Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 I'll go ahead and call to order this hearing of March 26, 2026 for Clark County land use. My name is Joe Turner. I'm the county's hearings examiner. I'll start with some brief announcements and a summary of the process that we'll follow so everyone understands how you participate in the hearing tonight. I start by saying I'm not a county employee. I'm licensed as an attorney and trained as a planner. I serve under contract to these county council. I say that so you know you're getting an independent review of the applications before me tonight. My role as a hearings examiner is to conduct public hearings and make decisions about certain land use matters in Clark County.

0:57 In making those decisions, I'm required to apply the county's existing laws. I am not a policy maker. I don't have the authority to vary from or change the laws. If you think that the laws need to be changed, you can work with county council and the planning commission to do that. The state law requires that these applications be judged based on the laws in effect when the applications were filed. As a hearings examiner, I'm to provide an unbiased decision maker. I believe I am unbiased with regard to the applications before me tonight. I have not had any pre-hearing contact with any of the parties regarding the substance of the applications and I don't have any interest in the subject property or any of the surrounding properties. However, anyone has the right to challenge my impartiality, to argue that I'm biased in one way or another, and you could do that when it's your opportunity to testify. Procedure will follow.

1:55 We'll take the cases one at a time in the order that they're listed on the agenda, starting with the cell tower and then the cemetery. For each case, I'll start by asking staff to summarize their staff report copies for that case, copies of which are available on the county's website. I will note that staff are not the project proponent. They're merely providing an overview of the project and the process and the laws and their opinion as to whether or not the applicable approval criteria are met. The applicant, who is the project proponent and has the burden of proof to show that the application complies with the applicable approval criteria, will then have the opportunity to present their proposal and respond to the staff report, and if anybody else wants to testify in favor of an application, they may do so, and then anybody who wants to testify in opposition or with questions or concerns about that application.

2:51 Once everyone's had an initial opportunity to testify, I will give staff and the applicant alone the opportunity to respond to the testimony that was offered. If those responses include any new evidence, I will give everyone a chance to respond to the new evidence. Otherwise, I'll close the public portion of the hearing without taking any new testimony from the public. So if there is no opportunity for further public testimony after the applicant testifies, so you need to make sure you get all of your issues into your initial presentation or during the open record period, which we'll discuss in a minute. Anyone with an interest in this application may offer relevant oral or written testimony, but please speak only when you're identified for that purpose. It is important that all parties make their best case to me. My decisions are final for purposes of the county, but may be appealed to the superior court.

3:48 However, the court generally will not allow new testimony and evidence on appeal. They'll decide any appeal based on the record before me. So if you feel it's important that myself or any future decision maker know something about either of these applications, you need to make sure it gets into the record before me. In order to preserve your right to appeal, you or someone expressly representing you must testify orally or in writing before the close of the record. And in order to raise an issue on appeal, someone must have raised that issue before me with enough specificity that people can understand what the issue is. If you feel you need more time to prepare, you can ask me to hold the record open or continue the hearing. If I hold the record open, you'll have the opportunity to submit additional written testimony and evidence before I make a decision. If I continue the hearing, we'll come back and do this again at a later date.

4:46 As I noted, I will hold the record open for an additional week for anybody to submit additional written testimony and evidence after the close of the hearing tonight. But if anybody wants me to hold the record open for a longer period or continue the hearing, you must make that request before the close of the hearing today. When you testify, please begin by stating your name and full mailing address. Please spell your last name so I get it right. Although most people's names appear on my screen, some are just phone numbers or partial names. If you represent someone else, please say so. There are time limits on testimony. The applicant's testimony is limited to 20 minutes, which they can split between their initial presentation and any response. Everyone else gets three minutes per person. And testimony must relate to the applicable approval criteria, which are set out in staff report.

5:45 Also, please don't repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. Repeating your testimony does not make your case any stronger. This isn't a popularity contest. Whether everybody loves it or everybody hates it is not an issue I get to consider. The only issue before me is whether the application does or does not comply with the applicable approval criteria. If a prior witness has already raised all the issues that you wanted to address but you still want to testify in order to preserve your right to appeal, you can give us your name and address, say I agree with whatever the other witnesses have said, and that's sufficient to preserve your right to appeal. There's no need to repeat their testimony again. If I find the testimony is unduly repetitious or irrelevant, I will interrupt, explain why, and ask you to move on to another issue.

6:40 I have reviewed the additional -- all of the testimony and evidence in the records so far up to Exhibit 83. Exhibits have been coming in all day, so there may have been a few more since then, but I will review everything before I write my decision. But that concludes my introduction. Staff will then give us a summary of the hearing, the technical aspects of how to indicate you'd like to testify, et cetera, and then present their staff report for the first project. Ms. Bateman? All right, thank you, Mr. Examiner, for everyone participating in tonight's hearing. If you're wishing to testify about a specific agenda item, staff ask that you raise your hand so that we can gauge who wishes to testify. If you're a call-in user, you can dial *3.

7:37 If you're a web participant, you need to click the hand icon located in the lower right-hand corner of your screen or next to your name in the list of participants. Here is a graphic showing where you can find the hand icon shown by the red arrows. You may first need to turn on the list of participants. You can do this by clicking the "participants" button shown by the purple arrow. Once you've given your testimony, we would ask that you put your hand down. You can accomplish this by either clicking the hand icon again or dialing *3 again. We will also ask everyone to keep their microphones on mute at any time that they are not speaking. I will show you how to do that in the next slide. Prior to the close of each agenda item, we will open all microphones for everyone in attendance to ensure that everyone who wants to testify has the opportunity.

8:32 Please be aware that any noise in your personal environment will be broadcasted at that time. If you miss your opportunity to testify for some reason, the record on each case will be open for a period of time so you can submit your testimony in writing, and finally the chat function has been disabled for public records purposes. So as I mentioned, we ask everyone to keep their microphones muted at any time that they are not speaking. There are a few ways in which to mute yourself. If you're a web user and you're using your computer for audio, you can simply click the mute button at the bottom of your screen or next to your name in the list of participants shown by the red arrows. If you're a web user and using a phone for audio, you can either mute yourself on your computer or use your phone's mute capability. Phone only users can use the mute capability on their phone. We would ask that you stay muted at any time that you are not speaking.

9:31 Thank you, everyone. That includes the instructional portion of the presentation. Okay, so good evening, Mr. Examiner, county staff, and the general public. For the record, my name is Marion Bateman. I'm a land use planner with Clark County Community Development, and the project before the examiner tonight is the Baker Creek cell tower. So the Baker Creek cell tower is a new 165 foot tall cell tower proposed by Vertical Bridge LLC to be located on a 10-acre parcel within the R5 zoning district. This proposal includes a type 3 preliminary site plan review with a concurrent conditional use permit application. The applicant is Vertical Bridge LLC, the property owners are Delores and Marvin Paitila, and the contact person is Angela Raymond with Technology Associates, Inc.

10:30 The site is not currently addressed. It is located on the north side of the 189th street and 207th Avenue intersection on Brush Prairie, Washington. Again, my name is Marion Bateman. I'm the review planner for the project. The review engineer is Alistair Dawson, and Craig Cottle is the transportation concurrency reviewer. So for this presentation, I will provide an overview and summary of the proposal, identify any major outstanding issues or concerns, and then ultimately we will make our recommendation to the examiner. Okay, so here's the vicinity map. The subject site is shown by the black dot, and as you can see, the site is located on the north side of the 189th street, 207th Avenue junction. It's in Brush Prairie, Washington, just north of Pockinson.

11:28 So here's the zoning map, which gives you a better look at the configuration of the site and the surrounding lots. The subject site is highlighted in pink, and as you can see, the entire area is zoned R5. Okay, so here's the aerial view of the subject site, which is outlined in white. It's a 10-acre parcel, currently vacant, mostly open field with quite a few adjacent neighbors to the north, south, and west especially, and the county did receive a fairly large amount of public opposition letters in response to the development notice. So yeah, it's important to know where the neighbors are in relation to the tower itself, which you'll see better with this slide here. So here's the applicant's proposed preliminary site plan. It's entered into the record as exhibit 34, and to note too, we are to exhibit 83, just to confirm that for you. You'd mentioned that, Mr. Examiner.

12:28 - Thank you. - 83 is the last exhibit that came in, so, but yeah, the plan is exhibit 34. This is the applicant's overall site plan. So it's sheet five out of 57 within exhibit 34. As you can see, the cell tower is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the site, which was an issue brought up by, I think, several commenters that the towers proposed in an area of the parcel that puts it closer to the neighboring residences on that side versus in the east or northeast portion of the site, as the houses to the east are further away. I will note that there are slopes greater than 15% on the north half of the parcel, but as far as why the tower couldn't be shifted more east, if that were, you know, preferred by the neighbors, which it sounds like it would be, perhaps the applicant could elaborate on that, you know, when it's their turn to present.

13:23 It's a fair question, I think, but either way, the proposed tower location complies with the minimum setback requirements for a new rural support tower, and it's set back from the nearest adjacent residences by a distance equal to or greater than the tower height itself of 165 feet, which is what Title 40 requires. And I also included the preliminary landscape plan. Some comments had come up about, you know, screening and camouflage and stuff, so we'll get to that, but I wanted to just make sure that it was included in the slides. So, at this time, I will show exhibit 70, which was submitted into the record by the applicant after the staff report was issued. Exhibit 70 contains current site photos, but then from the same view, they included a photo

14:17 simulation with the cell tower added in, I'll go to the first one here, so you can actually see what the view of the tower would be like from each viewpoint, which I thought would be helpful to include, since the view of the tower is one of the issues brought up by, you know, the public commenters. So, here's the first one, looking east towards the site from Northeast 189th Street. Obviously, the top image is just the current view, and then below, they've added in the simulation of the cell tower, what it would look like from that distance. And then, here's looking kind of north-northeast from 207th Avenue, so you're standing south of the site looking north-northeast, you can see the view pretty close there.

15:11 Here's looking north from where 207th Avenue intersects with 185th Street, so standing further south looking towards the site, see it in the distance there. And we can always go back to any of these, again, it was an issue brought up as far as just location and everything, so I'll kind of just breeze through these. This one's looking west towards the site from 212th Avenue, you've got a parcel in between the camera, the picture taker and the tower itself, so. So looking west towards the site from 189th Street and 215th Place, so standing further east looking towards the site.

16:09 Here's looking south towards the site standing on 207th Avenue, which continues north of the site, I think 192nd Street was an error on that slide, you can see the street sign says 207th Avenue. And then here's looking southeast standing on 205th Court, so standing northwest of the site looking towards the southeast, and again, I wanted to include these since the view of the tower is obviously an issue for all the neighbors living in the area, something brought up multiple times was the negative effect on property values, you know, once the tower is constructed, unfortunately, property values and potential fluctuations in property value are not issues that staff consider during review of a new support tower because Title 40 does not list review of property value changes or changes to property values within the applicable approval criteria for a new cell tower.

17:09 However, you know, that being said, the conditional use permit portion of our code, which is section 40 520 030 does state that the responsible official may impose in addition to regulations and standards expressly specified in this title, other conditions found necessary to protect the interests of the surrounding properties or neighborhood or the county as a whole. These conditions may include but are not limited to requirements such as and then it goes on to list things like, you know, increasing setbacks, limiting building area and intensity of use, limiting future enlargements or alterations to the facility, etc. So I just wanted to make note of that, that the CEP code does provide some flexibility there if it's decided that, you know, additional conditions or mitigating measures are warranted by beyond the standard code requirements.

18:03 So moving on, I will go over the staff report and recommendation and project timeline. The application submittal was received by the county on April 15 2024. The application was deemed fully complete on July 10 2024. The Notice of Development application and optional CPA determination of non significance was issued on February 5 2026. Staffs recommendation to the hearing examiner was issued March 12 2026. And that is exhibit 67. And the likely CPA determination of non significance DNS is the in the Notice of Development is now final, and I think I misspoke the application was deemed fully complete August 2 2024. My apologies. There had been a change on the fully complete date, I think, with a delay and fees being

19:00 paid, which is why that had changed so August 2. Okay, so for project issues, as I mentioned, we received a lot of public comments from folks who oppose this new tower for a myriad of reasons, some of the items staff were able to address, you know, directly within the staff report. But some other issues raised are things that the applicant will need to address as the burden is on them to show that their development complies with the applicable approval criteria. I'm going to go over a list of issues raised and we can certainly dive into certain ones or all of them as needed. First, it was noted that the applicant has failed to adequately document or pursue less intrusive alternatives such as shorter towers, alternative placements or distributed facilities.

19:54 So section 4262 50 of our county code is the wireless communications facilities special standards. And in there, the county lists priority facilities in descending order with the highest preference first and first preference is co locations onto existing structures and non residential districts and then co locations on existing support structures in residential districts and then new facilities on existing support structures and non residential districts and then the same in residential districts. And then the last is a new support tower. So pursuant to title 40, the burden is on the applicant to prove why another, you know, higher priority option would not work to justify the proposal of a brand new tower. The applicant did provide an analysis of the different priorities showing why a new tower is needed in this area for network coverage.

20:52 But I know the neighbors had some issues with their justification. So we can certainly get into that more with the applicant tonight. So lack of camouflage and screening of the tower which was addressed in the staff report. The applicant is providing sufficient landscape screening around the cell tower lease area, which means meets minimum code requirements. And their landscape plan is exhibit 34, she l one dot one. And I can go back to that. If we as we need to discuss rural character of the area will be lost was another issue raised. And it had been noted that a new tower makes it appear to be more of an industrial area, not rural residential as it is zoned. Let's see disruption to the environment and local wildlife, some other issue errors in

21:49 the applicant submittal documents. There had been some things pointed out like measurements. I think there was like a measurement to the nearest property. You know, things of that nature, just pulling out errors in the applicant submittal, which I believe they were have rectified with what they've recently submitted through through today into the record with some of that some of those clarifications. So we can definitely touch on any of that as needed. Noise levels was another one. So the concern that they'll exceed maximum permissible levels when future collocations occur, which will add more cabinets and equipment. So the issue here is that, you know, future collocation applications will not require public notice denying the neighbors the right to comment again in the future when more carriers

22:47 and equipment are added. So to this stuff, you know, responded in the staff report saying that section 42 60 to 50 e to a one requires that all new support towers shall accommodate colocation opportunities for a minimum of two antenna arrays. This is a condition of approval for a new tower. So the applicant, you know, cannot necessarily deny future collocations. That said, those future collocations are not under review with this application necessarily, but when a new carrier adds equipment or collate collocates to an existing tower, the county will, you know, during review of that collocation, ensure the site remains compliant with maximum noise regulations. So that was the response given in the staff report on that issue.

23:45 Let's see, the public commenters had provided some alternative options to a new cell tower suggestions, you know, to the applicant. One of them was that the applicant could co-locate onto an existing 150 foot, but it's called the American tower 4 1 6 8 1 6 located on the apostolic Lutheran church in Hawkinson. The commenter noted that the American tower 4 1 6 8 1 6 was not included in the applicant's RF justification, radioactive frequency, their justification exhibit 24, which they have submitted additional RF justification that I haven't had a chance to review yet.

24:39 Let's see, I think it was exhibit 82, yeah, which was submitted today. So that is a third party RF site justification and review. So again, they could have definitely addressed that, I'm not sure if they did or not since that just came in. And then another option that was suggested to the applicant by the public commenters would be for the applicant to mount small cells onto utility poles and buildings to close the coverage gap. The applicant submitted exhibit 65, which is a T-Mobile explanation of wireless communications facilities types, which describes what small cells are typically used for.

25:36 The applicant did not really provide an explanation as to why small cells can be used here. Just kind of more about what they were. So unless they elaborated in one of the exhibits that came in today, that is still kind of an outstanding question on that one. Let's see, another issue raised was that the CEPA contains errors and is outdated. I believe the CEPA was dated April 27th, 2024, which was after the applicant had submitted their application to the county and they were working to get fully completed. So it wasn't a substantial amount of time before the application was submitted that the CEPA was done. And the project did go on hold for 525 days during the review, which explains some of the little bit older dates on some of the documents, but the CEPA was current when the

26:35 application became fully complete. And I did not see any major errors in it that were substantial enough to warrant another CEPA to be done. We also received exhibit 56, which is the petition signed by 76 residents of the Cedar Glen Homeowners Association opposing the cell tower. And there were more issues pointed out by public commenters, too many to include really in the slides, but they are all listed in the staff report. So I could certainly pull that up if I need to. It includes staff's responses to the issues that we were able to address. Also, I know there are some folks signed up to testify, so they will have the chance to highlight issues that they believe are still outstanding. I believe some of them have been sufficiently addressed at this point in the staff report,

27:33 but at the end of the day, staff did accept the applicant's justification for a new tower in this area. And we believe that subject to conditions of approval laid out in the staff report that the development does or will comply with the applicable approval criteria for a new cell tower in the R5 zone. And so therefore, ultimately, staff recommends the application be approved subject to conditions of approval identified in the staff report, which is exhibit 67. And I'll just remind everyone real quick that, again, we had quite a few exhibits entered into the record over the past few days and through today. So we can discuss those as needed if there are any questions on where we're at with things currently in the record. But that concludes staff's presentation. I will remain available for any questions. >> Thank you, Ms. Bateman. I just had a couple.

28:31 On page 10 of the project review second paragraph, it says the parcel serviced by, among other things, private septic systems. I assume that it would be if it was developed because it's vacant, I assume there's no septic right now. >> Yeah, that's my understanding, correct. >> Okay. >> Page 16, finding eight at the bottom of page 16 says generators may be operated only for emergency purposes. I understand they also are going to do weekly testing. I don't know if there's a condition that follows that, but I assume that was the intent. >> Yes, yeah, there should be a condition and sorry, what page did you say that was? >> Sorry. Page 16, finding eight, bottom of the page. >> And it's yeah, there is G60, which I haven't looked at. >> 60. >> Okay.

29:30 >> We need to change to that. >> Yeah, so if it's during emergencies, that's the only time that the noise levels are exempt. They don't have to comply with maximum levels. Any other time like testing during the day, yes, they do need to comply. Yeah. But just glance at the condition, it doesn't refer to emergency operations or whatever the issue was that I just noted. >> Okay. >> It does fit, so it just cites to the standard, so it does allow for testing provided they meet that noise level. The last question I had was on page 19 under that table. That finding says it meets the 60 decibel per DBA daytime code limit.

30:23 Why isn't it 55 since it's going back to page 17, class A EDNA or excuse me, class A EDNA is 55 DBA limit. >> And where did you-- >> Yeah, sorry, skip back and forth there. On page 19, the first paragraph underneath the table 3 says it meets 60 decibel daytime code limit. I'm wondering because the nighttime limit is 45 dB and it's 10-- I know the standard says it's 10 decibels less than the daytime limit, so I'm assuming the daytime limit is 55. >> Yes, yeah, that's correct. >> Okay, so that finding should just be changed to 55. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Okay.

31:17 I just wanted to check and make sure I wasn't missing something. Last question was for, I assume, Mr. Dawson because it's an engineering question and the applicant raised this or objects to this condition A1F which refers to offsite access roads meeting certain pre-existing roadway narrower than 18 feet shall be widened to the full 20-foot standard is what the condition said. However, section 40 350 030 B6B of your code says, let me get the language in front of me. I just had it up. In the rural area, offsite public access roads shall meet the same standard which we just--

32:15 which is the one, the 18-- or 20 feet of pavement basically. But in prior cases, the county has interpreted that offsite access road to only apply to access-- local access roads. That's my understanding that 189th Street abutting the site is a collector, so it wouldn't apply it only-- the county's prior interpretation in prior cases has been there has to be 20 feet of pavement for access roads between the site and the nearest collector or arterial basically. So, I don't think the standard applies in this case. >> This is Alistair Dawson with Development Engineering. I would have to review the code, Mr. Hearings Examiner.

33:06 I don't believe anywhere in that code that it specifies the classification of the roadway. >> This was an issue in-- how I just looked at it and regarding another case because it was cited in there. Anyway, there was another case a couple of years ago with an offsite collector street or even a neighborhood but for the next lower down classification and the county argued and I agreed that that standard didn't apply to that offsite road. >> Would you be able to provide the previous case? >> Yes, if you give me just a second I think I can probably find it because I was just looking at it this afternoon on-- like I said in regard to another case I'm working on.

34:03 There it is, Mill Creek Meadows and that's OLR 2025-00040. >> All right that was the reconsideration decision, the original decision is PLD 2024-00092 and that may have been the issue on reconsideration and I changed my mind based on arguments from the applicant and the county on that issue. >> Okay, I'd be happy to review. I will say that more higher classified roads than local access should be built to higher standards.

35:02 >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> But in the rural area-- yeah, I mean in the rural areas I don't know that that's always the case. I believe that I had a case recently that was a neighborhood circulator that I'd have to double check my memory if we enforced the same code language on a street that was different than a local access road. So I would like to review that previous case and review the case that you had just mentioned. >> Yeah. >> Thank you sir. >> I'm happy to hear arguments either way. >> Thank you. >> Those are the only questions I had at this point, thank you. Is the applicant's opportunity to present? >> Yes, good evening. I will share my screen hopefully.

35:57 >> And when you start talking, Meredith, I will set the timer for 20 minutes, start it. >> All right. So does everyone see that okay? >> Yep. >> All right, good evening. My name is Meredith Papst here tonight on behalf of Vertical Bridge. Joining me are Angela Raymond who is the contact for Vertical Bridge and Andrew Thatcher who prepared the radio frequency justification. And they are available for any comments as needed. I understand that I have 20 minutes. I'm estimating this will be about 13 minutes and I will save the remainder for rebuttal. >> Okay. >> County staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Vertical Bridge accepts them, except for the one condition you all just discussed, which

36:56 I'll speak to in a moment. The proposal meets all county code requirements and it will fill a significant gap in T-Mobile's wireless service coverage in the planned service area. It has shown that it will comply with FCC regulations limiting radio frequency emissions and therefore any consideration of health effects is preempted by federal law. Applicant has considered alternative structures and sites as required by the code and even beyond the requirements of the county's code and found them infeasible and/or unavailable. And we respectfully request approval of the project. These are propagation maps from T-Mobile's radio frequency engineer showing existing coverage and the coverage with the proposed new facility.

37:50 The most important thing here is that the color green represents in-building coverage and T-Mobile and its competitors are all building their networks to an in-building standard. It's the industry standard at the time, excuse me, at this time and it's also the standard to which the Ninth Circuit will recognize a significant gap in coverage. The code requires and the applicant's team considered alternatives, first collocations on existing wireless facilities or attachments to existing structures and then second any potential what the industry calls raw land sites which would be a new tower that could be in a preferred zone. And there's some revisions and details in the applicant's alternatives, sites analysis in exhibit 82 that was submitted today.

38:48 First there are no existing wireless towers in the planned service area. And a utility pole attachment is not feasible because Clark PUD does not allow macro facility attachments outside of an industrial or a commercial zone. So it's not allowed by the potential landlord in that situation. The existing wireless tower identified by commenters and that's the American tower, tower where Verizon is located, is outside of T-Mobile's planned service area. It's approximately 1.7 miles away from the proposed site and it's only 2,000 feet from an existing T-Mobile site. By code, T-Mobile is not required to disqualify a tower that's outside of its planned service area. Moreover, this suggested collocation would duplicate existing coverage.

39:46 And the revision to the RF justification speaks to this and Mr. Thatcher can ask any questions if you have them. Finally, small cell facilities which are also suggested as a possible solution are not suitable in a rural location. Small cells are installed in dense downtown urban environments, public squares, places where people congregate. They serve a very limited area. They are not the same technology as you might deploy with a larger tower in the rural area. The county's code does not have a preference for small cells and it could not because under federal law, any preferences for alternative technology are preempted.

40:39 It's the carrier's prerogative to design its network with and choose the technology. So here's the propagation map with an arrow showing where the American Tower tower is and how close it is to an existing site. And as you can see, that area is served within building standard coverage. It's not in the proposed service area. It's in an existing service area, very close to an existing facility. American also looked at locating in higher preference zones and did not find a feasible alternative. Within the proposed service area, all the parcels are zoned rural residential. So there's no preference among those available parcels and this is shown in exhibit 82.

41:38 Applicant was very conservative and went beyond the requirements of the code here and looked at a parcel zone public facility, which is to the northeast located outside of the service area. And T-Mobile's RF team ran propagation maps to show whether it was feasible to serve this area from that location and found that it would be infeasible. And those propagation maps are in exhibit 82. This consideration of alternative locations exceeds the county's code requirements and shows there are no alternatives of higher preference that are feasible. Here's our objection to condition A1F and thank you for bringing up your experience in interpreting this section of the code. I would also like to read the Mill Creek Meadows decision and respond to anything further the county engineering would like to say to support their proposed condition.

42:37 At this point, we're asking that it be deleted. Even if the code were to require it under any interpretation, we feel it's unconstitutional for Nolan Dolan with which you're very familiar, I'm sure. I did want to speak to property values for just a moment. There were some comments about these. There are no relevant criteria in the code, as staff explained. Also, there's a preemption issue here, so consistent with the preemption regarding claimed health effects, case law has concluded that local jurisdiction, or excuse me, local decision makers cannot consider reduced property values based on fears of alleged health effects. Third, those opposing the project have not provided substantial evidence of a potential decline in property values.

43:35 I'm not aware of a Washington case on point, but there is a LUBA decision on this question where LUBA found that there was no substantial evidence when there was only generalized testimony based on various articles and estimates of potential decline of property value. Testimony in the record in two exhibits does cite a 20% decline in property values. This originates from a study done in 2003 by Sandy Bond. That study did consider health effects, and it has been since discredited. She herself was unable to replicate her results. Only a year later, she did a study in Florida that showed only a 2% variation in property values. We submitted copies of all these materials in the record, so you may review them.

44:31 In contrast to Ms. Bond's work, potential impacts to property values are often not found at all or found to be insignificant, and we have submitted copies of studies making those conclusions. Finally, with so few homeowners retaining a landline, good wireless service is critical to home value. We believe there's no basis for denial in the county's code. Many commenters have cited the purpose statement, part of which is to protect visual and aesthetic features, but of course that purpose is to be balanced with providing continuing opportunities for wireless communication services, and then the code's criteria represent the overall balance of competing policy objectives. Other than the argument based on citing preferences, we don't see that commenters have identified a code criterion upon which this project should be denied.

45:30 In a prior county approval, and this is the Verizon Tower we've just spoken of, another examiner considered an argument very like this and said that by allowing these facilities in virtually every zone, the Board of Commissioners already made the determination that some aesthetic impacts are acceptable costs of providing wireless service. We request, based on T-Mobile's significant gap in service, easily meeting the requirement of the applicant showing for need under the code, and its fair consideration of preferred alternatives, and again, that its proposed facility meets all county zoning requirements, we respectfully request your approval of the application. I'd be happy to answer your questions now, or we can wait until later during rebuttal,

46:29 and I did want to clarify at some point the timing for final argument. Given that I understand there's an automatic seven-day period for the record to be open, we want to understand that we would have an opportunity to make a final argument. Yes, I will provide that. If anybody wants to submit new evidence, I'll give the opportunity to respond to that. So if it's just argument, I'll give the applicant a week, excuse me, the public a week and the applicant a week. If it's new evidence, it'll be a week and a week and a week, so a week for new evidence, week for response, and then a week for the applicant alone, final argument without new evidence. Okay. Well, and just to clarify, the notice of hearing says that the record is automatically left open for seven days. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I will do that. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll give the applicant the opportunity to submit a final argument after that week. Okay. Thank you very much.

47:29 Yeah. The only question I have is what staff raised is why it couldn't be moved further to the east on this site. Yeah. So the negotiation is, you know, an agreement with the landlord. It was based on the landlord's preference for the location. Okay. That's what I assume you just wanted to ask. Okay. Thank you. That's the only question I had. Thank you, Ms. Pabst. I assume that's it from the applicant at this point? Yes, that is. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to say anything in support of this application? If so, please click on the raise your hand button now. I've got to find my right screen here. I don't expect any raised hands, and I'm not seeing any -- I'm seeing none. Who'd like to go first to testify in opposition or with questions or concerns? Please raise your hand now. We have -- yes, we have our first person, a couple of people, but I'll select the first person.

48:26 I'm very sorry to say I will not be able to pronounce this name, but I'm going to unmute. The last name is K-U-L-K-A-R-N-I, and I just sent a request to be unmuted. Hey, there. It's Priyanka Kulkarni. Thank you. And our address is 20607 Northeast 192nd Street. Thank you. Awesome. So this is my first time, so apologies, but I'll try to keep it within our three minutes. I am here, one of the representatives of our Cedar Glen neighborhood, to contest against the build of this tower. And my topic today is specifically talking about the noise and the acoustical report that was provided with this application. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kulkarni.

49:22 Before you go on, I need to ask staff to restart the timer at three minutes. It's currently at eight, at least on my screen. Yes, thank you very much. I will do that immediately. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Kulkarni. Awesome. Thank you so much. So good evening, everyone. I'm here because we believe that the applicant has not shown a reliable basis for concluding that the facility will comply with the Clark County noise code once the tower is actually built and operating. The most important fact, and this is we're pulling this information from the acoustical report that we read, the applicant's acoustical report predicts that the continuously operating equipment cabinets will produce 44 decibels at the nearest residential receptor against a 45 decibel nighttime limit. My background is in data science at research. I lead a team at Nike, so I'm very familiar with predictive models.

50:15 And a one decibel kind of margin of error is not a real margin of error of safety. It's paper thin, it is theoretical, suggesting that there's only going to be a one decibel difference then. But we will actually hear at night, our house is located right beside the proposed tower. And this one decibel theoretical pass is for an equipment that's going to be running all night, every night indefinitely. And so we believe that the acoustical report really didn't present itself with robust compliance. I also read the staff report just within the last 30 minutes, and we really didn't see any strong rebuttal there. Basically, my concern or our neighborhood's concern is that this one decibel cushion really disappears instantly in the real world. When you consider louder equipment, different installation conditions, fan cycling, the

51:13 aging of the machine or the equipment, hotter weather, changes in operation, even reflective surfaces, any one of those factors can change that one decibel margin. The applicant produced their model based on a few models that they said in the acoustical report, the ASHRAE Handbook was cited as one of the models that they've used. And with every model, my background coming from statistical modeling myself, it comes with a margin of error. In the ASHRAE Handbook, it acknowledges that one of its methods carries a standard deviation of plus or minus three and a half to five decibels. So against that backdrop, this one decibel claimed margin just doesn't seem and seems very theoretical just to meet that nighttime noise limit of 45. And it's not really a good proof of compliance once that tower is actually built.

52:09 In addition, we've talked about this just within the last few minutes, but the design of the model was built with the T-Mobile cabinets. But after the fact, when new cabinets are going to be added, we know that from one of the reports that we did send out as a community, that this additional ads of these more cabinets will actually result in more noise. It doesn't really kind of represent what could be the true worst case for us as residents, you know, ignores kind of how we're going to be experiencing this at night. You know, I have small kids. - Ms. Kolkani, I asked you to wrap up because your timer has run out. - Oh, sure. Yes. Yes, sure. For sure. So, yeah. So, you know, we strongly believe the statistical model and acoustic report just does not demonstrate compliance. And that's kind of what we're hoping to contest when it comes to the potential noise complaint. - Thank you, Ms. Kolkani. Who's on our next raised hands? Fabio. - We had Brian Thompson.

53:05 I accidentally also unmuted him and then I unmuted him when they were both there. So I'm going to unmute Brian Thompson right now. Brian, you should be able to unmute yourself. - Okay. Can you hear me? - Yeah. Now we're hearing you. Thank you, sir. - Okay. All right. Good evening. My name is Brian Thompson. T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N. I reside at 20502 Northeast 190th Circle, Brush Prairie, and I'm a retired electronics engineer since 2013. My 40-year career was primarily in telecommunications with experience in digital and RF transmission systems. My last employment for 17 years was with a cellular technology and chipset development company where I created managed certification laboratories and for compliance testing of cellular handsets and data modules. I'd like to say that I'm being asked to speak for a group of people also scheduled to testify

54:01 and I would like to request their allocated time be seated to me at this point so I can present our concerns comprehensively. - Who are those people? How many? - Those persons would be Mark Roter, Tom Urquhart, Dale Goode, and Vicki Thompson. - That's another 12 minutes to...additional 12 minutes, is that correct, Mr. Davia? - Was that an additional three people? Was that an additional two or three? - Four. - There's four. - Four people. - Yep, yep, yep. - Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and reset the timer as necessary, Mr. Davia. - Yes. - I'd like to... - Excuse me. Go ahead, Mr. Thompson. - I would like to ask, I sent in a presentation. I would like to ask... - I think it's on the screen right now. - ...to display for me right now. - There's a PowerPoint on my screen, Saddle Tower Opposition Team.

55:01 Is that yours? - Yes. - Okay. Yeah, it's visible on my screen. I hope it's on yours. - Okay. Thank you. - Yes. - Okay. - So whenever you're ready. - Okay. As you can see on the slide, we object to the permitting of the tower on Northeast 189th Street. It's been brought up by the attorney for vertical bridge that they don't recognize the tower at 416816 to be valid. We're going to demonstrate that we believe it is a valid co-location site. Further, we're going to demonstrate that with that co-location, there are workable alternatives involving the utility poles completing the projected coverage. Slide number two, please.

55:58 This graphic is here just for reference. These red and black lines are there and the labels are generalized just for the purpose of making orientation on the following slides. Slide number three, please. Our group search for available co-location sites within the projected coverage area and discovered American Tower 416816 located in Hawkinson with the operating carrier Verizon. We decided to determine what the performance could be by using drive tests and we have this coverage that we're going to show. This area contains 61% of the parcels in the projected coverage area. Notice I said projected coverage area because that's consistent with the county code terminology. We contacted the tower owner and found this tower is available for co-location.

56:57 The following map shows our drive test results that demonstrate the signal quality potential of the tower. Slide number four, please. You can see from this map the location of Tower 416816 and the existing T-Mobile Tower. You can see that the tower, the data that we got from doing our drive testing completely covers this lower portion of the proposed coverage on Northeast 189th Street. This tower is relevant in this case because the overlapping of the new proposed coverage area with the existing coverage area. As we know, this is not a butt up type of coverage area situation due to the requirement for handoff and so both towers would be in operation for a significant amount of time

57:57 while someone is traveling between the two sites. Page five, please. This drawing shows the location and position of the co-location tower on the right relative to the existing T-Mobile Tower. P01632C shown on the left. Improved coverage for Verizon from co-location tower versus the T-Mobile Tower occurs because the T-Mobile Tower sits behind the hill with respect to the projected coverage area yielding poor performance. This drawing also shows the co-location tower is higher relative to local ground clutter. Slide six, please. In summary, we disagree with the applicant that there are no existing WCFs in the projected coverage area as stated in exhibit number 24.

58:56 We show American Tower 416816 has a demonstrated ability to cover a large percentage of the projected service area proposed. The existing WCF tower has been confirmed capable and available now for co-location. Slide seven, please. We now turn our attention to the area north of Northeast 189th Street with the red outlined area shown for reference. With the south side of Northeast 189th deemed coverable with co-location, we'll show an alternative approach to coverage the remaining area along Ristal Road that uses utility pole placement as an opportunity to address the difficult topography. The following slides present a model showing how small or medium cells can be applied to this area as a coverage solution. Slide number eight, please.

59:53 These industry provided photos show typical small and medium cell profiles compatible with utility pole mount and strand mount applications. Slide number nine, please. There are more examples of available utility pole mount showing omnic directional and three-sector antenna array. Slide 10, please. The parameters used in our model are taken from industry sources discussing experiences and data. Actual performance will be determined by band and equipment selection, final selection, final location, power levels, antenna adjustments, et cetera. We begin by using the map from exhibit 24, figure one, sited above, estimating the coverage gap existing to the area north of Northeast 189th using GIS mapping to determine the distance it runs along the Salmon Creek drainage area for a nominal distance of two and a half miles.

1:00:51 We then chose to use rule of thumb spacing of one half mile per cell based on a typical effective radius of one half mile and assumed an overlap to accommodate handoff, allowing for edge losses reduces the effective radius per cell to 0.403 miles. Our model assumes an omni-directional antenna while three-sector antennas are also an option. Slide 11, please. The resulting model shows coverage for the total linear distance slightly greater than two and a half miles with cells overlapping approximately 50 percent to account for the handoff edge losses and minimizing ripple along the coverage perimeter. Slide number 12, please. Here, the small cell model is applied to the existing coverage map along Risto Road and the red outline coverage gap above the Northeast 189th.

1:01:45 The granularity of the small cell footprint allows for more precise fitting to odd contours in the topography as illustrated in the coverage map. Slide 13, please. Without a more precisely targeted approach to rural areas, the only option in rural areas will be maximal height towers, all pointing steeply down into narrow creek beds and dales from neighborhoods above. Small cells are a minimum impact solution with many possible configurations in line with the intent to minimize the total number of support structures and towers in the rural areas of the county. In summary, a pole mount small cell approach is tailorable to the variable topography in this area and can be particularly affected, meeting the county's priority for using existing utility poles and structures over new support towers.

1:02:42 Slide 14, please. To summarize the points of our objection to the permitting of this tower, we have shown that an existing WCF is applicable and available for co-location, but was not considered or identified in the application. Further, the county's high prioritization of pole mount cells over towers was not discussed in the application, except as not meeting the 150-foot height, presumably from the same location as the proposed tower. We assert the application for a new support tower should be denied, as we believe the applicant has not met the terms of 40.260.250 sections A1, D1, D2, E1B, and G2, B1, G.

1:03:40 I would like to go back at this point and talk about the map that we're showing with this would be page 4. So again, this slide shows the projected coverage area overlaid with the drive test data. To determine the performance of the co-location tower 41816, we performed drive tests using Verizon-subscribed iPhones in test mode. Our drive tests linking to the tower use measured signal-to-noise ratio, sine R0, and are indicative of signal quality and reliability of coverage from the bottom of the projected coverage area up to and including the Northeast 189th Street area. The map shows the subject co-location tower in the lower left and also the existing T-Mobile tower.

1:04:38 We performed drive tests at the location showed with the colored number dots. Using the legend at the bottom, the dot display shows the relative signal qualities to be quite good based on sine R0 values over the majority of the projected coverage area illustrated. Please note that this tower 416816 completely covers 60% of the proposed coverage area of the projected coverage area. I would also like to say that in the earlier presentation by the attorney for vertical bridge, the word planned was used and that word has not shown up in this application prior as far as we can tell. It's always been projected area of coverage and that word comes from the illustration

1:05:38 of the coverage that was projected on the basis of figure two in the document exhibit number 24. And again, I would like to stress the fact that the new coverage area that has been simulated does not simply butt up against the existing coverage area. Because of the necessary overlap that has to occur for the sake of handoff, the phone has to be able to talk to both towers simultaneously. And when it's doing so, it is in the vicinity of this tower. And this tower has coverage for that entire area.

1:06:31 And with that, on behalf of our team, we wish to thank the county for the opportunity to present our points of opposition and opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There's our next raised hand, Mr. Davio. Let's see. I am looking. And of course, I didn't, I wasn't able to take down all of those names, so, well, no one's raising their hand. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we didn't get a repeat. I didn't. Yeah. Does anybody else want to say anything about this application at this point? Please click on the raise your hand button. Nope. No one's raising their hands. Okay. Thank you. Any response from the county at this point then? Thank you, Mr. examiner. Nothing from me at this time. Okay. Thank you.

1:07:28 Ms. Pasht, anything from the applicant? We're not hearing you yet. There we go. Now we see you. Yes. Just a couple of points of rebuttal. With respect to the noise report, applicant did obtain an expert noise analysis that shows the proposed facility can comply with the environmental standards set by the WACs. In the event in the future that new additional equipment is added, Clark County will evaluate compliance with the standard again. So in the event in the future, if anyone measures noise in excess of the environmental standards, they may make a complaint and require compliance.

1:08:23 Just to be clear, the compliance would be adding mitigation that would buffer the sound rather than denying that the tower or be reason to remove the tower. In response to the presentation on the potential alternative design, I did want to note that on page two of those slides, there are red lines that outlined the gaps that that analysis is explaining how they might be addressed alternatively. I will note that those gaps are ignoring the space between the two gaps, which is largely yellow in the propagation maps, which means it's at an in-vehicles coverage level right now, not indoor.

1:09:17 The T-Mobile coverage gap it's seeking to fill is the larger overall gap encompassing the two red areas outlined in red as well as the area in between. So I would ask that you consider that for clarification. And the drive tests that were done by these folks were done with Verizon handheld devices based on Verizon coverage in the area, which is irrelevant to T-Mobile's network and coverage objectives. Each carrier has its own independent network with various features that affect its relative coverage in any location. Before we move on from that issue, it was my understanding from their presentation that

1:10:14 they were using, because it's in my name straight, Verizon tower, they were using Verizon phones to test coverage from that tower implying that a T-Mobile antenna located on that same tower would provide similar coverage with T-Mobile phones. I understand. I understand that they're arguing by an analogy. I'm just making the point that it's not the same. Okay. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Yes. Thank you. And then I believe there was some concern about the difference between the word planned or projected coverage area. And the relevant code criterion actually says either or, either or projected or planned, and that's in subsection E1B1. And again, that existing American tower tower is not in the planned coverage area for this

1:11:13 site. And that concludes our presentation and rebuttal. Do you have any other questions? I just had one question. Do you have any support citation to a regulation, anything to support the assertion that the CLACP public CPU doesn't allow pole-mounted? I have the regulation I can submit to the record. Yeah, during the open record. And I confirmed that with Jason Nemjo, who's their joint use specialist there just recently. If I have something to cite, it makes it easier. Thank you. I apologize for missing that. That's okay. I don't have any other questions. With that, I will close the hearing. I will hold the record open for a total of two weeks. We have a calendar. I'll hold it open for one week. Where were we? There we go.

1:12:11 So I guess we're in April 2nd for anybody to submit new testimony and evidence regarding this application. I'll hold it open for an additional week for the applicant alone to submit a final written argument without any new evidence until April 9th. And then I will close the record at that point. I will try and get my decision out by the 23rd of April. I'll send my decision to the county. The county will send it to parties of record. So anybody who has testified or who does so during the open record period, either orally or in writing, who's testified up to now orally or in writing before or after this hearing will be sure and receive a copy. If you want to receive a copy of my decision and you haven't decided not to testify, you can contact staff and they'll put you on the list. Anything anybody wants to submit has to be physically received by the county by 4 o'clock on the relevant date.

1:13:09 And that concludes our hearing on that item. We're going to take just a minute to switch staff and take a very quick break because I've been drinking water all night and didn't stop. >> Thank you. >> We're back in a moment. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a good evening, everyone, for this project. We'll come to the cemetery in just a moment. Mr. Kinsman is here, if you want to start us out when you're ready. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Good evening, Mr. Examiner, county staff and the general public. For the record, my name is Joe Kinsman. I'm the land use planner for this project. The name of this project is the OALC Hyson Cemetery. The case before the hearings examiner this evening is a request for conditional use and

1:14:05 site plan approval to add 3,489 cemetery plots in 10 phases to the existing church property and to build a second 800 square foot maintenance shed located on 12.64 acres in the R5 zone. There's my slide here. Sorry. All right. As I said, my name is Joe Kinsman. I am the review planner for this project. Alistair Dawson is the review engineer. Jason Noble reviewed this from the fire marshal's office. And Craig Cottle is our concurrency engineer. And last but not least, Lance Watt reviewed this from -- this project from the wetland and habitat review group. Tonight during our presentation, staff will provide an overview and summary of the proposal,

1:15:04 identify any major outstanding issues or concerns and make our recommendation to the examiner. On the vicinity map, the subject property is identified by the black dot. North is oriented to the top of the page. We can see on this map that it lies south of northeast 279th street, east of northeast 147th avenue, west of northeast 182nd avenue and north of battleground lake. The zoning map provides a closer look at the parcelization of the subject and abutting lots. The site is highlighted in red. The site and surrounding parcels are zoned R5. And this property is surrounded by a rural single family residential lots.

1:16:03 In this slide, it is an aerial view of the subject property with the property lines shown in red. In this image, we can see that the existing rural single family residential homes that surround the site on all sides. You can also see that northeast 182nd avenue is running along the east property line of the subject property. This slide shows the proposed site plan for the project. On this plan, north is oriented to the top of the slide. This view shows the proposed phases for the cemetery plots, including the addition of the second maintenance shed, shows northeast 182nd avenue, the existing church and all the onsite parking in addition to some of the environmental constraints and stormwater systems.

1:17:03 This time, staff will show photos of the site. This photo here is looking south onto northeast 182nd from the south property entrance. And this slide is looking north onto northeast 182nd from the south property entrance. This slide is looking northwest into the site from the south property entrance. This one is looking southwest into the site from the south property entrance. The slide is across the street looking west into the site across 182nd avenue, also showing the signposting over here. The slide is looking southwest into the site from the north property entrance. This is looking northwest into the site from the north property entrance.

1:18:01 And this is looking north onto northeast 182nd avenue from the north property entrance. And this slide is looking south on northeast 182nd avenue from the north property entrance. And for our staff report, this submittal was initially deemed counter complete on October 20th, 2025. The application was deemed fully complete on November 3rd, 2025. The staff report and recommendation to the hearings examiner and the SEPA DNS was issued March 11th, 2026, recommending conditional approval. And that is in the record as exhibit 27, 27, sorry. Because the county has not received any SEPA appeals within the SEPA, the SEPA DNS is now final.

1:18:59 And since the staff report issuance, a new exhibit has been submitted. It is in the record as exhibit 29, and it is the applicant recommended revisions to the staff report. Next we have the project issues. After the project was deemed fully complete, staff identified early issues with the proposal that would jeopardize recommending approval. The applicant opted to keep the application on hold pending resolution of these issues. The applicant requested a road mod for relief from driveway spacing along a collector, and the road mod decision is in the record as exhibit 23. And lastly, the applicant requested changes to the staff report and recommendation, and that is in the record as exhibit 29. The recommendation from staff is that staff recommends this application be approved subject

1:19:59 to the findings and conditions of approval listed within the staff report and the recommendation identified in the public record as exhibit 27. And that is all that staff currently has, but I will remain here for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Kintzmann. On page 5, the first paragraph under the table, the footnotes, says that the headstones aren't subject to minimum setbacks. Why not? They're structures as defined by the code. There is an exception in the setback standards for structures less than 30 inches, feet inches in height. So, I assume most headstones would not be subject anyway, but I don't think -- how -- why are they exempt generally, according to that statement? >> I need to actually look into the code on that one.

1:20:59 As you said, I think the height requirement needs to be included in there, and possibly staff report needs to be revised to address that. If there is any sort of monument that's being installed or anything like that, then it would be subject to setbacks, but I'll definitely look into that and address it within the open comment period. >> In the last cemetery, OALC cemetery I just reviewed, issued a decision on, I did find that they are subject to setback for just the reason you said. If it's under 30 inches, it's clearly not an issue. If it's -- but I could imagine -- it may not be plan D, but I can imagine it's very tall, monumental headstones. >> For sure. >> And so, that should be in there. Page 8, finding 12 talks about the Cowlitz Indians comment.

1:21:56 Is that just a summary of their comment under finding 12, or is that the gap -- the county's finding? >> That is the comment from the Cowlitz tribe. >> Okay. That's what I assumed, but because it was listed as finding, I wanted to check. Page 9, well, my note says what about the applicant's response, which is exhibit 26. Beyond that, I don't know what my question was. I'll let the applicant address that since I wrote that exhibit. Page 13, the wetlands, it says -- on exhibit 22, the applicant proposes to avoid impacts to the wetland buffer in phase 6, and as you show on that plan, on the southwest corner

1:22:53 of phase 6, there's a line showing the wetland buffer, right? Are there no plots in that area, or will they mitigate for that? And that may be a question for the applicant, but I wanted to throw it out. >> Yeah, I was going to say, I think there was conversation during early issues in regards to the wetland habitat buffers, and avoiding it. I think Mr. Lance Watt would have to speak to that, or the applicant would have to address it as well. >> Mr. Watt, can you clarify that issue? >> There we go, getting myself set up here. Mr. Lance Watt, Clark County Wetland Habitat Review, and yes, at one time, I believe we called it -- I'd have to look at the exhibit list, I'm sorry here.

1:23:49 We had an email from the applicant initially saying that they -- >> Exhibit 22 says they can avoid impacts -- >> Or they were going to avoid it, so we made them show it on their proposed plan in the event that if they do not end up choosing to avoid it, we created a condition that says they're going to be subject to a final wetland permit at that time, so -- >> Thank you, that clarifies that. On page 15, and this is probably for Mr. Dawson, the county road engineer, why wasn't -- and this is just curiosity -- why wasn't the right-of-way dedicated with the original church and the road mod for the existing driveway? Why is there a road mod and dedication at this point?

1:24:48 >> Good evening, Ms. Harry's examiner, Alistair Dawson, Development Engineering. It's possible that the roadway standard for right-of-way has changed since the original inception of the church. I don't have the history, it's just speculation. >> Okay. I'm sure the applicant would have objected, I just was curious -- the thought that popped into my head, I thought I'd ask. >> Yeah, and as far as driveway spacing, I believe that originally when those driveways were installed that they are -- I was going to say equidistant. They are at a sufficient distance from themselves on the west side of the street, but since this is a collector and not medianed, I believe that there was a driveway added on the east side of the road and that that is the driveway that's in conflict with the spacing.

1:25:45 >> Okay, it seems like this is -- again, it's not really relevant because the applicant hasn't objected, but it just -- it appeared to me that that's an -- since this project's existing, it's the adjacent driveway that has to get a road mod, but I guess they're increasing traffic somewhat by -- with this project. Regardless, I was just curious, wanted to ask that question, we'll leave it at that. >> Is the -- is that it from the county then, Mr. Griffin? >> Yes, Mr. Examiner. >> Thank you. The applicant's opportunity. Mr. Holling, I think you're representing the applicant. >> Hello, good evening. My name is Seth Holling with AKS Engineering. Last name is spelled H-A-L-L-I-N-G. This is 9600 Northeast 126th Avenue, suite 2520.

1:26:44 Here tonight representing the applicant, the old Apostolic Lutheran Church of Hyson. I want to thank county staff for their time and effort working with us on this project. As Joe mentioned, there was a time there where it was put on hold with regard to the road modification specifically, and that was one of your questions, Mr. Examiner. So that -- those driveways across the street were indeed existing at the time of the original application. However, I believe it was during the pre-application conference and subsequent correspondence with the county staff that it was a potential increase in use or change in use that they wanted verification that the previous conditions with signing and striping for the directional exiting these

1:27:40 driveways as well as site distance, that none of those conditions had changed. Through that road modification was the process which was used to review and approve those. >> Okay, thank you. With that, we've reviewed the county staff report and provided a response. As noted there, exhibit number 29, that was just provided yesterday, so I'd like to do just a brief overview of the four main points with that. The first one is just with regard to minor updates to the number of phases, I believe the staff report referenced eight while there's ten included with this, and then as well as a minor change on the maintenance shed size, so it was just -- and those are documented in the response.

1:28:36 The other item to point out is there were a couple of landscape buffers that are existing. Those are on the west side of phase two and phase six, and then on the south side of phase six and seven. So those are buffers that are in place at this time, so we would just like to request that the findings and conditions be modified to reflect that as existing versus a proposed. And the landscape plan that was submitted, you know, identified those as existing. So just for the record there. With regard to archaeology, the comments were received from the Cowlitz tribe and the Washington state, DAB. They recommended further coordination with DAB for determination of whether a permit would be required. We started that correspondence but haven't, you know, gotten a definitive answer on whether

1:29:34 a permit will be required for this additional work. So we would like to request that the condition A9 just include if required with regard to the permit note there. So there was prior site archaeological permit that was pulled for this with the original site and there is also prior disturbances over the entirety with regard to where the archaeological site was. So those are the details that we're working through with the state at this point. And then the last item was condition A2C and that's with regard to noting the existing driveways. They were referred to as proposed driveway and then also that the directions were east and west where site distances along the roadway to the north and south.

1:30:34 The applicant does accept the other findings and conditions as presented in the staff report and just wanted to speak briefly to your comment regarding the headstones. We did see involved with the project that was heard last month and with regard to being subject to the setbacks. I know the county does have also an exception for small structures under 200 square feet. I don't know if that's applicable here but thought I would raise that as an item to consider. Being exempt from setback? Correct, from setback and permit. Do you have a citation to what code section that is? I'd like to look at it. You know I don't have it in front of me here. If you could submit it during the open record would be fine because we have to hold the

1:31:28 record open for a week anyway. And then also the last item here regarding the wetland buffer. So this was an item that came in a little bit later in the process and we had correspondence with the applicant and their desire is to pursue a wetland permit for impacts to that buffer. The existing landscape buffer follows the property line already in that corner as well as chain link fence following the property line. So to I guess enhance this area of a wetland buffer and put physical demarcation along the buffer line and signs it would lead to this odd shape here in the corner as well as you know the loss of potential cemetery plots there in that corner.

1:32:28 The other thing is there's a you know the I guess the value it's in the outer portion of the wetland buffer and there was some discussion of the intensity of the use here reflected that the church itself has a high intensity use the proposed use of a cemetery with the lawn is I would in my opinion is a lower classification of use. So it would have less impact in that way and also the original conditional use had lawn in that area as a original permitted use the code has changed since that time with regard to the critical areas and the in the wetland buffers have increased.

1:33:25 With that I would like to thank you and be open here for any questions that you may have. Thank you Mr. Holing. I don't have any at this point. Is there anybody else who'd like to say anything about this application in support in opposition or with questions or concerns please click on the raise your hand button. There are none. I didn't think so. Okay anything further from the county Ms. Kinsman. No Mr. Examiner. Thank you. Mr. Holing anything you want to add? No thank you. With that I'll close the hearing as with the other one I'll hold it up. Well Mr. Holing do you want a week for the final argument or you just want to I can hold it open if just in case something comes in and then you can during the first week and then you can if nothing comes in you can waive it.

1:34:23 Do you want that opportunity? Yeah let's let's proceed with that plan where I have the opportunity to waive. Sure. Please. So with that I will close the hearing and I will hold it open same as the last one until Thursday April 2nd at 4 o'clock for anybody to submit additional written testimony and evidence and until April 9th for the applicant to submit a final written argument without any new evidence and the applicant can waive that by or submit their final argument any time after 4 p.m. on the 2nd of April and I will close the hearing close the record at that point in my decision and I will try and get it out within two weeks from wherever that record closes. So that concludes our hearing. Thank you all have a good afternoon good evening.

1:35:19 Thank you Mr. Gaimler.

1:35:49 Thank you.