Thurston County Fire Destroys Historic Home, Habitat

Above: Looking north over 183rd Street in Rochester, a DC-10 drops red colored flame retardant to help stop the Scatter Creek area fire in south Thurston County on August 22. The historic Miller-Brewer House and barn were destroyed in the fire. Photo courtesy George Ormrod.

By Janine Gates

Little Hollywood

https://www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

The Scatter Creek area fire near Rochester in south Thurston County burned 485 total acres on August 22, prompting the temporary evacuation of about 100 residents. It also destroyed several homes.

In the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, the historic Miller-Brewer homestead, built in 1860, and a barn were also destroyed. The homesite was listed on the National Historic Register.

Fire crews from several neighboring counties helped to control the blaze, as did the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, which is leading an investigation of the fire.

Rochester resident George Ormrod became aware of the Rochester – Grand Mound area fire when he heard a DC-10 fly low over his home near 183rd Street. He went out and saw the plane dropping red colored flame retardant.

Hopping on a scooter, he weaved around back roads until stopped by a road block near the Grand Mound cemetery where he spoke with an emergency management official. She informed him that the fire was four miles from his home and he did not need to evacuate the area.

A press release issued on Friday by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) says state wildlife managers are assessing the damage caused by the fire. The south side of the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area in Thurston County is closed until further notice.

Owned and managed by WDFW, 345 acres of the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area was burned, and provides a sanctuary for several threatened and endangered wildlife species, including Taylor's checkerspot and mardon skipper butterflies and the Mazama pocket gopher.

The wildlife area is a popular destination for hiking, birdwatching, dog training and upland bird hunting in the south Puget Sound area, said Brian Calkins, regional WDFW wildlife manager.

“This fire is truly a tragedy,” Calkins said. “We put our heart and soul into restoring this remaining piece of rare native prairie, and we know a lot of people are going to feel this loss as much as we do.”

Calkins said fire damage will likely affect some activities scheduled in the burned, southern unit of the wildlife area, including upland bird hunting this fall. However, the 435 acre section of the wildlife area on the north side of Scatter Creek was largely unscathed by the wildfire and remains open to the public.

The WDFW will immediately begin work to restore the burnt landscape south of Scatter Creek. Based on a preliminary estimate, that work will cost more than $1 million.

“We're invested in the future of this area, and we're already starting to plan recovery efforts to protect the prairie for use by animals and people,” Calkins said. “We will be putting a lot of effort into weed control and replanting.”

Scatter Creek is one of 33 state wildlife areas managed by WDFW to provide habitat for fish and wildlife as well as land for outdoor recreation.

Above: The historic Miller-Brewer House and a nearby barn were destroyed in the fire on August 22. Photo Courtesy Hans Littooy.

Miller-Brewer House Historic Site

Hans Littooy, of Olympia, offered Little Hollywood pictures he took on August 16 of the Miller-Brewer House, the oldest home in Thurston County at the Scatter Creek Prairie. 

“I often go to the Scatter Creek southern unit with my dog to enjoy the prairie elements, be it flora or landscape. Prairies are a very special landscape in our area and unfortunately misused,” said Littooy, a retired landscape architect.

A Greek Revival style house, the Miller-Brewer home was historically significant for its box frame construction, a method only used during early pioneer settlement in Washington from 1855 through 1875, and was one of the few examples left in the Pacific Northwest.

Historically, George and Marita Miller traveled north by wagon from Oregon to take a donation land claim on the banks of Scatter Creek in the late 1850s. The house, built by Miller, is set on open prairie land adjacent to Scatter Creek, and shaded by a grove of native oak trees. Miller was a farmer as well as a territorial representative.

The property was sold to Reece Brewer, an old friend of Miller’s who had moved to Grand Mound from Oregon with his wife in 1858. Brewer was an accomplished stockman, sold cream to creameries, and was a member of the Territorial Legislature in 1871. He was also the local postmaster, fulfilling his out of the house, a justice of the peace at Grand Mound, and an elected a Thurston County commissioner in 1888 and 1890. He lost three wives to pneumonia.

In the 1960s, one of Brewer’s children, Fred, sold the property to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Game) which used the Miller-Brewer House since the 1960s in a variety of capacities. 

It was nominated and placed on the National Historic Register in 1988.

Above: The historic Miller-Brewer barn was destroyed in the fire on August 22. Photo Courtesy Hans Littooy.

Littooy said he and his family came from the Netherlands to Iowa in 1968 and that the house and barn have always fascinated him.   

“I loved those buildings and at one time even dreamt of replicating the old home for myself. So much for the dream….It irritates me that we are so careless with the history of this country. This house could have been a museum about life in the 1870s. How much more of Thurston County history is in danger? How much is left?” Littooy said.

Above:  The barn on the property of the historic Miller-Brewer House was also destroyed in the fire. Photo Courtesy Hans Littooy.

Owls Occupy Old Brewhouse Tower in Tumwater

Above: On a tour organized by the Old Brewhouse Foundation in October 2014, City of Tumwater councilmember Tom Oliva, in dark coat, stands on the sixth floor of the Old Brewhouse tower, and looks up at the photographer who is in an upper loft of the tower under the copper roof. Owl droppings litter the floor. It is anticipated that the owls will be relocated before the tower undergoes temporary repairs, window closures, and weatherization this winter.

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

Barn owls have occupied Tumwater’s vacant Old Brewhouse tower for years, but they will not rule the roost for much longer.

In a meeting last month of the Tumwater Historic Preservation Commission, commissioners approved, with conditions, a certificate of appropriateness so the city can begin temporary weatherization efforts of the tower.

The 110 year old Old Brewhouse is a historic landmark, and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. It has been on a watch list by the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, and is also in Tumwater's Historic Brewery District.

Obtaining a certificate of appropriateness by the commission ensures that any alteration, demolition, or new construction to the historic site is consistent with the property's character. The step is also necessary to move forward with permitting. 

The commissioners took their time at the September 8 meeting to express concern for the owls, ask extensive questions about the types of materials to be used in repairs and weatherization, the methodology for anchoring a temporary roof, and the appearance of the temporary fixes.

One of the conditions for approval was assurance from staff that they would learn more about the barn owls and figure out how to relocate them before installing a temporary roof and sealing up about 55 windows.

Barn owls are a protected species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

After consulting with biologist Michelle Tirhi of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife after the meeting, city staff learned that they must place owl boxes elsewhere on the property in hopes that the owls in the tower will be convinced that they should go elsewhere.

Contacted by Little Hollywood, Tirhi said barn owls often seek out older, seldom used outbuildings for nesting, like barns and old buildings. Barn owls are done nesting for the season and this is a great time to construct and place nest boxes, and then seal them out of their current location.   

The boxes should be installed as close to where the owls currently enter and exit the building. 

Tirhi said she is hopeful the city or volunteers will continue to monitor the boxes so that they can be protected, repaired, or replaced over time, as needed, for the sake of the owls.

The City of Tumwater acquired the tower in an agreement with owner George Heidgerken in May. Heidgerken and his company, Falls Development LLC, owns the 32 acre area around the Old Brewhouse property, roughly bounded by Custer Way to the south, the Deschutes River to the west, Capitol Lake to the north, and the railroad to the east. 

As of this week, there is still no update on the placement of the nesting boxes.

“We’re working with George (Heidgerken) to get permission to install them on site in a variety of locations that are appealing to owls. Then, it will be safe to seal up the Old Brewhouse,” said assistant city administrator and brewery property manager Heidi Behrends Cerniway.

In the meantime, the building continues to deteriorate. In a process called “spalling,” bricks literally fly off the tower, as moisture causes the mortar to expand and contract with weather temperatures, thus dislodging the bricks. 

Behrends Cerniwey told the seven member commission that whenever she visits the site, new bricks are laying on the ground around the tower.

The city hopes to have the temporary protections and weatherization efforts complete by the end of the year.

Above: The southeast corner of the Old Brewhouse tower of the fourth floor shows a dramatic decay of bricks and exposure to the elements.

Regarding the appearance of the repairs, there will be no unsightly blue tarps, but a temporary roof is expected to stay put for one to four years while funding is secured for a permanent roof and window materials.

The windows could be boarded up with plywood from the inside, and perhaps shaped to fit the window, but some windows may have a clear weather resistant material instead, to allow in light. Some may stay open to allow for minimal ventilation. There is no electrical power or heating inside the building.

The city’s consultant, Cardinal Architecture, produced a detailed tower protection and renovation report in May. It estimated that a temporary roof structure would cost about $97,750, and temporary windows and door panels would cost about $21,250.

Because they will be temporary - immediate protections meant to reduce the rate of decay - the city says it will not go through a formal bidding process, and the work will be done with volunteer labor and donated materials.

This was another aspect of significant discussion, as commissioners did not want to find themselves in a situation similar to that of the City of Olympia when it attempted to use the donated services of Joint Base Lewis-McChord soldiers to demolish two blighted buildings on the isthmus in downtown Olympia last year.

One of those organizations donating services is the nonprofit Old Brewhouse Foundation.

Rob Kirkwood, president of the nonprofit, has already built four owl boxes, donated an additional owl box, and provides informal input on how to approach the project and what is needed to be done in terms of professional services.

The City of Tumwater will begin permanent restoration efforts as soon as funds become available through grants, capital giving campaigns, and other sources. The project, when complete, is expected to cost about six million dollars.

So far, the only funding the City of Tumwater has on hand for the tower’s restoration is $14,500, an amount earned from the Conservation Futures fund for trail easements that will be donated back to the city. Another $288,000 is coming through the city’s lodging tax funds.

“We’ve been doing our homework about a capital campaign, and working on a funding strategy to raise private and foundation dollars as a match for state grants such as the Heritage Capital Project Fund (HCPF). We did apply for a HCPF grant of $500,000 for the 2017-2019 biennium, but it requires a match of two to one to begin the first phase of restoration,” said Behrends Cerniway.

Above: Local naturalist Nancy Partlow of Tumwater holds barn owl pellets on a tour of the Old Brewhouse property and the tower in October 2014. Partlow documents and contributes many of her observations on a local blog, Bees, Birds & Butterflies, at www.olypollinators.blogspot.com and has known about the owls in the tower for many years.

“It's a perfect setup for them, protected, but with open and easy access to prey. Their nests are simply scraped together regurgitated owl pellets, which are the fur and bones left over after the rest of its prey has been digested. Nature's recycling at work, but also an interesting way for owls to raise young, on the remains of their victims,” says Partlow. 

For more interior and exterior pictures and information about the Old Brewhouse, Tumwater, the planned action for the historic property, George Heidgerken, Falls Development LLC, stop work orders, groundwatering monitoring, and other issues related to the property, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and type key words into the search engine.

For the benefits of owls in Washington and providing for them, go here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/owls.html

Owl nest box designs:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/projects/barnowl.html

Cornell Lab of Ornithology has a page on installing barn owl nest boxes:

 http://nestwatch.org/learn/all-about-birdhouses/birds/barn-owl/

For more about the Migratory Species Act, go to: https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/migratory-bird-treaty-act-protected-species.php

Oak Tree Preserve Case: Commissioners Hear Appeal; Romero Recuses Herself

Above: The Thurston County Commissioners held a hearing today at 4:30 p.m. at the Courthouse about the proposed Oak Tree Preserve housing development. The case before the commissioners is an appeal of a decision by a hearing examiner who approved the development's preliminary plat.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

The Thurston County Commissioners heard brief oral arguments from both sides of the proposed Oak Tree Preserve land use case in a hearing this evening that lasted just slightly over an hour. A standing room crowd flowed out into the hallway.

The case before the commissioners is an appeal of the May 5 decision by Thurston County hearing examiner Sharon Rice, who approved the preliminary plat for a massive housing development in Lacey’s urban growth area.

The proposed development on Marvin Road is partially bordered by the Burlington Northern Railroad and would subdivide 258.5 acres into 1,037 single family homes and remove 36 out of 76 acres of Oregon white oak habitat. Oregon white oak is a state-protected priority habitat.

The appellants claim the project, as currently planned, is in violation of the county’s critical areas ordinance. They want the case sent back to the hearing examiner so that additional evidence may be added to evaluate the functions and value of white oak habitat and, if any of the acreage can be saved, what mitigations should be used.

In a land use case that is constantly charting new territory, Commissioner Sandra Romero recused herself from the case after the developer’s attorney took issue with her disclosures that she has had ex parte communications with citizens within her district. 

The Oak Tree Preserve property is located in Romero’s district. In her opening comments, Romero stated that she had met with citizens over five years ago, in February 2010, regarding traffic concerns and the development proposal for that location at that time. A second interaction was in October 2014, again, with citizens concerned about traffic issues, and the third was when a citizen recently emailed her wanting to discuss the current case. That individual was told she could not discuss the case.

Romero also said that she attends, almost every year, the Black Hills Audubon Society annual dinner, which is a fundraiser. She said she does not believe she’s been to a Blacks Hills Audubon Society meeting. The Black Hills Audubon Society is one of the appellants of the current case before the commissioners.

Romero said that she did not believe that any of these interactions would interfere with her ability to make an impartial decision in the case. 

Commissioners Bud Blake and Cathy Wolfe each stated that they have not had any ex parte communications, and each stated that they plan to make site visits to the Oak Tree Preserve property.

The applicant’s attorney asked Romero to recuse herself from the case.

Elizabeth Petrich, prosecuting attorney for the county, said that in her opinion, there was no technical violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine since all Romero’s communications with citizens occurred before the appeal was submitted. 

Petrich said that if Romero did choose to recuse herself, she should stay in the room and hear the case due to a rule called the “doctrine of necessity” - if in the case of a lack of a quorum on the commission or there’s a split vote in the decision, then Romero can cast a vote.

Romero said that she did not want to delay the hearing and recused herself from the case.

“I kind of anticipated that this might happen and even though I don’t like it, I’m going to recuse myself and I just think it’s a sad state of affairs when a commissioner can’t meet with constituency even though you don’t even have any inkling that there’s going to be an appeal, so, but…to move forward, it’s in the best interest to recuse myself,” said Romero.

Giving something to each side in quick form, Commissioner Blake made three motions on the procedural issues before the commissioners, all seconded by Wolfe, that:  1) denied the appellants request to add county planning manager Mike Kain’s August 26, 2013 email to the record; 2) denied the project applicant’s request to strike from the record the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) comment letter of June 2, 2015; and 3) allows both parties to submit new evidence establishing or disputing wildlife observation information submitted by Curtis Wambach, a biologist for the developer.

The commissioners gave the developer a deadline of June 24, 5:00 p.m. to submit a declaration by Wambach. The commissioners gave the appellants a deadline of June 25, 5:00 p.m. to respond to the developer’s information, if they file any.

County Email to Oak Tree Preserve Developers

The recently discovered August 23, 2013 email from Mike Kain, county planning manager, to Kevin O’Brien of Oak Tree Preserve, clearly informs O’Brien and others of Fish and Wildlife’s position, as well as the county’s, early on in the process:

“The preliminary recommendation of WDFW is that all oaks in all areas except in area 4 be saved….” The email describes exceptions and mitigation for the loss of oaks in that area and for roads.

Indicating that something went awry in the relationship between the county and WDFW between 2013 and the present, the email continues:

“…The WDFW recommendation will be the County’s recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. After review, WDFW could not recommend saving just the best 50% or 67% of the oaks. WDFW believes the entire linear oak grove formed by areas 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 is valuable habitat and should be preserved. The County Code also lists avoidance as the first priority in the protection of critical habitat. In this case, it is clear that avoidance of critical habitat is possible. This is a preliminary recommendation by WDFW, and therefore also of the County….”

Appellant Argument

Liz Lyman spoke for the appellants, who were not represented by an attorney.

“The appellants are not asking you to deny the project or to change the examiner's findings and conclusions. Why are we asking a remand? Because the record on which the hearing examiner based her decision is incomplete and inaccurate; your 2009 Critical Areas Ordinance on important habitats requires the developer to submit a wildlife study and to determine the impacts of the development on the wildlife habitat - the developer has not done this. It only looked at two species, the Western gray squirrel and Mazama pocket gopher….the developer submitted a habitat management plan that is incomplete and misuses science to evaluate its mitigation measures. The developer then concludes erroneously that there will be no net loss of the oak habitat's ecological function.”  

She detailed the appellants concerns for each of her points.

Regarding the methodology of how the oaks were graded based on their condition, Lyman said, “The developer claims that its habitat management plan preserves the best oak stands. This simply isn't true. Is cutting down the second best quality oak stand and leaving behind a two acre residential park that's fated to die - is this what you believe your critical areas ordinance means by protecting and preserving critical wildlife habitat,  or by avoiding and minimizing impacts?”

In conclusion, Lyman said, in part, “….Remanding gives the citizens of this county some assurance that the county's decision on what is preserved and what is removed of this largest remaining oak habitat in Thurston County will be based on fact, and not fiction….”

Applicant’s Argument

In his remarks, the developer’s attorney, Patrick Mullaney, discussed issues of balance, rationality, and fairness.  He said that this case has been unpredictable for his client and that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has “waffled all over the place as to what it wanted in oak habitat preservation.”

He said that by agreeing to a 55% set aside of oak habitat, which he said is far more than any other plat that has been approved under the 2009 version of the Critical Area Ordinance, the developer “foregoes the development of 131 lots with a cost of $3.2 million, so it has made a substantial commitment to environmental mitigation.”  He said 100% oak habitat preservation, at a loss of 323 lots, would cost the developer $8 million, rendering the project unfeasible.

He cited several federal land use court cases to support his arguments about the “rational relationship between mitigation and a specific impact to the proposed development.”

Lastly, he said, “If there’s any bad actor in this case, it’s the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, because they had years to look at this habitat management plan....”

The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is not an appellant in this case.

In her rebuttal, Lyman responded, in part, that Mr. Mullaney always conflates the appellant’s position with the WDFW’s position, and the appellants aren’t asking for 100% preservation of the oak habitat.

When Commissioner Blake asked a follow up question about the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s position, and whether they are using 100% as a part of the appellant’s position, she clarified WDFW’s position, saying they would like 100% preservation, except for unavoidable impacts.

“….Basically, the position in our critical areas ordinance is the same….Yes, there is mitigation sequencing…but avoidance has a special place in the ordinance ….so obviously when you’re building roads and houses, you’re going to have impacts.”

When Commissioner Blake again asked the same question, Lyman responded, “I’m not sure that’s really relevant to us. Basically, our position is that nobody has the answer because there’s no information about that (due to the lack of a wildlife habitat study) , so, quite frankly, WDFW doesn’t have that answer either….”

The commissioners said that they will issue a written decision on the case by July 8.

For several past articles about the Oak Tree Preserve land use case, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com  and use the search button to type in key words.

Above: After today's hearing, interested folks crowd around a projected image of the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development in Lacey's urban growth area.

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

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.