Clark County Land Use Hearings

0:00 (upbeat music) - All right, we're live. - Okay, thank you. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the May 28th, 2026 hearing of the Clark County Land Use Hearings Examiner. My name is Daniel Cairns and I'll be presiding over tonight's agenda, which consists of a single item. It is Ausland Acres subdivision PLD number 2025-00112. I think there might've been another item set for tonight, but got switched to another evening. So Ausland Acres is the only item on tonight's agenda. If you're here for something else, communicate with the planner in charge of that case

0:59 to find out when it has been rescheduled for. Let me begin with a brief introduction to me and an explanation as to how the process is gonna work for everybody tonight. First of all, I and one other person, we serve by appointment from the Board of County Counselors to review and decide development proposals in unincorporated Clark County. We are both experienced land use attorneys and we live outside of the jurisdiction so we don't have any personal connections. We're required to provide an impartial evaluation of each of these items. And I believe that I am impartial with regard to this one tonight. I don't have any personal business or familial connection to the applicant or the owners or any of the parties that have weighed in on this item so far. But I know about the proposals, what I have gleaned from the record,

1:58 which I've had for approximately two weeks now. And if anyone has any questions or wishes to challenge my impartiality, feel free to do so during the public testimony portion of tonight's hearing. My job tonight is to take public testimony, but I'm also required to evaluate and review the application, all of the public comments, the staff report, all the various staff comments. And ultimately it is my job to decide if this proposal meets or does not meet the applicable approval criteria. Those are the standards that are in the Clark County development code that existed on the day this application came in. And those are the standards that control the outcome of the decision. I can't take into account any issues that don't relate to those approval criteria. I can't be more stringent than they allow.

2:54 I can't be more lenient than they require, but I'm required to fairly interpret the standards and decide if they have been met or not. And to just make that decision, I look to evidence in the record and the applicant and the opponent's arguments about those criteria and decide whether there's sufficient credible evidence in the record to demonstrate that those standards are met or can be met through the imposition of conditions. And if that evidence is in the record, I'm obligated by state law and the local code to approve the development. My decisions are the county's final decision in these matters, but they can be, my decision can be appealed by anyone who has participated. That appeal would go to the Clark County Superior Court through the Land Use Petition Act. To appeal one of my decisions, you need to participate,

3:51 either orally tonight or by submitting written comments before the record closes. And you need to raise before me any issue you wish to preserve for a subsequent appeal. And you need to present to me any evidence that you want me to take into account or that you might want to rely upon in a subsequent appeal. So all that has to happen while the record is still open. And so the open close part of the record is a very important distinction. I typically close the record at the conclusion of public testimony, but in this post pandemic era, we always leave the record open for at least one week following the hearing. So any of you out there tonight who wish to respond to a testimony that comes in tonight or to formulate more or different arguments, you can submit those comments for at least a week following tonight's hearing

4:49 by emailing them, regular mailing them, or hand delivering them to Mr. Kinsman, who is the staff planner on this item. Let me give a few procedural dos and don'ts for participating tonight in this WebEx internet-based platform. We will get a primer on how to function when I'm done with my comments from the staff planner. But the order of events will be first, we take testimony from the county staff. That would be a verbal rendition of the written staff report that was issued prior to tonight's hearing. After that, I'll take the applicant's presentation. Applicant, you can assume that I'm generally familiar with the proposal and I need to know a couple of things from you.

5:45 First of all, I need to know what is the most current form of this proposal with the latest revised set of plans, which according to my records is exhibit 71, the revised site plan for this, but I need you to confirm that so I and everyone else knows what the current configuration is. Secondly, staff has prepared a report, it's exhibit 76, and it goes through all of the applicable approval criteria and analyzes each of those and the evidence that the applicant has submitted in support of the application here. So I need from the applicant in your opening comments, if you have any changes, corrections, challenges, objections to any of the findings that are in the staff report

6:42 or any of the proposed conditions in the staff report. And I understand we have at least one memo from the applicant, exhibit 78 just came in dealing with concurrency findings and condition. So I need to know with specificity what corrections, changes, challenges you have to the staff report. And finally, a lot of times we'll get testimony, public testimony in these hearings in a form of opposition, nominally opposition, but a lot of people want to know how this development when it is up and running is going to impact them, how it's gonna affect the local stormwater, how it's gonna affect the transportation system, how it's gonna look, those sorts of functional things. And oftentimes the applicant is in the best position to respond to those public comments, those public objections. And so I would look to you applicant to keep track of those comments

7:42 as they come in in tonight's testimony and be prepared to respond to them in your final rebuttal this evening or in writing, written responses are very useful as well. So that's the applicant's presentation. After the applicant presentation, then anyone else in favor of the application can testify. Then anyone with neutral testimony or questions can testify. And then finally, the third category, anyone who is opposed can testify. So I'll take each of those groups in that particular order. After the opponent testimony is over, I will go back to the applicant for final rebuttal. In all of these cases, the applicant gets the last word. They have the burden of proof and I always, in state law always allows applicants to bear that burden by getting the final word in response to opposition testimony

8:40 So the applicant, I'll look to you to give final rebuttal tonight, but understand the record will be left open at least a week and you can do your final rebuttal in writing, in written form at the end of that open record period. So it's helpful to get verbal final rebuttal tonight because people are tuned in, want to have some sort of response to their comments, but also you'll have a written opportunity. After the applicant's final rebuttal this evening, I'll go back to staff to see if there are any additional or parting comments that staff has based on the testimony that comes in tonight. And then my typical habit, as I mentioned, is to close the record and take the matter under consideration. We'll keep it open a week, perhaps longer, depending upon people's need for additional time. When you give your testimony, if you need additional time to formulate your comments, you can ask for more than just that one week. We can talk about it

9:40 and schedule an open records sequence at the end. But if you want additional time, you need to make that request while the record is still open so that we, all of us can talk about it and decide what that schedule is. Let's see, as I mentioned, my decisions, if you want a copy of my decision, you need to let us know that by providing us your contact information so that we can get that to you. I usually issue my decisions in writing approximately two weeks after the record closes. So again, when the record closes, matters. When you testify, do so in that order I just recited. You will have to, when you come to each category of people, you'll need to raise your hand. There's a little raise your hand function here and you'll be called on and your microphone will be unmuted. Begin with your name and give me some notion

10:38 like where you live or where your property is relative to this development so I can understand better your comments and your concerns. Let me know if you represent somebody else so I understand who has a stake in the outcome here. If you have any evidence you want me to consider, make sure you submit that by way of an exhibit. Everything that comes in will be assigned an exhibit number, be placed in the record. We have a lot of public comments already in the record that have all been assigned exhibit numbers. For those of you wishing to testify tonight, it is super helpful for me as I evaluate everything in the record when it comes time to write this decision, if I have your comments in writing. So the written comments that are in are great. That's exactly what I need. I'm a terrible note taker. So if you're gonna be reading your testimony, submit a copy of it as an exhibit,

11:37 just email it to Mr. Kinsman and that way I won't make any mistakes about what points you are raising. And by the same token, if you have already submitted comments and you wanna testify tonight, testify about something that isn't in your written comments or hit the high points. You don't need to read your written comments or recite what you have already submitted. If you agree with testimony that someone else has made, you can just say, "Hey, I agree with so-and-so. Thank you very much." And I'll ascribe those points to you. Remember that you need to raise any issue you wanna appeal on in your written comments or in your verbal testimony tonight. You need to raise the specificity, any code issue that you believe applies and explain why you think it is not met.

12:33 See what other basic do's and don'ts here. I think that's about it. If you have any procedural questions going forward, feel free to ask those when the testimony's proceeding. So with that, I think it's time for a... Oh, we will be... We have quite a few public testimony comments. If we, since it's likely we'll have a lot of public testimony tonight, we're gonna limit public comments to three minutes maximum. So again, because there's a time constraint, you might wanna submit your comments in writing. Three minute comment limitation. The applicant gets a maximum of 20 minutes for your opening presentation. I don't know if you need that. Your application has gone through several iterations and it's pretty well baked. So I think that's it by way of introduction and we're ready for a primer on how to function on WebEx, if you don't mind.

13:32 Mr. Kinsman. - Yes, thank you, Mr. Examiner. Sorry, I was sending David Jardine a copy of something real quick. So let me get on my screen. Apologize for that. Okay, thank you, Mr. Examiner, for everyone participating in tonight's hearing. If you wish to testify about a specific agenda item, staff ask that you raise your hand so that we can gauge who wishes to testify. If you are a call-in user, you can dial star three. If you are a web participant, you need to click on the hand icon located in the lower right hand corner of your screen or next to your name in the list of participants. Here is a graphic showing where you may find the hand icon shown by the red arrows.

14:27 There we go, sorry. You may first need to turn on the list of participants. You can do this by clicking the participants button shown by the purple arrow. The hand icon locations are indicated by the red arrows. Once you have given your testimony, we would ask that you put your hand down. You can accomplish this action by either clicking the hand icon again or dialing star three again. We will also ask everyone to keep their microphones on mute at any time they are not speaking. I will show you how to do that in the next slide. Prior to the close of each agenda item, we will open all microphones for everyone in attendance to ensure that everyone who wants to testify has the opportunity.

15:26 Please be aware that any noise in your personal environment will be broadcast at this time. If you miss your opportunity to testify for some reason, the record on each case will be open for a period of time so that you can submit your testimony in writing. Finally, the chat function has been disabled for public records purposes. As I mentioned, we ask everyone to keep their microphones muted at any time they are not speaking. There are a few ways in which to mute yourself. If you are a web user and are using your computer for audio, you can simply click the mute button at the bottom of your screen or next to your name in the list of participants shown by the red arrows. If you are a web user and using a phone for audio, you can either mute yourself on your computer

16:25 or use your phone's mute capability. Phone only users can use the mute capability on their phone. We would ask that you stay muted anytime you are not speaking. Thank you, everyone. And with that, I will jump into tonight's presentation for Auslan Acres Subdivision. Good evening, Mr. Examiner, county staff, and the general public. For the record, my name is Joe Kinsman and I'm the land use planner for this project. The name of this project is, again, the Auslan Acres Subdivision. The case before the hearings examiner this evening is a request to divide 8.78 acres into 98 new single family lots within the R16 zone, utilizing the narrow lot standards.

17:24 As I said, my name is Joe Kinsman and I'm the review planner for this project. Alistair Dawson is the review engineer. Jason Noble reviewed this for the fire marshal's office and Mr. David Jardine and Craig Coddle reviewed this proposal for transportation concurrency. Tonight, during our presentation, staff will provide an overview and summary of the proposal, identify any major outstanding issues or concerns, and make our recommendation to the examiner. On the vicinity map, the subject property is identified by the two black dots. North is oriented to the top of the page. We can see on this map

18:21 that it lies southeast of Sunset Elementary, east of Northeast 72nd Avenue or Andreessen Road, and west of Northeast 94th Avenue and north of Paden Parkway. The zoning map provides a closer look at the parcelization of the subject and abutting lots. The site is highlighted in red. The site and surrounding parcels are zoned R16 with the exception of the east, which is zoned IL. There are other single family developments to the north, south, and west, and to the east lies the city of Vancouver's jurisdiction and the future site of their operations building.

19:16 This slide is an aerial view of the subject property with the subject property lines in red. In this view, we can see the surrounding developments in the area. We can also see Northeast 88th Street to the south, Northeast 92nd Avenue to the north, which is proposed to be extended into the site. To the east, we have Northeast 94th Avenue, and to the west, we have Northeast 91st Avenue, which currently dead ends at the subject parcel but is proposed to extend under this proposal, as we will see in the next slide. This slide shows the proposed plan for the site. On this plan, north is oriented to the top of the slide.

20:16 This view shows the extension of Northeast 92nd Avenue into the site, the extension of Northeast 91st Avenue, and the general layout and configuration of the proposed lots. - So that's exhibit 71, that's the revised plan? - Yes, sir. - Okay, thanks. - This time, staff will show photos of the site. This photo is 91st Avenue looking east onto Northeast 88th Street. This photo is 91st Avenue looking west on Northeast 88th Street. This photo is Northeast 91st Avenue looking north across Northeast 88th Street.

21:12 This photo is north across Northeast 88th Street into the site, and also showing the sign posting. This is from the current driveway onto Northeast 88th Street facing east to 94th Avenue. This is the current driveway on Northeast 88th Street facing west. Here we have Northeast 94th Avenue looking west down Northeast 88th Street. And now we have Northeast 88th looking south onto Northeast 94th Avenue. This is a photo of Northeast 88th looking north onto Northeast 94th Avenue.

22:08 And this is looking northwest into the site from the intersection of 88th and 94th. And this is southwest facing into the site across Northeast 94th Avenue. This is northwest facing into the site across Northeast 94th Avenue. And then we have looking north onto Northeast 94th Avenue at the intersection of Northeast 90th Street and 94th Avenue. This is looking south on Northeast 94th Avenue at the intersection of Northeast 90th Street. This one is looking west down Northeast 90th Street from Northeast 94th Avenue.

23:04 And this one's southwest facing looking into the site from Northeast 90th Street on the north side of the property. This is looking south at the pump station from the corner of Northeast 90th Street and 91st Place. - So the pump station is preexisting? - Yes, sir, yep. - That's a, whose is that, the city of Vancouver? - Clark Regional Wastewater. - Okay. - This photo is from the corner of 91st Place east facing towards Northeast 94th Avenue. And the pump station would be over here on our right hand side. And this is looking south into the site from Northeast 90th Street. And again, the pump station is right over here on the right hand side.

24:03 And this is looking southwest into the site on Northeast 90th Street.

24:13 And staff report comments on this case. The application submittal was received on November 26th, 2025. The application was deemed fully complete on January 29th, 2026. The notice of development application was issued on February 6th, 2026. And the notice of hearing date change was then subsequently issued on April 17th of 2026. Staff's recommendation to the hearings examiner was issued on May 14th, 2026 and is in the record as exhibit 76. There was no SEPA appeal and the SEPA is now finalized. And project issues with this case.

25:11 For a full list of issues brought forth by the general public, see the public comment section of the staff report known as exhibit 76 in the record. Some of the items within the staff report are as follows. Street width was brought up, parking and driveway standards that may prevent emergency services. The proposal adds additional traffic to an already constrained area. Additional traffic measures are needed. These are all comments from the public. The stormwater management and drainage was an issue that was brought up as well as ADA compliance for sidewalks and general sidewalk safety. Then we have ingress and egress points, current and future students and school capacity. And then we have a geotech report and seismic concerns.

26:09 Okay, and now we have the recommendation to the examiner and staff recommends this application be approved subject to conditions of approval identified within the staff report, also known as exhibit 76. And this concludes my presentation for this project. Staff will remain available for any questions. - Okay, thank you. There was a change in the CEPA determination. Wanna kind of give me the, tell me what happened there. - Yeah, so the staff report was issued one day late and the CEPA was finalized at 5 p.m. today. So it has not been appealed and is final. - Didn't it start out as a determination of non-significance and then was changed to mitigated determination

27:07 of non-significance based on DAP comments? - Let me look in the record real quick. I don't remember a notice being sent out for, I know, so DAP did comment 100% and that is within the staff report. But I don't see that we sent out a non-CEPA notice and then followed that with a CEPA notice, at least not in this case. I may be wrong, but I can dive into that a little bit deeper as well within the open record period. - Take a look at page 30 of the staff report where it talks about the change. The reason it strikes me as strange is that DAP submitted the standard set of comments.

28:05 In this case, this is a moderate to high probability mapped area for finding archeological resources. And a standard condition is that if any cultural resources, human remains are discovered during the course of development, all work has to stop. The county, DAP and the affected tribe have to be notified. That's a standard condition. I haven't really seen it added as a separate CEPA condition. It's a condition that's part of the normal land use approval. So is there anything different or weird here? Because the condition was dealt with differently this time with no apparent explanation. - Yeah, now that you say that, it completely refreshed my memory and reading the paragraph there as well. So yes, we did an MDNS on that. Sorry about that, because of the DAP comment, as you said,

29:05 and put that as a condition of approval within the final staff report. - Okay, and so the other thing that has come up, I've seen this in a number of proposals where people argue that the impacts of the project are warrant CEPA conditions, but the way the law works in the state of Washington is that CEPA mitigated determination of non-significance and CEPA conditions are only warranted if the local code and code chapters and ordinances are not sufficient to address the particular impact. So it comes up a lot when they're a wetland or riparian resources and people are very focused on those sorts of things and they say this is a CEPA issue. It's not because the county has very elaborate, detailed ordinances that address those issues

30:02 and therefore there's no need to go to CEPA as an additional layer of conditioning because the local ordinances address it. So in this case, are there any issues that you saw raised in public comments that are not adequately addressed under the county's transportation concurrency ordinance or the engineering standards or the development standards, the narrow lot standards? Is there anything, any issue that is not addressed there? - Not to my knowledge, no. Everything has been addressed within the final staff report. - Based on the code? - Yes, based on the code. The recommendation from DAP we felt was accurate based on their comment that additional or findings were,

30:59 that based on the archeological findings on an adjacent site that having an archeologist out onsite during the dirt work portion, but everything else is covered by code. - Okay, all right, I just wanted to pin that down. Okay, let's see, who is here on the staff side? I guess is Alistair Dawson, the engineer on this case for county review engineering? - Yes, yes, sir. - Is Alistair online? Any? - Yes, sir, I'm here. - Oh, great, thank you, welcome. - Thank you. - Anything on the engineering, development engineering side of this that you want to especially bring to my attention? - No, there isn't.

31:55 - Okay, yeah, in terms of the street design, stormwater, those sorts of issues, this is already in an urban area, so it's pretty well set, so I just wondered. - Okay, there were a lot of comments about the adequacy of the surrounding transportation system to accommodate the additional traffic. Who is the concurrency engineer on this for the county? Is that Mr. Jardine? - Good evening, Mr. Harrington's examiner, David Jardine, traffic engineering section manager. I'm standing in for Craig Cottle, the concurrency engineer on this project. - Okay, you're familiar with the project? - I, yes, and just one of the things that I understand was kind of a big deal was the folks in the area were looking

32:51 for additional traffic controls, specifically at like 88th Street and 94th Avenue. One of the things that was required by the city development, which is immediately across the street, the city has proposed to construct a signalized intersection at that intersection at 88th Street and 94th Avenue. As a result, one of the things that was evaluated

33:34 as a part of this development was that same signal and the applicant had volunteered to provide, to ensure that that signalized intersection was in place and operational prior to approval of the final plat. So I just wanted to point that out 'cause there was a lot of public comment that was talking about traffic control in the area. - So the signal will be installed by the developer for the project under city jurisdiction? - So the city development is required to construct it. If this development moves faster than the city and that signal is not up yet, this development has volunteered to ensure that that signal is constructed and operational prior to final plat approval. - What is the city project that's underway?

34:33 - It will be their operations center. - Oh, okay, so it's actual city facility. - That's correct, yes, sir. - Okay. And this is to install a signal at the intersection of 88th and 94th Avenue? - That's correct. - Okay. Okay, I did see a lot of concurrency concerns expressed in those comments. And so I just wondered if that improvement will address those concerns. And it sounds like in your view that does the trick. - For the immediate frontage, yes, absolutely.

35:32 - Any other issues that you saw raised that you want to provide any elaboration on? - Not at this time, but I am available for questions, but I'll leave most of the explanation work up to the applicant. It looks like they might've brought their traffic engineer. - Fair enough. Okay, anything else from the staff side of things? - No, sir, Mr. Examiner, nothing from me at this time. - Okay, then just stand by. I'll take the applicant's presentation now, please. - Wonderful. Good evening, Mr. Examiner, Scott Taylor with SGA Engineering representing the applicant. With me tonight in our conference room, I have members of the applicant's team and our legal counsel. We also have the traffic engineers on the call as well from Kittleson and can help answer any technical questions.

36:30 I'd like to start off by thanking staff and examiner for your time and efforts on this, and look forward to sort of working through all the questions and clarifications, open record period, and getting this one pushed through. And I think everything was explained quite well with the overview of the site, the photos, the explanation of the traffic signal with the city of Vancouver's operations yard. We are showing that in our plans, you know, our layout reflects that future signal. So our right of way and sidewalk and ADA ramps there. As you confirmed, and just to verify for you, exhibit 71 is this proposed plan that's on the screen. You know, we took access originally at the Northeast corner of the site off 93rd Avenue, and realized that taking access off 92nd Avenue to the West

37:30 would actually help with our block spacing and our block perimeter, and therefore meeting cross circulation standards outright. So the nice thing of this project, there are no requests for road modifications. There are no substandard, you know, deficiencies, you know, with cross circulation or intersection spacing, driveway spacing. So that's great. We have some other clarification points, and I have a couple edits for the staff report. And so for the pump station that is located in the Northwest corner of the site, that is Clark Regional Wastewater's pump station. And so it was confirmed that that is part of the property. It was legally described before, and our surveyor even thought it was not part of the site, but it was confirmed that it is part of the site, and it's just an easement currently. And so that will become a recorded tract. - You said it was in the Northeast. It's in the Northwest corner, isn't it?

38:30 - Yeah, I'm sorry about that, Northwest. So we are calling that sewer tract. It's approximately 6,000 square feet, and it will utilize the existing fence lines and the existing easement line that's recorded as that tract. And so then that could be, I think, quit claimed to the sewer district. They already have perpetual rights, you know, for access and maintenance of it and utilization. So that will take care of that condition of approval. Frontage improvements will be completed along that tract, and those are shown on the plans. So new street and curb and gutter and sidewalk. We are connecting into 91st Avenue, as was explained there at the Southwest corner. And that immediately turns east and becomes 89th Street. All the roads internal to the site are local access streets. And then there's a handful of shared driveways

39:29 that access up to four parcels. I think, you know, the DAP comments and this MDNS SEPA determination has been explained. You know, we agree with that findings and process. I reached out to Jessica Stone from DAHP about two weeks ago and she got back to me last week. So even though there's been three surveys done around this site and adjacent to the site, they still would like to see a little more survey work done. What they would like us to do is an archeological survey that fills in the blanks and fills in the gaps. And so the areas that were not covered with the three previous studies is what we will have applied archeological complete here in the following weeks. And so that'll be completed, you know, prior to construction plan approval. So that condition of approval will be taken care of and that MDNS, we agree with that.

40:28 You know, obviously there's no appeals to that. All right, so in the staff report, I have a couple items. I just found one more as we're talking and reading through. So on page nine, this is from staff's responses to public comments in the second paragraph. There is a concern for the existing degraded condition of Northwest 21st Avenue. That street name I believe is an old carry over from another project. I believe people are probably talking about 90th street on the North side. That one I think is one of the older streets. Staff could probably confirm for us which street they were referring to in this paragraph. - Okay.

41:26 - Northwest 21st Avenue is over in Felida, so. - Yes, I'm sure there are concerns about that one just not associated with this project. - Yeah, that was Felida Crest. - Okay, so that was one minor edit that I just noticed. We had reached out to staff and I believe this is what you referred to before as exhibit 78. And so the concurrency responses. So on page 26 at the bottom of the page under the conclusion, staff says in summary concurrency staff recommends approval of the development application with the following conditions. And then that next sentence I think got omitted. So this next sentence should read conditions A10 and D8. And is that what that exhibit says? I don't have that exhibit 78 in front of me.

42:25 - It is, Scott adds the email. - Yeah, perfect. So that piece sounds like it's covered. - Okay, any other comments on the staff report? - Yeah, so two more and they're related. And so in the conditions of approval, page 31, condition A1A. So on this one, the first conditions as removal, existing structures on site are proposed to be removed. These structures shall be removed prior to construction plan approval. That's a little early and not typical. Typically these structures should be removed prior to construction, but having them removed prior to construction plan approval seems earlier than it needs to be. I feel like this could be worded differently to just say removed prior to construction, or this condition could be placed in the B section of conditions that are prior to construction,

43:23 not prior to construction plan approval. - Okay, we'll see what Mr. Kinsman recommends for that. - Okay, and then related to that condition is back on page 43, condition E1C. Same language under the demo. The structures on the site shall be removed prior to construction plan approval. I would recommend that that just says removed prior to construction and strike plan approval. - Okay. And those were the only staff report edits that we noticed and would like to put on the record. And we covered the DAP comments, and I think staff has done well talking about the other items that have come up with this project. You know, the revised site plan. I feel that this is a better layout than connecting to 93rd Street and should help keep a little more traffic

44:23 away from 94th Avenue. The traffic signal going in at 94th Avenue and 88th Street is nearing its completion with reviews with Clark County, and so it's ahead of us. And so should be approved, I think, before construction plans are approved for this project. And so we're fine with the voluntary, you know, making sure that that signal is installed, you know, prior to our final plat. And I think that should definitely help alleviate some of the traffic congestion in this area. As part of our mitigation traffic recommendations, I think they're going to adjust some of the timing of the traffic light that is down at Patton Parkway and 94th Avenue. And by increasing some timing there, that should help also relieve some of this congestion between the two. - That's not a subject of any conditions on your project? - Not specifically, no. It was more discussions between our traffic engineer and the city and the county on designing

45:22 of this signal and function of this corridor. So that was just the other piece that should hopefully help alleviate, you know, some of the traffic flow in this area. - Okay, okay. And there were an abundant number of public comments. A lot of them dealt with traffic. They were not terribly specific, so it's hard really to pin a particular intersection on those comments. And is your read of those comments any other intersection or street segment implicated? - No, no, I think we've covered it. - Okay, and I see you did not specifically respond to any of the public comments, but Mr. Kinsman did address all of those that were in the record by the time the staff report was issued. I take it you concur with his response

46:22 to all of those comments that he addressed? - Yes, and we have some information prepared and wanted to get through the hearing this evening. And then if necessary, submit, you know, formal responses in the one week open record, so. - Okay, that would be useful 'cause, you know, for members of the public, they like, as I mentioned, this applicant is in the best position to respond to a lot of public comments. And so it matters to the public to hear what the developer, what the applicant has to say about their issues. - For sure, yeah. And one clarification point too that might not be obvious for people is, you know, 88th Street is also being widened similar to 90th Street. And so that will help facilitate, you know, smoother traffic flow and, you know, this new signal that's being installed as well with, you know, turn lanes as part of that, so. - Okay, all right, very good.

47:21 Anything else you'd like to add? - None at this time. We're available for answering questions and we'll take good notes for the neighbor's comments. - Perfect, thank you. Okay, with that, we'll switch to public testimony. Anyone out there wish to testify in favor of this proposal? Raise your hand. Anyone, Richard, you see? - No, sorry, I hit the wrong button. I know nobody's raising their hand for it in favor. - Okay, anyone with neutral questions or a neutral testimony or questions on this, neither for nor against? Raise your hand. - None. - Okay, anyone out there in Zoomland wish to testify in opposition to this proposal? Raise your hand.

48:15 - Yes, we have Jacob Weathers and I will unmute. Well, I'll send the, you can now, you should be able to unmute yourself, James. - Hello. - Jacob. - Jacob. You're good. - Okay. - I'm gonna start the timer as soon as he gives his address. - Okay. Okay, my address is 9917 Northeast 92nd Avenue, a couple of streets north. So good evening. My name is Jacob Weathers. I'm a nearby residents. Wanna speak here about the proposal. I think that, you know, it's been brought up that most of the trafficked items are been talked about, but the project, I think estimated about 700 daily trips, if that's correct. And so it sounds like some of those impacts

49:14 have been addressed, but there's also, you know, the new added apartment development across by Costco on the west side that will add some traffic to that area, which suggests that the corridor may be approaching its operational limits and then adding additional 98 attached units with multiple access points where it's concerned about, you know, congestion, queuing and intersections during the peak hours, especially there on 94th and Patton. - Okay, wait, could you tell me again where these, these are condos, multifamily projects, where is it going? - This project or the apartments? - Apartments you're talking about. - Yeah, it's gonna be on the east, east at the end of the 88th and it's behind the Costco.

50:13 I think that road is 72nd and that's a, it's a large apartment complex. - Okay, okay. And that, and so you're basically wondering if the traffic that is expected from that multifamily project was taken into account when the surrounding traffic system was evaluated for this project? - Correct. - Okay, we'll get an answer to that. I think the applicant's transportation engineer is on deck and can explain how the analysis was done and what all was taken into account. - Okay. - And then the couple of things I think was the, you know, it's gonna impact the Evergreen public schools having, you know, the apartment building

51:08 and as well as this 98 development, 98 units here. So I'm just concerned that that hasn't been taken account of for the schooling. It seems that we're already at a max capacity with, you know, the detached units, portables for those schools. And then, you know, it would propose maybe a lower density detached single home project instead to reduce those concerns. That's all I had. - Okay, we'll get responses to those things. Thank you. Who else would like to testify in opposition to this project? - Raise a hand, yeah, I see one. Go ahead. - Brad James is the next one on the list and I have just sent a request to unmute.

52:05 Brad, you should be able to unmute yourself. There you go. - Yeah, yeah, can you hear me? - Yes, I can, go ahead. - Yeah, so my wife and I live off of- - 86. - 86th Street. So our concern has always been the intersection with 94th and 86. It's difficult to get out of our neighborhood now. This has been just exacerbate that situation, especially when we have to cross traffic to make a left turn to get to the Patton Parkway. And so I guess not necessarily in opposition, but just in recognition of the added problem that this is gonna create and not having a good understanding at all

53:01 of whether or not a traffic light on 88th Street would help us or actually make it even more difficult for us to get out and we don't have any other way out. So also our particular neighborhood that this is the only exit out of our neighborhood. That's it. - Okay, we will get an answer to that. And this is your two blocks to the south of this thing, right? - Correct, yeah. - Okay, we'll get an answer to that. Thank you. - Thank you. - I saw someone else, Laurie and Christie Davis raised a hand. Are they next, Richard? - Yes, they are next. - Okay, go ahead. - Well, it's gonna take me one second here. There we go.

54:00 Now they should be able to, Laurie and Christie should be able to. - Yep. Hello, good evening guys, everyone. Hi there. So I just have some questions. - Could you introduce yourself for the record, please? - Yes, thank you. I'm Laurie Davis and I reside at 9105 Northeast 90th street, which is immediately adjacent to 9115 Northeast 90th street and where the Clark regional wastewater pump station is presently located and where they also had undergone, they acquired a new easement in 2020 to expand and install industrial pressure vessels. - So you're right west of that pump station property. - Northwest, exactly, yes. - Okay. - I'm the most westerly neighbor. - Got it. All right. And what's your concern?

54:59 - So my concern is there's been some challenges between us and Clark regional wastewater district. And I pulled extensive public records regarding a recent project with the district here and have identified that there is a geotechnical report that indicates that the soils are class F liquefiable soil based upon a core sampling by a firm called Shannon and Wilson out of Lake Oswego. And they have identified a liquefiable layer in between 28.5 and 54 feet below the ground surface. - So this is a geotech report for that pump station property? - Correct, it is a site specific and the core sampling was conducted at 9115 Northeast 90th street. And my concern, I'm not here to complain or necessarily be anti-development or what have you, we're not necessarily opposed to those things, but our concern is making sure that the record is complete.

55:59 Our challenge that we also identified is that the geotechnical firm that completed the geotechnical report for the Auslan Acres subdivision currently at present according to the board of professional engineers and land surveyors does not have a certificate of authorization to operate in the state of Washington. - That's interesting. - And it's very interesting and you can verify that. Consequentially though, the sampling that they did, the sample was conducted at 14 feet. The ground sampling or the groundwater is at approximately 18 feet, but they only dug to 14 feet and they classified it as Class D stiff soil. And so our concerns here is that one, we presently have seismic soil with industrial equipment that is presently six feet from our home

56:59 and however much the setback is gonna be for the new homes that are gonna be constructed. But I just want to make sure that that seismic soil is addressed properly. And then in addition to that in 2017, there was an un-remediated 300,000 gallon wastewater spill at the Auslan Acres subdivision or the proposed subdivision that was not reported to the Department of Ecology as required by state statute of Clark by Clark Regional Wastewater District. Our challenge that we have is that they excavated near our home and created a breathing hazard for my spouse that we are now ongoing treatment for. And we are concerned because we have confirmation from the wastewater district that they have not done any further soil testing and they didn't do any form of remediation while disturbing that soil that can create bio aerosols.

57:57 Because in our area, of course, there are bacterias that are more resistant because of our temperate climate that can survive for decades. - If I could kind of interrupt. - Yes, please. - The points you're raising about this spill are really unrelated to the approval criteria that I have to evaluate as to whether to allow these lots to be created. - Okay. - This developer didn't cause this. It's not on this property. - It is on this property. It is on this property. - But it doesn't relate to any of the approval criteria. And so it's something that this developer, this property owner didn't do. And so I'm struggling to connect it to any of the criteria that I apply in deciding this case. - Right, so the owner of the Osland Acres, they permitted the easement for the wastewater district to be on. And now they're talking about going ahead

58:57 and doing a quick claim deed. I'm assuming to isolate that liability and it'll allow the project to go through. But the issue is, is that the soil, they discharged the full 300,000 gallons of wastewater at the Osland Acres site, where it is being excavated. So whether or not that's a planning issue, I'll let you guys determine that. But it is also, to me, it seems like it is a critical area because there is proof and documented proof that it hasn't been remediated. And there is a closing letter that was supplied to the Oslands by the wastewater district, strictly to just state that this is for you in the event you want to have a future property sale. That letter wasn't provided back to the Clark County or back to Clark County. So they went ahead and just closed out all those-- - Notice to future property owners. - Correct.

59:56 - Okay, what was the size of the discharge? How many gallons did you say? - Self reported, it was 300,000 gallons, but I did pull the SCADA historian record as well. Based upon their estimate, it was a 13 hour outage from their sensor. And they were estimating approximately 321 gallons per hour or per minute that was draining. However, the average before and after when the system is actually fully functional was closer to 900 to 1,000 gallons per minute. So that estimate has never been investigated by the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology also does not have record. Only a few thousand gallons is all that they have record of. - So I guess, I mean, this is not a county issue. This is, I mean, the county regulates the creation of new lots and that's what this application before me is.

1:00:55 You know, if, you know, these notice requirements are for future property owners, whether it happens or not, again, it's not, it doesn't pertain to any of the approval criteria that I review. And if there was a lapse in regulatory oversight, that's an ecology issue. And so again, it's the point, I get the point, it's an issue for you and it could be an issue for future property owners who buy lots in this development, but it doesn't relate to any of the standards that I administer and decide as to whether allow these lots to be created or not. - And I guess that's where the conflict is, is because where you have a property that is of this question, then what measures are there to protect the public from the development? - Well, there may be measures, but they're not anything that I administer.

1:01:54 I'm a creature of code. My authority is limited by what the code allows and that's not among them. - Sure. And I'll add grace to that and that's a fair comment there. I guess other than that, then, you know, our biggest concern, you know, we're just introducing that to the people that are here for the hearing. However, the geological hazards though, based upon, you know, 40.430, I just wanna add that the county has also tried to address that it's mapped as class C, but the title 40 code under 40.430 also states that where the maps and the definitions conflict, the definitions shall prevail. And so we have a geotechnical report that has not been submitted to the county because the wastewater district suppressed that report from going to the county. And I believe I have provided that in my public testimony so that you have record of what the seismic conditions are. And I'm not sitting here saying that we want to have

1:02:53 this project closed down, but we just want to be provided proper assurances because it's also not fair to the public to have 98 homeowners come in and buy something that they think is on stable ground when it's not. - Fair enough. Okay, we'll see what the applicant says. - All right, thank you. - Okay, thank you. Who else out there wishes to testify in opposition? Raise your hand. - Let's see. Right now I'm not seeing any more. Let's give it one more second. Oh, there we go. Alison Ward. Alison, you should be able to unmute yourself now.

1:03:43 (whispering) - I apologize, can you hear me now? - Yes, go ahead. Introduce yourself first, please, for the record. - Yeah, Alison Ward, and I live just down the road off 80th Street at 8104 Northeast 94th Street. I do want to say we are in agreeance with getting a traffic light at the end of where 88th meets down there. I know traffic gets pretty backed up in the morning times on my way to work. I do have a question to that. You mentioned widening 88th Street. Is that all the way from east to west, all the way to Andreessen, or how far is that going to go? And I'm just wondering, are we going to be intruding onto people's property and taking away a lot of their land right there? Are we going to be taking down all those trees just to widen the road? So that's kind of a concern of mine. And then also too, I know, I think Joe mentioned

1:04:42 multiple times that these homes are going to be single family homes, but from the land use hearing form, it says townhomes that are attached. So I was just like clarification on what the differences of that is for these new homes going in. Yeah. - We'll get an answer to those questions, yes. - Okay, and then just one more question. Just, I was just wondering why the applicant themselves isn't on this call and there's other people speaking on his behalf. Just wondering why, you know, he's not here to join and speak for this big project because, you know, members of the community, we're here, we're using our time to be here and we don't have people speaking for us, it's just us. So just wondering why the applicant himself isn't here. - It's a free country basically, but also I'm sure the applicant would not have a very intelligent response to some of these more granular technical questions that people have.

1:05:40 - I mean, neither do I, you know, I just don't have the money to pay for people to speak on my behalf. - But he does, and so that's why you have engineers and planners here to respond to some of these things. Those are the people that you want to provide those answers. Generally, your garden variety developer is, this is not what they do, they're the money people. - Yeah, I'd rather just go straight to the applicant, but those are all my concerns and questions. - Okay, thank you. Anyone else out there wish to testify in opposition? Go ahead and raise your hand. Understanding that you have the opportunity for at least a week following tonight to submit any written comments that you have. - Not seeing any right now. - Okay, all right, with that, I'll take the applicant's final rebuttal.

1:06:37 - Good evening, Scott Taylor again, sort of representing the applicant. We actually have the applicants here in our conference room this evening as well, and they're also online, so their whole team is in the call. And a very hands-on group, you know, HSR is a local company that has done lots of projects and the support, you know, increased new communities and always going by the book, you know, with the codes and following the rules. So appreciate everyone's comments. I'll try and go down the list here and sort of answer them in order. And then also I would like to have my traffic engineer, Chris Bremmer with Kittleson chime in and help answer some of the technical transportation questions. So first off, sounds like there's some new apartments going in over by Costco. The traffic engineer could talk to those. Those do seem like they're little ways away.

1:07:36 There was a second question about schools and school enrollment, and we reached out to the school district and got a letter from them confirming that students ride the buses to the middle school and high school, but they're all in the walking distance, you know, for sunset, and then we confirmed with staff that there is a safe walking and existing sidewalks that go north and west and connect to the Sunset Elementary directly. And so there's a safe walking route for students to walk there. On student enrollment-- - Scott, Scott, but the school district didn't in this case, and I've never really seen it comment on school capacity. And I see-- - No. Yeah, they used to make some comments on that when we would get these school letters, but they stopped doing the capacity or enrollment number portion. You know, it's just known by code that they are built to accept all new students that come into their districts.

1:08:36 As needed, they create new bus stops or additional capacity with portables or school improvements. And then, you know, our school impact fees that we pay all go to those systems to help purchase more land or do more school improvements or increase busing. And so the enrollment piece, you know, is a continuous evolving part all across Clark County for all the school districts. So yes, they're expecting, you know, this project now that we've reached out to them, you know, eight months ago and told them that it was coming. They gave us their initial feedback on busing and safe walking routes and which schools these kids will go to. So they will react and respond accordingly to these new students as they're coming in and make sure there's capacity for them at the three schools. So that's pretty stand schooling. Anything else you would add to that, Mr. Kerns or?

1:09:35 - No, that's my experience and observation also that school capacity is not a county issue. There isn't a criterion in the code about it because schools and school districts, it's entirely their management issue and they're obligated by state law to provide the service. And that's under state law, what the impact fee paid by developers goes to increase capacity. So it's a concern for a lot of existing homeowners in the area with kids, but it's a school district thing. - Correct, yes. - This is what I've seen over the years, okay. - Thank you. So to continue on answering some questions, our traffic engineer will talk about the 86th intersection and 94th Avenue.

1:10:31 Ms. Davis made comments on the pump station and challenges working with Clark Regional Wastewater and some of their past reports and past site work. Our engineers that worked on our soil study deemed that the soils are adequate for the subdivision construction. I don't believe other subdivisions in this area are as part of county code that they're required to look at those very deep subsurface soils that aren't traditionally looked at for subdivisions. For us, the main requirement is groundwater and looking at groundwater being at least five feet below your infiltration system. And so that's what our geotechs tested for and studied. The licensing of our geotech and their engineer that stamped the report is all in good standings.

1:11:31 We're not aware or can we really speculate on any past spills or other comments that were made. We can reach out to Clark Regional Wastewater and have them provide some feedback on this, I think, in our one week open record. We did have discussions with Clark Regional Wastewater a couple of weeks ago and just inquiring about their pump station and what they knew as far as the easement versus them owning the land. The county required that we put this pump station into a tract or on its own separate lot. And so I mentioned earlier at quit claim, that is just one method on how to transfer property to another owner. And so that was one concept we had on how we create a tract for the sewer pump station and then that could be dedicated or claimed, deeded to Clark Regional Wastewater. It could also be kept in ownership with HOA

1:12:31 or some other group, but it still will always have the easement and perpetuity to Clark Regional Wastewater. It makes sense that they would own that piece of property as well. So we still think that quit claim would be a appropriate method to transfer that after the final plot. But I think that's our solution for now is sort of reach out to Clark Regional. I know they've got a lot of back and forth over the years with the neighbor and their pump station and challenges with historic work there. So I'd like to use that as in the open record period to provide some feedback from Clark Regional. - Okay, these are all slab on grade type houses, are no basements, is that right? - Yeah, there'll be crawl spaces, but no basements. So traditional spread footings with, you know,

1:13:27 there could be slab on grade, it's not as common. - Okay. - So yeah, short stem walls that are the foundation walls. And so I think typically they have to be about three feet tall minimum. So, you know, to answer another question that Ms. Ward posed is, you know, these are single family attached homes. We are using the townhouse code that's allowed in this zone. And so along with townhouses, there's also narrow lots is another code section that we're be held to. And so, you know, providing guest parking and some other narrow lot requirements because these lots are less than 40 feet wide. And so townhomes is a term a lot of people don't fully understand. It's obviously a narrower home than a traditional single family ranch. And so, as you can see on the plans, there's some of these are three homes wide, some are four and some are two,

1:14:26 but they are all on their own separate lots. And so there are opportunities for future new home ownership opportunities. So there's no condos taking place or no site plans like apartments. So these are technically single family attached homes. We are also widening 88th street along our frontage. So it's pretty much what's shown here in the site plan. So along the entire Southern frontage from 91st Avenue to 94th Avenue is where we'll be widening the street and adding sidewalk. To the West, there's existing wider street and sidewalk. And then as you continue further West to other properties that are undeveloped, there are, you know, portions where the road is narrower. And so we will not be widening anything further to the West offsite, just along our frontage. - Okay. - So, and then we'll add, you know, street trees as shown in the plan there and the planter strips

1:15:26 and then curb and gutter. And there's no parking allowed on 88th or 90th streets and all street parking would be internal to the project. So I think that answered most of all those questions. I would like to open it up to Mr. Bremer from Kittleson to talk about some of the traffic questions. - Sure, go ahead. - Thank you, good evening. This is Chris Bremer from Kittleson. Let me just pause and make sure, can you hear me okay? - Yep, I can. - Okay, great, thank you. So again, Chris Bremer from Kittleson. I'm the engineer record for the traffic study and prepare that. I wanted to briefly respond to some of the comments and Mr. examiner, I'm trying, I'm going to point you to some specific elements of the traffic study for your reference and code citations. And I'm also gonna try to translate it to layman's terms so that everyone understands what I'm talking about. So if you have questions at the end, I would certainly pause and happy to loop back

1:16:25 on anything that I don't answer to your satisfaction. I'm gonna start. - Just to be clear, the original that you're referring to the original traffic study that was part of the application? - Correct. - Okay, so that for those of you out there in Zoom land, it's exhibit one, tab L. So that's the binder of application materials that started this whole process included in that binders, this traffic study that Mr. Bremer is referring to. - Thank you. - Go ahead. - So I'm gonna begin with Mr. Weather's question about what we call in process developments, other developments that are approved under construction, things like that new apartment project that was referenced on the west side of Costco. Referring you to page 20 of the traffic study, there is a list of all the approved developments that we accounted for. This list was provided by Clark County staff and included seven different projects in the area.

1:17:25 And in addition to that, we put a growth factor or annual growth on top of it. Specific to the Costco apartments, those were the apartments by Costco. Those were not directly included from their traffic study. That was not a project identified by county staff. And honestly, that's not unusual. It is a distance from the project and county staff go through and call the ones that have direct impacts on our intersections. So the seven that we specifically included, and then we use that annual growth rate to account for additional trips, which are happening, people going through neighborhoods, using the collector and arterial system, but not specifically tracking every single development in the county. So to my understanding, we have accounted for everything within the traffic study as requested by county staff, but we do not have a line item in there for the apartments next to Costco when you look at it.

1:18:21 Turning now to Mr. James' questions/comments about 88th Street, the new traffic light going in there, and then more specifically 86th Street. 86th Street, we've addressed in a few pages in the traffic study. As Mr. James noted that that neighborhood on the east side of 94th Avenue has only one way in and out today at 94th and 86th. This is described on the bottom of page 16 of our traffic study. And that neighborhood has potential for access to the east, but none of those roads have been connected. There's physically barriers to prevent connectivity to the east. So they are solely reliant on 86th and 94th today. I appreciate that it is a difficult intersection to make a left turn out of that neighborhood. We did conduct an analysis of the intersection

1:19:21 and found that both during the morning and evening peak hours, as has been alluded to, it is difficult to make a turn out there. From an Osland Acres proposal perspective, there is not a basis to require mitigation of this development at the intersection. And Mr. Examin, I'll refer everyone to page 28 of the traffic study where we go through a detailed breakdown of what I'm about to explain. But fundamentally there's two reasons why Osland Acres is not required to mitigate that level of service condition. One is the intersection of 88th Street is not regionally significant on the County Arterial Atlas. What that means is that it's basically a local street and the level of service criteria for the County does not apply to it. That's related to County Code Section 40.350.020.G.1.C.

1:20:18 And I'm reading that really quickly. It's in the traffic study, so you don't have to all write it down. It's documented in there. But for one, it's not a regionally significant intersection. The second reason why Osland Acres doesn't have to mitigate it is because the approach that is failing is that left turn movement from the side street of 86 onto 94th. And the Osland Acres project will not add left turns to either side street approach. The County Code criteria would speak to the need to mitigate it if we added more than five peak hour trips to the approach, which we don't. And so that's, again, 40.350.020.G1.C. All that said, that's the code-based response. Then there's the human response of I get that it's difficult to get in and out of there.

1:21:14 And we do think that the changes that this project's helping bring to bear in terms of the infrastructure investments will help the residents of 86th Street. And there's really two aspects of that will help. One is the new signal that will be installed at 88th and 94th. That will create a metering effect of southbound traffic on 94th where today people just come down the corridor southbound and they basically don't have to stop for anything southbound until they get to Patton Parkway. And so that fairly continuous flow of traffic during the peak hours makes it difficult to get out of the side streets simply because there's not a lot of gaps in the through traffic. Having that signal at 88th Street now and stopping traffic and serving movements there will start creating some more gaps in southbound traffic that will then benefit the 86th Street residents. The other piece, and this comes back to something you'd asked earlier as we talked about in our traffic study,

1:22:14 potential signal timing changes at Patton Parkway. And there's a discussion and recommendation in the traffic study that speaks to coordinating with county staff to explore signal timing changes, particularly during the morning peak hour. What we were seeing in the field is a little before eight to a little after eight in the morning, some of the local schools hit where their peak arrival period happens and there's a very significant queue southbound on 94th Avenue waiting for the signal at Patton. Since we made those recommendations, the county's actually implemented some signal timing changes and really reduced that warning queue issue. So there's some near-term benefit that has been realized and what will further happen as the new signal is installed at 88th and 94th is those two signals will be able to communicate with each other. We will be installing what you'll see in the conditions of approval as a traffic signal interconnect.

1:23:14 Those two signals will be able to work together and the county will be able to better manage some of the queuing and things that happen out there as a result of this additional infrastructure being put in. Staff mentioned that the signalization is a condition of approval if the city hasn't gotten there first. I can tell you both the city and this applicant are working together to share the cost of that signal. As was mentioned earlier, the signal design is well underway. We're anticipating the signal design approval in July of this year and certainly will be in place before any site-generated trips from home occupancy is happening. So bottom line, we've done the best we can within the code constraints and the ability of any one project to proportionally contribute and believe that we've met all the code criteria related to transportation. That was a lot of information and it concludes what I wanted to say, but if you have questions,

1:24:11 I'm happy to back up and revisit any of the above. - No, that is pretty comprehensive and I would refer people who are interested in traffic, which appears to be a lot of people. Your traffic study, exhibit one to this record, tab L is the study. One question I have is, I know I've seen this survey and these applications of a regionally significant impact at intersections. What was the diameter radius of that search ring for impacted regionally significant intersections? - Yeah, a great question. So for this project, in any project, that radius is determined based on the trip generation of the site. And in this case, a two mile radius was required. - And what's the trip generation, additional vehicle trips and the PMP?

1:25:08 - That's found on page 24 of the traffic study and it is 55 PMP car trips. That'd be in table six of the study. - Okay. - Two mile radius, okay. That covers a lot of the questions I saw coming up, 88th Avenue Street widening. Okay, I think that covers the questions that I have notes of. - Okay, well, I will leave it at that. I will just, for your reference, page five has the documentation. Again, page five of the traffic study on the two mile radius and why that radius if anyone's interested in going further in the weeds. Otherwise, I'll pause. Scott, is there anything else you or anyone wanted to say? - Not for the traffic stuff. Thank you very much, Chris.

1:26:06 - Okay, Scott, anything else you wanna add by way of final rebuttal? Understanding you'll have the written opportunity later on. - No, I think we've covered everything at this point. And so we really appreciate everybody's input. And believe that we have satisfied all the code requirements for this project. So thank you again. - Okay, I'm gonna turn to staff at this point to see anything that staff has heard they'd like to weigh in. We've seen Mr. Jardine has been quiet and now maybe his time to weigh in a bit since you're familiar with the concurrency in this project, Mr. Jardine. - Good evening, Mr. Herring's examiner, David Jardine, traffic engineering section manager again.

1:27:01 So I concur with the overview that Mr. Bremer had put together there. It is the study radius for the traffic study is or was two miles, and that is based off of the concurrency code that outlines the different radii or radiuses, however that's pronounced, based on the trip generation for the development. So one of the things that I might add to the explanation with regard to in process, Mr. Bremer also mentioned a growth rate for the county. It is 2% per year background growth rate and that like Mr. Bremer was talking about

1:27:59 does account for trips to and through the area that may be beyond that two mile radius or some of the developments that are smaller in nature. The 2% per year background growth rate is a pretty aggressive growth rate. So just trying to pick up all the trips we can and make sure that they're accounted for even though you may see developments like the apartment occurring, that background growth rate was put into place to account for those types of developments.

1:28:43 I think that's it for me unless you have additional questions. - No, it's just always good to hear from the county concurrency as to how the requirements work, how your review works, and what issues, data impacts are taken into account in these developments. So that's a very good input you provided. - Thank you, sir. - I guess one question I have, maybe this is Mr. Dawson County Engineering, the soil liquefaction issue that was raised by Ms. Davis relative to the pump station site, does that factor into the county's requirements for development? - Alistair Dawson Development Engineering again.

1:29:41 So I know that there was a brief discussion. This specific site did not have the leading indicators to trigger a full review of 40.430 for map geologic hazards onsite. I do believe, I'm speaking off the top of my head, is that I do believe that the liquefaction was very low to low. It is addressed in the geotech report, even though I didn't ask for it specifically. So I think that the applicant has met the intent from the county side as far as the report goes, and as far as how they deemed and classified the liquefaction of the site. So it was addressed. - So when you say it was addressed, is that in the geotechnical infiltration testing report?

1:30:39 - It was in the original application, yes. - Okay, so that's exhibit one, tab H, the geotech infiltration report. And that pertains to the soil's capacity to infiltrate stormwater, but also gets to somewhat these issues. I think that was-- - Yeah, it's the overall soils report that includes infiltration, but not specifically infiltration only. - Yeah, I think it's page four and five is what we're seeing afterwards. - In the geotech report? - Correct. Yes. - So tab H.

1:31:34 - Okay, I think that covers the issues that I saw arise during the public testimony. I guess, Mr. Dawson, anything else that you heard come up in testimony today that you want to comment on? - Nothing further. - Okay, Mr. Kinsman, do you hear anything? - Yeah, just one thing to address. Mr. Taylor brought up the conditions, A1A and E1C, and the verbiage of the, I think he said prior to construction, the county doesn't, staff doesn't have any objection to changing the verbiage to at construction

1:32:34 as opposed to, yeah. - Okay. All right. - That is all that I have, sir. - Okay, thank you. So I didn't hear any requests for additional time, but I assume that people will want to take advantage of the one week open record that we have, which takes us to, we're into June at that point. So today is Thursday the 28th, so the first Thursday in June is the fourth. So the record will remain open for the submission of any written comments by anybody, that's comments that are relevant to the project and the approval criteria. Those should be submitted by, be received by Mr. Kinsman no later than 5 p.m.

1:33:33 on June 4th. Is that the correct time, Joe? - That is correct, yep. - Okay, so you can hand deliver it, regular mail it or email it, but it has to be received by 5 p.m. on the 4th of June. After that, the applicant has an additional seven days until June 11th at 5 p.m. to provide final written rebuttal to everything that's come in up to that point or nothing. Sometimes applicants will weigh final rebuttal, but I think it's warranted in this case just to wrap things up. Joe, do you anticipate any need for further staff written comment during this open record period? - Not at this time, no. - Okay, so I'm looking for any, and any of you who testified tonight, if you wanted to submit additional comments, feel free to do so.

1:34:33 Anyone who's out there just listening, as I mentioned, written comments are, that's a particularly useful form for me and the other hearing examiner that when it comes time to sit down at the kitchen table and write the decision, if we've got your comments in writing, bullet pointed and we can notate those, it's a very useful tool as we go to evaluate these issues. Okay, with that, we'll leave the record open for, as I mentioned, public comment until 5 p.m. June 4th, applicant's final rebuttal, 5 p.m. June 11th. Does that sound acceptable to everybody out there by way of a concluding process at the end of the 11th, the record will close and my decision will issue approximately two weeks later. How does that sound to people out there? Any objections?

1:35:29 - Sorry, Scott, just a side note. If you do come down in person as the examiner had mentioned, and you're bringing it in physically in person, the permit center closes at 2 p.m. So, submitting after that. - The traffic that I'm wearing? - Yes, so 2 p.m. on the day of, otherwise you can submit it digitally at any time prior to five. - As long as it's received in time. Okay, fair enough, good warning. - Yep. - Okay. - So we agree with the one week and one week timing you've laid out, but you can't. And then your decision two weeks later, that was gonna be my only question. So that's typical. So we appreciate clarifying that and are on board with it. - Okay, very good.

1:36:29 With that, that concludes tonight's item. Record remains open and it also concludes tonight's hearing. I thank all of you for listening, for participating, weighing in, please stand by. The show is not over yet. Thank you very much and good night. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Topic	Confidence	Timestamp	Keywords
building_development	direct	0:34	plat, concurrency, Subdivision, infrastructure, zoning, density, subdivision	View
building_development	direct	17:05	plat, concurrency, Subdivision, infrastructure, zoning, density, subdivision	View
building_development	direct	34:27	plat, concurrency, Subdivision, infrastructure, zoning, density, subdivision	View
building_development	direct	44:46	plat, concurrency, Subdivision, infrastructure, zoning, density, subdivision	View
building_development	direct	57:18	plat, concurrency, Subdivision, infrastructure, zoning, density, subdivision	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	2:13	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	4:22	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	7:34	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	11:06	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	12:58	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	25:14	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	46:47	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	1:02:42	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	1:31:39	public testimony, public comment	View
cross_cutting	cross_cutting	1:35:05	public testimony, public comment	View
wildlife_habitat	direct	29:48	stormwater, riparian	View

Clark County Land Use Hearings

Documents

Agenda

Slides / on-screen documents

Discussions