Port of Olympia candidate E.J. Zita Applies for Seat on Commission

Above: E.J. Zita has applied for appointment to Port of Olympia position #3, previously held by former commissioner Sue Gunn. Zita will also file this week for election to the position.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

E.J. Zita, best known as Zita, has applied for appointment to Port of Olympia position 3 previously held by former commissioner Sue Gunn.

Zita submitted her application by the May 8 deadline and said she will also file for election for the permanent position. The filing deadline for that process is May 15.

As reported in The Olympian on May 9, local radio station sales manager Jerry Farmer has also applied for the appointment and will seek election to the position.

Zita, a 20 year faculty member at The Evergreen State College with a PhD in Physics, teaches and researches energy physics, solar magnetism, sustainability, and climate change.  She also serves as chair of the Thurston County Agricultural Board and is vice president of her Salmon Creek Basin neighborhood association.

Zita’s application to the port lists extensive recent grant-supported research collaborations, published papers, presentations, and leadership activities, all indicating a forward-thinking vision.

“Serving as a commissioner on the Port of Olympia is an opportunity to advance goals that are shared by Thurston County citizens and the port. Sustainable development and environmental responsibility can be profitable, provide jobs, and protect our future. Open processes and responsive public relations can facilitate useful exchanges of ideas, reduce legal challenges, and restore public trust. I have the vision and the skills to help the port reach these goals,” Zita states in her application.

Zita was directly recruited by some supporters of former commissioner Sue Gunn, who recently resigned from her position due to ongoing health issues and says she will carry forth Gunn’s issues of openness and transparency.

Zita also wants change at the port, and for the port to spend public money for the public good and move into the 21^st century.

“I have more to learn but I know what my values are. Observing port operations for the last ten years, I know what’s not working and I have a vision for what can work,” she said in an interview at her home this past weekend. Her partner, Nancy Armstrong, owns and operates a health clinic in Olympia and is a 23 year retired veteran of the Army Medical Corps.

Zita, who was first interviewed in 2010 by Little Hollywood about her neighborhood’s relationship with the port, says her concerns about port operations began in her neighborhood about 10 years ago.

Salmon Creek Basin neighbors, concerned about increased air traffic and environmental issues, went to the port in good faith.

“We assumed we could talk about it with them in a neighborly way, but we were soon disappointed. They weren’t concerned. So, neighbors got organized. We had never had an association before….We learned a lot about the public process, appeals, environmental reviews, port finances, and public hearings. We helped pass a sensible warehouse ordinance in Tumwater that helped protect our neighborhood, and here we are, ten years later, and they are trying to get around that law….”

Above: Aerial of the Port of Olympia Marine Terminal and Northpoint taken in December 2014.

Asked how that experience translates to her larger vision for the port, she said the port is not interested in working on smart development that is needed for Thurston County.

“We’re not the only ones who have tried to work with the port….When people go to them and try to talk about these things, their practice is to try and shut them down, hire more lawyers and fight the people who are concerned. I don’t think that’s a good way to use taxpayer money….The port should be using our money for the public good. The port should be listening and working with people for the future and the benefit of Thurston County,” she said.

Zita once applied to be on the port’s citizen advisory committee but her application was not accepted. She is currently serving as an advisory board member on the port’s New Market Industrial Campus and Tumwater Town Center Real Estate Development Master Plan, coordinated by the Thurston Regional Planning Commission.

The port owns about 1,540 acres of real estate in Tumwater. It owns 265 acres of property in Olympia.

“I’m glad they appointed me, but I’ve been on five months now, and while I’d still like to think the citizens on the board can make a difference and do some good, I’m seeing some familiar patterns…and it seems like they have their mind made up about what they want to do,” said Zita. The board is expected to study the issues until November. Their next meeting is scheduled for June 11.

Asked how she would work with the county and the City of Olympia in master planning and environmental efforts, Zita praised the city for its leadership on climate change issues and encouraged stronger relationship with the city.

“We have a lot of good people and great resources and a lot of expertise in the area that we should be tapping into to work together.”

Zita was asked about her position on several specific port issues, such as the possible creation of a Berth 4, the recent purchase of a crane, and the port’s acceptance of ceramic proppants used in the fracking industry.  She said she found out long ago that the port does its own environmental reviews.

“The ports are granted a lot of freedom to do what they want to do without much public oversight... Just because they have that freedom doesn’t mean they should use it without consulting the public, and without consulting the experts. The questions I’d ask (for any of these issues) are: Is it good for the environment, is it good for the economy, is it good for local people, and is it good for the community? The port has made mistakes for not consulting more broadly on its plans and I would encourage the port to consult more broadly before making decisions,” she said.

About the port’s financial accountability, she said, “The port is losing $2 million a year. It has stopped including depreciation in its reporting, but we need more financial accountability. The port resists that. We need to hold the port accountable….They have been very creative in its reporting.…If the port is losing funds on projects that are not benefitting the public, then we need to ask why.

“External environmental reviews are needed – the port is like the fox guarding its own hen house….We need good, careful studies done before the port says, ‘We’re going to do this project and nobody can tell us otherwise.’ If we take a closer look, we can prevent big, expensive mistakes that are going to damage the environment and pay a lot of money down the line to fix it.”

Asked about her vision for the port, Zita said she’d like it to be a food hub. Zita says she recently began a formal collaboration with the Conservation Biology Institute in Corvallis, Oregon to model impacts of climate change on agricultural lands in the Pacific Northwest.

“We can create a bigger Tumwater farmer’s market, and create a place where farmers could bring their food for distribution and processing and value-added products. Farming in the county and urban areas is one the fastest growing segments of Thurston County’s economy…. This can create jobs and support people locally, and contribute to our food security….Renewable energy projects is another idea…it’s an investment in the future,” she said.

The 15 acre Armstrong-Zita ranch is located near port property south of Tumwater. Besides their professional careers, the couple offers organic grass-fed beef each summer, taking orders in spring. They have six Angus-Hereford cattle, born and bred on the farm, and are sustainably rotated on lush pasture. Never fed hormones or antibiotics, the animals are slaughtered on-site. They slaughter about three or four cattle a year, serving about 12 families. They also have fresh eggs from free range hens, 38 meat birds, and three horses. They donate beef, eggs, and cash to the South of the Sound Farmland Trust.

Above: On the farm with E.J. Zita and her horses Rusty and Ada this past weekend.

For more information about the Port of Olympia and the subjects discussed in this article, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com, and use the search button to type in key words.

For more information from the Port of Olympia, go to www.portolympia.com.

Approved and Appealed: Thurston County’s Oak Tree Land Use Case

 

Above: Liz Lyman, center, looks at the maps of the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development before the hearing held at the Thurston County fairgrounds on March 23, 2015.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

The proposed development called the Oak Tree Preserve was approved on April 24 by Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, and that decision was appealed by concerned citizens by the deadline, May 8.

Several citizens living near the property stepped up to appeal the decision, including Liz Lyman, who is now acting as the official spokesperson for the appeal.

Contacted this weekend by Little Hollywood, Lyman says she appreciates all the efforts of concerned neighbors and community members to save a 258.5 acre wooded area in Lacey’s urban growth area of Thurston County.

Other appellants are Liz Kohlenberg, Robert Self, Bonnie Self, the Black Hills Audubon Society, William Koopman and Felicia “Lisa” Carroll.

Oak Tree Preserve, LLC is seeking to develop the property into 1,037 small, single family residential units. The project is proposed to be developed in Thurston County’s largest stand of Oregon White Oaks - just over 79 acres. It is also home to a wide range of birds, animals and plants.

The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife designates the Oregon White Oak as priority habitat. If this development is ultimately approved as it is currently proposed, 36 acres of that priority habitat  - 45 percent - will be destroyed to build houses and infrastructure.

The remaining oak stand will be fragmented. The developer proposes to build one of the two main connector roads through the remaining oak stand. That road will be the only road from the site to Marvin Road for the first two phases of the development, significantly impacting the habitat.

The area in the unincorporated area of Lacey on Marvin Road is bordered by the Burlington Northern Railroad and the McAllister Park and Evergreen Estates subdivisions.

Few neighbors were notified of the proposed development. Those who were took to the streets, informed others, and created an online petition against the development that garnered nearly 300 supporters in about four days.

Carroll and Koopman have also created a Facebook page, Facebook.com/pages/Save The Thurston Oaks. Both are fresh Thurston County environmental activist voices, and learning the process as they go along.

After the hearing examiner’s decision but before she decided to become an appellant, Carroll said she and the neighbors of her Evergreen Estates subdivision were saddened, but then felt empowered to do more.

“The fact is, Evergreen Estates will bear the brunt of it - we only have 27th Avenue as our main road and there are going to be 300 homes added at the end of 27th....The size of this project makes it all that more unfortunate that 20th century standards were applied to a 21st century world.  We must do better.  And it looks like it’s up to us citizens of Thurston County to make that change.”

Koopman agreed, lamenting a wide range of environmental concerns:

 “…The effects of the new development on the communities and homes bordering Marvin…cannot be underestimated….The entire area drains into the Nisqually Watershed, by way of McAllister Springs, McAllister Creek and thus the Puget Sound. The additional pollutants - herbicides, pesticides, plastics, storm water runoffs - will undoubtedly further impact the health of the watershed, Puget Sound, the shellfish, and of course, the salmon.

“There is also the issue of oil train-traffic, which is growing exponentially in this area. This new development is bordered by the railroad. All of the homes located therein are in an area considered by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a potential evacuation or impact zone in case of an oil train derailment and/or explosion. If coal trains start their travels through the county as well, what of our air-quality, especially of those developments bordering the tracks?

“There are indeed a host of further items of interest….Amazingly, all of this has been approved without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) having been performed. Through a series of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) the EIS has been out-maneuvered and rendered mute. The EIS is the people’s voice of safe, responsible and sustainable environmental practices that assure all Thurston County residents of an accountable, transparent mode of responsible stewardship of our County’s land use and the safety of our population through enforcements concerning proposed land use developments, clean water and clean air. I believe our county residents require more from the Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department than a rubberstamp of approval on such a highly contentious development project,” said Koopman.

Liz Lyman, who lives in The Seasons subdivision, served on the Thurston County Planning Commission from 1999 to 2007, including two years as chair and two years as vice chair. She also has experience with land use planning for protecting wildlife habitats and nearshore water quality in Puget Sound's urbanized areas.

“I've only met Lisa and Bill once, but they seem deeply and genuinely committed to protecting habitat for wildlife -- birds in particular. I applaud them for all of their efforts. It's truly heartening to meet people like them,” said Lyman.

Appeal Claims

The funds contributed for the appeal filing were from homeowners in Evergreen Estates, The Seasons, and the Black Hills Audubon Society.

In the appeal, appellant’s claim that the hearing examiner’s decision erred by not requiring avoidance of removing oak trees as the primary method of protecting the oak woodlands as required by Thurston County regulations.

They also say she erred by not using “best available science” to evaluate the Oregon White Oak woodland, determine if any of the acreage can be removed without causing irreparable harm to the habitat, and determine the mitigation strategy for the oak that must be removed.

Petitioners are requesting the collection of a more robust record on avoidance and best available science, and a new hearing examiner review after that record is created.   

They also request that the new record include testimony from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the state agency charged with protecting priority habitat including oak woodlands, and several other topics.

Next Steps

Lyman says she continues to turn away people who want to contribute to the nearly $900 it took to appeal the land use decision in Thurston County.

“I have spoken with homeowners in The Seasons and Eagle Crest, which is a neighboring subdivision….Many homeowners are simply incredulous about the hearing examiner's decision on the Oak Tree Preserve preliminary plat. The issues they're concerned about may vary, but the common thread is that they're very unhappy….and are feeling let down by the county. The board of The Seasons considered appealing, but decided against it because the odds of prevailing are not in its favor and it's entrusted with the homeowners' funds. The Seasons' board was wonderful, though, in getting the word out to our homeowners through the association's own website,” she said. There are 215 homes in The Seasons.

“We have many avid birders who are keenly interested in the outcome of this appeal. Many of us have worked hard to create a bird-friendly environment, something that will be impacted rather dramatically and negatively if the Oak Tree Preserve development proceeds….The destruction of the Oregon White Oak habitat will be devastating to the bird population,” said Lyman.

As for the appeal, the next step is to wait for the county to post the documents filed on May 8 on its website, which should occur early next week. Then, the developer has 14 days to file their response to the appeal as well as to others that may have been filed. Then, the appellants have seven days to file their responses or rebuttals.

The County Commissioners have 60 days to make their decision from the date an appeal is posted. A decision on the case could be made before mid-July.

For three previous articles on the Oak Tree Preserve case, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and use the search button using key words.

Thurston County’s Hearing Examiner Decision: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/hearings/oak-tree-preserve/otp.html

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/hearings/oak-tree-preserve/C26-WDFW-OTP-Plat-Hearing-comments-3_21_15.pdf

New Grande Terrace Wedding Venue Permit Hearing Set

Above: This existing tent and supporting structure at 915 and 1007 Deschutes Parkway must be removed by May 11, says the City of Olympia. The tent is not permitted under International Fire Codes.

The city has recommended to a hearing examiner, among other conditions, that the 915 Deschutes Parkway residence and a proposed covered porch have sprinklers if required access for fire trucks cannot be provided to these structures. This shall be determined prior to issuance of building permits, says the city.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

A new hearing date for the Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake has been set for Thursday, July 30, 9:00 a.m., at Olympia City Hall, says Cari Hornbein, City of Olympia interim principal planner who is handling the land use case.

Hornbein will send out a formal notice for the wedding and event venue’s conditional use permit hearing in late June, “so it doesn’t fall off people’s radar,” she said on Friday morning.

The venue had several weddings scheduled throughout spring and summer, but was directed by the city to cancel those events and take down a large, plastic tent because it does not conform to fire codes and other regulations.

The business, located at 915 and 1007 Deschutes Parkway SW near downtown Olympia, does not have a permit to operate. The operator, Bart Zier, requested a conditional use permit from the city for the rental of a residence for wedding and social events. The property is located in an area zoned single family residential and the city has recommended denial of the conditional use permit application to a hearing examiner.

Right Business, Wrong Location

Little Hollywood has contacted three brides-to-be with upcoming weddings scheduled at Grande Terrace, including one scheduled for August.

One is glad that she is out of the contract she signed with Grande Terrace, and just received a full refund from venue operator Bart Zier for her September wedding. The young bride-to-be, already informed of the Grande Terrace debacle, was contacted by Zier two days ago to see if she would like to switch her wedding to his other venue, Grand Holiday Ballroom, on Fourth Avenue.

She did not.

“I feel like I was tricked….I never would have signed the contract if I had known about these code violations. I was not happy to hear the extent of it. I told him I had no faith that he would be open by September and now that I know about all these violations, I’d be embarrassed to have my wedding in the wrong location,” said the life-long Olympia resident, who did not want to be identified.

Another young bride-to-be wasn’t so lucky. Her wedding was scheduled to occur at Grande Terrace at the end of this month, and thanked Little Hollywood for contacting her. She said Zier contacted her on May 5 and was unclear about why she needed to move her wedding location.

She allowed Little Hollywood to share her story, if she wasn’t identified, in hopes that it helps others who may have their weddings or events scheduled there.

“Thank you for reaching out to me regarding this issue. Bart has just contacted me about the news. I actually did some research and found your articles….They were much more informative than Bart was, however he has offered to have the wedding take place at the Grand Holiday Ballroom with discounts and compensation for the inconvenience. This matter has been completely unprofessional and I wish I had been notified more than 26 days before the wedding takes place - that way, I could have researched my own venues and booked another. I was able to negotiate discounts with Bart but I never would have selected the Grande Terrace if I had known this was occurring.

“Thank you so much for taking it in your hands to reach out to others concerning this issue, especially for those who may not have been notified yet.”

Little Hollywood wishes all brides-to-be and their families the very best in life and believes everyone loves a wedding.

For previous articles about the Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and use the search button to type in key words.

Olympia Wedding and Event Venue Public Hearing Postponed

Above: To the far left of the picture, the framework of a 3,000 square foot white plastic tent at the Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake is still up, in violation of a temporary use permit. The tent, as currently constructed, is not allowed under International Fire Code and other state and city codes. The City of Olympia has requested that it be fully removed by May 11.

 

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

A public hearing set for May 11th regarding Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake has been postponed until at least July.

The hearing was scheduled to be held in front of the city’s hearing examiner to determine if the venue, a wedding and event business located at 915 and 1007 Deschutes Parkway SW near downtown Olympia, is commercial in nature.

Bart Zier, who currently does not have a permit to operate his business, is requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Olympia for the rental of a residence for wedding and social events. Zier is also requesting the construction of a 2,800 square foot attached covered patio to the residences.

The venue, which has a view of the state Capitol Dome and downtown, has several contractual commitments for future weddings, including one scheduled for May 31.

The property is located in an area zoned single family residential and has incurred documented city code violations since 2013. Zier was most recently fined $1,026 on March 7 for his third violation in three months for not removing a large, omnipresent plastic white tent, as required under a temporary use permit.

At a city site review planning meeting on April 22, staff voted to recommend denial of the conditional use permit application to the hearing examiner. If the hearing examiner did approve a permit, staff created a lengthy list of recommended conditions for approval.

At that point, Zier determined that he needed legal counsel, and hired Phillips Burgess PLLC of Olympia, who filed a motion for postponement of the hearing from May 11 to a date no earlier than June 30, 2015. The motion was filed with the city on May 1.

The city agreed to the motion, and a hearing may occur in July, said Cari Hornbein, interim principal planner for the City of Olympia, who is handling the case.

According to an email dated May 4, attorney Heather Burgess says that Zier is agreeing to the city’s request to not hold events on the property through July 31.

“All currently scheduled events are being cancelled,” she states in the email.

Zier is also required to completely remove all walls and structural remnants of the tent frame structure on the property by no later than May 11.

In the email, Burgess requests an informal meeting with the city to see if there is some way Zier can be permitted to use the property for events in some form.

Native Archaeological Site Disturbed

Letters from concerned neighbors and state and local agencies continue to be received by the city regarding the case.

In a letter submitted to the city on April 30, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) states that there is a Native American archaeological site in the area currently occupied by Grand Terrace on Capitol Way. Archaeological sites are protected from disturbance on both public and private lands in Washington State.

The letter, also submitted to representatives of the Nisqually and Squaxin Tribes, states that it appears that development work was undertaken on the property since the archaeological site was recorded as a shell midden in 2002.

According to the agency, shell middens are villages, camp sites, or shellfish processing areas, composed of a dark, organically rich soil with shell or shell fragments, artifacts and fire-cracked rock.

The area along Deschutes Parkway is within the ceded area of the Squaxin Island Tribe, and is on the original shoreline of Budd Inlet.

No permits were found on file for development of the site, says the letter written by Gretchen Kaehler, an archaeologist for the department. Under state law, failure to obtain permits is punishable by civil fines, penalties, and criminal prosecution.

According to the letter, concerned tribes may also choose to pursue civil action in state or federal court, investigations and prosecution as well. A view of the property on Thurston County Geodata shows a dramatic loss of trees and disturbance of the property.

For more information about the Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake case, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com, and see the April 26, 2015 story,“Olympia Wedding and Event Venue in Question.” For future stories, use the search button and type in key words.

Above: Standing water in this picture taken April 26 indicates a possible wetland near the railroad tracks along Deschutes Parkway in front of the Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake business.

 

Olympia Wedding and Event Venue In Question

Above: Grande Terrace at Capitol Lake on Deschutes Parkway is requesting a conditional use permit from the City of Olympia for the rental of a residence for wedding and social events. The business has been operating under temporary use permits for two years while violating the terms of those agreements.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

The owner of Grande Terrace at Capitol Lake, an event and wedding business located at 915 and 1007 Deschutes Parkway SW, is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City of Olympia for the rental of a residence for wedding and social events.

The venue, which has a view of Capitol Lake and the Capitol Dome, currently does not have a permit to operate but has contractual commitments for future events.

On Wednesday morning, city staff denied the conditional use permit at a site review planning committee meeting held at city hall. Based on staff’s analysis of the land use and building codes, the proposed use is commercial in nature and is not allowed. The property is zoned single family residential 4 – 8, meaning four to eight residences can be built per acre.

The case is being referred to the city’s hearing examiner, who is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the situation on Monday, May 11, 2015, 6:30 p.m. in the Olympia City Council Chambers, 601 4th Avenue East, Olympia.

A March 18 application submitted to the city by Bart Zier states that a permanent, unheated 3,300 square foot covered porch would be attached to the residences, and that the venue would host between 20 -30 events per year.

Although the business website states that the venue accommodates events between 30 – 225 people, the application states that the maximum capacity for the venue will be 150 people.

The area is on a septic system and wells meant for single family dwellings and there is only one fire hydrant nearby on Deschutes Parkway to serve those residences.  According to the application, three portable toilets would be brought in to serve guests. City staff noted these limitations, among other factors, in its report.

The city is prepared to defend its position with a lengthy list of recommended conditions if the hearing examiner approves the permit. The case file is thick with maps and letters from state agencies such the state Department of Enterprise Services, the regional LOTT Clean Water Alliance and interested citizens who have already submitted comments on the case expressing concerns and questions about the business regarding the environment, access, public health and safety, parking, traffic impact, sea-level rise and stormwater management issues.

In what has become a fast-moving story, Zier revised the application on March 24 to reduce the size of the porch to 2,800 square feet in order to avoid a review by the city’s Design Review Board. Zier has previously submitted a variety of applications in an attempt to maneuver around the city’s zoning, home based business, residential, and commercial regulations.

A series of 2014 spring and summertime correspondence between the city and the applicant detail multiple code violations and incomplete applications for a conditional use permit.

Shoreline issues are also of concern. The area where a temporary tent is usually located and related operations may fall within the 200’ shoreline jurisdiction of Capitol Lake, and subject to the Conservancy regulations for commercial uses in the Thurston Region Shoreline Master Program.

LOTT owns and operates a pump station on property adjacent to the Grande Terrace business. Their letter expresses concern about access to the pump and other issues.

The State of Washington owns property west of Deschutes Parkway up to the railroad corridor that is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad.  According to a letter submitted by the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services last summer, pedestrian access improvements were constructed over and upon both the Burlington Northern property as well as the state property to access the business. Because these improvements blocked the railroad and were not permitted, the owners were advised to remove the improvements, which they did.

A large, white tent structure with partitioned plastic windows can usually be seen from Deschutes Parkway. The tent is heated with stainless steel outdoor patio propane heaters for events. Earlier this week, the tent was seen being dismantled. When asked about this by Little Hollywood before the Wednesday meeting, Zier said the tent was being removed for “cleaning and restructuring.”

Parking is extremely limited, with event patrons parking along Deschutes Parkway, or at nearby Marathon Park. Patrons must cross Deschutes Parkway and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, without a crosswalk, to access the venue.

According to Michelle Bentley, the city’s urban forester, the property has also been cleared of trees without permits.

The property may also contain a wetland that has been filled and graded without permits. Standing water could be seen earlier this week near the railroad tracks. City staff member Eric Christiansen says a fish bearing stream crosses the property and may be a critical area.

“Our code has a provision that “grandfathers” disturbed areas within critical areas/buffers; however, any new improvements would trigger critical area review,” he said in an email. A stream on the property has also been mapped by the state Department of Natural Resources.

Above: A stream, seen here in December 2014, is located on the Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake property.

 

Truckloads of fill and gravel were witnessed being brought onsite by neighbors in the last two to three years and nearby, uphill residents on South Rogers and South Percival have complained about noise from the venue. Neighbors say that they assumed it was a permitted operation and allowed by the city. 

 

Above: Grande Terrace on Capitol Lake features a view of the Capitol Dome. For weddings and events, chairs are set up on the lawn for viewing wedding ceremonies.

 

Business Is a Repeat Code Violation Offender

The applicant is Bart Zier, who lists his address as 915 Deschutes Parkway SW. His mother, Donna Zier of Lacey, is listed as the property owner. The address listed is not Mr. Zier's home – it is the business, and contains a bar, catering kitchen, restrooms, and changing rooms for the bride and groom.

The business has been operating for two years under temporary permits. At one point, on August 3, 2014, the city issued a stop work order to Mr. Zeir for construction activities taking place without permits. The city informed Zier that he must obtain necessary permits and land use approvals, including temporary use permits, conditional use permits, and building and fire code permits.

Up to six events are allowed per year under a temporary use permit. According to the city, Zier held an initial event without a permit, received temporary permits for six events, then held two more events without a permit. In addition, Zeir did not follow several rules within the temporary use permit.

In an August 2014 letter written by city lead planner Cari Hornbein, the city informed Zier that given the scale of the operation, the city considers it to be a commercial use which is not allowed in a residential zone district even with the conditional use permit. The city informed him that his options moving forward include scaling back the operation and using the house for events, or seeking a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment to allow commercial use of the property.

Property History

Local attorney Trena Worthington owned the stately brick home and two other adjacent parcels. When she died, her long-time friend Dorothy Wack became the executrix of her estate. In documents, Mrs. Worthington stated that her home, built in 1975, was never to be used for commercial uses.

In January 2004, Wack sold the house to Dr. Angela Bowen for about $1.2 million. Dr. Bowen, in turn, sold the house and another parcel in September of that same year to Donna Zier as well as another residence, a two story, four bedroom home built in 1940, located at 1007 Deschutes Parkway.

Zier also owns the Grande Holiday Ballroom on 4^th Avenue, another wedding and event venue, which used to be the old Salvation Army.

Wack has diligently worked to adhere to Mrs. Worthington’s wishes and has written letters to the city for at least a year and a half, expressing concern about the business operation, and in fact, hired legal representation to stop the business from using the Worthington name as its business name.

In her letter dated April 15 to the city, Wack lays out a wide range of municipal, state, and federal law violations the business has committed and expresses concerns regarding public health and safety.

According to Wack, as of April 15, Zier does not have the permission of the Burlington Northern Railroad for people to cross the railroad to access his business. She also cites noise and light pollution, and parking violations.

“It is disturbing to know that the Ziers developed a wedding and event site without first getting the proper permits from the City of Olympia, State of Washington, or Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. One would assume that the Olympia Municipal Code Manual, Olympia Comprehensive Plan, State Environmental Policy Act, Washington State RCWs and WACs are written to provide some sort of order and structure for living within the confines of our fine city. That being the case, I question how the Ziers can obtain a conditional use permit while violating so many sections of these governing instruments….” Wack wrote.

Two other neighbors, Bryan and Jeanne Sandeno, who have lived since 1991 on Terrace Lane SW in the historic Highmiller Home, are directly impacted by the business. Subjected to frequent noise pollution, the Sandeno’s have made code violation reports to the city, and will be testifying against the business’s continued operation.

“Looking at the requests stated in the application, in light of what we now know about the discovered code infractions at the site…a [Conditional Use Permit] CUP should not be granted. The character of this business is definitely not in keeping with the neighborhood…and as we know a business of this type does not belong in a residentially zoned area….” state the Sandeno's in their letter to the city.

Anyone interested in this case is invited to attend and present testimony regarding this business. Written statements may be submitted to the Olympia Community Planning and Development Department, PO Box 1967, Olympia, WA 98507-1967. Refer to Case Number # 14-0053. Written comments must be received at or prior to the public hearing on May 11th.

For more information, contact Cari Hornbein, City of Olympia lead planner at (360) 753-8048 or chornbei@ci.olympia.wa.us.  

 

Above: Standing water, indicating a possible wetland, by the Burlington Northern railroad track along Deschutes Parkway on April 21, 2015.

 

Going…Going…Almost Gone: Demolition of Blight on the Isthmus

Above: Building demolition today in downtown Olympia across from Bayview Market opened up the view to the Capitol Building.

 

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

At long last, building demolition at 505 Fourth Avenue in downtown Olympia across from Bayview Market has begun, facilitated by Seattle-Tacoma based contractor Dickson Company.

According to the City of Olympia, this work is expected to take no more than 10 days and no site improvements are planned or funded.  

In recent years, Olympia acquired two properties on the isthmus at 505 and 529 Fourth Avenue West. Demolition of the second building, the former Thurston County Health Department, will occur in early summer.

This project is a funding partnership of the City of Olympia, Thurston County, and the Olympia Capitol Park Foundation.

But What About The Mistake on the Lake?

The Olympia Capitol Park Foundation sent out a news release in late March detailing progress at and near the site, including the vacant nine story building, the Mistake on the Lake, also known as the Capitol Center Building, which is not currently scheduled for demolition: 

“The City of Olympia asked the state Legislature for help in removing the long vacant Capitol Center building from the Isthmus. The proposed capital budget released this week by the House Capitol Budget Chair recommends an appropriation of $900,000 that may be used to help with acquisition and demolition of the building…. Representatives Sam Hunt, Chris Reykdal, and Senator Karen Fraser are working together in support of getting state support for funds in the capital budget,” said Jerry Reilly, Foundation chair.

“Although the exact costs of acquiring and removing the Capitol Center building cannot be precisely known until a purchase agreement can be reached with the current owner, best estimates are that the cost, including demolition, could be as high as $12 million….

“The Olympia Capitol Park Foundation has already pledged to raise $400,000 in private donations for development of the Capitol Olympic Vista Park. Both the city of Olympia and Thurston County have been outstanding partners in the progress made so far….

 “There are still a variety of opinions as to how to re-develop all of the land on the isthmus….The position of the Olympia Capitol Park Foundation is that the best use is as a publicly owned civic space, with structures, if any, no higher than 35 feet. But, above all, it is most essential to get ownership (site control) of all of the land as soon as possible. The owners of the Capitol Center building want to re-develop it as a hotel. If this happens, we may live with this building for another fifty years and miss the opportunity to perfect the unparalleled view from the Capitol campus to Puget Sound and the Olympic mountains beyond as envisioned by Capitol designers Wilder and White and the Olmsted brothers a century ago. Our immediate goal is to get the site “down and green” or “down and clean” and then have an open community process to decide what comes next.” 

The Olympia Capitol Park Foundation was established in 2008 as a 501(c) (3) non-profit corporation. Contributions to the Foundation are tax deductible charitable gifts under the federal Internal Revenue Code. Undesignated or general donations will be used for land acquisition, park development, and/or related expenses, such as operations or publicity. Donations for Land and Park Acquisition will be used to acquire some or all of the land and also for park development.

For more information, contact Jerry Reilly, Chair, Olympia Capitol Park Foundation, at vistapark@capitolvistapark.org or mail donations to Capitol Vista Park, PO Box 1964, Olympia, WA 98507.

For more information about the demolition from the City of Olympia, contact Brett Bures, Project Manager, at (360) 753-8290.

Above: Looking northwest from Simmons Street, on-site building demolition workers knocked off today about 4:00 p.m. 

 

 

“Vested” Oak Tree Preserve Land Use Application Proves Thurston County Is For Sale

Above: An Oregon White Oak is strangled with surveyor’s tape, but continues to grow. The Thurston County oaks are on property owned by Bellevue developer Jeffrey Hamilton of Oak Tree Preserve LLC.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

On its cover, the March 2015 issue of Seattle magazine proclaims to have the scoop on the best, affordable neighborhoods in Seattle. To whet your appetite, they identify six areas, each with a mix of housing options starting in the $400,000s. Still a little too high?

Well, Thurston County is for sale and Bellevue developer, Jeffrey Hamilton, owner of Oak Tree Preserve LLC, knows it.

Since 2012, Hamilton has sought to subdivide 258.5 acres of wooded land in Lacey’s urban growth area of Thurston County into 1,037 small lot, single family residential units.

Hamilton's effort provides job security for not only the Thurston County planning department staff, but several others, including Hatton Godat Pantier, a local engineering, surveying and construction project management firm. Jeff Pantier testified at the county hearing on March 24 that he’s been involved with the project since 2003. Co-principal Steve Hatton said he has been involved for 10 years.

The firm’s website lists nine of their projects, some controversial, ranging from Olympia’s first “low impact” west side development, Cooper Crest, to environmental clean-up operations at the Port of Olympia.

Thurston County senior planner Robert Smith says that although the county does not keep a list ranking the sizes of subdivisions, the Oak Tree Preserve application features the largest that he’s aware of, “at least in modern times.”

Neighbors Oppose Oak Tree Preserve Project

Plat hearing testimony was heard on March 24 regarding a wide range of environmental, transportation, and school capacity issues. A decision on the plat hearing is expected by Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on April 24.

According to the county application, the development is expected to generate nearly 10,000 vehicle trips per day. Approval of this subdivision is conditioned upon payment of City of Lacey traffic mitigation fees of $1,128.68 per lot, equaling about $1.2 million.

According to a North Thurston Public Schools in a letter to the county dated July 30, 2014, the proposed development will generate 790 new students. The cost of purchasing land and temporary classrooms and constructing new school facilities is estimated to be $3,728 per new single-family, equaling about $3.8 million.

There is no price tag that can be placed on the potential loss of a spectacular wooded space, Thurston County’s largest stand of Oregon White Oak, about 76 acres, and the habitat for a wide range of animals and plants.

Above: With the proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC development, those “minutes,” to shopping and I-5 in commute time, now ranging from 10 to 40 minutes from nearby subdivisions depending on the day and time of day, are almost guaranteed to lengthen, despite the developer’s mitigation plans. This photo was taken on Saturday, March 28, about 2:00 p.m. approaching the Hawks Prairie area interchange of Martin Way and Marvin Road in Lacey.

After last week’s public preliminary plat hearing in front of Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, neighbors quickly mobilized to inform nearby neighbors just outside the 300 foot notification area about the proposed project, and learn about the land use process.

They’ve started an online petition at http://tinyurl.com/thurston-oak that will be submitted as public comment to the hearing examiner by the deadline of 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3.  

Due to the organizing efforts of those who live around the beloved wooded area, the petition has already gathered nearly 300 names and comments. While some just state their opposition to the project, others explain their reasons for wanting to preserve the natural habitat, with one person describing the beauty of its spring wildflowers of delphinium, shooting stars, prairie star and camas.

Others provide evidence that the project does not support the policies and goals of the Sustainable Thurston plan. The plan, adopted by the Thurston Regional Planning Council in December 2013, included the three year effort of 180 residents representing 104 jurisdictions, agencies, organizations, and community groups. It guides new housing development in urban areas among other topics that affect short- and long-term quality of life in the Thurston County region.

Neighbors are asking basic questions like:

“The Department of Fish and Wildlife considers White Oak as Priority Habitat. From their website it says, '24.25.005 C. Protect the functions and values of priority habitats such as, but not limited to, prairies, Oregon white oak, and riparian areas along streams and marine waters.' They could stop this on their own mandates. Why don't they?”  

“There are two endangered species that live in those woods: Streaked Horned Larks and Taylor's Checkerspot butterfly. I have seen them over the 27 years I have wandered through there. I saw a pair of Checkerspots just the other day. Where do I go with that?”

“About water quality, the entire area drains into the Nisqually watershed, down into McAllister Springs and then the Sound. Which agency is concerned with this?”

“Vesting” and the Proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC Development

More than your run of the mill not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) knee-jerk reaction to yet another development, this land use application begs questions and demands answers.

It appears to be a glaring example of two flaws in Thurston County growth management history that developers are taking full advantage of: first, the county’s lateness in developing and implementing impact fees that encouraged development in unincorporated county areas and second, the City of Lacey was allowed to define and adopt an overly expansive urban growth area.  

The project is considered “vested” by the county under previous owners in 2009, as Freestone Ridge, under the City of Lacey’s Comprehensive Plan and the Thurston County Land Use Plan for the Lacey Urban Growth Area, adopted in 1994 with a 2003 update.

Project developers claim to not have to conform to the latest version of the county’s critical area ordinance since it was not in effect when the original proposal was submitted. 

For example, the stormwater measures for the proposal are based on the 1994 Thurston County Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual, although the science and knowledge of stormwater and stormwater control and management has since increased. 

The property changed hands in 2013 and in May 2014, Thurston County received a revised application listing the new owner and met with county staff. Staff provided comments and thus the application was considered to be a revision of the original application.

To be clear, the proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC homes are not going to be the half-acre lot size homes featured in nearby McAllister Park, an upscale neighborhood with large custom homes featuring several bedrooms, bathrooms and multi-car garages, range in the mid-to-high $500,000 range. The Park touts its territorial views and location minutes from I-5, shopping, Pierce County, Joint Base Lewis McChord, and “miles of sidewalks, street lighting and adjacent city parks.”

Adams v. Thurston County: A Land Use History Lesson

For the Oak Tree Preserve application, the county is not asking for an EIS and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeals brought by the McAllister Park Homeowners Association were settled with the developer.

So why is Thurston County not defending the environment? A little growth management history lesson may explain.

It’s relevant, because unlike the current situation, Thurston County was on the other side, and in court from 1987 to 1993 defending the geologic, environmental sensitivity of the area, including McAllister Springs, and argued strenuously that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared and that the developer, Virgil Adams, adhere to the State Environmental Policy Act laws.

In the 1980s, Virgil Adams owned property adjacent to the current Oak Tree Preserve property. He intended to develop it into two subdivisions in Thurston County: McAllister Park and Lacey Estates.

In June, 1987, Adams filed a preliminary plat application with the Thurston County Planning Department for a residential development of 600 lots called McAllister Park. In November, 1987, Adams's predecessors filed a preliminary plat application for Lacey Estates.

The planning department issued a determination of significance requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for McAllister Park. Adams had not yet submitted the EIS. At the applicants' request, the county had not yet issued its threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance for Lacey Estates. 

The county, relying on Thurston County Code (TCC) 18.12.030, contended that the date of vesting should be the date the final environmental impact statement is filed.

Adams and another developer, Lyle Anderson, sued, and won in May 1991 against the county in Superior Court under Judge Richard Strophy. Patrick D. Sutherland was the attorney for the developers, and Thomas R. Bjorgen, represented the county.

The county appealed, saying that the developers' development rights were vested upon the submission of the applications. They lost.

In September 1988, the Thurston County Board of Health, composed of the county commissioners, Les Eldridge, Karen Fraser, and George Barner, adopted a resolution creating a geologically sensitive area in the vicinity of the McAllister Springs aquifer and imposed a two year suspension (moratorium) of building site approvals within the area. Both of Adams's proposed plats were within the area. By August, 1990, the Board of Health had determined that Adams's property did not lie over the sensitive aquifer.

In July, 1990, the county commissioners rezoned the area in which the Adams property was situated, changing the density requirements from two to four dwelling units per acre to one dwelling unit per five acres. The rezone was pursuant to the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Growth Management Agreement.  Thurston County and the Cities of Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater entered into the agreement in June, 1988.

Adams brought a “declaratory judgment action,” seeking a ruling that his development rights were vested in 1987 when he filed his preliminary plat application and that the zoning standards in effect on that date controlled the density of McAllister Park and Lacey Estates. The trial court granted summary judgment to Adams.

Then, in a related case, Adams filed an application for preliminary plat approval of a proposed subdivision to be known as Silver Hawk Country Club Estates (Silver Hawk) in April, 1990.

A rezone in July, 1990, limited development to one unit per five acres, and included the Silver Hawk property. Lyle Anderson also sought a declaratory judgment that his development rights vested on the date of his application.

Anderson and Thurston County agreed that, pending appeal, the Adams decision governed Anderson's action. The parties entered into a stipulated summary judgment, ordering that Anderson's development rights vested in April, 1990.

In the end, in June 1993, the state Supreme Court ruled against the Thurston County saying:

“The only real purpose served by the County's interpretation of the ordinance is to allow it to change its zoning laws to defeat or modify a particular subdivision by delaying vesting until after environmental review. The County argues that later vesting is a preferable policy. The Washington Legislature and Supreme Court disagree.”

In fact, the Court said, “Thurston County argues extensively in its brief…contending that ‘substantial and permanent injury may be done to the public interest by those racing to apply for a permit to avoid a pending zoning change….’ This argument is more appropriately addressed to the Legislature. We must decide this matter based on state law and its interpretation by the court and not on our personal notions of wise land use policy.”

Fast Forward to 2015

Fast forward to 2015 and these cases may explain Thurston County’s reticence to demand an environmental impact statement and the sudden settlement of the SEPA appeals by the McAllister Park Homeowners Association.

Upon request by Little Hollywood, Robert Smith, Senior Planner, Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department, clarified the current land use application process and its relevance to the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development.

“Once a land use application is granted preliminary approval, there is a timeframe within which the applicant must meet all conditions or the approval /application will expire. 

“For subdivisions, that approval period is five years, with the possibility of time extensions.  The State legislature granted a temporary allowance for a seven year preliminary approval period for subdivisions and a 10 year period for older subdivision applications.  However, those provisions for seven and 10 year approval periods have lapsed.  

“So, for this project, if it is granted preliminary approval, the initial approval period will be for five years.  And, based on county code, the applicant can request up to five, one-year time extensions, for a total approval period of 10 years.

“There is no set timeframe that the initial application must be reviewed, as long as the applicant keeps the review active and responds to any requests for additional information within a set timeframe.  This application remained active from the application date in 2009,” Smith wrote in an email on Monday.

Smith said that while most application reviews do not take this long, it is not unusual for some to do so. 

“For this application there was never a point where the county required information that was not submitted in a timely manner.  The application was submitted in 2009 and there was ongoing review with the original applicant through 2011.  The project was sold to the current applicant in 2012.  The new applicant was in contact with the county and Fish and Wildlife during 2012 and 2013, responding to concerns about oak preservation, preparing a habitat plan, and meeting with staff to discuss proposals.  Based on the work from 2012 and 2013 the applicant submitted a revised application package in May 2014.”

State law RCW 58.17.033 requires vesting in all cases when the application is filed. As our understanding of the importance of restricting human impacts on natural resources and the environment grow, then the new laws that are adopted should set the stage for all future land use projects.

But as pointed out in Adams v. Thurston County, and the proposed Oak Tree Preserve project indicates, the entire SEPA process between the filing of a land use application and vesting will not change until state law is changed.

For two previous articles about the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com.

For more information on the status of Thurston County permit applications, go to: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/devactivity/devactivity-home.html The link also provides access to other pages that list new applications submitted for review.

For more information about Sustainable Thurston, go to the Thurston Regional Planning Council website at www.trpc.org/262/About-Sustainable-Thurston

 

Witness to Stormy Weather:

Thurston County's largest intact stand of Oregon White Oaks