Black Alliance Packs Hearing for Police Deadly Force Bill, HB 2907

Black Alliance Packs Hearing for Police Deadly Force Bill, HB 2907

washington  

Above: Dr. Karen Johnson, Black Alliance of Thurston County, testifies in support of HB 2907 before the House Public Safety committee chaired by Representative Roger Goodman (D-45) on Wednesday. 

Senator Fraser Sponsors SB 6621 Calling for Policing Task Force, Hearing Also on Wednesday

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

The room was packed for a public hearing on Wednesday for HB 2907, which seeks to clarify state law governing the use of deadly force by police officers. The bill, spearheaded by the Black Alliance of Thurston County, was sponsored by Representative Luis Moscoso (D-1).

Washington State House Public Safety Committee Committee chair Representative Roger Goodman (D-45) said that 65 people signed up to testify. Only a handful was able to give their testimony, although he allowed the meeting to go 20 minutes longer than expected.

Most testified in support of the bill, with some, including the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and Concerns of Police Survivors, opposing or expressing concerns.

Dr. Karen Johnson, chair of the Black Alliance of Thurston County, presented an overview of how the group began its efforts just a few short months ago, and described her organization’s efforts to build a relationship with Olympia Police Chief Ronnie Roberts after the officer involved shooting of two African American young men in Olympia.

Johnson promoted the police department’s mission and strategic plan, and said the Black Alliance is eager to help the department garner the respect and trust of Olympia residents, and to make sure police get the training they need to begin changing the culture within the department.

Encouraged by her story, Representative Goodman praised Johnson’s efforts.

“...We have a lack of trust between communities and law enforcement, but it seems you’ve done a lot of work on a local level to bring people together….Who did you bring to the table and is there a template for what we could do on a state level?” he asked.

Johnson responded that it’s about communication and having courageous community conversations about racial bias and institutional racismwith the police department, and exploring the experiences and questions around those themes.

She said Olympia’s next community conversation with the Olympia Police Department is scheduled for March 2.

“I think we’ve been doing an awful lot of talking to them, and it’s time we start listening to what they need from us,” said Johnson.

“I agree, I think we need to listen to the police,” responded Goodman.

Jamira Burley, with Amnesty International’s campaign on criminal justice and gun violence, spoke in support of the bill, saying that HB 2907 takes significant steps to provide needed clarity and accountability in regards to the use of lethal force by officers.

Burley said that the use of lethal force by police in the February 2015 case involving Antonio Zambrano-Montes, a farm laborer with a history of mental health issues who was shot and killed by police in Pasco, was inconsistent with international law and standards on the use of lethal force.

Lisa Daugaard, director of the Public Defender Association in Seattle, also spoke in support of the bill and described the 2010 killing of Seattle Native American woodcarver John T. Williams by a Seattle police officer.

“The Seattle Police Department itself concluded that the killing violated policy on use of force, the first time that had happened in decades. This was not a reasonable mistake – it was an unreasonable mistake, at best. Officer Birk was not reasonable in thinking he was under attack, and he was not reasonable in thinking deadly force was necessary to forestall any attack. This was widely accepted. If ever a killing by a police officer might be prosecuted as a crime under the current law, it seemed to most observers that it would be this one. And yet Ian Birk was not prosecuted…..”

“…For those who are uncomfortable with the approach taken in this bill: it’s time to offer an alternative solution that would have allowed a prosecution in Mr. Williams’ death. A group of concerned community leaders has done its best to propose a solution that is fair to officers and community members alike. If you are uncomfortable with this solution, please, identify another that will change outcomes in the most egregious of these cases,” said Daugaard.

Noah Seidel of Lacey who represents Self-Advocates in Leadership, a group of over 200 people with developmental disabilities, also spoke in support of the bill.

“Mental health problems is not the only kind of disability that people have had when killed by police officers. John T. Williams…was also partially deaf. When he was killed, the officer was behind him telling him to stop. Disability was a factor....We need to do a better job holding law enforcement accountable to keep people safe,” said Seidel.

Seidel said that, according to a 2013 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center and National Sheriffs’ Association, at least half of the people shot and killed by police between 1980 and 2008 in the United States had mental health problems.

Rick Williams, the older brother of John T. Williams, also spoke.

“For five years all this talking and no action…He (Officer Birk) gets a free pass. Why is this guy still walking free? It’s not right…I can’t get my brother back but I can help people stand up for him. Somebody has got to it do because this is all wrong,” said Williams.

The committee also heard testimony about HB 2908, which creates a 13 member joint legislative task force on community policing standards. The bill’s prime sponsor, Representative Cindy Ryu, (D-32), spoke to her bill.

James McMahon, policy director with the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, did not necessarily oppose the bill, but suggested that more data be gathered first before a task force begins to discuss the issue.

Senator Fraser Sponsors SB 6621 Calling for Policing Task Force, Hearing Also on Wednesday

Above: Rick Williams, seated, Jay Westwind Wolf, a Mohegan Tribal member who is also on the Seattle Community Police Commission, Karen Johnson of the Black Alliance of Thurston County, and Thelma Jackson, also of the Black Alliance of Thurston County, gather just before the Senate Law and Justice Committee heard SB 6621, sponsored by Senator Karen Fraser (D-22).

Later on Wednesday, SB 6621 was heard by the Senate Law and Justice Committee, chaired by Senator Mike Padden (R-4).

SB 6621, sponsored by Senator Karen Fraser (D-22), creates a 22 member task force on policing and the use of deadly force convened by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. It contains several directives and would provide recommendations to the Legislature related to statute changes related to the use of deadly force by an officer. The task force would report its findings and provide recommendations to the governor by December 1, 2016.

Fraser spoke to her bill and said it was written in cooperation with the Black Alliance of Thurston County.

Acknowledging the task force proposed in HB 2908, Fraser said, “I’m not wedded to how we structure the task force…but the core idea is to bring the relevant people together to talk about this and how we want to move ahead in the future….We need all the right people involved in this,” she said.

Similar to his testimony for HB 2908, James McMahon, policy director, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, expressed concerns about the bill and would like data to be collected on the use of force before a task force is formed.

Craig Bulkley, president of the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, also expressed concerns, saying that a problem has not been identified with the current statute, data needs to be collected, and the bill does not have a means to do that. He said that according to the FBI, 107 officers have been killed nationally in the line of duty, and 49,851 were assaulted in 2013.

In Washington State, 16 people were shot and killed by law enforcement in 2015. According to research by The Seattle Times, there were 213 Washington State police related fatalities between 2004 – 2014.

In 2015, the Guardian newspaper tracked the number of deaths in the United States due to interactions with law enforcement, documenting 1,015 people killed by police using firearms. Of that total, 25.6% of those killed were African American and 17.5% were Latino. More than 10% - 107 individuals - were unarmed when they were shot and killed by police.

For more information about the HB 2907, Amnesty International's Report on Deadly Force, the Black Alliance of Thurston County, Karen Johnson, the City of Olympia’s Ad Hoc Committee on Police and Community Relations, body cameras, and other police related issues in Olympia, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com, and type key words into the search button. 

Olympia Police Worn Body Camera Conversation Begins

Olympia Police Worn Body Camera Conversation Begins

washington  

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

Cities large and small across the country are having the conversation about the use of police worn body cameras, and now the conversation has begun in Olympia. 

A whole range of events, actions and emotions around issues of racial injustice, implicit bias, and community policing and accountability were brought home for South Sounders, in large part due to the shooting last May of two African American young men by an Olympia police officer.

Many cities across the country and in Washington are already using body cameras, also called body cams, to varying degrees of success. Some cities have stopped their use due to burdens related to cost, records management, and the inability to respond to public records requests.

At the Olympia City Council meeting Tuesday evening, Mayor Pro Tem Nathaniel Jones read a statement he wrote about the city's commitment to police worn body cameras. The statement received council consensus, and gave the city’s new Ad Hoc Committee on Police and Community Relations much needed direction on its role exploring the issue.

It stated in part that the city intends to move forward with police worn body cameras when it develops plans, policies and revenues that will ensure the program is successful. All those elements are currently lacking.

“It is important that our program includes protections for citizen privacy, effective management…and clear expectations for officers regarding camera use,” said Jones, who acknowledged that the technology currently lacks such standards.

The Ad Hoc Committee has always had a two part mission: one, to engage the community in dialog about police issues, and two, determine how best to engage the public on the implementation of police worn body cameras. It has held several community forums, establishing a template for holding several community forums, but disassociating the topic of body cameras until now, near the end of its temporary tenure.

With the city council now expressing its clear commitment to body cameras, the group will now turn its attention to establishing a process for the issue, holding a public forum on February 18, 5:00 p.m., in a location still to be determined. 

Body Camera Issues, Technology, and Cost

The Ad Hoc Committee learned more about the issue of body cameras on Wednesday night from Laura Wohl, administrative services division manager for the Olympia Police Department. Wohl said she has spent the last five years studying the topic and educated the committee on the policy issues and costs regarding the technology. The group is also collecting information from non-police related sources.

Aspects of the issue include managing a network of additional staff and technology needed to process the camera video, using and managing software designed to ensure confidentiality of some subjects, storing that data for the required 90 days, and understanding the legal status of information captured. 

Wohl said police worn body cameras have been shown to improve reasonable behavior by both the police officer and the person they are having an interaction with, and have decreased the number of complaints about officers.

According to current state public disclosure laws, all police interactions are considered public, and police do not have to notify people that they are being recorded. Traumatic and potentially embarrassing events are recorded.

Wohl admitted the numbers were rough, but each body camera and software would cost about $1,000, with an annual cost of $10,500 for replacements. Initial camera implementation costs would be about $85,000.

The annual cost for the program would be about $472,000 when video storage costs of between $200 - $600 per month per officer are factored in, as well as three additional full time staff to maintain the system.

The redaction process to protect the privacy of some individuals would take an estimated 30 times longer than a video that does not need that work. Preparing video for the criminal justice system is another issue, as it takes time to prepare the videos for discovery, review, prosecution, and defense.

Wohl then extrapolated the work and costs needed to process video if, for example, five officers show up for one incident.

Wohl said that the Olympia Police Department received 3,602 public records requests in 2015. Responding to public records requests of video would place an undetermined amount of time and expense on the department.

Lt. Aaron Jelcick briefly mentioned the state’s body camera issues and programs in Poulsbo, Seattle, Spokane, Bremerton, and Bellingham. There, and in other cities nationwide, each city has had to outline sticky policy issues: 

What kinds of calls should be recorded? When are cameras turned on? Can an officer turn off his or her camera? How is citizen privacy protected? What if the officer sees something that the camera didn’t?  Should officers be allowed to view the camera evidence? How can the videos be used? Should detectives and SWAT team members be issued body cameras?

To provide perspective, Lt. Jelcick said that the City of Spokane phased in its body camera program over a period of 18 months, hosting over 70 community presentations with over 160 groups, and is still having issues meeting the requirements of Washington State’s stringent public records law.

After the discussion, Ad Hoc Committee members were impressed by the depth of the issues and engaged in a healthy conversation about the information they heard.

Given the somewhat overwhelming information provided, committee member Clinton Petty questioned aloud whether or not Olympia really wants or needs body cameras.

In response, Lt. Jelcick said that he believed that body cameras are going to be part of the uniform of most, if not every, law enforcement officer in the country.

“I think we are going in that direction….I think the issues in Washington State will be resolved at some point with the disclosure and technology issues, so that it won’t be cost prohibitive….I think Washington is at a difficult time to implement this technology. We recognize that and as we go through this process, part of the discussion may be, ‘Yes, we want body cameras, no, this isn’t the right time to do it’ until these issues are resolved, but I believe these issues will be resolved.…I don’t think the work that we do will be for naught…the technology will get better and better and it will get easier to process this video….” said Jelcick.

He said that every department who currently has body cameras has started with pilot programs, with cameras on just two or three officers to start, to figure out the work and cost involved.

Committee member Clinton Petty admitted, “There’s a lot more than I ever thought there would be to it.”

Editor’s Note: While writing this article Thursday morning, multiple calls were in progress involving the Olympia police department, including an attempted suicide, a man with a history of cardiac arrest experiencing chest pains, and a blocking collision as the result of an alleged stolen car/hit and run incident on Cooper Point Road and Black Lake Boulevard near the entry to Haggen’s grocery store. Several suspects, possibly four, in the stolen car fled and multiple officers were dispatched to the scene, who worked to track the suspects fleeing in different directions. One officer witnessed one suspect flee to a nearby homeless encampment and change clothes.

For more information about the City of Olympia Police Department, the Ad Hoc Committee on Police and Community Relations, and other Olympia police related news, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com and type key words into the search engine.

For more information about the Ad Hoc Committee on Police and Community Relations, go to www.olympia.wa.gov

Police Deadly Force Bill Has Number, Community Policing Bill Also Introduced

Police Deadly Force Bill Has Number, Community Policing Bill Also Introduced

washington  

Two bills were introduced to the Washington State Legislature on Wednesday. One would amend Washington State law governing the use of deadly force by law enforcement, and the other would establish a joint legislative task force on community policing standards.

Above: Artwork made of welded metal and found objects by John Vanek entitled Justice For All was gifted to the City of Olympia and is installed at the Lee Creighton Justice Center, the site of Olympia's former city hall. 

By Janine Gates

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

Proposed legislation to amend Washington State law governing the use of deadly force by law enforcement was introduced Wednesday morning to the Washington State Legislature as HB 2907.

The bill is prime sponsored by Representative Luis Moscoso (D-1), and co-sponsored by five others, including Olympia area Representatives Sam Hunt and Chris Reykdal (D-22).

The bill has been referred to the House Public Safety Committee for a hearing and can be read here:  http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2907.pdf

Community Policing Standards Legislation Introduced

Another bill on Wednesday was introduced, HB 2908, that establishes a 13 member joint legislative task force on community policing standards. Representative Cindy Ryu (pronounced Ree-oo), (D- 32), is the prime sponsor.

The bill has been referred to the House Public Safety Committee and can be read here: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2908&year=2015.

In part, HB 2908 reads, “The legislature acknowledges that officers are often placed in harm’s way and must make decisions quickly while under extreme stress. Although regrettable in every case, the use of deadly force may sometimes be necessary to protect the safety of others. The legislature also recognizes that both the people of this state and law enforcement officers themselves rely on and expect accountability, the failure of which damages the public trust in those who serve the public honorably and with compassion.

“The legislature finds that the law of deadly force in Washington provides absolute protection for law enforcement in virtually all instances, above and beyond that which is reasonable and justifiable....It is the intent of the legislature to improve our deadly force law….”

The bill proposes to create the joint legislative task force to review known data regarding the use of deadly force by officers, review proposals and modifications to RCW 9A.16.040, evaluate the availability of body cameras and similar tools, review current police training curriculum and practices, evaluate public confidence in community policing practices and use of force policies in Washington and produce a preliminary report on its findings to Governor Jay Inslee by December 1, 2016.

Karen Johnson, chair of the Black Alliance of Thurston County, was pleased today about the introduction of the two bills.

“The Black Alliance of Thurston County sees supporting both bills as an opportunity because, as we know, changing the use of deadly force law is the strong foundation upon which all of the other systemic changes (data collection when civilians die at the hand of police officers, body cameras, implict/explicit bias, de-escalation training and the like) is built,” said Johnson.

“Let us build a strong foundation. We believe the more strategic, intentional, and collaborative we can be, the better. Please endorse HB 2907 and HB 2908. As Dr. King said, “the time is always ripe to do right,” she said.

According to a press release by the Black Alliance, thirty two local, regional, and statewide organizations to date have endorsed HB 2907: 

A. Philip Randolph Institute, Seattle Chapter, Art Forces, Behavioral Health and Wellness, the Black Student Union of The Evergreen State College (Tacoma Campus), Center for Justice, Church Council of Greater Seattle, Faith Action Network, Families United Against Hate, Interfaith Works, John T. Williams Organizing Coalition, Justice Not Jails, Latino Civic Alliance, League of Women Voters - Thurston County, Mothers for Police Accountability, Olympia Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League, Olympia Coalition to Reform Deadly Force, Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane, Point Defiance Aids Projects/North American Syringe Exchange Network, Risen Faith Fellowship, Seattle Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Self Advocates in Leadership, Spokane NAACP, Standing Up to Racism, Tacoma-Pierce County Black Collective, The Arc of Washington State, The Justice Coalition of the Olympia Unitarian Universalist Congregation, The United Churches of Olympia, Washington State Commission on African American Affairs, Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs, Washington State Independent Living Council, Washington State National Organization for Women, and the YWCA Olympia.

Editor's Note, January 28: HB 2907 was going to the Judiciary Committee as originally stated in this article. It was then referred to the House Public Safety Committee. For up to date information and to track all bills, go to www.leg.wa.gov

For more information about the journey to this proposed legislation, the Black Alliance of Thurston County, the City of Olympia’s Ad Hoc Committee on Police and Community Relations, body cameras, and other police related issues in Olympia, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com, and type key words into the search engine.

For more information about the Black Alliance of Thurston County, contact Dr. Karen Johnson at blackalliancethurstoncounty@gmail.com.

The Stranger Reports Bullet Fired Into Nearby Home in Olympia Police Shooting of Two Men

The Stranger Reports Bullet Fired Into Nearby Home in Olympia Police Shooting of Two Men

wendy tanowitz  

City of Olympia - Police Guild Contract Ends December 2015

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

According to an article by Ansel Herz posted May 22 in The Stranger, a Seattle publication, an Olympia police officer who shot two unarmed African American men also fired a bullet into a nearby home.  

The article is at: http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/05/22/22265239/olympia-police-officer-who-shot-two-unarmed-black-men-also-fired-a-bullet-into-a-nearby-home 

Olympians Express Continued Shock, Anger, Concern

Conversations this weekend in most Olympia restaurants, coffee shops, homes, and social media sites continue to express a wide range of emotions about the shooting incident.

Reflecting the thoughts of many Olympians, many wonder why local corporate media has already seemingly moved on from the shooting.

Zoltan Grossman, a faculty member at The Evergreen State College, knows the young family whose window was said to have been shot out by the officer’s bullet and confirmed The Stranger's story for Little Hollywood.

“Why hasn't this angle been covered in the Olympia police shooting?  I know one of the young people who lives in the house that was struck by Officer Donald's bullet. The residents report that there were around 10 gunshots. I have seen other photos of the broken window on the second floor,” says Grossman.

Following the incident, Grossman says he wrote an email to The Olympian but has not yet heard back from the newspaper, and shared it with Little Hollywood:

“….You've covered every possible angle to support a pro-police point of view--the video from Safeway, the records of the victims, windows broken by protesters separate from the larger protests. But I haven't seen a word about the bullet breaking the upstairs window of an Olympia home, in what could amount to reckless endangerment by Officer Donald. The police themselves have recovered the bullet and interviewed the residents --why haven't you? It deserves a separate article and interviews with the residents,” wrote Grossman.

Wendy Tanowitz of Olympia spoke at a downtown community gathering last Thursday night at Temple Beth Hatfiloh.

Tanowitz has conducted much research into local and national law enforcement actions, and was asked by Little Hollywood today for more information.

“....I'm very concerned and hyper-sensitive to systemic and institutional abuse of power in all its forms….Many factors contribute to a culture of impunity among people who work in law enforcement, not the least of which is that they are almost never held accountable for their actions, and the criminal (in)justice system exists to protect and shield them from the legal consequences of shooting or killing someone,” she said.

In researching how many people are killed while in contact with police, Tanowitz learned that there is no national database where these figures are available. She says a grassroots-generated site exists at www.killedbypolice.net but it is incomplete.

That group estimates that 1,000 people were killed by police or while in police custody in 2014. Their Facebook page is:   https://www.facebook.com/KilledByPolice/posts/1026884260673044?_rdr

She said that the use of a Taser instead of a firearm and the officer calling for backup before he shot two men should have been considered.

“People who work in law enforcement should never take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner. Many hundreds of people - the number sometimes approaches 1,000 - are killed or injured in the United States each year by law enforcement who said they felt threatened. This must end. Police are hired to protect public safety and must held be accountable for their actions….There must have been other ways to have handled this situation short of using potentially deadly force. We need to know what happened Thursday morning in Olympia, but we have no video record. This can and should be remedied in the future by mandating that all Olympia police department officers wear body cameras.”

City of Olympia-Olympia Police Guild Contract

The three year contract between the City of Olympia and the Police Guild ends in December 2015, just in time for a new contract to mandate body cameras for the Olympia Police Department.

The January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2015 contract is located here: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/olympia/mobile/?pg=labor/OlympiaLabor05.html

Although Article 22 of the contract details the use of dash-mounted video systems, it has not been implemented.

Related to a police incident involving local resident Scott Yoos, Tanowitz read the Police Guild contract and in an October 8, 2013 meeting of the Olympia City Council, she asked when the dash cameras would be installed.

In response, according to the minutes, Police Chief Ronnie Roberts addressed the council and the issues regarding record retention and additional staff needed to manage the large amount of data. He said body mics or cameras would also impact records requests.

In a vote of 6 – 1, the contract was approved at that meeting by Councilmembers Stephen Buxbaum, Nathaniel Jones, Jim Cooper, Julie Hankins, and Jeannine Roe. The only one who did not approve it was then-Councilmember Karen Rogers.

At the time, Mayor Buxbaum asked that a list of frequently asked questions regarding dash cameras be produced for the public and include the cost breakdown for records requests.

A search on the City of Olympia website, www.olympiawa.gov for that list brought up no results.

Future Police Accountability

The Olympia police department does not currently have a police auditor - the position was cut for budgetary reasons in 2009. The department has never had a citizen review panel, although there has been discussion about it.

In the past, a police auditor reported directly to the city council. The auditor, hired on an annual contract, reported on a quarterly basis, and conducted an internal affairs investigation, looking into use of force and other complaints.

In an interview with Little Hollywood in December 2014, Laura Wohl, who was then public information officer for the department said:

“It is very unusual for a department of our size to have a citizen review panel. If a citizen makes a complaint, a professional standards lieutenant does a complete investigation into policy and law. For some complaints, a dispute mediator is used, for example, if a complainant feels an officer was rude....it's different than any other employment situation. It's a full investigation when a complaint is made of any kind,” said Wohl.

“After the professional standards lieutenant makes his or her findings, it is reviewed by the commander and chief of police. If it is sustained, disciplinary action is taken. If somebody doesn't like the determination, and feels they have been harmed, they can make a claim with the city, or file a civil liability tort, and sue us.”

Little Hollywood has written many past stories about the Olympia Police Department, including the crisis intervention training of a police officer, police accountability, statistics on officer demographics regarding gender, race, and language diversity, the incident regarding Olympia resident Scott Yoos and more. For more information, go to www.janinelittlehollywood.blogspot.comand use the search button to type in key words.

“Vested” Oak Tree Preserve Land Use Application Proves Thurston County Is For Sale

“Vested” Oak Tree Preserve Land Use Application Proves Thurston County Is For Sale

washington  

Above: An Oregon White Oak is strangled with surveyor’s tape, but continues to grow. The Thurston County oaks are on property owned by Bellevue developer Jeffrey Hamilton of Oak Tree Preserve LLC.

By Janine Unsoeld

www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com

On its cover, the March 2015 issue of Seattlemagazine proclaims to have the scoop on the best, affordable neighborhoods in Seattle. To whet your appetite, they identify six areas, each with a mix of housing options starting in the $400,000s. Still a little too high?

Well, Thurston County is for sale and Bellevue developer, Jeffrey Hamilton, owner of Oak Tree Preserve LLC, knows it.

Since 2012, Hamilton has sought to subdivide 258.5 acres of wooded land in Lacey’s urban growth area of Thurston County into 1,037 small lot, single family residential units.

Hamilton's effort provides job security for not only the Thurston County planning department staff, but several others, including Hatton Godat Pantier, a local engineering, surveying and construction project management firm. Jeff Pantier testified at the county hearing on March 24 that he’s been involved with the project since 2003. Co-principal Steve Hatton said he has been involved for 10 years.

The firm’s website lists nine of their projects, some controversial, ranging from Olympia’s first “low impact” west side development, Cooper Crest, to environmental clean-up operations at the Port of Olympia.

Thurston County senior planner Robert Smith says that although the county does not keep a list ranking the sizes of subdivisions, the Oak Tree Preserve application featuresthe largest that he’s aware of, “at least in modern times.”

Neighbors Oppose Oak Tree Preserve Project

Plat hearing testimony was heard on March 24 regarding a wide range of environmental, transportation, and school capacity issues. A decision on the plat hearing is expected by Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on April 24.

According to the county application, the development is expected to generate nearly 10,000 vehicle trips per day. Approval of this subdivision is conditioned upon payment of City of Lacey traffic mitigation fees of $1,128.68 per lot, equaling about $1.2 million.

According to a North Thurston Public Schools in a letter to the county dated July 30, 2014, the proposed development will generate 790 new students. The cost of purchasing land and temporary classrooms and constructing new school facilities is estimated to be $3,728 per new single-family, equaling about $3.8 million.

There is no price tag that can be placed on the potential loss of a spectacular wooded space, Thurston County’s largest stand of Oregon White Oak, about 76 acres, and the habitat for a wide range of animals and plants.

Above: With the proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC development, those “minutes,” to shopping and I-5 in commute time, now ranging from 10 to 40 minutes from nearby subdivisions depending on the day and time of day, are almost guaranteed to lengthen, despite the developer’s mitigation plans. This photo was taken on Saturday, March 28, about 2:00 p.m. approaching the Hawks Prairie area interchange of Martin Way and Marvin Road in Lacey.

After last week’s public preliminary plat hearing in front of Thurston County Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, neighbors quickly mobilized to inform nearby neighbors just outside the 300 foot notification area about the proposed project, and learn about the land use process.

They’ve started an online petition at http://tinyurl.com/thurston-oak that will be submitted as public comment to the hearing examiner by the deadline of 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3.  

Due to the organizing efforts of those who live around the beloved wooded area, the petition has already gathered nearly 300 names and comments. While some just state their opposition to the project, others explain their reasons for wanting to preserve the natural habitat, with one person describing the beauty of its spring wildflowers of delphinium, shooting stars, prairie star and camas.

Others provide evidence that the project does not support the policies and goals of the Sustainable Thurston plan. The plan, adopted by the Thurston Regional Planning Council in December 2013, included the three year effort of 180 residents representing 104 jurisdictions, agencies, organizations, and community groups. It guides new housing development in urban areas among other topics that affect short- and long-term quality of life in the Thurston County region.

Neighbors are asking basic questions like:

“The Department of Fish and Wildlife considers White Oak as Priority Habitat. From their website it says, '24.25.005 C. Protect the functions and values of priority habitats such as, but not limited to, prairies, Oregon white oak, and riparian areas along streams and marine waters.' They could stop this on their own mandates. Why don't they?”  

“There are two endangered species that live in those woods: Streaked Horned Larks and Taylor's Checkerspot butterfly. I have seen them over the 27 years I have wandered through there. I saw a pair of Checkerspots just the other day. Where do I go with that?”

“About water quality, the entire area drains into the Nisqually watershed, down into McAllister Springs and then the Sound. Which agency is concerned with this?”

“Vesting” and the Proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC Development

More than your run of the mill not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) knee-jerk reaction to yet another development, this land use application begs questions and demands answers.

It appears to be a glaring example of two flaws in Thurston County growth management history that developers are taking full advantage of: first, the county’s lateness in developing and implementing impact fees that encouraged development in unincorporated county areas and second, the City of Lacey was allowed to define and adopt an overly expansive urban growth area.  

The project is considered “vested” by the county under previous owners in 2009, as Freestone Ridge, under the City of Lacey’s Comprehensive Plan and the Thurston County Land Use Plan for the Lacey Urban Growth Area, adopted in 1994 with a 2003 update.

Project developers claim to not have to conform to the latest version of the county’s critical area ordinance since it was not in effect when the original proposal was submitted. 

For example, the stormwater measures for the proposal are based on the 1994 Thurston County Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual, although the science and knowledge of stormwater and stormwater control and management has since increased. 

The property changed hands in 2013 and in May 2014, Thurston County received a revised application listing the new owner and met with county staff. Staff provided comments and thus the application was considered to be a revision of the original application.

To be clear, the proposed Oak Tree Preserve LLC homes are not going to be the half-acre lot size homes featured in nearby McAllister Park, an upscale neighborhood with large custom homes featuring several bedrooms, bathrooms and multi-car garages, range in the mid-to-high $500,000 range. The Park touts its territorial views and location minutes from I-5, shopping, Pierce County, Joint Base Lewis McChord, and “miles of sidewalks, street lighting and adjacent city parks.”

Adams v. Thurston County: A Land Use History Lesson

For the Oak Tree Preserve application, the county is not asking for an EIS and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeals brought by the McAllister Park Homeowners Association were settled with the developer.

So why is Thurston County not defending the environment? A little growth management history lesson may explain.

It’s relevant, because unlike the current situation, Thurston County was on the other side, and in court from 1987 to 1993 defending the geologic, environmental sensitivity of the area, including McAllister Springs, and argued strenuously that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared and that the developer, Virgil Adams, adhere to the State Environmental Policy Act laws.

In the 1980s, Virgil Adams owned property adjacent to the current Oak Tree Preserve property. He intended to develop it into two subdivisions in Thurston County: McAllister Park and Lacey Estates.

In June, 1987, Adams filed a preliminary plat application with the Thurston County Planning Department for a residential development of 600 lots called McAllister Park. In November, 1987, Adams's predecessors filed a preliminary plat application for Lacey Estates.

The planning department issued a determination of significance requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for McAllister Park. Adams had not yet submitted the EIS. At the applicants' request, the county had not yet issued its threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance for Lacey Estates. 

The county, relying on Thurston County Code (TCC) 18.12.030, contended that the date of vesting should be the date the final environmental impact statement is filed.

Adams and another developer, Lyle Anderson, sued, and won in May 1991 against the county in Superior Court under Judge Richard Strophy. Patrick D. Sutherland was the attorney for the developers, and Thomas R. Bjorgen, represented the county.

The county appealed, saying that the developers' development rights were vested upon the submission of the applications. They lost.

In September 1988, the Thurston County Board of Health, composed of the county commissioners, Les Eldridge, Karen Fraser, and George Barner, adopted a resolution creating a geologically sensitive area in the vicinity of the McAllister Springs aquifer and imposed a two year suspension (moratorium) of building site approvals within the area. Both of Adams's proposed plats were within the area. By August, 1990, the Board of Health had determined that Adams's property did not lie over the sensitive aquifer.

In July, 1990, the county commissioners rezoned the area in which the Adams property was situated, changing the density requirements from two to four dwelling units per acre to one dwelling unit per five acres. The rezone was pursuant to the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Growth Management Agreement.  Thurston County and the Cities of Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater entered into the agreement in June, 1988.

Adams brought a “declaratory judgment action,” seeking a ruling that his development rights were vested in 1987 when he filed his preliminary plat application and that the zoning standards in effect on that date controlled the density of McAllister Park and Lacey Estates. The trial court granted summary judgment to Adams.

Then, in a related case, Adams filed an application for preliminary plat approval of a proposed subdivision to be known as Silver Hawk Country Club Estates (Silver Hawk) in April, 1990.

A rezone in July, 1990, limited development to one unit per five acres, and included the Silver Hawk property. Lyle Anderson also sought a declaratory judgment that his development rights vested on the date of his application.

Anderson and Thurston County agreed that, pending appeal, the Adams decision governed Anderson's action. The parties entered into a stipulated summary judgment, ordering that Anderson's development rights vested in April, 1990.

In the end, in June 1993, the state Supreme Court ruled against the Thurston County saying:

“The only real purpose served by the County's interpretation of the ordinance is to allow it to change its zoning laws to defeat or modify a particular subdivision by delaying vesting until after environmental review. The County argues that later vesting is a preferable policy. The Washington Legislature and Supreme Court disagree.”

In fact, the Court said, “Thurston County argues extensively in its brief…contending that ‘substantial and permanent injury may be done to the public interest by those racing to apply for a permit to avoid a pending zoning change….’ This argument is more appropriately addressed to the Legislature. We must decide this matter based on state law and its interpretation by the court and not on our personal notions of wise land use policy.”

Fast Forward to 2015

Fast forward to 2015 and these cases may explain Thurston County’s reticence to demand an environmental impact statement and the sudden settlement of the SEPA appeals by the McAllister Park Homeowners Association.

Upon request by Little Hollywood, Robert Smith, Senior Planner, Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department, clarified the current land use application process and its relevance to the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development.

“Once a land use application is granted preliminary approval, there is a timeframe within which the applicant must meet all conditions or the approval /application will expire. 

“For subdivisions, that approval period is five years, with the possibility of time extensions.  The State legislature granted a temporary allowance for a seven year preliminary approval period for subdivisions and a 10 year period for older subdivision applications.  However, those provisions for seven and 10 year approval periods have lapsed.  

“So, for this project, if it is granted preliminary approval, the initial approval period will be for five years.  And, based on county code, the applicant can request up to five, one-year time extensions, for a total approval period of 10 years.

“There is no set timeframe that the initial application must be reviewed, as long as the applicant keeps the review active and responds to any requests for additional information within a set timeframe.  This application remained active from the application date in 2009,” Smith wrote in an email on Monday.

Smith said that while most application reviews do not take this long, it is not unusual for some to do so. 

“For this application there was never a point where the county required information that was not submitted in a timely manner.  The application was submitted in 2009 and there was ongoing review with the original applicant through 2011.  The project was sold to the current applicant in 2012.  The new applicant was in contact with the county and Fish and Wildlife during 2012 and 2013, responding to concerns about oak preservation, preparing a habitat plan, and meeting with staff to discuss proposals.  Based on the work from 2012 and 2013 the applicant submitted a revised application package in May 2014.”

State law RCW 58.17.033 requires vesting in all cases when the application is filed. As our understanding of the importance of restricting human impacts on natural resources and the environment grow, then the new laws that are adopted should set the stage for all future land use projects.

But as pointed out in Adams v. Thurston County, and the proposed Oak Tree Preserve project indicates, the entire SEPA process between the filing of a land use application and vesting will not change until state law is changed.

For two previous articles about the proposed Oak Tree Preserve development, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com.

For more information on the status of Thurston County permit applications, go to: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/devactivity/devactivity-home.htmlThe link also provides access to other pages that list new applications submitted for review.

For more information about Sustainable Thurston, go to the Thurston Regional Planning Council website at www.trpc.org/262/About-Sustainable-Thurston

 

Witness to Stormy Weather:

Thurston County's largest intact stand of Oregon White Oaks