Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2022 - Cyprus Lane - Preliminary Plat and Street Mod (LUA-21-000287)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Cyprus Lane Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat and Street Modification LUA21-000287, PP, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSINS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION UPON REHEARING SUMMARY The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter issued on November 23, 2022 is re- adopted and remains unchanged, except as supplemented with the information provided in this Final Decision Upon Rehearing. A rehearing was held on January 18, 2022 due to defects in the public notice of hearing for the original hearing held on the plat application on November 23, 2021. The additional testimony provided at the rehearing was primarily focused upon public requests for additional information on the project. The hearing transcript, Appendix A, provides a good outline of the information exchanged at the hearing. In addition to the information requested at the hearing, neighboring property owners also requested that Pasco Ave NE just north of the project site be fully developed as an alternative connection point to the plat. Neighbors also requested that the sewer mains be installed at sufficient depth to avoid the need for grinder pumps for homes to the north. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law below, some accommodation for sewer main depth can be made during the civil review of the project so long as the depth is a proportionate response to the needs created by the proposal. As further outlined in the Conclusions of Law, the City is statutorily and constitutionally barred from requiring the Applicant to make off-site improvements to Pasco Ave NE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 Exhibits Exhibits 1-19 identified in the exhibit list presented by City staff at the rehearing were admitted into the record. The following documents were also admitted during the rehearing: Exhibit 20: Public rehearing notice. Exhibit 21: November 23, 2021 Final Decision Exhibit 22: Recording of November 23, 2021 hearing. Testimony A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Findings of Fact 1. Findings Adopted by Reference. Findings of Fact No. 1-5 of the November 23, 2021 Final Decision are adopted by reference as if set forth in full. 2. Setting of Rehearing. A rehearing was held on the subject preliminary plat application on January 18, 2022. The rehearing was ordered by the hearing examiner by email order dated December 15, 2021 due to a defect in the hearing notice for the November 23, 2021 hearing. Ex. 17. Specifically, the City’s address program erroneously only provided addresses for properties within 30 feet of the project site as opposed to 300 feet. Id. The November 23, 2021 Final Decision was also vacated in the same email order. Id. 3. Rehearing Testimony. As outlined in the Summary section of this Final Decision Upon Rehearing, comments made at the rehearing were primarily focused upon inquiries about road connectivity, availability of sewer connections and tree protection. Requests were limited to ensuring that the proposed sewer main extensions were deep enough to facilitate gravity flow to properties north of the project site and also for exterior extension of Pasco Ave NE to connect to the plat’s interior road network. 4. Sewer Main Depth. In setting the required depth for sewer mains, City public works staff consider a multitude of factors that involves a balancing of the expense to the developer and the benefits to the public. Those factors were outlined in the following exchange between the Hearing Examiner and Mr. Janders (Renton public works) during the rehearing: Hearing Examiner: Okay. And Mr. Janders, a question I have for you then, I mean, do the city's engineering standards specify how you evaluate required depth? Is there anything specific or is it one of those things that's left to engineering judgment? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 Mr. Janders: So our side sewers and sewer stubs do have requirements for depth. I believe it's three feet minimum at property lines. The sewer main, I would have to go take a look back. I don't have that off the top of my head. It is pretty typical for standard. It is gravity main, but individual grinder pumps are a necessity on a lot of lots when depth becomes too... It's just not attainable. Hearing Examiner: How's the decision made if you go deeper then? Are you weighing the cost of goin g deeper versus the cost of grinder pumps? Is that the kind of analysis that goes into it or I mean, what are the factors that are considered there? Mr. Janders: That would be one that could be considered. Maintainability of systems as well needs to be considered for maintenance crews to be able to access service and maintain the lines as well as material, ensuring that the materials are suitable for various depths. So I think what is being questioned is an individual lot where full engineering has not been done. The proposal does not take into account the elevations of all properties to the north at this point, is this a one off property? Is it the entirety of the block? Mr. Janders: And the ability to use grinder pumps though is also considered. And grinder pumps, like I have said, are used and it is standard practice to use them where necessary at individual lots when gravity cannot be achieved. I think further assessment with the developer would be something to look into as to what would the depth be th at is being requested. 5. Pasco Ave NE: According to the uncontested testimony of Jill Ding at rehearing, Pasco Ave is unimproved along the frontage of two adjoining lots that collectively adjoin the north property line of the project site. Conclusions of Law 1. Conclusions adopted by reference. Conclusions of Law No. 1-29 of the November 23, 2021 Final Decision are adopted by reference as if set forth in full. 2. Sewer Main Depth. The depth required by the City for the proposed sewer main will be appropriately ascertained during civil review of the proposal by balancing the factors identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, concerns were expressed at the hearing about ensuring that the water main be installed at a depth sufficient to facilitate gravity flow to neighboring properties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 Unfortunately, the City likely cannot make the developer incur significant additional costs solely for the benefit of other property owners. There is no direct case law on this issue for utility lines, but the principle is clearly laid out in road circulation cases. As a matter of constitutional due process and takings law, developers cannot be required to dedicate land to create road connections solely for the benefit of pre-existing landlocked properties since the developer has not created and therefore is not responsible for that condition. See, e.g., Luxembourg Group v. Snohomish County, 76 Wn. App. 502, review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1005 (1995). Similarly, the Applicant cannot be made to bear substantial added expense in increasing sewer main depth solely for the benefit of other property owners. As noted in the case law above, the road connections cannot be required “solely” for the benefit of land locked parcels. Road connections can often be justified on the basis that th e developer also benefits from the road connection by improved road connectivity and emergency access. Arguably, some reciprocity is also inherent in sewer main connection improvements directed at facilitating connections with neighboring properties. Oversizing mains and increased depth requirements can be justified on the basis that the developer benefits from these requirements being previously imposed upon other property owners upstream from the project. However, case law also imposes a proportionality requirement on project mitigation. A city is barred by the takings clause from requiring a developer to mitigate more than its own proportionate share of impacts. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1987); RCW 82.02.020. Consequently, a developer could not be required to incur an exorbitant amount of extra expense to help neighbors avoid the cost of grinder pumps. The factors the City uses to consider required depth during civil review, as described in Finding of Fact No. 4, adequately address the proportionality requirements that likely apply to mainline depth requirements. No specific requirements for depth can be imposed by this decision because the record is not developed enough to make that determination1. 3. Pasco Avenue Connection. There is no basis for requiring off-site street improvements to Pasco Ave NE. At the rehearing, one neighbor requested that off-site improvements be used to connect Pasco Ave NE to the north side of the project in the unimproved road area identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. As determined in the November 23, 2021 decision, the plat meets all plat design requirements as they apply to the preliminary plat conceptual stage of development review. The plat already includes two access points. There is nothing in the record that establishes that an additional access point is necessary or warranted for the project. In the absence of any evidence establishing a need for the third road connection, no such additional connection can be required. See, e.g., Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 49 P .3d 860 (2002)(record must contain 1 The City has the burden of proof in suppo rting the need for mitigation of development impacts. See Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas , 146 Wash.2d 740, 761 (2002); RCW 82.02.020. The City has not presented any set of facts supporting a requirement for a sewer main depth, since the City conducts that analysis during the civil review of the preliminary plat. 761 (2002). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 substantial evidence that subdivision will increase traffic along adjoining road within no direct access to require frontage improvements). DECISION The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter issued November 23, 2022 is re-adopted and remains unchanged, except as supplemented with the information provided in this Final Decision Upon Rehearing. DATED this 10th day of February, 2022. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 25 Appendix A January 18, 2022 Hearing Transcript Cyprus Lane Rehearing -- LUA21-000287 Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Hearing Examiner: It's January 18th, 2022. I'm the hearing examiner for the City of Renton. We have a reopened hearing for the Cyprus Lane, preliminary plat application. And I just want to apologize, my video link is not working, but I'm otherwise here. And of course can see all of you and all the information you will be presenting today. Hearing Examiner: The format will be we're going to start off with the presentation from staff. That will be Ms. Jill Ding, who will give us an overview of the project. Once she's done, we'll then move on to the applicant. If he wants to add anything, that's his chance. And then we'll move into public comments at that point of the hearing. We'll explain how you as members, so the public can share your comments and concerns. Once all those comments are done, then we'll move back to Ms. Ding to answer any questions that were raised during the public comment portion, as well as any necessary rebuttal evidence she feels necessary to present. And then finally, we'll move on to applicant for final words. Hearing Examiner: So now by state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put into the record today. That way you all know exactly who or what information is being used to come up with the final decision. And with that, Ms. Cisneros, I think you usually have an exhibit list prepared. Do you have one for today? Ms. Cisneros: Yes, I do. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Why don't you go ahead and share a screen with that. Ms. Cisneros: Oh, this is not it. This is for later for participating hearing. So let me find the right one. One second here. Hearing Examiner: Okay. So we see there's quite a few documents that are used to review this project. And Ms. Cisneros, if you could scroll down a little bit there. Yeah, there we go. This is all the records that are available at the city's website on this project. At this point I just need to know if anyone has any objections to entry of those documents. And also Ms. Cisneros, I do believe the public hearing notice wasn't included in this. Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 25 Can we go back to, I just want to make sure it's not in that list. I want to add that as well. Can you scroll back up to exhibit one. Yeah. So I don't think that the public hearing notice is in there. Right? Ms. Cisneros: No it's not. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Let's make that exhibit 20. That would be the notice that was sent out to the property owners that said this was a reopened hearing and also advised that the audio and final hearing examiner decision were part of the record. And also Ms. Cisneros, was the original hearing examiner decision one of the exhibits as well or not? Ms. Cisneros: I'm sorry? Hearing Examiner: The hearing examiner decision that was issued in this case is that also is that included in the exhibit list? Ms. Cisneros: No. It was not. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Let get the date on that one. Hold on a minute. Okay. And I have the date as November 23rd, 2021 is the original Cyprus Lane hearing examiner decision. Let's make that exhibit 21 then. Okay. So at this point, I just want to ask if anyone has any objections to entry those documents, if you do just click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. And I will say that this is not the time to debate the substance of those documents. It's really just to object on the grounds of relevancy that these documents have nothing to do with this hearing or two that the documents are authentic. Like you see a statutory warranty deed or so something, and you see that it's a forgery or something of that nature. Hearing Examiner: So just at this point, asking if anyone has any objections to any of those documents coming in, seeing and hearing none, we'll go ahead and admit exhibits one through 21. Hearing Examiner: Okay. With that, Ms. Ding's move on to you then so you can give us an overview of the project. Well, sorry. Ms. Cisneros, let's get the audio recording of the hearing in as well. I think it's exhibit 22, is that right? Oh, you're muted Ms. Cisneros. Ms. Cisneros: Exhibit 22 would be the next one, yes. Hearing Examiner: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 25 Yeah. And the hearing date was, let me pull that up now. Let's see. All right. That was November 22nd, 2021. Any objections over the audio portion of the hearing held on that date coming into the record? Because like I said, by state law, I'm supposed to include in the record all information that I've been exposed to, and that would include that hearing as well. All right. Seeing no objections we'll make that exhibit 22, the audio recording of the hearing held on November 22nd. Hearing Examiner: Okay. With that finally Ms. Ding, Let's get to you. Let me swear you in at this point. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Jill Ding: I do. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Go ahead. Jill Ding: Thank you. So I am here this morning to present the staff recommendation for the Cyprus Lane preliminary plat application. I will note that the applicant pointed out that the city had misspelled Cyprus in Cyprus Lane at the previous hearing. So I have updated the PowerPoint to reflect the correct spelling. It is C-Y-P-R-U-S. So that is the correct spelling. I just wanted to get that on the record. Jill Ding: Going through a brief description of the project. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat application and a street modification for the subdivision of an almost five acre site into 15 lots and nine tracts. The zoning is R4 and there are two existing residences that are proposed for removal. Jill Ding: The proposed lots would range in size from just over 9,000 square feet to almost 12,500 square feet. Staff is recommending that access to lots 1 through 3, 7 through 10 and 13 through 15, be provided via the new Orcas Avenue public street extension. Access to lots 4 through 6 should be provided by via the new public alley extension. And access to lots 11 and 12 would be required to be provided off of Nile Avenue Northeast via a joint use driveway. The applicant is proposing to retain 65 significant trees on the project site. Jill Ding: A modification up from the street standards was requested in order to utilize the modified street section as referenced in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan along Nile Avenue Northeast. Site frontage improvements include public right of way dedication, installation of curb and gutter. Installation of a landscape planter strip with street trees, as well as a sidewalk along all street frontages abutting the project site. Jill Ding: There were two neighborhood meetings held the first on June 29th. And the second on July 13th of 2021. There was a 14 day public comment period in August. Then the project was renoticed in Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 25 December to correct a noticing error from the original application. Staff received a total of three public comments regarding the extension of Pasco Avenue Northeast as a public alley, access off of Nile Avenue Northeast, as well as access to sewer. Jill Ding: The city issued a CIPA determination of non significance on September 13th, 2021. No appeals of that threshold determination were filed. And project review was placed on hold in September and was taken off hold in early October. Jill Ding: Staff has reviewed the proposal and concluded that it would be consistent with the relevant, comprehensive plat land use policies. It would be compliant with all relevant zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. The proposed street modification is compliant with the modification criteria as outlined in rent and municipal code 4-9-250D. And there are safe walking routes to the school bus stop for any students who may reside at the future project. Jill Ding: Staff is recommending that the proposed protected trees within lots 1 through 4, 6, 13 through 15 and tracts B, C, E, F, G and H be protected within tree protection easements. The tree protection easements should encompass all protected trees within these lots and extend to a public right of way. And the boundary of the tree protection easements should be fenced and signed as approved by the current planning project manager. Jill Ding: Police and fire prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. It's anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students. Water service is provided by water district 90 and sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. Water and sewer improvements will be required along all project frontages. Jill Ding: The applicant submitted a technical information drainage report prepared by Core Design. There are two natural discharge locations, one to the north and one to the south. There are two detention wet vaults proposed within tracts A and D for water quality treatment as well as detention. And the project is required to comply with the 2017 City of Renton surface water design manual. Jill Ding: So in conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the Cyprus Lane preliminary plat as depicted in exhibit number eight, subject to nine conditions of approval. Are there any questions? Hearing Examiner: Okay. Yeah, I think that one of the issues of concern has been the connection from Pasco to Cyprus Lane. And I believe the understanding from the prior hearing was that a full connection wasn't going to be made because there were a couple intervening lots that weren't being developed. I mean, what's the status on that? I mean, is that a correct finding that they're not going to be connected or will they? And when the staff response is limited access what does that mean exactly? Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 25 Jill Ding: If I can go back, I think that the first slide shows a little bit more. So this is an aerial. These are the intervening lots up here. It's paved up here. And then there are two intervening lots to which it's not improved. That alley extension is not functioning as emergency access or a safe route to school route. So the city doesn't have any nexus at this point to require offsite improvements that would connect the alley that's going to be extended to Pasco all the way up to the existing paved portion of Pasco. Hearing Examiner: Okay. So currently there's no way for someone to drive through those lots, right? There's no dirt road- Jill Ding: That's my understanding. I don't know if there's an informal access, but my understanding is that it's currently undeveloped. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Yeah. That was my understanding from Mr. Wenzel's testimony. And I mean, if those two lots are developed, and how big are those lots? They're fairly small, right? This isn't going to be a new subdivision or something up there- Jill Ding: It will not be a new subdivision. There will be new single family residences on those lots. And once they are built, then they will improve that road. Hearing Examiner: Okay. And the lots are vacant right now. Is that right? Jill Ding: They are vacant right now. Correct. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Okay. And as you said, when the two homes are put in there, would they be required to put in full street improvements, as much as the right of way allows I should say? Jill Ding: Well, I mean, the code typically requires it, they can ask for a modification, they can ask to pay a fee in lieu, whether or not that would be granted, I don't know the answer to that. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Okay. So if they were developed with two homes, then that connection could conceivably be made. And like I said, I noticed the staff response was there would only be limited access to the lots. I mean, what do you mean by limited access? Is that simply that the road would be substandard probably? I take it that doesn't mean you're going to be putting a gate in or something? Jill Ding: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 25 No, we're not proposing a gate. No. Hearing Examiner: Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you, Ms. Ding. All right. Let's move on the applicant at this point. Mr. Wenzel, did you want to add anything? Or whoever's representing the applicant today? Cliff Williams: Yes. That's myself. My name is Cliff Williams. I'm the contact person for the applicant today. Unfortunately, Mr. Wenzel is dealing with another commitment. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Let me swear you in, Mr. Williams first. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Cliff Williams: Yes, I do. Hearing Examiner: Okay. All right. Great. Go ahead. Cliff Williams: Okay. First of all, I have a question for Jill regarding the re-notice. In the re-notice, it lists a notice of complete application, and there's a date of January the 17th, 2022. And I want to know why that particular date is used because in her documentation, that is the staff report, it reports that is in section H paragraph one, that the application was completed on August the 9th, 2021. Could she possibly clarify that point? Hearing Examiner: Okay. Ms. Ding, you can do that now, if you want. Jill Ding: I think it's just the date that we were preparing the updated notice to re-notice. Okay. Cliff Williams: Yeah. My concern was the fact that it actually states, "Notice of complete application." And we'd been given that notice back in August, of August the 9th. Okay. Now we really appreciate the fact that the previous testimony is going to be part of the record. And also the decision of November the 23rd. We still have the same concern that Bob Wenzel had expressed. And that is in regards to the city's recommendation, that the protected trees that are identified in the list that Jill gave, that those protected trees be maintained by the HOA. As Bob had expressed during the previous hearing, there's a reluctance of HOAs to take on more responsibility than what they really should be. And the fact that these trees are part of existing lots, his push was to have the original homeowner be responsible for the maintenance of the trees. Cliff Williams: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 25 And in reviewing your previous decision, I noticed that under the summary, in the decision you in the second paragraph you talk about this, and in fact, do suggest that a way to accommodate the city's concerns and also the applicant that you would... Let's see. Yeah. I'm just reading from the decision. Okay. "That covenants shall make it clear that servient owners are responsible for tree maintenance in the tree easements on their property, but that the HOA will have access rights if the owners fail to maintain." Cliff Williams: We agree with that determination of yours and request that it be provided or be the wording that is provided in the final decision regarding those protected trees. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Yeah. That word actually was included in condition five of the final decision as well. So if you didn't see that. Cliff Williams: Yeah, actually I did see that. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Okay. Good, good. Cliff Williams: I wanted to make sure that the previous... And thank you for adding the previous record and the previous decision to the exhibits, as I had noticed they had been left out. So we really appreciate those being added in. That's the end of my presentation. And I wanted to point out that we have two other people representing the applicant. We have Bob Nix from Core Design and Sheri Murata, who's also with Core Design and she's the engineer of record. So if any questions come up during the public presentation, they're available to respond. Hearing Examiner: Thank you Mr. Williams. I appreciate your comments. All right. At this point, now we'll move on to public comments and Ms. Cisneros, maybe you can go over how people can participate at this point. Ms. Cisneros: If you'd like to participate, you could raise your hand. There's a button at the bottom of the screen and we will call on you. Hearing Examiner: Okay. And also Ms. Cisneros, if you show us your email and phone number in case people have troubles. If you're trying to participate today and you're not able to get through, go ahead and give a call to Ms. Cisneros or email her. And there's her number (425) 430-6583. And also jnarrows@rentonwa.gov. Also, as a matter of course, in these virtual hearings, I leave the record open until 5:00 PM the next day, in case someone is unable to participate due to tactical reasons. And again, it does have to be due to tactical reasons, not just because you wanted to add something that you forgot to say today, but if your internet is down, or you just were not able to figure out how to be heard or we just overlook you go Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 25 ahead and email Ms. Cisneros there, let her know what technical issues you had and then go ahead and make your comments. And then we'll make that email part of the record and also give the applicants and city a chance to respond to those email comments as well. Hearing Examiner: So with that, let's move on to our first number of the public. And that's Mr. Ron Bielka. Jenny, are you the one that unmutes him at this point? Jenny: He's able to unmute himself. Hearing Examiner: Oh, okay. And he has okay, Mr. Bielka let me swear in at this point, just raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, and nothing but truth in this proceeding? Ron Bielka: Certainly. Yes. Hearing Examiner: Yes. Okay. And for the record, your last name is spelled B-I-E-L-K-A. Is that correct? Ron Bielka: Yes, sir. Hearing Examiner: Okay, great. And also if you want a copy of the final decision mailed or emailed to you, let us know what your email address is or mailing address. We like the email address, we prefer that because it's easier to get those documents out. You can email your email address to Ms. Cisneros if you'd rather not mention it here in the hearing. So with that, Mr. Bielka go ahead. Ron Bielka: One of the things that I just- Hearing Examiner: I think we were getting an echo with you. If you can turn down the speakers on your side that way I don't think we'll get the double echo. There you go. Go ahead. Ron Bielka: That better now? Hearing Examiner: I guess not. Ms. Cisneros do you know how to fix that echo? Ms. Cisneros: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 25 I do not. I think it is on their end. Joel DeLange: Here's there's two people with the same Zoom name. I'm wondering if that's an issue. Ron Bielka: Well, it might be Joel, I will back up to say that, although I tried numerous times to come up with my computer, my daughter finally decided, well after several hours yesterday decided that my computer does not have the capability it's old and did not have the capability to work with a Zoom meeting. So I came to Joel's house here. And so we're now working with two computers close to each other, and that's why the interaction of the vocals. Joel DeLange: It's reasonable now. It's fine. You're fine. Hearing Examiner: Yeah. We can hear you now. Whatever you guys did now it's working. So, okay, go ahead. Ron Bielka: Well, now he doesn't have the assistance of nearby help on his computer or actually I guess it's Sally's computer his wife. But anyway, Joel, I hope you will be able to help me when I come to a problem here. And the immediate question I have now that you brought up the existing trees is there's one, I occupy the property just adjacent to lot 12 and we, lot 12 and I, have a common right on the border. In fact, the fence that is between the two of us is interrupted by that tree. If I am responsible for the maintenance of that tree, I think we would have to share that with lot 12, and I don't know how in the world we would do that, to cut a three foot tree down the middle and determine maintenance on that for one thing. So maybe Jill you could tell me how we'd do that? Hearing Examiner: Jill you can respond now if you want? Jill Ding: So that's really kind of a private issue between you and your neighbor for how you decide to maintain it. It's not really something that the city's going to get involved in. And I don't believe that that tree was one that was part of a tract within the development. Ron Bielka: Well, it's a very large fir tree. Jill Ding: Yeah. It's not part of a tree tract, so there would not be any maintenance covenants subject to that tree. So it would just be between you and your neighbor as the maintenance of that tree. Ron Bielka: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 25 All right. That's good. I thought it was maintained on the system because it is a very large existing tree. I have a couple of other questions regarding the development. Is it now time to ask about them? Hearing Examiner: Yeah. Sure. Any questions you have, yes. Ron Bielka: All right. Certainly. I guess I get very concerned about the access off of Nile Avenue for those two lots. Do they then extend to the four lots off of Nile? Are the two lots and I guess numbers, I just had a cataract operation on both eyes here in the last, so they're right behind... What are they? 10 and 9, are those the two lots behind 12 and 11, are those two lots accessible by the access road from Nile? Jill Ding: There is no access. Oh, do you want me to respond- Hearing Examiner: Oh yes, yes. Go ahead. Jill Ding: There is no access road from Nile. There is a small shared driveway that is going to go right in between lots 11 and 12, right off of Nile. Ron Bielka: Okay. That access road does that extend to 9 and 10? Jill Ding: That's not an access road that is a drainage tract. Ron Bielka: So that drainage tract, Jill does not extend through to 9 and 10? Jill Ding: So it's a drainage tract that will house a drainage facility. It's going to be landscaped. So it's not for access. Hearing Examiner: Yeah. We're talking about tract D Jill, is that right? Is that what, when you talk about the drainage tract? Jill Ding: I think it's... Yeah. Ron Bielka: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 25 I just, as I look at it, Jill, I just see a series of dotted lines that go next to 11 and 12 and they end at the east end of 11 and 12. And I just presumed that was an access road that ended at that lot 11 and 12, but that just is a tract? Jill Ding: No, it's just going to be a driveway access right between those lots. It's not going to go back at all. It's going to be like those two lots just share a curb cut, and then it's going to go right into their garages. So the lots behind will access off of the Orcas Avenue extension. Ron Bielka: Okay. As I look at it, there's a very small vertical division as you go east, that then is the terminus of that driveway access? Jill Ding: It terminates right here. Ron Bielka: Yes. That small- Jill Ding: It's just for 11 and 12. Lot's 9 and 10 will access via, they've got individual curb cuts shown here off of the Orcas Avenue extension. Ron Bielka: Yes. The other question I have is regarding the sewer. As I look at the Orcas Avenue sewer, not necessarily on this one, but in the earlier maps, the sewer comes up and I see it, I think as a small tubular on the left side of the extension coming up from Orcas North up, and it goes all the way around the curve and it ends right at the end of the development there. I don't have the cursor to show, but [crosstalk 00:30:38] Go ahead. Jill Ding: So my understanding I've got an engineer here if my understanding is not sufficient, who could provide further clarification. But my understanding is, is that the sewer starts down here at the bottom at the south, will extend all the way to the north and then- Ron Bielka: Yeah, but you now have a rectangular thing that says, please ask the host to give you permission to record that is in the middle of the screen right now. And there's a place that says upper left, it says Zoom lower right, it says close. So if you'd close that. Jill Ding: I don't have that on my screen. Hearing Examiner: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 25 Yeah. I don't either. That's very odd. Jill Ding: Maybe Joel fixes it here. Hearing Examiner: Yeah. I think it might be on from your end actually. Ron Bielka: Ah, yes. Wonderful magic man Joel. Yeah. Okay. Well, your cursor is showing that's the end of the sewer, right? Jill Ding: Correct. Yes. Ron Bielka: Okay. Now that becomes a question of mine. At that particular point is there a way for me as a homeowner to ask the people that are working on the sewer system, because I have a lot just right at that point, to extend the sewer at my cost, another what? The length of my lot to the north? Jill Ding: So that would be between you and the developer. It'll be the developer, Mr. Wenzel extending that sewer. So if you would like to work with him to pay, to extend it further, that would be something that you and he could work out together. Ron Bielka: Okay. And let's go back to Nile Avenue. Nile Avenue, as you noted at your discussion earlier was that Nile Avenue would have, I think you said something about sidewalks along Nile Avenue in the front of the development. And do those sidewalks just extend in front of the development? Jill Ding: Correct. Ron Bielka: All right. They also, as I assume, on the other side of the road where the sewer is to the north, the sewer then will extend to the south in front to pick up the development waste from the north, I assume that's the plan. As the sewer passes my property adjacent to lot 11 or actually adjacent to 12, is it going to be possible for me to, in some way, have an advantage to ask for sewer outlets or whatever they're called to be put in? Is that with the city or how is the organization involved with that? Jill Ding: I've got an engineer here who I think could better answer that question. Either Nate or, or Brian, our engineers with the city and they could answer that. I think better than I can. Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 25 Hearing Examiner: Yeah, it looks like Mr. Janders is the one that wants to answer that. Let me swear in Mr. Janders. Do you swear, affirm, tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Mr. Janders: I do. Hearing Examiner: And your last name for the record is J-A-N-D-E-R-S. Is that correct? Mr. Janders: That is correct. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Janders: All right. Thank you. Ron, to answer your question, sewer will be extended or is supposed to be extended north fronting your property. A sewer stub is a connection that you are talking about. Sewer stubs are from the main to the property line. And then side sewers are from the property line to the connection at the home. The property, as part of our development regulation is not required to install sewer stubs to the adjacent properties outside of the reaches of the project. Mr. Janders: So similar to the extension that you had asked about on Orcas, you could discuss with the developer installation of sewer stubs. And if not, that doesn't work out, then after the sewer has been installed and accepted by the city, you could request for a connection to the sewer. At which point you would install the stub and then a side sewer to the building. Ron Bielka: But at the time the sewer was being installed, whom would I speak to? Mr. Janders: The developer. So Mr. Wenzel again. Ron Bielka: He would then be the one that would be involved in the expense of the process to install that sewer? Mr. Janders: Yes. And that would be something though that you and him would need to work out individually. Ron Bielka: But it would be at his expense that the process would be taking place true? Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 14 of 25 Mr. Janders: Yes. Ron Bielka: Not at the city's expense? Mr. Janders: That is correct. All improvements for the development are at the expense of the developer. Ron Bielka: Good. Thank you. I think that at this current moment answers my question. I would like to leave it open as I go through the discussion here, if I have others, I might open it up again. Is that possible? Hearing Examiner: Yeah. Just make sure that you ask a question before the public portion of the hearing is done. Ron Bielka: Oh yeah. Certainly. Hearing Examiner: Once all the public comments are done, I'll say that we're done with public portion. And if you still have outstanding questions, raise your hand. Yeah. Ron Bielka: I will certainly. Hearing Examiner: Perfect. Ron Bielka: Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Okay, so let's go on to the second, Mr. Bielka, I think that was on the list there. Who's that? I know Mr. Bielka, you had someone else in your residence who wanted to say something, is that right? Joel DeLange: It's Joel DeLange. Hearing Examiner: Oh, there he is. Okay. Let me swear in Mr. What's your last name again? Joel DeLange: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 15 of 25 DeLange. D-E-L-A-N-G-E. Hearing Examiner: Okay. All right. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Joel DeLange: I do. Hearing Examiner: Okay, great. Go ahead. Joel DeLange: Thank you. If we can stick on the sewer, I want some clarification. So I think Janders said that it was extending north up to which street or it coming straight out of lots 11 and 12 across to the street? Hearing Examiner: Jill, I think Mr. DeLange wanted you to, to put back up your shared screen there of the lots. There we go. There we go. Joel DeLange: All right. So for lots 11 and 12, the sewer is coming out for that development, for that tract B, where is the sewer terminating? Directly across the street or is it running up north, up to Northeast 5th street where my property resides? Mr. Janders: The sewer is proposed to extend from the south to the north, roughly along the north half of lot 11 would be the southernmost point of the sewer main extension, running north to tie into an existing sewer, I believe it is- Joel DeLange: It's Northeast 5th. Mr. Janders: Yes, yes. Up at Northeast 5th. Joel DeLange: All right. I had thought that I heard on the last hearing that I listened to that you were going to basically make a sewer stub out on Nile at right where tract 11 comes out. Is that not true? So you're running everything up to the north and stubbing out there? Mr. Janders: So sewer is proposed to run from the south to the north, with stubs for each of the lots that are within the plat. There'd be stubs along Nile for lots 11 and 12 fronting their property. And there is individual Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 16 of 25 side sewers as well, proposed to service lots 9 and 10, that would run through an easement and the joint driveway tract. Joel DeLange: Okay. So with that said, so it goes up to Northeast 5th street. Now on the lines of what Mr. Bielko was saying, the discussion with developer, would you consider those to be late comer agreements that we're discussing with him or were late comer agreements with the developer ever discussed with the city? Mr. Janders: We have not received an inquiry on a late comer. That would be something for the applicant to request with us if they so desire. Joel DeLange: Okay. All right. I guess we can broach the subject if the applicant's designee is on the line, can he comment on this or would you like to comment on it? Hearing Examiner: Well, let's see, Mr. Williams, do you want to say anything about that now? You'd have to unmute yourself Mr. Williams, if you had something to say. There you go. Cliff Williams: Yeah. We can work with the neighbors and it would just have to be negotiated with the neighbors as to what we do beyond what is required by the city for us to install. I can't make any commitment at this particular time, but certainly are open to having discussions with the individuals. Joel DeLange: Okay. Thank you. Because that's what we heard in the neighborhood meetings and then it kind of just disappeared. I was still wanting to know if it was a viable option. So thank you. So that answers the sewer. Now can we go, Jill, I know that now that I understand tract B lots 11 and 12, it's just a shared driveway, what was the reasoning of the city not to shorten the square footage on 9 and 10 and have everything for tract B accessed off Orcas? I'm not understanding that. So no access off Nile? Jill Ding: So lots, 11 and 12 don't have frontage on Orcas. There's no access from Orcas to lots 11 and 12. So since they front on Nile and we wanted to maintain the number of curb cuts that are existing on Nile, we're allowing them one that will be a shared or a joint use driveway for lots 11 and 12. Joel DeLange: Yeah, but couldn't they just grant an easement from Orcas for 9, 10, 11, and 12? Jill Ding: So that would be called a shared driveway and shared driveways are not allowed for preliminary plat applications. They are prohibited. So this is a code allowed access for all of the lots. Joel DeLange: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 17 of 25 Okay. I guess I'll live with that. Now, if we can shift to the trees. I know I mentioned in the neighborhood meetings that there seems to be a scorched earth thing with developments up here in the Renton Highlands. Although we've been assured the trees will be saved and are part of this plan, who monitors that? Because I continue to see in other land use where there was tree preservation within the discussions, but when it came to the development of the land, it was a scorched earth policy and there were no trees left. Joel DeLange: So what is the policing or who maintains and make sure that the trees are going to be left on the property when this project starts? And what are the qualities, if any? Jill Ding: When they start constructing their civil improvements, they are required to install tree protection measures. And part of the tree protection measures include a chain link fence with signage that is installed outside the drip line of all retained trees. The city inspector will inspect to make sure that that tree protection is installed per code. However, there have been instances where there have been violations of that tree protection. And if that is the case, then the city has fines as well as replanting measures that we implement. But we do try to enforce the tree protection as much as we can. That is our priority. And so that is why we are requiring the installation of a chain link fence and requiring no disturbance underneath, within the drip line of those trees. Joel DeLange: Okay. So if I heard you correctly, there'll be 67 chain link fences around trees as this goes forward? Jill Ding: Well, since a lot of the trees are kind of in a corridor, I would assume that they would do one long chain link fence running north and south along the east and west sides of that southern portion of the property. Joel DeLange: Okay. All right. And okay, let's just say that I walk around my block after the development starts and all the trees are gone. What is my recourse? Who do I contact you, the city? Jill Ding: Yeah. Yep. You can contact me. Joel DeLange: All right. Thank you. And lastly was that alley. I'm still not a understanding why, for the greater good of the public, why the alley can't be extended at the time of the development. It's public land they're already developing why can't they just extend the alley through, for the public to be able to access down and walk around the block, so to speak. And it's my feeling that there's a conflict of interest with the developer, Mr. Wenzel, as I believe he owns property that he doesn't want the public over in that area. That's my opinion. Jill Ding: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 18 of 25 So the city regulations allow us to require frontage improvements and improvements within and along the project frontage. We cannot require offsite improvements beyond the boundaries of the project site without some sort of an access. So this extension improvement to the north would be an off offsite improvement. And as the alley does not need to be extended for emergency access purposes as a result of this subdivision, we cannot require the offsite improvement to the north. Joel DeLange: Right. But the nexus is, in my opinion, if you ask the fire department, would you like to see that alleyway go all the way through from Northeast 5th to Northeast 4th, as an emergency the access if you needed to get in there, I think their answer would be, yes. Jill Ding: They're not going to use that alley as emergency access for this project. They will use the alley once these two lots developed to the north, that alley will be part of the emergency access for the extension of Pasco, but it will not come into play until these lots to the north develop. Joel DeLange: Okay. But if the fire department said it would be good if we had that access, would you change your position? Jill Ding: I cannot change my position. I mean, the fire department would love all sorts of things. But just because they want it doesn't mean that we can require it and nor can they require it. Hearing Examiner: Okay, well, let's not get into an argument there. And I will add too, that when Jill is talking about that the city can't, that's actually, it's not even a local code requirement it's a state constitution requirement. The courts are very strict in the state about when developers can be required to make offsite improvements. And as long as this development has its two access points, the city would have a really difficult time, I would say almost impossible in justifying a third access. I mean the developer could just take this to court and have that access or those offsite improvement requirements thrown out. Hearing Examiner: It's not something that's a local choice as much as it is just trying to comply with these really strict property right constitutional limits that the courts keep throwing at cities when they try to make developers pay for these type of improvements. So any other comments there? Joel DeLange: Well, thanks for the clarification. But I also heard her say that once those lots are sold, that the person that buys them can get an exception to extend that alley. So I'm not understanding the argument. Hearing Examiner: Well, no, what happening there is we can require those lots, building those new homes up north to make frontage improvements. That's the deal is its constitutional to require a developer to make improvements that front their property. And that's why it could be extended because we're making Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 19 of 25 them do the frontage improvements, not this developer. Because for this developer, those aren't frontage improvements. But for when those lots are developed, it would be frontage improvements for them. Our courts are very clear that we can require frontage improvements of new development. Joel DeLange: All right. That's all I have for now. Unless something comes up, I thank you for the opportunity to allow us to participate in this public notice. Hearing Examiner: Oh great. Thank you sir. All right. Let's move on to, I see Gill has a raised hand. And if you could unmute yourself Gill and tell us what your last name is and how to spell it? Mr. Gill: Hi there. Yeah good morning everyone. So my name is Mungan Gill. I'm residing at Orcas Avenue currently. Property address 535. Hearing Examiner: And sir, just so your last name is Gill and that's G-I-L-L. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Let me swear you in, just raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Mr. Gill: Yes I do. Hearing Examiner: Okay. All right, go ahead. Mr. Gill: So I know during the public in an initial neighborhood meeting, I did ask some questions and all was we're told like, hey, we are going to have to wait for the public hearing and that's the actual time to get some answers. We're happy that there's going to be a good development on the neighborhood, which is good, and going to provide us with some possible utilities, which is a sewer main thing we're missing on the street. Mr. Gill: One concern that I've been still hoping, I asked last time on property address 478, there was a sewer based on the core maps of City of Renton, and I asked how deep was the sewer line. I know currently they're proposing eight feet deep sewer and we live in a slope which we can end up probably getting a sump pump or some sort of other things, which they never gave me an answer on that time. So if the engineer has some information on that, how deep is that sewer line down there? Hearing Examiner: Okay. Mr. Janders can you answer that? Mr. Janders: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 20 of 25 Yes. Give me just a second to pull that information up. Based on as built on core maps, the invert of that looks to be elevation 480.03 feet. Hearing Examiner: So the depth would be? You do the math for us. Mr. Janders: Yeah. Sorry. I'm trying to turn on multiple layers here at the same time. Joel DeLange: A good mathematician. Huh? Mr. Janders: It looks like elevations around 490, 492 of ground surface. So what'd I say that was 4EV so about 10, 12 feet roughly. Hearing Examiner: Mr. Gill. Did that answer your question? Mr. Gill: Yes. So that's what I'm requesting that time. So the new development they're proposing eight foot deep sewer. And I know they're proposing lot number 10 and 9, they're going to get easement and then drop their sewer line down to Nile, which they're not going to need any sort of sump pumps or sewer pumps that we call, nothing, but they're going to leave us on Orcas that probably in future we are going to have to get those things. I don't think that it's actually eco-friendly or something like that. All Bob was saying, "Oh, at least I'm providing you guys a sewer." Yes, but you are leaving us in a situation where we're going to have to do something else just to get connected to the sewer. So I have to pay for that. Ron is going to have to do something for that. Mr. Gill: My neighbor, Patrick Motiva, he was very upset and he was like, "Oh, look at my house. It's really deep, how am I going to connect to the sewer. It's not even going to be worth it." Or something like that. So if that current existing sewer line down there is, we're looking at 10 to 12 and I'm hoping the builder right now, the developer should also get that sewer line that deep. Mr. Gill: They're all creating a new kind of route for the sewer, which that's fine, they probably came up with better numbers, but I see a very clear picture on core maps and there's sewer right there they're just going to have to extend towards Orcas Avenue Northeast up north. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Mr. Janders can you respond to those concerns? Mr. Janders: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 21 of 25 Yes. So the intent and the purpose of the sewer main extension is to provide sewer service continuing north along Orcas Avenue Northeast. The preliminary utility's proposal or plan does not show all the depths in full engineering on the utilities, which is anticipated and expected at this point. Full engineering analysis will come at civil construction permit time. And we will look to ensure that there is the opportunity to extend that sewer main to provide service to all lots. Mr. Janders: When we looked at this plan, there is sewer as indicated at 478, there is also sewer in Northeast 4th Street. And an extension of either main to the north extent to the property at Orcas is acceptable. The applicant has at this time proposed to only extend Northeast 4th, which is a viable option for us provided that it will allow continuation of an extension north along Orcas. So with what has been proposed, we don't see any fundamental flaw at this time. And as long as gravity can be maintained, then it would be acceptable. Mr. Janders: Individual . pumps for single family homes are used, they are allowed and permitted and we've done them in other locations. So if one of the homes does require, one of the homes along Orcas avenue that is, does require a grinder pump to then connect to the gravity main, that would be viable and permitted in the future. Hearing Examiner: So Mr. Janders, is there some way that the neighbors could see the final plans before final plat approval, just so they're assured that it's going to work for them? I mean, are you the person to call? And about when should they call to see the plans? Just so I think I'd give them some assurance that everything's going to work their way? Mr. Janders: Yeah. So final plans, full engineering plans aren't something that we have for the preliminary plat approval. There is conceptual plans that are included in the application documents, but for further design analysis coordination with Bob and the applicants design team, would, I would, suggest be the best avenue at this point. Hearing Examiner: So who do they contact? I mean, just to see when the final plans come in? Mr. Janders: Bob Wenzel the applicant and his design team. And then when the construction permit has been applied for that is viewable to the public. So they can track when an application has been made. They can also see what the final design documents look like once approved. Hearing Examiner: Oh, that's all on the city's website then? Mr. Janders: Yes. That would be available. Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 22 of 25 Hearing Examiner: Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's actually what I was, I was asking about, so. Okay, perfect. Okay, great. Thanks, Mr. Janders. All right. Let's see. Mr. Gill still has a raised hand. Did you still want to make additional comments Mr. Gill? And you're muted. Oh, there you go. Okay. Mr. Gill: The answer to my question is then still the developers can do whatever they want, right? Is that what I'm getting right here? They're going to leave it eight feet. They can't go deeper than that? I mean, if there was existing sewer at we're looking at 10 to 12, I think they should also meet that requirement. Hearing Examiner: Well, what I heard Mr. Janders say, and Mr Janders please correct me if I'm wrong. But I mean, the intent here, the city engineers are going to be looking at this from the standpoint that this line needs to be able to be extended further north, past this development as people want to hook up to it. And of course for that reason, it's going to have to be at a depth that works for that to happen. And Mr. Janders, that is correct, right? That you're going to require this to go all the way to the northern side. And it's going to have to be at a depth that works for future connections to the north. Is that correct? Mr. Janders: That is correct. Gravity main within the right of way. And if that does require individual grinder pumps, though, from some houses, if topography is in that manner, then individual grinder pumps may be needed. Eight feet is a standard for depth within the right of way. So anything beyond that we'd have to closely analyze, but eight feet is typical installation for gravity sewer mains, which is what would be required in the right of way. Mr. Gill: Yes. I mean, I understand that. I mean, that works if you are on a flat surface, that's where your lot is flat out on a street base, but we already live on a slope. So that was my whole concern is, if there's some, I mean, you guys really need to look in and come here and see it in actual like, "Hey, this is how deep it is." If you will see my neighbor's house, Patrick Motiva, you are like, literally will see, "Oh yeah, how this guy will afford and all those things?" Connecting to the sewer, plus having a grinder pump, all those issues that we know that end up once in a while, and it's all this expenses will add up on our homeowners in the future. Mr. Gill: If we can add more extra deep depth to the sewer, I think it will help a lot. But again, I'm not an engineer. I don't know much about those things. I'm still in the hope that you guys will actually come and assess every situation on the street. Hearing Examiner: Okay. And Mr. Janders, a question I have for you then, I mean, do the city's engineering standards specify how you evaluate required depth? Is there anything specific or is it one of those things that's left to engineering judgment? Mr. Janders: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 23 of 25 So our side sewers and sewer stubs do have requirements for depth. I believe it's three feet minimum at property lines. The sewer main, I would have to go take a look back. I don't have that off the top of my head. It is pretty typical for standard. It is gravity main, but individual grinder pumps are a necessity on a lot of lots when depth becomes too... It's just not attainable. Hearing Examiner: How's the decision made if you go deeper then? Are you weighing the cost of going deeper versus the cost of grinder pumps? Is that the kind of analysis that goes into it or I mean, what are the factors that are considered there? Mr. Janders: That would be one that could be considered. Maintainability of systems as well needs to be considered for maintenance crews to be able to access service and maintain the lines as well as material, ensuring that the materials are suitable for various depths. So I think what is being questioned is an individual lot where full engineering has not been done. The proposal does not take into account the elevations of all properties to the north at this point, is this a one off property? Is it the entirety of the block? Mr. Janders: And the ability to use grinder pumps though is also considered. And grinder pumps, like I have said, are used and it is standard practice to use them where necessary at individual lots when gravity cannot be achieved. I think further assessment with the developer would be something to look into as to what would the depth be that is being requested. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Janders. Mr. Gill, your virtual hand is still raised. Did you have anything else or is that just left over? Mr. Gill: I will take that. Okay. Well, I guess then the sewer is still kind of pending the whole assessment still needs to be done then. So let's keep that in mind. So we don't know. All I know a developer was proposing eight feet and Nathan Janders are saying they haven't assessed fully everything. So we'll probably keep that in mind. So that could change potentially, that's what I'm taking right now. Hearing Examiner: Yes. Yeah. I think you're right. Mr. Gill: Yes. The second thing and my other neighbors on the street did mention our street situation at this moment is really not so great. I think we have maybe five or six different kind of asphalts and just scattered all over. Last time I know my neighbor, Doug Sykes, and he was like, "Oh, they have some extra asphalt and they just dumped it, laid it out." So I'm like, "Oh wow, that's great." Mr. Gill: So my thinking was, I know last time on the neighborhood meetings, so the builders or developed were not responsible to fixing the street. Or they were are saying it is the responsibility of City of Renton, Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 24 of 25 because it is a public street. So are we with the traffic increase and all those things and people will be driving fast, are we going to fix the whole street or we're just going to leave it the way it is? Hearing Examiner: Okay. Ms. Ding can you answer that or one of the engineers? Jill Ding: I don't think there's any plans to do anything with that street. Again, the developer, as part of this project, we are looking at the developer constructing the frontage along and within his property boundaries. Anything beyond that would be something that would have to be looked at by the City of Renton. So that could be something that's looked at by our transportation department to see if that's on their maintenance list or if there's any projects. Nate, I know that we would've looked at that as to if there are any projects on the horizon in the area. And I don't think that there are at this point. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Ding. All right. Well, I see Ms. Kent has her virtual hand up, Ms. Kent, did you want to say something? You have to- Ms. Kent: So just to provide the members of the public with additional information, they can reach out via Renton Responds, whether it's part of this development or not, the public works streets department has a request option on the city's website. So that might be helpful as well. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Kent. I appreciate your comments. And that's one of our assistant city attorneys there who just joined in. All right. Let's see if we've got anyone else, any members of the public. We're now reaching the end of the public comment portion of the hearing. Just raise your virtual hand if you wanted to say something or had any more questions. I'm not seeing any takers. I see Mr. Lynch there. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Lynch. You need to unmute yourself. Mr. Lynch: Thanks. Gill kind of jogged my memory here. So as the sewer comes out of tract B for 11 and 12, 9 and 10 up to Nile and up to Northeast 5th Street, what's the responsibility of the developer for the road? Is it just what they dig up or do they repave the whole road from that up to Northeast 5th? Hearing Examiner: Ms. Ding? Mr. Janders: Take I'll that one. Jill Ding: Thank you. Mr. Janders: Cypress II (Completed 02/09/22) Transcript by Rev.com Page 25 of 25 So there are city standards for road restorations, which include the trench width and then a width beyond the trench. Depending on where exactly that trench falls, it could result in additional overlay up to a half street overlay could be required. The plans are preliminary at this stage so it's not clear exactly where it falls to see what that full restoration requirement is going to be, but the applicant will be required to comply with the city's road restoration standards. Mr. Lynch: All right, thank you. Hearing Examiner: Okay. And I saw, well, I think that's, all right now we're done with the public comment portion. So Ms. Ding, any final comments or rebuttal evidence? Jill Ding: No, not at this point. Hearing Examiner: Okay. And then finally, Mr. Williams. There you go. Cliff Williams: No. No, we're fine. Thank you very much. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Well, thank you everyone. I'll go ahead and close the hearing. You have 10 business days to issue a final decision, just like last time. And as I mentioned before, if you want a copy of that decision emailed to you or mailed, go ahead and email or mail Ms. Cisneros your email address or mailing address. As I said, I think the city staff probably prefers to email if they have that option. So there are the two: jnarrows@rentonwa.gov, or just give her a call at (425) 430-6583. And let her know where you want that decision sent. Hearing Examiner: A good hearing today. Sorry about that notice error. It's very rare this happens with the city staff systems and that kind of stuff, and I'm glad we were able to correct it and hear from everybody. That was a very productive hearing today. A lot of good information was exchanged and I have a lot to consider there. So again, thank you all for participating and we're adjourned for this morning. Have a great day.