Cross_cutting

1:34:52 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, 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,

1:35:51 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, 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

1:36:47 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 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

1:37:45 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. 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.

1:38:40 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. 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,

1:39:38 on to another issue in the staff report on page three. Um, under public comments, it notes that 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,

1:40:37 can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. I did right. I noticed. Miss Whitaker,