Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 [MUSIC] >> Okay, we're live. >> Okay, I'll go ahead and call to order this hearing of April 23rd, 2016 for Clark County, my name is Joe Turner. I'm one of the county's hearings examiners. I'll start with some brief announcements and summary of the process that will follow. And I start by saying I'm not a county employee. I am licensed as an attorney and trained as a planner. I serve under contract to the Board of Commissioners. I say that so you're getting a somewhat independent review of the applications before me tonight. My role as the hearings examiner is to conduct public hearings and

0:57 make decisions about certain land use matters in Clark County. In making those decisions, I'm required to apply the county's existing laws. I am not a policymaker. 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 Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners to do that. The state law requires that this application be judged. These applications tonight must be judged based on the laws in effect when the applications are filed. As a hearings examiner, I 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 any of the subject properties or any of the surrounding properties. But anyone has the right to challenge my impartiality and argue that I'm biased in one way or another. And you could do that when it's your opportunity to testify.

1:57 Procedure will follow. I'll start by asking staff to summarize their staff report, copies of which are available on the county's website. I will note that staff are not the proponent for either of the projects. They're merely providing an overview of the project process and the laws that apply and their opinion as to whether or not the applicable approval criteria are met. Then the applicant for the particular project will have the opportunity to present their proposal and respond to the staff report. Then if anybody else wants to testify in support of that project, they may do so. Then anyone who wants to testify orally or in writing before, excuse me. [LAUGH] Skipped ahead in my intro. Anybody else who wants to testify in opposition or with questions or concerns. That should cover everybody who wants to say something about a particular application. You'll fall into one of those categories. Once everyone has had initial opportunity to testify about that application,

2:57 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 and announce what I'm gonna do without taking any new public testimony. Anyone with an interest in this application may offer relevant oral or written testimony. But you can only testify when you've been 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 maybe appeal to superior court. 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 knows something about the application you're interested in, you need to make sure that gets into the record before me.

3:53 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 for that application. And in order to raise an issue on appeal, someone must have raised that issue before me with enough specificity that everyone can understand what the issue is. Anyone feels they 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 an 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. Because of these online hearings, I will automatically hold the record open for one week for each application after the close of the hearing. But if anybody wants me to hold the record open for a longer period or

4:50 continue the hearing, you must make that request before the close of the hearing tonight, and provide some support for why whatever you want to submit during the extended open record period or the continuance, why that information couldn't be submitted tonight or during the one week open record. When you testify, please begin by stating your name and full mailing address. Please spell your last name so I get it right. And if you represent someone else, please say so. Testimony is limited to 20 minutes for the applicant, which they can split between their initial response and their initial presentation and then their response to testimony that's offered. Everyone else gets three minutes per person. The regardless testimony should be relevant to the applicable approval criteria which are set out in the staff report. Also, please don't repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses.

5:47 Repeating your testimony doesn't make your case any stronger. 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 prior witnesses have addressed the issues that you wanted to address, but you still want to testify in order to preserve your right to appeal, you can indicate you want to testify, give us your name and mailing address. Say I agree with the prior testimony, and that's sufficient to maintain your right to appeal. That concludes my introduction. Mr. Davio will give us an overview of the online issues, how to participate online, and then summarize the staff report for our first project. >> Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. For the record, my name is Richard Davio, and I'll be presenting the both cases

6:45 tonight, and certainly starting with this one, Taylor Reserve. But before we do that, we are going to do a little instruction about how to use the WebEx instructions for raising and lowering your hand, and also muting and other things to make sure that everybody can be heard and testified tonight. So the first thing we're going to do is show you how to raise or lower your hand. If you're a phone user, you use DialStar 3. And if you are a web participant, you want to click the hand in the lower left-hand corner, or next to you- >> Your PowerPoint's not showing right now. >> Oh, sorry about that. >> No problem.

7:39 >> Is it now? >> Yep. >> Thank you. So since we have the screen on, I'll just backtrack for a second here. To raise or lower your hand, for a phone user, you want to DialStar 3. And if you are a web participant, you want to click in the lower left-hand corner of the screen, or next to your name in the participants. This screen shows you here, for the web user here, you can see the hand raise, and also next to your name. Again, the phone is just to DialStar 3. Okay, so we're going to ask that everybody who testifies, when you're done testifying, please mute yourself. Because sometimes there's a lot of background noise.

8:34 And remember, when you're testifying, any background noise in your environment will be projected here live, and it's being recorded. So you might want to make sure that you keep your surroundings quiet, and mute yourself when you're not testifying these. And also, we have disabled the chat function for public records purposes. And that concludes our presentation for the web screen users, and dial-in users for instructions. Okay, so what I'm going to do right now is go right into staff's presentation for Taylor's Reserve, PLD 2025-26. It's to subdivide roughly four acres into 35 lots,

9:33 single family lots detached, and this is in the R1-6 zone. The proposal, they're proposing to use the compact lot development standards. In addition, there's been a boundary line adjustment, technical road mod. And also, the applicant has, during the review process, the applicant submitted a request for planning director review. For an interpretation of the lot, the status of the lot under the compact lot standards. And that's what we have in front of us. The applicant is Joel Hollingsworth, and the contact is Scott Taylor from SGA. View staff, Melissa Curtis has prepared this information, and I am presenting it here tonight. The review engineer is Alistair Dawson, and

10:27 concurrency review engineer is Craig Cottle. All right, for the presentations that not just you'll hear, Mr. Examiner, but also the public, the purpose of the presentations is to provide an overview and a summary of the project, to try to identify all the major and any outstanding issues. And this all helps make a recommendation to you, Mr. Examiner. All right, so the subject site is shown here on the screen with a black dot. It's generally just a little bit east of 50th Avenue and immediately north of 114th Street. You'll see here on the screen, the site is zoned R16.

11:24 As are the other properties surrounding it. You'll see the site is in solid red color. And here we're showing an aerial of the existing residence. As we can see, there's quite a large existing residence with structures on the site. All of that's going to be removed for the subdivision as proposed by the applicant. Also the applicant's, the driveway going to that residence will also not be a part of this development that's going to be closed down. Okay, just to look at the boundary line adjustment issues. That's one of the, probably the biggest issue here tonight. And I'll get into that a little bit more, but just to show you the plan.

12:23 Here's the post decision review adjustment. As you can see from the last one, it was a pretty square parcel. And these areas in green, you'll see, well, it's the gray areas green in this site was adjusted to tax lot 35 to the northwest of the parcel, northeast of the parcel, excuse me. Here's the proposed development plan. As we mentioned, the applicant is proposing a 35 lots. Okay. At this time, we're going to show some photos of the existing conditions of the site. All right. This first view is looking East 114th street.

13:20 This is essentially where the road turned the County road ends and it goes turns to private. And you can see the red X, uh, adjacent to this toe as to where the, the, the photograph was taken. Oh, I see. Can you see my cursor? I'm going right around the red X. Yeah, no. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure why that's happening. Oh, well. All right. Here is a picture of the East boundary line. Of course, this is, um, I'm assuming this is the driveway of the existing, um, property. Okay. So this is looking up the, uh, a private driveway, uh, and you can see where the red X is on the, um, right-hand side of the screen of where that picture was taken.

14:20 Okay. So this is a view West along 114th street. As you can see the site and the existing driveway is on this side. Oh, you can't see my cursor on the right-hand side of the screen. Here's the, here's the photo of existing of the existing home. Also, this is more stuff about the existing driveway. Like I said, that's going to, that's not going to be utilized in the development. And this is a photo on the other side of the development on the West side.

15:17 And here's another photo from Northeast 114th street. Okay. So just some timeline information, including the most, up to the most recent stuff, as far as the timelines and the staff report, the applicant was determined to be counter-complete on April 11th, 2025 and May 27th, it was 2025. It was considered fully complete. Notice the CPA determination, optional CPA determination, uh, was mailed, uh, to the neighborhood association and the property owners of the 500 feet on June 4th, 2025. Uh, notice of application public hearing was mailed out to not only neighborhood association, but property owners also within 500 feet on March 23rd,

16:14 2026. Uh, this also the same date that the, uh, sign was posted on the subject site. See the staff report and recommendation to the examiner was issued on April 8th, just 15 days ago. It did not include the concurrency staff report as both cases tonight. We'll get into that a little bit more. Um, but now it is in the record as exhibit 59. We do have them now. Uh, well, I think, you know, do certainly do due to the fact that we've had, um, um, uh, concurrency reports come in just a day or two ago. Uh, we're, we're going to need at least two weeks for the record for the first period of opening record. I'm sure you're going to be looking at these other things. I'm sure you're right. I forgot about that when I was doing my intro and yes.

17:11 I'm sure we'll have to hold it on for at least two weeks. Yeah. Um, the issue there is I am going on vacation. Um, MACE 17th coming back June 5th. So we, I'm unlikely to get these out before decisions out before I come back. Yup. Um, I think that's likely, I want to give everybody a heads up to that effect. And so I'm happy to accommodate longer open records for either of these cases, if necessary, if requested and necessary. Perfect. Yeah. And we might certainly in this one, we might need it. Um, okay. So just as far as the exhibits that are in the record, uh, let's see staff report and recommendation was issued on, like we already said, um, April 8th, that's exhibit, uh,

18:09 58. Um, let's see. And in the, in this, uh, it said that that new exhibits have been added 61 to 65 there. They are all 61 through 65 are all neighbor comments. We also got a 66, another neighbor, 66 and 67, also neighbor comments. I sent those to you earlier today, Mr. Examiner. Okay. And I got 66. I see your email. Thank you. And the other important thing about that email is that it all, the last exhibit in the record is six so far is 68 and the applicant, um, I'm sure they want to make, you know, they're planning on making an argument about the, um, about that, uh, compact law lot size or as an existence. So they provide, they provided some lot determination information. Um, so that's 68.

19:04 Okay. So moving on to that very same issue, as far as the, uh, whether this lot qualifies for compact, uh, lot standards, um, at the time of the pre-application conference, uh, staff indicated to the applicant that a boundary line adjustment could not be done and use the compact development code, because as we know, the very top of those standards, it says, um, that they need to be, that the site needs to be have existed or at the prior to the date of the ordinance being adopted, which was about a year and a half ago, almost two years ago now. Um, so pursuant to 40 to 60 0 7 0 compact lot developments, compact lots are permitted on parcels created prior to the adoption of the date.

20:01 As I just paraphrased, um, the parcel is three acres or smaller in size. It was stated to them that the bio-adjustment would change the status of the parcel and would no longer be created prior to April 26, 2024. Oh, that's the date. Great. Um, so that's, that's the main issue. And that's the, that's the issue that, and the reason why staff is recommending denial. Just to clarify, even if they hadn't recorded that boundary line adjustment, they still wouldn't qualify for compact lot development because it's even bigger. Correct. You know, I'm not so sure that's the case. I'll look at that too. And we'll have the applicant address that. I think, I think Melissa, I think we, I think it might've been because they can also subtract out, um, rights of way and open space. Yeah. So, uh, we'll, we'll, we'll have the applicant address that. But I asked that.

21:01 So, um, uh, so the, the most recent updated plans as, as shown here is exhibit 46. And as I just stated, of course, um, staff, uh, does not recommend approval. We recommend denial based upon that compact lot, uh, requirement.

21:27 And that concludes staff presentation, at least land use. I have some questions about the staff report. I understand you didn't draft it. So if you don't know, that's fine. We, you, um, Ms. Curtis or whoever's, whenever, if she gets back in time and, um, address it during the open record, I might, I have them here and we'll see if they're land use or other. Yes. Shoot. Right. Yeah. Engineering. I'm sure somebody is here who can do it, but page six, top of the page, it says the gross area of the site is 4.06 acres, comma 3.6. Oh, post boundary line adjustment with 3.6 net acres after removing right-of-way insensitive lands. And then at 2.23 acres does the density calculations based on 2.23. Is it, it was, is it, this may be why I'm confused. It was 4.6.

22:22 And then the boundary line adjustment reduced to 3.6 and then deducting for open space and rights away reduced it to 2.23. I believe here I'm getting there right now. I've got that. And the applicant may be able to address that more easily, but.

22:47 And you're at the very top of page six, right? Yeah. First paragraph there. Yeah. Yes. Yes. I believe that's the case. The one piece of it, and we'll ask the applicant to confirm the one piece of information, the one piece of information that probably could be helpful is what's, what's the what's the area of the site you know, pre BLA with the right-of-way and stuff taken out. And I'm sure that's something that the applicant, that would answer your question about what was it really below three acres before. Yup. Okay. Page nine, bottom of the page under E main entrances or compact

23:43 lot structure structures on compact lots residences. Just wait for you to get there. So don't jump ahead of you. I'm on page nine now. Okay. Bottom of the page. It says main entrances have to be visible from the street and setback them more than eight feet and the longest street facing wall of the structure. I'm assuming in that where street facing includes shared driveways because lots seven team through 20 or 18, Tony are on a private or shared driveway rather than a street. And the lot you're referring to are what lots of the top left, north, west corner, uh, 18 through 20 and possibly 17. Well, yeah, I think it's 17 because 17 does not have direct access onto the loop on the road. Yeah.

24:37 So it was a shared driveway constitute a street for purposes of a street facing wall. It does pursuant to our code. Let me, let me look at, let me look at that. And, and, and I'll try, I'll try to respond to a little bit later. I know pursuant to, I know unless the, unless the compact law standards trumpet it's, I know in our definitions, it's, uh, easements, uh, access easements are considered streets. Okay. I assumed it was. I just intended to get back and look at that. And I just never got back to it on page 10. Um, Oh, it's just under 42, 61 55 finding nine. The findings, um, talks about the revised site plan is exhibit 25. I think that the latest revised site plan is exhibit 46.

25:34 That's one. So I'm, I'm, I'm sorry. I was a little slower on page 10. Sorry. No, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Page 10, uh, under finding nine, got it. Uh, C one a I the finding at the time of preliminary application. It starts out with italicized there. At the time the applicant provided a separate plan. She. No, uh, finding nine at time of preliminary application. Oh yeah. You went on. I'm sorry. The revised site plan refers to exhibit 25 as a reset by the revised site plan. It's exhibit 46 is the most recent. I have revised plan. I think I'm pretty sure that's correct. I'm going to verify that. I think it just didn't get updated. I think you're right. Yes, absolutely. That is correct because 46 is I'm verifying it. The 46 is the most recent revised plan. So that should be that. You should put 46 in there. Okay.

26:34 Hey, same page, bottom of the page under three B, um, starts out the applicant's proposing on street parking. It says, well, last part of the sentences are providing 14 parking spaces within two common areas. I only see one common area for parking in the revised plan.

27:04 Okay. Yes, we might have to ask the, and maybe maybe what it was is since they are providing some. Parking along, since this is a local residential access road, they can also provide parking along the street and you can see, I think that's, yeah, you mentioned in that earlier in that finding. So there's five parallel one street, parallel parking spaces on the urban local access road and 14 parking spaces within two common areas. And there's not 14 spaces within the one common area. So that finding just needs to be modified to reflect the current proposal.

28:01 That's correct. That's correct. And we'll ask the applicant to, I'm sure the applicant will. Yeah. Yeah. These are just things I wanted to erase so that anybody else can address them. Uh, page 17, that's the last one I have. Um, this is probably for Mr. Dawson cause it's regarding the road mod or if there's other transportation engineers, uh, finding six at the top of page 17, says they requested road modifications for relief from cross circulation and from intersection spacing and from full frontage improvements on Northeast hundred and 15th street. Oh yes. That's the North street. Um, again, I think this is because the plat changed. They're no longer requesting, I assume cross circulation or intersection spacing relief because they have proposed a road to the East.

28:58 Let's, uh, let's ask Alex to respond to that. Yeah. Mr. Dawson. Yes. Alistair Dawson development engineering here. You're correct. The original road mod did have, um, those first two requests in there. So the revised road modification provided by the applicant, I believe still had discussion about them, but they were sort of, you know, crossed out or modified. Uh, so yes, the proposal did change throughout the review process to include public road circulation. So relief from providing circulation was no longer needed because it was met outright. And the same with intersection spacing has also met. So they were no longer applicable by the time we got to the end of this. Do they still need a road bond for, uh, sorry, uh, circulation because they're not providing it to the West or to the North?

29:57 I don't know. And obviously they can't. So it road mod would be appropriate, but, um, do they need a road mod where there is existing development per group precluding it? Uh, it was determined that they were doing the maximum amount feasible on their westerly and northerly property lines. It's already been developed and you can see the proximity. So if it's within a hundred feet, um, I didn't measure it, but I'm guessing a hundred feet, uh, North and West, then they wouldn't need to stub to those. I don't believe. So that was not, there was not a condition, uh, coming out of the road mod that they did not, uh, try and extend to those previously developed areas. Yeah. I just, when I'm, uh,

30:53 when I write my final order, I usually adopt or you pick the County's findings and edit them. Um, and I just, if clearly the road mod to the cross circulation of the East is no longer required, I just wasn't sure if a road mod for cross circulation of the North and West was actually, was, was required and was approved. Um, just trying to figure out how to phrase that finding and the applicant may have some response, but again, I just wanted to raise the issue. We can resolve it during the open record. That was the only questions I had. Thank you, Mr. Dabio and Mr. Dawson, Mr. Housley. I understand you're representing, representing the applicant. Uh, I am Mr. Examiner, but I believe Mr. Taylor from SGA is going to go first and probably answer. You're the only one on my screen at the moment, but things jump around. We'll start with Mr. Taylor. Perfect. Looks like I've been up to panelists. Thank you very much,

31:52 Mr. Dabio, Scott Taylor. I saw there was SGA also on there. So I, I didn't, yeah, sorry. Well, we've got Jason Mattis and Scott Taylor, both here with SGA engineering this evening representing the applicant. Um, and then also Mr. Housley. So I'd like to first start off as sort of a little quick overview of how we got to the plan we have tonight, and then also answer your questions, uh, Mr. Turner. So as it's been alluded to and discussed and sort of shown throughout the plans and all the exhibits, this project started out with a private loop road and a gated community concept, uh, throughout working with staff and working through code requirements, cross circulation requirements, and, you know, intersection alignment requirements. We now have a public loop road and a public stub road to the Eastern boundary to meet the cross circulation requirements.

32:50 The gate was removed and one of the lots was also removed. So what was a 36 lot subdivision is now 35 that I believe may say 36 in a couple of spots, maybe in the concurrency staff report. Um, but it is 35 currently exhibit 46 is the one on the screen currently, and is the current plan. Okay. Um, we, you know, worked through a boundary line adjustment with the neighbors to, um, resolve an agreement that they had previously set in place for retention of, uh, a number of mature bird trees and other native trees. There's a couple of dogwoods and maples in there. And so those are shown on this plan as well. Um, to answer your questions, I'd like to go down those in order. And then also if there's any other questions, I'm glad to answer those and help answer questions with the public this evening.

33:50 So number one, the gross site area, 4.06 acres post boundary line adjustment. It is 3.6 acres. I want to get back to our same page here. We were on page six. So the third number here saying post boundary line adjustment with 3.6 net acres is incorrect. That I believe there's, yeah, I believe they were saying, um, I don't honestly know exactly how that was supposed to be worded, but that's an extra number that should not be in there when you remove right of way sensitive lands, you know, areas for access and, um, road dedication, you have a net site area of 2.23. So that's correct. 2.23. Correct. Thank you. And you know, compact lot developments are allowed the 200% density. And so that, you know, doubles the allowed maximum density.

34:50 And when you do that math, you end up at 35.23, um, units max. And so 35 lot subdivision meets that code. Now the question was posed before the BLA, what was the net site area? So at time of our pre-application conference, we submitted a very similar plan and loop road, and the net acreage was 2.98 acres. So we met the less than three acre requirement at the time of the pre-app. The boundary line adjustment was not completed to circumnavigate any code or make things smaller to get into this compact lot code allowance. We met that allowance without the boundary line adjustment. Um, number two question, the front of the lots, you know, we agree that the shared driveways and access easements should function as the

35:48 front of the lots for these homes. That's where the garages will be. That's where the front porches will be. And that's clearly the intent. I just wasn't sure if it said use that word street. And so we agree with staff, you know, the front of the lots should be those shared driveways and shared access easements. Uh, question three on page 10, uh, exhibit 46. Yes is the current plan and the correct exhibit number. Uh, question four, the two common areas for parking have been revised. Uh, thank you, Mr. Dawson for confirming that, you know, we had a south, a common parking area there when you first come into the development. And unfortunately that is in the way of sort of intersection clearance requirements. So they don't want people backing out into intersections. So we remove that parking area and show the on-street parking. And then the north parking area, those two parking areas meet the requirements for guest parking.

36:47 And staff confirms that too, by the way, just, just to chime in because they have five parts, it's 12 parking spaces that are required and they, between the street and the common area, it is 12. So that, that, that meets the code. Thank you. And then there's six or seven spaces in the common area. I can't tell if that's a car or an Island. It's a car. Okay. So there's seven spaces. Correct. Okay. And so guest parking is met. Um, there's additional spaces to where some people could park on the street, but we didn't show those additional parking spaces. We just showed compliance, you know, with the guest parking for the areas that are, um, that function well for street parking. The final question you had was on the road mods and where there were three originally,

37:44 we were able to work through the first two with staff and no longer needed those. So it is just one road modification necessary. And for not completing frontage improvements on one 15th street. And again, there, you know, it's required for cross circulation, but it's silly to build a four foot strip of pavement and a sidewalk to nowhere. And so the agreement was made with staff that we can dedicate that right away. So if in the future neighbors to the East develop, they could extend the road. But at this time, this project would construct a short section of road after the returns and stop. Um, so therefore we don't need to remove any trees, um, for road construction and you don't have a sidewalk that sends people back to nowhere. Um, and so that's part of that road modification findings on one 15th street. And we agree with that, you know, that's great.

38:40 Just for the public, I say just for the public who's may not be as familiar, we're talking about the little strip that's just North of lot proposed lot 10, uh, that X where the boundary line adjustment kind of jogs to the West. Um, correct. And so that was the discussion with staff and the agreement that it makes more sense to stop one 15th street and a nice, you know, squared fashion, avoid impacting any of these, you know, 42 inch for 30 inch for dog, wood trees, you know, preserving all these trees that the neighbors pushed so hard to preserve. And we agree with that. And so there would be a barricade, you know, put up there at the end of the street next to lot 11. And, you know, as far as cross circulation requirements, we worked quite a bit with staff, you know, there's a number of cross circulation plans and the record,

39:37 but if you refer to exhibits 48 and 49, those are the most current cross circulation narratives and plans that we worked on with staff and the road mod committee. So cross circulation has met with the adjacent streets to the West and then the North and then streets to the East, um, in the future. So, so yeah, stubbing roads to the West and the North would not be necessary and also not make sense, you know, with adjacent, uh, 50th Avenue subdivision that got developed. So that was our, our position. I think staff shares that as well. And no additional cross circulation road mods would be necessary for the proposal. Um, you know, we appreciate all staff's efforts and time on this it's taken a long time to get to this point. And we understand there's a challenge, you know, with this interpretation of lot creation and, um, you know, appreciate Mr. Housley being on tonight. And so I'll turn it over to him now,

40:37 as far as, you know, more of a state law interpretation issue that we're going to dive into. So unless you have any other questions for me, Mr. examiner, I don't at this time. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Great. Thank you. All right, Mr. Examiner, just for the record, my name is Jamie Housley. I am at 1211 Southwest 5th Avenue, suite 2700, Portland, Oregon, 97204. I am the attorney for the applicant here. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Davio. I know he's pinch hitting tonight for Ms. Curtis. He did a great job. I want to thank Mr. Taylor as well. Um, from my perspective, this is a real simple question of how state law interplays with, with the development code. And so I think to start, I want to start way down in the weeds of the County code first, and then I'm going to go up the abstraction ladder into some state law. And then I'm going to come sort of back down, hopefully in focus on this particular, uh, facts of this case.

41:35 So, um, just as a threshold matter from like the very beginning, a title 40 has the definition section and I know Mr. Examiner is very familiar with that. It's a 4,100, 700, and it's important that parcel is not defined anywhere in the code. Um, but a lot is, uh, a lot is defined, which means a designated parcel tract or area of land established by a short plat subdivision or otherwise permitted by this title to be owned separately, at least used, developed, or built upon. So personal is, is encompassed, um, within the definition of lot and I'll kind of get to the conclusion a little bit later. We'll return that to a moment. Um, next you would have the County code, um,

42:32 and it contains what is called the legal lot determination process as defined by 4510 010. Uh, I know the examiner is very familiar with, with this process as, as am I, uh, I did believe Mr. Taylor did send an email that Mr. Davio had referenced, uh, to the County earlier today, which is a snippet from the County's website that explains this, uh, process in detail. Um, but again, essentially this is a historical exercise when you are, are going through that process to see whether or not a parcel of land was created, uh, as an exempt land division, which is, uh, um, there are certain periods of time where those could have been created by state law and County code, uh, through a survey, uh, through a short plat or subdivision, or if, if the parcel itself or lot itself was created prior to the state subdivision

43:32 act, uh, coming into effect. And, and all of these have different days, and there's different criteria that, you know, the examiner is very familiar with. Um, and I'll return back to this specific lot here in question in a bit under this code. Um, next in the County code, uh, we have the County code related to boundary line adjustments, and this is under Clark County code 4540-010. And specifically I would call the examiner's attention to, um, parenthetical a, and this States, this is a process for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines, which does not create any additional lot track parcel site or division, nor create any lot track parcel site or division, which creates insufficient area and dimension to meet the minimum requirements for a building site.

44:31 And this County code provision is basically a carbon copy right from the state platting statute of RCW 5817. And more specifically under the exceptions, the platting under 5817-0406, which States that, uh, divisions are exempt when they're made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which again, does not create any additional lot track parcel site or division, nor create any lot track parcel site or division, which contains any insufficient area or dimension for a building site. So now I kind of want to move. I don't know whether this is going up or sideways. I never know where case law kind of blows in this. So we'll, we'll, we'll just,

45:27 I'll just say both. Um, but then we have this case called city of Seattle, the Crispin, Crispin, P R I S P I N. Oh, okay. Yeah. I've heard of that one. Yeah. And this, this is a one 49 when second eight 96. Uh, I don't know if the examiner uses a Pacific third, but it's so it's 71 Pacific third, two eight. It's a 2003 case. And, um, at the time you give me the first site again, one 49 W in 49, when second eight 96, eight 96. Thank you. Yeah. The 2000. And this case was essentially bought, uh, brought up to by the Supreme court to, and it was in an in bank decision to try to settle, um, this question of what was really met with this RCW

46:26 58 17 0 4 0 6. What, what did it mean? There was some dispute within the lower ranking court. And so just briefly kind of want to touch on the facts of this case. Um, cause I think it's illustrative of what's going on here. So in that case, they're originally 10 lots, um, that were created prior, you know, some, sometime in the distant past and in Seattle, they were eventually consolidated data down to three lots. So they were, they were merged effectively down to three sometime in the late 1960s. And, uh, during this time, there were a bunch of buildings built. And then in 1972, uh, four apartment buildings, uh, were converted into condominiums. And at that time, they, they realigned or did an adjustment to the property lines and they had, and this was in September and the city of Seattle adopted their subdivision

47:25 ordinance a little bit earlier than the state law and had adopted it in May. But, um, there was, the buildings were on two parcels. There was essentially this, this vacant third, third parcel, this third property through a period of time was eventually not paying the owner was not paying real estate taxes and some other stuff. And the County or the city went foreclose on it. And Mr. Crispin ended up, uh, buying the property and he sought a, a building from it. Um, to make a long story short, a bunch of neighbors didn't want to see Mr. Crispin build a house and the city who was initially in favor of Mr. Crispin's position, somehow reversed itself midway in this process. I'm not really sure what happened there, but they, they made an argument that this was not a lot because it was in, wasn't created by the city's subdivision statute.

48:21 And the court basically said, no, that's not, that's not correct. 5817-0406 means what it says. The court held that boundary line adjustments are exempt so long as there's not a new lot created. So back to the facts of this case, um, this specific parcel at question, there was already a legal lot determination done by the County in 2004. Uh, this was BLA 2004, um, dash triple zero 44 and it determined that this was a lot of record. And therefore under state law and the County code, uh, a BLA and under Crispin, the BLA can be, can be done. It's, it's an exempt land division. That's not creating an additional lot.

49:18 Um, and what was important in the Crispin case is, is said, even if it, um, what are the, what are the exact words, even if it creates a new building site or like a new geometry, so long as it doesn't dip below the minimum standard that that doesn't matter. It's still exempt by, by state law. So turning to the County's ordinance here, I think that the word parcel is an unfortunate word choice, uh, and in the code, um, it could be more precise. It should be, uh, you know, lot as, uh, somebody who's practiced examiner knows a lot in this area, no pun intended there. Um, you can create new tax parcels at any time for a property, but that doesn't, that doesn't mean they're legal lots of record. That would be then be able to avail themselves to, um,

50:15 the boundary line adjustment. So I could, I could see where the, where the confusion is here and I'd be happy to sort of expand upon that if the examiner wishes at this point, or it sounds like we're going to have an open record and maybe I can pontificate on that a little bit more, but essentially I think it's, it's a, it's a poor drafting in the ordinance. Um, but to my mind, the logic of this is clear. This, this is the heading of it is compact. Lot standard lot is the only thing defined in the code and parcels are encompassed by lot. Um, so in this case, the timing of the ordinance is, is irrelevant for the purposes here because the County had already been this lot to be a legal lot of record and the boundary line adjustment, uh, in this case is exempt. It's an exempt process by case law by state statute and the County code.

51:11 And that's about as clear as I can, I can make it. It's it's not very often that we have cases that are sort of purely legal argument, but I feel this is sort of a unique circumstance. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Housley. Thank you. Is that it from the applicant at this point?

51:34 Yes. Thank you. Um, is there anybody who'd like to testify and support in support of this application? Not seeing please click on the raise your hand button. If you want to do that. Sorry. Forgot that part. Um, thank you. I don't, I don't get to see them, Mr. Davio does. So anybody who'd like to testify in opposition or the questions or concerns about this application, if so, please click on the raise your hand button now. Yes. We do have some, but I thought we might, him, him is our first, it just says, Kim, I will him. I just unmuted you. You should be able to unmute. Well, you have to unmute yourself, but I just did that. So you should be able to, okay.

52:32 I think I'm there. Yes, we're hearing you. Thank you. Okay. My name is Kim Hamlich, H a M L I K. I live at five, two, two, two Northeast 114th street. Um, I am the president of the curtain Creek neighborhood association and with my family and owner of the property directly adjacent to and east of this, the proposed Taylor reserve subdivision. We are parties of record. We oppose this application and to raise critical issues about our property rights. Staff has recommended denial and we believe that recommendation is legally correct. I there's a CC number that I could go into, but it requires a parcel to have been created before April 26, 2024 to qualify for a compact lot

53:29 development. The subject parcel is in current is in its current configuration was created in February 26, 2025, 10 months after that deadline, when the boundary line adjustment was recorded, the applicant knew this. They proceeded. Anyway, the code was is clear and the parcel does not qualify without compact lot standards. The project cannot achieve even a third of its proposed density. Regardless of how you rule on the density questions, we have a separate and urgent concern about our property rights. The preliminary plat shows a road stub and notation along the Eastern boundary of this development. This notation references, our property, the Hamlet parcels to the East and implies that our land is developed in the

54:27 future. A road will extend across it. We were never consulted. We were never, we never, we did not consent and we do not agree. The County can not approve a plat that places road obligations on private property without the owner's consent. That would be, be a taking under article one section 16 of the Washington constitution. We ask that you strike any road notation, road track dedication or right of way language, referring our parcels as a condition of any approval or as part of your denial order. We also have a written agreement with the beach development signed before this application was filed that protects the trees. That agreement is in the record. Any road across our property would destroy trees. That very beach contractually promised to protect.

55:26 We submitted details, written testimony on all these issues. And we ask you to one, deny the application to, if you do approve it, strike any road note of note of not road. Stop affecting our property from the face of the plat and three acquire, require the applicant to place in the record, the written agreement protecting the trees along our boundary. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Do we have more raised hands? Yes, we do. Jim Hamlic. Jim, I am, you should be able to unmute yourself now, Jim. All right. Can you hear me? Yep. All right.

56:24 My name is Jim Hamlic. I live at five two two Northeast, 114th street. And, uh, good evening examiner. My name is Jim Hamlic co-owner of tax lot 35 adjacent parcels immediately East of this proposed development. I have submitted a written testimony and I am a party of record. Our family owns tax lot 35 assessors file number three two four eight one eight eight and adjacent parcels directly East of the proposed development. Those parcels appear on the plat map submitted with this application. Their Eastern boundary was established in part through the same boundary line adjustment recorded February, 2025 that created the parcel configuration. The applicant is now trying to use to claim compact lot eligibility before this application was filed beach development signed a written agreement

57:23 with our family purchase and sale it agreement addendum dated October 1st, 2024 paragraph 11 of that addendum contains an express guarantee by beach that there will be no logging on Taylor parcel on any lots of Jason our property paragraph six of that same addendum contains additional protection for trees and vegetation along the boundary shared between the Taylor parcel and our property. This is not a big promise. It is signed written contractual guarantee made by each development in direct contemplation of this subdivision. If this project is approved, those trees, which beach promised us would be protected are at risk, both from construction and from the road stub aimed at our property. We're asking this examiner to require beach to place that agreement in the record and to condition any approval on a finding that

58:19 the paragraph 11 tree guarantee is binding it all successors, including anyone who buys a lot in this subdivision. Finally, we believe that the SIPA analysis did not add free consider the environmental impact of the significant trees along our shared boundary. We reserve the right to challenge the DNS on that basis with inadequate applicable appeal period, please deny this application. If you approve it required the PSA addendum tree going to be, to be recorded as a plat conveyant and strike all road notations affecting our property. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I will note the, the agreement with the developer, uh, is a private agreement, which I have no authority to enforce. Um, but you do through a civil prison if it became necessary. Um, and as far as putting it in the record, I can't require the applicant to put anything in the record, but you could put it in the record during the open record period,

59:17 just to make sure it gets in there. I mean, the applicant likely would, but just to make sure that would be the best way to ensure that it happens. Thank you, sir. Any other raised hands, Mr. Davio? Stand by. Let me see. Oh, I forgot. You have to change screens too. I don't see it. I don't see any raised hands. Okay. Don't see any other confirm. Do you have to say anybody else want to say anything about this application and support opposition or with questions? If so, please raise your hand now. Still nobody. Nope. Nobody. Okay. Thank you. Anything further from staff at this point? Let's see. We land use, we we've addressed the, the, the questions that have come in. Um, um, I'm not sure if one of our engineers wants to talk about that stub road to the

1:00:15 East, but, but, but I'll just say, of course we don't require any, you know, it's obviously the way that stub road would come into play is if someone came in to develop that property. So that's, that's, that's how that stub road would come in. Uh, we would not be, we would not be able to make her make that property or build a road or do anything at this point only if it comes in for development. So that's, that's probably more of a possible future item. So I just wanted to make that note. That's all I have for staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Housley or Mr. Taylor. Um, yeah, I'll, I wouldn't, I just have a couple of points. Um, Mr. Examiner, one, uh, I agree with Mr. Davio that a stub road is a County code requirement for cross circulation to go to adjacent parcels.

1:01:11 So you're not land locking parcels from public access that would be incumbent upon that parcel to do some redevelopment in order to take advantage of that. But another, nevertheless, that's required by code. Um, number two, there was, uh, the neighbors raised a variety of issues that the examiner duly noted are real property matters and not germane to the, the approval criteria here. Um, so again, uh, just, just finally, we have a different view again as outlayed by our analysis tonight, um, our letter in the record, and then since there will be an open record period of all, um, further elaborate on our view about how exempt boundary line adjustments work. Okay. At this point, I'm pretty good. One thing I want to say is as soon as I

1:02:08 started talking, somebody else raised their hand. So as soon as I started talking just before Jamie, I don't know if we want to try to, let's go back to that raised hand. So it's Stefan Stefan Dobie. I'm sure I'm not pronouncing that correct. I have just unmuted you. You should be able to unmute yourself now. It's about hearing you do that. You have to unmute yourself on your end. Stefan, we're still not hearing you. Um, obviously having some technical issues. Oh, there we go. She was here

1:03:08 for a second. Now we're here. My name is Steve on Doba. My address is 5217 Northeast 114th Street. I am right across the street from this development. And, uh, the other concerns have been brought up. My concern is the traffic survey and the traffic congestion is gonna happen with this development. Um, if you look at an average house, it's built, you're gonna have two cars per house. And each one lots only has one parking spot, and they are not addressing all the parking that's gonna happen and where all this parking is gonna happen along 114th Street, which would basically make 114 Street a one lane road. This is Jody Doba. I'm his wife. I live also the same address. Um, I currently there is a subdivision being built right across from it, and they've only

1:04:05 got, I believe, 10 houses in there. Their parking is already full. Their overflow parking is every night full. They're parking already on the street working off on 114th Street, and there's already there's only 10 houses built when they're supposed to be another 19 more. So when those are completed, when that subdivisions completed and this one is started, there's no room for parking. I know that I read the survey. I have no idea how they are approving that with already what we're seeing with this other subdivision that has been approved every night. I can show you pictures. Their overflow parking is full by the people have already purchased, and it's not even built out yet. So once we get that and we have the 30, however many have 35 more with two more cars per house, and

1:05:03 none of those have even driveways that people can park on. They're so small. There's not a driveway. I'm also a real estate agent and noticing that none of those I mean, that neighborhood should have been sold last year. Totally out. But nobody wants to buy a house with no garage, no parking and no driveway to park in where you have to walk down your street on the main road that you have to park to get to your home with your groceries. It doesn't. It's not a very thought out neighborhood. It's not very, um, nobody wants to live in that. It's it's undesirable. It's gonna be an undesirable place. That application or that development is not before me, and it's been approved. I can't, uh, change it now. But I understand your concerns about parking. Yes. And the other concern would be emergency

1:05:59 access for emergency vehicles, also for the utility vehicles for garbage. And again, 114th would be limited down to a one lane road. So any cars coming off of 50th Avenue and me coming from my driveway would have to give way or back up to let people through if they're gonna allow all these cars to come into this development. And the other concern is coming off of 50th Avenue, being able to have visibility to get onto 114th or off 114th onto 50th Avenue. There's already been multiple people have almost gotten accidents. No, they haven't gotten them. Thank goodness. But it's only a matter of time. Thank you. That timer has run out regarding the number of parking regarding the number of parking spaces. That is a policy choice by the Board of Commissioners. The code only requires one space per lot and with

1:06:55 compact development, an additional one space per three lots. Is that I don't remember exactly, but that's that as proposed, this developed meets the standards minimum parking requirements of the code. I can't require more on as far as restricting 114th to a single lane. That's also a policy choice by the board because the county's road standards for local access roads, if that's the right term, allow parking on both sides of full width streets that are subject to that local access standard, which does limit it to a single through lane when parking occurs on both sides of the street. And the fire marshal is okay with that because they adopted the code. The purpose of that is it functions as a traffic calming measure. It forces drivers to

1:07:51 slow down rather than probably a higher speeds through neighborhoods. So it's a trade off. It's more difficult to get through, forces people to slow down, which is a good thing, but it also makes it more difficult to get out of the neighborhood. But it is a policy choice by the Board of Commissioners. It's not some. Those two issues are something I cannot deny this development based on those issues. Um, if it meets the code, I have to approve it. But the issue is whether it meets the code, and that's what we'll have to decide. Mr Davio, anything you want to add in response for the testimony we just heard the only thing I wasn't. I didn't hear the very first thing you said. I just want to correct something that the last testifier, the couple talked about. The applicant is providing actually two parking spaces on each lot and then the guest parking. They had said one. It's actually two parking spaces, and in some cases it could be more depending on how the with the

1:08:48 driveway is. But yeah, they're providing two parking spaces per lot. So as proposed, there is parking in the garage and on the driving front of the garage. Is that correct? A lot of times what these narrower lots do, it'll be one in the garage and then two in the driveway. But we could also let the applicant verify that. Yeah, I can address. Oh, thanks. Some of that. Just Mr. Halston. Yeah, just on rebuttal to this testimony, and it reminded me of another issue. I wanted to touch on. I think it responded that maybe the general turns of the neighbors. Um, but we essentially have 18 wide driveways. So that's two cars, 18 ft wide. Yeah, so there's two cars on each driveway, plus a two car garage for each home. Plus there's 12 parking stalls. I think it's readily. You can see them on the site plan. So there's 152

1:09:45 spaces for parking for this project, which is quite a lot for this size of project. And then, as far as 114th Street is going, we are, in fact, widening that out to, I think, 36 ft, uh, asphalt to create safer conditions there. Um, and I would suggest we have looked at alternatives, um, to this site plan on that would be one thing is should the examiner eventually agree with staff and deny this project. We would ask that it would be a denial without prejudice, and we would seek to resubmit under, um, the townhouse development, which would actually increase the density even greater. I believe up to 44 lots, which would be substantially more than the presently

1:10:44 proposed 35 that Mr Taylor indicated. So it's sort of a Sophie's Choice issue. The neighbors. Okay, just I'm gonna finish my note. Uh, just for the neighbors, the public generally the without prejudice. If I denied it with without saying without prejudice, the applicant would be limited on how soon they could reapply for a different development. Um, if I denied it without prejudice, it would allow them to immediately reapply with a different development. Um, I don't I I don't know, but I thought the only prevented you from reapplying for basically the same development. I didn't know it would prevent you from coming in with something totally

1:11:40 different. Doesn't matter. If we forget to that point, I will consider that and I'll review that issue in more detail. But, uh, I appreciate the request. Yeah, I just want to be definitely clear there. No, I appreciate that. Uh, with that, I'm gonna close the hearing. Hold the record open. I'm gonna grab this house for Mr Taylor. Um, I'm going to hold it up for two weeks. Where are we? Because of the fact that the staff, the complete staff report with concurrency finding was not available until yesterday. So I want to give everybody the full two weeks that the code requires for review of the staff report, which puts us to May 7th. Now, can I interject for a minute here, Mr seminar? This is Richard Davio. Yeah. So, um, I'm not sure. You know, Mr.

1:12:37 housing talked about submitting stuff in the record for the compact lot stuff. And of course, the way the record the way we want the record open, we for we want to be able to respond to that issue. And so I don't know if it makes sense for that stuff to come in first and then to have another two week period. I'm thinking the 1st 2 week period may not work just because, um, we we want to be able to respond to any new information, any information that the applicant submits on that, especially on not any issue, but especially on that issue. Well, I mean, first of all, I would I would I would articulate that what I'm suggesting is legal argument. So that would be the final rebuttal for all I care. Um, and but if if we're gonna submit new evidence, which I don't think we're gonna do, we can certainly do that within the same time period of the 1st 2 weeks, and then the county would have their week to respond

1:13:30 or two weeks to respond. Okay, so we've got a lot of these. There's a lot of different durations mentioned there. Mr Mr. Howley, do you want a week for the applicant to submit new and then two weeks for pretty respond or just two weeks and you could submit during that two weeks and then a week for the applicants final argument. So we say two weeks, two weeks and then one week, two weeks, two weeks, two weeks in a week. Because if Mr. If Mr Housely submits new evidence, I think everybody needs a chance to anybody submits new evidence. Everybody gets a chance to respond to that. But if he just submits final art addition, if he just submits legal argument, um, then there is no opportunity for rebuttal to that. The applicant could just do that in their final argument. So I could

1:14:29 Mr Housely. Well, I do. That reminds me. I forgot to mention, I think Mr Taylor had some cleanup items in the staff report, so it would probably behoove us maybe to take a week a week to do that. Then the public and the county could respond in that second week while also providing that that second week window. And then the final week would be our final argument. Okay, and the county is requesting for our second period. We were asking for two weeks. So that would be a week, then two weeks and then a week for final rebuttal. Okay, like I said, how that will be gone on vacation. So I won't it won't delay my decision in this matter, and it would give you more time. Sure, I'm minimal. Okay, so we decided on his two weeks, two weeks and a week. Is that

1:15:27 correct? Yes. Okay, I'll give. Okay, with that, I will close the here. Close the record. I will hold it open for two weeks until May 7th for anybody who submit new testimony and evidence. Hold it up for another two weeks until May 21st for anybody to respond to whatever was submitted during that first two weeks by May 7th. That second period is limited to, um, responses to whatever was submitted during the first open record. No new issues may be raised during the second open record period. Hold it open until May 28 for the applicant alone to submit a final written argument without any new evidence. The applicant can submit sooner if they choose or waive, but I won't get to this my decision out until I come back.

1:16:21 And so I will do my best to get my decision out by the 19th of June two weeks after I get back, and I don't see an issue with that. Um, so anything anybody wants to submit Mr Davio, should it go to you or to Miss Curtis? Um, it should probably go. It should probably go to Melissa Curtis. Or maybe even both of us. Yeah, you're gonna get a copy of Richard. So just because I like to see your face. Anybody who wants to submit anything, it has to be physically received by the county by four o'clock p.m. five first period five o'clock five o'clock. You don't. Okay. Four o'clock. I don't change that.

1:17:15 Uh, many jurisdictions and they all have different closing times. Anything anybody wants to submit has to be received by five o'clock in this case for the first week first period by May 7th second period, May 21st applicants final by May 28. And then my decision, uh, in mid June 19th at the latest, I'll send my decision to the county. The county will send it to party the record. So anybody who has testified or does so during the open record period will be sure and receive a copy of my decision. Um, as I've noted, you can send your comments to Mr Davio and or Miss Curtis. And that concludes our hearing on that item. Thank you all have a good evening. It will continue with the second item on our agenda in just a moment. Thank you. Um, that again. Sure.

1:18:07 We're gonna take a very short break because I think this next one is gonna call it along for and so I'll be right back and we'll start again and say five minutes. Perfect. Thank you.

1:18:30 Uh, then I'll start the hearing for P. L. D. 20 22nd. 2026 dash 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 174th Street subdivision whenever you're ready. And you can see my screen, right? My sharing my presentation. Excellent. That's what I thought. Yes, I can. Excellent. Okay. So in this case, um, the applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 25 acres into 100 lots. Uh, the site is currently split zoned R 1 10 and R 1 20. The applicants also proposing a concurrent rezone to rezone the R 1 20 portions of the site to R 1 10.

1:19:30 Let's see and also they're requesting a 10% variance for a lot with for multiple lots within 2 phases and the site falls within the Mill Creek overlay. The consultant from the contact is P. L. S. Engineering. Melissa Curtis did produce the staff report. The information I'm doing the presentation tonight Alistair Dawson is our review engineer. Craig coddle is our concurrency engineer and Ariel Whitaker is here as our wetland biologist staff. Okay. Uh, and as I've mentioned before, um, really, there's different purposes for the presentations tonight, not just from staff, but from the neighbors and

1:20:27 the applicant is to provide an overview of the summary and a summary of the project, identify any major issues or concerns and relate those to you, Mr. Examiner. So you can make a recommendation to you. Okay. Um, the subject site is located here with black dots on the screen. It's located on the south side of 174th Street and on the east side of 40th Avenue. As we can see, uh, the site is zoned is split zoned are 10 or 20. And you can see it's surrounded by our 20 on on the east and south side in our 1 10 on the west side across the street from 174th Street. It's a heart are 175.

1:21:26 But here we have a copy of the aerial and these the reason why we're seeing these different, um, these are actually separate parcels, and that's why we're seeing these different grids, the outlines. But you can see the aerial of what's existing on the site. Okay, here's a copy of the proposed plan. Uh, this is the north. They've split. Phase one is their north and then phase two is south. Yeah. We've pasted them together just so you could kind of see the full 1, but we want to look at the other ones individually to get more clear picture. Okay. Appreciate that same thing. At this point, we want to show some slides demonstrating the existing conditions of the site.

1:22:23 This first view is one south of Northeast 40th Avenue. Um, and, um, you can see that 169th Street, uh, that that peeled that peels off and goes to the West. This view is one north of Northeast 40th Avenue, and you can see 174th Street there at the stop sign. And the next picture we will pretty much go right. And I think it's just right there. Yeah. And there is a view heading east on 174th Street. And then here are a couple of driveways at 16915. He's 40th Avenue.

1:23:21 Here's another one on 40th, 17101. Okay. So as far as a timeline and the exhibit list go, the applicant was determined to be counter complete on January 7th, 2026 fully complete February 9th, 2026. Notice of SIPA, uh, optional SIPA and public hearing was mailed to the applicant, the neighborhood association and property owners within 500 feet of the site on February 24th. One sign was posted on the subject site and two within the vicinity on March 13th, 2026.

1:24:12 So far as the exhibits go, um, let's go back and the staff reports and recommendation was exhibit 46. Similar to the last case. Um, we have concurrency, uh, stuff that came in. Looks like that is exhibit four. Oh, no, that's a comment from

1:24:42 hold on a second. I'm a little confused. I'm going to make sure I know where the currency comments are. Standby one second. Okay. I think it's exhibit 52 concurrency staff report. That's it. Yes, I'm sorry. That's exactly. I was just, I just, I was just looking at that and confirming that. Yes. No problem. Okay. So, um, some of the main parts, uh, that was, that was written here that Melissa grit here for timeline and new exhibits, uh, 10 new exhibits came in from Heidi Pozo. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing her last name correctly.

1:25:42 Um, Brian intelligent, David Gilroy. And of course we've already talked about the engineering concurrency. Um, the looks like it's the 10 exhibits from 10 or 11 exhibits from Heidi came in were exhibits 59 that those just came in yesterday, 59 through 70. Uh, and then, um, the applicant submitted just today, uh, submitted exhibits 71 through 77. And I think that's all regarding the arterial Atlas and those transportation issues that we've had similar stuff on some of these cases in the past. So that was our exhibit 71 through 71 through 77 and 77 is the last exhibit we have in the record. Okay. I have exhibits through 70. So I'd appreciate it if staff could either

1:26:41 send them or put them on the website for the county. So check, you know, let's talk, let's talk a little bit later. I know, I know Christy, I think Christy said, I think Christy sent you the link for the updated stuff, but let's, let's talk to make sure you've got those. I think she sent those to you at least. I hope she did. Let's, let's check on that. She did. And, but I, when I checked this, this early afternoon, I only had through 70, but, um, okay. Like more came in. Okay. They're great. I'm sure I'll get some one way or another. Yeah, let's I'll, uh, you, you and I can converse tomorrow to make sure you've got those. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, the staff recommendation was, was, uh, issued, uh, we just mentioned about that, um, just a couple of minutes ago. And that was a course exhibit 46. Um, we'll talk more about the record left open, but yes, we're gonna, we're gonna

1:27:40 be asking again for a more, more extensive at record open because of the concurrency comments and possibly other reasons as well.

1:27:51 Okay. So when the concurrency report was issued, we did issue denial, um, due to a failing level of service. Here is a copy of the full plan. Again, we'll go for, for more details. We'll, we'll look at the individual sections for more clear or oops. Okay. And that concludes staff present elite land use staff presentation. However, at this point in time, what I'd like to do is because of those more recent exhibits that were sent into the record, uh, the ones that you not that you at least don't have your eyes on yet. Um, Steve Archer from the County, uh, is here and would like to, uh, just give a little background, little information.

1:28:49 All right, Steve, you're on. Thank you. Uh, Mr Landis examiners, uh, Turner, my name is Steve Archer. I'm senior deputy prosecuting attorney for Clark County, and, uh, we're located at 1300 Franklin Street, Suite three 80 Vancouver. And I would like to take the liberty of just making an informational statement in my role. Like, I'm not an advocate here. I am here to advise staff. I also can answer questions from you. However, it's my understanding that, uh, an exhibit has been submitted with regards this, uh, by on behalf of Mr Dean Hergesheimer by his capable counsel,

1:29:41 Brian intelligent. And in that there are mentions of arguments related to Clark County code section 30 350 0 30 B four B four a and you mean 40 that you mean 43 50. Did I say 43 50 or did I say 33 50 year? Yeah, I wasn't aware of that particular code. Okay, well, you know, I figured I'd get it wrong on the B four side of things. I didn't know I'd get it right out of the gate wrong. So, uh, and I also would invite, uh, Mr intelligent to comment. I haven't discussed this with them all. All I want to say

1:30:38 informationally is that in the past you have issued interpretations and decisions regarding this section. Mhm. Now, Mr Hergesheimer has challenged these. I, in my capacity, never contact you or any land use examiner when I represent the county when a land use decision has been challenged. And I have not done so here to the extent that information that you may want or need information about the status of any of those, I'd be happy to weigh in and happy toe allow, uh, Mr intelligent also. But since since you to my knowledge, I haven't expressed any of these to you. If that is of

1:31:34 any significance to you, I'm happy to say a few words. Okay, um, I think it was the applicant submitted a number of documents, including decisions of appeals regarding my prior decisions where generally the court, uh, agreed with my analysis and affirm those, um, my interpretation of the code. Um, so I am familiar with based on what's in the record. Um, so I think I again, I don't know what I don't know. So, uh, I think we're okay, but I'm not sure. All right. I believe so. I think that, uh, I just wanted to make that available, but I think it's delicate and I want to be very diplomatic about it. So thank you. I appreciate that.

1:32:30 Anything else from other county staff? Yes. Um, what I would what I'd like to do at this point, Mr Examiner is Craig Cottle would like to give an update because the concurrency, um, comments came in a little bit late, but they were. But it was a recommendation for denial. Craig would like to give you enough. We'd like to give an update as far as the concurrency situation. Okay, thanks, Richard. Uh, for the record, this is Craig Cottle, Clark County Concurrency. So, uh, yes, at the time of this hearing, concurrency has recommended denial because at the time I submitted my staff report for review and signature, the applicant had not volunteered any mitigation to show compliance with the concurrency code. Um, so in order to attain concurrency

1:33:29 approval, the applicant needs to show, uh, or they need to volunteer mitigation for the intersection of Northeast 179th Street and Northeast 50th Avenue that meets or exceeds pre development conditions. Um, the county has since received that volunteer letter. Um, so during the open record period, I will be reviewing that with my manager and, um, providing comments at that time. Okay. Thank you.

1:34:17 Anything further from other county staff? I'm not. I don't know that we do. I unless you have questions, that could be it. I do. Um, there was I didn't put the name in my notes, but one of the neighbors are opponents at least, uh, raised the SIPA appeal issue. Um, I think it was exhibit 70. Um, I saw that my understanding out of the county code that the appeal, the SIPA appeal deadline is jurisdictional. If they didn't file an appeal, I have no no authority to extend that deadline or otherwise review. Um, this, um, I think I understand the concerns that they raise in their letter, but those most of the issues that they raised, they they weren't addressed,

1:35:13 and therefore it would have been appropriate to the issues they raised were not addressed in the staff report, but would have been appropriate to file an appeal. Um, it's unfortunate that they were unaware that things may change, but I can't consider the SIPA issues absent an appeal. And Mr Archer, it looks like you have you have a response to that. All right. Not presently. You're okay. I thought I just saw the corner of my eyes. Your head move or something. I thought you'd raised your hands. Sorry. No, no. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Gunner. I have a little bit of a response. Um, okay, let me let me finish my thought there on that issue. Um, it's I will acknowledge that the staff report didn't address the SIPA comments. That's disappointing. The or any of the public comments didn't reference public comments at all when and there were several before the staff report. Um,

1:36:08 and it I don't know, but it appears given the timing of things that the applicant was informed of the content of the concurrency analysis regarding 179th and 50th that it would not pass concurrency because the day after the concurrency report was dated, the applicant volunteered to fix it, so to speak. Um, but regardless, even if they had if the whenever the current currency report came out, they would have, I assume, made that same volunteer. Uh, it wouldn't have affected the SIPA appeal. Um, because concurrency is a code standard rather than a SIPA issue. Uh, and the tire issue that tire particulates there's a certain chemical that was concerned, um, clearly wasn't

1:37:07 relevant to the concurrency. It is clearly a SIPA appeal. They could have appealed on that. They didn't again. I'm not casting any aspersions on anybody. It's unfortunate that the that the SIPA appeal deadline was missed, but I have no authority to extend that. Um, so, Mr. Gabby, if you wanted to respond, go ahead. Well, yeah, I think you responded to one of the things that I was going to say was, of course, the concurrency issue is a code issue, not a SIPA issue on also that letter that came in exhibit 70 for the SIPA comments. If you read further down, they say they decided not to file an appeal because we're recommending denial. Um, so they made that choice. Well, it appears they made that choice not to file an appeal. Um, but I mean, I just want to note the denial issues wouldn't wouldn't have been a SIPA issue anyway, because it's a code compliant concurrency issue.

1:38:03 But that that exhibit just came in yesterday. Or maybe it was this morning. I think it late. Yes, I got it. I got it this afternoon. I was asked this morning. Um, so that that at that point, we didn't, we didn't, we certainly didn't have the app. We didn't have any of those comments when we when we issued the staff report 50 days ago. But she submitted those this basically the same comments. No, she submitted. Let me look at my the exhibit numbers. Um, she submitted exhibit 16 and snow. That's Yeah, 16 was hers. And maybe that was it. They were combined. But she did submit that exhibit 16 before this long before the staff report was issued, or I don't know before the staff report was issued. She resubmitted them as exhibits 48.

1:38:57 I think it's just labeled as SIPA is challenge in my documents, but she resubmitted them because they had gotten mixed up the paper pages got mixed up. But they were they were in the record before the the staff report was issued. So that's why I was surprised that there were no public comments. I had that note in my copy of the staff report is they were public comments, but they're not mentioned. Um, but I will hold the record open so everybody can address the comments staff applicant, anybody else. Anyway, on to another issue in the staff report on page three. Um, under public comments, it notes that

1:39:50 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will require a culvert and which will require an H P A from Fish and Wildlife. But exhibit 10 is a letter from Fish and Wildlife says that says an H P A is not required. So I think that may have come in. I don't know what the timing was, but I just wanted to clip. See if someone can clarify that issue because I think there's a condition that requires an H P A. I'm not sure, actually, we can ask the applicant, but we can also we can also after the applicant goes, we could also also ask our our violence. Aerial is here, too. Yeah, um, can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. I did right. I noticed. Miss Whitaker, can you state your name for the record? I am Ariel Whitaker, biologist with

1:40:48 Clark County Community Development, and I wrote to Fish and Wildlife about that and to get clarification. And they confirmed I think it was exhibit 10 or 11 that an H P A was not required. So yeah, it was a good 10, I think. Yeah, so they had. I think they they just have, like, somebody who kind of responds to those generally. And then I clarified and they confirmed that was not required. And there's an exhibit should be 10 or 11. I'll just be, uh, revise that statement in the staff report when I write my findings. Um, Miss Whitaker, since you're here, the VIIRS subdivision proposed improvements to 174th and 50th turn lane. I don't but I don't know some kind of improvements and was also the staff noted that H C's H C Z. I'm not sure

1:41:47 about that conservation. Something may be required for those improvements. I am this applicants required to make those same improvements if VIIRS doesn't do it first. So I'm assuming they would also have to get it. They have to consider whether an H C Z is required or determine. Is that correct? So, um, the H C Z means habitat conservation zone is associated with the stream. And so the VIIRS subdivision. This was a complicated one because the VIIRS subdivision is to the east of this. They share the eastern boundary, or it's to the east of this one. And so there's two wetlands that cross the boundaries on either side. So VIIRS had already had approval to fill a couple of the wetlands. These are really small wetlands, by the way. Yeah, I think we're talking about different issues here. I just want to clarify. I'm

1:42:45 familiar with what you're talking about with the wetlands that makes it onto the side that VIIRS is filling. But VIIRS is also the VIIRS applicant also proposed to construct certain improvements, 174th and 50th at that intersection, some kind of a turn lane improvement. And as I had to go back and look at that decision for something else, and I just happened to notice that the I think the condition there was something about that may require an H C permit, or I may have gotten the initials wrong, because improvements to that intersection to build that turn lane may impact a stream or whatever. Yeah, that project was having to do with a final wetland or habitat permit due to the widening turn lane that was going to be required off of 50th. Yeah, should this

1:43:45 development have that same requirement if they build that improvement? I didn't condition that, so I'm not really aware. Okay, maybe that's it was just a heads up. Yeah. Okay, thank you. That's what I needed. Okay. Appreciate it. And then concurrence, I have a, Mr. Carlo, the concurrency staff report exhibit 52 at pages four and five, I'm summarizing notes that the corridor, based on the staff, no, based on the applicant's traffic study, the corridors fail the volume to capacity measurement or standard, but because the intersections in those corridors are operating at acceptable levels of service, it passes

1:44:44 concurrency. So does that mean, I understand with, you know, traffic's, as I understand it, that means traffic's flowing through those intersections at an acceptable rate. So does that mean the volume capacity analysis is just wrong and it's overstating it or? For the record, this is Craig Cottle. It doesn't necessarily mean that the volume capacity is wrong. The volume to capacity ratio is used as a tool to understand how much volume a corridor, regionally significant corridor within the county is experiencing, but when we see volume

1:45:38 capacities in excess of 0.9, it's important to look at the corresponding intersections at the beginning and end of those corridors. So with the volume capacity that was in excess of 0.9, all of the level of service at the corresponding intersections were at an acceptable level, except for Northeast 179th Street and 50th Avenue and 159th Street and 72nd Avenue, which we requested a volunteer letter for Northeast 179th Street and Northeast 50th

1:46:36 Avenue in order to mitigate. Northeast 159th Street and 72nd Avenue was not required to provide mitigation because of Clark County Code 4350 020 G1C and that specifically gives two different criteria that need to be met and the first one of that criteria the proposed development adds at least five peak period trips were not met at that intersection so it was not required there. Five peak trips from this development? Is that correct? You mean five peak trips? Okay, thank you. That's what I understood as well, but I just want to make sure

1:47:32 everybody else did. Okay, I understand what you're saying now and that's what I assumed as far as the volume to capacity and the level of service, but your code 4350 020 G1A provides the maximum volume to capacity ratio for each roadway segment shall not exceed nine tenths, period, when measured independently for each direction of travel, period. It doesn't say anything about level of service at either end so I'm not sure how does how do you get there based on that language? I know I've seen this in a number of other case concurrency findings, but I never questioned it before. Right, yeah and it so if we take

1:48:26 Northeast 10th Avenue for example if you look at the trip assignments in the traffic study, they're not sending any trips or very minimal amount of trips through that corridor. So a big reason why the volume capacity is over 0.9 on the 179th corridor is because of all of the other in-process developments within your area. So it's not a direct impact from the 174th subdivision development. They don't have a full code in front of me, but if

1:49:21 they're sending trips through a failing corridor, I thought the code prohibited approval of the development in that case. Unless you know there's the five trips that you've mentioned through a failing intersection movement, but it I don't see that same for failing corridor. Well would it be would I be able to discuss this with my manager during the open record? Yeah okay I just wanted to raise the issue so everybody gets a chance to respond, but as I read that code section I cited 4350-020-G1A maximum volume to capacity ratio for each roadway shall not exceed 9/10 when

1:50:19 measured independently for each direction of travel period. It says nothing about level of service at the intersections at either end. I understand your analysis and the basis for your findings, but I don't see how that's consistent with the code language. So I look forward to explanations from all parties as their opinion of how that should be interpreted, but I just wanted to raise the issue. Thank you Mr. Kellogg. And I know I just mispronounced your name but sorry. I think that was the last question I had for staff. Oh just because it's right in front of me right now for all parties I would if possible in the future if you submit documents is it possible can you make them in a form

1:51:16 that is searchable and copyable. When I'm going through these online I will often see an argument or a finding or statement whatever I want to copy a section out so I can make sure I so I can include in my notes or in my decision or whatever. With Mr. Tellegen's letter exhibit 50 and a couple of other documents they weren't I couldn't copy it any text out of the document I couldn't search the document for if I go back later and I want to find where I came up with it somebody mentioned something. That's just an overall request in the future if possible. I'm not the technology expert but very most documents that I received that have been scanned I can search and I can copy text out of but there's there's several in this case that didn't no question they're just a request for the future. Thank you that's the only questions I

1:52:15 had for staff now is the applicants opportunity to testify and I'm not sure who's the applicants representative in this case because there's not enough space on my screen. There we go thank you. I think we're can you hear us? Yes. Okay this is Steve Marache with Landerholm I'm in the office of PLS engineering project and I think most of the presentation I'm gonna make tonight but I have Jason Taylor of PLS so if there's engineering questions or specific details I may refer to Mr. Taylor. My involvement in this application has been pretty recent but on the issue of concurrency my understanding is that the applicant initially proposed conditions to do the improvements that are now subject to the volunteer letter so their their failure was just in submitting the

1:53:13 right form which they've now submitted and so I believe that the concurrency determination when it's submitted in the open record period will be approval and therefore we're going to request approval of the application. Subject to the existing conditions in the staff report we are happy with the conditions and we're not requesting any changes and want to thank staff for their work on this and we agree with the staff report. As to the issue the examiner just raised with respect to the code section 4350 020.G.A we will want to submit post-hearing evidence on that. Now with Paul's briefing I will let the examiner know my belief is if the examiner interprets that to require denial of this application the examiner will have to deny every application along the 179th

1:54:12 corridor because they will I understand that that's why I want to know and that would throw the whole area in the moratorium and it's not just 179 I'm understanding for engineers that 503 doesn't meet the standard either so it would be throwing a significant chunk of the county in the moratorium. I understand but I have to apply the county code as it's written. My interpretation of the code is that the corridor issue is something that causes the county to pay more attention to concurrency at the intersections that's how it's always been interpreted and because of the long-standing practice of the county interpreting it that way it should continue to be interpreted that way. None of the developments that have been approved there's been about 1,100 units approved since the urban hold was lifted none of those could have been approved

1:55:09 you know if this was interpreted a different way and a number of the documents I submitted in the record today include a couple newspaper articles that describe the lifting of the urban hold and one of the four development agreements that was entered into with the developer for the M&H which is the one that's in this area there were also development agreements with Killian Pacific with Holt Holmes and with Terry Wollan and what those agreements say is that the county is going to lift the urban hold and those four developers are going to pay their TIFs early. Usually TIFs are paid every time a voting permit but those four developers agreed to pay their TIFs even before preliminary cloud approval there's a schedule that they had to meet and not only were they gonna pay TIFs but they paid $3,500 per watt surcharge which is an additional over the TIF and the county at that time also raised their

1:56:05 TIF for the area and the whole point of that was so they could do their 179th corridor improvements which the county has done some of those and some of those are planned to be completed in the next few years and one of the documents I submitted is from the county website that shows the various projects just sort of a list of projects and which ones have been completed and which ones are going to be completed. We've also submitted the 179th corridor plan and so I would submit that the whole purpose of that body of work that took place over a number of years and required cooperation between four large property owners and the county was for the express purpose of making the 179th corridor meet transparency and so if this code provision is interpreted to absolutely prohibit any development on the 179th corridor it kind of goes contrary to that all those

1:57:02 development agreements and the 179th corridor plan and all the planning and work that's gone in to you know make this area developable. I would also point out that the way the code is written if it's interpreted literally there is no possible way there's no conceivable set of improvements that would solve the concurrency problem because the way capacity is designed in the table that is right under that code section it says capacity is based on the number of trips per hour in the table based on the functional classification and 179th is a principal arterial that's the highest classification unless you want to turn it into a parkway like the Padden and so it has 1,800 trips an hour and that's your capacity you can't create any more capacity no matter what you do because that is what defines the capacity right there and so it's impossible to do any set of improvements that would increase the capacity the only way to increase

1:58:01 capacity would be either to change that table and increase that number or change the functional classification of 179th but the only the only classification the county has that's higher is Parkway so they'd have to turn it into a parkway so basically if the code is interpreted literally it just doesn't work it breaks down and makes no sense and I think there's a rule in law that if there's an interpretation that's nonsensical and and one that makes sense but maybe you know it doesn't do complete justice to the literal wording you go to the one that makes sense even if it's not the literal wording versus adopting a completely nonsensical interpretation because we just can't develop anywhere along hundred seventy nine period must we change the code I understand that's that's my argument on that I will obviously want to submit some additional evidence about how you know what effects across the county of this

1:58:57 code and anyway I think I basically outlined out our questions about my position I can move on to another thank you Mr. Morav go ahead so the other topic I want to raise this is SIPA appeal I think the examiners analysis is correct for whatever reason there was not to SIPA appeal and therefore it's too late to challenge SIPA at this point I think that's a jurisdictional issue so I agree with that I also had concerns generally about that I mean the SIPA appeal it appears it was written by an AI program and although some I think the issue about the concurrency that we just talked about was raised and that of course is is an issue an important issue that needs to be addressed but I think much of the rest of it is is really not making a lot of sense and I know that they cite case law but the cases the case of the citation is not accurate the

1:59:54 Aitken v. Clark County case and on page these pages aren't numbered but that case is referred to as being a growth management hearing support case from the Central Puget Sound which obviously it was not it was it was Western Washington hearing support case but beyond that the growth management hearing support looks at these things in a much different context than then we do here at developer you because they're reviewing comp plan changes so I'm not sure that it has any real applicability anyway and a concurrency issue obviously doesn't need to be raised as I think staff correctly pointed out that's not really a secret issue anyway that's an issue under the county's code so to sum up on the SIPA appeal it's too late there's no jurisdiction to hear it but even if there was jurisdiction I mean it's really not a SIPA appeal it's a concurrency issue and I think those can be addressed under the under the

2:00:53 concurrency findings in the final decision it was also comments submitted I think it was exhibit 57 or 58 just submitted yesterday about the zone change mm-hmm and those whether there was a substantial change in conditions and in response to that I submitted for the record your decision in the 90th street site plan final order which the reason I submitted that that was one of my cases and the same issue was raised there and we made arguments based on the housing options and actions study and I think those same arguments are applicable here and rather than getting into detail right now it's only had 20 minutes I'm going to refer to that final order that's in the record and I've also submitted the housing options an action study and that was that I've submitted

2:01:53 that into the record so that's all in the record and we can address that in further detail I think during the open record period and then the final issue I wanted to address is the one Steve Archer spoke about 4350 0 3 0 b 4 b 4 a and that code limits developments excuse me that have only one access to a hundred lots and this is an issue that I personally litigated three times now against mr. Hergesheimer and I submitted a number of the documents I think you've seen three times in this issue has gone in front of three three different Superior Court judges to in Clark County Judge Gregerson and Judge Banfield and and now one in Lewis County or see me not Lewis County Judge Evans your decisions were upheld all three times now two of those decisions are going up

2:02:53 to the Court of Appeals the Court of Appeals has not weighed in yet so we'll see what happens but I wanted to get those in the record because I'm anticipating another appeal to court and I want to have a full and complete record of the history when I when I get to court so that that's why I submitted all of that in in a nutshell 4350 0 3 0 b 4 b 4 a has been held numerous times not to apply to 174th because it's a collector and that provision only applies to local access roads so the hundred seventy-fourth is not issue now mr. Hurdesheimer is raising an issue with respect to 40th but the code that that code section what it requires is that if you want to have more than 100 lots you need two accesses and the subdivision does have two accesses that

2:03:47 acts accesses directly to 174th and then it also accesses over to 40th which then goes up to 174th and again 174th that the code doesn't apply to 174th but it would apply to 40th as a secondary access to the subdivision because 40th is not a collector 40th is a local access street now mr. Hurdesheimer raises a question whether 40th is a local access or is it a neighborhood circulator which is another type of a local access street but it has a slightly higher capacity it's double capacity to a regular local access street and we can submit from our engineers during the open record but the summary on that is that essentially the county typically decides during project review whether to require the road to meet the higher neighbors circulator standard based on

2:04:43 the number of trips being generated in the area and I believe the conditions of approval require us to meet that standard for all of our 40th improvements and we're not we're not objecting that we're agreeing to meet that standard but our engineer submitted into the record yesterday a memorandum where he has estimated the number of trips on 40th from all developments that have been approved even the ones that aren't built yet including beers but it's been approved as well as he's existing dwellings that use 40th as well as the proposed new trips from this subdivision and concluded that it was 1,300 trips total on 40th now that's less than 1,500 which is the design volume for a local access street and and therefore our analysis is even if we

2:05:34 apply 40 350 0 0 3 0 b 4 b 4 a to 40th it's gonna meet the standard because it's a secondary access it's not primary access we have a primary access that goes up to 174th so we have two accesses 40th is the second access and it's gonna function at least as good as an urban local access road because it's going to have 1,300 trips which is less than the maximum allowed on that road of 1,500 and so we believe that that code section is met with respect to 40th and that once any fourth it doesn't apply to one 74th and so for those reasons we believe the the application should be approved and we we welcome an extended open record period due to the number of you know issues and late exhibits that have been

2:06:31 filed and I believe that mr. Tellegen wanted 15 days from the day he gets the final concurrency memo from the county we have no objection to that when the time comes for setting an open record period and it sounds like you're gonna be on vacation so we've got we've got plenty of time to get stuff in before you get back and and then you can dig in and start reviewing so unless there's questions for me that concludes my opening remarks thank you I don't have any questions at this point is there anybody who'd like else who'd like to testify in support of this application if so please click on the raise your hand button not expecting anybody but just in case nope I'm not seeing anybody for support who wants to go first in opposition or with questions or concerns I please click on the raise your hand we have Heidi I oppose oh I hoping I'm pronouncing this correctly she's first and I will ID I'm unmuting you which

2:07:31 means but then now you have to unmute yourself okay can you hear me yes yeah perfect yes good evening my name is Heidi pozo po zz o my mailing address is 13 0 2 3 Northeast highway 99 suite 7 to 98 Vancouver Washington I live about a mile west of the proposed development and I hear that you've already considered my comments so you know that I've written a number of items the purpose of concurrency is to assure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate to serve that development at the time it is available for occupancy and use without decreasing service levels below locally established minimum standards this application is the latest in more than two dozen developer Commission traffic studies I've reviewed

2:08:30 from projects across the corridor documenting the same failures I was gonna talk a little bit about the SIPA comments my primary concern there was my comments weren't addressed and also the way that the timing worked on the staff report being issued incomplete with the recommended denial with that information being provided yesterday which was the end of the period for appeal I think is problematic and should be noted as a process issue on my concurrency analysis there are a number of issues but since we only have three minutes I just want to comment on the VC ratio for being cleared by intersections it's not in code as you noted but additionally that methodology of analysis is really

2:09:26 designed for signalized intersections so a red light causes the cars to fill up the road segment when the light turns green the cars move through and so it clears up the capacity issue on the segment with roundabouts they don't function the same way roundabouts continuously move traffic into the road segment so you don't have that mechanism of clearing so when you have a road segment issue it is a problem and I provided information on that from the highway traffic manuals so that's in some of my exhibits just to see that that's different with roundabouts which is what is modeled in the 2028 build out your the entire the entire future infrastructure improvements on 179th and

2:10:22 the i-5 interchange are modeled so these these future projections assume all of the infrastructure is built out as was discussed earlier you've also covered my request for extending the timeframe and so I there are a number of issues I'm gonna want to look at what else is being published and we'll probably have additional comments so in closing the concurrency code is designed to balance the interests of those who want to develop with those who already live here and the applicants own traffic study demonstrates that the pace of development has exceeded the capacity of the infrastructure so under the code the correct conclusion is denial thank you for the opportunity to comment thank you

2:11:13 okay Jason job was the next on the list so Jason you should be able to unmute yourself can you hear me yes great great thank you my name is Jason job last name is spelled job I live at three six one three northeast 168th Street Vancouver Washington my ask is simple you know and looking at all the data here I believe we should deny this application I speak with 54 neighbors who have formally signed an opposition at a website called safe 174 calm and really the two main issues concurrency and safety okay from from a concurrency standpoint I mean you have the reports I think that going back to I think what PLS was stating you know just because we've approved all of the previous developments doesn't mean we need to continue that process okay we actually do need to use what I do agree

2:12:13 with him is we do need to use common sense right if we are developing much faster than the infrastructure can support we need to slow that development down and the infrastructure needs to catch back up okay so my belief is that that we are gonna fail drastically on concurrency and that the infrastructure is not going to keep up with the growth on the second issue this is a really big issue for me it's safety and again it goes back to I know that there's a lot of arguments on this one but it goes back to one access for 300 plus homes I think PLS stated that that's not required for a collector 174th is not a collector I think there's a label on some map that says collector I could put a label on my house but it's not a collector it's 24 feet wide but you me 20 feet wide at best okay and so that road by itself you know if you use common sense as PLS stated it's not a collector and we should deny it based off of safety I know that there's many stories of a lot of neighborhoods who

2:13:13 went down this path and have one access and it didn't end end very well when there was a safety issue in the future so in closing I really want to state this there are two adequate grounds for denying this application concurrency is a problem and the big one safety is a problem I really you know don't want to get someone hurt off of this neighborhood because the roads blocked there's only one access fire trucks can't reach people I mean some if that happens someone's gonna be asked who approved this and why thank you thank you sir

2:13:52 okay so we have a next person is s thalberg but I'm probably sure I'm not pronouncing that correctly you should be able to unmute yourself now can you hear me yes hi this is Steve thalberg in the four creeks neighborhood association region and I have Heidi Heidi pozo already discussed that of the roundabout issue and different rules that apply to that I'm concerned that the the county has stated that the corridor mobility

2:14:46 facilitated with good intersection level of service but that excuse is not permitted by the code it was already addressed before forty point three five oh point oh two o g1 they they really need to keep with the code and not and not consider other things that they think may make sense but that don't follow the code intersection findings cannot substitute for corridor findings the code 43 50 0 2 0 f6 states that both funding and completion within six years need to be satisfied in order to qualify so if an improvement is funded but not

2:15:44 scheduled for completion within within six years it would not satisfy the code and if improvement is scheduled for completion within six years but not reasonably funded that too would not satisfy the code and currently neither of those are meeting the the code recommendations I just miss the Albert just a moment miss Davio the timer just reset was that yeah I made a mistake that's why I added the appropriate okay thank you okay they talked about the the road 179th as being a PR - for CB build-out classification which is basically four lanes on a bike but there are currently two lanes and no bike a pathway so therefore it would not meet the 1800

2:16:39 vehicles per hour capacity and it would be limited to the 600 to 800 and the projections are well above that those levels and none of those are projected to be reasonably funded or completed in the six-year timeframe the 179th and i-5 intersection isn't scheduled to happen until 2031 or later which is beyond the current timeframe and the applicant filed a commitment to match pre-development failing conditions but that's already failing and even if they meet those conditions it does not cure the failure so there's still a problem there so in other words the level of service must be met before any new

2:17:36 development is approved it's not adequate to meet pre pre development a level of service and the hearing examiner should make findings that reflect the full scope of the record rather than affirming or deny denial on a narrow narrow procedural ground alone we do recommend denial of the application okay thank you mr. Dalberg your timer has run out but I want to thank you you mentioned a neighborhood association or so I miss and I miss that what could you are you representing somebody else no I'm not I'm not representing the neighborhood association I'm an individual in that in this okay we have Brian Tellegen as our next

2:18:30 that's the fire Brian you should be able to unmute yourself thank you can you tell me mr. examiner I can thank you yeah thank you I just want to touch on a couple points not super big as you know I represent Dean Hergenheimer I was appeared before you a couple times before I wasn't going to go on to substantive issues tonight one thing I want to mention I heard you note earlier that documents were spent that you could not select text yeah you mentioned my letter in particular I wanted to let you know my my documents fully text searchable at least when I sent it into the county okay so maybe there's some sort of maybe a county thing yeah I just I wanted to raise it globally and I'll talk to the county after the hearing and see if we can fix that but thank you for letting no problem you know that and then I guess I just wanted to talk about the open record period and you know I had in my comment letter you know noted

2:19:24 that the the County Code requires the staff report yeah yeah yeah absolutely I heard you note and I appreciate that very much during the last hearing during the last project just before this one you had invited people to make individual requests I just want to let you know I would like there there is a lot of material on concurrency and stuff like that I haven't had an opportunity to review that sounds to me like mr. Dawson I think he said is going to review the applicant's submittal and then sort of weigh in on that it sounds like there might be a new opinion and so a I want to let you know I am going to be in a civil jury trial starting Monday through you know the fifth which and so 15 days would be next Thursday I was wondering maybe we could push it out to the 11th just to give me a little bit of extra time or alternatively if mr. Dawson is going to change the county's recommendation maybe that should happen

2:20:16 first yeah right and then have and then have 15 days after that point so I see predispose to do it hold it for two weeks and two weeks in a week given the volume and the delays and everything else yeah fair enough I it's a recommendation change yeah I just like to have two except at that point no I totally understand I appreciate you raising it and that's my what I'm predisposed to do at this point excellent thank you so much thank you mr. teller did any other raise hands okay I'm looking to see if we have anybody else who is raising their hand to testify I'm not seeing any right now hold on one second if anybody else wants to say anything please click on the raise your hand button now I'm not seeing any okay anything further from

2:21:14 county staff oh let's see only that Craig Cotto will be responding to any concurrency issues not myself sorry Alastair Dawson I didn't think you said like Mr. Cottle but never sure when I don't see a face there were a couple of concurrency issues but maybe Craig would rather address those during the open record period yeah I'm assuming so but if you want if you want to say something feel free but nothing further for me Craig Cottle here yeah I will be addressing all of the questions during the open record period okay thank you

2:22:06 applicants miss Morash I think you were the only representative the applicant to make them yes thank you I only have a one brief comment in rebuttal to be to the comments that were made by the opposition and that is relating to concurrency a number of people seem to say that you know these improvements on the hundred seventy ninth corridor we're talking about intersection improvements aren't going to be done by the time occupancy permits are issued and that's not the standard as you well know the standard is whether or not the improvements are funded and are reasonably likely to be done within six years of the final decision so I just want to point that that is the correct standard on open record given the magnitude of this this new issue about corridor concurrency I think we need more than two weeks happy to because I

2:23:03 will be gone so it doesn't affect anything yes we probably need more so I don't know if we can submit that during the second probably not people want to respond to it so I think we need at least three weeks for the initial yeah that's fine with me if you want for I'd be glad I mean I don't know what I'm gonna have to do to try to I mean you know this is it's basically a position where the code puts us in an imposter if the code is read strictly literally and that's how it's applied it kind of puts us in an impossible situation where the C under the volume and capacity is is defining code it doesn't matter you know nothing else matters other than what's the functional classification of the roadway and then the table says that's that you multiply that times the number of trips per hour in the table and that's your T and there's no way to change that it's the way the code is written no way to get more capacity for

2:24:00 corridor other than amending the code or chain aura or knitting your arterial Atlas so that you change the functional classification those are the only two ways that I can see to you know to add more capacity to increase the the denominator of that fraction and so I want at least a month to try to figure out what to do with this okay because it's it's obviously a significant problem that's going to affect the county not just this project so I want to get a hold of you know the deep and other you know other all the other traffic engineers and and and try to get a combined effort to try to figure out what we needed to solve this I'd like at least a month to do that okay I'm happy to allow that so what I would be predisposed to do is four-week open record for anybody to submit new testimony and evidence two weeks for

2:24:57 anybody to respond to during the whatever submitted during that first period and a week for the applicant's final argument does that work yes intelligent does that work for you it does could we do is that we just put those in real dates yes I will I just grabbed my calendar just a second I wanted to get confirmation before we yeah that sounds great and I really appreciate that thank you so much let me write it down before I forget and then I'll give you specific dates okay I'll hold it over four weeks so 1-4 till May 21st for anybody to submit new testimony and evidence on any issue for two weeks until June 4th for anybody to respond to whatever was submitted during the first

2:25:53 period no new issues can be raised during that second period and then a week for the applicant's final argument June 11th record will close I will try and get my decision out by the 25th of June all that's fine yeah yes anybody anything anybody received submits rather has to be received by the county by 5 p.m. on those dates again you could send it to mr. Davio or is miss Curtis on this one too was she the price yep okay mr. Davio or and or miss Curtis and that concludes our hearing thank you all have a good evening thank you mr. examiner

2:26:47 you