Klickitat County is holding a two-part public hearing, June 17 and June 18, on Under Canvas. Read the notice here. Read the revised application from Under Canvas here.
Thursday, June 17 is the hearing on the appeal of the SEPA (the determination by the County that there are limited and unimportant environmental impacts)(State Environmental Protection Act). This will be interesting, populated by lawyers, but no public comment or testimony taken. Here's the SEPA appeal if you should want to read it.
Friday, June 18 is the hearing on the application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Public testimony will be taken, and showing up for this is good. First, just being there is good and second ,you can present testimony, limited to three minutes. You can (and should) also submit written comments. You can read these at the hearing ( up to three minutes). The County is requesting written comments be submitted by FRIDAY JUNE 11, and you should do this if you can. Otherwise, send them next week.
Instructions on where to send comments and how to attend the hearings are in the public notice, again here.
In preparation for writing your CUP comments, you can read the many, articulate, heartfelt comments filed on the SEPA here. I recommend at least skimming through them. They will provoke ideas and emotion. You can also read Under Canvas' responses to SEPA comments here. It's pretty infuriating reading, actually, but there's useful hooks on which to hang comments.
Your comments on the CUP applicationneed to address:
Is the project consistent with the purpose of the zone?
Does the proposed project meet the criteria established by the county? This is a bit complicated, but here goes.
A Conditional Use must be consistent with the purpose of the zone.
County ordinances establish zones and overlay zones across the county. The Under Canvas property is in the Resource Land District (RL). The Resource Land District is basically the invention of the devil of land use planning, for reasons too complicated to go into here. However, like all zones and districts, it has a statement of purpose and intent, to be found in Klickitat County zoning ordinance 2.26:1 page 76, This is a link to the Zoning Ordinance. Here's what it says:
"2.26:1 Purpose and Intent
The purposes of this district are to provide land for present and future commercial farm and forest operations in areas of productive soils and other conditions suitable for the continued success of such operations and to minimize conflicts between farm and forest practices and various nonfarm uses by allowing development of such land in accordance with performance criteria, evaluating the resource and development suitability of the individual parcels within the district."
For each zone, there are outright permitted uses, there are accessory uses, and there are conditional uses. Under Canvas is applying for a Recreational Park permit, which is not included in any of these three categories in the Resource Land District.
However, the conditional use sections have catchalls. The Resource Land District's catchall says this:
"13. Any other uses judged by the Board of Adjustment to be consistent with the purposes and intent of this chapter and to be no more detrimental to the adjacent properties than, and of the same type and character as, the above listed uses."
This is very plain language - "consistent with the purposes" and "no more detrimental to adjacent properties" than other conditional uses. Unfortunately, the list of permitted conditional uses 2.26:4 is long and diverse and includes multi-family housing, schools, fire stations, cemeteries, ski resorts, airports, mines, golf courses, clubs, convents, railroad rights of way, and a bunch of others.
It's kind of hard to compare the detrimental effects of Under Canvas to detrimental effects of this long, largely ridiculous list of possible conditional uses. However, there are a few issues where Under Canvas' detrimental effect would be greater. FOCUS on detrimental effects to adjacent or neighboring projects where uses do conform to the purpose of the zone, namely farm and forest.
Traffic. Under Canvas' traffic studies downplay the impacts of the vehicular traffic that the project will generate. Talk about the number of vehicles and trips, the nature of Oak Ridge Road (narrow, unpaved, visibility), about other uses of the road (pedestrian, bikes, equipment), and about effects on agriculture such as dust.
Water. Under Canvas is absolutely pushing the limits of the unregulated well they propose to drill, limited officially to 5000 gallons per day. Their own first application materials indicated that they thought they'd have to find additional water. The water they can legally pump is not sufficient - they are estimating about 10 gallons per day per person. What will the effect be on neighboring wells?
Fire. The sheer number of people on the site significantly increases the fire danger, with detrimental effects on neighboring parcels. Fire safety measures will require on-site water, which they don't have, and the FireWise kind of action basically means cutting down trees.
I'd personally include septic in this list, since they propose to put small systems, unregulated, all over the site. We advocated for one larger regulated system, but they refuse to do that. The danger of contamination, in my mind, is higher from unregulated systems.
You can probably think of more.
Does the proposed project meet the criteria for approval as a conditional use?
Criteria and process information are found in both the conditional use application and in the zoning ordinance.
1. The Conditional Use Permit application (here) page 7, explains the process and criteria for approval of a CUP. "A conditional use is a specific type of use or activity that, although is not a preferred use in a zone, may be allowed subject to conditions for construction and/or operation." It goes on to say that "It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes and intent of the zoning code and compatible with the existing and potential uses in the vicinity which are permitted outright. You will also need to demonstrate that the use is no more detrimental to the adjacent properties than, and of the same type and character as, those uses listed as conditional under the zone in which the project is being proposed."
The important point here is that it is the applicant's responsibility to make this case. Under Canvas has not done so. They say what good neighbors they are. They say they will have a beneficial impact on the economy. They say (page 3 of their supplement information in the application) that Klickitat County has "less tourism employment and sees lower economic impact from tourism than neighboring counties" as if this is a bad, sad thing. They say that their own growth elsewhere shows a demand for glamping. NONE OF THIS HAS anything to do with the suitability of this project for the zone and location proposed. NONE OF IT. They do not address compatibility with existing and potential uses.
2. The zoning ordinance has a section about "Findings". "2.26:Findings
Prior to application approval of a conditional use, subdivision or short subdivision, the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, Board of Commissioners, or Short Plat Administrator shall make the following findings:
That there is a public need for the proposed use, subdivision or short plat.
That the proposed use, subdivision or short plat complies with the adopted comprehensive plan.
That the property is suitable for the proposed use, subdivision or short plat.
That the public facilities and services to serve the use are adequate for the proposed use, subdivision or short plat."
Under Canvas' lengthy comments about tourism are meant to address Finding 1 and establish that there is a public need. YOUR COMMENTS need to address this in the strongest possible terms. There is no public need for this project. Finding 2 is hard to address, since the comp plan is so old. The County will just automatically find consistency. I will be trying to address this in the FWSR comments, feel free to say something if you choose. Finding 3, suitability of property, is another point to hit hard - this property is not suitable. Finding 4 also brings us to the Fire Department's approval of this project, which I find irresponsible at best, I do not think that the public fire services are adequate. It also brings us to traffic, where not only Oak Ridge Road is inadequate, but the Husum intersection as well.
Stand strong, folks. The County is fighting it's own residents on behalf of an outside corporation that stands to make lots of money while impoverishing our environment and our community.
Write your comments with purpose and feeling. Speak plainly, and keep it short.
HELP THE CAUSE
You can help us safeguard the future of the White Salmon River; all it takes is a small donation.
