By Janine Unsoeld
The Thurston County Commissioners will discuss the
merits of a citizen appeal of the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development at a
hearing open to the public on Tuesday, June 23, 4:30 p.m., Building 1, Room 280,
at the Thurston County Courthouse, 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia.
The Oak Tree Preserve plat appeal hearing follows
the commissioner’s regularly scheduled commissioner’s meeting. Only those who
are party to the case - the developer and those who appealed the hearing
examiner’s approval of the project – may speak at the hearing. Each party’s argument will be limited to 15
minutes.
Although the county is a party of record, it is
unclear to Little Hollywood if the
county is considered to be a party to the appeal. A joint motion issued
by the county and the developer in early June seems to further blur the line between
the county’s role and the developer’s goals and objectives.
A group of Thurston County citizens and the Black
Hills Audubon Society are challenging Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon
Rice’s approval in April of the proposed Oak Tree development in the City of
Lacey’s urban growth area of Thurston County. The group says that the
subdivision plan would destroy a vital wildlife habitat and is in violation of
the county’s critical area ordinance.
The proposed development on Marvin Road is bordered
by the Burlington Northern Railroad and the McAllister Park and Evergreen
Estates subdivisions in unincorporated Lacey, and would subdivide 258.5 acres
into 1,037 single family homes, said to be the largest in the county’s history.
The development site is home to the largest
remaining Oregon white oak habitat in Thurston County. Oregon white oak is a state-protected
priority habitat. The proposed development
would destroy almost half of the 79 acres of Oregon white oak woodlands on the
site.
Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice decided
in favor of the preliminary plat and the Thurston County Resource
Stewardship Department staff supports the hearing examiner's decision. The decision
was appealed in May by citizens Bonnie and Bob Self, Donald and Liz Lyman, Lisa
Carroll, Bill Koopman, Liz Kohlenberg and the Black Hills Audubon Society.
The appeal contends that the subdivision plan
violates Thurston County’s critical areas ordinance and that it should be
remanded to the hearing examiner. The group argues that the subdivision’s
preliminary plat:
1) Does
not include the required study of wildlife that is associated with oak
woodlands, even though the county ordinance says protection of wildlife is the
most important function of the priority habitat. The developer’s expert admitted in her
testimony that a wildlife study was not done, and said: “It was my
understanding that a wildlife study was not required at that time.”
2) Misuses
science to conclude that the habitat function of the woodlands will be the same
after development as before – even when the development destroys almost half
the woodlands, bisects what remains with a road, and surrounds it with a dense
housing development. State law requires the use of best available science in
development regulations – and this was not best available science.
Late
Breaking News
The appellants, who include two former county
planning commissioners and several retired scientists, have
asked that the project be remanded back to the hearing examiner.
Today, the appellants filed a document in support of
its earlier motion that asks the county commissioners to allow new evidence
that the appellants discovered after the hearing examiner closed the record. That
motion is being opposed by both the developer's attorney and the Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Department’s counsel, Rick Peters.
In a June 3 response to the appeal, Peters claimed
that Thurston County code does not allow the record to be supplemented, that the
appellants do not have standing to challenge the hearing examiner's decision,
and that part of the appeal should be denied and/or dismissed on procedural or
substantive grounds.
“No argument provided by appellants should
invalidate the findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner,” says the
letter by Peters.
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) is not a party to the Lyman appeal, but in a June 2 letter to the commissioners, habitat biologist and environmental planner Theresa
Nation said the department concurs with the appellant’s analysis of the errors
in the evaluation of impacts to oak woodlands.
“We agree that the assessment of the impacts to oak
woodlands was flawed and inconsistent with best available science. We agree
that an accurate assessment of the impacts and adequate mitigation measures are
necessary….” wrote Nation.
“….In support of Governor Inslee’s Results Washington initiative, WDFW
tracks and reports the status of oak woodlands statewide. The Results Washington goal is to lose no
more than 31 acres of oak woodlands annually throughout all of Puget Sound.
This one proposal would cause losses well beyond the annual sound-wide goal,”
wrote Nation. She went on to say that the appellants in this case have
requested a reasonable solution to the serious issues brought forth in their
case.
County-Developer
File Joint Motion
A joint motion filed on June 8
by the county Resource Stewardship Department and the development applicant,
Oak Tree Preserve, LLC, asks the commissioners to strike from the record the
June 2 letter from Nation, which is posted on the county’s website. The motion
says that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is not a party
to the appeal, and should be considered as new evidence.
However, the county's appeal process, outlined in a
notice dated May 20, specifically allows all parties of record, not just the
parties to the appeal, to respond to the appeal by the deadline of June 3.
Theresa Nation, representing the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife, is among those listed on the county's master list of parties
of record.
The joint motion by the county and Oak Tree Preserve
to strike WSDFW’s response to the appeal raises questions and it could be
considered odd that the county and the developer would issue the joint motion.
Although the public cannot speak at Tuesday’s
hearing, witnesses to the hearing can learn about the land-use case first-hand
by observing the local process.
“The fate of these oak woodlands, the wildlife and
the quality of life in Thurston County hangs in the balance,” said Liz Lyman in
an interview today.
Full
Disclosure: Janine Unsoeld is listed as a party of record for providing testimony
at the March hearing on behalf of the board of the South Puget Environmental Education
Clearinghouse (SPEECH). She nor SPEECH is a party to the appeal.
For
more information about the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development, including pictures of the site, see several
stories at Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and type key words into the search
button.
For
Thurston County’s information about the case, go to http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/hearings/oak-tree-preserve/otp.htm
