Showing posts with label Cooper Crest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cooper Crest. Show all posts

Monday, August 1, 2016

Olympia’s Green Cove Basin Watershed Threatened by Possible Rezone


BranBar, LLC is seeking a rezone near Cooper Crest Neighborhood

Above: Sal Munoz, president of the Cooper Crest Neighborhood Association, walks on the sidewalk of Cooper Crest Drive NW, a narrow street that leads to property owned by BranBar, LLC. He was one of several individuals who testified at a hearing last week  against a proposal to rezone BranBar property for a housing development. The BranBar development would be using Cooper Crest roads, as there is no other way in or out of the neighborhood.

By Janine Gates

The slow death by a thousand subdivisions of the environmentally critical Green Cove Basin watershed continues in west Olympia with the possibility of a land use rezone, and with it, the possibility of yet another housing development.

A request to change the zoning of about five acres at the west end of Crestwood Place NW from residential one unit per five acres to another category called residential low impact (RLI), would allow up to 20 single family dwellings on the property.

There is no actual land use application for the property pending before the city, so it is difficult to ascertain the full impact of the proposed rezone, but neighbors of the adjacent Cooper Crest neighborhood are upset.

The undeveloped, heavily wooded property, owned by BranBar, LLC, of Covington, is represented by Brandon Anderson, and was annexed in 2006 from Thurston County into the City of Olympia, along with the Sundberg property off Cooper Point Road.

These annexed areas contain the only areas of the city zoned residential one unit per five acres, which was a remnant land use designation prior to annexation.

The RLI designation is intended, the city says, to protect sensitive drainage basins.

The RLI definition states that it accommodates some residential development within sensitive drainage basins at densities averaging from two to four units per acre, provided that the development configuration avoids stormwater and aquatic habitat impacts.

The actual density for this parcel would range from 10 to 20 units. Lacking an actual application, the city settled on assuming the maximum would be desired.

The site lies in the Eld Inlet watershed within the 2,626 acre Green Cove Drainage Basin, considered to be critical aquifer habitat. The Green Cove Creek basin has its own comprehensive plan, adopted by Thurston County in 1998.

For more information about this watershed, see Little Hollywood’s story, “Housing Development Threatens West Olympia’s Green Cove Basin,” May 9, 2016, which focuses on Parkside, a preliminary plat application currently before the city that proposes to subdivide 30 acres near Cooper Point and 20th Avenue into 65 to 75 single family lots.

Above: Cooper Crest Drive NW, currently a dead end labeled as a future neighborhood collector, leads to the BranBar, LLC property. The street is surrounded by wetlands, which are labeled as protected by the City of Olympia.

BranBar

The City of Olympia is supporting the BranBar rezone and issued a state environmental policy act determination of non-significance on June 22 for the proposed project. The comment deadline was July 6 and the appeal deadline was July 13.

The determination was not appealed, but several residents of the Cooper Crest Neighborhood Association showed up in force at a public hearing in front of Hearing Examiner Mark Scheibmeir on July 25 at Olympia city hall to express their opposition to the rezone. The hearing lasted three and a half hours.

Scheibmeir, who said he made a site visit to the neighborhood and the property earlier that afternoon, said he would issue a decision in a timely manner and has up to 14 calendar days from the date of the hearing to do so.

Several speakers mentioned the Green Cove Basin Comprehensive Plan in their testimony, but it was only after Lisa Reiner, president of the nearby Burbank/Elliott neighborhood association, asked him directly if he had read the plan, that he responded that he had not, and in fact, no one had provided him a copy. He requested that city staff provide him with a copy of the document.

Residents brought up issues primarily related to traffic.

“….Although I’ve known and appreciated the environmental sensitivity of this area for years, it was not until I began reading, viewing maps, and comprehending the cumulative developments in the basin over the last 20 years that I became alarmed. My original testimony plan focused almost exclusively on traffic with only a brief mention of environmental issues,” said Russell “Rusty” Horton, an original resident of the Cooper Crest neighborhood, in an interview with Little Hollywood after the hearing.

Horton says the Green Cove Creek and Basin are special areas worthy of protection.

“In Cooper Crest, only a few hundred feet from the BranBar parcel, I have personally seen nesting Bald Eagles fledging their young in multiple years, coyotes, owls, hawks, long and short-tailed weasels, deer, cougar, pileated wood peckers, rough-skin newts, and salamanders. The water from BranBar drains directly to Green Cove Creek where the sensitive mudminnow and salmon and trout species spawn. I realize these are not all threatened species, but they are all indicative of the balanced ecosystem we want to see,” said Horton.

Little Hollywood asked Cooper Crest Neighborhood Association president Sal Munoz why the neighborhood did not appeal the state environmental policy act (SEPA) determination.

He said the $1000 appeal fee for the SEPA determination was difficult to pull together in a short period of time.

“We don’t spend that kind of money casually and we don’t know what the hell we’re doing – we just don’t know land use. We assume it would have required the hiring of a land use attorney, and that would have required a significant expenditure of money,” said Munoz.

Horton echoed that thought, and said he is looking ahead to the next step in the process.

“While extremely frustrated that the SEPA document defers all study until the rezone is approved and a development proposal is submitted, I thought that any appeal effort might be better focused on an actual development proposal SEPA - to try and force an environmental impact statement.

“Personally, I find it incomprehensible that we cannot use our imaginations and study theoretical densities that would be allowed by a rezone prior to the development proposal being submitted. We should have a right to not give away a greater density designation without first understanding its potential effects,” said Horton.

Above: Cooper Crest Neighborhood Homeowners Association president Sal Munoz discusses the history of the neighborhood near the BranBar LLC property. Here, Munoz describes how the streets were damaged by past BranBar, LLC activity to access their property. The road shows visible gouges. 

Cooper Crest History

“In my opinion, it is not wise or safe to add additional burdens to our streets…it’s not just volume, it’s about the character of daily life…this is a spot rezone to aid one owner at the expense of others,” testified Sal Munoz, an original, 11 year resident of the Cooper Crest Neighborhood Homeowners Association, at the public hearing on July 25.

Developed by Tri Vo of Triway Enterprises, the Cooper Crest neighborhood has had a long and torturous history. 

Touted as Olympia’s first so-called low impact residential development, the neighborhood features 138 homes built close together and narrow streets with multiple bulb-out curbs that constrict traffic. 

Residents are tight-knit and appreciate the family friendliness of the neighborhood, but also struggle with the challenges and realities of the development.

Residents immediately complained of shoddy workmanship and the area’s high water table, resulting in poor soil drainage, causing extreme flooding issues. Most of those issues have been corrected, but stormwater issues are constant, as most of the development features varying elevations.

Most important to the neighborhood right now is the fact that the BranBar development would be using Cooper Crest roads, as there is no other way in or out.

A city traffic impact study by the city states that the BranBar development would put the neighborhood at its fullest capacity.

Neighbors say the count conducted on March 8 by the city was low by 40 – 60 vehicle trips, and did not take several factors into consideration, such as several vacant homes, an extended vacation by a resident, and cars accessing the mailboxes on Cooper Point Place.

In general, the narrow streets are usually clogged with resident and guest vehicles, which, when parked in driveways, spill over onto sidewalks. Parking enforcement issues are constant.

Traffic is bad enough when residents need routine homeowner maintenance or other professional services, but they cannot imagine construction crews for BranBar moving through their streets.

Currently, with cars parked on one side of the road, each main access road is essentially a one way street.

Children routinely play in the street at Cooper Crest. Neighbors, who govern themselves through a private homeowner’s association, know to crawl through the neighborhood at 5 to 10 miles per hour. Many are worried that residents and guests of the proposed BranBar neighborhood will not be so careful.

Prabakar Manoharan, a 10 year resident of Cooper Crest, testified at the hearing and remarked that he has never seen such narrow streets anywhere in Washington State.
He said residents and their guests routinely use a fire lane, originally meant to be gated and used only in case of emergency by the fire department.

“Especially while entering the community, it is inviting to use the fire lane as a short-cut for more than 60 percent of the homes in the community,” said Manoharan. He said that he is sure that if the BranBar property is rezoned, residents who live there would do the same.

“The fire lane was funded and created specifically for Cooper Crest home owners and we maintain it. Has the city given a thought on how to control excess traffic in the fire lane or does the city have any future plans for the fire lane?” he asked.

He and others urged the city to create a separate access point from 20th Avenue to BranBar, identified as Road 65 NW, near Julia Butler Hansen Elementary School. The road would connect Cooper Crest Drive and Crestwood Place to the corner of 20th and Road 65 NW.

“The only benefit in the whole rezoning process is to the developer in saving some money from constructing an access road. Approving such a project increases the burden for existing and new homeowners, increasing the accident risks in the neighborhood. Please don’t be a part of it,” urged Manoharan.

Rusty Horton, who lives on Cooper Crest Place, a relatively minor street, says his street has become a de facto neighborhood collector for the lower half of the neighborhood.

“It was designed for a maximum of 500 vehicle trips per day…even now I have to deal with the speeding, safety, and access concerns of a street that is functioning like an avenue. I especially worry about the safety of my very active five year old and his young friends…Even without the new 20 homes from BranBar, Cooper Crest Place is nearly at its design value and will become a failing road if as few as eight new homes are built in BranBar,” he said.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

“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
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

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Karen Veldheer announces candidacy for Olympia city council



Photo by Janine Gates
Olympia - January 26, 2009

Karen Veldheer announced her candidacy for Olympia City Council last night at a meeting of the Coalition for Neighborhood Association steering committee. Veldheer serves on the committee as a homeowner and representative of the Cooper Crest Community Neighborhood Association.

In her statement to the committee, Veldheer resigned from the committee to run for office.

Veldheer said, "Olympia is a great city and has a great wealth of community knowledge and energy. People spend a great deal of time and energy studying critical local issues and they often feel like they are not heard. This is tragedy in a city with such a rich history of public involvement. City business can and should be done better. I pledge to work to build public confidence and listen to public input."

"I will continue to work with the City to make the the necessary repairs to homes in Cooper Crest and to serve as the Cooper Crest representative to the CNA. Thank you for all of the support and I look forward to seeing you all as I begin this new phase of my life," Veldheer concluded.

Veldheer, a married mother of five and an Olympia resident since May 2005, is best known for the difficulties she has had with the builders of her home on the Westside of Olympia. Other neighbors have had similar problems and have made those problems known to current Olympia city council members.

Veldheer wrote about the plight of homeowners at Cooper Crest in an article in the September/October 2008 issue of the South Sound Green Pages. In the article, she details the failure of the stormwater management system, the use of non-native landscaping, and other promised features characteristic of a low impact development.

The article can be read at http://www.oly-wa.us/greenpages.