for their functions as fish and w ild life
habitat They are also representative of
habitats that have been histo rica lly
sever,y diminished and degraded along the
north coast due to agricultural conversion
and urbanization * He lis ts the bald eagle,
great blue heron, green herons,
black-crowned night herons, wood ducks,
bufflehead, mallards, gulls, crows,
dark-eyed Jucos, house wrens, band-tailed
pigeons, ravens, hairy woodpeckers, marsh
wrens, Canada geese, black-tai led deer,
coho and chum salmon, w inter steelhead,
searun cutthroat trout, herring, crab, &
starry flounder as w ell as juvenile
salmonids that often use tidal channels fo r
feeding and cover before moving out into
the ocean as users of this habitat
He further cites inadequate alternative
analysis, inadequate deference to
avoidance and m inim ization as m itigation
tools, and an Inadequate compensatory
m itigation plan, which means that the
developers refused to consider other sites
for the project, refused to scale down the
project to reduce damage to the area, and
refused to balance the damage by
enhancing the habitat that remained
US Fish and W ildlife concludes that the
proposed project subjects the waters of
the United States to avoidable and
u n ju stified environmental degradation
So, what do the developers have to say'?
When we spoke w ith Steve Wasserberger
the architect he was somewhat upset that
there was so much controversy about this
project that he considers a positive
addition to the area, not Just as a
beautiful place for people to live, but as a
place where awareness of and respect for
the environment are a high p rio rity And
as far as sensitivity, Is 'lig h t-ye a rs ahead
of other developments' S cientific
Resources, a company that does w ild life
surveys and is known for i t ’s wetlands
expertise, was hired by the Cascade Trust
(the developers of record), to Judge the
impact on the area They did the ir survey
in December and as a result found few
indications of recent nesting by Blue
Herons or other species, and due to
weather conditions could not do a more
extensive investigation of the area They
concluded that to minimize impact the
developers should 'avoid wetlands, leave
as much of the forest intact as possible
and use sensitive construction techniques ’
The developers also hired Heritage
Research Associates of Eugene to do an
archaeological study of the area They
excavated 60 auger holes in the area and
found a rtifa cts or fire-cracked rocks in
three of them Glass beads were found as
w ell as pottery pieces, and some rusty
metal (A study of the same general area
was done by the City of Gearhart
Regretfully. An Inventory and Evaluation of
Archaeological Resources dated Sep 28th,
1978 is not available to the public, but
rumor has it that at least two burial
sights were discovered and removed from
this are a) Heritage concludes, 'The
Seaside Condominium project area Is
located in an area where a number of
Native American archaeological sites were
occupied In prehistoric and historic times
It is strongly recommended that the
additional cultural resource Investigations
be undertaken to ensure that
significant archeological sites are not
destroyed by the proposed condominium
project
In this respect, it should be
understood that Oregon State law (OR5
97 740 0R5 97 760) specifically prohibits
the destruction of Native American graves
In the event that Native burials are
uncovered during construction, all work in
the area should be halted, and the State
historic Preservation Office should be
contacted immediately to In itia te Tribal
n o tificatio n and other related requirement
in accordance w ith State law '
So here we have It Some folks want to
build a 30 or so unit condo on a beautiful
Q What's the difference between
Ignorance and Apathy'?
A I don t know and I don't carel
Really?
So. we have defined a problem, and
encouraged you to get involved, but are we
part of the solution? What, dare we dream,
could be a solution?
We are not sure, but fir s t of all, we don't
think the developers really know what they
own is this really going to be worth all
the trouble? Is the q "3 lity of the living
environment they are offering the
potential buyers really worth the costs?
And it could be a potential loss if this
project doesn't fly , due to public pressure
Could we, as the W ild life folks suggest,
and as every 're a l' real estate sales
person (we have hopes that th is may not be
an oxymoron) that we have ever met. has
told us time and again, could we, perhaps
'Find the most beautiful place on the land,
and then build somewhere elsel"
S c ie n t if ic R e s o u r c e s , In c .
11830 S W Kerr Parkway • Suite 375 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 1228
DA TE: 15 December 1992
Summary of Mitigation Options for Consideration
1) Restore hydrological connection of upper estuary by removing fill and creating
more wetland area.
WMierhrrfer
2) Keep all large trees to the extent possible.
creek and spend between IS and 20 m illion,
plus bend over backward to make sure they
are crossing the T's and dotting the I s, so
they can o ffe r a quality living environment
and make a few bucks And some folks who
fear that the last place of Its kind in the
area w ill be destroyed along w ith possible
destruction of h isto rica lly Important sites
of religious significance to Native
Americans
And It isn't all that c ivilize d a fight
The developers say Fish and W ild life won't
talk to them about compromises, and have
brought the Oregon Natural Resources
Council into the fig h t so as to try the case
in the media The W ildlife folks say the
developers are only paying llpservlce to
the environmental impact questions and
are about to destroy an irreplaceable
habitat The environmentalists say the
developers don t care about anything but
money and have brought in an
'environm entalist for hire' to Justify
destroying yet another part of the
ecosystem
So who is to decide lawyers, Judges,
planning commisions, or perhaps the
people of Seaside w ill look at this issue
and decide for once to make an Informed
choice about the future of th e ir
community
We have been contacted by some local
folks, and w ill lis t their names and
numbers along w ith the other players In
this issue So whatever side you favor, get
In touch, show your support, w rite or call
them or us Just like any other place on
this planet Seaside w ill get what 1t
deserves The final (maybe) meeting w ill
be at Seaside City Hall (right next to Me
Donalds, of course) October 11th Be there
If you care'
'..-••H-'
3) Build nest platforms in roost and nest trees (herons have used nest platforms in
the past, although building platforms for herons is not very common).
4) Time construction to minimize impact to nesting herons (Feb-Jul/Aug).
5) Revegetate estuary areas along the highway to provide some screening vegetation
and to enable herons greater access to areas near the highway.
6) Restrict pedestrian access, and educate local residents regarding heron sensitivity.
7) M onitor heron activity during and after construction to assess disturbance.
9 .0 R ecreation, O p en Space and H istoric A reas
SLLKMtAIlUQhzliULQ
I Not Applicable
PLANNED D E V E L O P M E N T FINAL A P P LIC A TIO N
( S ta te
th re e )
Applicant
2. The proposed development will reinforce tounsm by providing seasonal housing opportunities
3 - 8 . Not Applicable
Cascade Trust
C/o Joseph Hanna
1300 S W Sixth Avenue
Portland. Oregon 97201
SfiKCTultUCS
1 - 2. No< Applicable
Property:
Tax L ou 1200, 1201, 1300, 1301, 1400 (w est of U J . Highway 101)
Application D ate
Prepared by
June II, 1993
The Vk asserberger Benson Partnership Architects PC
3 The applicam has made extensive efforts to control impacts to wildlife habitat and vegetative
restxirces of this site. A wetland biologist, wildlife biologist and archaeologist have investigated
the site and have made pro-active recommendations regarding the development of the site. The
applicant has also endeavored the support o f several renewing agencies to this end.
9 J Fish A, Wildlife Policies
1. The applicant has endeavored to co-operate fully with the Oregon Department of Fuh A
Wildlife. In doing so. the applxapt has engaged wildlife biologists and wetland axisultarns to
assist with the overall development of die site. Their input has been critical by identifying die
local resources and establishing guidelines whereby these resources can be maintained io the
greatest extent possible while still allowing development of die dwelling units The aquatic zones
located on this site are being preserved in their entirety The proposed badge crossing is a
conditional use and the applicant has pursued this action with vanous reviewing agencies with
positive response
8 urrtk un n&i qcto & lr ins
lv « n i f you o r* on th * r vqfU tra d ì, you t t
ru n over i f you ju*< sU tfwr«.
U d ì ftocpu «