All right. We're live.
>> Okay. Thank you. Good
morning. Good evening everyone.
Welcome to the May 28th, 2026
hearing of the Clark County
Land Use Hearings Examiner. My
name is Daniel Keirns, and I'll
be presiding over tonight's
agenda, which consists of a
single item. It is Oslund Acres
subdivision PLD number
2025-00112. I think there might
have been another item set for
tonight, but got switched to
another evening. So Oslund
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 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 going to work for
everybody tonight. First of all,
I and one other person we serve
by appointment from the Board
of County councilors 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, 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 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. I can't be more
lenient than than they require.
But I'm required to fairly
interpret the standards and
decide if they have been met or
not. And to make that decision,
I look to evidence in the
record and the applicant and
the opponents 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
are the county's final decision
in these matters. But they can
be. My decision can be appealed
by anyone who has participated
in 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 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,
closed 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 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 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 do's 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, it'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.
First of all, I need to know
what is the the most current
form of this proposal with the
latest revised set of plans,
which according to my records,
is exhibit 2071, the revised
plan 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 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
the 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 going to affect
the local stormwater, how it's
going to affect the
transportation system, how it's
going to 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
as they come in in tonight's
testimony, and be prepared to
respond to them in your final
rebuttal this evening or in
writing, you know, written
responses are very useful as
well. So after 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. So the applicant
I'll look to you to give final
up 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 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, you can ask for more
than just that one week. We can
talk about it 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. Again, when
the record closes matters. When
you testify, do so in that
order I just recited. You will
have to. When we 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 of like
where you live or where your
property is relative to this
development. So I can
understand better your comments
and, and the, 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, 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 going
to be reading your testimony,
submit a copy of it as an
exhibit. Just email it to Mr.
Kinsman and that way I won't be
I won't make any mistakes about
what points you are raising.
And by that same token, if you
have already submitted comments
and you want to testify tonight,
testify about something that
isn't in your written comments
or, you know, 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 want to
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. Let's 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 is
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 going to limit public
comments to 5 or 3 minutes
maximum. So again, because
there's a time constraint, you
might want to 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,
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,
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. And. There we go. Sorry.
You May 1st 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.
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. Final.
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 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 any time you are
not speaking. Thank you
everyone. And with that, I will
jump into tonight's
presentation for Oslund 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 Oslund
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
R1 six zone. Utilizing the
narrow lot standards. 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 Cogdill
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 that it
lies southeast of Sunset
Elementary, East of northeast
72nd Avenue or Anderson Road,
and west of northeast 94th
Avenue and north of Padden
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 R1 six, with the
exception of the east, which is
zoned I L. 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. 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 North
east 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. 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. This time.
>> 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.
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
80th Street facing west. Here
we have northeast 94th Avenue
looking west down north east
88th Street. And now we have
northeast 88th looking south
onto northeast 94th Avenue.
This is a photo of northeast
88th looking north on to
northeast 94th Avenue. 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. And 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. 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.
>> The pump station is
preexisting.
>> Yes, sir. Yep.
>> That's who's is that city of
Vancouver?
>> Clark regional wastewater.
>> Okay.
>> And 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. And this is looking
southwest into the site on
northeast 90th Street. 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. And there
was no Sepa appeal and the Sepa
is now finalized. And project
issues with this case. 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
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, and we have ingress and
egress points. Current and
future students and school
capacity. And then we have a
Geotech report and seismic
concerns. Okay. And now we have
the recommendation to the
examiner 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 seabed
determination. I want to kind
of give me the. Tell me what
happened there. This.
>> Yeah. So the staff report
was issued one day late and the
CPO was finalized at 5 p.m.
today. So it is not been
appealed and is final.
>> Didn't it start out as a
determination of
non-significance and then was
changed to mitigated
determination 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 did calm it
100% and that is within the
staff report. But I don't see
that we sent out a non Sieanna
notice and then followed that
with a Sepa 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. 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
Sepa 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
yes explanation.
>> Yeah. Now that you say that,
it completely refresh my memory
and reading the paragraph there
as well. So yes, we, we did an
maps on that. Sorry about that
because of the DAP comment, as
you said, and put that as a
condition of approval within
the 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 Sepa conditions. But
the way the law works in the
state of Washington is that
Sepa, a Sepa, mitigated
determination of
non-significance and Sepa
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 in when there are
wetland or riparian resources.
And and people are very focused
on those sorts of things. And
they say, this is a Sepa issue.
It's not because the county has
very elaborate, detailed
ordinances that address those
issues. And therefore there's
no need to go to Sepa 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 Concern
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 was accurate based on their
comment that additional or
findings were that based on the
archeological findings on an
adjacent site, that having an
archeologist out on site 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 Alastair Dawson, the
engineer on this case for
County Review Engineering?
>> Yes. Yes, sir.
>> Is Alastair 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.
>> 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 there were a lot of
comments about the adequacy of
the surrounding transportation
system to accommodate the
additional traffic is who is
the concurrency engineer on
this for the county? Is that
Mr. Jardine?
>> Good evening, Mr. Haines.
Examiner. David Jardine,
traffic engineering, traffic
engineering section manager.
I'm standing in for Craig
Cogdill, the concurrency
engineer on this project.
>> Okay. You're familiar with
the project?
>> I. Yes, and just one of the
things that that I understand
was kind of a big deal was that
folks in the area were looking
for additional. Traffic
controls, specifically like
88th Street and 94th Avenue,
one of the, one of the things
that was required by the city
development, which is
immediately across the street,
the city has proposed to to
construct a signalized
intersection at that
intersection at 88th Street and
94th Avenue. As a result. One
of the things that that was
evaluated as a part of this
development was that same
signal, and the applicant had
volunteered to, to provide to
ensure that that signalized
intersection was in place and
operational prior to prior to
approval of the final plat. So
I just wanted to point that out
because there was a lot of a
lot of public comment that that
was talking about traffic
control in the area.
>> So that the signal will be
installed by the developer for
the project under city
jurisdiction.
>> So the city's 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?
>> It it will be their
operations center.
>> Oh, okay.
>> So it's actual city facility.
>> That's correct. Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
>> So and this is a signal 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 was that
improvement will address those
concerns. And it sounds like,
in your view, that that does
the trick.
>> For the immediate immediate
frontage. Yes, absolutely.
>> Any other issues that you
saw raised or you want to
provide any elaboration on?
>> Not at this, not at this
time, but I am available for
questions, but I'll leave most
of the explanation. Work up to
the applicant. They look it
looks like they might have
brought their traffic engineer.
>> Okay. 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. I'd like
to start off by thanking staff
and the 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 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 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 is just an
easement currently. And so that
will become a recorded tract
with.
>> You said you said it was in
the northeast. It's in the
northwest corner, isn't it?
>> Yeah. I'm sorry about that.
Northwest. So we're calling
that sewer tract. It's
approximately 6000ft². 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, quitclaimed 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 that access up to
four parcels. I think, you know,
the DAP comments and this MD
and s CP determination has been
explained. You know, we agree
with that. Findings and process.
I reached out to Jessica Stone
from DHP 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 this
site, they still would like to
see a little more survey work
done. What they would like us
to do is a 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 MD and S, we agree
with that. And 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 carryover
from another project. I believe
people were probably talking
about 80 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.
>> Northwest 21st Avenue is
over in Florida.
>> So yes, it's I'm sure there
are concerns about that one,
just not associated with this
project.
>> Yeah, that was that was
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 got omitted. So this next
sentence should read conditions
a ten and d eight. And is that
what that exhibit says. I don't
have that exhibit 78 in front
of me.
>> It is. Scott. Yeah, that's
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 A one a. So on this
one the first condition says
removal. The 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, 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 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 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 Padden 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 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 of
this signal and function of
this corridor. So that was just
another piece that would
hopefully help alleviate, you
know, some of the traffic flow
in this area.
>> Okay. Okay. And in the there
were an abundant number of
public comments. A lot of them
dealt with traffic. There were
not terribly specific. So it's
hard really to pin a particular
intersection on those comments.
And is your your read of those
comments any other, you know,
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 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
because, 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
turn lanes as part of that.
>> So okay. All right. Very
good.
>> Anything else you'd like to
add?
>> Not at this time. We're
available for answering
questions and we'll take good
notes for the neighbors.
Comments.
>> Perfect. Thank you. 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.
>> Nope. Sorry, sorry. I hit
the wrong button. I know
nobody's raising their hand for
in favor.
>> Okay. Anyone with neutral
questions or test or a neutral
testimony or questions on this,
neither for nor against raise
your hand.
>> None.
>> Okay. Anyone out there in
Zoom land wish to testify in
opposition to this proposal?
Raise your hand.
>> 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. Blue Jacobs.
>> Jacob. You're good.
>> Okay.
>> I'm going to start the timer
as soon as he gives his address.
>> Okay? Okay. My address is
9917 northeast 92nd Avenue. A
couple streets north. So good
evening, my name is Jacob
Weathers. I'm a nearby.
Residents want to speak here
about the proposal. I think
that, you know, it's been
brought up that most of the the
the traffic 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 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 the
corridor may be approaching its
operational limits and then
adding additional 98 attached
units with multiple access
points raises concern about
congestion, queuing and
intersections during the peak
hours, especially there on 94th
and Padden.
>> Could you tell me again
these are condos, multifamily
project. Where is it going?
>> This this project or the
apartments?
>> The apartments you're
talking about?
>> Yeah, it's going to be on
the east east at the end of the
88th, and it's behind the
Costco. 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, okay. And then the
couple things I think was the,
you know, the it's going to
impact the evergreen public
schools having, you know, the
apartment building. 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, 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. Raise your hand, I see
one. Go ahead.
>> Brad James is the next one
on the list, and I have just
sent a request to unmute 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, I
live off of 8680 sixth Street.
So our concern has always been
the intersection with 94th in
86. It's difficult to get out
of our neighborhood. Now. This
is going to just exacerbate
that situation, especially when
we have to cross traffic to
make a left turn to get to the
Padden Parkway. And so I guess
not necessarily in opposition,
but just in recognition of the
added problem that this is
going to create and not having
a good understanding at all 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 that 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. Okay. We'll get an
answer to that. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> I saw someone else, Laurie
and Christy Davis raised a hand.
Are they next, Richard?
>> Yes, they are. Next.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> It's going to take me one
second here. There we go. Now
they should. They should be
able to. Laurie and Christy
should be able to 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
North East 90th Street, which
is immediately adjacent to 9115
North East 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?
>> So my concern is, 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 54ft 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 North East 90th Street.
And 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. Our
challenge that we also
identified is that the
geotechnical firm that
completed the the geotechnical
report for the Oslund acre
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 the sampling that they did.
The sample was conducted at
14ft. The ground sampling or
the groundwater is at
approximately 18ft. But they
only they only dug to 14ft 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. And however much the
setback is going to be for the
new homes that are going to 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 Unremediated
300 000 gallon wastewater spill
at the Oslund Acres subdivision,
or the proposed subdivision.
That was not reported to the
Department of Ecology as
required by State Statute of
Clark. Bye. Clark. Regional
Wastewater District. Our
challenge is 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 that
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. Because in
our area, of course, there are
bacterias that are more
resistant because of our, you
know, temperate climate that
can survive for decades.
>> If I could kind of interrupt.
Yes, please. It's the point
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. I mean, 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, the owner of
Oslund acres, they permitted
the easement for the wastewater
district to be on. And now
they're talking about going
ahead and doing a quitclaim
deed to, I'm assuming, to
isolate that liability and to
allow the project to go through.
But the issue is, is that the
soil they. They discharged the
full 300 000 gallons of
wastewater at the Oslund acre
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 it's to me, it
seems like it is a critical
area because that there is
proof and documented proof that
it hasn't been remediated. And
there is a closing letter that
was supplied to the Osbournes
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.
>> Notice to future property
owners.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. What was the 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're 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
1000 gallons per minute. So
that estimate has never been
investigated by the Department
of Ecology. They. 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. You know, if you
know, these notice requirements
are for future property owners,
whether that happens or not,
again, it's not doesn't pertain
to any of the approval criteria
that I review. And if there was
a, a lapse in regulatory
oversight, that's a D that's an
ecology issue. And so I, again,
I, I, 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, 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
of this question, then what,
what measures are there to
protect the public from the
development?
>> Well, I there may be
measures, but they're not
anything that I administer. I'm
a creature of code. My
authority is limited by what
the code allows, and that's not
among them.
>> Sure. And I and I'll I'll
add grace to that. And that's
that's a fair comment there. I
guess other than that, then,
you know, our biggest concern,
you know, we 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 want to add that
the county has also tried to
address that. It's a. 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 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 anymore. Let's give
it one more second. Oh, there
we go. Allison. Ward. Allison,
I just you should be able to
unmute yourself now.
>> I apologize, can you hear me
now?
>> Yes. Go ahead and introduce
yourself first, please. For the
record.
>> Yeah. Allison Ward and I
live just down the road off
88th Street at, what, 8104,
North East, 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
Andreasen, 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 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 would just like
clarification on what the
differences of that is for
these new homes going in. Yeah.
>> We'll get we'll get an
answer to those 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.
>> 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
those are the people that you
want to provide those answers.
Generally, your garden variety
developer is, 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 a
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 applicants final
rebuttal.
>> Good evening, Scott Taylor
again. So 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 in
the call and a very hands on
group. You know, HSR is a local
company that has done lots of
projects and that 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 answer them in order.
And then also I would like to
have my traffic engineer, Chris
Bremer, 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 a little ways
away. There was a second
question about schools and
school enrollment. We reached
out to the school district and
got a letter from them
confirming that students ride
the busses to the middle school
and high school, but they are
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 is a safe walking route
for students to walk there on
student enrollment.
>> Scott. But the school
district didn't in this case,
and I've never really seen it.
Comment on school capacity. And
I know school.
>> Yeah, they used to make some
comments on that when we would
get these student 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 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, you know,
purchase more land or do more
school improvements or increase
bussing. And so the enrollment
piece, you know, is, 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
it was coming, they gave us
their initial feedback on
bussing 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 standard schooling.
Anything else you would add to
that, Mr. Keirns or.
>> No, that's my experience and
observation also that it's this
is not a candidate capacity.
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 increased
capacity. So it's a concern for
a lot of existing homeowners in
the area with kids. But it's
it's a school district thing,
correct? Yes. 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, miss Davis, you
know, made comments on the pump
station and challenges working
with Clark Regional Wastewater
and some of their past reports
and past site work. You know,
our soil, our engineers that
worked on our soil study, you
know, deem 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 sub surface
soils that aren't traditionally
looked at for subdivisions. You
know, for us, you know, the
main requirement is groundwater.
And looking at groundwater
being, you know, at least five
feet below your infiltration
system. And so, you know,
that's what our geotech looked
at, tested for and studied the
licensing of our geotech and
their engineer that stamped the
report is all in good standings.
We're not aware or can we
really speculate on any past
spills or other comments that
were made? You know, 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. County
required that we put this pump
station into a tract or on its
own separate lot. And so I
mentioned earlier, a quitclaim,
you know, that is just one
method on how to transfer
property, you know, 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, you know,
deeded to Clark Regional
Wastewater. It could also be
kept in ownership with the HOA
or some other group, but it
still will always have the
easement in perpetuity to Clark
Regional wastewater. It makes
sense that they would own that
that piece of property as well.
So we still think that
quitclaim would be a
appropriate method to transfer
that after the final plot. But
I think that's our solution for
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,
you know, work there. So I like
to use that as in the open
record period. Provide some
feedback from Clark Regional.
>> Okay.
>> These are all slab on grade
type houses. There are no
basements. Is that right?
>> Yeah. They'll be crawl
spaces, but no basements. So
traditional spread footings
with you know, 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
miss Ward posed is, you know,
these are single family
detached 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 40ft
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,
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
detached 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
off site, just along our
frontage.
>> Okay.
>> So and then we'll add street
trees as shown in the plan
there, and the planter strips
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 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 Bramer from
Kittleson. Let me just pause
and make sure. Can you hear me
okay.
>> Yep I can.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. So
again, Chris Bramer 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 going to 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'll certainly pause and happy
to loop back on anything that I
don't answer to your
satisfaction. I'm going.
>> To 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, the binder of
application materials that
started this whole process.
Included in that binder is this
traffic study that Mr.
Brammer's referring to.
>> Thank you.
>> Go ahead.
>> So I'm going to begin with
Mr. Weathers 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. And in
addition to that, we put a
growth factor for 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
that 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. Turning now to
Mr. James question slash
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 is. 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 86 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
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 Auslan Acres
proposal perspective, there is
not a basis to require
mitigation of this development
at the intersection. And Mr.
Examiner, 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 Aslan
Acres is not required to to
mitigate that level of service
condition. One is the
intersection of 86th 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 dot G
dot one dot C, 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 Acres doesn't
have to mitigate it is because
the approach that is failing is
that left turn movement from
the side street 86 onto 94th,
and the Aslan 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 .350.02 0G1C1. 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. And we do
think that the, 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
Padden 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 88th Street
now and stopping traffic and
serving movements there, will
start creating some more gaps
in southbound traffic that will
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, potential signal timing
changes at Padden Parkway. And
there's a discussion and
recommendation, 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 till 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
Padden. Since we made those
recommendations, the county has
actually implemented some
signal timing changes and
really reduced that morning
queue issue. So there's there's
some near-term benefit that has
been realized. And what will
further happen as the new
signal is installed at 88. The
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.
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 this
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 occupancies happening.
So bottom line, we've we've
done the best we can within the
code constraints and in 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 concludes
what I wanted to say. But if
you have questions, I'm happy
to back up and revisit any of
the above.
>> Know that 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 these. This survey in
these applications of
regionally significant impact
intersections, what was the the
diameter radius of that search
ring for impacted regionally
significant intersections?
>> Yeah. 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 it what's the
trip generation. Additional
vehicle trips and the PM peak.
>> That's found on page 24 of
the traffic study. And it is 50
5 p.m. peak hour trips, that
being table six of the study.
>> Okay, two mile radius.
>> Okay.
>> That that covers a lot of
the questions I saw coming up
88th Avenue Street widening.
Okay. I think that 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 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.
>> Okay, Scott.
>> Anything else you want to
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 going to turn to
staff at this point to see
anything that staff has heard
they'd like to weigh in. I've
seen Mr. Jardine has been quiet
and now maybe his time to to
weigh in a bit. Since you're
familiar with the concurrency
in this project, Mr. Jardine.
>> Good evening, Mr. hearings
examiner. David Jardine,
traffic engineering section
manager. Again. So. I concur
with the with the overview that
Mr. Bremer had put together.
There it is the the the study
radius for the traffic study is
or was two miles. And that is
based off of the concurrency
code that that outlines the
different radii or radiuses.
However, that's pronounced
based on the trip generation
for the development. So the 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, 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, and make
sure that they're accounted for,
even though, you know, you may
see developments like the
apartment occurring, that
background growth rate is, was
put into place to account for,
for those types of developments.
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 how
the requirements work, how your
review works and, and what,
what issues data impacts are
taken into account in these
developments. So that's a very,
very good input you've 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 Miss Davis relative
to the pump station site. Does
that factor into the county's
requirements for development?
>> Alistair Dawson development,
engineering again. 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 .434 map geologic
hazards on site. 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. 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?
>> 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 what we're
seeing.
>> In the Geotech report.
>> Correct? Yes.
>> Schrater.
>> So Tab H.
>> Okay.
>> 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 wanted
to comment on?
>> Nothing further.
>> Okay. Mr. kinsman, do you
hear anything?
>> Yeah. Just one thing to
address. Mr. Mr. Taylor brought
up the conditions a one A and
E1C and the verbiage of the. I
think you said prior to
construction, the county
doesn't staff doesn't have any
objection to changing the the
verbiage to at construction as
opposed to. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right.
>> As 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 for 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. 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 has to be received by 5
p.m. on the 4th of June. After
that, the applicant has an
additional seven days till 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 waive 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. Anyone
who's out there just listening,
as I mentioned, written
comments are that's a
particularly useful form for me
and the other hearings examiner
that, you know, 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
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
you people out there? Any
objections?
>> Just said.
>> Sorry, Scott. Just a side
note. If if you do come down in
person as, as the examiner had
mentioned, the and you're
bringing it in physically in
person. The permit center
closes at 2 p.m. So submitting
after that. Yes. So 2 p.m. on
on the day of. Otherwise you
can submit it digitally at any
any time prior to five.
>> As long as it's received.
Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Fair enough. Good morning.
Yep. Okay.
>> So we, we agree with the,
the one week and one week
timing. You've laid out. Mr.
Keirns. So and then your
decision two weeks later, that
was going to be my only
question. So and that's that's
typical. So we appreciate
clarifying that and are on
board with it.
>> Okay. Very good 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