[0:09] Good morning. We'll get underway. We're moving a

[0:14] few people around. But we'll get started in

[0:16] the meantime. My name is Mark Scheipmeyer. I

[0:20] am the county's hearing examiner. I've been asked

[0:22] to convene a public hearing to consider testimony

[0:26] as part of a fact finding to determine

[0:28] whether certain permits should be approved for a

[0:32] project that is known as the Wandering River

[0:34] Retreat Center bearing the county's shoreline number 20

[0:39] Four-ten 40 and campground site binding site plan

[0:44] number 2435.01. The property located at 4311 Kalama

[0:51] River Road owned by Jeremy Irish. Purpose of

[0:57] today's hearing is to consider whether three permits

[1:00] should be approved. The first is referred to

[1:03] as a shoreline substantial development permit. The second,

[1:07] which I'll need to perhaps better understand is

[1:10] a shoreline conditional use permit. And the third

[1:14] is a campground binding site plan approval. All

[1:18] three of those come before the hearing examiner

[1:21] for decision. This is a public hearing for

[1:25] the purpose of considering those requests. Many of

[1:31] you have probably been in public hearings of

[1:34] one kind or another, but I doubt that

[1:36] many of you have been in front of

[1:39] this type of hearing. And so it's important

[1:43] that we go over the process and the

[1:46] rules and what's taking place so that we

[1:49] all have a common understanding of what to

[1:52] anticipate today. And I should note that this

[1:55] is taking place in a room that I

[1:57] have never been in before. I've been the

[2:00] county's hearing examiner for about twenty years, but

[2:03] this is the first time I've sat in

[2:05] this room. And so it's a little disconcerting,

[2:10] lighting, the location, everything else is just a

[2:13] bit different. So I'm getting used to it

[2:15] and lots of screens three inches from my

[2:18] face. And so I will adapt as quickly

[2:21] and as fully as I'm capable of doing

[2:24] so, so that the hearing goes well. And

[2:30] it may cause me a little confusion from

[2:32] time to time. So if I stop and

[2:33] seem to be flustered a little bit, it's

[2:37] getting used to my surroundings. So about the

[2:41] hearing. The hearing has three components. It's to

[2:44] hear first from county staff. I believe that

[2:47] would be Mr. Kreitzer and perhaps other members

[2:50] of county staff. The record should reflect that

[2:52] a number of county staff are present today.

[2:56] Once the county has made its presentation, then

[2:59] the applicant is allowed the opportunity to add

[3:02] or subtract to what the county has recommended.

[3:05] And those two parts of the hearing take

[3:07] place first for the benefit of the public

[3:10] so that the public gets a better picture

[3:13] of the entire application before it's asked to

[3:17] comment on it. Again, that's why the public

[3:20] goes third. So the third piece, the third

[3:23] leg of the stool is the public comment

[3:26] that takes place after the staff comment and

[3:30] then the applicant's comments. And so I wanna

[3:33] spend just a couple of minutes talking about

[3:35] that piece, because that's the most important piece

[3:38] of today's hearing. First of all, I think

[3:42] there's a signup sheet likely going around. I

[3:45] appreciate that. That signup sheet is not binding.

[3:49] If you signed it and then change your

[3:51] mind, you're not obligated to still speak. If

[3:54] you didn't sign it, but have decided that

[3:56] you would like to speak, well, you're gonna

[3:58] be given that opportunity. And so before it's

[4:02] done, I'll make certain that anybody who might

[4:04] have wanted the opportunity to speak has been

[4:07] given that opportunity. Secondly, I'm going to restrict

[4:11] public testimony to five minutes per person. Some

[4:15] may feel like that's a tight restriction. It

[4:18] is not. Five minutes is a long time

[4:21] to talk. And so not many people will

[4:24] likely need more than five minutes of testimony.

[4:28] Now, if you do, if you're a member

[4:30] of the public and you think that your

[4:32] testimony would be longer than five minutes, well

[4:35] then I'll simply ask a courtesy from you.

[4:37] And that is that you defer your testimony

[4:40] to the end of the line. And that's

[4:42] simply as a courtesy to all the other

[4:44] people who have come to testify so that

[4:47] you're not holding them up and making them

[4:49] stay longer just because you're long winded. And

[4:52] so if you think your presentation has many

[4:56] points to which that will take longer, we'll

[4:59] then simply go to the end of the

[5:01] line and ask me at that point, if

[5:03] you have my permission to go beyond five

[5:05] minutes and undoubtedly I'll give you that permission.

[5:10] Here's where I start offending people in some

[5:12] of my comments. So this is not a

[5:17] political process. This is a legal process that

[5:21] we're going through today. So what does that

[5:23] mean? It means I'm not interested in public

[5:26] opinion. I'm not interested in what your opinions

[5:29] are. I'm not interested in the number of

[5:32] people who are for a project as opposed

[5:34] to the number of people who are opposed

[5:36] to the project. I'm not interested in petitions.

[5:39] I'm not interested in anything that's intended to

[5:42] demonstrate a common belief about a project. That

[5:46] as a matter of law is not what

[5:48] I'm allowed to consider as part of this

[5:50] type of hearing. I, again, often irritate, annoy,

[5:55] offend people when I remind them of those

[5:57] facts, but it's important that you understand what

[6:01] I am obligated to consider and what I

[6:03] am not allowed to consider as part of

[6:06] a fact finding decision. So this is effectively

[6:09] a court of law. I am deciding based

[6:11] upon the findings that I make as to

[6:14] the project for or against, and therefore what

[6:18] my final decision will be based upon those

[6:21] factual findings. Not upon any public opinion, not

[6:25] upon popularity of a project, but based upon

[6:28] the factual findings that I reach. So that

[6:32] gets us to your testimony. If you're wanting

[6:35] to testify today, and I hope all of

[6:37] you want to testify, the more the better,

[6:44] what I'll remind you is of that standard.

[6:47] So first of all, if you need to

[6:49] refer to me, you can either refer to

[6:51] me as Mr. Scheife Meyer, or you can

[6:54] refer to me as Mr. Hearing Examiner, your

[6:56] preference. And so if you want me to

[7:00] ask a question or you want to speak

[7:02] to me, you might say, Mr. Scheife Meyer,

[7:06] I am opposed to this project. But if

[7:09] all you say is that, or you say,

[7:12] I'm opposed to it and so are my

[7:14] neighbors, With all due respect, you haven't moved

[7:17] the ball down the field. That opinion is

[7:20] not beneficial to me in that final decision

[7:23] making I'm required to make. So instead, if

[7:28] you might testify as follows, Mr. Hearing Examiner,

[7:31] I oppose this project for the following four

[7:34] reasons. It's those four reasons that I'm interested,

[7:38] not on the fact that you're opposed, but

[7:40] on the four reasons why you are opposed.

[7:43] And that is what I will then consider

[7:46] in rendering my final set of findings of

[7:49] fact, which then drive my legal conclusions and

[7:53] my ultimate decision. So if you wanna testify,

[7:57] no opinions, give me facts. That's what I'm

[8:00] interested in considering when rendering my final decision.

[8:06] And lastly, there will be no public response

[8:11] to anyone's testimony. There's gonna be no clapping.

[8:15] There's gonna be no expressions of support or

[8:18] hostility. There's gonna be no demonstration of any

[8:22] kind following anyone's testimony. That's the quickest exit

[8:27] to this room is saying or doing anything

[8:30] after anyone has testified. This is a courtroom

[8:33] and you treat it like a courtroom. You

[8:35] don't clap in a courtroom. You don't hoot

[8:38] and holler or show support. You respect the

[8:41] system. You treat everyone civilly. You recognize that

[8:47] this is a very formal legal process. Anyone

[8:50] who wants to disagree with that will simply

[8:52] need to be in another room doing something

[8:55] else. Everyone who does testify today, county staff,

[9:00] including the applicant and including all members of

[9:02] the public will do so under oath. There

[9:05] will be first sworn and we are maintaining

[9:08] a verbatim recording of this hearing because anyone

[9:11] who feels aggrieved by my decision has the

[9:14] right to appeal that decision, whichever of the

[9:17] three parties it may be, that appeal would

[9:20] be to the Cowlitz County Superior Court. In

[9:23] that instance, the court would not conduct a

[9:25] new hearing. It would listen to this hearing

[9:28] and decide whether my decision was appropriately made.

[9:32] So since it's only listening to this hearing,

[9:35] it's incumbent on me to make sure that

[9:36] this hearing is fully capturing all of the

[9:40] testimony that is being received so that should

[9:43] it be appealed, the court has a full

[9:45] and complete copy of the proceedings. And for

[9:50] that reason, it's important that your testimony be

[9:53] captured at places where it can be memorialized.

[9:57] So if you wish to speak, sorry, but

[9:59] you will need to come to a microphone,

[10:01] not so much to amplify your testimony, but

[10:05] to memorialize that testimony for that record. So

[10:10] again, new room, don't know how we're operating

[10:12] here, but staff can provide us more information

[10:16] as to how everyone will be speaking to

[10:19] a location in which their testimony can be

[10:22] captured. I think those are all of my

[10:28] public comments. So let us get us underway

[10:31] with testimony. So that would begin again with

[10:36] county staff and before doing so, should recognize

[10:42] that in advance of today's hearing, I've received

[10:43] the staff report, which is authored by Mr.

[10:45] Kreitzer. That staff report comes with about 200

[10:50] pages of other material. I have read every

[10:53] page of that 200 pages and a large

[10:56] part of that is public comment. If you

[10:58] submitted a public comment, I have read it

[11:00] in advance of today's hearing. And I have

[11:03] read all of the reports scientific and otherwise

[11:06] in advance of today's hearing. I'm fully knowledgeable

[11:10] about all materials that have been given to

[11:12] the county prior to today's hearing. I'll determine

[11:16] evidencing numbers for exhibits based upon all that.

[11:21] I'll have to give that a little bit

[11:23] of thought as to how I identify those

[11:26] as exhibits because of how they've come in.

[11:29] So in the event there are additional exhibits

[11:32] presented today, I'll simply begin with exhibit 100.

[11:36] That way I've given myself plenty of latitude

[11:39] for identifying all the exhibits that have been

[11:42] submitted in advance of today's hearing. So if

[11:44] you have something that you want to submit

[11:48] as an exhibit, you'll need to ask me

[11:50] if you can, and I'll need to approve

[11:53] it. And you will need to receive it

[11:56] in a copy that would be beneficial if

[11:59] you would have made available to others, but

[12:02] understand where that oftentimes proves to be difficult

[12:05] on the day of the hearing. If you're

[12:09] testifying and you're doing so off of a

[12:13] written sheet of paper that you've come ready,

[12:16] you've taken your notes and you've written them

[12:18] down and you've written out your narrative, It's

[12:20] often useful if you'll then submit your written

[12:24] statement as an exhibit for the simple reason

[12:27] that all of us, me included, if we're

[12:31] reading off a sheet of paper, we speak

[12:34] faster. We pick up our pace. We speak

[12:39] faster than we would if we were simply

[12:41] talking. And so what happens is when you're

[12:44] reading from that sheet of paper, I am

[12:46] working hard to stay up with you, but

[12:49] it gets hard because you're talking so fast,

[12:53] making your point so quickly that it's difficult

[12:55] for me to track sometimes what it is

[12:58] that you're trying to say. So in that

[13:00] instance, it's useful if you'll then also give

[13:03] me your written speech so that I can

[13:06] take a moment later and look at it

[13:08] in a more measured pace where I can

[13:11] better understand some of the points that you

[13:12] may have gone through very quickly in your

[13:15] oral presentation. So again, if you've made a

[13:19] speech in advance, many people do, and that's

[13:22] a great idea. It is useful if you'll

[13:24] then surrender the speech as an exhibit so

[13:27] that I can use it to better understand

[13:29] some of the points that you were making.

[13:31] All right, I think I've exhausted all the

[13:34] points I wanna make in advance of testimony.

[13:37] Let's get us underway. That begins with the

[13:39] presentation by county staff. That would be Mr.

[13:41] Kreitzer. Mr. Kreitzer, let's have you sworn, do

[13:44] you swear or affirm to tell the truth,

[13:45] the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[13:47] I do. Go ahead. Thank you. So the

[13:52] case we're hearing today is regarding a level

[13:53] two shoreline substantial development permit with a conditional

[13:56] use element and a campground binding site plan.

[14:06] Olma Design and Jeremy Irish prepared an application

[14:08] for the proposed construction of a camping retreat

[14:10] and event center with related site improvements. The

[14:14] site is currently zoned as unzoned and has

[14:16] a comprehensive plan designation of rural. Rural areas

[14:19] are characterized by low density residential uses that

[14:22] are compatible with natural land practices in addition

[14:25] to small scale commercial and industrial uses, tourism

[14:28] opportunities, community facilities, along with timber management and

[14:32] agriculture. And per Cowlitz County Code 18.10x, excuse

[14:38] me, 0.275A, all uses which have not been

[14:41] declared a nuisance by statute resolution ordinance or

[14:43] court of competent jurisdiction are permitted within the

[14:46] unzoned district. However, because the application includes a

[14:51] campground element, it is elevated to a special

[14:53] use permit. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. The shoreline

[15:01] along the subject parcel has a shoreline environment

[15:03] designation of rural conservancy and the proposed retreat

[15:06] and events center would be considered a recreational

[15:09] use thus requiring a level two shoreline substantial

[15:11] development permit per the shoreline master program table

[15:15] eight-one. There is a floodplain present on the

[15:18] parcel and per the SMP, the shoreline jurisdiction

[15:22] extends 200 feet horizontally from the edge of

[15:26] the floodway. And this places a portion of

[15:29] the proposed parking within the shoreline jurisdiction, which

[15:33] is where the conditional use element. And let's

[15:35] stop there for a minute, Mr. Kreitzer. That's

[15:37] where I get tangled up. The applicant's conditional

[15:39] use permit, or sorry, critical areas report opines

[15:43] that a conditional use is not present or

[15:46] is not needed because the parking is existing

[15:49] parking, not new parking. Does the county then

[15:56] disagree as to that aspect and believe that

[15:58] existing parking requires conditional use permit? No, the

[16:01] existing parking does not require a conditional use

[16:03] permit, just the new proposed parking. I thought

[16:08] I read in their critical areas report that

[16:10] they were revising the parking to take any

[16:12] new parking out of shoreline jurisdiction that I'm

[16:16] well, I'll come to them in a minute,

[16:18] but is that not your understanding then? I

[16:21] believe they've revised to remove any encroachment within

[16:26] the traditional 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction and outside

[16:28] of the critical areas associated with the shoreline,

[16:31] but they had to place some parking landward

[16:34] of the ordinary high watermark and close to

[16:36] the current development, but it's still due to

[16:38] the floodway would be considered. So there is

[16:41] new parking proposed within shoreline jurisdiction, but not

[16:45] within traditional shoreline, but extended shoreline. Correct. Okay,

[16:49] alright. So the public hearing objective is to

[16:55] review the level two SSDP with the conditional

[16:57] use permit, and this is pursuant to Chapter

[17:00] 90.58 of the RCW section 8.7 of the

[17:04] SMP and Cowlitz County code 18.56.055. So the

[17:14] applicant proposes 37 campsites on 12.76 acres of

[17:19] land. They've proposed 10 hype domes, nine drop

[17:24] structures, and both of those are prefabricated structures.

[17:27] And I've included some image examples in the

[17:30] presentation. They also proposed four camping pods which

[17:34] will include three tents each in addition to

[17:37] four individual tent camping sites and two recreational

[17:40] vehicle sites. There's some density calculations that go

[17:44] into proposed campgrounds and the density is 15

[17:47] camping spaces per gross acre. And so there

[17:50] are 37 proposed sites is well below the

[17:52] maximum of 191.4 camping sites that the site

[17:55] could support. The project also proposes to utilize

[18:00] and remodel some existing structures. They proposed to

[18:02] remodel one existing structure into a caretaker residence

[18:06] and another of the existing structures into an

[18:08] event center. They're also proposing some pertinent project

[18:12] development, including a road, parking, walkway, landscaping, and

[18:16] utility improvements associated with campground operation. These are

[18:21] examples of hype domes. They're small prefabricated domes

[18:26] that are used for camping or for recreational

[18:29] uses. And these are examples of drop structures.

[18:34] I believe that they are essentially prefabricated tiny

[18:37] homes or very small cabins. The property is

[18:43] bordered by it to the North by the

[18:46] Clam River Road. And the majority of the

[18:48] properties to the North are designated forest land

[18:50] with some undeveloped land, not in the DFL

[18:53] classification. Single family residences exist beyond the undeveloped

[18:57] land and designated forest land that borders it.

[19:00] The land is bordered to the South directly

[19:02] by the Clamber River and then beyond the

[19:04] river is designated forest land that's owned by

[19:06] Weyerhaeuser. Your house, John's House. The land to

[19:14] the east is a cabin with a single

[19:16] family residence tax classification. I believe this structure

[19:19] is not permitted. And then beyond that is

[19:22] designated forest land. To the West adjacent is

[19:26] also land that's owned by the applicant Mr.

[19:28] Irish that will remain undeveloped in the current

[19:30] proposal and any changes to that would require

[19:32] residents and residential uses. Let's go back to

[19:42] the east. So the cabin when you say

[19:45] it's not permitted, could you, is it, does

[19:50] it predate? It predates the existence of building

[19:53] and planning. Okay, so instead of saying non

[19:56] permitted, might describe it as legally non conforming?

[19:59] Yes. I've included some aerial photos of the

[20:07] project site so you can see some of

[20:10] the current impervious surfaces in addition to some

[20:12] of the existing structures that are proposed to

[20:14] be utilized and the location to the Clamber

[20:17] River. This is just another photo from a

[20:24] different angle. Amazing. And here is a large

[20:37] scale view of the proposed development. The property

[20:40] that Mr. Irish owns to the West of

[20:43] the proposed campground will be serving to access

[20:47] through his private road or private driveway. Here

[20:53] is a closer, still hard to see. I

[20:57] believe I have a better photo here of

[20:59] the layout of the proposed campground, including the

[21:02] existing buildings, any new proposed impervious surfaces or

[21:05] new proposed development, the location of the hype

[21:10] domes, the location of the drop structures in

[21:12] addition to all of the tent camping spaces.

[21:22] And this photo is from the critical areas

[21:25] report that also shows all of the proposed

[21:28] structures in addition to the different critical areas

[21:30] that exist on-site. And so this light blue

[21:34] portion here, I don't know, just north of

[21:39] some of the camping spots, of the Klamath

[21:41] River, That is the encroachment of the drain

[21:45] field and of the proposed parking locations that

[21:48] are within the extended shoreline jurisdiction that is

[21:50] extended due to the presence of floodplain or

[21:53] floodway. Here are some photos to show postings

[22:02] of the subject property in addition to postings

[22:05] within the daily news that indicated the application

[22:09] in addition to the public hearing time and

[22:11] date. Per the comprehensive plan, rural areas are

[22:17] intended to provide for independent and private rural

[22:20] living without significant encroachment on lands used for

[22:22] commercial timber or AG production. Rural areas are

[22:25] characterized by low density residential uses compatible with

[22:29] natural land potential, small scale commercial and industrial

[22:31] uses, and tourism opportunities as I identified earlier.

[22:35] Goal land use 10 is to preserve rural

[22:38] character while respecting the interests of property owners.

[22:43] And 10.1 is to support and encourage uses

[22:45] within rural areas to sustain and are compatible

[22:48] with rural character and the current level of

[22:50] public services and facilities. Land Use Goal 10.2

[22:54] encourages and supports economic development projects in rural

[22:57] areas, particularly those which focus on natural environment

[23:00] and economic resource lands. A relatively small scale

[23:04] recreation and retreat center meets the rural land

[23:06] use goals identified within the County's comprehensive plan,

[23:10] which identifies the small scale commercial use and

[23:12] tourism opportunities. Per the submitted critical areas ordinance,

[23:17] the proposed retreat, me, critical areas assessment, the

[23:21] proposed retreat and event center should not negatively

[23:23] impact any of the critical areas on-site through

[23:26] mitigation purposes. Additionally, the submitted traffic impact analysis

[23:32] indicates that the impacted portion of Calambora Road

[23:35] and Greenwood Road is a statistically safe corridor

[23:38] of travel with adequate site distances and that

[23:41] the proposed access point will be safe and

[23:43] efficient for operation of the proposed development. Per

[23:50] Cowlitz County code eighteen point five six point

[23:52] one zero zero, the minimum size acreage for

[23:55] a campground is one half acre. The proposed

[23:57] development is on 12.76 acres of land thus

[23:59] meeting this requirement. Additionally, communal areas should be

[24:04] located to limit noise trespass, natural and landscape

[24:07] vegetation shall be maintained along existing property lines

[24:09] and within exterior setbacks to the maximum extent

[24:12] possible. So the applicant has proposed to place

[24:15] all communal areas removed from property boundaries and

[24:20] located to reduce all potential noise trespass onto

[24:22] neighboring parcels within reasonable expectations. The applicant has

[24:28] also proposed to maintain natural and landscape vegetation

[24:31] along exterior property lines and setbacks to meet

[24:34] screening requirements. So lighting shall be provided at

[24:38] internal intersections and outdoor communal areas, and a

[24:42] condition of approval would be that all lighting

[24:44] shall be shielded and angled downward to limit

[24:47] potential light trespass to adjacent properties. And some

[24:52] of our findings regarding shoreline management and shoreline

[24:55] master program compliance. Because the proposed recreational development

[25:00] use is within a rural conservancy, shoreline environment

[25:03] designation, it does require the level two shoreline

[25:06] and the presence of a transportation use, which

[25:09] is the new proposed parking, it requires the

[25:12] conditional use permit as well. And while the

[25:15] proposed development is to be outside of the

[25:17] combined 160 foot shoreline buffer and the building

[25:22] setback, the shoreline jurisdiction extends beyond the traditional

[25:25] 200 feet, due to the presence of the

[25:28] floodway. And per the submitted critical areas assessment,

[25:32] the retreat and event center has been designed

[25:34] to avoid direct impacts to the on-site wetland,

[25:37] riparian and shoreline habitat. There was also a

[25:41] cultural resources survey that was conducted and they

[25:44] found no evidence of archeological items and they

[25:48] recommended no further archeological work to be warranted

[25:51] in the project area, but a condition of

[25:53] approval would still be the presence of inadvertent

[25:55] discovery language standard for projects within the shoreline.

[26:01] So in conclusion, the individual findings and conclusions

[26:04] stated within the staff report establishes that the

[26:08] proposal either meets or can be conditioned to

[26:10] meet the Cowlitz County land use standards, the

[26:13] campground code, the standards established in the shoreline

[26:17] master program, and the criteria for granting a

[26:19] substantial shoreline development permit within a shoreline of

[26:23] the state. Completion of this project if constructed

[26:25] and as conditioned within the staff report will

[26:28] therefore be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act,

[26:31] the County Shoreline Management Master Program, and existing

[26:34] land uses nearby to the project area. Thank

[26:39] you. I've got a few questions, Mr. Kritz.

[26:41] Actually a number of them in no particular

[26:44] order. Before I do so, I should mildly

[26:47] correct myself on what happens after this hearing.

[26:54] It's a bit more complicated than the simple

[26:57] explanation I gave. So again, there are three

[27:00] different things that are being sought today. A

[27:04] shoreline substantial development permit, a shoreline conditional use

[27:09] permit, and a campground binding site plan approval.

[27:14] So each of those has a slightly different

[27:16] path forward after today's hearing, which I wasn't

[27:20] very good at explaining. So the shoreline substantial

[27:23] development permit, if I approve it, then goes

[27:26] to the Department of Ecology for a twenty

[27:29] one day review process. That's simply to review

[27:32] my decision and make sure that it is

[27:34] consistent with requirements. The shoreline conditional use permit,

[27:41] my decision is a recommendation only, and it's

[27:45] not the final decision. Rather, the Department of

[27:48] Ecology issues the final determination on a conditional

[27:52] use permit. So that decision is made by

[27:55] that agency based upon my decision. And then

[28:00] thirdly is the campground binding site plan that

[28:04] does not go to ecology and anyone who

[28:07] wished to felt aggrieved by my decision there

[28:11] would seek remedy through the county under the

[28:14] Land Use Petition Act. So again, that's a

[28:17] fuller explanation of all the things that are

[28:20] taking place today. It's a bit more complicated

[28:22] than the standard package. Okay. In no particular

[28:27] order, Mr. Feitzler, I'd like to first to

[28:29] talk about water, potable water. We have, what

[28:34] I assume is a reliance on the existing

[28:36] exempt well for water for this project. So

[28:46] the project describes a caretaker's residence, a center,

[28:56] two shower buildings, and then potable water necessary

[28:59] for 30 some camping sites. That well cannot

[29:05] exceed 5,000 gallons per day. And it's providing

[29:10] water to a lot of individuals, including children.

[29:15] If by comparison, we were talking about a

[29:18] six lot subdivision using one well, we would

[29:23] need to have a Class B well system

[29:26] and all six of those houses would have

[29:29] to share that 5,000 square or 5,000 gallons

[29:33] of water per day and make sure that

[29:35] they didn't use more than that. If we

[29:37] were ahead of 20 lot division, we'd have

[29:42] to have a class A water system. And

[29:44] again, we'd have to have evidence that no

[29:46] more water is being used than what is

[29:48] allowed under law. What I'm concerned here is

[29:52] I don't find a discussion about water use

[29:56] and water restrictions. And I'm wanting to make

[30:02] certain that if approved, this system would not

[30:07] use more than it's allowed. And more importantly,

[30:10] that the water being used by paying guests

[30:13] is in fact a good water, clean water.

[30:17] So I don't see any conditions or discussion

[30:22] about water, it's limitations on capacity or limitations

[30:29] on allowed use or upon its treatment. But

[30:34] at a minimum, seems to me that this

[30:36] should be a system that falls at least

[30:38] under class B standards, perhaps under class A

[30:41] standards for monitoring and regulation to ensure that

[30:46] a lot of paying customers are in fact

[30:49] utilizing clean water. So I'd like to come

[30:53] back to that or let the parties come

[30:55] back to that and perhaps there's more information

[30:57] that I haven't received or is it something

[30:59] that I need to receive more about? Do

[31:09] you happen to know the answers to any

[31:12] of those questions as we sit here? I

[31:15] do not. I believe that they were just

[31:17] going to acquire all necessary permits through environmental

[31:19] health to verify the quality of the water

[31:22] and receive their permits necessary for campground operation.

[31:30] Let's change the water subject slightly to firefighting.

[31:36] So what is the closest station to this

[31:44] site? Do you know? I do not. The

[31:47] initial site that was proposed has been closed.

[31:50] Right. But the fire marshal provided comments that

[31:53] indicated that they would have to meet all

[31:56] international fire code in addition to the Cowlitz

[31:59] County Code on Wildland Fire Urban or the

[32:02] Wildland Urban Interface for Fire Protection. The fire

[32:12] district did not elaborate on those requirements. They

[32:16] did not, okay. And like projects elsewhere, it's

[32:21] often been obligated where there's some distance from

[32:26] an available station to expect a water reservoir

[32:33] that maintains an assured minimum quantity and an

[32:40] assured capacity that is fire pressure, how much

[32:43] it can deliver, how quickly, etcetera. And so

[32:47] I don't see any discussion about that and

[32:50] I don't know what the district may have

[32:52] meant by its comments. So I'm a little

[32:54] bit curious about all that. Again, we were

[32:58] on a dead end road where some distance,

[33:01] substantial distance from any fire department or fire

[33:05] station, I should say. And we're in the

[33:08] woods with surrounding residences. Firefighting has been a

[33:13] concern expressed by a number of written comments.

[33:16] And so I share that concern. I'm curious

[33:20] as to some of the answers to those

[33:22] questions. There is a discussion of there being

[33:31] fire pits on the site. I think there's

[33:33] two proposed pits. Do you know where they

[33:35] are located? I do not. Okay. Again, I

[33:44] apologize for these questions being somewhat all over

[33:47] the place. There's no particular order to them,

[33:49] bear with me. As to the proposed septic

[33:54] system, the diagram that you have pulled up

[34:00] shows the primary and reserve drain fields in

[34:04] proximity to, well, all other development as well

[34:08] as to the flood plain and flood way.

[34:13] It doesn't, where would I look to find

[34:16] the tank? I don't see it. I believe

[34:33] the Joma Design may be able to answer.

[34:36] Okay, sorry. Here's my question. In a similar

[34:40] project I was asked to consider in Lewis

[34:42] County. In that instance, there was a public

[34:49] restroom facilities with tanks that were within or

[34:55] near floodway. And in that instance, it was

[34:58] required that those tanks be sealed so that

[35:01] they can't be surcharged by floodwaters and forced

[35:04] open just by the hydro, the power of

[35:08] water. And so again, I don't see any

[35:12] discussion here of wastewater system and its management

[35:18] to assure that floodwaters cannot invade and degrade

[35:24] that system. Do you happen to know any

[35:27] of the answers to that question? Yes, sorry,

[35:30] I did not elaborate in the staff report.

[35:32] 16.25, I conditioned that they would follow all

[35:35] requirements of that. That is our floodplain management

[35:37] ordinance, which identifies that on-site sewage treatment facilities

[35:43] must be properly located or designed to avoid

[35:47] infiltration of floodwaters and discharge of waste into

[35:50] flood water. And that's wastewater. Let's turn to

[36:02] storm water. Briefly, if you could describe for

[36:11] me the stormwater plan, and again, the applicant

[36:17] undoubtedly can do that more fully, but to

[36:20] your understanding of the stormwater plan and particularly

[36:26] whether it is requiring stormwater for all existing

[36:31] improvements since we are converting their use, they're

[36:35] no longer exempt from storm water requirements. And

[36:39] so there needs to be a demonstration that

[36:41] whatever collective storm water system is receiving and

[36:47] treating not just the new stormwater, but all

[36:51] stormwater from the past and future. And I'm

[36:55] curious if you know that whether or not

[36:57] that's been addressed. I believe Public Works could

[37:01] address that. They manage the stormwater aspect, but

[37:04] I do know that the project would be

[37:06] viewed cumulatively, not just for the new proposed

[37:08] development and that the stormwater plan would have

[37:10] to address that. All right. One of the

[37:34] things I am obligated to do, or one

[37:37] of the findings I need to make with

[37:40] respect to the campground is that I find

[37:43] compatibility with surrounding uses. Uses. That's not required

[37:48] at the shoreline permits, but is required at

[37:50] the campground permit. And so I wanna talk

[37:53] about compatibility a little bit. In particular, I

[37:59] don't see a set of proposed rules for

[38:02] this campground. I take the staff report as

[38:08] suggesting that the applicant will be expected to

[38:11] establish rules, but I think there's a chicken

[38:15] and egg thing going on here. I think

[38:17] I need to see those rules. I don't

[38:19] think it's, I can leave that to anybody

[38:21] else. I think any rules for the use

[38:24] must come before me and I must decide

[38:26] if they're satisfactory. Otherwise I can't determine compatibility.

[38:31] So just as a heads up, I'm gonna

[38:34] need to see a proposed collective set of

[38:36] rules for operation to determine whether in fact,

[38:42] restricted that the project would in fact be

[38:45] compatible with its surrounding uses. And that might

[38:49] include active hours, quiet hours, noise limitations, restrictions

[38:57] on pets, restrictions on fireworks and firearms, any

[39:06] other restrictions that may be appropriate. And so

[39:11] that collective set needs to be put together

[39:15] and I need to examine it for its

[39:18] consistency. Let's turn to landscaping. I understand that

[39:27] the project relies on existing landscaping to the

[39:31] west, that being the applicant's remaining 10 acres.

[39:35] It's effectively a 10 acre park next to

[39:38] the site providing substantial vegetative buffering to properties

[39:43] to the west. Properties to the north are

[39:45] largely separated by county roads. And so we

[39:48] have a separation already, as well as the

[39:52] vegetation that lies to the north of the

[39:54] entrance driveway. When I am to the south,

[39:57] obviously we a natural buffer in the river.

[40:03] To the east is where I'm a little

[40:04] bit less certain as to the buffering. The

[40:08] applicant proposes to maintain a vegetative buffer on

[40:11] its borders. And that's why we come back

[40:15] to this cabin to the east and it's

[40:18] screening from this project. And so I do

[40:22] certainly see extensive vegetative buffering along the Northeast

[40:26] Corner, but south of that buffering, I'm wondering

[40:30] what's intended to ensure that no part of

[40:34] this use or any of its guests wander

[40:37] into adjoining properties to the east. And so

[40:42] any thought given about that today? Yes, a

[40:45] condition of approval would be plantings and screening

[40:47] set up to provide protection to the Southeast

[40:50] Corner. Okay. And while a fence might in

[40:57] many instances be considered an appropriate buffer, we're

[41:01] in shoreline territory and fences would be inconsistent

[41:05] with shoreline restrictions. Mr. Kreitzert, would you maybe

[41:16] for the benefit as much for the public

[41:19] as for me, give me a quick summation

[41:24] of the mitigation plan for the impacts to

[41:29] primarily to wetland buffers, as well as to

[41:32] some extent as part of the conditional use,

[41:35] guess. Tell us a little bit more about

[41:38] mitigation on-site to those impacts. Yes, of course.

[41:44] I believe Ashiko may be able to add

[41:47] additional information, but they were proposing to place

[41:50] signs and indicators to avoid wetland buffer in

[41:54] addition to a replanting and mitigation plan to

[41:57] provide natural vegetation to offset any of the

[41:59] potential impacts to the wetland buffers that would

[42:04] be created through development as proposed. Okay. And

[42:08] it's fortuitous that we have in front of

[42:11] us the aerial photo showing not only the

[42:16] existing conditions, but proposed changes To the southerly

[42:23] portion of the site, there's a lot of

[42:25] bright greenish yellow dots. Are those proposed mitigation

[42:30] plantings? Yes, I believe so. Okay. So the

[42:37] mitigation plan proposes to plant through that area

[42:42] to improve? My mistake, it's existing trees. Oh,

[42:47] those are existing trees. Okay. So the new

[42:50] vegetation or added vegetation for mitigation would be

[42:54] rare relative to those trees. The the hashed

[43:05] portion on the bottom portion of the project.

[43:19] A one to one wetland buffer enhancement on

[43:23] the southwest corner. Oh, okay. Alright. So it'd

[43:28] be southwest of those trees in the portion

[43:31] between the orange and blue lines? Yes. Okay.

[43:36] Strip all the way along. That's in addition

[43:44] to a strip along the ordinary high watermark

[43:47] for one one enhancement. Where is that? Along

[43:53] the southeast portion in between the maroon or

[43:56] red line and the blue line. Okay. Okay.

[44:11] At the request of the, I'm not sure

[44:16] if it was DNR or Forest Fish and

[44:19] Wildlife, think it was Fish and Wildlife, you

[44:21] imposed certain proposed language restricting access to the

[44:26] river during March to June in protection of

[44:31] salmonoid fry. But it's a discouragement. It's not

[44:40] an actual restriction on access to the river

[44:44] during that time. The proposed language is a

[44:47] bit in between. It's not really doing anything

[44:52] other than kind of finger wagging without actually

[44:59] guaranteeing that the river is kept in violet

[45:02] during that time. Any thoughts on, I mean,

[45:06] how does the county feel about that? Is

[45:07] it feel that's good enough? Does it have

[45:10] any thoughts about making sure that if the

[45:13] project is approved, that there'll be no net

[45:16] loss of the biological function of the river

[45:19] relative to salmonoid species. What does the county

[45:23] think? I believe as proposed, it meets the

[45:31] Callis County code for protection for the buffers

[45:36] and for the ecosystem. But that is a

[45:41] condition that we can revisit to further ensure

[45:43] that there is no, me try that in

[45:47] a less subtle way. If I were to

[45:50] approve this project ultimately after everything, and I

[45:55] insisted, I imposed a condition that there would

[45:57] be no river access during those months, How

[46:00] would the county respond to that? Think we'd

[46:06] like to hear, sorry, could I be sworn

[46:08] in? Yes. So you sworn, you swear to

[46:10] tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing

[46:12] but the truth. Yep, Adam Trimble, Planning Manager.

[46:15] And so again, if the applicant is accepting

[46:19] of that condition, then that would be the

[46:22] condition that the county recommends for approval. As

[46:28] proposed with mitigation submitted, the applicant has prepared

[46:35] a plan that would keep that river intact

[46:38] during those months with signage and various other

[46:42] controls of their property. So the condition as

[46:46] written is our initial recommendation, but the applicant

[46:50] and the county may wish to agree that

[46:53] a more strict conditional approval is necessary. Well,

[46:57] that's not how, okay. The parties can talk

[46:59] about it and think about suggesting something. The

[47:03] question I was posing is if I say

[47:04] it, if I intend to do that, does

[47:08] the county have some strong opposition to my

[47:10] doing so and why? That was what I

[47:14] was trying to ask. The county's recommendation is

[47:22] in the staff report. The restriction and the

[47:27] amenity of this property is the river. So,

[47:29] you know, right now the position of the

[47:31] county is that the applicant can manage that

[47:34] access and control it and protect the river.

[47:36] Okay. I think we're about there, Mr. Kreitzer.

[47:53] Let me just double check. Those do complete

[48:03] the questions I have for county staff. And

[48:05] does that complete then the county's presentation? Yes,

[48:08] it does. We'll turn then to the applicant

[48:12] and, oh, one last housekeeping matter. The county

[48:18] was relying upon a PowerPoint presentation for its

[48:22] testimony today. I wanna make that presentation an

[48:25] exhibit that becomes exhibit 100. And I wish

[48:31] a copy sent to me electronically following the

[48:34] hearing. So as to the applicant then, who

[48:46] am I to anticipate hearing from today? Good

[48:49] morning. And you are? Good morning, Mr. Hearing

[48:56] Examiner. My name is Byron Johlma with Johlma

[49:00] Design. And I'm here to my left is

[49:04] Andrea Aberle with Asheco. And how is Asheco

[49:10] spelled? A S H E C O. Okay,

[49:15] thank you. Are you anticipating that both of

[49:20] you will testify today? Well, I anticipate that

[49:25] Ms. Aberlewy will be responding to the questions

[49:29] regarding the environmental, the critical areas. And we

[49:33] also have in attendance virtually the traffic engineer

[49:37] as well. Mr. Chris Klimau. And how is

[49:49] his last name spelled? C L E M

[49:53] O W. Okay. So again, Mr. Joelma, this

[50:00] is the applicant's opportunity to testify in response

[50:03] to the county's presentation, which is then my

[50:07] first question is, does it wish to make

[50:10] the presentation and who or how many different

[50:14] people will be making that presentation? Yes, sir.

[50:17] So we would just like to, we'll keep

[50:20] our comments brief. We would like to introduce

[50:22] the project briefly and then would be. Which

[50:26] is all great. I anticipate that. I just

[50:28] need to know who is doing it to

[50:29] know who to swear in as witnesses. Roger

[50:33] that, yeah. So myself, Byron Joma and Andrea

[50:39] Aberle, then then possibly Considering the, yes, Any

[50:46] of the comments related to the traffic concern,

[50:48] Mr. Cleemaw will Okay. As well. So as

[50:51] to you and Ms. Aberle, let's just have

[50:54] you collectively sworn, do the two of you

[50:56] swear or affirm to tell the truth, the

[50:58] whole truth and nothing but the truth? I

[51:00] do. All right. It's yours to proceed as

[51:03] you prefer. So go ahead. Yes, good morning,

[51:08] Mr. Arias Amater, members of staff and those

[51:12] public who are in attendance. My name is

[51:15] Byron Johlman with Johlman Design and I am

[51:19] the project engineer of record. And as mentioned,

[51:24] I also in attendance are the biologist Andrea

[51:29] Aberle and the traffic engineer Chris Deverclimao. And

[51:35] yeah, like I said, I'll keep my comments

[51:38] brief here. We have no objections to the

[51:42] current conditions outlined in the staff report. I

[51:46] can answer a couple of the questions that

[51:50] you had regarding the fire pit and the

[51:53] well as well. I wanna have a little

[51:56] clarification there. I also understand that there is,

[52:02] and there's been many concerns brought forward by

[52:07] the neighbors and in a perfect world, the

[52:12] reports and studies and plans that we prepared

[52:15] would satisfy those concerns. However, we also take

[52:22] them very seriously. The comments, particularly in the

[52:25] neighbor, those that live nearby, this is their

[52:30] neighborhood. We acknowledge and respect that. And I

[52:34] also speak for the owner as well. And

[52:38] we will be paying close attention to the

[52:41] comments made. We do stand by the design,

[52:46] the reports. Stand by the project has been

[52:50] well vetted. We believe the staff has done

[52:53] an outstanding job of ensuring that the project

[52:58] complies with the applicable code. And as I

[53:06] said, we understand there's several concerns with the

[53:10] neighbor and with the neighbors. And although we

[53:15] may not be able to answer all of

[53:16] those or address them here today, we're gonna

[53:18] do our best. And I'll also be available

[53:21] afterward, after the hearing, if anybody wants to

[53:26] speak to me personally, and I will bring

[53:28] those concerns and ideas forward or pass them

[53:33] forward to the owner. And with that, if

[53:38] you, oh yeah, I'll clarify. So the fire

[53:42] pits will be propane. And at this juncture,

[53:47] I don't believe we show a specific location

[53:51] on the plans. Those will be determined, but

[53:53] they'll be in compliance with all applicable building

[53:57] and fire code. And then there is a

[54:00] new well proposed and it is shown on

[54:03] the plans, I believe in the, is that

[54:09] in the Northeast Corner? Yes, sir. That's correct.

[54:12] The Wellhead Radius. Yes, sir. That's correct. So

[54:14] a new well will be installed prior to

[54:20] occupancy. But it's proposed as an exempt well?

[54:28] It's proposed as falling within the 5,000 gallon.

[54:31] Oh yes, sir. That is correct. Yes, sir.

[54:33] Yep. Have you had any, oh, I'm sorry.

[54:42] Were you, you have any more to say

[54:44] or? No, Nope. Entertain any questions? Have you

[54:48] had any conversations with public health about the

[54:52] well and its requirements today? Personally, I have

[54:56] not, my staff has, and we've also been

[54:58] working with a well driller. And those discussions

[55:06] did come up with regard to the need

[55:09] for a Class B or a community well

[55:13] system and we would certainly not object if

[55:16] it was found that it fell under those

[55:18] provisions. However, we are, like I said, we

[55:23] stand by the opinion or our assessment that

[55:28] it does not meet those requirements. Give me

[55:46] a second, Mr. Joelma. As the engineer, you

[55:54] would be the one more familiar with it,

[55:56] stormwater management. And to where, what stage are

[56:01] you in stormwater management design? This would be

[56:06] a preliminary stormwater design. However, typically at this

[56:10] stage, we, because of the, it is a

[56:14] critical component that we put a lot of

[56:16] effort into the design to ensure that it's

[56:18] feasible. We are proposing low impact development BMPs,

[56:24] and Kalama River is exempt from the flow

[56:29] control standards, but all runoff, including runoff from

[56:34] existing impervious or pollution generating services or surfaces

[56:40] that will mingle with storm water from pollution

[56:43] generating services will be treated and managed in

[56:48] accordance with the stormwater management manual for Western

[56:53] Washington. And how will it be resolved? Meaning

[56:58] it will infiltrate, will it anticipate to drain

[57:02] to some sort of retention facility? What is

[57:05] proposed? What's currently proposed is a combination of

[57:11] splash blocks where it will disperse through vegetated

[57:19] vegetated soils that may be amended as needed

[57:25] to meet the treatment standard and sheet flow

[57:29] dispersion. As mentioned, these are low impact development

[57:33] principles where the storm water is managed as

[57:37] close as possible to the point where it

[57:40] falls. We are not proposing any detention. As

[57:43] mentioned previously, the Glamour River at this location

[57:48] is exempt from the flow control standards. So

[57:52] therefore, detention is not required. To date, has

[58:08] the applicant begun preparation of a set of

[58:11] rules of operation? To my knowledge, no. However,

[58:19] I will pass that question on to the

[58:24] owner. I would be very surprised if that

[58:27] has not at least been is not in

[58:33] some type of draft form or isn't, but

[58:35] we will, yeah, we will pass that along

[58:38] to and you're talking about just a set

[58:41] of rules, not really necessarily like CCNRs, but

[58:44] more of just the operations and the rules

[58:47] of the campground. CCNRs would not apply, but

[58:50] a set of rules would. Right, yeah. And

[58:52] that's what I'm interested in. Okay. Okay. I

[59:03] don't have any other questions, Mr. Joma. And

[59:08] so did, Ms. Eberle, were you going to

[59:17] speak as well? Mr. Eberle, front of me,

[59:21] one topic that was brought up was regarding

[59:25] the septic tanks and your concern that they

[59:29] are not shown on the plans. Oh yes.

[59:32] If not, yeah, took another look. I do

[59:34] not see them shown a lot of times.

[59:38] I mean, we're relying on the septic designer

[59:42] and at this phase, they would typically be

[59:44] more of a, probably a schematic layout anyway.

[59:47] However, we've, at the time of construction, as

[59:51] mentioned and in the conditions of approval, they

[59:55] will be installed either outside of the flood

[59:57] plain where they could be susceptible to inundation

[1:00:00] with water, or if necessary to install them,

[1:00:04] they will be constructed with the appropriate features

[1:00:10] to prevent the infiltration of surface water. Okay,

[1:00:19] thank you. Thank you. And so again, did

[1:00:21] you anticipate Ms. Aberleaf's testimony as well? I

[1:00:27] can go over a few elements. I think

[1:00:29] everything's been covered. It's up to you. Or

[1:00:34] do you wanna just respond? I'll just clarify.

[1:00:38] Sandra, Avery Averly Ashikosolutions. As far as the

[1:00:43] critical areas go, there's the type S water,

[1:00:49] the shoreline, obviously the Clam River. Depicted on

[1:00:54] there that we're most concerned about is the

[1:00:59] shoreline buffer and setback, which the shoreline buffer

[1:01:02] is the first 150 feet from Ordinary High,

[1:01:05] and then there's additional 10 foot building setback.

[1:01:07] So the combined buffer and setback is one

[1:01:09] sixty. And that's the line that was held

[1:01:13] by all new development regarding the project as

[1:01:18] required by the Shoreline master plan. There is

[1:01:24] a 200 foot offset depicted for the traditional.

[1:01:27] But in this case, the full one hundred

[1:01:28] year floodplain is the full extent. The shoreline

[1:01:32] extends to the full outer limit of the

[1:01:35] one hundred year floodplain. The impacts that we

[1:01:41] are required to calculate are for within that

[1:01:44] inner 160 and or the wetland buffer that

[1:01:49] is 300 feet in this case. There was

[1:01:51] not a mapped wetland on-site, but we delineated

[1:01:54] one for riverine wetland we found along the

[1:01:58] shoreline that had a 300 foot buffer so

[1:02:02] on the other the site plan from our

[1:02:05] critical areas report mitigation plan The aerial view

[1:02:07] of that one. Impacts the buffer impacts proposed

[1:02:12] are in the light aqua solid shading, which

[1:02:16] consists of the primary septic, the new parking,

[1:02:21] and required fire turn turnaround around the existing

[1:02:24] structure, a deck, and a patio. But those

[1:02:28] all are outside the one sixty shoreline buffer

[1:02:34] and setback as required by the shoreline master

[1:02:37] plan. Anything outside that requires is still calculated

[1:02:42] as an impact and requires mitigation. But as

[1:02:45] far as any new development, it's outside that

[1:02:50] inner restricted area. To offset those impacts, there's

[1:02:54] shoreline buffer enhancement proposed within the aqua plus

[1:02:58] hatched area. So two areas along the south.

[1:03:03] And generally, we locate those in the area

[1:03:06] to extend where there's any existing tree line.

[1:03:11] And in this case, fairly linear to provide

[1:03:15] a buffer between the project and the shoreline.

[1:03:22] And just to clarify, they are using historic

[1:03:29] footprints from structures. There's no new building proposed

[1:03:36] within the floodplain or shoreline as far as

[1:03:38] the structure with the exception of the flat

[1:03:44] surfaces, the parking, which I only say that

[1:03:50] because in shorelines, if you build up, generally

[1:03:52] take away from the volume of the flood

[1:03:55] plains you have to excavate. But in this

[1:03:56] case, we don't need to do that. It's

[1:03:58] not a requirement. So a couple of questions,

[1:04:00] Ms. Iberly. The mitigation plan is a one

[1:04:03] to one ratio. Correct. I don't know if

[1:04:06] there is any overarching required ratio, but ratios

[1:04:13] vary greatly. Oftentimes they can be no less

[1:04:17] than one to one to achieve no net

[1:04:19] loss, but oftentimes they're expected to be greater

[1:04:23] than one to one depending on the circumstances

[1:04:25] and the imposition. In this case, why do

[1:04:28] you feel the one to one ratio is

[1:04:29] appropriate? One to one is standard when it's

[1:04:33] an impact of herbaceous or grass vegetated area

[1:04:38] in the outer portion of the buffer, which

[1:04:40] it is. No significant vegetation, trees, shrubs are

[1:04:46] proposed for removal. That's the one to one

[1:04:50] is generally accepted ratio. Otherwise, you're correct. It

[1:04:53] can be greater than that if you are

[1:04:54] impacting more significant habitat or in the inner

[1:04:57] portion of the buffer. And then this is

[1:04:59] a question more for the benefit of the

[1:05:01] Department of Ecology. Why the need for new

[1:05:05] parking within the expanded shoreline jurisdiction, hence the

[1:05:10] conditional use permit. We did utilize the existing

[1:05:19] impervious surface to the full extent practicable. That's

[1:05:23] my understanding that new parking was a requirement

[1:05:25] to meet the design criteria under code. Okay.

[1:05:31] Let me paraphrase, which is a way of

[1:05:33] you telling me if I'm following closely that

[1:05:38] to meet other code requirements, the facility needs

[1:05:42] more parking. And the only place based on

[1:05:47] topography and existing buildings and environmental restrictions is

[1:05:53] the proposed area of additional parking. Am I

[1:05:56] summarizing your position correctly? Correct. Okay. All right.

[1:06:04] Okay. And one other comment, I guess, I'll

[1:06:09] make. I have met with Fish and Wildlife

[1:06:11] and Department of Ecology staff on-site, got the

[1:06:14] recommendations, and they didn't have any other outstanding

[1:06:22] comments that weren't implemented into the project. Oh,

[1:06:27] and as far as the trail use, we

[1:06:29] added that in and the signage to meet

[1:06:32] Fish and Wildlife's recommendation. And as far as

[1:06:39] the time frame you're concerned about March through

[1:06:42] June that would be posted on signage, it's

[1:06:45] my understanding there wouldn't be a lot of

[1:06:46] use, very, very minimal if any of the

[1:06:50] site during that time, but that's up for

[1:06:53] the applicant to provide more insight on possibly.

[1:06:58] K. Anything else? That's all I have. And

[1:07:05] you are speaking on behalf of the applicant.

[1:07:07] The applicant isn't speaking separately, am I correct?

[1:07:13] Say again. The two of you are here

[1:07:15] on behalf of the applicant. The applicant isn't

[1:07:18] presenting separately, correct? Correct, affirmative. I also did

[1:07:24] wanna, yeah, I did have a quick text

[1:07:27] exchange with one of the owners representatives and

[1:07:35] they said that there is a draft set

[1:07:39] of operating rules and we will be paying

[1:07:43] close attention to the concerns here and if

[1:07:46] necessary, rules will be amended as needed and

[1:07:51] presented to you for review, Mr. Hearing Examiner.

[1:07:59] Do you wish to present the testimony of

[1:08:02] your traffic engineer as well? At this juncture,

[1:08:06] I will stand by for and have him

[1:08:10] respond as needed to the public comments. I

[1:08:16] think that would be a more efficient use

[1:08:18] of everyone's time. Okay. So we've heard from

[1:08:23] county staff, we've heard from the applicant. Now

[1:08:26] we come to the third phase of today's

[1:08:28] hearing, which is the public testimony. And so

[1:08:34] Mr. Kreitzer or Mr. Trimble, someone have a

[1:08:37] sheet of those who might like to be

[1:08:39] heard? Thank you. So as I said before,

[1:08:52] this sheet is not binding in any way,

[1:08:55] one way or another. If you signed up,

[1:08:58] but then no longer interested, you can just

[1:09:02] let me know. You're not obligated to follow

[1:09:05] through. If you didn't sign up, but what

[1:09:07] you would like now to be heard after

[1:09:09] you heard other things, you can let me

[1:09:12] know. There's nothing fixed about this sheet as

[1:09:15] we get started with it. And in advance,

[1:09:19] I apologize for the mispronounced the issue of

[1:09:23] anyone's name. I think with a name like

[1:09:25] Scheipmeier, I would be sensitive to getting names

[1:09:28] correct, but I understand also how it doesn't

[1:09:31] work very well sometimes. And so just forgive

[1:09:34] me in advance if I do injustice to

[1:09:36] your name. So the first name I have

[1:09:40] on the sheet is Jeff, is it Bottart?

[1:09:45] Yeah, I think your name's Jeff. Yeah, I

[1:09:47] get it. It may take me longer than

[1:09:50] five minutes. I just have history. I've been

[1:09:53] out there sixty Thank you, I'll come back

[1:09:55] to you. There must be a sound system

[1:10:00] in here that's picking up everybody without All

[1:10:03] of the mics are hot. And there must

[1:10:06] be mics that are picking up the audience

[1:10:08] as well. The audience is invited to speak

[1:10:13] here. Well, know, but they seem to be

[1:10:15] coming in quite well, even when they sit

[1:10:18] at their chairs is, but you would still

[1:10:20] prefer that they come to the table. Okay.

[1:10:23] All right. Yeah, it's a bit eerie or

[1:10:29] unsettling how much is being picked up by

[1:10:32] these microphones. This one, so I'm maybe we

[1:10:35] could. Yeah, we will ask people to come

[1:10:38] to the microphone to Mr. Kreutzer's right at

[1:10:41] the open table. So the next is Michael

[1:10:44] Grimes. Mr. Grimes. I'm not flu y'all well.

[1:10:58] Morning, miss Thank you, mister Hearing, examiner. Let's

[1:11:01] have you sworn. Do you swear or affirm

[1:11:03] to tell the truth? The whole truth and

[1:11:04] nothing but the truth. I do, sir. Go

[1:11:06] ahead. Lived up there for twenty five years

[1:11:10] and to say that road is safe and

[1:11:12] it'll all be high fine and dandy is

[1:11:17] misconstrued at best. I've seen no evacuation plan.

[1:11:23] We have a lot of slides on that

[1:11:24] road. We have a lot of trees across

[1:11:27] the road. And the number one concern since

[1:11:31] I've lived there for twenty five years is

[1:11:33] fire damage. We have nice evening wind that'll

[1:11:39] blow 10 to 15 miles an hour. It's

[1:11:43] a one way in, one way out road.

[1:11:46] If you don't know how to get out

[1:11:47] of, how you going to get all those

[1:11:48] people out of that bottom area in RVs

[1:11:53] and whatever else they drove in and everybody

[1:11:56] else is trying to get off that mountain

[1:11:59] without there being a real problem. What happens

[1:12:03] if there are people there? We get snow

[1:12:05] at 18 inches of snow in April. What

[1:12:09] happens when it snows and we have some

[1:12:11] kind of problem? The only way is a

[1:12:14] Weyerhaeuser will open up a travel corridor and

[1:12:18] you're not getting an RV up it. I

[1:12:20] can tell you that now. It's all a

[1:12:22] four wheel drive can do sometimes to get

[1:12:25] up that road. The intersection is got about

[1:12:28] 100 feet of visibility. You get an 80

[1:12:32] pound log truck coming down that road. With

[1:12:35] 80 feet of visibility before an RV pulls

[1:12:38] out, you're gonna have an accident. It's not

[1:12:41] a question of if it's gonna happen, it's

[1:12:43] gonna be when it happens. They don't have

[1:12:46] the stopping ability at that range. Also, we

[1:12:51] had an RV come out of there. Nice

[1:12:53] silver one. It drove 18 miles an hour

[1:12:56] down that road all the way to the

[1:12:58] freeway. The congestion, you're gonna have people that

[1:13:05] have never driven that road. It's a small,

[1:13:07] narrow, winding road with heavy equipment, dump trucks,

[1:13:11] log trucks, log cutting equipment that they'll have

[1:13:14] to negotiate and deal with. What about all

[1:13:18] the people that are gonna maybe go wanna

[1:13:20] take a bicycle ride up there? Extremely dangerous.

[1:13:25] The water safety, I've heard people address the

[1:13:28] war runoff. What about the migratory birds? The

[1:13:32] comb rats, the eagles, and everything else that

[1:13:36] lives down there. I've sat across and hunted

[1:13:39] that entire mountain system across from them. There's

[1:13:43] all kinds of animals that use that crossing

[1:13:46] right there because of the way it's all

[1:13:48] configured. The quietness. What about all the racket

[1:13:56] that's gonna come with this? What happens when

[1:13:59] something does happen? You think mister Irish is

[1:14:03] gonna care because he's not gonna be here.

[1:14:06] It'll just be us like it is in

[1:14:08] every other small town across this country. It'll

[1:14:11] be left up to us to deal with.

[1:14:14] County looks at it from the money, he

[1:14:17] looks at it from the money, and we're

[1:14:19] just gonna be left holding the bag. Thank

[1:14:22] you. Thank you. Tiffany Takawa. Morning. Hi, this

[1:14:41] frustrates me in that, can I have you

[1:14:44] move that over? Absolutely. So we can have

[1:14:48] a visual with each other and all the

[1:14:50] witnesses. This is, this room is driving me

[1:14:53] crazy. And sorry, let's get you sworn. You

[1:14:59] swear our firm to tell the truth, the

[1:15:00] whole truth and nothing but the truth. I

[1:15:02] do. Go ahead. So I'm not necessarily for

[1:15:05] or against, but I am, we are one

[1:15:08] of the neighbors that is closest. We're the

[1:15:10] first house on Greenwood. And some of my

[1:15:15] concerns that were not in my letter that

[1:15:17] I thought of afterwards are would any campers

[1:15:20] be allowed to live there permanently? And if

[1:15:26] there's like a campground manager, would those persons

[1:15:31] or people be there permanently or only when

[1:15:34] there's an event? Is there a limit to

[1:15:38] total number of guests? Say, if they're not

[1:15:42] expecting any events between what did they say

[1:15:47] March and June, what if someone wants a

[1:15:49] May wedding with 100 people? Just thinking about

[1:15:53] that and the traffic that could come from

[1:15:56] that, there's Even only a certain number of

[1:16:00] parking spots. Right? Would the guests be informed

[1:16:06] in advance of how curvy and up and

[1:16:10] down Kalama River Road is? Because yeah, there

[1:16:14] are some people that go extremely slow. There's

[1:16:16] some people that go fast, especially if it's

[1:16:21] January and we know that there are certain

[1:16:24] icy spots that no one who's not familiar

[1:16:28] with the road are gonna know about. We

[1:16:31] all know those icy spots, but you can't

[1:16:33] see them. So whether it's a car, a

[1:16:37] car with you're pulling a trailer, whatever, that's,

[1:16:41] I would want them to, people to be

[1:16:44] informed of actually what kind of road this

[1:16:46] is and the fact that there are log

[1:16:48] trucks. Sometimes those log trucks are close to

[1:16:50] the center line, you know, barreling down. And

[1:16:55] then morning traffic say between, I mean, the

[1:16:58] log trucks started four or five in the

[1:17:01] morning, but say between six and nine, I

[1:17:03] would want priority for the log trucks and

[1:17:07] people going to work and people going to

[1:17:09] school rather than anyone pulling out of the

[1:17:13] campground and leaving, adding to the traffic at

[1:17:17] that time of day. Oh, let me see.

[1:17:24] That was, yeah, that's all I can think

[1:17:27] of. I'm glad you mentioned about the fireworks.

[1:17:30] Thank you for that. Sure. That is a

[1:17:33] concern. Alright, thank you. Thank you. Ms. Scout

[1:17:38] didn't quite ask questions of staff, but it

[1:17:41] prompts me to remind, you're good. If you

[1:17:45] have questions that you feel should be responded

[1:17:49] to by the applicant or the county, you

[1:17:52] don't ask them to those parties directly. If

[1:17:55] you have any such questions, you ask them

[1:17:57] to me. I'm the traffic cop for all

[1:18:00] questions. Otherwise I lose control of the hearing

[1:18:03] very quickly if there gets to be an

[1:18:06] ongoing back and forth. And so everything would

[1:18:09] come to me all then. If you do

[1:18:11] have a question, I'll come back to it.

[1:18:13] I make notes as to all questions that

[1:18:15] are raised, and then I decide who should

[1:18:17] best answer them. So I don't think I

[1:18:20] had anything out of that that I need.

[1:18:22] There are some things I'll follow-up on, but

[1:18:24] not necessarily a specific question. If anyone does

[1:18:27] have questions, post them to me. I'll post

[1:18:29] them to the right people. Michael Okay. Golub.

[1:18:46] Good morning. Good morning, sir. Let's have you

[1:18:48] sworn, do you swear or affirm and tell

[1:18:49] the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

[1:18:51] the truth? I do. Go ahead. My name

[1:18:54] is Michael Golub. I'm representing Clark's Comenia Fly

[1:18:57] Fishers, a fishing club that has over 200

[1:19:00] members with the mission of the preservation of

[1:19:03] wild fish. Wild steelhead and salmon are both

[1:19:07] endangered species. The Upper Kalama River above the

[1:19:10] upper hatchery is fondly known as the holy

[1:19:13] water, as it is the breeding ground of

[1:19:16] the for these fish. Only wild fish are

[1:19:19] released above the hatchery. The key to wild

[1:19:22] fish is clean, cool water. Has anyone conducted

[1:19:27] a red survey that fish are not spawning

[1:19:31] in this area? So I appreciate that they

[1:19:34] talked about the fries coming down and protecting

[1:19:36] them. But what about the adult fish going

[1:19:39] up to spawn? The impact of the sewage,

[1:19:45] we talked about that to some degree, but

[1:19:48] what about groundwater seepage? It says only a

[1:19:51] mile upriver of the hatchery. So in a

[1:19:57] case where there's any seepage in that, the

[1:19:59] first place is to stop at the hatchery

[1:20:01] where thousands of fish are managed every year.

[1:20:10] The additional point is the wild fish are

[1:20:15] all captured at the hatchery. These fish then

[1:20:20] being traumatized going through that, being captured, oftentimes

[1:20:25] tagged for good reasons because there's a lot

[1:20:28] of environmental studies going on about trying to

[1:20:31] establish a wild population of fish in the

[1:20:33] Kalama River. They are traumatized. They come out

[1:20:39] of the hatchery. They send them out a

[1:20:41] chute into the river. Where is the first

[1:20:43] place that they stop and rest? Less than

[1:20:47] a mile up the river is this proposed

[1:20:51] site. Those fish need clean, cool water, and

[1:20:56] they need a place to rest and it

[1:20:57] needs to be, you know, they can't be

[1:20:59] people splashing around on a river. So, the

[1:21:02] time frame to March to June, I don't

[1:21:04] think accounts for that. There there are two

[1:21:09] runs of steelhead on this river. A spring,

[1:21:12] a summer run, and a winter run. So

[1:21:15] there are fish in that river constantly going

[1:21:17] through this area to either get to spawning

[1:21:20] grounds or to spawn there. So we are

[1:21:25] opposed to this endeavor. And we believe that

[1:21:30] the conditions for to protect wild fish have

[1:21:35] not been adequately considered at this time. Thank

[1:21:39] you. Thank you. Next, I have Brian Davern.

[1:22:08] Good morning. But have you sworn? Do you

[1:22:10] swear or affirm to tell the truth, the

[1:22:11] whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I

[1:22:13] do. Go ahead. Good morning. My name is

[1:22:16] Brian Davern. I'm a resident of South Kelso.

[1:22:21] I first visited the Clammer River and John

[1:22:26] Anderson's property in 1970 and have been a

[1:22:32] frequent visitor since, mainly for angling purposes, but

[1:22:39] more more recently for volunteer purposes. I have

[1:22:47] two objections to this development. One concerns the

[1:22:55] act of developing it and the threat to

[1:22:59] the water quality that the hatchery directly downstream

[1:23:04] will experience. I also have a concern about

[1:23:12] how the property has been used in the

[1:23:16] fifty five years that I'm aware of. John

[1:23:21] would welcome a small handful of anglers each

[1:23:27] day onto his property when the parking spots

[1:23:31] were filled, that's all that would be there.

[1:23:34] So his family use of the property and

[1:23:40] a few anglers is what that stretch of

[1:23:43] the river has experienced. What's proposed is nothing

[1:23:48] like that. And and so the either seasonal

[1:23:58] or year round potential activity for a stretch

[1:24:04] of the river that has been quiet will

[1:24:10] be upset and the the management work of

[1:24:16] Wild Spring Chinook and Wild Steelhead has been

[1:24:22] a particular management effort that I think would

[1:24:27] be impacted. Those are my concerns and thank

[1:24:33] you for hearing the testimony. Thank you Mr.

[1:24:36] Dever. Next I have Brad Ruser. I hope

[1:24:54] I pronounced that. Yeah, it's pronounced Reiser, but

[1:24:57] you're right Okay. To I did that a

[1:24:59] lot. That German double vowel thing going on.

[1:25:01] Mr. Reiser, let's have you sworn, do you

[1:25:05] swear or affirm to tell the truth, the

[1:25:06] whole truth and nothing but the truth? I

[1:25:08] do. Go ahead. A lot of my topics

[1:25:10] have already been addressed so far, but my

[1:25:13] concern up there, again, I'm glad we have

[1:25:15] somebody here from Fish and Wildlife here. The

[1:25:19] one issue we're looking at here, yes, there's

[1:25:20] gonna be a huge impact on the fish.

[1:25:23] That hatchery is a lot closer. I mean,

[1:25:26] was literally right next door. When you put

[1:25:29] a restriction from people being in that river

[1:25:31] from March until June, whatever it may have

[1:25:33] be, let's look at the real world here.

[1:25:36] You're going to have people up there camping

[1:25:37] with kids and everything. The reason they are

[1:25:40] coming up there is to enjoy that river

[1:25:42] that is right within a footstep of their

[1:25:44] campsite. You're not gonna keep kids out of

[1:25:48] that river. You're not gonna keep the public

[1:25:50] out of that river when they're coming to

[1:25:52] a place to camp and they're surrounded by

[1:25:54] a river, they're going to use that river

[1:25:55] at all times. There's not going to be

[1:25:58] anybody there monitoring who goes in the water

[1:26:00] who does not. There's a big concern of

[1:26:03] mine right there I fish all that river.

[1:26:05] I've been up there for thirty five years

[1:26:07] as most of these people behind me have

[1:26:09] been there for a long time. You know,

[1:26:12] I remember the days when, you know, John

[1:26:14] Anderson, LC Anderson, the owners of that property,

[1:26:17] there's a frequent herd of elk that live

[1:26:19] in there right now, and they cross between

[1:26:20] that property and our property on Greenwood Road.

[1:26:23] Are directly above that most of residents here

[1:26:26] are in that area, and those elk live

[1:26:28] there. They go back and forth. They did

[1:26:30] not leave that area. Ellen Bodderoff, Jeff is

[1:26:33] here, his son. Before that, he was raising

[1:26:35] baby deer up there on that property with

[1:26:37] John Anderson. He would take them in from

[1:26:39] fish and wildlife when they were injured, and

[1:26:41] he would raise them. The deer frequent that

[1:26:43] property regular. They know that is their safe

[1:26:46] place. So with those environmental issues that has

[1:26:49] me concerned. Next thing I'd like to talk

[1:26:51] about is the danger. That property there was

[1:26:55] planted in timber by Ellen john is probably

[1:26:57] three thousand thirty five year growth on the

[1:26:59] timber directly on that property from there that

[1:27:02] timber goes directly up the hill. And up

[1:27:05] the top that hill we get winds every

[1:27:06] day fifteen twenty miles an hour coming over

[1:27:08] the top of that Hill and we are

[1:27:09] surrounded by warehouse or property. If a fire

[1:27:12] should start in that area, there's no getting

[1:27:14] out of there, it's a one way road,

[1:27:16] and 90% of the time the gates that

[1:27:19] will allow access out of there are closed

[1:27:21] by a warehouse or they are only open

[1:27:23] during a need for an emergency such as

[1:27:26] landslides and such. So there's no way for

[1:27:29] people to get out of there. Have had

[1:27:31] smoke up there blowing through our property with

[1:27:33] smoke and ashes so thick we can't see

[1:27:34] the other side of our property. And Gifford

[1:27:37] Pinchop, you do your homework, there's fires up

[1:27:39] there constantly, and we are in that area,

[1:27:42] what happens if one starts along the river

[1:27:44] with the winds coming up to Klamath Canyon,

[1:27:46] we're all going to be in trouble. The

[1:27:48] other thing I'd like to hit on is

[1:27:50] that intersection I'm sure it's been brought up

[1:27:51] several times, but those trucks are coming downhill

[1:27:54] for over a mile before they hit that

[1:27:57] intersection there's a steady downhill drop. You're not

[1:28:00] stopping a log truck as Mr. Grimes has

[1:28:02] mentioned you're not stopping a log truck. When

[1:28:04] you come out of that driveway up there

[1:28:06] is a hairpin turn you're coming out there

[1:28:07] and you're coming out there slow, there's a

[1:28:09] blind turn where the log trucks are coming

[1:28:11] down the Bypass 6000 Warehouse Road that's the

[1:28:14] only road they are allowed to use are

[1:28:16] no longer go along the river. So that

[1:28:18] intersection is a direct impact of not just

[1:28:21] logging trucks, but all the logging equipment, the

[1:28:23] crawlers are using everything is coming around that

[1:28:26] turn of an RV pop, there's no stopping

[1:28:28] them. And that's not even to mention all

[1:28:31] the traffic issues we're going to have up

[1:28:33] and down that road. In the last few

[1:28:35] years that garbage up there has multiplied and

[1:28:37] we go down the road every day and

[1:28:39] we look at the amount of garbage out

[1:28:40] there there's nobody to clean it up. Garbage

[1:28:43] is being brought in by the public, and

[1:28:45] as residents up there a lot of us

[1:28:46] will go along with garden, we will clean

[1:28:48] up our area up there but when you

[1:28:49] see the public coming in and destroying it.

[1:28:52] This is gonna have a huge impact on

[1:28:54] what we have up there. And I've been

[1:28:55] up there for many years and I just

[1:28:57] don't want you to I'm used to sitting

[1:28:58] on my deck and listening to the waterfall

[1:29:01] at the hatchery directly below me. I'm not

[1:29:03] gonna sit on my deck and listen to

[1:29:04] a bunch of campers. I mean, I mean,

[1:29:06] you know, if I have to, but still,

[1:29:08] why are we destroying what we have up

[1:29:10] there, both environmentally and safety? And that's all

[1:29:14] I have. Thank you. Thank you. Scott Ball?

[1:29:22] Okay, we're back to the five minute club.

[1:29:29] Go ahead. Both of my points have been

[1:29:31] touched. So Ms. Boddart, why don't you come

[1:29:34] forward? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Michelle. Meyer? I've

[1:29:43] been on the river over sixty years up

[1:29:47] there. Again, lot of the stuff was touched

[1:29:56] but that river was changed back in the

[1:30:01] nineties, I believe. And I would like, I

[1:30:05] looked for the date when it was changed,

[1:30:07] but that's when they quit letting the hatchery

[1:30:12] fish on the Upper River. And the reason

[1:30:17] for that was to build a wild Steelhead

[1:30:21] sanctuary. Mr. Examiner, did you need to swear

[1:30:28] me in? I sure did. Somehow I had

[1:30:34] thought we had taken care of that, but

[1:30:35] thank you. Mr. Bauter, let's have you sworn,

[1:30:38] do you swear or affirm to tell the

[1:30:40] truth, the whole truth and that's I do.

[1:30:42] Thank you. And so, you know, it's where

[1:30:47] we came from. I grew up up there

[1:30:50] and that river was flooded with people back

[1:30:53] then because it was hotter fish and the,

[1:30:58] you know, the use was just too much

[1:31:01] for the river to handle for the wild

[1:31:05] steelhead to benefit. And so that was changed

[1:31:09] and there's a date associated with that. And

[1:31:15] the next thing is, you know, I've been

[1:31:17] on that river my whole life. I floated

[1:31:21] to that farm to work and interacted on

[1:31:24] that farm for fifty years. And so I

[1:31:27] know every piece of it better than anyone.

[1:31:31] And as my later years, I've been down

[1:31:34] the river a few times and if on

[1:31:39] your map here, on that upper shoreline, it's

[1:31:44] a straight line. That's not a natural river.

[1:31:47] And I'm not sure who the owner was,

[1:31:52] but that shoreline has been changed. And we're

[1:31:57] talking single digit years since it was changed.

[1:32:03] And I never ever seen a permit out

[1:32:06] there nowhere. On the Upper Road, down by

[1:32:09] the Lower Road, again I'm all of a

[1:32:13] sudden when I went down the river, it

[1:32:15] was there one day. And that's a recent

[1:32:20] thing. And it may not mean anything to

[1:32:23] people that haven't lived and breathed out there,

[1:32:26] but that flooding in the spring supported wetlands

[1:32:30] on the lower end. I mean, you get

[1:32:33] wood ducks in there and you know, they

[1:32:36] find refuge in there because the predators out

[1:32:40] on the mainstream. And that's just how nature

[1:32:45] works and that's been eliminated. And so if

[1:32:50] we're talking shoreline permit, shoreline this, shoreline that,

[1:32:54] it's already, that property's already showing a total

[1:32:59] disregard for the environment. In my book, you

[1:33:04] know, when you go down a scenic natural

[1:33:08] river, you expect to see that. You don't

[1:33:11] expect to see giant riffraff piled up in

[1:33:15] an even line along the bank, which they

[1:33:18] had to have an excavator in the river

[1:33:20] to accomplish that. It's been changed, look at

[1:33:23] your maps. And then some notes I took

[1:33:31] while you're talking rules. What's your reporting process?

[1:33:38] Is the person that's managing it qualified? Is

[1:33:42] it an in house only and is there

[1:33:45] required documentation of any of the stuff that's

[1:33:50] going on down there? And then another concern

[1:33:56] of mine is cold water drownings. Rivers are

[1:34:01] magnets. You're gonna I graduated on 06/02/1978 and

[1:34:11] Mike Sager classmate drowned on June 3 next

[1:34:14] day. He was a super athlete. He drowned

[1:34:19] in the Clima River. He swam the middle

[1:34:21] and cramped up. It was a 100 degree

[1:34:23] day in June, snow melt. Went right to

[1:34:27] the bottom. So that is one of the

[1:34:31] saddest days of my life. And, you know,

[1:34:37] that's that's pretty much just it. But a

[1:34:40] real thing to me is where where we

[1:34:43] came from, why was that section of river

[1:34:46] changed, and where are we going? What brought

[1:34:50] it to their attention back then? Is that

[1:34:53] gone? Does it not matter? You know? Thank

[1:35:00] you. Thank you. We'll come back to Mr.

[1:35:06] Wall. Good morning. Let's have you sworn. Do

[1:35:16] you swear or affirm to tell the truth,

[1:35:18] whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I

[1:35:19] do. Go ahead. So I do have some

[1:35:22] written comments that I wanna get to in

[1:35:24] just a second. I wanna tell you I

[1:35:27] appreciate I wanna get my thoughts out. I

[1:35:30] appreciate what you've covered today because about that

[1:35:33] 200 page staff report, probably a 100 was

[1:35:36] my I I I wrote those a lot

[1:35:38] of those comments. And your name is notable

[1:35:41] in many of the documents. And I'm not

[1:35:43] an attorney. I'm not an engineer, but I

[1:35:45] can do research. And I may be right,

[1:35:48] wrong, whatever on my comments. But I my

[1:35:50] wife and I own the property between the

[1:35:52] hatchery and the proposed project. So I live

[1:35:54] that river every day. We purchased it from

[1:35:57] John Anderson's son, the gentleman that several people

[1:36:00] have talked to. He when we bought the

[1:36:02] property from him six years ago, he spent

[1:36:05] two hours walking with my wife and said,

[1:36:07] I'll sell it to you only because you

[1:36:08] guys understand what this river is all about.

[1:36:11] He wasn't going to sell it just to

[1:36:12] anybody, but we felt we felt very lucky

[1:36:14] to have it. Now we've lived in Cowlitz

[1:36:16] County for almost thirty years, but not on

[1:36:17] the river. So I do want to go

[1:36:19] through some my prepared comments and that's why

[1:36:22] it's going go longer, maybe five minutes. But

[1:36:24] I do wanna say one more thing because

[1:36:25] I'm not sure it's gonna come out of

[1:36:26] here. The biggest benefit from this hearing that

[1:36:29] I've had so heard so far is the

[1:36:31] thing that has been missed to this point.

[1:36:33] And no offense to the county. These two

[1:36:35] gentlemen have been so polite and so good,

[1:36:38] Mr. Adam and Cody, because I've sent lots

[1:36:42] of messages. They've never done anything but respect

[1:36:44] to me. And I appreciate the engineering reports.

[1:36:47] I'm sure they're right. But the point that's

[1:36:51] being missed that I feel like you're accentuating

[1:36:53] is that we're looking at these slices of

[1:36:55] a pie. We're looking at the salt, the

[1:36:57] ingredients of the pie, but no one's looking

[1:36:58] at the whole picture. It's a cumulative effect

[1:37:00] of this whole thing that is impacting this

[1:37:02] area. It's these people. It's a wildlife. And

[1:37:05] when you start saying, we're going to put

[1:37:07] five more feet of pavement and we've met

[1:37:08] this code. Great. You know, we're going put

[1:37:11] a septic tank in here and it's going

[1:37:12] to meet that great. Well, septic when it

[1:37:14] runs off is going to run down to

[1:37:15] the end of the field where if anybody

[1:37:17] goes out there and looks right now it's

[1:37:19] falling off this last year it's falling up

[1:37:21] and coming to my property. Bainbridge it's running

[1:37:23] through the field and going down there they've

[1:37:25] got trails that are going through the wetland

[1:37:27] right up to my property. Bainbridge What why

[1:37:29] aren't we talking about that No one seems

[1:37:32] to be looking big picture, but I appreciate

[1:37:34] the questions that you've asked because at a

[1:37:36] very minimum, it feels like you are doing

[1:37:38] that. I appreciate that. Not worth anything, but

[1:37:41] worth it to me and my family. So

[1:37:45] I would like to read my comments. And

[1:37:47] I wanna take a little different approach. I'm

[1:37:49] not gonna rehash everything that I sent in

[1:37:51] the hundreds of pages. So there is a

[1:37:52] little different view here. As I said, my

[1:37:55] And and mister Wall, are you gonna be

[1:37:56] reading from that? Yeah. And I'll leave this

[1:37:58] with you. Great. Yeah. I'll try to slow

[1:38:00] down a little bit. I do tend to

[1:38:01] talk a little fast. So, like I said,

[1:38:04] my wife and I live at 4307 Clam

[1:38:06] River Road, between the hatchery and the property

[1:38:08] that's being proposed for this project. We chose

[1:38:12] this place for its peace in its river.

[1:38:14] We pay our taxes and maintain our property

[1:38:16] with expectation that the county will also act

[1:38:19] as a steward for the residents who already

[1:38:20] live here, not just commercial applicant. It's not

[1:38:23] a simple land use decision as we've seen

[1:38:24] here today. It's a clear choice between upholding

[1:38:27] the duty of the county to protect existing

[1:38:28] rights and improving a project that will cause

[1:38:30] irreversible harm. I've already submitted detailed comments highlighting

[1:38:35] what I view as deficiency in the review

[1:38:36] to date, including the failure to assess the

[1:38:39] cumulative impacts as required by the law and

[1:38:41] misleading guidance provided by the county related to

[1:38:44] the appeal process. So I'm not gonna go

[1:38:45] into those again. And I said, I appreciate

[1:38:49] you having reviewed those in your assessment. This

[1:38:52] project's the wrong project at the wrong time

[1:38:54] and the reviews been far too thin, relying

[1:38:57] on the applicant page studies and avoiding hard

[1:38:59] questions with specific details. For example, the traffic

[1:39:03] report. The photos are in the traffic report.

[1:39:05] Don't show the intersection. They're all looking downstream.

[1:39:07] They're not looking at the problem that's there.

[1:39:09] They're looking away from it. Staff reports characterization

[1:39:12] of this as a relatively small is a

[1:39:14] direct contradiction of reality. And relatively small, I

[1:39:17] get what relatively means, but relative to what's

[1:39:19] there now, this is monumental. This is a

[1:39:21] city. There's nothing like that there. So calling

[1:39:23] this relatively small and then applying the filters

[1:39:26] of what relatively small means is wrong. 37

[1:39:29] sites, many of them essentially permanent with the

[1:39:32] geodomes and the drop structures. Calmins, hosting easily

[1:39:36] thousands of visitors annually, it's not hard to

[1:39:38] do the math to get there. 37 campsites,

[1:39:41] couple people fifty two weeks a year, you

[1:39:44] can get there real easy. Annually is a

[1:39:47] commercial venture of the scale of a new

[1:39:48] subdivision without the accountability if we put five

[1:39:51] houses in there you'd have Homeowners. They're responsible

[1:39:54] they're taking care of their property You've got

[1:39:56] thousands of people coming in, but all they

[1:39:57] want to do is get in there, have

[1:39:58] a good time and get out. The accountability

[1:40:01] is not there, and it minimizes the exposes

[1:40:03] the fundamental flaw in the county's approach to

[1:40:05] this. So from my standpoint, this would this

[1:40:08] ultimately results in only one thing that this

[1:40:10] application should be denied. So the debate on

[1:40:14] this project ultimately centers on one core legal

[1:40:16] principle in my opinion, because I can't I

[1:40:19] can't argue the the environmental impact that I'm

[1:40:22] that's not my thing I appreciate the fish

[1:40:23] and wildlife people being here because I thought

[1:40:25] that's such a huge. Of it, but we're

[1:40:27] talking about property rights and that's the core

[1:40:30] of my comment today property rights, not just

[1:40:31] the right of somebody that can pay to

[1:40:33] have. Engineering firm put an engineer together legal

[1:40:37] and go through all the permitting but rights

[1:40:39] about the people that live there today. Taking

[1:40:41] their rights away not not diminishing why they

[1:40:44] moved there not having to do with deal

[1:40:46] with all the traffic coming up and down.

[1:40:48] We have amendments in The United States, the

[1:40:50] fourth and fifteenth that protect these rights in

[1:40:52] the Washington State Constitution Article one section 16

[1:40:55] also states that given private property shall not

[1:40:58] be taken or damaged without just compensation. Term

[1:41:01] damage is crucial because it means any government

[1:41:03] action, including land use approval that demonstrably harms

[1:41:06] the value, safety, livability of a property is

[1:41:08] a violation of this right. Now I personally,

[1:41:10] I can't speak on behalf of everybody in

[1:41:12] here, but I personally say this will harm

[1:41:14] my property values. It will harm my way

[1:41:16] of life if this is approved as it

[1:41:18] stands. Approving this project as a government action

[1:41:21] will cause direct and measurable harm. It will

[1:41:23] erode our rights to peace and safety, diminish

[1:41:25] property values, and permanently alter this unique character

[1:41:27] of this valley. Transforming a protected community environmentally

[1:41:31] fragile area into a commercialized and degraded landscape.

[1:41:35] And I don't have 20 pages here. Have

[1:41:37] one more, so no. Sorry. The applicant applicant

[1:41:40] may promise mitigation, but the impacts are so

[1:41:42] severe and cumulative cumulative that they cannot be

[1:41:44] mitigated, and the risks are too high for

[1:41:46] just promises. They represent a fundamental and destructive

[1:41:48] shift in our community's character. Constant noise, light,

[1:41:51] and crowds from thousands of visitors will permanently

[1:41:53] shatter the peace we relied on. There's no

[1:41:55] fence high enough to contain this impact. The

[1:41:58] access point is a blind intersection, an unsuited

[1:42:00] rural road is risky for disaster. Hundreds of

[1:42:03] weekly vehicles, thousands of annual visitors will inevitably

[1:42:06] lead to collisions and compromise emergency access for

[1:42:09] every resident in this canyon. This isn't a

[1:42:11] speculative risk, it's a certainty. The project site

[1:42:14] is known as a floodplain. Increase in perrier

[1:42:16] services will exacerbate flooding for downstream neighbors, a

[1:42:19] risk proven by previous events. Furthermore, the commercial

[1:42:22] use of wells and septic systems will strain

[1:42:23] our shelled aquifers, our shared aquifers and risk

[1:42:26] contaminated drinking water. In the report, I shared

[1:42:29] some photos from the last time the flood

[1:42:30] did come through. Every single standing structure that's

[1:42:33] there today was inundated with at least two

[1:42:35] to three feet of water. That water all

[1:42:37] went on downstream, down through my property, to

[1:42:40] the hatchery, down river. Continuing that and building

[1:42:43] on that, I don't understand how how that

[1:42:46] could be approved. Duty of the county is

[1:42:48] not to find a way to approve this

[1:42:49] application. Duty is county is to protect the

[1:42:52] people and the environment served. The duty is

[1:42:54] to uphold the law. The law requires a

[1:42:56] substantive review of cumulative impacts under SEPA, not

[1:42:59] a simple box checking exercise. Duties protect existing

[1:43:02] property rights. Cannot guarantee commercial privileges to one

[1:43:05] applicant by taking away the constitutional rights of

[1:43:07] many other long standing residents. The duty is

[1:43:11] to be the final barrier to help unavoidable

[1:43:14] harms to this project cannot be mitigated. The

[1:43:17] only legal and ethical resource for my opinion

[1:43:19] is to deny the application as proposed. I'll

[1:43:24] stop there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And

[1:43:26] if you'll give those comments to the staff

[1:43:29] so that they can make copies and provide

[1:43:32] me with one. No offense, guys. You've been

[1:43:36] great. But I was understood that we had

[1:43:38] no option to provide anything written. Had I

[1:43:41] known I could give something, I'd have three

[1:43:43] more pages here of things. So I do

[1:43:46] have some other things that I think are

[1:43:47] very valid. Once I'll I'll come back to

[1:43:51] that, mister Paul in a slightly request that

[1:43:55] property, a public records release that was given

[1:43:59] on Friday last week after the 5PM deadline.

[1:44:03] I'll come back to that in a somewhat

[1:44:05] different way. Sorry. So we'll recognize, and I

[1:44:09] did not take notes because I anticipated Mr.

[1:44:11] Walls has proceeded testimony. So that becomes exhibit

[1:44:15] 101. And again, if make that available to

[1:44:17] the county so that I do have that,

[1:44:19] Mr. Wall, that'd be great. We've gone through

[1:44:22] the list of those who signed up. Again,

[1:44:25] that's not in stone. And if there's anyone

[1:44:28] else, a member of the public who would

[1:44:30] like to be heard that did not sign

[1:44:31] up, This is not two rounds, but if

[1:44:36] there's anyone who didn't have the chance do

[1:44:40] so, is there anyone who had not been

[1:44:43] given the opportunity who would like to testify?

[1:44:46] My record will reflect that there are no

[1:44:48] takers and I do apologize that I, Mr.

[1:44:51] Grimes, keep it to one time around, otherwise

[1:44:54] we sort of again lose a bit of

[1:44:56] control to our hearing. Now having said that,

[1:45:01] by rule, the county and the applicant get

[1:45:04] a chance to respond. Response is an inherent

[1:45:07] piece of all public hearings. And so if

[1:45:10] the county has any responses that wish to

[1:45:13] make either to the applicant's presentation or to

[1:45:16] the public presentation, Mr. Kreitz, there anything you

[1:45:19] wish to say in response? Well, I forget

[1:45:38] that we have this as a hybrid format.

[1:45:41] Thank you. Is the record reflecting anyone appearing

[1:45:45] remotely who wishes to be heard? No one

[1:45:49] has provided any input or request to speak.

[1:45:51] Okay, thank you. And then now let's make

[1:45:54] it clear. If you're online and you're attending

[1:45:57] this hearing, you can unmute at this time,

[1:46:01] identify yourself and ask to testify and we

[1:46:04] will recognize you. Just give that a moment.

[1:46:14] If you're having trouble unmuting, you can use

[1:46:16] the raise hand or the chat function in

[1:46:19] Zoom to get our attention. Okay, we do

[1:46:27] have a few guests online. I don't see

[1:46:29] anybody unmuting. We have, we know at least

[1:46:33] one person is online for the applicant. So,

[1:46:37] at this time, we're asking members of the

[1:46:38] public who are on the virtual call. You

[1:46:42] can unmute, identify yourself, and we will recognize

[1:46:45] you if you'd like to be heard. Okay,

[1:46:47] see a hand up from beginning with letter

[1:46:50] A. So, if you're able to unmute on

[1:46:56] your end, go ahead and I've asked you

[1:47:00] to unmute on your side. Should be able

[1:47:02] to speak if you can unmute yourself. Okay.

[1:47:17] Do you wanna try and Do you have

[1:47:19] any controls over there? Okay, we've got an

[1:47:28] accidental, I'm listening in comment. So it appears

[1:47:32] that the hand raise was accidental. So to

[1:47:38] break that to a conclose, I think it's

[1:47:39] fair say that there are no members of

[1:47:42] the public appearing virtually who do want to

[1:47:44] be heard, which then gets us back to

[1:47:46] the opportunity of both the applicant and the

[1:47:49] county for response. So Mr. Kreitzer, Mr. Trimble,

[1:47:53] started to ask you if you had any

[1:47:55] response and then we got interrupted. Is there

[1:47:59] any county response or rebuttal? Yeah, I believe

[1:48:04] we can speak to some of the comments

[1:48:07] made. Let me see first if the applicant

[1:48:11] team is gonna ask the traffic engineer to

[1:48:13] speak. We had several comments about traffic. So,

[1:48:17] think it'd be appropriate to invite Mr. Christopher

[1:48:20] Clemmau. If you wanna speak to the traffic

[1:48:23] issue and comments raised, this would be a

[1:48:26] great time to do that. You can unmute.

[1:48:34] Chris Klimab. Can you hear me? Yes, I

[1:48:37] can. So Mr. Klimab, let's have you, the

[1:48:41] county has proposed your testimony in response to

[1:48:44] the public comments. So let's first have you

[1:48:47] sworn. Do you swear or affirm to tell

[1:48:50] the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

[1:48:52] the truth? Yes, I do. And so, I

[1:48:58] don't, this becomes sort of the county's witness

[1:49:01] at this point. Or I can ask either

[1:49:06] the county or the applicant if you want

[1:49:09] to give some direction to Mr. Climao or

[1:49:11] you would like him to provide narrative and

[1:49:13] in response to public testimony, how would you

[1:49:16] like him to present? Chris, if you had

[1:49:24] taken any comments and had some notes, I

[1:49:27] would say just start with the first one

[1:49:30] that you wanted to respond to. Okay, yes.

[1:49:35] Several kind of observation here is that the

[1:49:40] transportation analysis that we performed for this project

[1:49:44] was focused on largely on-site distance at the

[1:49:49] existing intersection. And I should say that the

[1:49:54] standard or the requirements from the Cowlitz County

[1:49:58] code essentially reference it says intersections governed by

[1:50:04] this section shall provide adequate distance site distance

[1:50:06] per standard design criteria, which I will point

[1:50:11] that the standard design criteria is by AASHTO,

[1:50:17] which is the American Association of State Highway

[1:50:20] Transportation Officials. But there's two products that they

[1:50:24] use, which is the green which is that

[1:50:26] basically they're designed for highways and streets. It's

[1:50:29] formally or commonly known as Green Book. And

[1:50:32] it sets site distance kind of requirements that

[1:50:35] agencies such as the county then adopt as

[1:50:37] their standard. But even more importantly for roadways

[1:50:42] such as this which has a lower traffic

[1:50:45] volume, you use what ASHA refers to as

[1:50:49] their guidelines for low volume roadways. Distinction here

[1:50:56] being that while you measure sight distance at

[1:50:59] the intersection, and there's no denying here that

[1:51:02] this site access point has some limited, in

[1:51:07] particular, horizontal clearance because it's on the outside

[1:51:11] of a horizontal curve, the access is. It

[1:51:16] is limited due to that. But then the

[1:51:19] question is from, let's say, a regulatory standpoint,

[1:51:25] is that an issue? From AASHTO's design guide

[1:51:30] perspective, low volume roads have a actually have

[1:51:34] a fairly low threshold criteria. And meaning, unless

[1:51:43] there is an incident, you know, a documented

[1:51:46] history of crashes here at this location, it's

[1:51:50] usually that any changes are unlikely to gonna

[1:51:54] kind of improve anything. Again, we've looked, okay,

[1:51:59] so what I should say then is, I

[1:52:02] mean that's the general AASHTO guidance is that

[1:52:05] the existing condition can remain unless there's evidence

[1:52:10] of a site specific crash pattern and or

[1:52:16] that there's something clearly that this is going

[1:52:19] to improve and the fact that there isn't

[1:52:21] here because we went out, we counted not

[1:52:24] only the traffic, we looked at the speeds,

[1:52:27] and we measured sight distance. Required of stopping

[1:52:32] sight distance in both directions is met. Well,

[1:52:35] intersection sight distance is a little deficient in

[1:52:38] one direction. Again, that's a desire. Okay. So

[1:52:43] I should say there's a distinction between stopping

[1:52:45] and intersection sight distance. Intersection is a desired

[1:52:51] length. Stopping sight distance is more of a

[1:52:54] required length. Intersection sight distance is met in

[1:53:01] in all instances except for one, which is,

[1:53:04] kind of a left turn from the stop

[1:53:06] looking to the south, but the stopping sight

[1:53:09] distance is made is met. So I guess

[1:53:14] the short answer here is is that all

[1:53:18] the necessary sight distance requirements are met. The

[1:53:22] AASHTO guidance is that everything can remain in

[1:53:25] place unless there's evidence, you know, kind of

[1:53:28] some site specific crash pattern, which there isn't.

[1:53:33] Yeah. I I I don't know how to

[1:53:35] summarize this. I I understand that it's not

[1:53:38] perfect out there, but the standard is that

[1:53:42] there's no documented deficiency. So it's it's okay

[1:53:49] to remain as is. That's what I have

[1:53:53] to say. Does either the county, the applicant

[1:53:57] wish to ask any other questions of the

[1:53:59] witness? We do not, but the county does

[1:54:04] have another witness as well. Okay. Thank you,

[1:54:07] Mr. Klimao. And your other witness? Patrick Harbison

[1:54:12] with Department of Public Works. Where is Mr.

[1:54:28] I get this. Oh, sorry. Sometimes people are

[1:54:32] just too close. Good morning, Mr. Arborson. Have

[1:54:36] you sworn? Do you swear or affirm to

[1:54:38] tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing

[1:54:39] but the truth? I do. Go ahead. And

[1:54:42] again, Patrick Arborson, Cowles County Department of Public

[1:54:45] Works. In regards to the site distance issue,

[1:54:49] try to simplify it a little bit for

[1:54:51] you. All the intersection site doesn't meet requirements.

[1:54:56] The one that was brought up as insufficient

[1:55:00] is a stop controlled intersection. That leg has

[1:55:03] a stop sign on it. And so the

[1:55:07] site distance pretty much becomes null and void

[1:55:09] because cars are supposed to stop. The the

[1:55:13] direction that most was most discussed today regarding

[1:55:18] the trucks comes down from Greenwood Weyerhaeuser, and

[1:55:22] that has a sufficient sight distance according to

[1:55:26] the traffic analysis. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Armisen?

[1:55:40] The only other thing I'd add is that

[1:55:43] the current preliminary stormwater proposal does meet Cowlitz

[1:55:47] County Code sixteen twenty, and final review will

[1:55:50] be once your decision is rendered and they

[1:55:54] submit. Okay, let me, let's try that one

[1:56:02] again. So they presented a preliminary stormwater plan?

[1:56:07] Yes. That's in the record. Okay. It's the

[1:56:18] very long report near the end. Right. The

[1:56:20] one with all the pages and pages and

[1:56:22] pages of statistics that no one ever looks

[1:56:25] at. I take offense. Yeah, exactly. So, and

[1:56:33] again, can you confirm that that is incorporating

[1:56:35] existing structures into the necessary stormwater management? Correct.

[1:56:40] Okay. How would you describe its retention and

[1:56:45] treatment system? They use low impact development techniques

[1:56:49] to treat and dispose of the water appropriately.

[1:56:57] Is that on a sheet dispersal type system

[1:57:00] then? It depends on what the source of

[1:57:03] it is. They do dispersion for roads and

[1:57:06] they use splash blocks for some of the

[1:57:08] roofs, some compost amended vegetated filter strips for

[1:57:12] other areas. They specifically designed it depending on

[1:57:16] what is generating the pollution generation. Okay. And

[1:57:21] at least preliminarily, it meets the county's most

[1:57:26] recent version of the stormwater manual. Yes. Would

[1:57:47] wastewater issues be in your strike zone? No.

[1:57:51] Okay. So for the county, we do have

[1:57:58] our environmental health manager here who I think

[1:58:01] can speak generally to requirements that will apply

[1:58:04] to this and all projects in the county.

[1:58:07] As opposed to a condition of approval that

[1:58:10] may be customized. You know, we do have

[1:58:13] regulations in place that must be met, right?

[1:58:15] So, we do have our staff here, Andrea

[1:58:18] Yoho, who can speak to those. And how's

[1:58:23] your last name spelled? Good morning, Andrea Yoho.

[1:58:27] Last name is spelled y o h o,

[1:58:29] Cowlitz County Health and Human Services. Okay. Miss

[1:58:41] Yoho, let's have you sworn. Do you swear

[1:58:43] or affirm to tell the truth, the whole

[1:58:44] truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

[1:58:46] Go ahead. So my understanding is that the

[1:58:53] question at hand is whether or not there

[1:58:55] be an approved means of septic disposal on-site.

[1:58:58] Cowlitz County code fifteen forty five requires general

[1:59:01] sand has general sanitation requirements for any campground

[1:59:04] or rv park within the county, And those

[1:59:07] sanitation codes then refer back to WAC 246272A,

[1:59:13] provide specifications for installation of septic systems based

[1:59:19] on the number of people that the system

[1:59:22] would be serving on a routine basis and

[1:59:26] is dependent on the soil type up at

[1:59:28] the site to determine the treatment level and

[1:59:31] what that system, the functions and the parameters

[1:59:34] of that system would require. Okay. As part

[1:59:39] of soil type analysis, I assume you would

[1:59:41] take into consideration floodway, floodplain, and other things

[1:59:48] impacting soil type? Yes, sir. The WAC requires,

[1:59:51] there are certain setbacks from the ordinary high

[1:59:54] watermark. That's a 100 foot setback that the

[1:59:56] drain field must meet. Setback from which line?

[2:00:02] The ordinary high watermark. Any setback from the

[2:00:11] ordinary, I mean from the floodplain? That I

[2:00:15] believe we would defer to planning on. It's

[2:00:19] not specified within our WAC. It the design.

[2:00:26] Well, Which is we're talking about the design.

[2:00:29] So what I'm trying to get from you

[2:00:33] is to what extent, let me try this

[2:00:35] again. Mr. Trimble's point a minute ago was

[2:00:39] that a number of these issues are hardwired

[2:00:42] into the county's regulations And therefore they don't

[2:00:47] need to be dealt with that link because

[2:00:49] they're already pre dealt with. I'm curious as

[2:00:55] to wastewater, you're describing to the extent that

[2:01:00] it's hardwired for regulation, but then you don't

[2:01:04] have a hardwiring for floodplain in your system.

[2:01:09] And that's where I'm trying to better understand

[2:01:12] if you don't deal with it, why would

[2:01:16] I not deal with it if there isn't

[2:01:19] some specific regulation providing for it? Again, have,

[2:01:26] it is declared that part of this is

[2:01:29] a floodplain. We have the photos of the

[2:01:31] area inundated with water. We have a design

[2:01:34] that shows septic drain fields, but does not

[2:01:36] show the tanks. And apparently those haven't yet

[2:01:41] been located. I'm trying to figure out as

[2:01:44] the one deciding whether that's acceptable, why I

[2:01:49] should find that acceptable? Where are those tanks

[2:01:53] gonna be? And why should I feel comfortable

[2:01:55] that they won't become surcharged by stormwater and

[2:02:00] force their effluent out under hydrostatic pressure? So

[2:02:04] that's my question. And if you can answer

[2:02:07] that Ms. Yeoh, great. So how might you

[2:02:09] answer that question? If I might answer that,

[2:02:12] Mr. Schadmeyer. 1625, our floodplain management, defers to

[2:02:17] the septic designer to create the flood resistant

[2:02:21] or flood proof waste management system. And there

[2:02:24] exists some guidance documents within the NFIP, the

[2:02:28] National Flood Insurance Program that FEMA has provided

[2:02:30] that septic designers may utilize. But the septic

[2:02:34] designer has to demonstrate with the design that

[2:02:39] it will meet the standards as identified in

[2:02:41] our code. That is helpful. But it's hinting

[2:02:45] that that's not been done yet. Is that

[2:02:49] a takeaway? At this time, the county hasn't

[2:02:52] received a proposal for a septic design plan.

[2:02:54] Therefore, we haven't been able to provide that

[2:02:56] review. Okay. When a project is simply complying

[2:03:03] with standards, it's not my business to second

[2:03:07] guess standard compliance. When a project is being

[2:03:11] built out of whole cloth and it's not

[2:03:15] specifically following very direct standards, but is sort

[2:03:17] of paving its own way because of unique

[2:03:20] set of circumstances, then I feel a greater

[2:03:23] obligation that it falls within my purview, unless

[2:03:27] the staff purview, try this slightly different way.

[2:03:31] I'm not an expert in engineering issues. I

[2:03:34] don't claim to be one. And therefore it's

[2:03:37] really not my job to oversee engineering decisions.

[2:03:42] But to the extent that discretion is involved

[2:03:44] in some of this, there should be greater

[2:03:47] opportunity for first staff review and public review

[2:03:51] of projects that are being proposed on their

[2:03:55] own, not simply filling checking boxes on a

[2:04:00] chart in a code. And that's a bit

[2:04:03] of my concern here. Again, we show drain

[2:04:06] fields, but we don't show where tanks are

[2:04:08] located. It's the tanks, not the drain fields

[2:04:12] that in this type of situation are the

[2:04:14] greater concern. And so I'm just, I'm trying

[2:04:18] to better understand where we are, where we

[2:04:20] need to be, how do we get from

[2:04:22] one to the other? And my belief is,

[2:04:25] and I'll come back to this in a

[2:04:27] moment, that it's something that I need more

[2:04:29] information, which then in turn is entitled to

[2:04:31] be publicly reviewed before I render that decision.

[2:04:34] So, Long speech, didn't mean that, but Ms.

[2:04:40] Yoho, anything else about the public health issues

[2:04:43] that you would like to attend to? I

[2:04:50] think the only other concern that I've heard

[2:04:55] addressed today potentially is the potable water source,

[2:04:59] which the wellhead proposed wellhead on-site would classify

[2:05:03] as a class A well, and those construction

[2:05:06] engineering permitting and oversight is seen by the

[2:05:08] State Department of Health, not the county. Okay.

[2:05:13] And that classification is based on correspondence that

[2:05:22] we had with the applicants back in 2021.

[2:05:25] So if the number of people being served

[2:05:28] by the well has changed since that point

[2:05:29] in time, then it might that might change.

[2:05:33] The classification might be different, but based on

[2:05:36] my understanding, the well was going to meet

[2:05:39] the parameters of a Class A. All right.

[2:05:42] So let's, thank you, because that's important. Let's

[2:05:45] talk about that. Again, it's important in a

[2:05:48] number of respects. One of which is, as

[2:05:51] I was just explaining, it's not my job

[2:05:55] to decide something when county regulations have already

[2:05:58] decided it. When the county's regulations have already

[2:06:03] said, given these criteria, the answer is X.

[2:06:08] And so it's not my job to make

[2:06:10] it Y when the county has already made

[2:06:13] it X. With water, I need to better

[2:06:18] understand the totality of the consequences of a

[2:06:24] Class A system as to this project, because

[2:06:27] I need to figure out where state regulation

[2:06:29] ends and my decision making begins, or is

[2:06:34] it simply entirely a state matter? Let me

[2:06:38] try that one more time. So first it

[2:06:42] would be helpful, Ms. Yoho, if you could,

[2:06:45] for everyone's benefit, describe what it means to

[2:06:47] be a Class A system and what's expected

[2:06:50] generally of that system, which will help them

[2:06:53] understand what's already regulated that doesn't need to

[2:06:58] be regulated again. And then where that regulation

[2:07:03] may sort of end and what that leaves

[2:07:06] if anything about the use of that system,

[2:07:09] that would be a matter of concern under

[2:07:13] the various standards I'm to apply specifically those

[2:07:17] standards applicable to a campground site plan. And

[2:07:22] in that sense, it's one, it's assuring clean,

[2:07:26] potable water. Two, it's assuring that only the

[2:07:30] water that's allowed to be withdrawn is utilized.

[2:07:35] And that that can be easily determined and

[2:07:37] reported so that compliances can be confirmed. So

[2:07:44] within the state health department or the Department

[2:07:49] of Health, which regulates Class A water systems,

[2:07:54] as a Class A water system, what would

[2:07:57] be expected of this well? So I think

[2:08:02] I'm gonna step back just a moment to

[2:08:04] whether or not it would be classified as

[2:08:07] a Class A well, which a Class A

[2:08:09] well is going to be one that serves

[2:08:12] 25 or more people per day more than

[2:08:15] sixty days a year or is anticipated to

[2:08:17] do so. Alright. And based on some preliminary

[2:08:23] conversations that we had had with the applicant,

[2:08:25] that was our understanding is that it would

[2:08:27] meet that threshold. Okay. To that, I don't,

[2:08:32] I have not and do not review the

[2:08:35] engineering of class A systems. It's not so

[2:08:38] much the engineering, and I know it's outside

[2:08:43] your expertise a little bit, I apologize. But

[2:08:48] to the extent that that requires monitoring and

[2:08:51] treatment, can you give us a very fundamental

[2:08:55] sense of what's expected of a Class A

[2:08:56] system? Class A systems would be required to

[2:09:00] provide routine monitoring of the water quality testing

[2:09:05] for, oh, coliform and inorganic analysis of the

[2:09:13] water based on whatever it is that the

[2:09:16] state sets. Don't know what those analytes are.

[2:09:23] I'm sorry, can't report that. The standards themselves

[2:09:26] aren't so much important as the fact that

[2:09:28] there is They would require routine monitoring. And

[2:09:31] that would be through a satellite agency, correct?

[2:09:34] Yes. And to the extent that you might

[2:09:42] know, will that monitoring announce the daily use

[2:09:48] of water? I don't know. Do you know

[2:10:06] if a Class A would, since it's no

[2:10:10] longer an exempt well, an exempt well is

[2:10:14] one again that a private homeowner can enjoy

[2:10:17] without having to report testing to the state,

[2:10:21] since it's no longer that exempt well, but

[2:10:24] instead is regulated under Class A, do you

[2:10:27] know if it has the same limits on

[2:10:29] daily volume? I believe that the exemption is

[2:10:34] authorized by Department of Ecology, and that is

[2:10:38] based on the water flow, whether or not

[2:10:41] this would fall under their exemption standards, I

[2:10:43] can't speak. Okay. So again, when I sometimes

[2:10:47] try to paraphrase the sense, give you a

[2:10:51] sense of what I understand and you can

[2:10:53] tell me where I'm wrong. So Department of

[2:10:55] Health would regulate the well as a Class

[2:10:58] A well, but the Department of Ecology would

[2:11:01] regulate the well as to its allowed withdrawal

[2:11:04] then, correct? Correct. Okay. Okay. One of the

[2:11:32] members of the public have noted that there

[2:11:35] are potential opportunities for large gatherings at the

[2:11:41] event. It's describing itself as an event center.

[2:11:44] It's not simply having overnight stays, but it's

[2:11:48] also proposing an event building and describing itself

[2:11:51] as an event center. And I'm just curious

[2:11:54] from the county's health department, what are the

[2:11:57] regulations imposed on event centers with respect to

[2:12:02] environmental constraints, primarily water perhaps, septic, for example.

[2:12:10] This is becoming too big of a question,

[2:12:12] it's having too many pieces, but in seeking

[2:12:17] approval as an event center, are there limits

[2:12:20] on water use? And is there limits on

[2:12:24] the number of participants because of either water

[2:12:27] or septic? The septic question is going to

[2:12:33] be easier for me to answer. Okay. And

[2:12:35] that would be that the expectation would be

[2:12:37] that the applicant would disclose to their designer

[2:12:40] or engineer at the time of designing the

[2:12:43] system. What the overall uses of the system

[2:12:46] would be. So, that would be a daily

[2:12:47] average use as well as perhaps incorporating search

[2:12:51] capacity for large events and gatherings. So that

[2:12:54] way that a septic designer or engineer would

[2:12:56] be able to adequately engineer to accommodate all

[2:13:00] uses. Okay. So Mr. Harborson, come back for

[2:13:03] a moment. So reminding all anyone who I

[2:13:20] call back that you remain under oath. Do

[2:13:23] you know what the surge capacity is proposed

[2:13:26] for the preliminary stormwater design for this project?

[2:13:29] The surge capacity? Yes. We don't deal with

[2:13:33] surge capacities in stormwater. We deal with Oh,

[2:13:35] I'm sorry. Did I say stormwater? With in

[2:13:39] terms of wastewater, do you happen to know

[2:13:41] or is that outside your Okay, that's not

[2:13:43] you. Okay, that's you. Okay. In the preliminary

[2:13:48] wastewater design, do you know if Sorry, it's

[2:13:52] so easy to get stormwater and wastewater tangled.

[2:13:56] In the preliminary wastewater design. Do you know

[2:13:59] what surge capacity is proposed? We haven't received

[2:14:04] a design at this time, so I don't

[2:14:05] have a preliminary review to provide. Okay. Once

[2:14:09] again, do we have a chicken and egg

[2:14:11] thing? We know, need to know what we're

[2:14:14] just utilizing in order to regulate it, right?

[2:14:18] So you don't have, for wastewater management, you

[2:14:22] don't know how large a use is proposed.

[2:14:25] I don't know how large a use has

[2:14:27] been, would be proposed. However, there is within

[2:14:33] the WAC and the Environmental Protection Agency manual,

[2:14:36] there are proposed expected design flow rates. So,

[2:14:43] in the case of designing a septic system

[2:14:46] for this type of use, what we would

[2:14:48] expect is that the designer or engineer would

[2:14:51] refer back to the the flow rates likely

[2:14:54] within the EPA manual and would base the

[2:14:59] flow off of the off of the number

[2:15:04] of visitors that the site would facilitate. Makes

[2:15:09] sense, but it also would make sense, right,

[2:15:11] to have a cap on use consistent with

[2:15:17] the declared use so that you're not reviewing

[2:15:21] a wastewater system that's designed for 50 users

[2:15:26] and there might be an event with a

[2:15:27] 100 users, correct? Could you rephrase that for

[2:15:43] me please? If you're being told by the

[2:15:48] applicant that the design is based upon an

[2:15:51] estimated max 50 users, wouldn't I want to

[2:15:56] impose a limit that doesn't allow an event

[2:15:59] of greater than 50 individuals so that the

[2:16:03] use does not exceed the proposed, the system's

[2:16:06] design. I see. That would certainly be within

[2:16:11] your discretion. However, a person could also propose

[2:16:15] for a special event to bring in additional

[2:16:18] sanitation devices, such as porta potties to help

[2:16:21] accommodate that additional number of people. Sure, but

[2:16:25] that would require acknowledging the system alone, that

[2:16:30] there could not be an event of greater

[2:16:31] than X people, that if it's to exceed

[2:16:33] that event or that capacity, then it has

[2:16:36] to have supplemental wastewater or waste management. Would

[2:16:43] you agree? Yes. Okay, all right. I'm not

[2:16:48] trying to direct you in a certain way.

[2:16:50] I'm just trying to see where we have

[2:16:52] commonality in our thoughts. Okay. Okay, and those

[2:17:01] are my questions of Ms. Yoho. Anything else

[2:17:03] that you wanted to add? No, thank you.

[2:17:06] Okay, thank you. Mr. Kreitzer, Mr. Trimble, anything

[2:17:12] else? I was just gonna add that with

[2:17:21] regard to the fire life safety comments raised,

[2:17:26] you know, it is similar to, you know,

[2:17:28] septic and water and that a standard must

[2:17:31] be met. The international fire code must be

[2:17:34] met by the applicant through their design. Now,

[2:17:39] unlike land use process, which might have a

[2:17:41] conditional approval that's customized, the fire code has

[2:17:45] various routes to get to approval. The applicant

[2:17:49] is allowed to choose those routes through their

[2:17:52] design and plan review process and availability of

[2:17:55] all the factors such as access, water, emergency

[2:18:00] services, all those good factors that lead to

[2:18:02] life safety. So they either will meet the

[2:18:06] fire code or they won't. It is not

[2:18:09] an issue that we chose to use a

[2:18:12] condition of approval for. The condition is they

[2:18:15] must meet the international fire code. It's already

[2:18:18] been adopted by the county. So that's not

[2:18:20] necessarily required to be a condition of approval,

[2:18:23] but we have the comments of the fire

[2:18:25] marshal and the fire district indicating that through

[2:18:29] plan review, they will be required to meet

[2:18:33] the existing laws. Okay, thank you. Anything else

[2:18:39] from the county? No. All right, thank you.

[2:18:46] And Mr. Joelman, any details from the applicant?

[2:18:49] Yeah, if you So I'll just close out

[2:18:57] my presentation first by thanking you Mr. Hearing

[2:19:00] Examiner and members of staff. I thought this

[2:19:05] was an exceptionally managed meeting and also wanna

[2:19:10] thank the members of the public. I thought

[2:19:15] the comments that were submitted were very articulate,

[2:19:18] very well prepared and followed up. I appreciate

[2:19:22] the testimony and the professionalism. And we also

[2:19:28] understand that it is a, that you can

[2:19:31] hear and sense the passion that people have,

[2:19:34] especially when it's in their neighborhood and potentially

[2:19:39] a project where there's gonna be change. But

[2:19:42] I would wanna say, do feel compelled to

[2:19:44] defend Mr. Irish here. There was a comment

[2:19:47] made regarding perhaps this was driven simply by

[2:19:52] a financial motive. And I can assure you

[2:19:56] that if that was the case, Mr. Irish

[2:19:59] would have abandoned this project a long time

[2:20:02] ago. We have been involved for several years

[2:20:05] now and I can wholeheartedly and truthfully say

[2:20:10] this is not, this is something that he's

[2:20:12] passionate about. He is very passionate about the

[2:20:16] environment and about being a steward of the

[2:20:18] environment. And I've known him long enough to

[2:20:21] say that without any reservation. And also just,

[2:20:27] like I said, we've heard the comments and

[2:20:30] we take them seriously. We stand by the

[2:20:37] professionals that have put together the reports and

[2:20:39] the science that went in behind the design

[2:20:42] and also the, even with the county, I

[2:20:45] mean, there may be a sense that the

[2:20:46] county just embraced what we had, but there

[2:20:50] wasn't, that wasn't the case. We've had lots

[2:20:52] of back and forth and they are, they

[2:20:56] don't just represent the property owner, they also

[2:20:58] represent the neighbors as well. And I feel

[2:21:01] like they've done an exceptional job of following

[2:21:04] the code and helping us navigate through some

[2:21:08] of the changes that they requested. And with

[2:21:13] that, would say that we would just respectfully

[2:21:15] request that you, Mr. Harry Zammer approve the

[2:21:19] project with subject to the any conditions that

[2:21:25] you deem appropriate. And also to, again, say

[2:21:31] that I'll be available after the meeting if

[2:21:34] anyone wants to meet with me in person

[2:21:38] and I can certainly pass along any thoughts

[2:21:41] to the owner. But with that, I thank

[2:21:45] you very much. I thank you, Mr. Jolma,

[2:21:48] and thank you staff, and clearly thank members

[2:21:52] of the public for being present and participating

[2:21:54] today. I'm not rendering a decision nor am

[2:21:57] I starting the clock on rendering the decision.

[2:22:00] There's some things I need to receive in

[2:22:03] order to have a fuller understanding of this

[2:22:05] project, which will in turn allow some level

[2:22:09] of additional public comment, kind of getting back

[2:22:11] to one of Mr. Wall's comments. So some

[2:22:15] of these things are for my benefit, but

[2:22:17] they also deserve further public review before they

[2:22:20] come back to me for hearing. So they

[2:22:22] really fall into three categories, things I need

[2:22:25] from the applicant, things I need from the

[2:22:28] county and some things I need, I think

[2:22:30] from the fire district. So as to the

[2:22:33] applicant, I need a set of proposed rules

[2:22:35] that intended tends to apply to the resort

[2:22:40] if approved so that I could review those

[2:22:43] and determine their completeness and their adequacy relative

[2:22:47] to the requirement of the county's campground rule

[2:22:52] that the project be compatible with all surrounding

[2:22:54] uses. From the fire district, I would ask

[2:22:58] the county to request to the fire district

[2:23:01] its response to whether one, it would recommend

[2:23:06] any on-site firefighting equipment in the form of

[2:23:12] say a water reservoir. And if so, the

[2:23:16] capacity of that reservoir and its capability in

[2:23:19] terms of delivery. And so whether or not

[2:23:22] the district would recommend that such a reservoir

[2:23:27] be on-site? And if so, in what way

[2:23:30] would it be utilized? And then I would

[2:23:33] also recommend any other comments the district may

[2:23:36] have as to an emergency plan for the

[2:23:41] exiting of this facility in the event of

[2:23:44] an emergency or the dealing with an emergency

[2:23:46] in general. That really needs to come from

[2:23:50] the district, which is a third party to

[2:23:53] this process. And then of the county, there

[2:23:57] are a couple of things that I would

[2:24:00] like to see. I would like to see

[2:24:05] from the health department confirmation that it will

[2:24:08] regard this project as requiring a Class A

[2:24:11] water system. I need to know if in

[2:24:14] fact those standards will be applied so that

[2:24:17] I can then determine whether by applying those

[2:24:20] standards, that water adequacy and water safety are

[2:24:25] fully met. And then I also need to

[2:24:28] see a preliminary wastewater design to see not

[2:24:33] only again, how it's dealing with the implementation

[2:24:36] within a sensitive area, but secondly, what its

[2:24:40] design capacity is and is its design capacity

[2:24:45] consistent with the proposed size of use of

[2:24:48] this property? Are we meshing with our different

[2:24:52] regulations such that whatever we're saying, we're designing

[2:24:58] environmentally is consistent with the size of the

[2:25:00] crowd that might attend an event here. So

[2:25:04] I need to see those things in order

[2:25:07] to have a fuller and complete picture of

[2:25:09] this project. And the question becomes the amount

[2:25:13] of time needed to gather those things, because

[2:25:17] I would then want to have a probably

[2:25:21] ten day public response period once the deadline

[2:25:25] for that, and then a follow-up hearing once

[2:25:28] the public response period has expired. So I'll

[2:25:34] turn to the county. Need its thoughts on

[2:25:37] how long some of these things might take.

[2:25:40] If I was to continue hold out a

[2:25:43] deadline for submitting these things four weeks, six

[2:25:46] weeks, Is that adequate enough? Does the county

[2:25:52] have something else in mind as to length

[2:25:55] of time that it may be needed to

[2:25:57] gain not only what it has produced, but

[2:25:59] what it needs to get from the fire

[2:26:01] district? Mr. Kreitz or Mr. Trimble, I look

[2:26:06] for your suggestions. Yeah, if we could just

[2:26:09] have a minute to confer with the applicant.

[2:26:11] You're entirely entitled to that. All right, Mr.

[2:28:20] Schadmeyer, I believe we have conferred with the

[2:28:22] applicant. We would settle on six or seven

[2:28:26] weeks. Okay, let's say seven weeks deadline for

[2:28:31] the production materials that I've requested. Seven weeks

[2:28:39] from today, does someone have a ready calendar?

[2:29:06] The week of October 27 maybe? Specific to

[2:29:12] Monday would be what? The twenty seventh is

[2:29:21] a Monday. I'm gonna set it for the

[2:29:24] previous Friday just so we're not having an

[2:29:27] unusual break date. Not Friday though. Yes, I'll

[2:29:31] set a deadline of previous Friday, the twenty

[2:29:34] fourth for the presentation materials. I'll allow public

[2:29:40] comment for two weeks following that. And then

[2:29:46] I'm not setting a hearing, a rehearing date

[2:29:49] yet. I'll need to confirm with my calendar.

[2:29:51] I'll have my assistant get back to the

[2:29:54] county so that it can then announce publicly

[2:29:56] the rehearing date shortly thereafter, shortly after the

[2:30:01] two week response with some opportunity beyond it

[2:30:04] for both the applicant and the county to

[2:30:06] respond to the comment so that you're not

[2:30:09] being blindsided at the hearing. So I hope

[2:30:12] that's understandable, but I do want to again,

[2:30:19] allow full opportunity of all these issues and

[2:30:21] the opportunity for the public to respond. There

[2:30:24] will be the opportunity for public testimony at

[2:30:26] the hearing itself on these issues, not on

[2:30:29] new issues, but on the issues in which

[2:30:31] I'm requesting additional information. And so again, once

[2:30:37] those materials have been provided, the public can

[2:30:40] respond to the materials, not reopening the door

[2:30:42] to other issues, but to those that I've

[2:30:45] sought additional information for, and then we'll also

[2:30:49] allow for a return to the hearing at

[2:30:51] that time, which once that takes place, then

[2:30:54] the clock starts on my rendering a decision.

[2:30:57] I hope that's understandable to all the parties.

[2:31:00] If the county has any questions, they can

[2:31:02] get back to my assistant. And again, if

[2:31:05] the public has any that can contact the

[2:31:07] county to discuss, there's no direct contact with

[2:31:11] me through that process. I do not speak

[2:31:13] to any of the parties, including the county

[2:31:16] as to an ongoing hearing once it's underway,

[2:31:20] But there are those avenues for clarifying any

[2:31:23] procedural questions, housekeeping questions about that. I wanna

[2:31:26] thank everybody for well spoken, articulate, thoughtful comments

[2:31:31] today. These are extremely important. I've taken copious

[2:31:34] notes of all testimony. And again, we'll rely

[2:31:40] upon these comments or this testimony is part

[2:31:42] of my ultimate decision once I have everything

[2:31:46] to be thinking about. Mr. Kreitzer, any last

[2:31:49] things from the county's standpoint? None. Okay, Mr.

[2:31:53] Joelma, any last things? All right, thank you.

[2:31:55] And we are adjourned. Thanks.

Wandering River Retreat Kalama River hearing SUP

Transcript