Hearing Examiner - Regular Meeting

I assume that means we're recording.

All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm Susan Drummond, City of Kirkland Hearing Examiner, Pro Tem. Today is Wednesday, 9 a.m., August 12, 2026. We are here for a hearing on Matter Sub 25-00183. This is the Assumption Short Plot. If I can have the parties introduce themselves, I guess starting with the appellants. We have two appellants.

My name is Ting Liu, and I'm the appellant. Sure. Yeah.

Good morning, Ms. Liu. And then Ms. Rapp. I'm Danita Rapp, and I'm also an appellant.

Okay. Good morning to you. And then for the applicant.

I'm Jake Drake, representing DGR Development. Yeah.

Good morning, Mr. Drake. And then for the planning department.

I'm Stephanie Kroll, the senior assistant city attorney, and we have several planners here who will be presenting today.

Okay.

And they are... Good morning. My name is Dakota Murphy. I'm the planner assigned to the project. And I'm Kelly Wilkinson, the planning supervisor. Good morning to you all.

So a few introductory remarks and then we will get started. We are proceeding both in person as well as on Zoom. I think most of the parties to the appeal are all present. But if we have technical issues on Zoom, we will halt the proceeding and sort those. And if for any reason we have any testimony over Zoom and anyone in the hearing room can't hear them or they can't hear us, please let me know. Speak up. If you're online, use the chat feature, wave your hands. Just note that anything submitted over the chat feature needs to be only technical or procedural, and it can't be material that I should be reviewing. Just there are limitations with regard to the chat feature. So also, as you all know, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, so that just means it's somewhat formal. So when parties testify, I will swear them in, and I will also formally admit exhibits. Also, I cannot have any conflicts of interest. That would impair my ability to render a fair and impartial decision. I've reviewed the materials submitted, and I'm not aware of any. But if there are any concerns, now is the time to raise those. In terms of the exhibits I've received, I'd like to go through them just to make sure I have everything. From the department, there was a staff report with attachments one through seven. From the applicant, there was exhibit one, which is an arborist report. From Appellant Liu, I received exhibits A through F. And then from Appellant Rapp, I received exhibit one, which is a 21-page PDF. Is that everything I should have received?

Yes, from the city.

Yeah, I have six exhibits, so did you get it? A, B, C, D, E, yeah. F, yeah. Yeah, you numbered, I think, with letters, but yeah, probably in the decision they'll become numbers, but yeah. Okay. Yeah, so, okay. All right, I think I have everything that, you know, sometimes for efficiency, I'll go ahead and admit the exhibits up front. Is there any objection to doing that today?

No objection from the city. No objection here.

No objection. All right. All right. We'll go ahead and make the exhibits up front. It just makes it a little bit more efficient. And then in terms of the appeal hearing on these types of appeals, typically the appellants will present first, but sometimes it helps to have a department overview. So would we go in the traditional matter with the appellants presenting first, or would the department like to make a brief, do an overview statement, if you will?

I believe it would be helpful to have the department's overview. Okay. And then appellants can present their arguments more fully. We're only going to say what your arguments are, and we will leave it to you to explain and present your own exhibits. Would that be acceptable?

All right. And that's not unusual. It's sometimes it helps to have that overall framework. So, but then, so yeah, so we'll have our review from the department and we'll hear from the appellants and then we'll turn back to, so the applicant and the department for anything additional to respond to the arguments and the evidence that is provided. Do the appellants have any procedural questions? Okay. I have a procedural question. So on my decision, I'm to the code code word is a little odd. I'm distributed within four days. So I think that's that. So I end up usually at the planning department circulates everything under the code. I think I'm supposed to email it to all of the parties. I assume that the parties don't have any concern with me emailing the decision to them. I just want to double check on that.

The city's fine with email service. Okay.

Yeah, it's okay. Email's fine. Okay, and I think I have everyone's emails. If I'm embarked on that, I will reach out to the planning department and verify, but I think I have everyone's, so that should be... That'd be an issue there. Oh, I did want to make one note. There were a few appeal issues that referenced kind of the revised Code of Washington, you know, state law. I just have jurisdiction over code issues. So just a note on that. It's possible testimony may have to be limited just to what I have authority over. under under the code so just just a note on that um okay i think that's all in terms of my introductory remarks sounded like there were no procedural questions so i'll turn to uh the department and ms kroll who from the department was going to write the overview or

We're going to have Dakota provide the overview.

Okay.

Oh, and that reminds me. So if anyone needs a break at any point, let me know. Typically, there'll be, you know, mid-morning breaks on a couple hours or so. But just let me know. I tend to kind of barge straight through, but don't let that impede you from requesting that. All right. Ms. Murphy, if you could state your name once more for the record. Dakota Murphy. And you swear to tell the truth and a penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. I do. Thank you. You may proceed when you're ready.

Tyler, can we get the presentation on screen? Yes.

Can we confirm that people on Zoom can see the slide PowerPoint?

Is there a way to either chat with the individuals on Zoom to just verify?

I cannot see the screen. Oh, there it goes. Now I can.

Thank you.

just while we're getting set up, I want to let everyone know I'll be reading from a script that I've written for myself and it's about a 25 to 30 minute visitation.

And are we catching your voice just a tad bit lower? Are we catching on the sound? Are we catching all that?

I can speak up too.

Okay. Yeah. I can hear you just fine, but I'm close to you. So, okay. I don't know where the speakers are. Are they everywhere? They're everywhere. Okay.

But we do need to speak up.

Yeah, precisely.

Make it full screen.

But yeah, not the notes on the right. Yeah.

Okay. And then Tyler, I'll tell you next slide when you're ready. Thank you and good morning, everyone. Please let me know if I need to speak up any louder. Yes, please. Okay. Today I'll be presenting on the appeal to the Planning and Building Director's decision to approve with conditions the Simpson-Tulock short plot. Is that okay? Next slide. For context, the project site is in the Juanita neighborhood in the RS 8.5 zone as shown in image one. I've also highlighted the appellant's parcels in image two in relation to the project site. Appellant Ting Liu's parcel is directly south of the Simpson site and appellant Anita Rapp's parcel is one of two parcels to the east. Next slide. The applicant, DGR Development Inc., also the owner and developer of the parcel, proposes to divide the 24,453 square foot parcel into two smaller lots of 10,150 square feet and 14,303 square feet. It's important to note that the minimum lot size in the RS 8.5 zone is 8,500 square feet, so the applicant's proposal meets the minimum lot size requirements easily. PGR is also proposing an access utility easement across lot one for the use by lot two, as shown in image three, and a utility easement on lot two for sewer and storm improvements for the benefit of both lots. There's also a proposed storm vault easement at the top of the project site. At this time, they propose to develop one single family dwelling and one detached accessory dwelling unit, or DADU, on each parcel. However, any structures will be reviewed with building permits. Next slide. Some really quick project background. The original application was deemed complete on March 13th, 2025. The public comment period for this project ran later that month from March 27th to April 14th. And after rounds of comments and review by the city, the planning and building director, Adam Weinstein, approved the proposal with conditions on April 30th, 2026. The city then received two timely appeals on May 8th and May 13th. And we are now at our current time and place in our appeal hearing today. Next slide. Here I have the code criteria for approving a short plot in the city of Kirkland. I won't read the language word for word, but I will summarize it. The Kirkland Municipal Code, or the KMC, details minimum standards for the planning and building director to make their decision based upon projects showing things like adequate public benefit for street and sidewalk improvements, infrastructure feasibility related to utilities like water and sewer, some open space requirements, and public interest and safety. Kirkland Zoning Code or the KZC also dictates that approval can only be issued if the proposal meets all development regulations, the comprehensive plan, and is consistent with public health, safety, and welfare. Please keep in mind that for regulations to be consistent with the comp plan, it has to consider balancing all the city's goals, including housing, environmental benefits, and many more. Next slide. This slide shows the issues under consideration. Again, I won't read them word for word, but I will touch on them all in the next slides. Next slide. First, the appellants believe that there is not enough information for the planning and building director to make a decision, specifically regarding the storm and sewer improvements and trees. At the short plot stage of development, we are just looking at land use and entitlements, so our code only asks that we review for feasibility. This project meets the approval criteria in the KMC and the KZC shown in the previous slide, since adequate provisions and consistency with development regulations has been successfully shown in the application. Because the adopted code provisions are consistent with the comp plan, the project is also in alignment with public interest, health, safety, and welfare. In the later construction phases of the project, more detailed plans for specific utilities and structures will be reviewed. No building permits or grading work has been approved by the short plot under appeal today. For the purpose of the land use decision to divide the land, the city is satisfied with the information provided. Next slide. Trees are another large part of this appeal. The appellants are concerned about many items. They will work through them in the next few slides. Next slide. One concern is regarding notice to neighboring tree owners of potential impacts to their trees due to development. The tree chapter of the Kirkland Zoning Code KZC 9532-2E shown here requires that any proposed impacts to the inner critical root zone of an offsite tree be communicated to the tree owner before development activity. The land use approval does not allow any infield work, excuse me, to be done because it is not included in the definition of development activity. Development activity is defined as any work that would require permits under KMC Title 21, building and construction. This title does not include land use approval, such as short plots. Thus, the city code requires the developer to contact the offsite tree owners at the construction phase of development. Next slide. Another tree topic raised is the project's compliance with tree retention standards. The image on the slide shows alternate site plans of how each design impacts trees. These were requested by the city and designed by DGR before the short plot application was submitted. Appellants claim that the project does not comply with KCC 9530 subsection four, which regulates tree retention during development of short plots. This code section is applicable to on-site trees only, and it requires applicants to explore things like alternate site plans, small deviations from code requirements like typical setbacks, and other means to try and save as many trees as possible. The City can ask developers to employ some of the same methods to preserve off-site trees, but they do not have to do so because off-site trees are not part of the subject property. Impacts to off-site trees cannot be regulated by the city as it is a civil issue. I will talk more about the definition of subject property later in the presentation when we discuss trees on appellate misclosed property. I believe the closest design final is one to the far right.

So just for clarification, Ms. Murphy, you have three um site plans up on the screen that were considered for by the city and were proposed by dtr is that correct yes ma'am and which site plan did the city approve um the approved site plan is actually not up there these are three alternate designs all right thank you um

The tree code does, however, provide a lot of methods and variations for planners to use to protect trees. There is some variation of protection of on-site trees as compared to off-site trees, as I mentioned, but the code allows us some flexibility. In order to save as many on-site trees, code allows us to reduce setbacks, increase building height if clearly linked to tree retention, and more. If the applicant, or excuse me, the applicant is voluntarily choosing to build a single family dwelling and detached ADU on each parcel and providing a preserved grove as part of the project. EGR was asked to show multiple site plan layouts before the short plot application was submitted in an effort to save as many trees as possible. Once the layouts were evaluated, the tree retention plan for the short plot was reviewed by city staff, including the development review arborist, Tim Coy, who is here today. He reviewed the project and weighed not only how many trees could be saved, but the longevity and the quality of the trees before, during, and after development. Ultimately, the applicant addressed the city's comments for tree retention at the land use phase. Again, no trees are authorized for removal at this time. It's also important to note that Chapter 95 was overhauled in 2022, leading to changes in tree retention plans with short plots. Before the ordinance was adopted, applicants could propose to review tree retention at each development stage, but now a tree plan is required with the land use proposal so that the discussion around saving as many trees as possible happens earlier. The intent behind this change was to provide the community and the applicants with more clarity about tree retention early in the process. Next slide. In addition to the concerns we just discussed, there are some civil issues raised that the city cannot regulate. DGR has access to the sewer easement on Ms. Liu's property, an easement which was established when the Sunny Hill short plot was recorded in 1981. The easement is on the face of the plot shown in image six. Image 7 shows the easement and the location of trees on Ms. property. Unfortunately, DGR's work within the easement may damage trees on her property beyond saving. Because the city cannot block DGR's lawful access to the sewer connection, the city is not automatically requiring retention of trees P and Q. This is in accordance with KCC 9530, subsection 2B, which states the city does not require tree retention efforts that preclude required access and utility connections. As such, the city authority is limited to, one, requiring that the applicant provide Ms. Liu with notification before there are tree impacts, and two, to require mitigation in this case, as trees P and Q are what we call landmark trees. A landmark tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 26 inches at breast height, or more commonly known as DBH.

Ms. Murphy, can you show us? The screen is a little small to read for everyone. Can you tell us which trees are trees P and Q?

Yes. Tree Q is within the yellow highlight in image seven. And tree P is to the right directly of the highlight easement.

Are they the trees that have arrows pointing to them?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Any issues related to tree damage are civil issues that should not grant an appeal to the land use decision. This includes, for example, damage claims asserted under the timber trespass statute. These issues can, however, be addressed between neighbors in mediation, arbitration, or a civil lawsuit, but they are not issues the city regulates. Next slide.

Oh, just one comment. This is not a time for testimony, but I mean, if you had a clarifying question or objection or something, that's fine.

Oh, just a clarifying question. the queue uh i think the 3p is right next to the veins to the subject property so i think that picture is not accurate okay um but i have evidence yeah when we turn to your testimony you can i think that might be yeah okay okay you can address it then so miss murphy you can maybe next slide

A different tree issue raised is canopy loss and its effects on the surrounding area, as noted by appellant Donita Rapp. These are valid concerns that the city's tree management code, KZC 95, referenced earlier, and the city's urban forestry management plan looks at citywide. The city has adopted tree preservation regulations in the interest of public health and welfare. The Simpson project is not exempt from strict application of these regulations and was required to save certain trees, explore alternate means to save others where feasible, and to replant new ones where lots could not save enough trees on site. The code cannot require all trees be retained and still meet critical comprehensive plan goals like density and growth management areas. That does not, however, mean developers can clear-cut properties to build projects that do not meet development regulations or goals within the comprehensive plan. In fact, this project is designed to create a preserved grove easement. Yes. to create a preserved grove that runs with the land. That means that any trees within the grove easement area will be protected in perpetuity. The image on the slide shows the trees to be included in this easement and some areas we anticipate an arborist will need to monitor during construction to ensure trees remain healthy. But again, that is to only take place at the construction phase of development, not the land use phase. Next slide. Appellants are also concerned about the wind throw vulnerability of retained trees after the proposed removal of other trees on site. This concern, while difficult to determine with absolute certainty, is a required consideration when assessing tree viability. Wind firmness, as it's called in the code, is important when rating a tree's health and viability. This rating is required pursuant to KCC 9530, subsection 3C25. The applicant's arborist, Katie Hogan, with Cascara Tree Company, responded to the appellant's concerns in a recent memo. Ms. Hogan recommends an additional wind firmness assessment for the retained trees after the approved removal, and the City agrees that this additional assessment is proper. We will require that this report be completed during the construction phase of development. Next slide. A different topic of appeal involves concerns about surface water and drainage. The appellants claim that there is not enough information for the planning and building director to make a decision based on the material provided to date. The appellants are correct that full drainage was not submitted or approved with the land use permit. However, a full drainage plan is not required at the short plot phase. To reiterate, a short plot is simply a proposal to divide the land, so no construction is authorized. No work can be done with this approval alone. The short plot approval, or excuse me, for the short plot approval, the applicant is required to demonstrate a reasonable plan to collect and discharge surface water into the public system. This requirement aligns with the criteria for short plot approval mentioned at the beginning of my presentation. The applicant was required to show the city engineers that their general plan is consistent with the applicable King County stormwater manual. The public works engineer reviewed the applicant's geotech report and the civil plans and was satisfied with the proposal. The engineer clarified that additional more detailed review will occur at the construction phase. However, for the short flat phase, the city is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated feasible stormwater management. Appellants are also concerned that there was no geotechnical oversight over the proposed surface water plan. As part of the feasibility study for this project, the applicant's geotechnical experts, Erlusions Northwest, did review the land use proposal and advised against infiltration of stormwater into the ground. Thus, the applicant proposed a pump system at a detention vault. In the event of a power outage or other pump system failure, there is a backup generator proposed. The construction plans for this project are to be reviewed at a later stage. Right now, in order to divide the land, the applicant just needs to show the city engineer that they have a reasonable drainage plan for the project. We have Tuan Phan, the development engineer supervisor here to answer any questions you may have about approval requirements at this phase. Next slide. In an additional geotechnical expert review, the appellants are concerned about the apparent steep slope declassification and the apparent lack of geotechnical review of the stormwater design. As part of the original short plot application, DGR was required to submit a geotechnical report. The applicant submitted a report by Earth Solutions Northwest, which then underwent a required peer review by one of the city's geotechnical consultants, Haley and Aldridge. On page six of the applicant's report, Earth Solutions states that the high landslide hazard mapping shown on the city of Kirkland's GIS system is inaccurate. Specifically, they note that it was a false positive due to retaining walls because of previous legal grading activities.

They indicate that only... Did you say previous legal or illegal grading activities? Previous legal grading activities, yes.

Okay. They indicate that only moderate landslide hazard exists on site, and the city's consultant generally agreed with their conclusions. We understand that this can be confusing, but cases like this is why the city requires expert review, because information to the city's maps may not always be correct. Because there is moderate landslide hazard on site, the city is requiring compliance with certain performance standards set forth in the Geologically Hazardous Areas Code under KCC 8525. This includes requiring the developer to perform construction monitoring during the building phase. The City will require memos from the applicant's expert at a few stages of constructions too. One memo will be required before the building permits are approved, stating that the plans meet their recommendations. Another at the end of construction will be required, stating that the work was done on supervision of a qualified professional. The concerns raised by the appellants has been heard and the proposal complies with strict slope regulations in the zoning code. To address the concerns about surface water designs, the applicant is required to provide final civil plans for the city's review. During the construction phase of development, things like stormwater design calculations, conveyance analysis, and localized geotechnical considerations will be further reviewed for compliance with the required codes. At this time, the City is satisfied with the feasibility of the project from a geotechnical standpoint. Next slide please. Mrs. Rapp is also concerned that there has not been enough environmental review of the project's potential impacts on endangered and threatened species. The project is subject to review under critical areas and other environmental factors of the Kirkland Zoning Code. Throughout the city, environmental functions are regulated and protected by chapters 83, 90, and 95. These chapters protect sensitive areas along the shoreline, near streams and wetlands, and of course the urban forest across the city. These chapters are consistent with the comprehensive plans environmental objectives for development projects too. The shore plan application meets the strict standards in each of these chapters. As I mentioned earlier, the project is designed to save as many trees as possible. This project is not in a shoreline management area and there are no streams or wetlands on or near the property. Similarly, there are no state identified priority habitats on the project site.

Next slide. I have a final question. What's the definition of near?

Actually, if we can hold until we, let's complete, just to keep things orderly, let's complete Witness Test 21st. Another large topic of this appeal is the sewer line connection between the easement on Ms. Liu's property. Next slide. First, I want to identify that the applicant does have legal right to access the sewer easement along the western 10 feet of Miss Lou's property. The sewer easement in question is a public easement created through the Sunny Hill short plot reported in 1981. This does not, however, bring Miss Lou's property into the definition earlier because the easement is on a separate and legal plot. The easement is superseded by the property it sits on, so legal access does not mean it becomes part of the Simpson property.

Next slide.

Ms. Liu also raises concerns about the sewer line construction impacts to her trees. She claims that the applicant cannot use the existing utility easement because construction activities would likely mean some of her trees would not survive. This was addressed earlier in my presentation.

Any damage of the offsite tree is a civil matter and the city cannot require tree retention that would preclude rightful access to utilities.

As I previously mentioned, the code provisions which protect onsite trees more strictly applies to the subject property. A subject property is defined as the entire lot or series of lots on which development or use is located. The easement on a neighboring property is not included in the definition of subject property, nor can the city require a neighboring property to be swept up into a development lot because of proximity. The easement is simply an area the project site has access to on a separate and independent lot. Next slide. There was also concern about the potential strain of the new projects on the existing sewer system. This is a legitimate concern, which the city has not ignored. This is another item to be reviewed at the construction phase of development. During the grading permit phase of the project, DGR will be required to evaluate the existing pipes before hooking up to the sewer line. If any of the pipes are substandard, they will be replaced by DGR to accommodate their project. At the short plat stage, the applicant needs to show that they have a valid plan for sanitary sewer needs of the site. Because they have access to an existing sewer easement, they have met this need for the shortcut approval. Since this review topic is in the purview of Public Works, Mr. Fan can speak to any additional clarifying questions you may have. Next slide. The next item of concern is about the negative impacts this project may have on this disrupts privacy and quality of life as it relates to construction. The city regulates construction to minimize impacts it has on surrounding property with the understanding that construction noise and dust are notable but temporary. All property owners are entitled to develop their property in accordance with city, state, and federal regulations. Any and all development needs to comply with the construction hours set forth in the Kirkland Zoning Code Chapter 115.25, which limits the work to time and days on the slide. During these times, construction noise is exempt from noise regulations. Generally, no work may occur outside of those hours, but if a developer, for whatever reason, claims to need to work outside of the specific times, the city is required to review their proposal to verify its validity. If the request is valid, the city may authorize work outside of normal construction hours. However, this is rare, and work outside of normal construction hours can only occur if the city issues a special permit to allow it. Site work is also beholden to a temporary erosion control plan to manage dust and soil erosion. Please see section 3G of the planning director's final decision included as attachment one to the Simpson Shore Platte appeal staff report for more information. Next slide. In a similar vein, there is concern about the minimum five foot side yard setback stating that they will result in loud and disruptive noise that will affect wildlife and the neighborhood. Mrs. Rapp also claims that the two new single-family homes and detached ADUs will be too crowded. Setbacks are determined by the underlying zone. This project is located in the RS zone, where the minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, provided both side yards add up to a total of 15 feet. We call this the 5-15 rule. So, for example, an applicant could choose to design a site with a 7.5-foot setback on both sides or a 10-foot setback on one and a 5-foot on the other. Five foot setbacks are common throughout the city and some underlying zones require a five foot side yard, only require a five foot side yard, whereas this project zone has the 515 rule. With regard to potential noise impacts to wildlife, this project is subject to the environmental chapters of the zoning code as previously stated. Any noise impacts related to typical use of a space to the surrounding area is regulated by KCC 11595 noise regulations. This chapter includes public nuisance noise like the operation of power equipment. So if the new neighbors violate any nuisance noise regulations, a code enforcement case may be pursued. However, this does not mean that the minimum setback required by code changes. The density of a site is also determined by the underlying zone. In a low density zone, a single family house may have up to two accessory dwelling units on a single parcel. The applicant in this case is not proposing to develop to the maximum density allowed by code. Other development options the applicant could propose to develop include middle housing projects, which would allow a parcel that's 24,453 square feet to have up to six units. There is also potential for the applicant to divide the land into more lots and develop four middle housing units on each new lot, since the recent state bill allows for each low density parcel to have four units by right.

I'm sorry, would you repeat what you just said? I did not hear that. I don't know.

The applicant in this case is not proposing to develop to the maximum development potential, or excuse me, the maximum density allowed by code. Other development options the applicant could propose includes middle housing projects, which would allow a parcel that's 24,453 square feet to have up to six units. there is also potential for the applicant to divide the land into more lots and develop four middle housing units on each lot since a recent state bill allows for each low density parcel or units by right

Are you cold?

I'm really frustrated by what I just heard.

Okay. I don't understand it. Understood. So let's, let's hold, let's let Ms. Murphy complete her testimony. And then both the appellants, including you, Ms. Ratliff, will have an opportunity to kind of raise questions and present your arguments. Yeah, we need to keep this orderly. So you may proceed, Ms. Murphy.

Its increased density is required by the past House Bill HB 1110, otherwise known as the Mill Housing Bill. It requires designated cities in the growth management areas to allow cottages, multiplexes, townhouses, and stacked flats in areas previously restricted to single-family homes. The City of Kirkland is subject to planning under the Statewide Growth Management Act and is in the heart of such an area. Here in compliance with HB 1110, each low density parcel can develop four units by right. The proposed density shown on the short plot is under this maximum and is allowed. The city is sensitive to the fact that these state mandated density changes can be difficult to existing residents, but this is a state requirement that the city cannot, as a matter of law, deny a project which meets these new density requirements. Next slide. In the end, the appellant sold the burden to convince the hearing examiner a valid reason for appeal is present. The planning and building director's decision was based on staff's analysis of the project's compliance with KCC 14545 and the KMC 2220 subsection 140. The city's stances that the appellant's issues raised do not preclude the approval of this land use decision. With regard to the civil issues raised around Miss Lou's trees, the hearing examiner may require that these be resolved before the short plat is recorded. After considering all arguments within the scope of appeal, the hearing examiner shall either affirm, reverse, or modify the decision being appealed. Before I end my presentation, I also have a few exhibits that may be useful during the hearing. Next slide. This is just a larger image of the stormwater feasibility plan. And then the next two are tree labels from each of the arborists in case we need a visual. Next slide. I'm sorry, yeah, of the trees we're discussing. So here are the trees that are kind of like northeast of the subject site. And next slide. These are the offsite trees on Ms. Liu's property to the south. That concludes my presentation. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Murphy. Question on the PowerPoint and those attached, I guess, clarifying exhibits, because the evidence, I think, is already in the record. Did the city wish to make the PowerPoint and those attachments an illustrative exhibit? Is that what the thinking is?

Yes, we'd like to have them entered into the record as an illustrative exhibit. We move for that.

Sounds good. Is there any objection to that?

If there are incorrect pictures of land plots, would they be allowed?

So that goes to the substance. So even if something is admitted, that doesn't mean that it is correct or, you know, if the appellants may disagree with it. And if so, then you can present facts or argument on that. So the admission of an exhibit is not... Ultimately, in my decision, I'll make a determination on what I find credible and so forth. But at this point, the admission is only if there's a procedural objection to it.

Even if it's incorrect.

Correct. Yeah. So it is not unusual to have exhibits that tell two different stories in an appeal hearing. And then ultimately, it's a way of credibility. Yeah. Yeah. So I'll go ahead and this is illustrative. So the other documents are already admitted this, but this provides some context to help. So it's a little bit different, but yeah. So the, this is, I guess this would be, I'll just call this the city's, actually it's an illustrative exhibit one. So here we go. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so at this point, we can move to the appellants. Ms. Liu, Ms. Rupp, I didn't know which one of you wished to present first or if you were going to kind of consolidate the presentation. Yeah, please. So Ms. Liu, I should swear you in if you're going to testify, if you can state your name once more for the record. I do. And you swear affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington? Yes. Thank you. You may proceed when you are ready.

Okay. So, Mrs. Hearing Examiner, my name is Ting Liu, and I moved to my current property ever since 2013. I love the neighborhood, so I'm proud to speak on behalf of myself and the 54 laborers who signed our community petition. Can you please speak up a little louder? Sorry, I am so slow today.

If you need to move closer to here.

I don't. I just want to make sure that people.

Oh, right.

Okay.

Gotcha. Thank you. Yeah, I'll try my best. Okay. Today we are asking you to deny or modify the approval of the short path because it violates the tree and the municipal codes. And today I want to show you the three main points. So first, the applicant has bypassed the mandatory arborist methods. under KZC 9534B, such as those methods include air spading.

Can you repeat the code section one more time? Thank you. KZC 9534B. Okay, thank you.

Those methods must be explored before the off-site landmark trees are marked for destruction. So number two, the city's staff report relies on a factual error, mistakenly grouping tree P into a sewer easement where it does not belong to. Number three, the city and the developer are improperly deferring the critical stormwater and the slow stability studies to a future phase, which has no public accountability, ignoring the high risk nature of the steep side. So appreciate your time to listen to us and I look forward to replaying my evidence and witness testimony. So to protect the safety and the environment of our Hope Street neighborhood. So first regarding the unlawful targeting of private trees. So two of landmark trees in my property are listed as removal in the applicant's tree retention plan. So I can show that this is page 18 of this division doc. There is a full offsite landmark trees. Do you have an exhibit number?

Is that?

Oh, this is just a division doc. Oh, from the decision? Yeah. So they have a tree retention plan in it, which is on page 18. There is four offside landmark trees for removal. I don't know those. The other two trees belong to each property, but two of my trees belong to my property, which is tree P and tree Q. The city acknowledged that the developer's plan required a 10-foot deep trench, which their own arborist admits will destroy my landmark trees. The city claims this is a civil matter between me and the developer. I disagree. Under KZC 9532, the city has a mandatory regulatory duty to ensure a development permit does not violate city's own codes. And under KZC 9530-4 , Before any nanomark trees can be authorized for removal, the applicant is legally required to explore and exhaust specific arborist methods, including air spading, hand digging, and boring under the roots instead of changing. So I want to show Exhibit A. Can somebody share?

I don't know if this is the city able to pull up. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So this is, I hired an independent certified arborist who created the arborist report for my trees. So this arborist report proves that the developer has failed to perform those required non-destructive methods. On page, you can flip to page 10, can you please? Page 10, the recommendation session of this report, the operator has details how those methods can evaluate root locations and preserve the trees in full compliance with KZC 9530-4B. If the city issues a permit that approves the destruction of off-site landmark trees without verifying all non-destructive methods are exhausted, the permit is fundamentally non-compliant to the KDC. So can we go to the page 18 of this report, please? Thank you. Maybe you want to draw it a bit smaller. Okay. Maybe, yeah, the full screen. So this is a picture for tree P and tree Q. I think libraries use number one to represent tree Q and number two represents tree P. So this is the issue I want to bring up earlier, because the city staff report incorrectly claims that both 3P and the 3Q lie within the sewer easement. That's why they approved the removal. But it shows from this picture as well as my exhibit D and E. So can you clarify, you're saying which tree now is P and which tree now is Q?

Oh, the brown tree is tree Q. Okay, so you're saying from your view, the tree one is tree Q. Tree Q.

And then... Tree two is tree P. Okay. Yeah, so this is taking from the left side of my property. So I think the tree Q lies within the east, but the tree P is not. So can we also show exhibit D and the E? I just have to bring my own picture. So this is a picture I took in front of my house. I use my, can you also make it a full screen to show?

Yeah.

Maybe you can show the driveway as well.

And just to clarify, you're taking this facing your house? Yes, facing my house. Yeah, because I want to compare with the Sunny Hill flat map.

So we can see Yeah, thank you. That's very good. So we can see that the tree Q is on the left side of my property, and the tree P is in the middle of my property. You can see that from Aubrey's picture as well. Then let's look at the Sunny Hill map, which is Exhibit E. Sorry, Exhibit E, which is Sunny Hill plan map.

Yeah, the second page.

Oh, maybe this is like the showing as Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I marked this Eastman Road. On the left is a 10-foot Eastman on the left side of my property. And I think the staff just represented that just now as well. So we can see that 3P is 100% located outside of the Eastman Road. The city and the applicant are misrepresenting physical boundaries in the writing of a healthy landmark tree without proper justification. Okay, this is the first issue I want to appeal. The second one is the short plot approval already includes conditions that allow for illegal tree removal. Those conditions are defective at the foundation. So I want to refer into the page two of the decision doc. Do you have the decision doc in hand?

We'll pull it up.

Notice of decision. Addams approval of the short plan. Yeah, attachment plan. So page two, please, which is the condition. Yeah, let's see condition C2. So the condition C2 of this approval only requires the applicant to provide evidence that I have been notified in writing of this impact. And there, yeah, they also have some condition listed. They will monitor during construction. They will stop when there is a two-inch root being met, which is very, you know, random. Cannot be controlled. So let's turn to Euclid C. So can you open Euclid C? This is... email from the applicant, I think it was in May, before my appeal. So in this email, the applicant admitted that they will still plan to anticipate the removal of the 3Q. And the weaponize this condition, which is condition C2, saying only requires them to notify me. The weaponize this condition, stating that the CT's requirement is only a notification. So you can see it. I think under there, this is the CT's requirement, and only a notification. Yeah, scroll down, scroll down. Excuse me, what exhibit? Okay. Exhibit C, yeah. Yeah, so, oh, no, no, no, go up a little bit. Yeah, C. You can see that this is a CDS requirement, only a notification. Can you see that in that graph, in the side note? Yeah, they mailed a letter to me, but which I didn't receive. They say this is city's requirement on their notification. So they are operating under the assumption that delivering a notice grants them the authority to destroy my trees. Okay, third. Regarding the drainage in the slope stability, The city's own staff report and engineering notes put a red mark there, warned that this site is uniquely prone to drainage failure and will require major redesigns during the LSN phase. If the current stormwater and the pump design is so tentative and high risk, it is premature to approve the shore plan today. A groove in the permit on a steep, sensitive slope will figure out the drainage later, as I said, while it's the code KMC 2220-140, which requires adequate drainage and the infrastructure flexibility grouped before a groove in a short-term permit. So I want to show the exhibit app. Can you pull out the exhibit app? Can you make it full screen? So on the left side, that's the code KMC-95, KMC-22-20-140. It requires proofs adequate training. Sorry, can you repeat that one more time? I can't quite see it. Oh, yeah. So KMC-22-20-140. On the left side, it shows it requires the city approves adequate drainage and the infrastructure feasibility before the preliminary should that get approved. And on the right side is what the city is doing. City skipped this requirement and they deferred this very important Please see that red box, the backwater calculations and updated arborist report to the latest stage, which is LSN stage, which has no public accountability. So in our case, if the backwater calculation fails, or if the pump system is inadequate for the steep 15 to 40% slope, the millions of gallons of unmitigated stormwater will be directed onto the downhill properties, including my house. So a conceptual stormwater plan is not allowed in this case. So number four, regarding the geohazard. So the geotechnical reports from the applicant rely on a reclassification of a historical grading to downgrade the hazard level from the high landslide hazard to a moderate hazard. Yet, the report confirms the underlying soil is a moisture-sensitive glacial till that becomes unstable when wet. So it has a high risk there. And now the developer is planning to remove 52 mature trees, including 10 nanomark trees. So yeah, as I showed you in this plant. 52 mature trees, including 10 nanomark trees will be removed. And I think out of those 10 nanomark trees, six of them are on-site and four of them are off-site. So those trees act as a critical subterranean retaining structure. This will introduce high risk of geohazard. So I want to show a graph in this exhibit, page two, yeah. So this shows the loss of, if you lost this natural soil anchor on this steep slope, a 40% slope, what kind of things can occur? They will destabilize the sandy soils. which the their geotechnical reports conference. So I also want to show a community petition, which is exhibit B. Can you open exhibit B? So this is submitted by our labor representative, my witness, Ann Rader. And this petition was signed by 54 residents of our neighborhood. We are deeply concerned by the unmitigated geotechnical hazards introduced by this project. The site features a steep 15 to 40% slope, a host of sandy soil with mapped landslide hazards. The developer plans to remove 52 mature trees, including 10 landmark trees, six on-site and four off-site. Stripping the hillside of its natural anchors introduces a high risk of soil creep and rotational failure. Okay, I want to move to my conclusion request. I respectfully request that the hearing examiner, number one, deny this permit in its current form because it incorrectly identifies offsite private trees for removal and it relies on unproven infrastructure. Number two, regarding the trees, Order the tree retention plan to be modified to explicitly protect and retain tree P, which is outside of Eastman role. And amend the conditions of approval to mandate that the developer perform the required operations methods under the KZC9534B2 to evaluate provision options for tree Q before any utility work is authorized. Number three, revoke the deferral of the drainage study and the required stormwater and the geotechnical flexibility to be fully resolved and peer reviewed before the shore plan approval is finalized. Number four, condition the flat approval on a geotechnical identification agreement that lists the downhill property at 108 to 107 place, which is my property as a protected third party. Yeah, so those are my four requests for the hearing examiner. And now I want to call out my witness. The first witness is an arborist from the David Resource Group, Joe. Joe, are you on that?

And what is Joe's last name?

Oh, okay. Joe's last name. Yeah, yeah. Oh, Cisneros. Cisneros. Can you spell that for me? S-I-S-N-E-R-O-S. Mr. Cisneros, are you with us? I think he said he already joined. Oh, he has joined us.

Do we have a chance?

He's not muted on our end, correct? Okay.

Do we have to undo that video? I see that there's a cross through the video on the left bottom of the screen. Do we need to... Is that something we need to end? Or is that? Oh, that's ours. Okay, let's let's keep ours on so the participants can hear us or see us. So Mr. Cisneros, you are not muted on our end. I'm wondering if you have mute on on your end.

Someone checking the chat.

Oh, he said he will try rejoining. He said he cannot see everyone.

Okay.

Oh, he will rejoin. Okay. Maybe just wait for one minute. Okay.

Or we can wait.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I think he does have to be. Okay.

If need be, we can always move to your next witness. Let's give it a couple more minutes for him to re-sign on and see. Looks like he's... All right, let's unmute Mr. Cisneros on our end because he is muted.

There we go.

Mr. Cisneros, is that you? It looks like you've muted yourself. We can see you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, yes, yay. All right, Mr. Cisneros, I am going to swear you in, and then Ms. Liu may have some questions for you. So good morning, if you could state your name for the record.

Joseph Cisneros.

And you swear or affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. So, Ms. Liu, I didn't know how you wanted to present, but if you had something. Yeah, I think he prepared. Oh, okay. Okay. So, Mr. Cisneros, you may proceed when you are ready.

Okay, thank you. So yes, I just have a statement here kind of summarizing my observations of the trees. Okay, good morning. My name is Joseph Snarrows. I'm International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist and a TRAC qualified consultant with Davey Resource Group. I was retained by the property owner at 10822 107th Place NE to conduct an independent level 2 tree risk assessment and tree protection analysis for three offsite regulated trees on her property adjacent to this proposed development. My testimony today is provided as an objective arboricultural expert focusing on site conditions, tree risk ratings, and applicable standards under Kirkland Zone and Code Chapter 95, ISA Best Management Practices, and ANSI A300 standards. So during my field assessment on May 27th, 2026, I evaluated three subject trees located on the client's property. Only tree Q, which I've also identified as tree one, but I will refer to them as they are shown on the site plan from here on out to reduce confusion. So only tree Q received a comprehensive level two risk assessment due to its close proximity to the sewer easement. So, Tree Q I observed as a giant sequoia, being 37 inches in diameter at standard height, currently in good condition with a 37-foot critical root zone radius and an 18.5-foot inner critical root zone radius. Under these baseline undisturbed conditions, I surmise that its overall three-year risk rating is currently low. Tree P was a western red cedar, 19 inches in diameter, currently in fair condition with a 19-foot critical root zone and 8.5-foot interior critical root zone. And finally, I looked at Tree O, which is a Deodar cedar, 20 inches in diameter, currently in fair condition with a 20-foot critical root zone and a 10-foot interior critical root zone. So considering the potential impact to Tree Q,

of clarification. One moment, Mr. Cisneros. Ms. Kroll, you had a clarifying question?

Yes. Mr. Cisneros, I just want to make sure that we are talking about the same trees that are labeled and we have the labels correct. Can somebody pull up the tree chart again? And I had it in paper form. Okay. We're going to pull it up, Mr. Cisneros, okay? We'll pull up a document that you'll be able to see.

Sounds good.

Exhibit A of yours is his report. Okay. Okay. All right. So is tree one a sequoia or a cedar in this picture?

I do not currently see a picture here. Oh, there we go.

There it is.

Got it. Tree ID number one identified as a giant sequoia.

Yeah, it is clarifying question. Yes.

So, so tree one there is referenced as being treated Q on our documentation. Is that correct? Correct. So, on page 14 of this report. So there's two trees in this image here. Tree Q is actually the tree located on the left side of the fence. And tree P is located on the right side of the fence. I believe tree one is the tree on the right side of this image. Is that correct?

So on the left side of the fence, that's my labor's property. So that's not my tree.

Yes, so through my interpretation of the site survey,

and the arborist report that was provided by the developer, my interpretation was that what's being called Tree Q is on the right side of this image because it's on, it appears to be within Ting Leo's property here. That was my interpretation.

So in the foreground of the picture? Correct. So the tree in the foreground of the picture then?

Yes.

Okay, so a question for clarification, Mr. Cisneros, and we're not trying to cross-examine. We're just trying to make sure we all have the right tree.

Yeah, no, this is a cross-examination. I think it's a good idea to get this clarified.

Okay, so on the tree inventory table that DGR provided, tree P or tree Q is a Douglas fir tree.

So I did notice species discrepancies. And my interpretation of that was that, in my own experience, evaluating properties, sometimes when you're looking at trees that are off site or off the property and you can't fully see them, it can be challenging for species identification. So that was my interpretation of why there's a difference. But this tree in the photo in the foreground here, I'm confident it is a giant sequoia. And some photos of the foliage and crown that were shown earlier in this meeting to me clearly demonstrate that it's a giant sequoia.

All right, so Mr. Cisneros, I want to make sure that we label this sequoia correctly and that we all know what we're going to call it in this hearing so the hearing examiner, when she makes a decision, is sure to identify this tree correctly. I think we're all in agreement that it's a giant sequoia. And if I could ask our Tyler to pull up the exhibits that were at the end of Ms. Murphy's PowerPoint. And we'll pull that up, Mr. Cisneros, and see if you can see it in a minute. It's coming.

Sure. Sure.

Okay.

Okay, we have... Mr. Cisneros, can you see this exhibit?

Yes.

All right. So we have... that tree number one is a Douglas fir, and it's indicated also as tree Q. And that is, can you see where the exhibit shows the property line? Do you know which line is the property line or should I help you out? Okay. The property line for Ms. Liu's property is by... It looks like it goes through the... What's it called? The drip line. It goes through the drip line of Tree Q at Douglas Fir and... It appears that there might be a fence to the right of the tree and that this tree is located on the other side of the fence from Ms. Liu's property. Is that your understanding?

So that image we were looking at a second ago, yeah, that showed that tree behind the fence that appeared to be, of course, fences are not always perfectly aligned with the property line, but it was not a tree that I assessed, that Douglas fir over there. Okay.

So you did not assess a tree cube there? It might be on Ms. Liu's property, but her neighbor is wherever they place the fence is where they're agreed to have their property line. Is that correct? Right.

Right.

So the scope of my.

Yes, it appears that the scope of my assessment was focused on what is labeled as tree P, tree O and tree N on this survey here.

Okay, so the giant sequoia we were looking at is not tree Q. You reviewed it, and based on this exhibit, we're going to refer to it as tree P. Is that correct?

That makes sense, yes. All right, thank you.

Okay, so let me just clarify that.

So the giant sequoia, it's not tree Q, but it's, I should refer, it's tree P. It's tree P, except it may be referred to accidentally as tree Q in Mr. Cisneros' report. Okay. But it is the giant sequoia tree P. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I think that's good. We got that clarified.

The tree Q was marked as my tree, that is the L-I-U there. that we can see that the Douglas fir is not my tree. So I think if you look at the Sunny Hill plot map, that the easement actually goes through my property and also my labor, Kevin's property. So there is a property land on that easement.

Thank you.

Yeah, so that tree Q should be, I mean, they marked the tree Q, should it be Kevin's tree instead of my tree? Oh, sorry. Because if you look at the Sandy Hill map, which is my exhibit, if you want to pull out the exhibit, please. not this one, Exhibit E, the Sunny Hill map. Yeah, so maybe you have the room in. So you can see Oh, yeah, down there, yeah. I think the number three is my property. The number four is number 13.

Excuse me, I believe your lot is number 13.

Yeah, number 13, yeah. So the easement is actually between the number 13 and the number 14. So the easement alone covers both properties.

It does not appear to on this short plan. It appears it's all on your property.

That's my property. Which number is your property? And could you state your name?

Kevin Parkhurst. Okay. I own property number 14. And so, first of all, I'd like to say the fence was in place when I bought the property 40 years ago. And it was installed by the original owner of Ting's property. So I always assumed that the fur on my side was mine, but I actually believe it splits the border between our properties. The easement goes up her property line. But then it comes to the left over into mine and you can see where it jags over there a little bit. So I've kind of been through this in the past because when they did the development directly above my property, they needed to connect into the easement that's on my property. so we never had to get to a hearing we just had a discussion with the developer at the time about the viability of damaging not the tree that is in question today but the one adjacent to it that's definitely on my property and uh What our agreement was, was that they would go ahead and connect to the sewer line without removing the tree. And we would just wait and see what happened to the tree. And that I would take the tree down if the tree actually was damaged and died at a later time, which it's still a perfectly healthy tree.

And just to clarify for the record, Mr. Parker, this juncture is not testifying. I didn't swear you in. We're just trying to clarify a few things before we continue with Mr. Cisneros' testimony. So just to clarify that.

Okay, good. Yeah, so anyway, yes, the connection does come onto my property, but it's a branch line that comes off of the easement that's on her property.

Thank you.

Maybe if I could clarify some of the line work on the plans, Jake Drake. So as you can see here, there's a darker bold line between lots 13 and 14. That depicts the property lines. The faint dashed line to the right or east of that bold line is the widths of the easement. So that is the 10-foot easement. So on the arborist report or the plans, there is a faint dashed line that represents the property line, which lines up with this bold line here. And you can see the sewer line within the sewer easement, and then the easement line is to the right of that. So the tree is entirely within that easement line that's shown on the flat map here.

Right. It's entirely within part of it within the 10-foot easement on the west side of the Ting property and on the jog to the east at the northern boundary of the Ting and Parker properties. That's correct. Thank you. Okay.

All right. I think we have that clarified. I'm wondering if on Ms. Liu, on the arborist report, I'm wondering if we should just have a correction note or something on that just for the record.

He can't just stick with the number one, number two, instead of those mark, because I feel those mark are a little bit confusing right now. Because I think when I communicate with the applicant, he's using tree P and tree Q to communicate with me, and that means that it's my tree. And those are kills in the city's staff report as well, saying tree P and tree Q is my tree.

So I guess I heard a suggestion about just referring to the tree by the species. Maybe, Mr. Cisteros, maybe that would just keep a clean record on what's what. I think that might make sense. Okay.

Yes, if it's possible. All right. If it's possible, a few minutes ago there was an image of a marked up site plan that showed the species of each of those trees. I just wanted to make sure that's in alignment so there's no more, as I'm referring to them here, because there was the sequoia and then I think it listed western red cedar. Yes, okay. So the three trees that I assessed are labeled here as the sequoia and then the western red cedar and then the DNR cedar there. So I'll refer to them as a species name. Okay.

Yeah. I think you may go ahead and proceed.

Okay. Sounds good. And so, yes, basically so far I've just kind of stated by observations of the species and measurements of the three trees I assessed on Ms. Liu's property here. Okay, so considering a potential impact on this giant sequoia, proposed utility plans depict a new sewer line passing approximately four feet and 10 inches from the trunk of this giant sequoia, which is well within its 18 and a half foot interior critical root zone. Unmitigated trenching at this distance would likely sever critical structural anchor roots and major absorption pathways, elevating the giant sequoia's three-year risk rating from low to moderate due to an increased likelihood of root failure with a potential for long-term decline emerging five to seven years after this root impacts occur. Considering the impact to the western redcedar, just to the east, the root system of this western redcedar growing westward has likely been restricted by the larger dominant root system of the giant sequoia. While structural roots of this western redcedar may not significantly extend into the sewer easement zone, this hypothesis requires on-site verification. before final determination is made regarding the sewer easements impact to the root system of the Western Red Cedar. To safeguard tree health and structural stability, arboriculture risk practices dictate the root disturbance within the interior critical root zones be minimized or avoided whenever possible. In alignment with Kirkland zoning code chapter 95 and recommendations detailed in the city staff analysis, which was published on July 28th, 2026, the following is recommended. First, conducting pneumatic soil exploration, also known as airspading. Non-destructive pneumatic soil exploration should be conducted along the proposed utility alignment near the Giant Sequoia and the Westerman Cedar prior to finalizing the sewer design and the limits of ground disturbance. This process can verify exact root location, depth, and diameter with minimal damage to these roots. This airspreading should occur as early as possible in the design process, as gathering root data before utility plans and excavation depths are finalized is critical for ensuring the greatest chance of meaningful tree preservation. And second, if major structural roots, which is typically defined as roots that are greater than two inches in diameter, are encountered during this airspading, The project arborist and engineering team should evaluate trenchless construction options, such as directional boring, to route utilities beneath the discovered roots. If these engineering alternatives are determined to be technically infeasible, any necessary root pruning must be executed under direct supervision of the project arborist in accordance with ANSI A300 standards, and the long-term retention viability of these impacted trees, meaning the giant sequoia and the western redcedar, must be re-evaluated. So overall, I observed the giant sequoia to be currently a viable tree in good health, And I observed the western redcedar as a tree that demonstrates strong potential for retention given the expected biological root competition patterns, meaning the root system and trunk of the giant sequoia have likely blocked most root growth of the western redcedar westward towards the sewer easement area. So unmitigated trenching within the interior critical root zone of the giant sequoia poses a direct threat to root stability and long-term tree viability, which ultimately elevates its baseline risk. Conducting this air spading prior to the finalization of sewer alignment plans provides us with the essential diagnostic data required to apply ANSI A300 standards, fulfill the intents of KZC Chapter 95, and preserve these mature offsite trees if feasible. Well, thank you again for your time, and I'm unable to answer any further questions regarding my findings and observations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cisneros.

The city has no questions. Thank you, Mr. Cisneros.

Okay.

All right. So next, I want to quote our neighborhood representative, and she will talk about the common concerns for our neighborhoods.

And if you could state your name for the record. Ann Reeser. Okay. And that's spelled R-I-E-S-E-R. Okay. Good morning. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth that are penalty for treason of the laws of the state of Washington? Yes.

Thank you.

You may proceed when you are ready.

I'll be talking about Exhibit B. The letter that was sent distributed and discussed with neighbors of the surrounding neighborhood. I live five parcels down from the designated development site on 106th Avenue Northeast. As a resident, 30 year resident in Kirkland, I've lifted that property. I can confirm that it is on sandy soil. My house and my deck are tipping and sliding over the course of 30 years. And I can indicate that that is true throughout our property on the bottom of 106, which is at the Kirkland wetland level for Forbes Creek. I am directly across from Forbes Creek. We designated, Ting and I co, wrote a letter to our neighbors informing them of this appeal process, asking for their support, which is why we have representatives here from the neighborhood. I do represent the two and four-legged creatures that live in this neighborhood. There are many residents that use the trails in that neighborhood, including the trail on the adjacent or on the street. It's 110th. 110th that the property is designated for. So there was after submitting after requesting our neighborhood residents participate, we did receive 54 signatures on this to support this appeal process for a couple of comments I'd like to make with regard to number one, the environmental degradation and wildlife displacement. I have witnessed and I have photos if needed to be submitted of bobcats walking down our sidewalk on 108th Street, Northeast 108th Street, right in front of our residence. The deer in the last month have come down Northeast 106th Avenue, 106th Avenue Northeast, my street. So there are definite wildlife resident displacements going on now. Our concern as residents is where are these wildlife animals going to go as more and more property is developed? They do use all the little pockets of wildlife to sleep, nest, and reside in. There was a statement in Dakota's presentation about there is no wetland near this designated property. And I wanted to get comment as to what near is. Because if I'm measuring correctly down 106th Avenue Northeast, there is a wetland, Forbes Creek wetland property and creek within 330 feet of that property.

Um, I, why don't we wait till after your testimony?

And then, I mean, I, I just want that.

You have a question on, on kind of the earlier. So, uh, Ms. Coleman, maybe I'll turn back to you after the testimony. Um, it's not exactly cross-examination sounds like more of a clarification, but yeah.

Yeah. And you know, it's accurate. What is near under 400 feet or over 400 feet? Because I think there is wildlife impacted greatly by continued development in this area. The residents also are concerned about the geotechnical hazards as illustrated in one of those diagrams. So it's a 40% slope, downhill slope. I am at the bottom of the 40% slope. So myself and other residents on Northeast 108th Street are also concerned about downhill degradation, landslides, the tree wind firmness. Because if any of those trees are cleared and they do fall, they're going to fall downhill. I've never seen a tree fall uphill. And it would destroy about several of those houses that are downhill of 20. that are indicated. I have seen the trees fall. They do fall in that wetland area across the street. The other concern is the notification in number five of this letter Apparently the developer indicated and notified the immediate adjacent parcels. I am six parcels away and I did not receive notification. The people that were four parcels away up the street from me did, four, three, and two, but I did not. so that we would like to request that additional notification go out to all the residents in that immediate area, whether it's postcard, notification on the Kirkland website, but some type of broader notification. The residents that use this area for walking and wildlife observation do use The 110th Avenue cut across to 108th Avenue Northeast. Sorry, I'm at 108th and 108th, so I'm trying to refer to them properly. And they do have requested as we got their signatures that that pathway remain open during construction. So maintain 24 by seven access during construction. It is... a shaded area for walking, which is also a great joy to the residents who are walking when it's hot summer days, especially with dogs. The pavement, as you know, gets very hot on hot days, sidewalk gets very hot. We as dog walkers look specifically for some shaded areas to continue our walk and trail. So that is very important to us. In talking with the Kirkland, arborist. Number four, tree regulation. We talked quite a bit with the Kirkland arborist because the hundred foot cottonwoods that are across from us do fall branches and have been requested to come down because of danger. But in discussions with them, it is it was noted that the developers can pay fees and take down trees when that the developers are in a better position to pay the fees to take down trees, whether that's regulations or not. And I know that's through a third party that's not here, but I just want to make a comment that the residents are concerned that there's inequality in tree management from a developer perspective versus a resident perspective. And we're asking for equality there. Now the residents don't have the money to pay the big fees and fines. So I will also make note of that. We moved into that neighborhood. We and a lot of the other neighbors moved into those neighborhoods, 20, 30, 40, 60 years ago for the tree coverage, for the canopy, for the attraction of wildlife and nature. And we're asking that the city keep that in concern and in the perspective in allowing additional development and continued expansion. I got all my notes. There were many residents as we walked around and got their signatures that were highly concerned.

Thank you, Ms. Reeser. Did we want to have clarification on the, I think the term near that was referenced, I think in the initial Ms. Murphy's presentation.

Okay. So we shall do that and then we can do cross exam.

Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah. Either. Yeah. Why don't we get the clarification and then sure. If you have some questions. Okay. Thank you.

So chapter 90 applies to subject properties within 300 feet of a wetland or 150 feet of a street.

We're over by 50 feet.

And that's just by code. So it's the code essentially definition of air.

Tell the animals that they have to move 50 feet uphill.

So thank you for that. And then Ms. Cole, you indicated you had some questions.

Yes, I have very few questions. Thank you for coming. The petition that was signed, did you submit that as an exhibit? I did. Okay. And those are people, your neighbors in your neighborhood and users of the trail? No. And users of the trail, yes. Okay, thank you. So I would just, for the record, the city does not accept petitions as sufficient to be a party of record, but Ms. Reiser is not a party here, and the citizens who signed that document are not parties here. So we just asked the hearing examiner to be aware that petitions don't generally at the city constitute an appearance by a person.

Oh, understood. Yes. And I think that's specified in the book. Thank you. You were called as a witness, so your testimony is all admitted from that standpoint.

Yes. And thank you very much. I have no further questions. Does TGR have any questions? Oh, sorry.

Yeah, speak up if I don't specifically ask that. Ms. Lou, so Ms. Reaser, thank you for your testimony this morning. And then Ms. Lou, I think you were going to call Kevin Parker. Is that correct?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think he can talk about the direct property in the neighborhood. Okay. So Ms. Parker.

The sandy soils. Yeah. Okay. So Mr. Parkhurst, if you can state your name for the record and I'll swear you in.

Kevin Robert Parkhurst.

And you swear from self-truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. I do. You may proceed when you're ready.

So I guess the main reason I was coming is the topic that we've kind of already clarified, which is that Tree Q, I believe to be, we'll say it's on my side of the fence because we're not sure where the property line is. We've always accepted that the property line was the fence.

When you say Tree Q, which you were referring to, can you maybe say the species?

That would be the fir tree.

I'm sorry?

The fir tree.

The fir tree, okay.

The fence was, as I stated earlier, in place when I bought the house 40 years ago. It was originally erected by the first owner of Ting's house. so when i looked at the description it always appeared to me that that was the tree in question and it does sit pretty much on top of both the easement the sewer easement that's on her property and the branch line that's on my property The one thing I wanted you to know was that the property directly above me or west of the property that we're talking about today was developed several years ago. And when they did that, we had discussions about how the tree impact was affected. you know going to be felt when they came on the property to connect to that sewer easement and it was our agreement at the time that they would not remove the tree okay so we're now talking about a tree that is not part of this property but A tree that's further into my property that was impacted by the previous development's connection. And we had agreed that I would take the tree down if they left it alone and it became damaged, that I would take the tree down on my own. So we left the tree where it was. They connected to the sewer line. And to this day, the tree is still healthy and thriving. Forty years later. And not 40 years later, I think that was 15 years ago, maybe 20 years ago. Yeah. I haven't, it's a legacy tree. It's a big tree. Yeah. So, but the, but the, yeah, the easement does branch onto my property at the top of the property.

Thank you, Mr. Parkhurst. No questions about the city. I was...

I suppose I can ask a question. done so to avoid conflict with that tree? Do you have any knowledge?

I would assume it was because the tree's been there the whole time. Yes. And it's grown substantially since. It has grown substantially since. And I should state, I am a general contractor and things are done a little bit differently now than what they used to be. But back in the day, people had a tendency to do things like put the attractive side of the fence or the neighbor and or build the fence slightly onto their own property instead of. And so it would be not unusual, especially for the time for the homeowner that built the fence to build it on his side of the property.

And follow up question with the developer for the adjacent working around that tree?

The only thing that they agreed to do or actually offered to do was plant a few trees along the property line itself. And that really had less to do with anything having to do with the trees. It was more a buffer between me and the house that I wasn't overly thrilled to have in there. further questions.

All right. Well, thank you for your testimony this morning, Mr. Parkers. So, Ms. Liu, I believe Mr. Parkers was your final witness. Okay. All right. So, Ms. Rapp, we'll turn to you.

Do you mind? I would like to request a quick break. Okay.

Actually, that's a very good timing. Why don't we take a 15-minute break? Would that work for you all?

I'm so sorry. No worries.

record that one like right away let me know when we are recording here all right we're recording i didn't hear the voice again but that's not okay all right uh we are back on the record on uh short plot appeal sub 25-00183 um this was the appeal filed by donator app and team um Just one clarification. There was a procedural clarification from the department during the resource. Ms. Kroll had just wanted to confirm that after the appellants present that it turned back to the department and applicant to address the arguments and evidence that were raised. So just clarifying that for the record. I think that's it, and then we're turning to Ms. Rapp. So I need to swear you in. If you could state your name for the record. Danita Rapp. And you swear or affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. I do. Thank you. You may proceed when you're ready.

All right. First, I'd like to reiterate everything Ms. Liu said. I agree with everything she said and more. Along with the wildlife that Ms. Reeser explained, I also have documented bobcats, coyotes, owls, and other birds on my property and value their presence there. Let me start by the fact that I was not notified as required by this. My deceased husband received a letter. My name was not on it. So I do not believe I was officially notified by this attempt to subdivide the property. In addition, I do not own the land. The land is in a trust. So I would like to read a letter that my arborist, which was not the same arborist that Ms. Liu used, her and his independent report. My property retains a critical stand of mature, healthy trees directly within the Western property line, including eight offsite trees and one shared boundary tree. Because the proposed development intends a transition to single family lot into a dense for home short plat, I urge the city to strictly enforce KZC chapter 95, tree management and required landscaping. and AMC Chapter 85 geologically hazardous areas to protect adjacent property by and public safety and the local can. I request that the city address the following technical concerns during its administrative review. Encroachment and cross boundary route protection. AZC 95.3 and 95.32. Under KZ 95.02, the standard critical root zone for a regulated tree is defined as a one foot radius for every one inch of diameter at breast height. Furthermore, under city standard protection protocols, a tree's primary tree protection zone represents a crucial boundary to protect structural failure or severe health decline. The threat, mass excavation, grading, and utility trenching required to accommodate Four new single-family structures and associated impervious surfaces will heavily encroach upon the CRZ of my nine perimeter trees. KZC 95 explicitly protects off-site root systems extending onto a development site. I demand that the developer be required to perform non-destructive exploratory pneumatic root discovery known as air knife excavation under the supervision of a qualified professional before any structural building footprints are approved. If structural roots are present, the developer must adapt construction methods such as adjusting building setbacks. utilizing pin-pile cantilevered foundations or employing pervious pavement to guarantee zero net impact to the inner critical root zone, which would otherwise compromise my tree's structural integrity. The subject development property sits directly west of my residence. In the Pacific Northwest, storm patterns dominantly bring high wind loads from the south and the west. And I would like to integrate the fact that the wind did take out a red leaf maple, and luckily it did not land on my house, but it did pose a threat. The existing canopy on parcel number 3759500033 currently provides a vital wind buffer effect for my trees. Clear cutting or severely thinning the subject lot will instantly subject my newly exposed edge trees to unaccustomed wind loads. This risk is acutely concentrated in the southwest corner of my property. specifically threatening for trees. My client's primary residence sits directly within the potential windfall zone of these specimens. The city must require the developers arborist to submit a comprehensive wind firmness and wind throw assessment to mitigate the shared liability. The city should provide the retention, prioritize the retention of windward tree groves on the subject property to maintain the protective canopy buffer. For the city's amended tree code, Kirkland mandates extraordinary protection for landmark trees, designated groves, three or more viable trees with touching crowns, or at least one is in a required yard for setback. The geometry required to squeeze for individual homes, driveways, and stormwater infrastructure into a single standard parcel highly suggests that the developer may attempt to remove or severely impact on-site landmark trees or groves or misclassify tree health to avoid retention mandates. the developer must be held to the strict standards of KZC 95.3, demonstrating that they have pursued all feasible site plans, alterations, design variances, and variations to standard development dimensions before any high-value tree removal is permitted. Preliminary site assessments indicate that parcel contains or is immediately adjacent to steep slope areas over 40% slope or greater than 15% with historical instability risk. Deep structural root zones are recognized by the city as critical infrastructure for soil binding and stabilization. Removing the canopy and replacing it with multi-home foundations will drastically alter the localized hydrology, increase subsurface hydrostatic pressure, and threaten downslope property stability. If a steep slope or landslide hazard overlay is confirmed via Kirkland GIS mapping, city must trigger a full geotechnical review under KMC chapter 85. The removal of significant trees within the slope or its standard 10 to 15, 25 foot structural buffer must be prohibited to protect adjacent properties from slope failure and unmitigated runoff. While I respect the right of a property owner to develop in zoning parameters, municipal code does not grant a developer the right to compromise adjacent civil property or public safety. If the physical spatial constraints of protecting my offsite root zones and stabilizing the steep slopes means that the city can only safely support two or three units instead of four, the design footprint must be reduced. I ask that this formal objection be included as a matter of the project's land use file. I request written notification of all subsequent comments, arborist report submissions, and open public meetings regarding the short plat application for this parcel.

That's it. Thank you for your testimony this morning, Ms. Rapp. So I think this is concluded. And let's assume there are no questions for Ms. Rapp. The city has no questions.

No questions.

Okay. All right. So I think we've concluded the appellant's testimony. So we'll now turn to the applicant and to the department. So should I swear you in? Or were you testifying? Or are you just presenting an argument? Or...

sure i'll i'll add a little bit okay so should uh if you say your name again and you swear harm to tell the truth that a penalty of virtue under the laws of the state of washington yes sir thank you you may proceed um so we are proposing a short short plot here with two lots um each box containing a single family home and an adu um which is considered underdeveloped by the zoning each containing a home and up to two ADUs. As mentioned earlier, middle housing could also be introduced yield on the proposed two lots up to eight units in total. We are not seeking to go that dense. We entered into contract to purchase this property back in 2024 and applied for our short plat in March of 2025. At that time, we went through the public noticing procedure that the city has in place, which would have notified area neighbors within a certain distance. That is when the public comment period opened and we in the city received multiple public comments. During the review, multiple efforts were made to reach out to neighbors to acquire easements for storm drainage and sewer. All of these requests went either unanswered or were denied. A specific request was made to Ms. Liu after the discussion regarding the tree removal became an issue and the request was to reroute our proposed sewer line to avoid conflict with these trees. We offered to compensate for that easement adjustment and that request was denied before it even began. The easement structure and it would have allowed alternative connection to the sewer that would have been less destructive to the trees. The resulting drainage design has been determined to be feasible at this stage and will undergo a more rigorous detailed review through the LSM permitting phase. The soils report addressing soils and slopes nurse solutions northwest was peer reviewed by the city's consultant Haley and Aldrich and the overall design was agreed to be found feasible subject to conditions which would be in place during construction and design of the actual homes further review of the design and compliance with recommendations will take place at the LSM and building permit phases The mapped landslide hazard areas are a result of BIDAR or similar imaging data, which is used by the city maps to estimate central surface contours and slopes. Though high landslide hazard areas are mapped, a site-specific review is performed by the project's geotechnical engineer. The review found that these mapped landslide hazards were a result of a retaining wall, which came from past legal grading. Much of the high and moderate landslide hazard areas are located within the top half of the property, while the lower half of the site is generally more flat, containing limited moderate landslide hazard areas along the perimeter. The project proposes tree removals via tree retention plan and supporting arborist report at the short plot phase. Since tree retention is an element that's included within the trees may be shown for removal though if found viable to retain during construction efforts will be made to ensure that they are alternatively if a tree is shown for retention and is found to need to be removed during construction a modification to the short plat decision may be required to avoid this the arborist recommendations are followed throughout construction and trees found to be viable for retention will be retained

um via use of alternative methods uh that are prescribed by the arborist at the time constructions carried out um and that is all i have thank you uh mr drake so this one yes so you mentioned the easement uh alternative going to save the trees what kind of easement is stormwater easement or super easement it was a super easement Or the sewer easement, you're asking me to go through the middle of my property? Correct. As I just showed, there are three trees behind my property. I don't think that alignment is going to save any of my trees.

So among the alternative methods is directional boring and air spading. What we would be allowed to do by an alternative alignment is we'd be able to bore underneath the critical roots of the tree. And that would give us a better location to place the trench of which would be required to make the physical connection at the sewer line.

But you could use all those techniques for the existing sewer easement as well, right?

We could use the alternative methods, yes, but at the point of connection is where we have to physically put someone in the dirt to make the connection to the sewer. And that can't be done with a directional bore. So the air spading is likely what's going to be used to make that connection. But we still have to have enough room for the worker to get into the pit to attach the two pipes together.

As I recall the email I received from you in May, you mentioned that even if with the easement element you just mentioned, the 3P will be impacted. I mean, 3P, you probably mean that tree in the middle of my property. So I think it shows as you can see my evidence. So my impression is even with easement alignment.

Let's focus on, you can get into detail if you can, if you have a question. This is just for questions. So if you have a question.

Yeah, that's my question. I was just asking about what's the easement alignment he's talking about. Okay. I have a question.

It's just the talents that can cross-examinate the cross-examination. I can still ask another question. Okay.

So your arborist August 4th memo states that the detailed tree protection methods and the construction details have not yet been finalized. They will push to LSN stage. However, the KDC 9534B states the exploration of the alternatives need to be explored before authorizing the removal of landmark trees. Since you haven't finalized those methods yet, how can the city approve the removal of those landmark trees today? And also, have you performed- And we can have one question at a time.

We'll forget the first one. Yeah.

Am I allowed to defer to Tim about that specific code section?

If the question is about the exploration of alternative arborist methods before you authorize the removal of landmark trees.

So I guess to answer that question, we are not authorized to remove trees as part of and the building permit phases. So at that time, the city will then authorize trees to be removed and we would be exploring the alternative methods at that time. And that's through both design and infield practices.

Okay, so the tree retention plan has already marked the tree P and the tree Q as removal. So I don't know what it means not authorized for the removal of non-marked trees because the tree retention plan explicitly lists those two trees as removal, not retention. So you cannot move everything to the LSA phase because at that time this... And you're going, let's focus on just questions at that point.

So the short plot approval authorizes the subdivision action. It doesn't approve any land disturbance action. So by approving the short plot, no construction activity is permitted and therefore no tree removals are permitted. Only at that time they're demonstrating what trees would be proposed for removal pending the approval of the LSM in building apartments that would later accompany it. As I mentioned, as I mentioned, it's better for us to show that information as say a worst case scenario, if we have to remove this tree, we will. But during construction, we will make alternative will use alternative methods to preserve that tree if possible.

Have you performed an air spading method to test if this sequoia can be preserved before deciding to remove it? Or is it just choosing the easiest method for construction?

The air spading would take place during construction, and that's to remove soil from around the roots that don't damage the roots. So we wouldn't use that method until we actually start to go out and construct the project.

I have a question. What indemnification methods can you guarantee the homeowners that the property and the soils and the trees aren't going to be damaged? And if they are damaged, what kind of compensation will be offered?

We will rely.

I was just going to object that it calls for legal conclusions, but you can answer.

Oh, I defer to you.

Go ahead.

We are only, as required by the city, we only indemnify the city, as I recall. We don't indemnify individual property owners or place certain agreements with property owners. We rely on our consultants to give us information and our contractors to carry out the building plans to be as least disruptive to neighbors as possible.

And how are those workers monitored? Who monitors them?

What workers are you?

workers, the construction company, who monitors them to make sure they're staying within the rules?

The city will perform various inspections throughout the construction process, and that starts with a pre-con. So we'll attend a pre-con meeting where everyone will walk up site and determine what trees are to be removed before any are touched. Everyone will confirm what and those workers will perform the work. Once everything's stabilized on the site, then the city will begin performing inspections on the various items included within the LSM permit.

I have a follow up clarification. Will you have an arborist on site monitoring tree inspection and tree removal before trees are removed?

Yes. Included in our LSM plans will be various locations where the arborist will be specifically monitoring for exposed roots, at which time if those roots, I think two inches or greater, are encountered, then construction is stopped until the arborist makes a recommendation on how to proceed.

I have another question. Did you measure the south end of the subject property to the wetland? Because we just have one neighbor. He measured from the Google map. It's at a 300... food to the existing wetland trees that exists on Northeast 108th Street. So I think the city just mentioned there is a rule regarding how far away from the wetland trees. So can you measure that?

Based on the city mapping where the wetland is located, the property is over 350 feet away from that wetland. And the requirement is within 350.

All right. Ms. Brigg, thank you for your testimony this morning. Did you have another witness?

No other witnesses at this time. I did want to just make one clarifying point is the letters that were sent out for notification were done in advance to start the conversation and make homeowners aware of the potential tree impacts those letters were not required to go out until the lsm permit phase so those letters were only merely a notification to neighbors that tree disturbance on the subject or on their properties could occur as a result of work on our property So those were merely a notification, not any sort of request or agreement or anything like that. That's just simply a process required by the code.

I have a follow-up question on that. You said it was mere notification, but you said something about doesn't mean the trees would be removed. What are you notifying them of?

That there's trees close to the perimeter of our property that may encounter root disturbance from construction activities, root disturbance being on our property, on our site.

And you submitted a tree retention plan that indicates some trees for removal, is that correct? Correct. Does that plan at this stage mean those trees will absolutely be removed?

It does not.

Is that a little bit confusing?

I could see where it could be confusing. The alternative, however, is if we do show trees to be retained and then they end up being removed, then we have to go through a shore plat modification to then remove that tree.

So if I'm following you, you had a tree retention plan that had listed some trees for removal, correct? But those trees might not be removed. And you said you sent a notification letter early to the neighbors of those, to the owners of those trees?

Yes, and that was done because with the LSM permit phase, that will then authorize the trees to be removed. Whether a tree is to be removed or not on a neighbor's property doesn't necessarily mean that they will not receive a notification. For example, we notified neighbors to the west that have trees on their property that have close proximity to our project. They were notified, though no tree removals are proposed on their properties. Thank you.

By the way, I didn't receive any notification of the record.

I do have certified letters stating that the neighbors were notified.

We're not going to have a back and forth, but it sounds like there's a dispute on that.

I think the applicant pointed out that he had a witness, which is a geotechnical engineer brand.

I defer to the applicant on which witnesses you're going to call.

I did have Brian Snow, our geotechnical engineer, available if any questions come up.

I guess first, are you going to call him for testimony? It's up to you. You can make him available for questions if you wish, but defer to you on that in terms of which witnesses you would like to call.

Yes, I'll make him available. Brian, if you're available.

And you said Brian Snow? Brian Snow. Okay. And Mr. Snow is online. Mr. Snow, can you hear me?

I can. Can you hear me?

Yes. Good morning. I should swear you in if you can state your name for the record.

Brian Snow.

And you swear or affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington.

I do.

Thank you. So Mr. Snow, I can hear you just fine. I can't see you. Do we need to fix that or bring him up as a panelist? There you go. Good morning, Mr. Snow. So it sounded like he was just available for questions. Is that OK? All right. So, Ms. Liu, if you have two questions.

So the first one is your report notes that the site contains moisture sensitive glacier teal. that is prone to erosion hazards. Given that this project has a complex pump system, which the city pointed out, it's prone to substantial revisions. How can you guarantee that the deep excavation and the tree removal will not destabilize the sandy soils supporting downhill properties?

So the native soils contain a considerable amount of fines contents, which is considered silts and clays. And so when those soils are disturbed, I think you're referring to the section on our report that discusses in situ and imported soils. So when those soils are disturbed, we consider those moisture sensitive, in the situation where you're wanting to put those back in the trench and compact them as structural fill. The undisturbed soils, you know, they're the same. They have the same fines, silt, and clay content in them, but they're in such a dense condition, you know, Our report also states that stormwater infiltration is not feasible. So in an undisturbed condition, the soils are going to prevent infiltration and they're just really not going to accept that water and destabilize.

So what's the impact of the deep excavation, the tree removal to those soils? Because those soil is supporting the downhill properties.

Yeah, so there's certainly some components. I think you had shown a graphic previously that showed the root mass in the slope and certainly tree roots provide some cohesive strength to the soil. Um, during our exploration, we completed a series of drilled borings. Um, and as part of that, while you're collecting soil samples, um, you're using the SPT or the standard penetration test, which is widely accepted all, all across the globe, I think, um, as a standard measured of density and our blow counts. were about as high as they come. They were very, very dense, very hard, competent glacial till soils. And so while the tree roots are providing some cohesion to the slope, the glacial till soils already possess an immense amount of cohesion without the tree roots. And this site, I think the soils are stable on this site based on the soil conditions that we encountered during exploration.

I think you are talking about the current condition, but with the construction, the applicant is going to remove tremendous amount of trees, which, as you said, provide as an anchor for the soil. So we just want to understand the impact to the downhill properties because we are concerned about the landslide.

I mean, the code requires stability analyses for sites that are located in high landslide hazard areas. It doesn't have that requirement for moderate landslide hazards to my understanding. That's something certainly that we could explore. as an option if we need to, but as it stands in my interpretation of the code, we're not required to complete that stability analysis at this time.

Okay, yeah, the city's GIS map indicates this property has a high landslide hazard. Your report reclassified to moderate hazard. Did your slope stability analysis account for the vibration impacts of heavy construction operating near the older homes built on sandy soils?

Objection to the question and characterization that the geotech reclassified a landslide hazard area. As Ms. Murphy testified, when the property was inspected visually, it was determined that some retaining walls had legally been placed on the property and that those retaining walls were reading as steep slope. And that was a false reading. The GIS has a disclaimer that it's not accurate and shouldn't be relied on. And so there's been no actual reclassification. There's just been a correction to the actual circumstances on the ground.

Yeah, Ms. Cole, I think you've correctly stated in terms of the legal framework for that question. I'll discount kind of thing because there were some statements that kind of implied certain.

I think it's counting the truth. I said your report reclassified to moderate hazard. Is that the truth?

As the way I understand the code, it's not a reclassification per se. It's just that once you go on site, the geologist then determines what level of hazard it is.

I think according to the CT staff report, they used the word reclassification as well.

Okay. Well, I'll go back and look at the record to determine which, you know, it is. I mean, at the end of the day, I look at in terms of the actual classification, the expert's analysis of what is reclassification. proper classification, and that's what I want to link to. But I think we're missing, you have a question in there. Yeah. Perhaps you could restate it. Yeah, yeah.

I think my first statement is just, I actually just bottled from the city's report. staff report. They said it's GIS map, it indicates it's a high landslide hazard, and the report was classified according to the historical grading to moderate. I think that's exactly it.

I'll go back and look at the record. Yeah, yeah. But let's put that aside. I think you, did you have enough? Yeah, question.

My question is, did your slope stability analysis account for the vibration impacts of the heavy heavy construction operating near the older homes on the sandy soil.

We haven't done a vibration impact analysis and we also haven't completed a quantitative slope stability analysis as your question implied.

Yeah.

Any further questions, Ms. Liu?

Yeah, so I guess like he mentioned, he didn't do any vibration impact analysis. And I think my question is more referring to when you do those stability analysis, did you also consider the impact of the heavy construction? And also the scientist view.

Is there a question?

Yeah. I think the question is when the report was completed or the analysis was completed, was the heavy construction in nature of the soils, there's a little difference on how they're being characterized, but the nature of the soils and the construction, was that considered? I think if I'm reasoning. Have you considered that or not?

Well, I mean, it's not directly addressed in our report, but, you know, the soils are firm. based on our exploration, they're very dense, competent glacial till soils, um, that should be able to support construction traffic. No problem. Uh, you know, I would expect some additional considerations for the wet season and that's, that's typical with the erosion controls. Um, you know, if the weather's really bad, then maybe you just call it for a day, but, uh, You know, we've developed similar sites, no problem.

Ms. Liu, anything further? Yeah, that's it.

Okay. All right. Mr. Snow, unless there's redirect, is there anything further for Mr.

Snow? I just want to clarify that as a result of the slopes being found not high landslide hazard status,

under the code right okay so that's illegal all right um thank you mr snow for your testimony uh this morning thank you um and so i think mr rick do you have any any further testimony there are any other witnesses um

I suppose. So as part of the public noticing process, a large sign was placed at the frontage along Northeast 110, demonstrating that a application was submitted and found complete. That's just a standard public notice sign to make neighbors aware of the project. That's all.

All right, so Ms. Krull, we'll turn to you. Yeah, thank you. Any witnesses you wish to call? If you wish to make a brief opening statement, I don't know how you wish to approach it.

Okay, so I'm going to make just a brief opening statement, which is that this development of the short plat is consistent with the city's code requirement and consistent with state law. And we understand that it can, uh, any development on a property next to where you live will impact you, but that, um, we have adopted code regulations according to the state environmental protection act and according to, um, the city's own comprehensive plan to ensure that those impacts are as small as possible, but they're never going to be zero with development. There's going to be impacts. Now, I know that there, and I think that the hearing examiner has already heard from enough people about what city code regulations apply. I will indicate that the notice requirement for the trees is a construction notice. And once again, this shore plat is simply a division of the land, and we look at things early. on a feasibility basis at the short plat stage, is the area able to have a connection to a sewer system? And can they physically do it? And they provide us with enough information saying we could do it this way, this way, or this way. Conceptually, we could do it this way, this way or this way. And so the city says, oh, we see. Real conceptual plants and we can approve the short black. Now, the sewer system and construction, in fact. Will not go forward if they don't have extensive review. Of the sewer system at the building permit stage and that. Understandably, it's difficult for the neighbors also. They want to address things here at this hearing that are not before the hearing examiner. What's before the hearing examiner is, does the short plat decision meet the code requirements for a short plat decision, not for a construction permit? And then we also have, and I do, we have the planning director here. And his name is Adam Weinstein. And I would like to call him to address the neighbor. And they can ask him anything they want. I don't want to link this to a strict cross exam. But I did because I want to ask him particularly. to explain why we do this in phases. Why does the city have a short plat decision first where it doesn't fully decide the drainage? It doesn't fully decide the tree removal, but it gets possibilities and, um, when it determines that those possibilities meet the city code, it allows it to go to the next step. And so I would like to call Mr. Weinstein to address that question, but he can also address any question.

Okay. All right. So Mr. Weinstein, good morning. Good morning. You can state your name for the record.

Adam Weinstein.

And you swear a firm self-truth and a penalty of virtue under the laws of the state of Washington? I do. Thank you.

Mr. Weinstein, can you please explain what your title is and your main job duties here?

Yes, I'm the director for planning and building here at the city. So I oversee all of our divisions ranging from code enforcement to permit review to long range planning to forestry.

And did you have an opportunity to review this short plat proposal?

Yes, I did.

And did you sign and approve it?

Yes, I did.

When you sign that approval for a short plat, are you approving any construction on the short plat?

No, just the division of land.

All right. And when is construction approved?

Construction is approved as part of the building permit review process.

All right. And so just a basic overall question. The neighbors here received notice of the short plat decision, correct? Yeah. But will they receive notice of the issuance of a building permit to install the sewer line?

They won't receive notice about building permit issuance. That's just a ministerial process.

Okay. And explain why we don't give notice of building permits.

Yeah, we don't give notice for building permits because the expectation is that when somebody applies for a building permit, that application is reviewed against the CODA. The answers to the code questions is simply yes or no. It either adheres to the code or it doesn't adhere to the code. And there's no discretion involved in reviewing the permit. It's just, are the setbacks correct? Does the building height exceed the maximum allowed under the code? Are the amount of hard surfaces on the lot exceeding those established in the code? So it's basically a yes or no analysis. And if all the answers are yes in terms of are all the code requirements met, then the permit is issued.

And you said it's not discretionary, and it's ministerial. Can you explain the difference between discretionary and ministerial for the neighbors?

Yeah, discretionary would usually imply some sort of subjectivity and application of the code. right the the approach that i'm discussing that i'm talking about in regards to building from review is simply are the code requirements met or not there's no discretion involved in that you can anybody can go into the building permit and measure the setbacks to see whether or not they are in accordance with the code right that's easy to that's easy to say is it are they are the setbacks 10 feet or are they not 10 feet right a discretionary um approval would involve some level of subjectivity in terms of is this a project that is good for the community or bad for the community. Those aren't questions that we answer as part of the building permit review process. Therefore, they're not discretionary.

Thank you. I did actually want to ask you a question about density also. And there is, I feel, a legitimate concern by the neighbors that the density in their single-family neighborhood is increasing. Can you... And Dakota... Murphy touched on that in her overview of this project. But have the density regulations changed recently for the city of Kirkland?

Yes, they have changed recently. The state of Washington has a really comprehensive set of planning policies that cities must adhere to. They're basically encompassed. Most of them are encompassed within the Growth Management Act. As part of the Growth Management Act, the state is in charge of making sure that all the state's objectives are being met in terms of how growth is being managed, including whether or not we're building enough, how cities are building enough housing or allowing enough housing to get built in our communities. And as sort of to achieve that objective, the state legislature has passed quite a bit of legislation over the past several years that mandate that cities authorize a certain level of density in their communities, whether the individual community wants to do it or not. And so a lot of the density changes that have been authorized in Kirkland recently are a direct result of the state's requirements that we establish development allowances that allow people to build a lot more housing on their properties than they used to be able to do.

So based on state requirements, could the city lawfully prohibit the applicant here, DGR, from having four units on these two lots?

No, that we would not be authorized to prohibit that. Yeah, the state requires, actually the state, I think Ms. Murphy mentioned this in her presentation, but what's being proposed here is actually less than what the state meant. The state, for instance, requires that cities allow for two ADUs per lot and then a density of four to six units per lot under a different state law. So what is being proposed here is really less than actually what the state maximum would establish. So we would not be allowed to say, hey, this density is too high for this property. We're required by the state to authorize it.

Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. Yeah, I have a question.

So I heard like this word of LSM stage, multiple tenants. I assume this is a stage after the short plat commit. So I think that stage is kind of behind the doors and the public has no right to appeal. And how can you guarantee the city and the developer will follow the Kirkland wrong code to be called Kirkland.

Okay. Thanks for the question. Yeah. So we're authorized, I mean, we're required, right, to adhere to our code, right? We're legally bound. We're obligated to adhere to our code requirements. So that's just something we're simply obligated to do. I would note that though our permit review process is open to the public as much as a member of the public can request to review all of the permit documents. So if you personally wanted to verify that the LSM permit application was being and that that was being reviewed properly, you would be able to ask for that public record and review it yourself. But, yeah, we have internal controls in the city that require, you know, that are going to obligate us to review the code, review a permit in relation to the code requirements.

Thank you.

All right. I think that's all the questions from the appellants at this time. So thank you, Mr. Weinstein, for your testimony this morning. Ms. Kroll, did you have any further witnesses you want to see?

I have an arborist here and the engineer who looked at the... at the sewer connection issue. And I don't have any particular questions for them, but I can call them and get a little background if the opponents want to ask additional questions of them. Okay.

So I guess that's really a question then for Ms. Liu and Ms. Rapp. If you have any questions for the city's arborist, you said the...

And Chuan, what is your title?

I'm in Public Works, Development Engineering Supervisor.

So any questions for either the Development Engineering Supervisor or Cities Arborist?

Cities Arborist. I think I asked the question to the... applicant before, but maybe the arborist can answer this.

Let me swear the arborist in. You can state your name for the record.

Tim Coy.

And you swear affirm to tell the truth under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. Thank you. And can you spell your last name?

It's Coy, C-O-Y-E.

Thank you. Mr. Koya, I have a few questions to establish your credentials. Can you tell us what your title here is at the city of Kirkland?

Yes, I'm the development review arborist here in the planning department.

And what are your main duties as the development review arborist?

Yeah, I review development projects for tree retention as well as reviewing tree permits for tree removal.

All right. Now, did you review the tree retention plan submitted by DGR in this short plot?

I did.

And did you find that it met the city's code? Yes. Did it in fact require the removal of some landmark trees?

The tree retention plan? Yes, yes. The proposed plan does review some landmark trees.

And before you approved that, what did you do?

We looked at variations that we could apply to the proposed plans to see where we be able to retain most trees possible on the lot, trying to retain all the high retention value trees that we could.

And is there a mitigation requirement if some trees are removed.

Correct. Yes. There's two different standards that we look at. Every lot needs to meet minimum tree credit density. That's based on the size and number of trees to see if they meet that criteria. And then for any landmark trees that are removed, those are required to be replaced at a three to one ratio with approved species.

Okay, and when you say they're required to be replaced three to one, what if, for instance, 10 landmark trees are removed from a lot for development? So they would have to replace those 10 trees by planting 30 new approved trees, is that correct?

Ideally, yes. We do look at spatial constraints sometimes,

fit as many as we can to allow it to grow sustainably.

But in cases where there's not enough space for it, then the applicant pays a fee in lieu, which goes into the city forestry account, which allows us to plant other trees on public property.

Thank you. I have I have no further questions.

My question is, according to KDC 9534B, the exploration of non-destructive arborist methods is required before authorizing the removal of landmark trees. Since the developer has not finalized those methods yet, how can the city approve the removal of those landmark trees now?

Right. As Jake alluded to in his testimony, the trees are not approved for removal per se yet. That will be approved at the building stage of review, but they are proposed for removal at this stage. We certainly encourage exploratory excavation and being able to retain trees where possible. When it comes to off-site trees, things are a little... more nuanced, that we don't have the same regulations that apply on off-site trees as we do as on-site trees.

I think the city has a code to protect landmark trees in general, right?

Yeah, we have code to protect all trees.

I mean, the landmark trees, they are protected under certain Kirkland-Romco, is that right?

Right. Well, 9530 specifically talks about trees on the subject property. The one part of it that addresses trees on neighboring properties is providing notification to neighbors where the trees are potentially impacted by the development.

I mean, in general, the landmark trees, they are protected because there is some specification. What is landmark tree? Why there is specification? Because they should be protected under the Covenant Tree Code, if they're right or not.

The City objects to the form of the question and the use of the word protected. the city has regulations about landmark trees, but I think the objection is to the word protection. And it's characterization that the city has a duty to protect all landmark trees. We object to that characterization of the code.

It sounds like this is really a code question. So I need to go. Okay. So I, yeah. So the, just a kind of formal rule of law in terms of typically witnesses are not asked to put pineapple on the tone because I could just go read it and look at what it says. So I don't know if you have a related question or not.

Oh, yeah. I think, like, just regarding what he replied to me. Yeah, I just want to make sure there's mandates of the non-destructive methods before any removal of nanomath trees can be enforced in the condition of no proof.

Okay, so that sounds kind of like a legal question. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So we'll not ask the witness that particular question. But you can make if you want to wish to make arguments regarding the vote or opposing argument, you can certainly address that. I'll go back, of course, before rendering a decision. So, okay. All right. So it sounds like no more further questions.

The city has no further questions and no further witnesses.

All right. So thank you, Mr. Coy, for your testimony this morning. All right, so I think we've completed witness testimony this morning. You made a brief, Ms. Grohl, you made a brief opening statement. I don't know if the parties wish to make brief closing statements.

Yes, the city would make a closing statement. Okay, all right.

And typically the palace would, if they wish to make a closing statement, would proceed first. And these are just kind of, this is not testimony. So it's just a basic summation of kind of your leave position. Rather than, so it's not new testimony or anything like that. It's just a summation of kind of what you're, which I think I already have a pretty good sense of what the, what the closing statements will be in terms. I mean, I think I understand the party's positions on, on, on all sides, but, uh, it is difficult, um, if parties wish to do so to, um, So did Ms. Liu, did you wish to make that? And Ms. Rapp, you would have that right as well.

Oh, okay. So Mrs. Hearing, the applicant in the city staff repeatedly argued, don't worry, we will fix the details at the LSN submit phase. But the code compliance cannot be deferred. So the KJC 9534B requires proof of upraised alternatives before landmark removal is authorized. The KMC 222140 requires proof of adequate drainage before pad is approved. Deferring these requirements does not make those problems go away. It just strips the neighborhood of its right to challenge a flawed design. We ask you to hold the applicant to the code standards today. So for my request, I explicitly want the hearing examiner to amend the condition of approval to mandate the developer perform the required non-destructive methods before they start any utility work or remove any landmark trees. And also revoke the deferral of drainage water and geotechnical feasibility to be fully resolved and peer-reviewed before this permit is finalized.

Thank you, Ms. Liu. Ms. Rapp, is there anything you wanted to add?

I'd just like to know what's next and if the public has any other areas or rooms or times to submit appeals or comments before any final decisions are made.

I'll address the timeline for my decision and all that once we conclude. Okay. So I guess Ms. Crowell will turn to you. Oh, and actually, I didn't know if the applicant, Mr. Drake, if you want to, either one of you can go next.

I'll just add a little line. So throughout this process, we've made multiple efforts to be neighborly and work with neighbors. uh discuss the tree removal process and um as the city stated in their briefing the city doesn't necessarily have jurisdictions over the civil element of the tree removal and so what that allows us to do is get to construction, get through our short plot approval, and if we can work out a solution that allows us to retain those trees, we will. Similar to what Kevin said in his testimony, the neighboring property was developed, and he, instead of appealing the project, chose to enter an agreement with the developer, and if the tree were to die in the future, he would take it down. So nothing prevents us from being neighborly in that regard.

Thank you for that. Just very briefly with regard to the code and whether or not the city has a duty to ensure the retention of landmark trees anywhere in the city. I'm looking at 95.30.4.B. And it says, it talks about in order to retain landmark trees and groves located anywhere on the subject property, which means when a developer is developing their own property, we do look at whether they can retain groves and landmark trees. In this instance, there is a grove being retained and there are some landmark trees being retained. as much as possible. And it says in addition to site plan alterations and variations, which we could ask the developer to make to help retain trees, we can ask for different methods like see shoring basements, extensive excavations, clustering, things like that. But the code says the planning official or public works official, where applicable, is authorized to require following standards. And so the city is authorized to require things if it doesn't prohibit, basically, development, a reasonable development of the property. And so we're walking that line all the time. Ms. Murphy opened her presentation by stating that The city is constantly balancing goals when it regulates development in the property. There is a goal to maintain a 40% canopy in the city. That's a goal in the city's comprehensive plan. That's a goal that benefits everyone in the city because if we didn't have that goal, developers could take down all the trees on the lot, but we don't let them. And we would like to retain every important tree we could, but that is not allowed under the law because we have to allow people who own the property to be able to develop their property according to the regulations that are in place and are applicable to that property. So it is a constant balancing act in this instance we believe that the hearing examiner will be able to look through the record and find that the city did balance all those goals and equities when it approved the short plat and we would ask that that decision be affirmed thank you mr call

All right. Thank you to all the parties for presenting this morning. I'd like to just go over kind of next steps. I think that question came up from Ms. Rapp, but I was going to address that anyway. I think at the pre-hearing conference, as I recall, there was a request for a site visit. Am I remembering that correctly? And I think I determined that we would decide that at the hearing. And so I'd like to ask the parties if... possibly maybe next week i should do that i guess there was some discussion about whether i enter the property you typically i don't um but in this case it might make sense and obviously i couldn't do so unless they you know the applicant was comfortable with that approach i kind of have to defer to the parties on exactly kind of how to how to approach this and it does need to be organized and there can't be ex-party discussions so we're not talking when i visit the properties for context it's not evidence that i can't have any substantive you know comments discussions with any of the parties on the kind of case merits if you will so i guess it turns the applicant first on that question on kind of the best way to do that because usually i just drive by the property and step out if i need to to for viewing but yeah if you find that necessary in your decision uh you have our permission to enter the problem okay okay so um i'm thinking maybe wednesday next week with that to work for the parties maybe nine is this a meeting um so these are so um so i guess the question for me is will it will be obvious where to walk or i i feel like i need somebody to be there to tell me where to walk um i'd be happy to and i don't want to be just with the applicant because i think it's you know it's uh you can definitely go to my property okay you can't get on the property without a key it's locked up okay well then definitely i need someone present

You can see that from these wraps probably or from my property or even on the street because it's a huge area. Okay.

So either Ms. Lou or Ms. Rapp or both can be there at Wednesday at nine. Okay. All right. And that works for you. And then the city on. Okay. With all that. I don't know. That is fine. I just. Suggest I. that we agree on where to meet yes that was my next question thank you um so specifically if uh what address should i show up at like um yeah the the site can be accessed off of uh 110th um and so that would be uh 10 607 northeast 110th street okay so i'll come to 10607 northeast 110th street

Follow up question for you. I thought I had heard at the beginning that your decisions to be authored within four days is that

Issue. No, it's a weird code. I make the decision, and then I can date it, and then I have four days to get it to you all. I think it was drafted before email, maybe. I don't know. So it's a practical matter. What will happen is I write the decision, and then I date it, and it'll go by email that exact same day. So there won't be that lag time. You would only have a lag time, I guess, if I had to mail it and print envelopes and what have you. So I'd like to avoid that. If I can, I think everybody was fine with email. Yeah. Okay, so Wednesday next week, which is just to clarify, August 19th. Do I have my dates? Can't always trust me with calendars. Wednesday the 19th at 9. And this should be relatively short.

These aren't kind of involved. So this property is big. If we are meeting there, are we meeting on the north side or south side?

It would be the north side.

North side of where the driveway is? Okay. That sounds logical. All right.

Um, and then the, um, so I'll do the site visit and then the decision, uh, would be out. I know we're at, we're there's, I think the 90 day or whatever it is that we, that there was consent to that pre-hearing on. So we'll be, that'll extend it a little bit, but it would be out within then 10, 10 business days of that site visit. So I just want to check with the applicant on that. If that timeframe is okay. It's next Wednesday. So yeah, next Wednesday. So August 19 at nine. Yes.

I would just be curious, as we have other development permit applications that tend this decision, is there a, I guess there's no other method to expedite that decision?

I mean, I couldn't, I tried it. Let's see one. The only thing is I just have a three-day hearing. If it went short, then I could issue it next week. But if it takes all three days, then that would be, that's kind of the reason on that. But I will, yes, I will do what I can to expedite the decision to get that out. So, all right. So you're okay with 10 business days as long as I make best efforts. So, okay, understood. Because I know there's a little side visit that does extend things a bit. So, okay. So then I guess just, Ms. Rapp, to follow up on your question that you had. So that's the basic process. I issue a decision, and that would be out, of course, within 10 minutes. The states would probably earlier than that from the site visit. And then that is the final decision on that.

And so there would not be like a new hearing before me or anything else, you know, a meeting or anything along those lines.

So, yeah. So are there any other procedural questions?

None from the city. Okay.

All right. Well, thank you all. Appreciate hearing from everyone this morning. And we are adjourned. Thank you.