Okay. We're live. Okay. I'll go
ahead and call to order this
hearing on March 26th, 2026 for
Clark County land Use. My name
is Joe Turner. I'm the county's
hearings examiner. I'll start
with some brief announcements
and a summary of the process
that we'll follow. So everyone
understands how you can
participate in the hearing
tonight. I start by saying I'm
not a county employee. I'm
licensed as an attorney and
trained as a planner. I serve
under contract to the county
council. I say that so, you
know, you're getting an
independent review of the
applications before me tonight.
My role as a hearings examiner
is to conduct public hearings
and make decisions about
certain land use matters in
Clark County. In making those
decisions, I'm required to
apply the county's existing
laws. I am not a policy maker.
I don't have the authority to
vary from or change the laws.
And if you think that the laws
need to be changed, you can
work with Board of
Commissioners or excuse me,
County Council and the Planning
Commission to do that. The
state law requires that these
applications be judged based on
the laws. In effect, when the
applications were filed. As a
hearing examiner, I have to
provide an unbiased decision
maker. I believe I am unbiased
with regard to the applications
before me tonight. I have not
had any pre-hearing contact
with any of the parties
regarding the substance of the
applications, and I don't have
any interest in the subject,
property or any of the
surrounding properties. However,
anyone has the right to
challenge my impartiality, to
argue that I'm biased in one
way or another. And you could
do that when it's your
opportunity to testify.
Procedure will follow. We'll
take the cases one at a time in
the order that they're listed
on the agenda, starting with
the cell tower and then the
cemetery for each case. I'll
start by asking staff to
summarize their staff report
copies for that case, copies of
which are available on the
county's website. I will note
that staff are not the project
proponent. They're merely
providing an overview of the
project and the process and the
laws and their opinion as to
whether or not the applicable
approval criteria are met. The
applicant, who is the project
proponent and has the burden of
proof to show that the
application complies with the
applicable approval criteria,
will then have the opportunity
to present their proposal and
respond to the staff report.
Then, if anybody else wants to
testify in favor of an
application, they may do so.
And then anybody who wants to
testify in opposition or with
questions or concerns about
that application. Once everyone
has had an initial opportunity
to testify, I will give staff
and the applicant alone the
opportunity to respond to the
testimony that was offered. If
those responses include any new
evidence, I will give everyone
a chance to respond to the new
evidence. Otherwise, I'll close
the public portion of the
hearing without taking any new
testimony from the public. So
if there is no opportunity for
further public testimony after
the the applicant testifies. So
you need to make sure you get
all of your issues into your
initial presentation or during
the open record period, which
we'll discuss in a minute.
Anyone with an interest in this
application may offer relevant
oral or written testimony, but
please speak only when you're
identified for that purpose. It
is important that all parties
make their best case to me. My
decisions are final for
purposes of the county, but may
be appealed to the Superior
Court. However, the court
generally will not allow new
testimony and evidence on
appeal. They'll decide any
appeal based on the record
before me. So if you feel it's
important that myself or any
future decision maker know
something about either of these
applications, you need to make
sure it gets into the record
before me in order to preserve
your right to appeal. You or
someone expressly representing
you must testify orally or in
writing before the close of the
record. And in order to raise
an issue on appeal, someone
must have raised that issue
before me with enough
specificity that people can
understand what the issue is.
If you feel you need more time
to prepare, you can ask me to
hold the record open or
continue the hearing. If I hold
the record open. You'll have
the opportunity to submit
additional written testimony
and evidence before I make a
decision. If I continue the
hearing, we'll come back and do
this again at a later date. As
I noted, I will hold the record
open for an additional week for
anybody to submit additional
written testimony and evidence
after the close of the hearing
tonight. But if anybody wants
me to hold the record open for
a longer period or continue the
hearing, you must make that
request before the close of the
hearing today. Uhl. When you
testify, please begin by
stating your name and full
mailing address. Please spell
your last name so I get it
right. Although most people's
names appear on my screen, some
are just phone numbers or
partial names. If you represent
someone else, please say so.
Test. There are time limits on
testimony. The applicant's
testimony is limited to 20
minutes, which they can split
between their initial
presentation and any response.
Everyone else gets three
minutes per person. And
testimony must relate to the
applicable approval criteria
which are set out in the staff
report. Also, please don't
repeat testimony offered by
yourself or earlier witnesses.
Repeating your testimony does
not make your case any stronger.
This isn't a popularity contest.
Whether everybody, everybody
loves it or everybody hates it
is not an issue. I get to
consider the only issue before
me is whether the application
does or does not comply with
the applicable approval
criteria. If a prior witness
has already raised all the
issues that you wanted to
address, but you still want to
testify in order to preserve
your right to appeal, you can
give us your name and address,
say I agree with whatever the
other witnesses have said, and
that's sufficient to preserve
your right to appeal. There's
no need to repeat their
testimony again. If I find the
testimony is unduly repetitious
or irrelevant, I will interrupt,
explain why, and ask you to
move on to another issue. I
have reviewed the additional
all of the testimony and
evidence in the record so far
up to exhibit 83 exhibits have
been coming in all day, so
there may have been a few more
since then, but I will review
everything before I write my
decision. But that concludes my
introduction. Staff will then
give us a summary of the
hearing. The. The technical
aspects of how to indicate
you'd like to testify, etc. and
then present their staff report
for the first project. As
Bateman.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr.
Examiner, for everyone
participating in tonight's
hearing. If you're wishing to
testify about a specific agenda
item, staff asks that you raise
your hand so that we can gauge
who wishes to testify. If your
Kaulen user, you can dial star
three. If you're a web
participant, you need to click
click the hand icon located in
the lower right hand corner of
your screen or next to your
name. In the list of
participants. Here is a graphic
showing where you can find the
hand icon shown by the red
arrows. You May 1st need to
turn on the list of
participants. You can do this
by clicking the participants
button shown by the purple
arrow. Once you've given your
testimony, we would ask that
you put your hand down. You can
accomplish this by either
clicking the hand icon again or
dialing star three again. We
will also ask everyone to keep
their microphones on mute at
any time that they are not
speaking. I will show you how
to do that in the next slide.
Prior to the close of each
agenda item, we will open all
microphones for everyone in
attendance to ensure that
everyone who wants to testify
has the opportunity. Please be
aware that any noise in your
personal environment will be
broadcasted at that time. If
you miss your opportunity to
testify for some reason, the
record on each case will be
open for a period of time, so
you can submit your testimony
in writing. And finally, the
chat function has been disabled
for public records purposes. So
as I mentioned, we ask everyone
to keep their microphones muted
at any time that they're not
speaking. There are a few ways
in which to mute yourself. If
you're a web user and you're
using your computer for audio,
you can simply click the mute
button at the bottom of your
screen or next to your name. In
the list of participants shown
by the Red arrows. If you're a
web user and using a phone for
audio, you can either mute
yourself on your computer or
use your phone's mute
capability. Phone only users
can use the mute capability on
their phone. We would ask that
you stay muted at any time that
you are not speaking. Thank you
everyone. That includes the
instructional portion of the
presentation. Okay, so good
evening, Mr. Examiner County
staff and the general public.
For the record, my name is
Marion Bateman. I'm a land use
planner with Clark County
Community Community Development.
And the project before the
examiner tonight is the Baker
Creek cell Tower. So the Baker
Creek cell tower is a new 165
foot tall cell tower proposed
by Vertical Bridge LLC, to be
located on a ten acre parcel
within the R5 zoning district.
This proposal includes a type
three preliminary site plan
review with a concurrent
conditional use permit
application. The applicant is
Vertical Bridge LLC. The
property owners are Dolores and
Marvin Pyhtila, and the contact
person is Angela Raymond with
Technology Associates, Inc. The
site is not currently addressed.
It is located on the north side
of the 189th Street and 207th
Avenue intersection on Brush
Prairie, Washington. Again, my
name is Marian Bateman. I'm the
planner for the project. The
review engineer is Alistair
Dawson and the Craig Criddle is
the transportation concurrency
reviewer. So for this
presentation I will provide an
overview in summary of the
proposal, identify any major
outstanding issues or concerns.
And then ultimately, we will
make our recommendation to the
examiner. Okay, so here's the
vicinity map. The subject site
is shown by the black dot. And
as you can see, the site is
located on the north side of
the 189th Street and 207th
Avenue Junction. It's in Brush
Prairie, Washington, just north
of Hawkinson. So here's the
zoning map, which gives you a
better look at the
configuration of the site and
the surrounding lots. The
subject site is highlighted in
pink and as you can see, the
entire area is zoned R five.
Okay, so here's the aerial view
of the subject site which is
outlined in white. It's a ten
acre parcel currently vacant,
mostly open field with quite a
few adjacent neighbors to the
north, south and west
especially. And the county did
receive a fairly large amount
of public opposition letters in
response to the development
notice. So yeah, it's important
to note, you know, we're the
neighbors are in relation to
the tower itself, which you'll
see better with this slide here.
So here's the applicant's
proposed preliminary site plan.
It's entered into the record as
exhibit 34. And to note too, we
are to exhibit 83. Just to
confirm that for you, you
mentioned that, Mr. Examiner.
Thank you. 83 is the last
exhibit that came in. So. But
yeah, the plan is exhibit 34.
This is the applicant's overall
site plan. So it's sheet five
out of 57 within exhibit 34. As
you can see, the cell tower is
proposed to be located in the
southwest corner of the site,
which was an issue brought up
by, I think, several commenters
that the tower is proposed in
an area of the parcel that, you
know, puts it closer to the
neighboring residences on that
side versus in the east or
northeast portion of the site,
as the houses to the east are
further away. I will note that
there are slopes greater than
15% on the north half of the
parcel, but as far as why the
tower couldn't be shifted more
east if that were, you know,
preferred by the neighbors,
which it sounds like it would
be, perhaps the applicant could
elaborate on that. You know,
when it's their turn to present.
It's a fair question, I think.
But either way, the proposed
tower location complies with
the minimum setback
requirements for a new rural
support tower, and it's set
back from the nearest adjacent
residences by a distance equal
to or greater than the tower
height itself of 165ft, which
is what title 40 requires. And
I also included the preliminary
landscape plan. Some comments
had come up about, you know,
screening and camouflage and
stuff. So we'll get to that.
But I wanted to just make sure
that it was included in the
slides. So at this time, I will
show exhibit 70, which was
submitted into the record by
the applicant after the staff
report was issued. Exhibit 70
contains current site photos,
but then from the same view,
they included a photo
simulation with the cell tower
added in. I'll go to the first
one here so you can actually
see what the view of the tower
would be like from each
viewpoint, which I thought
would be helpful to include,
since the view of the tower is
one of the issues brought up by,
you know, the public commenters.
So here's the first one.
Looking east towards the site
from northeast 189th Street.
Obviously, the top image is
just the current view. And then
below they've added in the
simulation of the cell tower
what it would look like from
that distance. And then here's
looking kind of north northeast
from 207th Avenue. So you're
standing south of the site
looking north northeast. You
can see the view pretty close
there. And then here's looking
north from where 207th Avenue
intersects with 185th Street.
So standing further south,
looking towards the site, see
in the distance there. And we
can always go back to any of
these. Again, it's it was an
issue brought up as far as just
location and everything. So
I'll kind of just breeze
through these. This one's
looking west towards the site
from 212th Avenue. You've got a
parcel in between the camera,
the picture taker and the tower
itself. So. So looking west
towards the site from 1/89
Street and 215th place. So
standing further east, looking
towards the site. Here's
looking south towards the site.
Standing on 207th Avenue, which
continues north of the site. I
think 1/92 Street was an error
on that slide. You can see the
street sign says 207th Avenue.
And then here's looking
southeast standing on 205th
court. So standing northwest of
the site, looking towards the
southeast. And again, I wanted
to include these since the view
of the tower is obviously an
issue for all the neighbors
living in the area, something
brought up multiple times was
the negative effect on property
values. You know, once the
tower is constructed,
unfortunately, property values
and potential fluctuations in
property value are not issues
that staff consider during
review of a new support tower.
Because title 40, title 40 does
not list review of property
value changes or changes to
property values within the
applicable approval criteria.
Criteria for new cell tower.
However, you know. That being
said, the conditional use
permit portion of our code,
which is section 4520 030, does
state that the responsible
official may impose an addition
to regulations and standards
expressly specified in this
title. Other conditions found
necessary to protect the
interests of the surrounding
properties or neighborhood or
the county as a whole. These
conditions may include, but are
not limited to, requirements
such as. And then it goes on to
list things like, you know,
increasing setbacks, limiting
building area and intensity of
use, limiting future
enlargements or alterations to
the facility, etc. So I just
wanted to make note of that,
that the cup code does provide
some flexibility there. If it's
decided that, you know,
additional conditions or
mitigating measures are
warranted by beyond the
standard code requirements. So
moving on, I will go over the
staff report and recommendation
and project timeline. The
application submittal was
received by the county on April
15th, 2024. The application was
deemed fully complete on July
10th, 2024. The Notice of
Development, Application and
optional CPA determination of
Non-significance was issued on
February 5th, 2026. Staff's
recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner was issued March 12th,
2026, and that is exhibit 67
and the likely CPA
determination of
Non-significance DNS is the. In.
The notice of development is
now final, and I think I
misspoke. The application was
deemed fully complete. August
2nd, 2024. My apologies. There
had been a change on the fully
complete date. I think with a
delay in fees being paid, which
is why that had changed. So
August 2nd. Okay, so for
project issues, as I mentioned,
we received a lot of public
comments from folks who oppose
this new tower for a myriad of
reasons. Some of the items
staff were able to address, you
know, directly within the staff
report. But some other issues
raised are things that the
applicant will need to address
as the burden is on them to
show that their development
complies with the applicable
approval criteria. I'm going to
go over a list of issues raised,
and we can certainly dive into
certain ones or all of them as
needed. First, it was noted
that the applicant has failed
to adequately document or
pursue less intrusive
alternatives such as shorter
towers, alternative placements
or distributed facilities. So.
Section 42 6250 of our county
code is the wireless
communications facilities
special standards, and in their.
The county lists priority
facilities in descending order
with the highest preference.
First and first preference is
co-locations onto existing
structures in nonresidential
districts and then co-locations
on existing support structures
in residential districts, and
then new facilities on existing
support structures in
nonresidential districts, and
then the same in residential
districts. And then the last is
the new support tower. So
pursuant to title 40, the
burden is on the applicant to
prove why another, you know,
higher priority option would
not work to justify the
proposal of a brand new tower.
The applicant did provide an
analysis of the different
priorities, showing why a new
tower is needed in this area
for network coverage. I know
the neighbors had some issues
with their justification, so we
can certainly get into that
more with the applicant tonight.
So lack of camouflage and
screening of the tower, which
was addressed in the staff
report. The applicant is
providing sufficient landscape
screening around the cell tower
lease area, which means meets
minimum code requirements. And
their landscape plan is exhibit
34 C, L 1.1. And I can go back
to that if we as we need to
discuss rural character of the
area will be lost was another
issue raised and it had been
noted that a new tower makes it
appear to be more of an
industrial area, not rural
residential as it is zoned.
Let's see disruption to the
environment and local wildlife
is another issue. Errors in the
applicant's submittal documents.
There had been some things
pointed out like measurements.
I think there was like a
measurement to the nearest
property, you know, things of
that nature. Just calling out
errors in the applicant
submittal, which I believe they
have rectified with what
they've recently submitted
through, through today into the
record with some of that, some
of those clarifications. So we
can definitely touch on any of
that as needed. Noise levels
was another one. So the concern
that they'll exceed maximum
permissible levels when future
collocations occur, which will
add more cabinets and equipment.
So the issue here is that, you
know, future collocation
applications will not require
public notice. Denying the
neighbors the right to comment
again in the future when more
carriers and equipment are
added. So to this staff, you
know, responded in the staff
report saying that section 42
6250 E2A1 requires that all new
support towers shall
accommodate co-location
opportunities for a minimum of
two antenna arrays. This is a
condition of approval for a new
tower. So the applicant, you
know, cannot necessarily deny
future applications. That said,
those future locations are not
under review with this
application necessarily. But
when a new carrier adds
equipment or Colete co-locates
to an existing tower, the
county will, you know, during
review of that collocation,
ensure the site remains
compliant with maximum noise
regulations. So that was the
the response given and the
staff report on that issue.
Let's see, the public
commenters had provided some
alternative options to a new
cell tower. Suggestions, you
know, to the applicant. One of
them was that the applicant
could co-locate onto an
existing 150 foot what it's
called the American Tower
416816 located on the Apostolic
Lutheran Church in Hawkinson,
the commenter noted that the
American Tower 416816 was not
included in the applicant's RF
justification. Radioactive
frequency. Their justification
exhibit 24, which they have
submitted additional RF
justification that I haven't
had a chance to review yet.
Let's see. I think it was
exhibit 82. Yeah. Which was
submitted today. So that is a
third party RF site
justification in review. So
again, they could have
definitely addressed that. Not
sure if they did or not since
that just came in. And then
another option that was
suggested to the applicant by
the public commenters would be
for the applicant to mount
small cells onto utility
utility poles and buildings. To
close the coverage gap, the
applicant submitted exhibit 65,
which is a T-Mobile explanation
of wireless communications
facilities types, which
describes what small cells are
typically used for. The
applicant did not really
provide an explanation as to
why small cells can be used
here, just kind of more about
what they were. So unless
unless they elaborated in one
of the exhibits that came in
today, that is still kind of an
outstanding question on that
one. Let's see. Another issue
raised was that the CPA
contains errors and is outdated.
I believe the CPA was dated
April 27th, 2024, which was
after the applicant had
submitted their application to
the county and they were
working to get fully completed.
So it wasn't a substantial
amount of time before the
application was submitted that
the CFO was done. The project
did go on hold for 525 days
during the review, which
explains, you know, some of the
a little bit older dates on
some of the documents, but the
CPA was current when the
application became fully
complete. And I did not see any
major errors in it that would,
you know, were substantial
enough to warrant another CPA
to be done. We also received
exhibit 56, which is a petition
signed by 76 residents of the
Cedar Glen Homeowners
Association opposing the cell
tower. And there were more
issues pointed out by public
commenters, too many to include
really in the slides, but they
are all listed in the staff
report, so I could certainly
pull that up if I need to. It
includes staff's responses to
the issues that we were able to
address. Also, I know there are
some folks signed up to testify,
so they will have the chance to
highlight, you know, issues
that they believe are still
outstanding. I believe some of
them have been sufficiently
addressed at this point and the
staff report. But, you know, at
the end of the day, staff did
accept the applicants
justification for a new tower
in this area. And we believe
that subject to conditions of
approval laid out in the staff
report that the development
does or will comply with the
applicable applicable approval
criteria for a new cell tower
in the R5 zone. And so
therefore, ultimately, staff
recommends the application be
approved subject to conditions
of approval identified in the
staff report, which is exhibit
67. And I'll just remind
everyone real quick that, again,
we had quite a few exhibits
entered into the record over
the past few days, so and
through today. So we can
discuss those as needed. If
there are any questions on, you
know, where we're at with
things currently in the record,
but that that concludes staff's
presentation. I will remain
available for any questions.
>> Thank you, Miss Bateman. I
just had a couple on page ten
under the project review.
Second paragraph, it says the
parcel service by, among other
things, private septic systems.
I assume that it would be if it
was developed because it's
vacant. I assume there's no
septic right now.
>> Yeah, that's my
understanding. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Page 16.
>> Finding aid at the bottom of
page 16 says generators may be
operated only for emergency
purposes. I understand they
also are going to do weekly
testing. Should I don't know if
there's a condition that
follows that, but I assume that
was the intent.
>> Yes. Yeah. There should be a
condition. And sorry, what page
did you say that was?
>> That was sorry. Page 16.
>> Finding eight bottom of the
page. And it's yeah, there is
G6C which I haven't looked at.
May need to change.
>> To that.
>> Yeah. So if it's during
emergencies, that's the only
time that the noise levels are
exempt. They don't have to
comply with maximum levels any
other time like testing during
the day. Yes. They do need to
comply. Yeah.
>> And I just glanced at the
condition it doesn't refer to
emergency operations or
whatever the issue was that I
just noted. Okay. It does it.
So it does. It just cites to
the standard. So it does allow
for testing provided they meet
that noise level. The last
question I had was on page 19
under that table. That finding
says the it meets the 60
decibel Dyba daytime code limit.
Why isn't it 55? Since it's
going back to page 17, class A
Edna or excuse me, class. Yeah.
Class A Edna is 55 DBA limit.
>> And where do you. Sorry,
where did you.
>> Yeah, sorry I skipped back
and forth there. Page 19. The
first paragraph underneath the
table three. Okay. Says it
meets 60 decibel daytime code
limit. I'm wondering. Because
the nighttime limit or
nighttime limit is 45dB, and
it's ten. I know the standard
says it's ten decibels less
than the daytime limit, so I'm
assuming the daytime limit is
55.
>> Yes. Yeah. That's correct.
>> Okay. So that that finding
should just be changed to 55.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Just wanted to check make
sure I wasn't missing.
>> Correct.
>> Last question was for I
assume, Mr. Dawson, because
it's an engineering question
and the applicant raised this
or objects to this. A one
condition, A1F, which refers to
off site access roads meeting
certain. Any preexisting
roadway, narrower than 18ft
shall be widened to the full 20
foot standard is what the
condition says. However,
section 4350 030B6B of your
code says, let me get the
language in front of me. I just
had it up. Within the rural
area. Off site public access
road shall meet the same
standard which we just which is
the one, the 18 or 20ft of
pavement basically. But in
prior cases, the county has
interpreted that off site
access road to only to apply to
local access roads. It's my
understanding that 189th Street
abutting the site is a
collector, so it wouldn't apply
it. Only the county's prior
interpretation in prior cases
has been. There has to be 20ft
of pavement for access roads
between the site and the
nearest collector or arterial,
basically. So I don't think the
standard applies in this case.
>> Does. Alistair Dawson with
Development Engineering. I
would have to review the code.
Mr. Hearings examiner. I don't
believe anywhere in that code
that it specifies the
classification of the roadway.
>> This was an issue in. Oh, I
just looked at it. And
regarding another case, because
it was cited in there. Anyway,
I there was another case a
couple of years ago with an off
site collector street or even a
neighborhood, whatever. The
next lower down classification
is. And the county argued, and
I agreed that that standard
didn't apply to that off site
road.
>> But would you be able to
provide that previous case?
>> Yes. If you give me just a
second, I think I can probably
find. It because I was just
looking at it this afternoon on,
like I said, in regard to
another case I'm working on.
>> Oh, there it is.
>> Mill Creek Meadows, and
that's o l r 2020 5-00040.
Sorry, that was the
reconsideration decision. The
the original decision is p l d
2020 4-00092. And that may have
been the issue on
reconsideration. And I changed
my mind based on arguments from
the applicant and the county on
that issue.
>> Okay, I'd be happy to review.
I, I will say that. More higher
classified roads than local
access should be built to
higher standards. No, that
makes sense in the in the rural
area. Yeah. I mean, in the
rural areas. I don't know that
that's always the case. I
believe that I had a case
recently that was a
neighborhood circulator that I,
I would have to double check my
memory if we enforced the same
code language on a street that
was different than a local
access road. So I would like to
review that previous case and
review the case that you had
just mentioned.
>> Yeah. Thank you. I happy to
hear arguments either way.
>> Thank you.
>> Those are the only questions
I had at this point. Thank you.
The applicant's opportunity to
present.
>> Yes. Good evening. I will
share my screen hopefully.
>> And when you start talking,
Mary, I will set the timer for
20 minutes. Start it.
>> All right. So does everyone
see that? Okay.
>> Yep.
>> All right. Good evening. My
name is Mary Pabst here tonight
on behalf of Vertical Bridge.
Joining me are Angela Raymond
who is the contact for Vertical
Bridge, and Andrew Thatcher,
who prepared the radio
frequency justification. And
they're available for any
comments as as needed. I
understand that I have 20
minutes. I'm estimating this
will be about 13 minutes, and I
will save the remainder for
rebuttal.
>> Okay.
>> County staff recommends
approval subject to conditions.
Vertical bridge accepts them.
Except for the one condition
you just discussed, which I'll
speak to in a moment. The
proposal meets all county code
requirements and it will. It
will fill a significant gap in
T-Mobile's wireless service
coverage in the planned service
area. Applicant has shown that
it will comply with FCC
regulations limiting radio
frequency emissions and
therefore any consideration of
health effects is preempted by
federal law. Applicant has
considered alternative
structures and sites as
required by the code and even
beyond the requirements of the
county's code, and found them
infeasible and or unavailable,
and we respectfully request
approval of the project. These
are propagation maps from
T-Mobile's radio frequency
engineer, showing existing
coverage and the coverage with
the proposed new facility. The
most important thing here is
that the color green represents
In-building coverage, and
T-Mobile and its competitors
are all building their networks
to an In-building standard.
It's the industry standard at
the time, excuse me, at this
time, and it's also standard
the standard to which the Ninth
Circuit will recognize a
significant gap in coverage.
The code requires, and the
applicant's team considered
alternatives. First,
co-locations on existing
wireless facilities or
attachments to existing
structures, and then second,
any potential what the industry
calls raw land sites, which
would be a new tower that could
be in a preferred zone. And
there's some revisions and
details in the applicant's
alternatives sites. Analysis in
exhibit 82 that was submitted
today. First, there are no
existing wireless towers in the
planned service area. Second, a
utility pole attachment is not
feasible because Clark PUD does
not allow macro facility
attachments outside of an
industrial or commercial zone,
so it's not allowed by the
potential landlord. In that
situation. The existing
wireless tower identified by
commenters. And that's the
American Tower tower where
Verizon is located, is outside
of T-Mobile's planned service
area. It's approximately 1.7
miles away from the proposed
site, and it's only 2000ft from
an existing T-Mobile site by
code. T-Mobile is not required
to disqualify a tower that's
outside of its planned service
area. Moreover, this suggested
co-location would duplicate
existing coverage, and the
revision to the RF
justification speaks to this,
and Mr. Thatcher can ask any
questions if you have them.
Finally, small cell facilities,
which are also suggested as a
possible solution, are not
suitable in a rural location.
Small cells are installed in
dense downtown urban
environments. Public squares,
places where people congregate.
They they serve a very limited
area. They are not the same
technology as you might deploy
with a larger tower in. In the
rural area, the county's code
does not have a preference for
small cells, and it could not.
Because under federal law, any
preferences for alternative
technology are preempted. It's
the carrier's prerogative to
design its network with and
choose the technology. So
here's a the propagation map
with an arrow showing where the
American Tower tower is and how
close it is to an existing site.
And as you can see, that area
is is served within building
standard coverage. It's not in
the proposed service area. It's
in an existing service area,
very close to an existing
facility. Applicant also looked
at locating an higher
preference zones and did not
find a feasible, feasible
alternative within the proposed
service area. All the parcels
are zoned rural residential, so
there's no preference among
those available parcels. And
this is shown in an exhibit, an
exhibit in excuse me, an
exhibit, an exhibit 20 or 82.
Sorry. Applicant was very
conservative and went beyond
the requirements of the code
here and looked at a parcel
zoned public facility, which is
to the northeast, located
outside of the service area.
And T-Mobile's RF team ran
propagation maps to show
whether it was feasible to
serve this area from that
location and found that it
would be infeasible. And those
propagation maps are in exhibit
82. This consideration of
alternative locations exceeds
the county's code requirements
and shows there are no
alternatives of higher
preference that are feasible.
Here's our objection to
condition A1F, and thank you
for bringing up your experience
and interpreting this section
of the code. I would also like
to read the Mill Creek Meadows
decision and and respond to
anything further. The County
engineering would would like to
say to support their proposed
condition. At this point, we're
asking that it be deleted even
if the code were required were
to require it under any
interpretation. We feel it's
unconstitutional. For Nolan
Dolan, with which you're very
familiar, I'm sure. I did want
to speak to property values for
just a moment. There were some
comments about these. There are
no relevant criteria in the
code, as staff explained. Also,
there's a preemption issue here.
So consistent with the
preemption regarding claimed
health effects, case case law
has concluded that local
jurisdiction or excuse me,
local decision makers cannot
consider reduced property
values based on fears of
alleged health effects. Third,
those opposing the project have
not provided substantial
evidence of a potential decline
in property values. I'm not
aware of a Washington case on
point, but there is a decision
on this question where Lyuba
found that there was no
substantial evidence when there
was only generalized testimony
based on various articles and
estimates of potential decline
of property value. Testimony in
the record in two exhibits does
cite a 20% decline in property
values. This originates from a
study done in 2003 by Sandy
bond. That study did consider
health effects, and it has been
since discredited, and she
herself was unable to replicate
her results. Only a year later,
she did a study in Florida that
showed only a 2% variation in
property values. We submitted
copies of all these materials
in the record, so you may
review them. In contrast to
Miss Bond's work, potential
impacts to property values are
often not found at all or found
to be insignificant, and we
have submitted copies of
studies making those
conclusions. Finally, with so
few homeowners retaining a
landline, good wireless service
is critical to home value. We
believe there's no basis for
denial in the county's code.
Many commenters have cited the
purpose statement, part of
which is to protect visual and
esthetic features. But of
course, that purpose is is is
to be balanced with providing
continuing opportunities for
wireless communication services.
And then the code's criteria
represent the the overall
balance of competing policy
objectives. And other than the
argument based on citing
preferences, we don't see. The
commenters have identified a
code criterion upon which this
project should be denied in a.
In a prior county approval. And
this. This is the Verizon Tower.
We've just spoken of. Another
examiner considered an argument
very like this, and said that
by allowing these facilities
and virtually every zone, the
Board of Commissioners already
made the determination that
some esthetic impacts are
acceptable costs of providing
wireless service. And we
request, based on T-Mobile's
significant gap in service,
easily meeting the requirement
of the applicant showing for
need under the code, and it's
fair consideration of preferred
alternatives. The and again,
that it's proposed facility
meets all county zoning
requirements. We. We
respectfully request your
approval of the application.
I'd be happy to answer your
questions now, or we can wait
until later during rebuttal.
And I did want to clarify at
some point the timing for final
argument. Given that I
understand there's an automatic
seven day period for the record
to be opened, we want to
understand that we would have
an opportunity to make a final
argument.
>> Yes, I will provide that. If
anybody wants to submit new
evidence, I'll give opportunity
to respond to that. So if it's
just argument, I'll give the
applicant a week and excuse me,
public a week and the applicant
a week. If it's new evidence,
it'll be a week and a week and
a week. So a week for new
evidence, week for response,
and then a week for the
applicant alone. Final argument
without without new evidence.
>> Okay. Well, and, and just to
clarify, the notice of hearing
says that the record is
automatically left open for
seven days. Yes. Okay.
>> And yes. Okay.
>> That's that. Yeah, I will do
that.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> I will give the applicant
the opportunity to submit a
final argument after that week.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. The only question I
have is what staff raised is
why it couldn't be moved
further to the east on this
site.
>> Yeah. So the, the
negotiation is, you know, an
agreement with the landlord. It
was based on the landlord's
preference for the location.
>> Okay.
>> That's what I assumed. Just
wanted to ask.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> That's the only question I
had. Thank you, Miss Pabst. I
assume that's it from the
applicant at this point?
>> Yes. That is.
>> Thank you. Okay.
>> Is there anyone else who'd
like to say anything in support
of this application? If so,
please click on the Raise your
hand button. Now I've got to
find my right screen here. I
don't expect any raised hands
and I'm not seeing any. Seeing
none who'd like to go first to
testify in opposition or with
questions or concerns, please
raise your hand.
>> Now we have yes, we have our
first person, a couple people,
but I'll select the first
person. I'm very sorry to say I
will not be able to pronounce
this name, but I'm going to
unmute. The last name is K u l
k a r n I, and I just sent the
request to be unmuted.
>> Hey there, it's Priyanka
Kulkarni.
>> Thank you.
>> And our address is 20607
northeast, 192nd Street.
>> Thank you.
>> Awesome. So this is my first
time, so apologies, but I'll
try to keep it within our three
minutes. I am here one of the
representatives of our Cedar
Glen neighborhood to contest
against the the build of this
tower. And my topic today is
specifically talking about the
noise and the acoustical report
that was provided with this
application.
>> Okay. Thank you, Miss Kolke.
Konez before you go on, I need
to ask staff to start. Restart
the timer at three minutes.
It's currently at eight at
least on.
>> My screen.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> I will do that immediately.
>> Thank you. Go ahead, Miss
Kilkenny.
>> Awesome. Thank you so much.
So good evening everyone. I'm
here because we believe that
the applicant has not shown a
reliable basis for concluding
that this facility will comply
with the Clark County Noise
Code once the tower is actually
built and operating. The most
important fact, and this is
we're pulling this information
from the acoustical report that
we read. The applicant's
acoustical report predicts that
the continuously operating
equipment cabinets will produce
44dB at the nearest residential
receptor against a 45 decibel
nighttime limit. My background
is in data science and research.
I lead a team at Nike, so I'm
very familiar with predictive
models and a one decibel, just
one decibel Kyann. A margin of
error is is not a real margin
of error of safety. You know,
it's it's paper thin. It is
theoretical, say, suggesting
that there's only going to be,
you know, a one decibel
difference than what we will
actually hear at night. Our
house is located right beside
the proposed tower. And this
one decibel theoretical pass is
for an equipment that's going
to be running all night, every
night indefinitely. And so we
we believe that the acoustical
report really didn't present
itself with robust compliance.
I also read the staff report
just within the last 30 minutes,
and we really didn't see any
strong rebuttal there.
Basically, my concern and our
neighborhoods concern is that
this one decibel cushion really
disappears instantly in the
real world. You know, when you
consider louder equipment,
different installation
conditions, fan cycling, the
aging of the machine or the
equipment, hotter weather,
changes in operation, even
reflective surfaces, any one of
those factors can change that
one decibel margin. The
applicant produced their model
based on a few models that they
said in the report. The A s h r
e handbook was cited as one of
the models that they've used.
And with every model, you know,
my background coming from
statistical modeling myself, it
comes with a margin of error
and the a s h r e handbook. It
acknowledges that one of its
methods carries a standard
deviation of plus or minus
three and a half to five
decibels. So against that
backdrop, this one decibel
claimed margin just doesn't
seem and seems very theoretical
just to meet that night time
noise limit of 45. And it's not
really a good proof of
compliance once that tower is
actually built. In addition,
you know, we've talked about
this just, you know, within the
last few minutes, but the
design of the model was built
with the T mobile cabinets. But,
you know, after the fact, when
new cabinets are going to be
added, we know that from one of
the reports that we did send
out as a community, that this
additional adds of these more
cabinets will actually result
in more noise. It doesn't
really kind of represent what
could be the true worst case
for us as residents, you know,
ignores kind of how we're going
to be experiencing this at
night. You know, I have small
kids.
>> I'll ask you to wrap up
because your time timer.
>> Oh, sure. Yes, yes, sure.
For sure. So yeah, so, you know,
we strongly believe the
statistical model and acoustic
report just does not
demonstrate compliance. So
that's kind of what we're
hoping to contest when it comes
to the potential noise
complaint.
>> Thank you, Miss Kol Keilani
who's our next right hand
Faville.
>> We had Brian Thompson. I
accidentally also unmuted him
and then I shot him. Then I
unmuted him when they were both
there. So I'm going to unmute
Brian Thompson right now. Brian,
you should be able to unmute
yourself.
>> Okay. AM I can you hear me
now?
>> Thank you sir.
>> All right. Good evening. My
name is Brian Thompson, T h o m
p s o n. I reside at 20502
northeast, 1/90 Circle Brush
Prairie. I'm a retired
electronics engineer since 2013.
My 40 year career was primarily
in telecommunications with
experience in digital and RF
transmission systems. My last
employment for 17 years was
with a cellular technology and
chipset development company,
where I created and managed
certification laboratories for
compliance testing of cellular
handsets and data modules. I'd
like to say that I'm being
asked to speak for a group of
people also scheduled to
testify, and I would like to
request their allocated time be
seated to me at this point so I
can present our concerns
comprehensively.
>> Who are those people? How
many.
>> Of those persons would be
mark rotor Tum Irkut. Dale Good
and Vicky Thompson.
>> That's another 12 minutes.
An additional 12 minutes, is
that correct? Mr. W.
>> Was that an additional three
people? Was that additional 2
or 3?
>> It was four.
>> Four people.
>> Yep, yep, yep.
>> Okay. Thank you. Can you go
ahead and reset the timer as
necessary? Yes. Excuse me. Go
ahead. Mr. Thompson.
>> I would like to ask. I sent
in a presentation I would like.
I think.
>> It's on the screen right now.
>> For me right now.
>> There's a screen. There's a
PowerPoint on my screen. Cell
tower. Opposition team. Is that
yours?
>> Yes, yes.
>> Okay. Yeah, it's visible on
my screen. I hope it's on yours.
>> Okay. Thank you. I can see
it.
>> Good. So whenever you're
ready.
>> Okay. As you can see on the
slide, we object to the
permitting of the tower and
northeast 1/89 Street. It's
been brought up by the attorney
for Vertical Bridge that they
don't recognize the tower at
416816 to be valid. We're going
to demonstrate that we believe
it is a valid co-location site.
Further, we're going to
demonstrate that with that
co-location, there are workable
alternatives involving the
utility poles completing the
projected coverage. Slide
number two please. This graphic
is here just for reference.
These red and black lines are
there and the labels are
generalized just for the
purpose of making orientation
on the following slides. Slide
number three, please. Our group
search for available
co-location sites within the
projected coverage area and
discovered American Tower
416816 located in Hawkinson
with the operating carrier
Verizon, we decided to
determine what the performance
could be by using drive tests.
And we have this coverage that
we're going to show. This area
contains 61% of the parcels in
the projected coverage area.
Notice I said projected
coverage area because that's
the consistent with the county
code terminology. We contacted
the tower owner and found this
tower is available for
co-location. The following map
shows our drive test results
that demonstrate the signal
quality potential of the tower.
Slide number four, please. You
can see from this map the
location of tower 416816 and
the T-Mobile. The existing
T-Mobile tower. You can see
that the tower, the data that
we got from doing our drive
testing completely covers this
lower portion of the proposed
coverage on northeast 1/89
Street. This tower is relevant
in this case because the
overlapping of the new proposed
coverage area with the existing
coverage area. As we know, this
is not a butt up type of
coverage area situation due to
the requirement for handoff.
And so both towers would be in
operation for a significant
amount of time while someone is
traveling between the two sites.
Page five please. This drawing
shows the location and position
of the co-location tower on the
right relative to the existing
T-Mobile tower, shown a Po
01632C shown on the left.
Improved coverage for Verizon
from Co-location Tower versus
the T-Mobile tower occurs
because the T-Mobile tower sits
behind the hill with respect to
the projected coverage area,
yielding poor performance. This
drawing also shows the
co-location tower is higher
relative to local ground
clutter. Clutter. Slide six,
please. In summary, we disagree
with the applicant that there
are no existing WC F's in the
projected coverage area. As
stated in exhibit number 24, we
show American Tower 416816 has
a demonstrated ability to cover
a large percentage of the
projected service area proposed.
The existing WC tower has been
confirmed, capable and
available now for co-location.
Slide seven, please. We now
turn our attention to the area
north of northeast 1/89 Street
with the red outlined area
shown for reference with the
south side of northeast 1/89
deemed comparable with
co-location, we'll show an
alternative approach to
coverage. The remaining area
along Bristol Road that uses
utility pole placement as an
opportunity to address the
difficult topography. The
following slides present a
model showing how small or
medium cells can be applied to
this area as a coverage
solution. Slide number eight,
please. These industry provided
photos show typical small and
medium cell profiles compatible
with utility pole mount and
strand mount applications.
Slide number nine, please. Here
are more examples of available
utility pole mount showing
omnidirectional and three
directional three sector
antenna array. Slide ten please.
The parameters used in our
model are taken from industry
sources discussing experiences
and data. Actual performance
will be determined by band and
equipment selection. Final
selection, final location,
power levels, and antenna
adjustments. ET cetera. We
begin by using the map from
exhibit 24, figure one cited
above, estimating the coverage
gap existing to the area north
of northeast. 189 using GIS
mapping to determine the
distance it runs along the
Salmon Creek drainage area. For
a nominal distance of two and a
half miles. We then chose to
use rule of thumb spacing of
one half mile per cell, based
on a typical effective radius
of one half mile, and assumed
an overlap to accommodate
handoff. Allowing for edge
losses reduces the effective
radius per cell to 0.403 miles.
Our model assumes an
omnidirectional antenna, while
three sector antennas are also
an option. Slide 11. Please.
The resulting model shows
coverage for the total linear
distance, slightly greater than
two and a half miles, with
cells overlapping approximately
50%. To account for the handoff,
edge losses and minimizing
ripple along the coverage
perimeter. Slide number 12,
please. Hear the small cell
model is applied to the
existing coverage map along
Ristow Road and the red outline
coverage gap above the
northeast. 1/89 the granularity
of the small cell footprint
allows for more precise fitting
to odd contours in the
topography, as illustrated in
the coverage map. Slide 13,
please. Without a more
precisely targeted approach to
rural areas, the only option in
rural areas will be maximal
height towers, all pointing
steeply down into narrow creek
beds and dales from neighboring
neighborhoods. Above small
cells are a minimum impact
solution, with many possible
configurations in line with the
intent to minimize the total
number of support structures
and towers in the rural areas
of the county. In summary, a
pole mount small cell approach
is tailorable to the variable
topography in this area and can
be particularly affected.
Meeting the county's priority
for using existing utility
poles and structures over new
support towers. Slide 14.
Please. To summarize the points
of our objection to the
permitting of this tower. We
have shown that an existing WCF
is applicable and available for
co-location, but was not
considered or identified in the
application. Further, the
county's high prioritization of
pole mount cells over towers
was not discussed in the
application, except as not
meeting the 150 foot height,
presumably from the same
location as the proposed tower.
We assert the application for a
new support tower should be
denied, as we believe the
applicant has not met the terms
of 40 .260.250 sections A1, D1,
D2, e1, B and G2 B1G. I would
like to go back at this point
and talk about the map that
we're showing with. This would
be a page for. So again, this
slide shows the projected
coverage area overlaid with the
drive test data to determine
the performance of the
co-location tower. 41816 we
perform drive tests using
Verizon subscribed iPhones in
test mode. Our drive test
linking to the tower used,
measured. Used. Measured signal
to noise ratio sign are zero
and are indicative of signal
quality and reliability of
coverage from the bottom of the
projected coverage area up to
and including the northeast
1/89 Street area. The map shows
the subject co-location tower
in the lower left and also the
existing T-Mobile tower. We
perform drive tests at the
location showed with the
colored numbered dots using the
legend at the bottom. The dot
display shows the relative
signal qualities to be quite
good based on sign R0 values
over the majority of the
projected coverage area
illustrated. Please note that
this tower 416816 completely
covers 60% of the proposed
coverage area. Of the projected
coverage area. That would also
like to say that in the earlier
presentation by the attorney
for Vertical Bridge, the word
planned was used and that word
has not shown up in this
application prior. As far as we
can tell, it's always been
projected area of coverage. And
that word comes from the
illustration of the coverage
that was projected on the basis
of figure two and the document
exhibit number 24. And again, I
would like to stress the fact
that the new coverage area that
has been simulated does not
simply butt up against the
existing coverage area because
of the necessary overlap that
has to occur for the sake of
handoff, the phone has to be
able to talk to both towers
simultaneously. And when it's
doing so, it is in the vicinity
of this tower. And this tower
has coverage for that entire
area. And with that. On behalf,
we wish to thank the county for
the opportunity to present our
points of opposition and
opportunity.
>> Thank you, Mr. Thompson is
our next race and Mr. Daviau.
>> Let's see, I am looking and
of course I didn't. I wasn't
able to take down all of those
names, so. Well, no one's
raising their hand.
>> Okay.
>> Just wanted to make sure we
didn't get a repeat. I didn't
yeah, we didn't have that.
>> Does anybody else want to
say anything about this
application at this point?
Please click on the raise your
hand button.
>> Nope. No one's raising their
hands.
>> Okay. Anything any response
from the county at this point
then?
>> Thank you, Mr. Examiner.
Nothing from me at this time.
>> Okay. Thank you. Miss Pabst.
Anything from the applicant? I
mean, we're not hearing you yet.
There we go. Now we see. Yes.
>> Just a couple points in
rebuttal with respect to the
the noise report applicant did
obtain an expert noise analysis
that shows the proposed
facility can comply with the
environmental standards set by
the Wax. In the event in the
future, that new addition, new
additional equipment is added.
Clark County will evaluate
compliance with the standard
again. Also in the event in the
future. If anyone measures
noise in excess of the
environmental standards, they
may make a complaint and
require compliance. Just to be
clear, the compliance would be
adding mitigation that would
buffer the sound, rather than
denying that the tower or be
reason to remove the tower. In
response to the presentation on
the potential alternative
design, I did want to note that
on page two of those slides,
there are red lines that
outlined the the gaps that that
analysis is explaining how they
might be addressed.
Alternatively, I will note that
those gaps are ignoring the
space between the two gaps,
which is largely yellow in the
propagation maps, which means
it's at in vehicles coverage
level right now, not indoor.
The T-Mobile coverage gap it's
seeking to fill is the larger
overall gap, encompassing the
two areas outlined in red, as
well as the area in between. So
I would ask that you consider
that for clarification and the
the drive tests that were done
by these folks were done with
Verizon handheld devices based
on Verizon coverage in the area,
which is irrelevant to
T-Mobile's network and coverage
objectives. Each carrier has
its own independent network
with various features that
affect its relative coverage in
any location.
>> And lastly, before we move
on from that issue, it was my
understanding from their
presentation that they were
using because it's a in my name,
Verizon Tower, they were using
Verizon phones to test coverage
from that tower. Yes. Implying
that T-Mobile antenna located
on that same tower would
provide similar coverage with T
mobile phones.
>> I understand, I understand
that they're they're arguing by
analogy. I'm just making the
point that it's not the same.
>> Okay. Just wanted to make
sure I was wasn't missing
something.
>> Yes, yes. Thank you. And
then I believe there was some
concern about the difference
between the word planned or
projected coverage area and the
relevant code criterion
actually says either or either
or projected or planned. And
that's in subsection EBE1, b
one. And again that existing
American Tower tower is not in
the planned coverage area for
this site. And that concludes
our our presentation and and
rebuttal. Do you have any other
questions?
>> I just had one question. Do
you have any support citations
to a regulation, anything about
to support the assertion that
the CPU doesn't allow pole
mounted.
>> I have the regulation. I can
submit to the record. During
the open. I confirmed that with
Jason Nemko. Who's there? Joint
use specialist there.
>> Just something to cite.
>> Thank you. I apologize for
missing that.
>> That's okay. I don't have
any other questions. With that.
I will close the hearing. I
will hold the record open for a
total of two weeks. We have our
calendar. I'll hold it open for
one week. Where are we? There
we go. Until I guess we're in
April 2nd. For anybody to
submit new testimony and
evidence regarding this
application. I'll hold it open
for an additional week for the
applicant alone to submit a
final written argument without
any new evidence till April 9th,
and then I will close the
record. At that point, I will
try and get my decision out by
the 23rd of April. I'll send my
decision to the county. The
county will send it to parties
of record. So anybody who has
testified or who does so during
the open record period, either
orally or in writing, but who's
testified up to now orally or
in writing before or after this
hearing, we'll be sure and
receive a copy. If you want to
receive a copy of my decision
and you haven't decide not to
testify, you can contact staff
and they'll put you on the list.
Anything anybody wants to
submit has to be physically
received by the county by 4:00
on the relevant date. And that
concludes our hearing on that
item. We're going to take just
a minute to switch staff and
take a very quick break,
because I've been drinking
water all night and didn't
thank you. So I will be back in
a moment and I need.
>> Thank you very much.
>> I just mentioned. Have a
good evening everyone. For this
project, we'll come to the
cemetery in just a moment.
PureKraze is here if you want
to start us out when you're
ready.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr.
Examiner. Good evening, Mr.
Examiner County staff and the
general public. For the record,
my name is Joe Kinsman. I'm the
land use planner for this
project. The name of this
project is the O a l c Geisen
Cemetery. The case before the
hearings examiner this evening
is a request for conditional
use and site plan approval to
add 3489 cemetery plots in ten
phases to the existing church
property, and to build a second
800 square foot maintenance
shed. Located on 12.64 acres in
the R5 zone. Change my slide
here. Sorry. All right. As I
said, my name is Joe Kinsman. I
am the review planner for this
project. Alistair Dawson is the
review engineer. Jason Noble
reviewed this from the Fire
Marshal's office. And Craig
Cordle is our concurrency
engineer. And last but not
least, Lance white reviewed
this from this project from the
Wetland and Habitat Review
Group. Tonight. During our
presentation, staff will
provide an overview and summary
of the proposal, identify any
major outstanding issues or
concerns, and make our
recommendation to the examiner.
On the vicinity map. The
subject property is identified
by the black Dot North is
oriented to the top of the page.
We can see on this map that it
lies south of northeast 279th
Street, east of northeast 147th
Avenue. West of northeast 182nd
Avenue and north of
Battleground Lake. The zoning
map provides a closer look at
the parcelization of the
subject and abutting lots. The
site is highlighted in red. The
site and surrounding parcels
are zoned R5 and this property
is surrounded by rural single
family residential lots. In
this slide it is an aerial view
of the subject property, with
the property lines shown in red.
In this image, we can see that
the existing rural single
family residential homes that
surround the site on all sides.
You can also see that northeast
182nd Avenue is running along
the east property line of the
subject. Property. This slide
shows the proposed site plan
for the project. On this plan,
North is oriented to the top of
the slide. This view shows the
proposed phases for the
cemetery plots, including the
addition of the second
maintenance shed shows
northeast 8180 second Avenue,
the existing church and all the
on site parking and additions
to some of the environmental
constraints and stormwater
systems. At this time. Staff
will show photos of the site.
This photo here is looking
south onto northeast 182nd from
the south property entrance.
And this slide is looking north
onto northeast 182nd from the
south property entrance. This
slide is looking northwest into
the site from the south
property entrance. This one is
looking southwest into the site
from the south property
entrance. The slide is across
the street looking west into
the site across 1/82 Avenue.
Also showing the signposting
over here. The slide is looking
southwest into the site from
the north property entrance.
This is looking northwest into
the site from the north
property entrance and this is
looking north onto northeast
182nd Avenue from the north
property entrance. And this
slide is looking south on
northeast 182nd Avenue from the
north. Property entrance. And
for our staff report, this
submittal was initially deemed
counter complete on October
20th, 2025. The application was
deemed fully complete on
November 3rd, 2025. The staff
report and recommendation to
the Hearings Examiner and the
Seif.a DNS was issued March
11th, 2026, recommending
conditional approval. And that
is in the record as exhibit
2727. Sorry, because the county
has not received any CPA
appeals within the CPA. The CPA
DNS is now final, and since the
staff report issuance, a new
exhibit has been submitted. It
is in the record as exhibit 29
and it is. The applicant
recommended revisions to the
staff report. Next, we have the
project issues. After the
project was deemed fully
complete, staff identified
early issues with the proposal
that would jeopardize
recommending approval. The
applicant opted to keep the
application on hold pending
resolution of these issues. The
applicant requested a road mod
for relief from driveway
spacing along a collector. Road
Mod decision is in the record
as exhibit 23. And lastly, the
applicant requested changes to
the staff report and
recommendation, and that is in
the record as exhibit 29. The
recommendation from staff is
that staff recommends this
application be approved,
subject to the findings and
conditions of approval listed
within the staff report and the
recommendation identified in
the public record as exhibit 27.
And that is all that staff
currently has. But I will
remain here for any questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Kitterman
Kitterman on page five. There.
The first paragraph under the
table, the footnote says that
the headstones are subject to
minimum setbacks. Why not their
structures as defined by the
code? There is an exception in
the setback standards for
structures less than 30in feet
inches in height. So I assume
most headstones would not be
subject anyway, but I don't
think how. Why are they exempt?
Generally, according to that
statement.
>> I need to actually look into
the code on that one. As you
said, I think the height
requirement needs to be
included in there, and possibly
the staff report needs to be
revised to address that. If
there is any sort of monument
that's being installed or
anything like that, then it
would be subject to setbacks.
But I'll definitely look into
that and address it within the
open comment period. Okay.
>> In the the last cemetery.
Olchowy Cemetery I just
reviewed issued a decision on.
I did find that they are
subject to setback for just the
reason you said if it's under
30in, it's totally not an issue.
If it's. But I could imagine it
may not be planned here, but I
can imagine it's a very tall
monumental headstones.
>> For sure.
>> And so that should be in
there. Page eight. Finding 12
talks about the Cowlitz Indians
comment. Is that just a summary
of their comment under finding
12 or is that the the county's
finding.
>> That is the comment from the
Cowlitz tribe.
>> Okay, okay. That's what I. I
assumed, but because it was
listed as finding. I wanted to
check page nine. Well, my note
says, what about the applicant
s response, which is exhibit 26?
Beyond that, I don't know what
my question was. I'll let the
applicant address that. Since
they wrote that exhibit. Page
13. The wetlands. It says
exhibit 22. The applicant
proposes to avoid impacts to
the wetland buffer in phase six.
So and I as you show on that
plan, on the southwest corner
of phase six, there's a line
showing the wetland buffer.
Right. Are there no plots in
that area or will they mitigate
for that? And that may. Be a
question for the applicant, but
I wanted to throw it out.
>> Yeah. I was going to say I
think there was conversation
during early issues in regards
to the wetland habitat buffers
and avoiding it. I think, Mr.
Lance, what would have to speak
to that or the applicant would
have to address you as well.
>> Mr. white, can you clarify
that issue?
>> There we go. Getting myself
set up here. Lance White, Clark
County Wetland Habitat review
and. Yes, at one time, I
believe we. Call it. I'd have
to look at the exhibit list
times. Sorry. Here we had a
email from the applicant
initially saying that they.
>> Exhibit 22 says they're
going to avoid impacts.
>> But where they were going to
avoid it. So we made them show
it on their proposed plan in
the event that if they do not
end up choosing to avoid it, we
created a condition that says
they're going to be subject to
a final wetland permit at that
time.
>> So thank you. That's what
that clarifies that. On page 15.
And this is probably for Mr.
Dawson, the county road
engineer. Why wasn't and this
is just curiosity, why wasn't
the right of way dedicated with
the original church and the
road mod for the existing
driveways? Why is there a road
mod and dedication at this
point?
>> Good evening, Miss Hearings
Examiner Alistair Dawson,
development engineering. It's
possible that the roadway
standard for right of way has
changed since the original
inception of the church. I
don't have the history, it's
just speculation.
>> Okay, I'm sure the applicant
would have objected. I just was
curious. That was the thought
that popped into my head. I
thought I'd ask.
>> Yeah, and as far as the
driveway spacing, I believe
that originally when those
driveways were installed that
they are. I was going to say
equidistant. They are at a
sufficient distance from
themselves on the west side of
the street. But since this is a
collector and not median, I
believe that there was a
driveway added on the east side
of the road and that that is
the driveway that's in conflict
with the spacing.
>> Okay. It seems like this
applicant, again, it's not
really relevant because the
applicant hasn't objected, but
it just it appeared to me that
that's since this project's
existing, it's the adjacent
driveway that has to get a road
mod, but I guess they're
increasing traffic somewhat by
with this project. But
regardless, I was just curious.
Wanted to ask that question.
We'll leave it at that. Is the
is that it from the county then?
Mr.
>> Yes. Mr. Examiner.
>> Thank you. The applicant.
Mr. Holland, I think you're
representing the applicant.
>> Hello. Good evening. My name
is Seth Hawley with Access
Engineering. Last name is
spelled H a l l I n g. Address
is 9600 Northeast one, 26th
Avenue, suite 2520. Here
tonight, representing the
applicant, the Old Apostolic
Lutheran Church of Geisen want
to thank county staff for their
time and effort working with us
on this project. And as Joe
mentioned, there was a time
there where it was put on hold
with regard to the road
modification specifically, and
that was one of your questions,
Mr. Examiner, so that that
those driveways across the
street were indeed existing at
the time of the original
application. However, I believe
it was during the
pre-application conference and
and subsequent correspondence
with the county staff that it
was a potential increase in use
or change in use, that they
wanted verification that the
previous conditions with
signing and striping for the
directional exiting these
driveways, as well as sight
distance, that none of those
conditions had changed through
that road modification was the
process which was used to
review and approve those.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> With that, we've reviewed
the county staff report and
provided a response. As noted,
their exhibit number 29 that
was just provided yesterday. So
I'd like to do just a brief
overview of the four main
points with that. The first one
is just with regard to minor
updates to the number of phases,
I believe the staff report
referenced eight, while there's
ten included with this. And
then as well as a minor change
on the maintenance shed size.
So those just and those are
documented in the response. The
other item to point out is, is
there were a couple of
landscape buffers that are
existing. Those are on the west
side of phase two and phase six,
and then on the south side of
phase six and seven. So those
are buffers that are in place
at this time. So we would just
like to request that the
findings and conditions be
modified to reflect that as
existing versus a proposed and
the landscape plan that was
submitted, you know, identified
those as existing. So just for
the record there with regard to
archeology, the comments were
received from the Cowlitz tribe
and the Washington State DAB.
They recommended further
coordination with DAB for
determination of whether a
permit would be required. We
started that correspondence,
but haven't, you know, gotten a
definitive answer on whether a
permit will be required for
this additional work. So we
would like to request that the
condition A nine just include,
if required. With regard to the
permit. Note there. Okay, so
there was prior site
archeological permit that was
pulled for this with the
original site. And there was
also prior disturbances over
the entirety with regard to
where the archeological site
was. So those are the details
that we're working through with
the state at this point. And
then the last item was
condition A2C, and that's with
regard to noting the existing
driveways. They were referred
to as proposed driveway. And
then also that the directions
were east and west, where site
distances along the roadway to
the north and south. The
applicant does accept the other
findings and conditions as
presented in the staff report.
And just wanted to speak
briefly to your comment
regarding the headstones. We
did see involved with the the
project that was heard last
month and with regard to the
being subject to the setbacks,
I know the county does have
also an exception for small
structures under 200ft². I
don't know if that's applicable
here, but thought I would raise
that as an item to consider.
>> Being exempt from setback.
>> Correct. From setback and
permit.
>> Do you have a citation to
what code section that is? I'd
like to look at it.
>> You know, I don't have it in
front of me.
>> Okay. If you could submit it
during the open record would be
fine, because we have to hold
the record open for a week
anyway.
>> Okay. And then also the last
item here regarding the wetland
buffer. So this was an item
that came in a little bit later
in the process. And we had
correspondence with the
applicant. And their desire is
to pursue a wetland permit to
for impacts to that buffer, the
existing landscape buffer
follows the property line
already in that corner, as well
as chain link fence following
the property line. So to, I
guess, enhance this area of the
wetland buffer and put physical
demarcation along the buffer
line and signs it would lead to
this, you know, odd odd shape
here in the corner as well as,
you know, the loss of potential
cemetery plots there in that
corner. The other thing is, is
there's a, you know, the, the,
I guess the value, it's in the
outer portion of the wetland
buffer. And there was some
discussion of the intensity of
the use here reflected that the
church itself has a high
intensity use. The proposed use
of a cemetery with the lawn is.
I would, in my opinion, is a
lower classification of use, so
it would have less impact in
that way. And also the original
conditional use had lawn in
that area as a original permit.
Permitted use. That code has
changed since that time. With
regard to the critical areas
and the the wetland buffers
have increased. With that, I
would like to thank you and be
open here for any questions
that you may have.
>> Thank you, Mr. Halling. I
don't have any at this point.
Is there anybody else who'd
like to say anything about this
application in support, in
opposition or with questions or
concerns, please click on the
Raise your Hand button.
>> There are none.
>> I didn't think so. Okay.
Anything further from the
county? Kitterman?
>> No. Mr. Examiner.
>> Thank you, Mr. Halling.
Anything you want to add?
>> No. Thank you.
>> Okay with that? I'll close
the hearing. As with the other
one, I'll hold it up. Well, Mr.
Halling, do you want a week for
the final argument or you just
want to? I can hold it open if
just in case something comes in.
And then you can during the
first week, and then you can.
If nothing comes in, you can
waive it. If you want that
opportunity.
>> Yeah. Let's let's proceed
with that plan. Okay. Where I
have the opportunity to waive.
Sure. Please.
>> So with that, I will close
the hearing and I will hold it
open, same as the last one
until Thursday, April 2nd at
4:00 for anybody to submit
additional written testimony
and evidence and until April
9th for the applicant to submit
a final written argument
without any new evidence, and
the applicant can waive that or
submit their final argument
anytime after 4 p.m. on the 2nd
of April, and I will close the
hearing, close the record at
that point and ensure my
decision, and I will try and
get it out within two weeks
from wherever that record
closes. So that concludes our
hearing. Thank you all. Have a
good good evening.
>> Thank you, Mr. Examiner