stain the federal claim and send this back to the state court on the state claims that's not consistent with any of the rules regarding extension and it's greatly inconsistent with what congress was trying to do in acting the court congress did for relevant things an act in the telecommunications act recognizing that with respect to telecommunications in the wireless industry there is a national interest that needs to be protected congress created a federal form for challengers to any state land dealing with land use petitions there's nothing specific about cell towers it requires like the federal law expedited consideration but when you leave these two together what you come up with out is that there really is no conflict between the two stashed  that are perhaps unique to state law for example clear air of which are present in this case and in this case there are all types of issues present frankly the strongest issue from our point of view is the prohibition of services claim particularly after evidence issue which is similar but not necessarily entirely the same between the state and federal law and we solve the issue under federal laws who bears the burden on the substantial evidence issue the district court in san diego has ruled that it would be the county in this case that bears the burden under state law it's singular the african the bears the burden so there are some differences there and then there are some unique state law issues  energy regulations that apply and in the in the new orleans public service case the the u s supreme court how that obstruction was not appropriate given that national interest so there's a big difference between burford because you have in this case the but determined that under state law in the state of our and under their local code that was not sufficient reason to grant a permit we would like to argue to the district court that under metro p cases that we've been lied on for that particular proposition that they can beat us were asked a court cases and the state court cases were dependent on both there's obviously an overlap between stay constitutional and federal constitutional law and the due process claims sense a federal constitutional claim but i still think even if there would be application of the coleman doctrine because of that issue which is not a significant issue in the case with any other issues specific aspect dealing with wireless telephone sales or facilities which we think is clear should be applied and there's not a question about but then they what they have done here is denied our permit based on more generalized they in a big appropriate in this case and we would urge you to hold back in the first instance if you're not prepared to go there then we go back but the problem is we're going to be back here i imagine and matter of some time and we'll just have further  what happened is so over the scheduled briefing time the parties briefed the issues and then thurston county learned that cingular had purchased a t and t cellular antenna of tower and would enable them to provide service judge burgess to send initially agreed with that on reconsideration by cingular such burgess issue to show cause order  ordered that the state law claims be dismissed understanding they could be refiled in state court and state the federal crimes under the telecommunications act as well as the fourteenth amendment river now possibly just which he did at that time because colorado river and recognizes that when there are exceptional circumstances that would justify the federal court declining to we think under thirteen sixty seven c which provides for grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction judge burgess's orders in this case furnish the group the basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction the first of those criteria is the state claim presents novel or complex issues of state law the second is that the state claims substantially predominate in judge burgess's decision  substantial federal question and that the real remedy sought is reversal of the hearing examiners decision the court therefore questions whether the loop that's the state law matter but longs here at all and that that is fourth criterion of thirteen sixty seven is similar to what paul river says and that is that there are exceptional circumstances where there are other compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction in this case although in this this case for a decision on the state law claimed by the federal district court would duplicate that effort and risk causing a conflict between the state courts and the federal courts that telecommunications act which we may not have to address if the court of appeals reverses the superior court on any of the three grounds under state law that cingular has raised the substantial evidence  question the correct interpretation of the law question and the question which is purely a matter of of state decisional law in washington as to whether the hearing examiner relied on   is called generalized community opposition as opposed to facts supporting his decision denying this application of those decisions if they are revers decision by the district court  essential function performed by local government for it is one of the primary means by which we protect that sometimes difficult to define concept of quality of life our role is not and should not be to sit as a zoning board of the peals  land use decisions on the record when when a petition is filed it is an extension especially of the quasar judicial process at the local level and and it provides a part of the comprehensive scheme that can result in appeals beyond that level which is where we are now in this case that i think congress would expect to be respected by the federal courts  that was the the record that does not suggest anything other than that a one hundred fifty foot tower at this location is fish and to serve singular needs in this area after the hearing examiners decision on a motion for reconsideration singular proposed that a one hundred twenty foot tower would be sufficient however that issue was never dou it was never part of a public hearing it was never photographed by simulation and no one has been able to provide testimony about whether that is the cure here for the problem of one hundred fifty as counsel pointed out it's essentially the same constitutional claim under the state constitution in the federal constitution but we could find ourselves having to litigate a fourteenth amendment federal an erroneous interpretation of the law for the hearing examiner to have relied on an ordinance which relates to a comprehensive plan provision which speaks to the need for compatibility of a special use with the neighborhood where it's located if that was an erroneous interpretation then it would eliminate the vagueness issue it would decide it essentially for  find that there must be compatibility which is what the hearing examiner said did not exist and justified denial of the application here so what we have here  regulatory reform act the land use petition act for the review of these decisions the state environmental policy act which which exists as an overlay to all other state and local regulations of land use as well as provisions such as the subdivision act which regulates the division of land into lots all of these are those which local government must respect and follow that local government is also intitled to make its own regulations based on the local conditions and local needs so it is the midst of all of these that funnels itself into a petition to the superior court initially  intention is here on for the merits of the cases that only technical and measurable criteria can be applied to issues having to do with the siting of wireless facilities if they are successful this will mean that no local decision can stand if it is based on the visible difference between the proposed use an this would be a sea change in the law of washington which is recognised that aesthetic considerations nevil live to any number of land use decisions we think that is an issue that if it is to be decided at all should be decided by the state courts not the federal court the plaintiffs federal claims are preserved if we have to go to federal court to resolve them we can't but the likelihood is we will either narrow those issues or perhaps dispose of the need to address them at all i have a question assuming that colorado river  colorado river applies primarily because there are exceptional circumstances here of the fact that we have a state court decision on the of the issues that if the federal powers well thurston county provides for wireless facilities in many locations in fact it provides for them to be located in the rural residential one dwelling unit to two alternative but in at least the record based on the motion for reconsideration there apparently is an alternative that has not been fully explored the one hundred twenty foot tower so i don't think we really have a gap in service issue at least not necessarily fully you know we don't know there would be a law that's the whole that's correct your honor we do not know that thank you very much unfortunately not the first time in the west mr quatermain in this situation surrounds we hope to get a clear ruling from this court the next because last time that where a plane in has clearly federal issues joined in a federal action where there is undisputed as there was here supplemental jurisdiction overstay claims and if that case goes forward on an expedited basis as congress intended and that where those federal