[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.