County Commissioners to Hear Proposed Oak Tree Preserve Development Case

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

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

Thurston County's Oregon White Oak Preserve: Take A Walk on the Wild Side

 

Above: Lacey residents Ruth Smith and Felicia Carroll witnessed this owl on November 11, 2013, about 300 feet into the woods from 27^th Avenue SE. “We spotted the owl near the end of our walk. Ruth went home to get her camera and went back to take the picture!” said Carroll. Photo Courtesy of Ruth Smith.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

Oak Tree Preserve LLC of Bellevue proposes to subdivide 258.5 acres of land in unincorporated Lacey into 1,037 single-family residential lots.

For many, the potential loss of Thurston County’s largest remaining stand of Oregon White Oak, just over 76 acres, and 177 total acres of wooded area, home to a wide range of animals and plants, would be a devastating environmental legacy.

Notification about the development's March 24 public hearing was sent out on March 9. Hundreds of homeowners in subdivisions who live along the site’s perimeter on Marvin Road, 19th Avenue SE, 27th Avenue SE, and Priority Street SE were not notified because they live outside of the required notification area of 300 feet, which is roughly the length of a football field.

Prior to the public even being informed of renewed activity by the applicant, an environmental Mitigated Determination of Non Significance was issued by the county in December, 2014.

On March 4, county hearing examiner Sharon Rice threw out the nearby McAllister Park Homeowners Association State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal on stormwater and oak habitat issues saying it “lacked standing.”

On March 23, the Association dropped another SEPA appeal saying that stopping the Oak Tree Preserve development appeared virtually impossible to fight considering the cost to the association and the risks involved. In exchange, Association president Mark Quinn got assurances from the developer that traffic calming measures would be put in place in McAllister Park.

Above: The proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC development in Lacey is noticed (yellow sign) at the end of 27^th Avenue SE. Due to the rolling topography, neighbors have a hard time visualizing how thousands of drivers will use the current streets and intersections.

Oregon White Oak Habitat

According to the application, 177.2 acres of trees, out of the 258.5 acres, will be cut. The proposed “mitigation” calls for the planting of one tree for every 4,000 square feet of lot.

The largest Oregon White Oak stand is 64.6 acres but also extends onto adjoining properties. Forty-five percent of the Oregon White Oak, considered by the applicant to be “degraded,” will be destroyed.

Theresa Nation, habitat biologist for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, gave strong testimony about the Oregon White Oak grove at the preliminary plat hearing on March 24. Her written testimony comprises seven pages.

In the county’s response, its attorney rebuked Nation for her strong words, saying that “very seldom are we this far apart…” and criticized her for judging the project and the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) under the new county Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). She was cross examined at length by the applicant.

In part, Nation stated:

“…Significant and avoidable impacts to Oregon white oak habitat have not been addressed. We respectfully recommend that the Office of the Hearing Examiner reject the habitat management plan….”

“Oregon white oak is the only oak species native to Washington. Some individuals of this slow-growing species may live for up to 500 years. Trees typically do not begin producing acorns until they are about 20 years old. Mature oak woodlands are virtually impossible to replace once they are gone. Oak woodlands provide a distinct ecosystem that contributes to wildlife diversity statewide. They are used by more than 200 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The woodlands provide feeding, breeding, resting and sheltering habitat. Many invertebrates...are found exclusively in association with this oak species. Oak habitat in Washington may play a critical role in the conservation of neotropical migrant birds that migrate through or nest in Oregon white oaks.

“The Oak Tree Preserve project as proposed would result in the permanent destruction of 35.6 acres of oak woodlands. This includes the total loss of two distinct habitat areas. The 64.6-acre stand would be reduced by more than a third (24.0 acres). It would become a divided 38.3-acre preserve area and a disconnected 2-acre park. The outright loss of more than 35 acres of Oregon white oak woodland is by far the primary impact to this critical area. It is an impact of enormous proportions not only for the site, but for all oak woodland habitat in Thurston County. The HMP fails to address the gross impacts of the loss.

“The preserve area would be further degraded by the construction of the main collector road directly through it. Road-related impacts include but may not be limited to direct wildlife mortality and an increase in adverse edge effects. Over time, some oaks along the roadway are likely to be declared hazard trees and subsequently removed. This is a particularly problematic occurrence in oaks because snags and dead portions of live oaks provide important habitat for invertebrates and birds.”

The HMP offers a conceptual plan for compensatory mitigation activities. We find that the plan falls egregiously short of the mitigation needs for this project. The primary focus of the plan is to apply enhancement actions to the retained woodlands. Enhancement activities, even if successful, will not compensate for the permanent loss of almost 36 acres of habitat. The entire coverage of the woodlands carries a high value even in its somewhat degraded state. Indeed, attempting mitigation for the proposed level of impact would be extraordinarily complicated, time-consuming and expensive, with an uncertain outcome at best. WDFW experts familiar with this case are in agreement that it is likely impossible....”

Above: These spectacular Oregon White Oak trees on Oak Tree Preserve LLC's land in Thurston County are in danger of being destroyed. 

Take A Walk on the Wild Side

 

Ruth Smith, a retired nurse, and Felicia Carroll, a state worker, live near the proposed development and attended the plat hearing last week but, caught unprepared and uncertain of what to say, did not provide oral testimony. They are long time friends and with many other neighbors, walk the acreage, which contains many well-worn trails, and appreciate its beauty on a near daily basis. 
 

Through the years, they have witnessed owls, coyote, pileated woodpecker, bear, deer, fox, snakes, newts and more. They’ve identified a wide range of flora and fauna, learning their names and have learned when to expect the first blossoms and critters.

During a walk through the woodlands on Saturday, they stepped over a wandering newt, excitedly pointed out new buds, and lamented the tenacity of Scot’s Broom, a noxious weed. They also expressed disappointment that the Oak Tree Preserve LLC habitat wildlife biologist, Curtis Wambach, only came to the property three times to make his formal observations, devoting just one day each on prairie plants, the Western Gray Squirrel, and the Mazama Gopher.

As he testified at the March 24 plat hearing, Wambach said he only observed facilitative species on the property, meaning species that would occur on the site, developed or not.  

One day last spring, Carroll says she encountered the biologist on the trail who warned her that he had seen a big cat, perhaps a cougar or mountain lion, up ahead laying on a tree branch, looking down at him.
 

Carroll, who attended the hearing, said she was waiting to hear Wambach mention this sighting in his report to the hearing examiner, but he did not.
 

Above: Ruth Smith, left, and Felicia Carroll look at a shrub of Red-flowering Currant, or Ribes sanguineum, one of South Puget Sound's most prized native species and a magnet for the returning Rufous Hummingbird and other pollinators, which were in abundance on the Oak Tree Preserve property on Saturday. Neighbors of the area appreciate the acres of natural habitat.

After our walk through the woodlands, neighbor William Koopman, who also attended the hearing, said:

“It is critically unfortunate that the largest housing development to be built in Thurston County is slated to consume one its last and largest forests....The loss of this habitat is irrevocable. Once it is gone, it will be gone forever. Surely, these trees are worth saving.”

Carroll agreed, and said she heard a number of people at the hearing mention that the goal is to achieve a balance. 

“Given the amount of development in our general area in recent years and the amount of forest we have already lost due to development, in my eyes, we would best achieve balance by leaving what's left of the forest as is. I am hoping for a Hail Mary pass - I would love it if we could develop a coalition of private citizens, various levels of government, and a few nonprofit groups to band together to offer to buy the property from the owner.  The woods are well loved by a number of people in the various developments nearby. Maybe offer a tax credit or find some other ways of making it palatable for the owner.  I'm hoping for a miracle.  Losing that forest and all of its inhabitants would be like losing a dear friend,” Carroll said.

Mobilized to act by what they heard at the hearing, and given the extended deadline for written public comment, Smith and Carroll and several other neighbors have started a petition at http://tinyurl.com/thurston-oak which will be submitted to the hearing examiner as public comment. The image used to illustrate the petition is a White Fawn Lily, Erythronium oregonum, located on Oak Tree Preserve LLC property.

Public comment for the proposed development was extended until 4:00 p.m., Friday, April 3.  Written comment may be sent to Cami Petersen, Land Use Clerk, Resource Stewardship Department, Thurston County Office of the Hearing Examiner, 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Building One, Second Floor, Olympia, WA 98502. Refer to Case: #2009103087.

For more information about the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development and hearing materials from March 24, go to http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/hearings/oak-tree-preserve/otp.html or contact Cami Petersen at peterscs@co.thurston.wa.us or (360) 754-2933.

A previous article about the Oak Tree Preserve development is dated March 24, 2015 is at Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com.

Above: Close-up of Red-flowering Current

Massive Proposed Development in Lacey Draws Public Comment; Public Comment Extended to April 3

 

Above: Theresa Nation, representing the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife presents testimony today regarding the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development at a hearing held yesterday and today at the Thurston County Fairgrounds in Lacey. Numerous homeowners from the area attended and also provided comment. Written public comment has been extended to April 3.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

Oak Tree Preserve LLC of Bellevue proposes to subdivide 258.5 acres of land in Lacey into 1,037 single-family residential lots. Multiple tracts will also be developed for storm water drainage, preservation of some oak tree habitat, parks, open space, alleys, and landscaping.

The area is addressed as 3346 Marvin Road SE, which is generally on the east side of Marvin Road SE bordered by the Burlington Northern Railroad on the south and the McAllister Park subdivision on the north. It is within the Lacey urban growth boundary.

Through a process of four phases, City of Lacey domestic water and sanitary sewer utilities will be extended into the subdivision to serve all lots. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for the project was issued on December 2, 2014. The MDNS establishes mitigating conditions for school impacts, soil contamination, traffic impacts, and timber harvest.

The project is proposed to be developed in Thurston County's largest oak stand of 64 acres.

The Washington State Department of  Fish and Wildlife comments called for preserving 100 percent of the oak habitat. Only 55 percent of the oak habitat is being preserved under the proposed plans.

Project History

The project, under previous owners, was vested in 2009. The property changed hands in 2012. 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. Written notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the site and others on March 9. Notice was also published in The Olympian newspaper on March 13.

The McAllister Park Homeowner Association had two appeals. On March 23, within 24 minutes of the beginning of the hearing held at the Thurston County Fairgrounds, Mark Quinn, president of the McAllister Homeowner Association, and the Association's attorney announced to Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice that the group had settled the SEPA appeals, surprising Rice.

Quinn and the attorney then left the building, leaving the rest of the time to the developer to explain the development.

One appeal challenged the county's decision to issue an MDNS. The appeal asserted that impacts to traffic conditions on area roads, Oregon white oak tree habitat, and storm water drainage were not adequately addressed. The Association stated that the proposed subdivision is likely to create significant adverse environmental impacts and asked that the issuance of the MDNS be overturned and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. A motion by the applicant to dismiss the oak habitat and stormwater issues was granted by the Hearing Examiner on March 4.

The second appeal by the applicant challenges MDNS mitigating condition numbers 2 and 3. These conditions pertain to testing and possible cleanup of soil contamination including contamination related to the former Asarco smelter in Tacoma. The applicant believes these conditions are unlawful to the extent they impose requirements on the applicant that exceed state law.

The proposed development will impact children and families attending Evergreen Forest Elementary School, Nisqually Middle School, and River Ridge High School.

In a letter sent to McAllister Park Homeowner Association (HOA) members prior to the March 23 hearing, Quinn discouraged homeowners within his association from speaking at the public hearing, notifying them that the group had reached an agreement with the Oak Tree Preserve LLC owners.

“Late yesterday afternoon, the McAllister Park HOA signed a preliminary settlement agreement with Oak Tree Preserve, LLC, the applicant proposing to build 1,027 homes just south of McAllister Park.  The agreement provides essentially everything we asked for in terms of traffic calming in McAllister Park, including several features in OTP (Oak Tree Preserve) and a couple of other revisions to the plat not related to traffic like increasing the size of the buffer between the subdivisions and putting better controls on construction traffic….

“I believe the agreement is the best that we could have hoped for without stopping OTP altogether or closing the road, things that appeared to us virtually impossible considering the cost to the HOA and the risks involved.  Although few of us like the idea of a huge development just to the south, our main objective from the beginning was to insure adequate traffic calming in McAllister Park.   I believe we have achieved that.  After the dust settles, we plan to continue pursuing solutions to the larger Marvin Road traffic problem with neighboring HOA's.  

“We are not able to distribute the preliminary agreement (attorney's orders) but a more formal agreement should be available in a couple days.

“The agreement requires that we drop our SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) appeal of traffic issues and voice no objection to approval of the preliminary subdivision. Based on our acceptance of the settlement, we ask all MPHOA members to refrain from participating in the Plat Hearing on March 24th.  The agreement further stipulates that the MPHOA will not appeal OTP land use approvals.  

“These restrictions do not apply to homeowners in adjacent subdivisions, who are still welcome to attend the public hearing and voice their concerns about the Plat and traffic….One thing that we asked for and the developer agreed to, not related to traffic, was to increase the buffer to 25 ft. between OTP and homes in McAllister Park and Evergreen States.   

“For McAllister Park Residents we will be able to have a full discussion of the settlement and ramifications at our annual meeting in early May,” wrote Quinn.   

The hearing continued on Tuesday with public testimony beginning at 1:00 p.m. Theresa Nation, representing the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, spoke first, followed by residents from several nearby homeowners associations, including Evergreen Estates, The Seasons, Eagle Crest, Laurel Oaks, and Lake Forest.

About 20 speakers focused their comments on the traffic impacts of the massive proposed development that one person described as “out of sync with other developments in the area,” while others addressed the lack of proper public notification and environmental impact issues.  

Liz Kohlenberg, Olympia, commented that many of the materials needed to comment on the subdivision were not on the county’s website, such as the previous Critical Areas Ordinance. A couple of speakers asked how the county was planning to serve all these people, noting the current lack of law enforcement to handle current property crimes.

Elizabeth Rodrick, a wildlife biologist representing the Black Hills chapter of the Audubon Society, stated that in Washington State, 35% of pre-settlement oak habitat remains, and 16% of what remains is on private land.

“Local government plays an essential role in protecting oak habitat....several bird species are associated with large oak sites, and the roads for this development increase fragmentation and should be re-routed,” she said.

Rice closed public comment shortly after 3:00 p.m. Rice, the developer and staff, and county staff responded to public comment.

Rice said she will reach a decision on April 24. Acknowledging that county staff will need time to put additional materials on the county website, Rice gave staff through March 27 to post the needed documents, and extended public comment through 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3.  

Written comment may be sent to Cami Petersen, Land Use Clerk, Resource Stewardship Department, Thurston County Office of the Hearing Examiner, 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Building One, Second Floor, Olympia, WA 98502. Refer to Case: #2009103087.

For more information, contact go to http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/hearings/oak-tree-preserve/otp.html or contact Cami Petersen at peterscs@co.thurston.wa.us or (360) 754-3355 ext. 6348 or TDD Phone: (360) 754-2933.

Full Disclosure: Janine Unsoeld is a board member of the South Puget Environmental Education Clearinghouse (SPEECH) and presented written and oral testimony on behalf of the SPEECH board of directors opposing the Oak Preserve Development proposal. Presenting a variety of points, SPEECH believes that the Mitigated Declaration of Non-Significance should be retracted and a full Environmental Impact Statement prepared.