pages

Yeah, okay. And if I look at, Mr. Griffin, do you know what exhibit number you all assigned your copy of R42 in the cities or your materials?

Yeah, so applicant exhibit 14 is also just nine pages, but we use the attachment to the staff decision. So I don't know if the original attachment missed that 10th page.

I see. So if I just do maybe some voir dire on this point with Mr. Haynes.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Or some authentication. So Mr. Haynes, yesterday, I believe you had sent me some documents and you sent me a copy of Policy R4 and it had 10 pages. Did you retrieve that off the city's website?

I did, yeah.

Okay. Mr. Examiner, I mean, I think that it does have 10 pages. Mr. Haynes found that document on the city's website. I'm showing you the 10th page here.

I would ask that we style it. Ms. Kroll, any objection?

At this time, I don't know if this is the correct page 10. Can you back staff somehow to verify?

Because I think this is not uncommon that illustrative illustrations are often, for whatever reason, not pulled up because they're not... OCR scanned the same way. I've seen this happen in other instances, but Ms. Kroll, before we adjourn today, could you ask somebody to verify that it is 10 pages and this is in fact page 10? I'm going to assume it is, but if you call it out.

We can have someone in public works check on that before the end of the day.

Thank you. Yep. We're going to assume this is true and correct. So go ahead, Mr. Tellegen. He pulled it off the city's website.

Very good. So Mr. Haynes, this is one of the documents you sent me and you had put some notes in it. I don't need to add the notes, but just here it says here, auto turn input parameters shall be set such that the vehicle dimensions are 16 feet long by six feet wide. Is that what you're referring to as something you had found in the Kirkland zoning code?

That's correct. And this is saying that if any of these templates below are used, don't worry about an auto-turn analysis. Auto-turn is a software system that you can use in a computer-aided drafting to basically model what the turning movement would look like in space. So what they're saying is if you aren't going to use this template, then we may require an auto-turn analysis to see in space what it would look like. And these are the dimensions you would put for the vehicle as an assumption of how big the vehicle might be.

Very good. And so that assumption is a 16 foot long vehicle.

16 foot long.

Yeah. Is that in terms of average vehicle sizes, you know, is that is that a reasonable assumption? Is that a conservative assumption or how would you characterize that?

16, I think, is still a bit conservative. I mean, again, it depends on where you are in any city. But in this case, 16 foot, if that's their policy, that's what I would go with.

Now, if we go back to my illustrative exhibit, if we were thinking about in the rare instance during the peak hour, you know, say two 16 foot vehicles opposing each other coming down this driveway, would they would you expect them to be able to navigate this center alternative to use that 15 foot space to pass each other?

Yes, I would. And again, these are very low speeds. You'd be navigating at a very low speed. You would be able to see the other drivers, the other driver and their car. And you can navigate the space pretty easily with a 16 foot vehicle. Very good.

Mr. Wynn had testified that the city had actually analyzed this sort of central alternative and rejected it. And he had indicated that part of the reasons they had rejected it was based on safety concerns. Is there anything in your mind that would be unsafe about this center alternative as opposed to the alternative on the left side?

No, again, these are a very rare instance that two vehicles would be using this in opposite directions at the same time. And if they were, it's a very, very low speed interaction.

Thank you so much. Now, I understand that subsequent to your testimony on Wednesday, you had also done some just sort of general research looking for the code, generally speaking, to see if there was any support for this sort of center alternative. Did you find anything in the code that would support the idea of sort of centering the driveway within the panhandle and sort of, you know, weighing in favor of the center alternative versus the left alternative?

Yeah, so in Kirkland zoning code 115.115, I believe, they do show access to a dwelling unit, and they show it as a preferred center running driveway in a 15-foot right-of-way.

Is that 115, or was that a visual? Was that one of the plates?

It's one of the plates. So it's shown in 115.115 in text, and then it references plate 14A, which I believe is the sort of template design.

I see. So I'm going to pull up what I believe is plate 114A, and I will tell the examiner this plate 114A is included in the Kirkland Zoning Code at chapter 180. If you go to chapter 180, instead of having code sections, it has plates, and those plates are visual depictions. I'm going to pull up plate 14A from Kirkland Zoning Code, chapter 180. Is this the plate that you were referring to, Mr. Haynes? That's correct. And this is called driveway setbacks on panhandle lots. And what is it about this particular plate that is relevant in your mind?

Now, to me, this is showing, I believe in the text form, it speaks about a 15-foot right-of-way with a 10-foot paved driveway. Here, it's showing panhandle less than 20 feet wide, which this would meet that sort of scenario, and a 10-foot wide paved driveway centered in the panhandle. And then it's also showing equal distance between both sides of the right-of-way.

I see. Are there any other plates that you noted for panhandle lots that had the driveway shoved up against one side versus the other?

Not during my research, no.

Very good. Any other code sections or notations you made of things that might help us decide which one of these alternatives, again, between the left alternative and the center alternative might best meet the sort of letter or intent as you see it of the Kirkland zoning code?

Not that I can remember at this time, no.

Very good. Let's see here. I believe that is all of my questions, Mr. Haynes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Gribben, do you have any questions?

I do. Good morning, Mr. Haynes. Good to see you again. My name is Brandon Gribben. I represent the applicant. You testified that you listened to Mr. Tang Nguyen's testimony from yesterday, is that correct?

That's correct.

Did you listen to his entire testimony?

I did.

And how many times did you listen to it?

Twice. Twice.

Now I'm gonna pull up the appellant's illustrative exhibit for you. And do you have that in front of you?

I do now, yes.

Okay. Now, just to kind of go over this again. So the proposed short flat, you have the 10 foot driveway on the right hand side, and then a five foot bump out for 33 feet, correct?

That's what I see.

And then the appellant proposal is essentially the same except the driveway center with two, two and a half bump outs on each side of the driveway, correct?

That's what I see, yes.

Okay. Now, you previously authored a report on the site distance as part of this appeal, correct?

I did.

Okay. But you did not address the driveway pullout in that report, did you?

I indirectly, I did. We took measurements from the center of the right of way and also measurements from the center of the driveway as proposed by the plan set.

Okay. And that had to do with addressing the, uh, the, the apex of the site triangle, correct. In terms of determining where that triangle would be located and how it would impact the hedges.

That was the more direct purpose. Yeah. Because on a proposed plan set, you never know what will be finalized to sign.

Okay. Now, so looking at the appellant proposal, you have 33 feet. And just to make sure I understand your testimony on how this would work is you would have a car coming down towards Northeast 117th. You would have a car heading north from the street towards the development. And then they would each have to maneuver to their right, pass each other, and then maneuver back to their left into the driveway. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, so each car would have to make two separate turns, ensuring that they had enough clearance where either the fronts or the rears of the cars did not hit each other, correct?

That's correct.

Now, the five-foot pullout on the appellant's proposal, you would agree that's safe, correct? There's nothing inherently dangerous about that?

At these speeds and these very rare interactions, no. I don't believe there's a safety issue here.

And with the proposed plan sets, you would have, let's just say, the car heading south to the street gets there first, sees a car heading north. Only the car heading south would turn into the five-foot pullout, stop, allow the car heading north to the development pass, and then it would turn back into the driveway. Is that how that pullout would work?

I believe so, yeah.

Okay, so in this situation, one car would have to make two turns as opposed to two cars having to make two turns each, correct?

Well, it's a very similar interaction in that both drivers would still maneuver around each other at seven and a half feet width for each driver. They're still in a very low speed interaction, they're still having to interact with each other and and negotiate the space together.

Okay, but doesn't the car heading north within the 10 foot driveway just stay on their path while the other car pulls out of the way?

That would be one way it would work, but there's still a two-way negotiation of the space.

Now, in your proposal, you said the city's response on the right is unwarranted because you believe the maneuvering could be achieved within 33 feet. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, you said you rely on the AASHTO standards in your profession, correct? Correct.

That's the industry standard, yeah.

Okay. And the AASHTO standards provide a sedan is 19 feet for design standards, correct?

That's to my understanding, yes.

Okay. And all of us became lawyers because we're not great at math, but if you had two sedans at 19 feet, that would be longer if they were end-to-end than the 33-foot sedan. pullout you suggested in your proposal, correct?

If they were parked there long term, that would be longer in space. There's a time element to this as well.

And so they're coming in and then one car has to pull in front while the other car is pulling over and then they have to pull into their side of the pullout, correct? So you're taking up the full two and a half feet and part of the driveway on each side, correct?

I'm not sure I understand.

Sure. So when both cars are in the pullout, they are partially in the 10-foot driveway and then partial or then in the two and a half foot bump out on each side, correct?

That's correct. Okay.

And at that point, even if they are absolutely parallel, there is only a total of 14 additional feet within that bump out, correct?

If you assume a 19-foot long vehicle.

Right. And that's what AASHTO does, right? 19 feet for a sedan?

If that's your assumption, sure.

Well, I can pull it up for you real quick just to... So this is applicant, I'm sorry, appellant 29. Do you see the table 2-4A, design vehicle dimensions, U.S. customary units, and then it says passenger car length 19 feet.

I see that.

And when it says overhang front and rear, three feet front, five foot rear, what is that referred to?

In my understanding, that's the overhang of the vehicle in front of the front wheel and in the rear of the rear wheel.

OK. And is that, to your understanding, is that contained in the 19-foot length?

As far as I know, yeah.

OK. And going down to single-unit truck, that is a 30-foot length, correct?

That's what it says.

Okay. And a single unit truck, that's just a truck without a hitch. So, you know, Ford F-150, Toyota Tacoma, those are all single unit trucks, correct?

I wouldn't classify those as an SU-30, no.

Okay.

That'd be more like a U-Haul.

A single unit truck is more like a U-Haul truck. Is that right? That's how I would classify it, yes. Okay.

Okay. So do you see where a, you know, again, a standard Ford 150, Toyota Tacoma, where that is identified on this table?

That would be a passenger car.

That would be considered a passenger car?

In my practice, yes.

Okay. Is that how AASHTO views it, to your knowledge?

To my knowledge.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I do. Just give me one second, Mr. Examiner.

Nope.

So, Mr. Haynes, pulling back up the appellant's demonstrative exhibit. So, as you're heading down Strike that. Would you agree with me that as you're heading down a driveway, a five foot bump out would be more visible than having two, two and a half bump outs on either side?

No.

You would not agree with that?

No.

Okay. Do you think a driveway getting slightly larger on each side would be more visible to a driver?

I believe that they perform the same function. And the people living here understand exactly what that function would be.

Okay, now I'm going to pull up that page 10. And Mr. Examiner, I googled to find the policy since it has not been uploaded as an exhibit. So I'm showing it from the Kirkland website.

So you're saving Ms. Kroll some difficulty or some work for later this afternoon. So this is what's on the website right now. You just pulled it up.

I did. Yes.

Yep. So we're all there are 10 pages and this is page 10. And it is, in fact, what Mr. Tellegen showed us previously.

And no objection to admitting this exhibit.

Okay. Thank you.

And now, Mr. Haynes, focusing on page 10 here. This has to do with turning radiuses, correct?

I think it shows a few things. I think it shows templates of proposed egress and ingress maneuvers. And then I believe it also speaks to if one of these templates was not used, how would an applicant move forward?

Okay. And you referred to this policy for the proposition that a, well, that a standard car is 16 feet long, correct?

This is showing what an applicant might do if an auto turn analysis might be required for their application. Okay.

And that's not what we're talking about in this situation, right? We're not talking about auto turns in terms of providing a pullout either five feet or two and a half feet on each side?

I believe the city's testimony spoke to an analysis for the driveway dimensions. And so that's what led me to this, um, to this page.

Okay. But this does not apply to the regulation of that panhandle, correct?

It's not clear.

Now you had, uh, mentioned that you got to that template, or I think it was called a plate 14A, and you said it was a Kirkland zoning code 115.115, which referred you to that provision, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And this relates to Now, this is not a plate for an access easement, correct?

Is there an exhibit you're trying to show me?

Sure. This is the 14A, which Mr. Tellegen showed you. This is for driveways, correct?

So when I went through the code to look for anything relating to where that 10-foot driveway must be located within a 15-foot driveway.

Mr. Hansen, I just want you to focus on the question I'm asking. This plate 14A applies to driveways, correct?

That's what it says.

OK. And the panhandle in the short plant application concerns access to additional lots, correct?

As far as I could read, it is a panhandle driveway.

That provides access to multiple lots, correct?

Yes, four lots. Or four units, I should say.

Just give me maybe 30 seconds, Mr. Examiner. I think I'm very close to being done.

Okay. Meanwhile, Mr. Haynes is contemplating which slide he gets on first at Wild Waves today.

I lost.

Oh, there's Mr. Haynes.

So, Mr. Haynes, going back to the AASHTO standards, you said it's your understanding that passenger cars encompasses trucks. I believe the example I used was such as an F-150 or a Toyota Tacoma, correct? Correct.

I did.

Okay. And so does it in all respects treat those trucks as passenger cars? Throughout the AASHTO standards?

I'm not sure I can speak to that.

Both of you have made your points on car width and car length. I understand it. For the record, I will note that the examiner lives on a private street that is nine feet wide, and I'm very familiar with passing and driving and parking and the maneuvers that you all are talking about. And one thing none of you mentioned that I will, Mr. Haynes, is it not the case that rear, I should say mirrors on vehicles are often wider and extend out away from the passenger part of the car? More today than perhaps they did 10 years ago. Is that the truth?

That could be the case, yes, since that's part of the two-way interaction where a driver may have to pull their mirror in in order to make that passing maneuver.

I'm just making the point that the maneuver can be complicated on a narrow street, correct?

It takes a little bit more interaction than it might on a wider street. Yeah, okay.

And with that, I am done with my questioning. Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gribben. And thank you again for pulling that up on Google. Johnny on the spot, I appreciate that. And Mr. Tellegen for finding that. I just want to note for anybody watching and Ms. Kroll for having all the exhibits. You all three have done some great examples of good lawyering for your clients, and it makes me, the job as a hearing examiner, easier to find what you're looking for and to understand what you're talking about. So I commend all three of you. Ms. Kroll, do you have any questions for the witness? Your microphone's off. I'm sorry, ma'am.

Thank you. I think Mr. Gribben made the points. You understand, I think you just said the difference between the 16 foot and the 19 foot between the city code and AASHTO. If not, I can recall instead of cross-examining Mr. Haynes anymore, I think his points were made. I can recall Tang Nguyen For additional information.

So you're done with Mr. Haynes?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Mr. Tellegen, do you have any redirect for Mr. Haynes based on Mr. Gibbons' cross? I do. Okay.

Go ahead. Mr. Haynes, I'm going to pull back up my illustrative exhibit. When Mr. Grimm was asking you about the difference between the left alternative and the center alternative, one of the things he was pointing out was that In the left alternative, only one car has to make two turns. That's the car that's pulling into the bump out. And that in the center alternative, you would have two cars each making two turns. Do you recall that?

I do.

Now, I'd like to explore that to see if that's actually true in your opinion or in the hypothetical. In the left turnout, we have, say, one lane, as it were, is 10 feet wide, correct? Correct. That's wider than a typical vehicle, correct? Yes. And then we have five feet, and that's narrower than your typical vehicle, right?

Correct. Okay.

In fact, I mean, not just your typical, I mean, are there very many cars that are five feet wide or less?

Not that I know of.

Okay. So in the leftmost example, if your standard car was traveling down the lane, say going north, it's not necessarily up against one side or the other, right? Right.

No, they would probably center themselves along the 10 feet of width.

Okay. So typically, if they're by themselves meandering down, they're centered. If that car was now centered and other cars approaching, what's that?

Hopefully, they're not meandering.

Not meandering. I guess just driving by themselves, not swerving. If they're centered, would it be the case that both cars would actually still have to do some maneuvering even in the left-hand example here?

Yes, they would.

Okay. So the fact that the shape is different doesn't eliminate the fact that the two cars are still going to have to maneuver and both of them may have to turn around each other to actually navigate that space.

Jackson, these are leading questions.

I've given you all three a lot of leeway, so I'll allow the question. Go ahead.

Is it true or false that both cars would need to both maneuver and turn their vehicles, most likely to maneuver that space?

That's correct.

Okay. And in performing those dual maneuvers, is there any practical difference in terms of the maneuverability and what those drivers will actually have to do between the leftmost alternative and the center alternative vehicles?

In terms of the practical space limitations and the available space given to both drivers, the interaction should be very similar in either proposal.

OK. And based on everything you've heard, again, is there anything unsafe about this center of proposal?

No. Again, the interaction is incredibly rare. The vehicle speeds will be very low. They'll be looking at each other when it happens.

OK. And to the examiner's point about mirrors, Now, cars passing, how would you describe 15 feet in relation to how close those cars are going to have to get in any of these circumstances when they pass each other?

Yeah, it's a narrow space. The drivers will need to negotiate the space together.

It will be close. Very good. I have no further questions.

I've got one question, Mr. Haynes. You've testified that the proposal that you're advocating, it's in the center of the illustrative exhibit that I see, that there's nothing particularly unsafe about that proposal, correct?

That's correct.

So a different question. If you look at what's on the approved short plans depicted on the left side of this illustration, Is there anything about that design from a professional transportation engineering standpoint that makes you say that that engineering design is in error, that it's a mistake?

No, not that I can think of. I think my opinion would be that it's a difference of engineering opinion. For me, I'm an advocate of people negotiating the space together. So the center proposal makes sense from a safety perspective to me. Whereas the short plans show responsibility of one driver, and it might even show that the other driver does not have a responsibility.

Essentially, it's beyond the person trying to come out moving south, right? That's correct. Because they've got his driver, right?

Yes, sorry to interrupt you. Whereas for my professional opinion is that if they're both negotiating the space, it creates a much safer environment for both drivers.

And then looking at the third one called city response, you didn't say, well, you weren't asked if it was unsafe, but you wanted me to take the point that you're concerned that a 15-foot wide space

driveway running for 75 to 100 feet might encourage people to move faster in their car than if it were a narrower driveway is that fair to say that's excuse me yes that's my opinion and and it's a greater impact for the for the number of vehicles that will travel this driveway in any given even in the peak hour the number of interactions that may happen that seems like a like an over design of the driveway to me and may lead to increased speeds

Okay. All right. To any of you, Ms. Kroll, I'll go to you first. Do you have any questions based on what I've asked? Ms. Kroll?

I do. I apologize. In this facility, the mute and non-mute button are not where they are in the Teams method that we normally use, so I have to remember where it is, and I apologize. No problem. Mr. Haynes, when you were preparing your analysis on these, what speed limit were you assuming the cars would be going?

I did not perform an engineering analysis on the driveway. I was not asked to do that. I was asked to look at the stopping site distance. For a driveway like this, I would assume anywhere below 10 miles per hour and being a very high maximum.

All right. So let me get back to that. You were initially hired by the appellant to perform a site analysis report. Is that correct?

It was an analysis report specifically about stopping sight distance.

Okay. And we have that report in the record, correct?

That's correct.

And does that report address any testimony that you have provided today about the design of the ingress and egress to the short plaque?

As I spoke to Mr. Goodman, I took indirectly, I took two measurements, one from the center of right-of-way and one from the proposed short plat plans driver location.

I don't understand. I'm sorry. Does your report address any of the issues that are before the hearing examiner today with regard to the width and design of the panhandle access?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay. We were looking at... Let's see. Can I share the screen?

Yeah. Sorry.

Okay. So we were looking at... Okay. Can you see the exhibit?

You're looking at page 10 now?

Yes. Page 10 of the city's exhibit with regard to auto turn analysis. And in that, were you considering that anyone was passing someone in these driveways? Yes.

Can you, I don't really understand the question.

We're looking at page 10 of report that you said you referred to. And it shows driveways and it shows turn radiuses for those driveways. Did you consider that in these driveways, there was any issue of people passing each other?

My research led me to this document because I was looking for anything in the code that spoke to where a driveway must be located within a 15-foot right-of-way. And when I heard the testimony from the city, I heard the word analysis. And so that led me to this document, and it also led me to the dimensions of a vehicle being 16-foot long in this document relating to driveways.

Okay, so... Is the 16 feet in the document you are currently looking at applicable when you're doing a traffic analysis of two vehicles that need to pass each other in a 15-foot wide area?

I think that's up to the city. What this document tells me is that if an auto turn analysis is required, then these are the dimensions that the analysis should use for a vehicle.

And that's right. And so do you think it's appropriate to use this same 16-foot dimension that is applicable to auto turns for a driveway for a single-family residence when you do an analysis of two vehicles that need to pass each other on a long panhandle? Or do you think it would be appropriate to use the AASHTO 19 feet standard?

If I were the applicant or the engineer for the applicant, I would start here and I would work with the city to ask for what their preferred method would be. But this would be my starting place. I don't believe a vehicle leaving a single car garage would all of a sudden increase in size. So if my assumption was that it's 16 feet long, that would be my assumption all the way to the main street.

You would assume that when the city, if I get this correct, you're saying you assume that when the city decides an auto turn for a one-car driveway, when they assume a vehicle of 16 feet, that the city is going to assume a vehicle length of 16 feet throughout their entire code in every analysis that they make. Is that what you're saying?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that would be my starting place based on this document. And then I would work with the city to find out what their preferred method would be.

Okay. And if their preferred method is 19 feet under AASHTO, then do you accept that that should be the standard that is used?

I'm not performing that analysis, but if I were, I would rely on the city to provide that information.

So if you did perform that analysis and you were told by the city that it's 19 feet under AASHTO, is that the size vehicle you would use?

If the city required that that size vehicle be used, that's the size vehicle that would be used for the engineering analysis.

All right. And you said you didn't do an analysis, right? But you have been speaking here today as if you did do an analysis. What is the basis of your conclusions today if you have not actually done an analysis?

I've been in the industry for 16 years. I've worked in narrow space for a lot of those years. I work in the city of Portland where we have narrow roadways all throughout every neighborhood. And so we work a lot on how do two drivers negotiate that narrow space.

Okay. So you did not do an analysis of the panhandle road at issue in this short plat. Is that correct?

That's correct.

You have done analyses of cars passing each other on narrow roads in other projects. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So your information and conclusions here today are about other projects you have worked on, not the short plat at issue today. Is that correct?

Every project I work on builds to my experience. And I've had a lot of experience.

You have a lot of experience, but you did not do an analysis of the panhandle at issue in the short plaque, correct? I did not. Okay. I have no further questions.

Okay. Mr. Gribben, do you have any follow-up questions?

I think I may just have two or three questions, Mr. Examiner. Mr. Haynes, pulling back up the, oh, if whoever, Ms. Kroll, would you mind releasing this?

Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Stop share. Did that help?

I still see it on the screen.

Stop share. Thank you. Sorry about that.

Mr. Haynes, just pulling up, focusing on the city's response, I believe, did I hear you say that the 75 to 100 feet of having the full 15 foot width was, you said that was over-engineered in your opinion? Was that what you testified to earlier?

I didn't say definitively. I said it may be an over design.

Now, in this zone, an access tract serving four lots without requesting a modification, the standard is 16 feet of pavement and a 21-foot tract, correct?

Yes.

No further questions.

Okay. Mr. Tellegen, any redirect for your witness?

Yeah. A multi-illustrated exhibit. So, Mr. Haynes, Ms. Kroll asked you if you'd done an analysis. What did you understand by that question when she asked, have you done an analysis? Like, what are you thinking is an analysis? Like, what qualifies as an analysis that you didn't do?

Well, I think first it's what the city decides is an acceptable analysis. But when I hear that word and I see policy R4, I think of an auto turn analysis. So in space, you can actually see the two vehicles. You can model the two vehicles passing each other. You can measure in a CAD program how far away those might be in a surveyed area.

And just on that point, hold on, Mr. Haynes, because I'm not a transportation engineer and my computer doesn't have software where I hit something called auto turn analysis. You know, there's not a button here to do that. And when I looked at that page 10 and I was squinting at the screen to look at it. It mentions auto turn analysis, but it is talking about driveways and things of that sort. And I can see where a car pulls out of a driveway and it tries to back up or turn left or turn right. That all made sense to me on that page. And I understood intuitively, at least in my brain, my low educated, no transportation engineering background that I have, I understood what the auto turn would be, like automatically show how it backs up and turns to go one way. Auto turn. Is that a term of art that you would use to analyze this illustrative exhibit? Or is that a different term of art because you're not turning cars, but you're passing cars? Tell me, is an auto turn analysis what is done to determine if either of these three is safe or unsafe, preferred or ineffective?

Sure. AutoTurn is a tool like any other tool you might use, and you can use it in many different ways. And so in the instance of pulling out of a single car garage, yes, you can manually move the car out of that garage and manually move it on its way. There are certain templates you can create in AutoTurn that show that kind of maneuver in any number of situations. But as I said, you can manually sort of drive the car using AutoTurn, and it'll show you where the wheelbase is, where the edges of the car is. You can create custom vehicle templates in there as well. So that would be a tool I might use if I were to do an analysis on this type of situation to sort of visualize two vehicles. Exactly. So this illustrative exhibit, I might use AutoTurn to visualize what two vehicles passing each other might look like in any of these scenarios.

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Tellegen. Sorry, I just needed to understand that.

No, no. Thank you. So do you have experience doing AutoTurn analysis?

I do.

Yeah. So you said you have quite a bit of experience in general. Now, do you think that you need to do a formal auto-turn analysis to determine that alternative? I guess the left alternative is frankly no better in terms of maneuverability than the central alternative?

Because of my experience, I would say if the width is the same, in fact, the center option would be better because the turning severity is lower in the center option. And again, the negotiating of both vehicles, the responsibility of both drivers to negotiate that space rather than putting the onus just on one. I would prefer the center proposal. If the city required it as part of an engineering analysis, of course, AutoTurn would be a tool that could be used for that analysis.

Very good. Now, there was discussion about 16 versus 19 foot car lengths. Let's assume that when we think about this, let's assume 19 feet as sort of the standard instead of 16. Even at 19 feet, do you think that sort of centered 15 foot area would need to be 75 to 100 feet long as in the right alternative screen in order to allow those cars to maneuver around each other in this space?

I, excuse me. I do not know based on the projected volumes using this driveway, that interaction is, is very rare. Um, and even if there were two vehicles leaving one vehicle entering one vehicle is passing one vehicle at one time.

Yeah.

Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Haynes before he puts on his swimsuit and heads to wild way?

Anybody further?

All right, Ms. Kroll, I take it you don't have anything else either.

Nothing further.

All right, Mr. Haynes, thank you for your double duty and your double time on two days. I appreciate it. I hope you and your family have a wonderful weekend coming ahead.

Great, thank you.

All right, take care. Bye, Mr. Haynes. All right. So, Mr. Telligent, is that that's your rebuttal witness? Any other? That's it.

Okay.

That's it. Ms. Kroll, you mentioned you might want to call back. Mr. Nguyen, do you think you need to or you tell me?

I would like to call Mr. Nguyen for just several questions.

OK, well, can I say, Mr. Examiner, as the appellant, I believe I have the burden here and it's appropriate for me to have the final rebuttal. So I would object to Mr. Wynn being called back. Also, if he is called back, we just excused Mr. Haynes. He's no longer on. I would assume I mean, he I would need him to be able to listen to Mr. Wynn's testimony and potentially provide final rebuttal or whatever Mr. Wynn says. So I would object to this process. I think we should end with Mr. Haynes.

I heard you. Ms. Kroll, what were you hoping to cover with Mr. Nguyen?

I was hoping to cover what the analysis is intended for on the page we've been looking at. Mr. Nguyen worked on that and he would like to respond that it's not applicable to two cars, passing on a long stretch for a shared use driveway for multiple units. That would be the testimony he's going to provide.

Maybe it can make it easier for everybody. I heard the arguments about 16 feet, 19 feet. And to be honest with you, I don't think this appeal turns on where the three cars are three feet longer or shorter than they are. The points can be made with each length by all parties. And I understand it. It's a complicated, narrow road, narrow lane. And you've all got compelling arguments on both sides. But I do not think I'm going to flip a coin and go this side wins or loses if it's a 16-foot or a 19-foot car length. So I don't think I need to hear more testimony on that issue. I appreciate, Ms. Kroll, that Mr. Wynn's here and he wants to clarify things from his perspective. But I really just don't think that's driving the train right now.

Well, we appreciate that because we can let Mr. Wynn go, and that's perfectly fine. Thank you, Your Honor.

Okay, he can go to Wild Waves, too, if he wants to. It's a little cold this morning, though.

I know. It's the last year, though. You've got to get your days in.

I'm telling you, there you go. Imagine how good the maintenance is here. They're about to close.

Mr. Wynn would not go to Wild Waves, but he would put on his hiking boots and a backpack and be lost in the wilderness.

All right. Well, be careful and don't light any matches this weekend. Okay. All right. So I think we're done with all witness testimony. Everybody? Okay. All right. So let's move to housekeeping. I told you all I would take up requests for closing statements or written materials as you all see fit. So attorneys, I'm looking to you. I'm not calling one more than the other. So have you all, did y'all meet and confer and decide what you wanted to do? Or does one of you all want to make a request? I'll consider your requests.

May I speak to this point?

Go ahead.

Yes. So yesterday, I'm sorry, I keep on saying yesterday, on Wednesday, the parties had conferred and talked about doing written closing. And there was sort of a general agreement. Yesterday, Ms. Kroll had emailed saying she might prefer to have oral closing, given that we were going to be done early today. But then, you know, sort of threw it open to see what the parties preferred. I think Mr. Gribbons said that he also preferred written closing, which On Wednesday, we had said, and Ms. Kroll said she would go along with the majority. I don't mean to put words in her mouth, but she basically said that. That's what I said. Yeah. So on Wednesday, I think we had generally said 10 pages. Ms. Kroll had then, at least yesterday, proposed seven. Mr. Gribben had said that he would be okay with seven. I have given thought to how long I think I need for my closing. I have thought about the various components and subcomponents. My request to you, sir, would be for a 12-page limit. I believe that's reasonable. I don't think it's overburdening. But given the various things, I would like 12 pages. And I would like to have that due. I was going to say the 24th, but my firm has several large briefs due on the 24th. So I would ask to have it due on Monday, the 27th.

Okay. I'm okay with the 27th as a deadline for briefing, and I'm okay with 12 pages, as long as I'm not using super small fonts or anything.

Yes, we had on Wednesday talked about 10 pages, and then there was a reduction of the issues. There was a settlement with regard to the site distance issue. So really, there's only one issue left. That's why I recommended seven pages, um, so that we can be concise on the one issue that is left. I think 12 pages is excessive. Um, I don't know what would be said in 12 pages. I do note that, um, the city presented a staff report to you, Mr. McLean with all our, our written responses to everything. Um, at the pre-hearing conference, you, um, sent out an order saying when pre-hearing briefing was due. And Mr. Gribben responded to that. The city responded to a staff report. Mr. Tellegen provided nothing. He, he's, his position was that you didn't order pre-hearing briefing. He was allowed to do pre-hearing briefing and he didn't want to. Then when we got in the hearing, he asked, started asking questions about issues we did not know. were on the table. And when we asked for an offer of proof, he didn't want to tell us. But you did, Mr. Hearing Examiner, convince him that he needed to give us an offer of proof in which he raised issues for the first time that were not in his appeal letter, not in his supplement to his appeal letter, not told to the parties at the pre-hearing conference, and not given to the parties in pre-hearing briefing and then arguing with the hearing examiner that he didn't have to tell us what his appeal issue was even during the hearing. And now he says, okay, I didn't do any of that, but I would like to have 12 pages on the one issue we have left. And I just think that we're all ready for a seven page closing and that the appellant has had plenty of time to get her arguments to you in writing, and those were never provided until now. That's supporting the city's request for seven. I think it's reasonable. There's only one issue left, and 12 pages seems excessive.

Mr. Griffin.

I do agree with what Ms. Kroll just said, and I do want to clarify what what appeal issues Mr. Tellegen prosecuted. As Ms. Kroll said, he appealed every single element of the decision and identified, I believe it was around 36 witnesses, didn't submit any pre-hearing brief. And then at the hearing, it was actually only, to my understanding, three issues related to the hedge, the site distance, perhaps some measurements of whether or not it's a hedge or a tree or a shrub, and then the placement of the driveway. And I think if you look at the appeal, those challenges to the decision were not articulated, even though I think it's clear Mr. Tellegen knew what he was appealing. So I guess at a minimum, I would like to confirm the appeal issues left on the table. So we're not left of, oh, you know, we're only addressing issues related to the hedge, the driveway placement, And then in Mr. Tellegen's brief, he's raising other issues, traffic, parking, garbage cans, drainage, everything else raised in the appeal that was not discussed at the hearing.

Mr. Tellegen, do you have any response to what you just heard?

Yes, thank you. Well, first of all, the one thing I would like to tell you is that when Ms. Kroll just told you, she sort of provided you a narrative of things I said about how I didn't have to do this or I didn't have to do that. I have never had a conversation with Ms. Kroll about those issues. So what she told you about what I said to her or how I attempted to justify things, I have never spoken to Ms. Kroll about those topics. So that is false. Now, yes, Ms. Kroll, I have never spoken to you about those topics.

You spoke to Ryan and Ryan is my partner.

I understand.

And you were on the phone.

Miss Pearl, nor did I speak to Ryan about those topics. Mr. Ryan called me.

Okay. The couple of days after the, okay, okay, okay, okay.

Okay.

I don't want to litigate between the two of you of your conversations, but Mr. Teller, I want to hear from you, you know.

The only appeal issue relate to preservation of the Western hedge. That's what I'm litigating. I believe that that issue has several components, both as to whether those hedges need to be preserved or whether they should be preserved whether the examiner has authority to order that they be preserved and part of that relates to the spacing or you know where we put the the road because moving the road over is a way of frankly preserving those hedges i've got a question on that um because the appeal had a lot of issues raised in it and then the motion came about and then my order

followed your lead and removed some topics because your client removed certain topics from the appeal, issues from the appeal, and some others were stricken. And one of the things was, and you had some exhibits on the subject, so I'll just start with that. You all raised nothing in the hearing that I heard about the previous hearing examiner ruling. You're not arguing anything about it that something from it has to carry over into this, right? No, no, no.

Okay.

Those are gone. So if I look at the staff report for the appeal, they identified what the city staff, Mr. Calufo, Mr. Lopez identified what they thought were 17 issues under appeal. Coming into the appeal. So based on how you're narrowing things, it sounds like Mr. Gribbett and Ms. Kroll were basically asking, are you willing to go through that and say, these are off the table? These are the remains.

Yeah, that's fine. Why don't I pull up a copy of my amended appeal statement? Can I do that? That's fair.

That's fair. Let's see here. And I assume that's in your exhibit set. Do you know which one it was? I could look at your list.

Actually, I'm sorry. My amended appeal statement is not in the exhibits. I assumed things were sort of already in the file.

Applicant exhibit 19.

All right. So here's my amended... Oh, yeah, this is the amended one. All right. So my appeal issues begin on page... two and so i'm just gonna go through the bullet points first bullet point uh has to do with the density issue that is off the table i believe you also i think that was when you dismissed uh mr examiner um access with issue I'm not technically challenging the next one, which is the access width issue. That has to do with whether or not it was basically okay for the city to grant a reduction in the standard width of the driveway. It's a reduction and a modification, right? Correct. That's off the table. Staff response and traffic concerns, that's off the table. Road conditions. Yeah, that now has to do with like the traffic on the surrounding roads. Street parking, that's off the table. Wait, is road conditions off the table? Because it's about surrounding roads, right? Correct. Yeah, I'm not arguing anything about traffic on like 117th or 84th or that sort of stuff.

Okay.

Now we move on to page three. We have the first one is staff response to waste receptacle concerns. I'm not pursuing that. Staff response to construction impact concerns. I'm not pursuing that. neighborhood disruption concerns is the next one. That's the third bullet point. I'm not pursuing that. Page eight, section 3N, staff response to concerns about preserving existing vegetation and lawful destruction of vegetation owned by others. That is, but you have ruled that that, you know, I am pursuing that, but you have ruled that that can't be based on sort of like tort principles, right? It's based on code. And I articulated several code provisions in response to Mr. Gribben's response request for an offer of proof so that is still on the table staff response to drainage concerns is next that is off the table next one staff response to concerns about impacts to neighborhood character concerns include or not limited to will have adverse impacts on neighborhood care excuse me Would you say something, Ms. Kroll? No, no, no. Your microphone just bleeped a little bit.

Oh, I'm so sorry. But that was unintentional. But I did not hear, I'm sorry, what Mr. Tellegen said about whether drainage was on the table or off the table.

Off.

Thank you. And I'm sorry about my microphone.

Go ahead, Mr. Tellegen. You're on neighborhood character.

Neighborhood character that's off the table. Conclusions relating to the next one is conclusions relating to compliance with KMC 2220-140 and KZZ 145.45. Now, those are two provisions. Those are basically the approval criteria for a type one process decision. And that's at the 145 and then approval criteria for subdivision. Those are actually two provisions that I cited to you, Mr. Examiner, as reasons why I think the vegetation issue is relevant under the code. So that is on the table as far as I'm concerned.

And on the table as it relates to the other issues that you raised, correct?

Hedge in the driveway. Yeah.

Correct. Right.

Yes. And to be in all candor, the driveway issue, I mean, we're raising it because, as you recall, Ms. Hogan testified, right, that if you just move that driveway over a little bit, it actually allows that hedge to be preserved. Right. So that's why the driveway issues are relevant in my mind.

Okay.

All right. Although I would reserve the right, based on today's conversation, you had asked Mr. Haynes, for example, if that central alternative, if there was any reason to prefer it, and he had said yes. So I guess I would reserve the right to say, hey, not only is this relevant because it preserves the existing vegetation, but as we just heard, there are other benefits to it too. Right. um so i think that's all falls under that that same issue um next one page 10 to 12 packs and conclusions relating to compliance with kzz chapter 110 i'm not alleging any violations of kzz chapter 110 and i believe that is the um actually let me double check here what is kzz 110 excuse me did you have another comment

No, I didn't hear anything. I heard Ms. Kroll again. Oh, I'm not. I heard microphones off on mine.

Oh, okay. Sorry, I'm just navigating here trying to get back to the general. There it is.

110 is required. Street trees, that kind of thing?

No, I think this is... Acquired public improvements. I don't believe this is relevant. And no one talked about.

Yeah. Improvements and things. I don't think.

Yeah. I think that has to do with the straight improvements. So that does not. That's not it. That's off. Yes. The next one is facts and conclusions relating to driveway location and site distance, vehicular access, easements or tracks, pavement width and pavement setbacks and screening. I believe that's all on the table. I mean, at least as it relates to what we've been talking about, that strip of driveway through the panhandle. We've been talking about that quite a bit. Right. Page 16 to 17 is the next one. Facts and conclusions related to tree retention. I think that's on the table. We talked about, you know, whether the hedge is a tree, that sort of thing, whether it needs to be in the tree retention plan, needs to be surveyed or inventoried and that sort of thing.

Could we center the exhibit, Your Honor, to following, I'm not I think he's off the exhibit.

You're on tree retention, so you want to scroll up there, Mr. Tellegen, until you get to it? There you go.

Let's see. I had just spoken to the last bullet point on page three.

Thank you.

Now we're on to page four. Future modifications is the first bullet point. You already dismissed that one.

Timber trespass is next, isn't it?

Yeah, you already dismissed that. And, but I mean, yeah, so consistent with your ruling, I can't, I'm not alleging a violation of the timber trespass statute and those sorts of things. And then the last one you can see here on the third paragraph on this page is the one about compliance with the prior hearing examiner appeal. And you already dismissed that.

Yeah. And the only thing that was left was the city at the city's failure to address traffic and pedestrian safety impacts that last sentence. which I assume you're withdrawing as well.

Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes.

That's out. Okay. All right.

And I guess I would say, Mr. Examiner, if I may, even with those issues narrowed, I mean, I think you have heard a number of arguments and sub-arguments. There's been a lot of points. Well, and so while you can characterize this case as only having one issue, right, the Western hedge, I would characterize it as one global issue with many sub-components. right, that you've heard, all of which, frankly, you've heard testimony about today. And I disagree that somehow 12 pages is excessive. I don't think 12 pages is excessive. I think that's fairly concise. I believe I'm a pretty concise person. I witnessed that in how I presented my case today, and I don't have any intent to deviate for that. And I would ask for 12 pages. I think that is reasonable and fair and, frankly, comports within my mind's eye what I need to present my argument.

Okay, Mr. Tellegen, thank you for identifying for all parties and myself what issues are off the table and which ones you would like to keep on the table. So based on that representation, I will allow the parties to provide closing arguments as you see fit. I will give you all sufficient time to put that together. hoping that they're all filed no later than Monday, July the 27th. I ask that you have them submitted by 3 o'clock in the afternoon, just in case there's some communication difficulty, and Tyler can reach out to you and say, hey, you know, Six pages are gone or you only sent the even pages, not the odd pages. We've had all, not here, but I've seen all sorts of things happen. So the 27th of the deadline, I don't, you know, 12 pages is fine. Nobody has to give me a 12-page brief. uh if you want to give me a three-page brief that's fine feel free to refer to previous submittals if your appeal statement articulates why you think you should win on issue x tell me that tell me to reread this very carefully because that proves my point this is why they should lose on that item you don't feel like you have to rerun things you can refer to what's already in the record if you want to and Basically make it a roadmap for me in very short form, but you all decide that. Also, I think all parties should feel comfortable if you want to submit proposed findings on particular issues as part of your brief. Feel free to do that. You can include that. And that's one reason why 12 pages is not unreasonable. Those don't have to be that long, but there are certain critical findings that I'm going to have to reach. And if you think certain things take me to them, suggest language. That's for all parties. You all can do that. And sometimes that's helpful. And this one, as I said earlier, um, you know, whoever wins, loses or draws on this appeal. Uh, I think all three of you have four of you there's four. Well, actually there's five lawyers involved. I think you've all done a very good job and I'm confident that what you all give me will give me materials. It makes it a hard decision to have to make, but hard decisions are the best ones to make because you've got good materials behind you to make that decision. So, um, I welcome your closing briefs and things. Anything else procedurally before we go? I think I've got all the exhibits. The only one, Mr. Tellegen, please have your illustrative exhibit today. Stick a number on it. Send it to Tyler as a PDF. You already sent it to the parties. And assign it a number as part of your series of exhibits so that we'll all refer to it with a common numbering. The book that I have here, what do I have, 51? So it might be 52 unless you already use that number. But if you could take care of that before close of business today, sit at a tile and say, here's a true and correct copy of what I just used today. And it would be a signed exhibit XX. And that way everybody knows how to refer to it in their closing brief. Does that sound good?

Yeah, that sounds good. Should I also submit a full copy of policy R4 with the 10th page?

Yes, please.

Yeah.

That's fine as a standalone exhibit. Why don't you just give it a number? Yeah. Very good. It was talked about enough today as a standalone exhibit. I think it should be referred to that way.

Yeah. Do you mean just the 10th page or the whole document? I'm sorry.

10th page. Just the page. All right. Yeah. And you can assign it 51 or 52. I defer to you, but just tell everybody what you're doing. So we're all using common language when you all write your briefs and I write my decision. Okay. Are there any logistics, housekeeping issues? Mr. Griffin, you got your hand up.

Yeah. So proposed findings, would you like that in a Word document so you can modify Tinker if necessary? That's fine. Yep. And then I assume you don't need additional copies of exhibits. If there's an exhibit we reference a lot in our brief, since you have a copy, or if we do reference it a lot, would you like it attached to the brief since it might be more convenient? Yeah.

I have all the exhibits, but if there's something you all think would make it easier and simpler for me, do it. I'm not going to say don't. One thing I will say, and you all probably seen it too, with digitized records, it's not always paradise. I'll tell you in this one, I've got three attorneys and I've got staff with two different kinds of emails and things get sent to me on different emails. And it's like, I got to open this one to come to this set of exhibits and this set of, and then to find it. it can take time and uh i'm not always sure i'm pulling up the right items so i have to go back and double verify everything and i do to make sure i've got it but if there's a way you can make it simpler and easier to find and it's something you're talking about all the time go ahead and give me another copy that's fine yeah great can i ask one last question

So, taking off of Mr. Ribbon's question, he asked you if you would like proposed findings in a Word document. I think you answered yes, or that would be helpful. I use Word, so the answer is yeah. It wouldn't be in another one yet. Okay. My question is, so I thought you had said earlier that proposed findings were would be part of the 12 pages if they are proposed. And I guess I took from Mr. Gribben's question that maybe he was envisioning that there could be like two different submittals and there wouldn't necessarily be a page limit, a total cumulative page limit. I just wanted to clarify, you, is the rule that we have 12 pages for briefing and then again, up to 12 pages, we don't need to do the whole 12 pages. And then in addition to that, we may submit proposed findings, conclusions, or were you envisioning that that would all be allowed? You tell me what you would like. It honestly doesn't matter to me, so it's simply a matter of your preference. What I care about the most is having up to 12 pages for briefing and argument.

I'll give you all leeway. If you all want to do proposed findings separate from your closing brief, I'm fine with that. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Yeah. I don't want to tell you how to do it. You all do it how you want to. Some people like to speak softly and brief and some people need to explain things more thorough. So I understand. I defer to your tactful. OK. All right. So anything else I need to address today? I don't think so. Not from the appellate's perspective. So the record is closed except for the two items that are going to be submitted and assigned an exhibit number. I want to thank you all for your participation and all your witnesses and their testimony. Nice job to all of you. I appreciate the civility that you all demonstrated towards one another and bringing things together for the hearing and to staff. Thank you all for coordinating things for all of us. If there are any difficulties experienced for any reason, logistically or whatever, something bad happens in the lives or something good for any of you all, and you need an extension or something, reach out to Tyler. He'll get a hold of me right away. Just let me know for good cause. I can adjust things. But otherwise, I will expect to hear from you all on the 27th, and then I will take it under advisement. and review things and hope to given July 27th, get a decision out sometime in the month of August. So that would be my target. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good weekend and let's go Mariners, please. And turn it around. There's the back there. Yeah. Yeah. All right.

And enjoy the world cup final. Anybody invested in that?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right, folks. Take care. We're adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.