1997-01-24 Regular MeetingKODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 24, 1997
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30
p.m. by Acting Chair Turner on January 24, 1997 in the Borough Assembly Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Darlene Turner - Acting Chair
Donna Bell
Suzanne Hancock
Roberta Scheidler
Clarence Selig
Walter Stewart
Commissioners Absent:
Jerrol Friend - Excused
A quorum was established.
Others Present:
Linda Freed, Director
Community Development Dept.
Bob Scholze, Associate Planner
Community Development Dept.
Eileen Probasco, Secretary
Community Development Dept.
LINDA FREED noted for the record that CHAIR FRIEND was unable to be at tonight's
meeting due to an illness, and that the Vice Chair position was vacant. She pointed out
that Robert's Rules of Order provided that the Commissioner with the most seniority
should chair the meeting, as a result, COMMISSIONER TURNER would preside as
CHAIR for this meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER MOVED TO ACCEPT the agenda. The motion was
seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote.
IV. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
COMMISSIONER SELIG MOVED TO ACCEPT the minutes of the December 18,
1996 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was
seconded and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page I of 27
r V. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS
There were no audience comments or appearance requests.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER declared that she believed she had a conflict of interest
with Leisnoi's request for a CUP for the log transfer facility at Myrtle Creek as she was
the Finance Director for Afognak Native Corporation. ACTING CHAIR TURNER
agreed and ruled that COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER should not participate in any
discussion, deliberation, or decision concerning the case and excused COMMISSIONER
SCHEIDLER from the dias.
A) Case 96-021. Request for a conditional use permit, in accordance with Section
17.13.040.E Conditional Uses, of the Borough Code, to permit a log transfer
facility, including in -water transfer of logs, in the C-Conservation Zoning District.
Generally located within Section 6, T30S, R20W, near the mouth of Myrtle Creek
in Kalsin Bay. (Postponed from the December 18,1996 Regular Meeting).
BOB SCHOLZE indicated 97 public hearing notices were mailed for this case.
_ 17 written comments were returned, all opposing this request. In addition, letters
of opposition were received from the Kodiak Seiners Association, Northwest
Setnetters Association, Kodiak Fish & Game Advisory Committee, and the
Alaska Marine Conservation Council. He stated that there were 25 Chiniak
residents in attendance at the Commisison's Special Meeting held on January 15
at the Chiniak Library, and that 17 of those residents spoke in opposition to the
LTF. MR. SCHOLZE explained that a supplemental memorandum, dated
January 24, clarified staff's recommendations contained in the final staff report
dated January 14. This supplemental memorandum contained two possible
alternative motions and sets of findings, recognizing that the Commission would
not have all of the information available to make a decision on this request until
after public comment had been received at the meeting. Staff provided a motion
for approval of the CUP (subject to 14 conditions of approval), if the Commission
feels that there are sufficient conditions and stipulations that can be applied to
safeguard against negative impacts and successfully mitigate potential conflicts
with existing uses in Kalsin Bay. He further commented that, should the
Commission determine, as a result of testimony at tonight's meeting, that no
amount and combination of conditions will sufficiently mitigate potential negative
impacts and ensure that the LTF can co -exist compatibly with other uses without
affecting the value, spirit, character, and integrity of the area, the CUP should be
denied, and the Commission should adopt findings supporting that denial.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 2 of 27
CLINDA FREED pointed out that, once the decision on the CUP was made, an
additional motion was necessary to make a recommendation to the State of Alaska
on the consistency of the project with the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal
Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
COMMISSIONER SELIG MOVED TO GRANT the request for a conditional
use permit, in accordance with Section 17.13.040.E (Conditional Uses) of the
Borough Code, to permit a log transfer facility based on the specific proposal
made by the applicant, including in -water transportation of logs, in the C—
Conservation Zoning District within Section 6, T30S, R20W, at the mouth of
Myrtle Creek in Kalsin Bay, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the
staff report dated January 14, 1997, and to adopt the findings in that staff report as
"Findings of Fact" for this case.
The motion was SECONDED.
Regular Session Closed.
Public Hearing Opened:
(NOTE: Some of those testifying provided the Commission with a written copy of
_ their comments. These written comments are attached and included as part of the
minutes.)
Vicki Jo Kennedy appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to
this request. She didn't feel that the burden to prove, that the environment would
be damaged by this LTF should be placed on the people. She felt that it should be
Leisnoi's responsibility to prove that the LTF would not have a detrimental affect
on the environment. She hoped that the Commission had not made their decision
yet, and encouraged their careful consideration of this request.
Forrest Blau, 17 year Kodiak resident and a marine biologist, appeared before the
Commission to comment on the LTF. He stated that he had done dive surveys on
an LTF site on Afognak Island and he read from some of his notes, which
indicated the level of bark accumulation in that bay. He reported that there is
documentation that there are detrimental affects on marine life and larval crab as a
result of bark on the ocean floor. He added that he dove near Jug Island in Kalsin
Bay and that crab larvae were present there.
Paul Alexander, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. He provided the Commission with a letter outlining his
previous planning experience and listing some of his concerns about the meeting
procedures for the special meeting held at the Chiniak Library.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 3 of 27
Jack McFarland, Kodiak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
his concern about this request. He provided the Commision with a letter
identifying his concerns and suggestions for improving the proposed conditions of
approval.
Jane Eisemann, 21 year Kodiak resident, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. She stated that there were many unhappy
people who were concerned about maintaining the value, spirit, character and
integrity of the Kalsin Bay area. She encouraged the Commission to listen to the
individual perspectives of those unhappy people, who feel that the value, spirit,
character and integrity of Kalsin Bay and Chiniak would be compromised by
permitting the CUP.
Susan Baker, 20 year Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. She stated that there was no trust that
promises made by Leisnoi would be kept. She was concerned that with the DEC
position in Kodiak being eliminated, there would be further lack of protection and
enforcement of the conditions of approval. She wondered who would provide
funding for enforcement of the conditions of approval. She provided the
Commission with a letter of her concerns.
Bruce Schactler appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this
request. He was concerned about the lack of "science" considered in this case.
He felt that the decline in herring runs in some Afognak Island bays was a result
of bark deposit and foreign ballast water, from the log transfer facilities there. He
was concerned about leaching from bark and other foreign material into Kalsin
Bay as a result of rain runoff. He felt there was no accountability in this request,
and that the Commission was obligated to protect Kalsin Bay.
Brian Johnson. commercial fisherman, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. His concerns were similar to Mr.
Schactler's. He asked Leisnoi to do something sustainable for the people of
Kodiak and for the marine ecosystem, which belongs to everyone. He didn't feel
the Commission had enough information available to make a decision on this
request.
Oliver Holm, 34 year Kodiak resident, Vice Chair of Kodiak Fish & Game
Advisory Committee, Chair of Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, and
member of Kodiak Salmon Seiners, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He felt the proposed conditions of approval
were inadequate. He asked about removal of boom between log shipments and
about who would determine "peak" fishing times. He felt the corridors provided
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 4 of 27
and ballast water conditions were inadequate and unenforceable, and that cables
and bark on the bottom of the bay would cause a problem with nets and seines.
He didn't feel Leisnoi could or would comply with these conditions.
Barry Still, representing Lash Corporation, appeared before the Commission to
clarify some issues. He stated that Lash Corporation has always recognized that
there needs to be a cheaper way to provide services to the timber industry which
would also better benefit the people of Kodiak. With encouragement from local
timber companies, Lash has begun construction on a deep draft dock that would
provide, among other things, the opportunity for log ships to load directly from
the dock in Womens Bay. He pointed out that this would eliminate the need for
an LTF, and that there would be no need for logs to enter the water at all. He was
not speaking for or against the LTF, but to clarify some facts.
Dave Odell, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. He pointed out that the State's Log Storage/Transfer
Guidelines recommends that "...where feasible, preference must be given to on-
shore storage and barging of logs," which also references Alaska Statutes.
Another point in the document recommends that the monitoring of log transfer
facilities should be done by the pernrittee. He felt that the Borough did not have
the manpower or expertise to police the facility, and that appropriate State
agencies were not even in Kodiak. This guideline document also states that bark
has been proven to harm dungeness crab.
Deb Walser, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. She was concerned that the waters in Kalsin Bay were
too unprotected to adequately support an LTF and the log ships that needed to
enter the bay. She said she had not had problems with logging trucks on the road,
but understood that others had. She felt the problem was that the roads were not
being adequately maintained. Ms. Walser was also very concerned about
enforcement of any proposed conditions.
Sheila Bermel, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. She provided the Commision with a letter of her
comments.
Mary Kay Cichoski, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. She provided the Commision with a letter of
her comments.
BBe lY Odell, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. She provided the Commision with a letter of her
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 5 of 27
/^ comments. She encouraged the Commission to take into consideration the
l testimony of the community.
Chuck McWethv, commercial fisherman, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He felt that the LTF and mooring bouys
would interfere with the traditional seine set site in Kalsin Bay. He was also
concerned that Leisnoi's ability to effectively transport their logs, as well as the
turning radius of the log ships would interfere with the dungeness and tanner pots
stored in the bay. Mr. McWethy also felt that Kalsin Bay was a critical habitat
area for bottom fish, which would be negatively impacted by the operation of the
LTF.
Bob Bowhay. commercial fisherman, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He was concerned about the unprotected
weather in Kalsin Bay, and about the promise from Leisnoi that having the LTF
would make the roads safer. He also felt that Myrtle Creek was a "sport fishing
paradise." He encouraged the Commission to consider that "beauty and profit
don't go together."
Betty Odell appeared again and read a letter from Jim Buck, expressing his
opposition to this request.
Woody Koning, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. He felt the proposed facility was inconsistent with the
intent of the C-Conservation zoning district and that it was more of an industrial
use. He also felt it was inconsistent with the value, spirit, character and integrity
of Kalsin Bay. He was concerned about the enforcement of proposed conditions
in light of State and Borough budget reductions, and the integrity of the
applicant's intent to comply with the conditions. He felt the LTF would infringe
on his rights and the rights of his neighbors, and that it was inconsistent with his
lifestyle.
Fred Steiger, commercial fisherman, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He was concerned about foreign ballast
water being dumped in Kalsin Bay. He also questioned the legal existence of
Leisnoi, and whether they hired local residents.
Tom Dooley, 34 year Kodiak resident and member of the Kodiak Fish and Game
Advisory Board, appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to
this request. He felt there were several issues not yet discussed. Those issues
were; the existence of bird habitat in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LTF,
potential logging in Monashka Bay (and the need to then haul logs to Myrtle
Creek), the potential for putting the LTF at the log sort yard in Womens Bay, and
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 6 of 27
the construction of the deep water dock in Womens Bay. He encouraged the
Commission not to decide the issue for the short term profit margin of one
industry.
Becky Walser. 12 years old and a 12 year Chiniak resident, appeared before the
Commission and expressed opposition to this request. She was concerned that
Myrtle Creek would be destroyed by a log transfer facility. She said that she
subsistence and sport fished at Myrtle Creek, and that she used the area for
sledding in the winter. She felt that the LTF would damage the environment she
lived in and her ability to fish and enjoy the area.
Ellie Werbe, Chiniak resident and area fisherperson, appeared before the
Commission and expressed opposition to this request. She felt the LTF was an
industrial use and that it would take away from the traditional uses of Myrtle
Creek.
Ernest Scheidler. Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He provided the Commision with a letter of
his comments.
Sue Ketchum. 14 year Chiniak resident, called in and expressed opposition to this
request. She was concerned about logging ships having difficulty with the
weather and conflicts with fishing boats. She said that she would rather put up
with logging trucks than see the LTF at Myrtle Creek.
Virginia Adams. Chiniak resident, called in and expressed opposition to this
request. She agreed with Vickie Jo Kennedy that the people should not be
charged with proving that the LTF would harm the environment and fisheries in
Kalsin Bay. She felt Leisnoi had not been a good corporate citizen. She was very
concerned that the new cod fishery proposed in Kalsin Bay in the next year would
be affected by the LTF. She also felt that Barry Still's testimony about Lash's
deep water dock was new information that needed to be considered, and wondered
who's responsibility it would be to enforce compliance with proposed conditions.
She pointed out the log accident at the facility in Cordova, in which logs were
loaded into the water several days prior to shipping, and a storm hit and all of the
logs broke lose, and one boat sank as a result of that accident.
Steve Mathieu, commercial fisherman, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He felt that tourism would be negatively
affected by the LTF. He also felt that the Department of Transportation as well as
the National Park System needed to request an Environmental Impact Statement
on new logging roads that were being proposed.
David Glamann called in and expressed opposition to this request. He said that he
used to live in Silver Bay in Sitka Sound where there was a log yard and pulp
mill. He said it was very hazardous to try to navigate around logs in the bay.
P & Z Minutes: January24, 1997 Page 7 of 27
Geneva Macinko, Leisnoi shareholder and lifelong Kodiak resident, called in and
expressed opposition to this request. She said that the Commission needed to
know that the plan put forth by Leisnoi did not represent the wishes of all Leisnoi
shareholders. She said that shareholders have had limited, if any, input on the
issue and in her opinion, the Leisnoi board did not have the skills necessary to
manage this project. She is also opposed to the logging that has occurred and
encouraged the Commission to take everyone's testimony into consideration.
Jane VanAtta, Chiniak resident, called in and expressed opposition to this request.
She stated that she had a degree in forestry and that one of the key lessons she had
learned was the philosophy of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. She said that Leisnoi does not have a management plan for their
harvesting activities. She said that she is not opposed to logging, but is opposed
to irresponsibile logging and the lack of long term planning.
Mike Patatucci. commercial fisherman and 20 year Kodiak resident, appeared
before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. He felt that
Kalsin Bay was too shallow to handle the logging ships and that the weather in the
bay was too unpredictable to allow for the proposed operation.
Zoya Olsen Leisnoi shareholder, called in to express her opposition to this
request. She agreed with Geneva Macinko's comments that Leisnoi shareholders
were left in the dark and that they did not all agree with what the board was doing.
Mark Thomas, commercial fisherman, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He was concerned about the LTF's impact
on dungeness fishing in the bay and about losing his fishing gear as a result of
ships being off -course. He also wondered if there was an archaeological site near
the mouth of Myrtle Creek.
Vince Walser, Chiniak resident, appeared before the Commission and expressed
opposition to this request. He stated that he had nothing new to add, but that he
supported previous testimony. He questioned that, if the shareholders were
opposed to the logging activities, where was Leisnoi's money going?
David Nesheim, representing Leisnoi, appeared before the Commission to answer
questions. He said that he has tried throughout the application and review not to
attack anyone's personal credibility or to make anyone look bad and that he has
always been willing to work with the fishing community to work out something
agreeable but his offer has not been accepted. He was hoping this issue would not
to get down to mud -slinging. He thanked the Commission for their time.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 8 of 27
Ed Opheim Jr., commercial fisherman, 47 year Kodiak resident and ship-wright,
appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this request. He
reported that he did some charter work for NOAA years ago in Kalsin Bay and
found it to be thick with sea life. He had taken photos documenting the presence
of the sea life and provided the Commission with those pictures.
Steve Penn appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this
request. He pointed out that there were many studies available that documented
that bark in the water from logs caused damage to marine life. He had earlier
provided the Commission with four abstracts, by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, concerning bark damage to marine plants and animals.
Martha McKinney. 20 year Kodiak resident and wife of a commercial fisherman,
called in and expressed opposition to this request. She felt the LTF was
incompatible with the traditional uses of the area. She said that her family used
Myrtle Creek and Kalsin Bay for recreational activities. She encouraged the
Commission's careful consideration of the request.
Rich MacIntosh appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this
request. He urged the Commission to weigh heavily on the information and
evidence provided by the fishingcommunity in considering this request.
Heather Smith appeared before the Commission and expressed opposition to this
request. She understood Leisnoi's desire to profit from their resources. She
added that she couldn't place numbers on the value of the beauty of the Myrtle
Creek area and the experiences of the children that she took there to enjoy the
wildlife. She felt that the worth experienced from the beauty was of more value
than any monetary profit.
Ed Qpheim Jr. appeared again and added, in support of using Lash dock for log
ships, that he felt Womens Bay was adequate in depth for log ships, as it had been
able to handle Navy tankers in the past.
Judy Phillips, Chiniak resident and commercial fisherman, called to express
opposition to this request.
Public Hearing Closed.
Regular Session Opened.
COMMISSIONER SELIG stated that he was born and raised in Kodiak. He
stated that he was a shareholder of the Afognak Native Corporation, Natives of
( Kodiak, and on the Board of Directors for KONIAG, Inc. He valued the input
!. from those testifying in public as well as via telephone. He understood that the
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 9 of 27
people of Chiniak were trying to say that they could tolerate the logging but could
l not jeoparize their livelihood and their subsistence; in other words, "You have
part of it but you can't have all of it." He realized that the short term benefits did
not outweigh the long term impacts and he was not willing to allow business
profits to override the public resources. He felt he did not have enough
information to approve the CUP. He appreciated Heather Smith's comments
about the immeasurable beauty of Kalsin Bay. He knew that eventually the trees
would come back, but questioned if Kalsin Bay were destroyed, would the fish
come back. For these reasons, COMMISSIONER SELIG stated that he could not
support the CUP at this time.
COMMISSIONER BELL stated she understood that people don't like change.
However, she was impressed with the public testimony and stated that the
testimony convinced her to vote against the CUP.
COMMISSIONER STEWART stated that he had read all of the information
provided to him and listened closely to the testimony. He concluded that, based
on the public testimony and the scientific evidence he had been presented, the
LTF would have a negative impact on the environment. He stated that he would
vote against the CUP.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK commented that she had sat on the Board of
Adjustment for the appeal of the CUP granted for the rocket launch facility. One
of the reasons she felt safe in granting that CUP is that she felt there were many
other agencies that would step in and enforce infractions. She did not share that
feeling in the case of this LTF. She felt enforcement of conditions would be a
problem. She struggled with this decision because she has generally believed that
individuals and corporations should be able to do with their land what they see fit,
as long as it doesn't hurt the common good. However, she added that there was
enough evidence to convince her that this LTF might hurt fishing, and that the
entire community depended on fishing dollars and severance taxes from fishing,
even though logging also contributed. She thought that there were other avenues
Leisnoi could pursue. She stated that she would vote against the CUP.
ACTING CHAIR TURNER passed the gavel to COMMISSIONER SELIG so she
could freely speak to this request. She appreciated all of the work that had been
put into this project by everyone, in order to provide the Commission with the
facts they had requested. She specifically pointed out several comments that were
made that were convincing to her: Jane Eisemann, speaking about value, spirit,
character and integrity of the land; Susan Baker asking about who was going to
fund enforcement actions; Bruce Schactler's concern about controlling leaching
into the waters of the bay; the lack of information concerning the potential for
ballast water contamination; Barry Still's comments about the deep water dock
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 10 of 27
under construction in Womens Bay; David Odell's information on bark damaging
crab and crab larvae; the potential for damage or loss of fishing gear; Mr. Buck's
concern for his subsistence lifestyle; potential impact on bird habitat; Virginia
Adams' comments on the new cod fishery; Mark Thomas' concern about
displacement of shrimp and dungeness crab as well as the potential archaeological
site at Myrtle Creek; and Heather Smith's comments on the impact of the beauty
of the area on children. She had many unanswered questions and said that she
would feel uncomfortable, at this point, granting the CUP.
COMMISSIONER SELIG returned the gavel to ACTING CHAIR TURNER.
The question was called and the motion FAILED by unanimous roll call vote.
COMMISSIONER BELL MOVED TO ADOPT the findings of fact in the
supplemental memorandum dated January 24, 1997 as the findings of fact for the
denial of Case 96-021.
The motion was SECONDED.
The Commission discussed whether they wished to amend the findings of fact.
LINDA FREED explained that they could choose to postpone adoption of
findings of fact to allow staff to supplement the draft findings based on the
comments made by the Commission at the meeting. She further explained that
this would also delay the effective date of the decision as well as the opportunity
for anyone to appeal the decision, until the findings were adopted at the next
regular meeting. The Commission agreed that they felt no need to amend the
findings as contained in the January 24, 1997 staff memorandum. They further
stated that their intention was that a comprehensive set of minutes be included
with the record and incorporated as support for the findings of fact adopted for
this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
17.67.05 A. That the conditional use will preserve the value, spirit, character and
integrity of the surrounding area.
There has been overwhelming public testimony in opposition to the proposed LTF
at Planning and Zoning Commission public hearings as well as at the Kodiak Fish
and Game Advisory Committee meeting in November. This testimony, for the
most part by residents of the area and users of Kalsin Bay, indicates that there
would be significant conflicts with traditional commercial and subsistence
fisheries in Kalsin Bay caused by the navigation and anchoring of log ships as
well as by the near -shore operation of the log transfer facility.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 11 of 27
(07
Letters from the Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee dated November 23,
1996, from the Northwest Setnetters Association dated December 1, 1996, and
from the Kodiak Seiners Association dated January 8, 1997 all strongly oppose
the proposed project citing use conflicts resulting from interference with existing
fisheries and concern that fishermen could be displaced from traditional fishing
grounds for salmon, herring and dungeness crab. These letters also express
concern about damage that might be caused to the environment and fish habitat by
bark dispersal, by introduction of foreign marine organisms through ballast water
discharge, by severe weather from the open northeast causing logs to disperse or
otherwise impact the shallow ocean floor, and by pollutants from upland
operations inadvertently or accidentally discharged into the Bay.
At the public hearing in Chiniak on January 15, 1997 the (approximately) thirty
(30) local residents in attendance expressed unanimous opposition to the proposal
based, in large part, on a perception that the potential negative impacts and use
conflicts, even with conditions imposed, will unalterably change for the worse the
value, spirit, character, and integrity of the Chiniak and Kalsin Bay area they have
come to know and identify with through years of long term residency. Those
terms are intentionally and unavoidably non-specific and unquantifiable since
what they define cannot be dissociated from the individual feelings and
perceptions of the local residents who would be most affected.
17,67.05 B. That the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter
pertaining to the conditional use in question.
Even though KIBC Section 17.13.040 specifically permits a log transfer facility as
a conditional use in the C-Conservation zoning district, this is controlled by
Section 17.67.010, which allows for consideration of conditional use permits
(CUP's) with the provision that conditions and safeguards can be applied to
ensure compatibility with permitted principal uses and with the surrounding area
in general. In this case, the concern about interference with established fisheries
of log ship navigation into and out of Kalsin Bay and of log raft transport between
the facility and the anchored ship, to which considerable public testimony has
attested, raises considerable doubt about the ability of the LTF to be compatible
with existing uses in the Bay.
Compatibility is also brought into question by the possibility of ballast discharge
from log ships from the Far East introducing non -indigenous micro-organisms
into the Bay, The potential for ballast discharge to have harmful ecological effects
on a marine environment has been documented in the Great Lakes as well as in
LAustralia. The applicant has acknowledged limitations on any attempt to monitor
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 12 of 27
and enforce a recommended condition that might specifically prohibit discharge
of ballast into Kalsin Bay (p. 4, # 11, Memo dated January 22, 1997).
KIBC Section 17.14.090.2 (Special District Regulations) addressing conditional
uses in the C-Conservation zoning district requires approved conditional uses to
conform to specific performance standards including, in upland habitat, retention
of natural vegetation coverage and drainage patterns and prevention of excessive
runoff and erosion. Understanding that this project proposes to recontour the
uplands to the extent that the natural existing slope of the upland site would be
reversed from west to east, it is difficult to see how natural vegetation coverage
will be retained and natural drainage patterns preserved.
17.67.05 C. That granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the
public health, safety, convenience and comfort.
Even though the applicant has made concessions and modifications to the project
proposal since first introduction, navigation of a log ship in Kalsin Bay and the
transport of log rafts from the facility to the anchored ship, even periodically, will
disrupt traditional commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing activity and
therefore be harmful to the public convenience and comfort. To whatever extent
movement of log ships may damage or disrupt fishing gear or boats used or stored
in the Bay, public convenience and comfort, and so some extent, possibly health
and safety, is compromised. If weather and tides breech the containment boom
during operations, or a major storm event at high tide submerges the uplands, logs
will be adrift in the Bay, potentially creating a safety concern for marine
navigation and concern for recreation use and habitat value of the beaches.
State statute (6 AAC 80.130.c.10) addressing habitats requires that "...offshore
areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or
enhance the state's sport, commercial, and subsistence fishery..." The Kodiak
Island Borough Coastal Management Program (KIBCMP), under Resource
Enhancement and Protection, requires that "...maintenance and enhancement of
fish, wildlife, and vegetative resources shall be a priority of the Kodiak Island
Borough." (p.5-14) The operation of a log transfer facility in Kalsin Bay,
historically established as a vital commercial and subsistence fisheries habitat, is
not consistent, to the extent that it conflicts with existing uses, with the objectives
inherent in these directive that seek to ensure the public's access to a healthy
fishery.
17.67.05 D. That sufficient setbacks lot area buffers or other safeguards are
being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections A through C of this
section.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 13 of 27
The remoteness of the site helps to provide sufficient lot area buffers and setbacks
to meet zoning district requirements on the upland area of the project. If an
undisturbed sixty-six (66) foot wide buffer strip is required as a condition to be
maintained between the log sort/storage yard and Noname Creek, that may ensure
that runoff from excavation and fill will not find its way into the creek. However,
concern has been expressed about the effectiveness of the buffer to accomplish
that, and also about lack of adequate buffers to preserve visual aesthetics between
the Chiniak Highway and what is, essentially, and a yard operation of an
industrial nature.
The question was called and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote.
LINDA FREED informed the audience that there is an opportunity to appeal this
decision. She stated that an appeal could be filed within twenty days through the
Borough Clerk's office, to the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly sitting as the
Board of Adjustment.
COMMISSIONER SELIG MOVED TO RECOMMEND to the Alaska Division
of Governmental Coordination (DGC) that the log transfer facility proposed for
Myrtle Creek in Kalsin Bay be found consistent with the Kodiak Island Borough
Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
The motion was SECONDED and FAILED by unanimous roll call vote.
COMMISSIONER SELIG MOVED TO ADOPT the consistency
recommendation contained in the January 24, 1997 staff memorandum, replacing
the recommendation for Fisheries and Seafood and Processing policy #3, with the
analysis from the December 18, 1996 staff report, as findings of fact for this
recommendation.
CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE
POLICIES OF THE KIBCMP
(from the January 14,1997 staff memorandum)
The following enforceable policies of the KIBCMP are generally applicable to the type of development that is likely
to occur on a lot in the C---Conservation zoning district. The KIBCMP assumes that a permitted use is consistent
with the applicable policies because the plan is predicated on zoning standards that reflect the intent of the
enforceable policies. The KIBCMP did not create special zones and other provisions to implement the program, and
it is intended to be implemented within the framework of the existing code, as it existed at the time of plan adoption,
or as it has been amended over time. The C—Conservation zoning district has been specifically amended to
implement the policies of the KIBCMP to the extent that the Commission and Assembly have chosen to place
restrictions on the development of remote land in the Kodiak Island Borough. Conditional use permits allow for
more specific application of the enforceable policies to individual projects on a case -by -case basis.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 14 of 27
Among activities and uses subject to the Kodiak Island Borough Coastal Management Program, as specified in
Section 5.1, is "timber harvesting and processing," including timber sales and harvesting and log storage and
transfer. In addition, a use of State concern identified by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council and specified under
KIBCMP 5.1.1 is: "Management and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, conservation of anadromous fish
waters, and the harvest of fish and wildlife."
Uses proposed for the coastal zone are determined to be either proper or improper based on measurement of
performance relative to established policies. These policies are both general in nature, addressing compatibility,
consistency, and coordination (5.3.1), and specific, addressing particular coastal activities and resources (5.3.2).
Among the objectives actively promoted by the policies are the sensible use of coastal lands, multiple use of coastal
lands, protection of environmental quality, protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and coordination
between state and federal agencies and the Borough. Also noted as important is achievement of balance "...where
there are potentially competing goals, such as industrial development and resource enhancement;... or where short -
run gains result in the forfeiture of long -run benefits" (page 5.5)
GENERAL POLICIES
General Policies - Land and Water Activities
3. Compatibility. Activities on and uses of coastal lands shall be compatible with adjacent land use to the
greatest extent feasible.
Consistency: Yes. A number of sites in the area underwent extensive evaluation for their suitability to
support a log transfer facility. Myrtle Creek was selected for economic and geographic
reasons. There are no adjacent upland land uses. Conflicts with nearby water uses might
be mitigated through strict control of log ship loading schedules.
General Policies=Implementation
The Kodiak Island Borough shall minimize new regulations by using existing ordinances and codes to
implement the Coastal Management Program wherever possible.
Consistency: Yes. The general standards for conditional use permits (CUP) in KIBC 17.67 as well as
special district regulations for conditional uses in the C-Conservation zoning district in
KIBC 17.13 will apply to this proposal.
SPECIFIC USE POLICIES
Industrial/Commercial Development
Qptimum Location
In order to satisfy industrial requirements, meet safety standards, protect fish and wildlife resources, and
maintain environmental quality; sites for industrial development shall be identified in conjunction with the
Kodiak Island Borough.
Consistency: Yes. In the selection process to choose the most practicable site for a log transfer facility
in the vicinity of the Chiniak logging operations, the applicant explored at least six (6)
potential sites. Myrtle Creek is the best alternative to meet the applicant's criteria of
controlling operating costs and insuring public safety. Kodiak Island Borough Code
provides for review of such project proposals through the CUP process, meeting the
intent of this policy.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 15 of 27
It is conceivable that the transfer facility, with proper controls and monitoring, can
operate in a way that can protect fish and wildlife resources and maintain environmental
quality. Those determinations would appropriately be made by ADF&G and ADEC as
part of the State coastal management consistency review. If the operation of the log
transfer system does, in fact, substantially interfere with commercial fishing activities to
the extent that was indicated by testimony at the Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory
Committee meeting, there may well be safety standards that are compromised. However
this would have to do more with conflicts arising out of the proximity of the two
activities than the operation of the facility itself. Navigation and anchoring of a large log
ship in Kalsin Bay would be disruptive to and inconvenient for gear storage and
commercial and subsistence fishing at certain times of the year, but this disruption could
be minimised to the point of achieving compatibility with other uses by selective
scheduling of log ship traffic in the Bay.
2. Natural Features
Dredge and fill, excavation, shoreline alteration and disturbance of anadromous streams, tideflats and
wetlands shall be minimized when constructing and operating port, harbor, dock, industrial and energy
facilities - if permitted under applicable regulations.
Consistency: Yes. This project proposes to discharge approximately 12,500 cubic yards of fill over
approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands at the northwest comer of the project's upland site.
There will be no fill of tidelands or beach areas, nor any disturbance of anadromous
streams. All material used for fill will be excavated on site. Review of proposed wetland
fill activities will be conducted by the Corps of Engineers.
_ 3. Natural Settine Views and Access
Development shall be conducted in a manner that mitigates adverse impacts upon the Kodiak Archipelago;
developers shall provide opportunities for public access to the shoreline and scenic views, to the extent
feasible and prudent.
Consistency: Yes. The applicant has indicated that public access from Chiniak Highway will be
available to the beach west of the project site during times when logs are not being
actively transferred to the ship. Tentative scheduling for ship loading is every 42 days,
or approximately eight (8) times a year. Scenic views will be preserved by buffering
along the highway. According to the applicant, the proposed rail -on -piling transfer
system will be approximately one-third submerged at low tide, and approximately two-
thirds submerged at high tide.
4. Dredge and Excavation Material
Dredging and filling shall be consistent with ACMP Standards 6 AAC 80.040 (Coastal Development) and
6 AAC 80.110 (Mineral and Mining Processing). Dredge spoil may be utilized in shorelide landfills if
permitted under applicable regulations for the purpose of creating usable waterfront land.
6 AAC 80.040 (Coastal Development):
Consistency: Yes. According to the classifications described herein, this proposed use is given top
priority as a "water dependent" activity. The fill of approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands
on the proposed site will meet Corps of Engineers permit requirements. According to the
applicant, all excavating, grading and fill will be contained on site, with excavated fill
from the east edge of the site used for filling the low areas on the west edge of the site.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 16 of 27
r6 AAC 80.100 (Minerals and Mining Processing) -Not Applicable
5. Facility Design
Developments in or over the water, such as piers, docks and protective structures shall be located, designed
and maintained in a manner that prevents adverse impacts upon water quality, fish, wildlife and vegetative
resources and minimizes interruption of water circulation patterns, coastal processes and navigation.
Consistency: Yes. The log transfer system facility development in and over the water consists of two
rails twenty (20) feet apart extending 220 feet out into Kalsin Bay supported on steel
piling spaced on twenty (20) foot centers. A cart, raised and lowered by cable, will run
on the rails and is designed to both lower log bundles into the water at a controlled speed
and retrieve log bundles. An in -water containment boom will consist of 38 logs attached
together with boom chains anchored with deadmen on the beach and marine anchors with
buoys in the water. The log booms will create a storage area approximately 550 feet long
by 290 feet wide, and will be retrieved and stored on land between ships.
Since this transfer system is designed to allow for a controlled (slow) speed of log bundle
entry into the water, this should minimize adverse impacts on habitat and water, gear
storage, and harvesting procedure related to those fishing activities. In this case, any
impact, in comparison with no impact at all, would be most likely viewed as undesirable,
and therefore negative.
Final consistency determination for this policy should incorporate potential adverse
impacts from bark dispersal in the bay. The natural flushing/scouring action resulting
from tides and currents in Kalsin Bay should preserve water circulation patterns.
However, the introduction of a new industry into a bay that has historically been used
exclusively for commercial and subsistence fishing cannot help but have an impact on
navigation, gear storage, and harvesting procedure related to those fishing activities. In
this case, any impact, compared with no impact at all, would be most likely viewed as
undesirable, and therefore negative.
Consistency of the project with this policy relative to potential adverse impacts on water
quality, fish and wildlife resources, and interruption of water circulation patterns should
be made based on recommendations from State and Federal agencies which have the
necessary technical expertise and scientific background.
6. Buffer Zones
Buffer zones shall be established to the extent feasible and prudent, between business areas and major
public transportation routes and between business development and adjacent, non -business properties in
order to minimize conflicts between land uses.
Consistency: Yes. To some extent, natural buffers exist by virtue of the topography and semi -remote
location of the project site. Elevated topography borders the east side of the site. A
buffer approximately seventy-five (75) feet wide is proposed by the applicant along no -
name creek to the south. It also serves as a buffer between the project and the Chiniak
highway. The buffer area along the north edge of the site is proposed to serve the dual
purpose of protecting an archeological site there and the beach itself.
7. Accessory Development
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 17 of 27
Accessory development that does not require a shoreline location in order to carry out its support functions
shall be sited away from the shoreline whenever there is a feasible and prudent inland alternative. This
category includes parking, warehousing, open air storage, waste storage, treatment or storm runoff control
facilities or utilities.
Consistency: Yes. Proposed accessory development consisting of an operations/storage building, log
off-load and sorting area, and parking area is located approximately 500-800 feet away
from the tideline. The log storage area is generally located about 300-500 feet off the
beach.
An additional proposed accessory development is a ditch running the full length of east
boundary of the site intended to prevent bark leachates and sediments from
contaminating surface water sources. The ditch will be connected to a storm water
containment and settling pond system located at the northeast comer of the site. Two
twenty by thirty foot (20' x 30') ponds approximately four feet (4') deep connected by a
twelve inch (12") diameter culvert were designed to handle maximum recorded storm
run-off. A seventy foot (70') long outflow pipe of twelve inch (12') diameter is then
designed to carry run-off, less sediment and particulates that have settled to the bottom of
the ponds, across the beach berm for discharge into the bay.
According to the plan, site excavation and grading will result a general two degree slope
toward the east to insure that surface run-off will be directed into the storm water system.
The plan narrative does not specify how waste and sediment that settles out in the pools
will be disposed of. The 1985 Log Transfer Facility Guidelines addressing solid waste
management specifies that sediment collecting in the pools, as well as bark and other
solid waste generated from the operation of a LTF, be periodically disposed of at an
approved upland solid waste disposal site.
8. Wetlands
Filling and drainage of water bodies, floodways, backshores or natural wetlands shall be consistent with
ACMP Standards 6 AAC 80.070 (Energy Facilities) and 6 AAC 80.130 (Habitats).
6AAC 80.070 Energy Facilities - Not applicable.
6AAC 80.130 Habitats
Consistent: Yes. This project has been designed to minimize discharge of approximately 12,500
cubic yards of fill into 0.7 acres of wetlands on the northwest portion of the project site.
Reduction of the fill would require extensive site grading to provide a flat area, and could
cause as much or more impact to the area as the wetland fill.
Regarding wetlands and tideflats, 6 AAC 80.130.c.3 requires that they be managed "...to
assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels and avoid adverse effects on
natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic
substances..." The Borough has neither the scientific background nor technical expertise
available to fully evaluate consistency with this requirement and therefore defers to
ADF&G and ADEC in this regard.
Several other coastal area habitats subject to the coastal management program as
described in 6AAC 80.130 are located in Kalsin Bay. This section of the Alaska
Administrative Code requires that these habitats be managed so as to maintain or enhance
the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics contributing to the habitats to
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 18 of 27
support living resources. In addition, it requires that "...offshore areas must be managed
as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state's sport,
commercial, and subsistence fishery..." It would appear, based on testimony given by
commercial and subsistence users at the Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee
meeting, that consistency of the project with this requirement will be problematic. That
testimony established that log ship navigation in Kalsin Bay and the operation of the
transfer facility itself, including the transportation of bundled logs from the containment
boom area to the anchored ship, will disrupt, at least at certain times of the year, long
established commercial and subsistence fisheries and potentially damage gear as well as
habitat.
It should be noted that 6 AAC 80.140.d may allow uses and activities that do not
conform with the above standards if all feasible and prudent steps to maximize
conformance are taken and if there is a significant public need for the proposed use or
activity. The applicant has asserted that the safety issue of getting log truck traffic off the
Chimak Highway is just such a significant public need.
Fisheries and Seafood Processing
3. Ootimum Resource Use
Maintenance and enhancement of fisheries shall be given priority consideration over shoreline use
proposals that might adversely impact fish habitat, migratory routes, and the commercial harvest offish.
Consistent: No. Consistency with this requirement will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Testimony at the Kodiak Fish and Game Advisory Committee meeting established that
log ship navigation in Kalsin Bay and the operation of the transfer facility itself,
including transportation of bundled logs from the containment boom area to the
anchored ship, will disrupt, at least at certain times of the year, long established
commercial and subsistence fisheries and potentially damage gear as well as habitat.
Equally problematic would be achieving consistency with 6 AA 80.130 c.I (Habitats),
which further requires that "...offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries
conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state's sport, commercial, and
subsistence fishery... '
(NOTE: This finding is from the December 18, 1996 staff report, amending the January 14 staff report).
Subsistence
primary Use
Subsistence use of resources by Kodiak Island Borough residents is recognized as a primary resource use,
and shall be protected when coastal development occurs.
Consistency: Defer. Consistency determination for policies dealing with subsistence use and habitat
management are deferred to ADF&G since the Borough does not have scientific
resources or technical expertise available. Based on public hearing notice response and
testimony at public meetings from traditional subsistence users of Kalsin Bay, there is
little doubt that, periodically during periods of log transfer operations, the subsistence
fishery would be disrupted. The applicant has maintained that this potential negative
impact could be effectively and satisfactorily mitigated and the subsistence use protected
by the scheduling of log ship loading around the traditional periods of subsistence
fishing.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 19 of 27
Perhaps useful in assessing the degree to which a proposed project detracts from
subsistence as a primary resource use are the following four criteria for determining
significance of potential effects listed in the Environmental Assessment prepared by
AEIDC (University of Alaska) for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in 1987
for the Danger Bay Log Transfer Facility on Afognak:
* relative abundance and distribution of the subsistence resource;
* duration of the impact;
* relative importance to the communities/individuals of the resource and uses;
* availability of other sources of the resource.
2. Habitat Management
Habitats shall be managed in accordance with State and Federal laws to ensure that the subsistence use of
resources is a primary use.
Consistency: Defer. Consistency with this policy must be determined according to degree of
compliance with 6 AAC 80.120 (Subsistence) which dictates recognition and assurance
of opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. Only after a study
of possible adverse impacts and provision of appropriate safeguards to protect
subsistence usage as primary should other development projects be permitted. This
evaluation and determination should appropriately be done by state and federal agencies
with the scientific tools and technical expertise to conduct and/or evaluate such studies.
Coastal Access
1. Public Access
New development shall provide physical or visual access to shorelines when such access does not cause
interference with operations or hazard to life and property.
Consistency: Yes. The applicant has indicated that public access will be available from Chiniak
Highway on the road which enters the project site to traditionally used beaches north and
south of the site when the transfer facility is not in operation loading a ship. Ship
loading, estimated to take a few days, is projected to occur about once every six (6)
weeks. Public access is otherwise available to Kalsin Bay nearby over an established 17b
easement at Thumb's Up Cove.
Resource Enhancement and Protection
1. Enhancement
The maintenance and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and vegetative resources shall be a priority of the
Kodiak Island Borough.
Consistency: Defer. Proposed modifications to facility design, operation procedure, and ship
scheduling have the capability to satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts and maintain and
enhance fish, wildlife, and vegetative resources. Conditions placed by the Borough as
part of the conditional use permit (CUP) process seek to retain this maintenance as a
priority. Further stipulations may be placed by appropriate State agencies with scientific
background and technical expertise to make this determination as part of the State
Coastal Management Program Consistency Review.
2. Habitat Protection
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 20 of 27
Management of sensitive areas such as estuaries, wetlands, tideflats, beaches, rivers, streams, lake systems,
and high energy coasts shall be done in accordance with ACMP Standard 6 AAC 80.130 (Habitats).
Federal and State regulations shall guide development in anadromous fish streams, in the vicinity of bald
eagle nests, and other coastal habitat areas.
Consistency: Defer. 6 AAC 80.130 c.I (Habitats) requires that "...offshore areas must be managed as a
fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state's sport, commercial,
and subsistence fishery..." The operation of a log transfer facility in Kalsin Bay will
have impacts. Determinations as to whether they can be controlled at an acceptable level
should be based on scientific research and fact. Stipulations and conditions imposed can
minimize or eliminate negative impacts to habitat to the extent that the operation of the
LTF is determined to be consistent with this policy, as has been done in the case of
several other LTF's in Southcentral Alaska. A ongoing study by the University of
Alaska Coastal Marine Institute entitled "Recruitment of Juvenile Flatfishes in Alaska:
Habitat Preference near Kodiak Island" (OCS Study MMS 96-0003) underscores the
importance of Kalsin Bay, and well as other bays in the Kodiak Archipelago, as a habitat
and nursery grounds for the distribution and abundance of juvenile flatfishes within the
waters of the Kodiak Archipelago. Determinations regarding fish habitat should
appropriately be made by ADF&G, which has trained staff and technical expertise to do
SO.
3. Siting and Desigp
Development shall be designed, located, and built to preserve to the extent feasible and prudent natural
features.
Consistency: Yes. As defined in 6 AAC 80.900 (Definitions), "feasible and prudent" means
"...consistent with sound engineering practice and not causing environmental, social, or
economic problems that outweigh the public benefit to be derived from compliance with
the standard which is modified..." This site was selected following an evaluation of a
number of sites in the area by the applicant. That process was thorough and, according to
the applicant, intended to satisfy economic as well as public safety criteria. The
engineering of the proposed log transfer system itself has been designed to have the least
possible impact from logs being submerged in the water and is therefore sound in this
regard. Natural features in the area will be preserved, by and large, with the exception of
the eight -acre site, which will be excavated, filled and graded to create a nearly level log
sort and storage yard for upland operations.
However, the siting of the facility itself in an area of prime fish habitat and traditional
fisheries will most may have negative social and economic impacts for commercial,
subsistence and recreational users of Kalsin Bay, at least periodically.
4. Natural Processes
Estuaries, tideflats, wetlands, and lagoons shall be managed so as to assure water flow, natural circulation
patterns, and adequate nutrient and oxygen levels. Dredging and filling is not permitted in these areas,
unless approved by the Community Development Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other
appropriate state and federal agencies.
Consistency: Yes. According to a representative of ADF&G, Habitat Division, most beaches in Kalsin
` Bay are classified as fairly high-energy, with substantial wave and tide cleansing and
(\ scouring action. This, in conjunction with the minimal in -water impact of the transfer
system as designed, will help to assure maintenance of existing water flow, circulation
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 21 of 27
patterns, and nutrient and oxygen levels. This project proposes to discharge
(l approximately 12,500 cubic yards of fill over approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands at the
northwest corner of the projects uplands site. Review of proposed wetland fill activities
will be conducted by the Corps of Engineers through their permitting process.
Upland habitats shall be managed to retain natural drainage patterns, prevent excessive
runoff and erosion, surface water quality, and natural ground water recharge areas.
Consistency: Defer. The existing slope of the site runs from east to west. According to the project
proposal, material excavated from the east edge of the site will be used to fill the low,
wet areas on the west side of the site. The overall result would be to reverse the natural
existing slope of the site creating a yard grade of two degrees to the east. The intent of
this is to direct surface runoff into a storm water system to prevent bark leachates,
petroleum by-products from heavy equipment yard operations, and other sediment from
contaminating surface water sources. Runoff in the ditch will flow north into two twenty
by thirty (20'x30') foot settling ponds from which, in theory, clean runoff will flow
through a twelve -inch (12") culvert across the beach berm to Kalsin Bay.
The Borough does not have the scientific background and technical expertise to
determine whether this system will effectively maintain existing surface water quality or
natural ground water charge areas. This review and evaluation, as well as evaluation of
the effectiveness of the proposed settlement system, is more appropriately accomplished
by ADEC.
Air and Water Quality
2. State -of -the -Art Technology
Equipment and procedures utilizing the most effective technology currently feasible for limiting emissions
and effluents, and for handling, cleanup, and disposal of oil and hazardous materials
Consistency: Defer. Staff does not have technical expertise to recommend a consistency determination
for this policy. That a surface runoff collection and settlement system consisting of a
ditch and ponds is being proposed along the east edge of the site is acknowledgment that
there will be bark leachate, sediment, and petroleum by-product residue from the
operation of the facility. Whether the proposed system is state-of-the-art technology that
will effectively limit emissions and effluents, and handle cleanup and disposal of oil and
hazardous materials, should be determined by ADEC as part of the coastal consistency
review of the project.
Dredge and Fill
Coastal development shall minimize dredge and fill activities and adverse impacts on habitat, water quality
and floodwater retention values when siting and constructing facilities.
Consistency: Yes. No dredging in the water is being proposed. Fill activity is minimized by
confinement to upland area on the northwest part of the project site, including
approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands.
However, construction of the rail system more than 200 feet into Kalsin Bay and of the
log boom containment area beyond that, placement of ship moorage buoys, and
introduction of logs into the bay for transfer to a ship, even periodically, would have
impacts on fish habitat that would seem to be adverse if for no other reason than it would
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 22 of 27
inevitably change, in some way, the natural state of existing habitat. The degree of
adversity of that impact, and effectiveness of mitigation efforts, should appropriately be
determined as a part of the coastal consistency review process by agencies such as
ADF&G and ADEC who have the scientific background and technical expertise to make
such determinations.
Archeological/Historical Resources
Resource Identification
Prehistoric archaeological sites not already protected by federal and state programs shall be identified and
preserved to the extent feasible and prudent
Consistency: Defer. This consistency determination is deferred to the Office of History and
Archaeology, DNR, which has identified a potentially significant archaeological site
(KOD-411) in the project area which is unevaluated for National Register eligibility. In
addition, there may be two or three other historical sites in the beach berm area and
southwest parts of the project area.
Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Officer to the Corps of Engineers
dated Nov. 1, 1996 states: "The project as planned will almost certainly damage or
destroy two or more sites. To meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800, additional intensive
archaeological survey will need to be done to identify all sites in the project area and
determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places."
According to the applicant, a historical site in the project area has been surveyed and
documented for its archeological attributes by the Alutiiq Museum staff and will be
separated from the log yard and transfer system by the buffer proposed for the north and
east boundaries of the site. Ultimate compliance with requirements noted above and
consistency with this policy should be determined by DGC with input from the Office of
History and Archeology through as part of the coastal consistency review.
The motion was SECONDED and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote.
LINDA FREED informed the audience that the CUP was a local permit that was
appealable to the Borough Assembly, however, the consistency determination is a
State decision, and the Kodiak Island Borough is only one commenting party.
She pointed out that a number of other State agencies would also likely submit
comments to DGC as part of the review process, and that there was an appeal
process for the consistency decision as well. She stated that those interested in
finding out more about the consistency review process or the applicable appeal
processes could contact the Community Development Department.
COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER returned to the dias.
B) Case 97-001. Planning and Zoning Commission determination, according to
Section 17.36.050.0 (Non -conforming uses and structures), of the Borough Code,
that an auto repair and welding shop is equally appropriate or more appropriate to
the Rl-Single Family Residential zoning district than a small convenience store
and video arcade located on Lot 23B, U.S. Survey 3099. 2657 Metrokin Way.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 23 of 27
BOB SCHOLZE indicated 27 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and
5 were returned, 3 opposing this request, and 2 in favor of the similar use
determination. Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter to the
Commission requesting postponement of this request until the February, 1997
regular meeting, due to an illness. Staff recognized that it would be consistent
with the recommendation made by staff in 1994 regarding a nonconforming use
determination on this property for the Commission to find that the use of the
commercial structure on Lot 23B for convenience store and video arcade is more
appropriate than the proposed automobile repair/welding shop. Accordingly this
request to replace the convenience store/video arcade with an auto repair/welding
shop should be denied. Staff also recognized that it would be appropriate for the
Commission, in making this determination, to weigh heavily on public hearing
responses indicating impact on the neighborhood. He reminded the Commission
that the zoning in this neighborhood is RI -Single Family residential.
COMMISSIONER SELIG MOVED TO FIND, in accordance with Section
17.36.050.0 of the Borough Code, that the use of the commercial structure on Lot
23B, U.S. Survey 3099, for an automobile repair and welding shop is equal to, or
more appropriate than the presently permitted nonconforming use, previously
determined to be appropriate in the R1—Single-family Residential zoning district,
of convenience store/video arcade.
The motion was SECONDED.
Regular Session Closed.
Public Hearing Opened:
Brad Smith, adjacent property owner, appeared before the Commission and
expressed opposition to this request. He stated that his lot bordering the welding
shop was assessed at a lesser value than his other lots for the very reason that it
was located next to this industrial use. He does not want a convenience store and
video arcade next to his residential property, but he thought that it would be less
of a negative impact than the automobile repair shop. He hoped the Commission
would work toward returning the residential atmosphere to the neighborhood and
stay away from encouraging industrial uses.
Mark Henrv, of 2685 Metrokin Way, appeared before the Commission and
expressed support for this request. He had observed, while the video store/arcade
was in operation, that a lot of of vandalism occurred on the property and that it
acted as a hang-out for kids. He said that he would prefer a welding shop, with a
responsible owner, to a video store/arcade or even a vacant building.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 24 of 27
Brad Smith appeared again and requested that the Commission not postpone
action on this case. He felt postponement was unnecessary.
LINDA FREED read two letters of opposition from Jamie Fagan and from Mrs.
Smith, as well as the request from the applicant for postponement.
Marie Coleman, wife of applicant, called in to express her desire for
postponement and to reiterate that the video store/arcade had been a problem for
them as property owners, with many instances of vandalism and mischief. She
did not feel that the video store/arcade was a healthy environment for youth in the
area.
Public Hearing Closed.
Regular Session Opened.
COMMISSIONER STEWART MOVED TO POSTPONE action on Case 97-
001 until the February, 1997 regular meeting.
The motion was SECONDED and CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote.
The Commission directed staff to advertise another public hearing for this case at
the February meeting.
C) Case S94-001. Request for preliminary approval of the subdivision of Lot 4,
Block 1, Kadiak Alaska Subdivision, First Addition, creating Lots 4A, 4B, 4C and
4D, Block 1, Kadiak Alaska Subdivision, First Addition and Plover Way. 3420
Rezanof Drive.
BOB SCHOLZE indicated 9 public hearing notices were mailed for this case and
none were returned. Staff recommended postponement of this request, upon
written request of the applicant, to allow for the resolution of several outstanding
issues.
COMMISSIONER SELIG MOVED TO POSTPONE action on Case S94-001
until the February, 1997 regular meeting and to schedule it for a public hearing.
The motion was SECONDED.
Regular Session Closed.
Public Hearing Opened:
Seeing and hearing none.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 25 of 27
LA
Public Hearing Closed.
Regular Session Opened.
The question was called and the motion CARRIED by unanimous roll call vote.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A) Election of Officers
This item was postponed until the February meeting.
IX. COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.
X. REPORTS
LINDA FREED reported that the next regular worksession on January 29 would include
a presentation by the Borough Clerk on Parlaimentary Procedure. She added that the
February 5 worksession was scheduled as a review of pending and upcoming
Commission projects and goal setting for 1997. MS. FREED also briefly reviewed
HB28, which, if adopted, would repeal the Alaska Coastal Management Program, and
reported on the recent discussion with the Alaska Department of Transportation
concerning their State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project planning for
the upcoming three years.
There were no further reports.
t 111 '1[GOE41I v l U `M1
DR. BOB JOHNSON, Assembly Representative to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for January and February, stated that what he witnessed tonight was a remarkable
demonstration of citizen participation in the process of government, which the Borough
Assembly and City Council encouraged and were trying to improve.
COMMISSIONER SCHEIDLER commented that this (the log transfer facility) was a
very hard issue for her to sit out because of her mixed feelings on about the case. She
reiterated her respect for the Commission, and their deliberation on the issue.
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 26 of 27
ACTING CHAIR TURNER commended staff on their work on the LTF request. She
't commented that it was the most difficult case she has ever participated in and that she
was encouraged by the public participation.
x
XM. ADJOURNMENT
ACTING CHAIR TURNER adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OWN/i. �i
�. �� WINES
ATTEST
By: 1/1 Q ��
Eileen Probasco, Secretary
Community Development Department
DATE APPROVED: February 19, 1997
P & Z Minutes: January 24, 1997 Page 27 of 27
Kodiak Island Borough r 1
�' JAN 2 4 1997 J
Planning and Zoning Commission u, L.
710 Mill Bay Rd. �, _
Kodiak, AK 99615 CfiMAiUN�TYOc:cLOP�„ENr
DEPA'RTuENr
Dear Mr. Friend:
My comments are in response to the proposed log tansfer facility proposed by
Leisnoi at Myrtle Creek.
Leisoni claims to be sensitive to the impact that their development would have on
the recreational importance of their lands as it would affect the quality of life for
those who call Kodiak home. Yet, they continue to emphasize that this is private
lands. Reading between the lines, does this not mean the Leisnoi plans to do
with their lands as they deem fit regardless of the impact? Are they not just paying
lip service to us all that this transfer facilitiy can indeed coexist with nature and not
impact the Myrtle Creek area. Do not insult my intelligence, there is nothing natural
about a log transfer facility. We have all seen the facility at Woman's Bay. Both
my husband and I have sports fished the Myrtle Creek waters simultaneously with
commercial fisheries. To state that a log transfer facility would not impact both of
these endeavors is to simply don blinders and not face simple fact. Many Kodiak
residents who subsistence fish are going to find that their traditional fishing grounds
are rendered contaminated by logs, log debris, and the inevitable oil leakage from
moored vessels. I believe it is in the best interest of all of Kodiak to disallow this log
transfer facility.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila N. Bermel
o d
JAN 2 41997� �I
CJc(nActvy aHI1901-7
kOc4�ak PICAk1hI() Lvr)irkj Co,;lret( -.iv;i
A-T rLN T1 o %\!
Te rr-c j er;e.a\c(-
17c.'nY\LL �c1�
DG�t'I-W)d-'Tit: r'N
,�Ltzrcv\vlri l}cc��r
VJ
, 1
ht ; Lfl=7Y, [;:7 :1--n /i.•s 1rr G(.:r 5,G:1 4-c C>:.L ld "A.-
t . 1
IoG� 'f�(.Arlj��/i �C<f..t�tl./ o, �A r-I1�= l': i%.,V
(<lCc�r" (�''iF.;'r,�7e,•r � � 1 'I"I•tC. 1�.;.��rit :`:,�. ; t
�1 yetir 0C)t,, rr r :r;� t,. ;�� (< { �•�
YC. r— .:` ; FI t �.c.`.,h:-+ `.��r. t r-- 1 r.: • ;�:`� � `
(:Ci t h 17rG r G�'tt :,'.r j CA., ct-I V\% c: i._t i , v,•i rr.l •r.Z%
=.C.W We <. J�
r-dt LO&4 l ''tr:y: Ctil�lil c'` ( a_ r :�tl r�t� j-f a4 ea -41r,,;, f %lam' h-r4.'i4,-A
--o do wh0.4 +*i-ie,� C06\1d '+L-, t--tj1ev1cli.e
Out .(t0ao
`
� _oci_t1/1[} L'.i rvla,; rat�iy
r.tlJSi CQ�iS h.t'Lejr\ f �u '111.•_ \r C! th
:v\'�10..
�i.lhl(L
r G.\G�•�^ Or1l,S n-+� �'�I' u�'` U--', -%1": `i (4-[.
1�'lclt' �Nlr•:�� 1.\
C
d c)-o .v LI�U(A C"q r1 ec�'.�.�<:
i'=\- (�Vl �rl \Cl•�., 'n.a.i Ylc(i �::. •1 f'. t+,�-, l.�r, t\;hCi� � "t✓�'t ,t_ r.v t�.F:\�� .
r
��iG>fYl \SC�'7 Yl', .%ct C_ , •tl>YGT-\.->C 'n �: C1`<''t1 •
r� � ! -�a \lc.,� : -C 1� � : •• ; v�11 , U.., �`11.1 ei 1E `�1:..r✓ (_e�r� o :�-i-\ c} : � •ih c."�'
V
-►-h -7 �_. ► E^ v I7.., c:-1 t nN w', li Y1.9.i r1 A-C Yv-�` 1L1 -� Y,Cr
«Z.v1-1rrt.1_vYt 4 ice. : izrt-'\ 1 J
1'h v._ 0 f C Fr,—; jA i D Yj C_c.l-' - � u Y
Pr14o?C(.)•14'r}j 1 �rU�`Gr1,r}C•, t_;<<.:"
(i
rC Cx._ ` • .` C :v�.�`o. ;...� �- �r �,• �..1'` f.' `_. , rJ .�i "I:Yl1\ flr �..
0
-4
To the Commission,
In trying to make some sense of this controversy, I found the following in a
document in the packet: ROWAN BAY ... Theodore Meyers, 1977. p.18
Only a major research effort could adequately define the impact of
water related logging activities upon the local aquatic habitat and attenclent
species. In Alaska, this would require several years of baseline studies in
order to gain insight on the local aquatic communities existing under natural
conditions. Until such research is completed, the timber resources versus
fishery resources controversy will continue to vacillate under the influence
of dominant individuals active at any point in time...
Furthermore, even under the most optimistic program commitments,
research results would not be available to augment resource management
decisions for 5 - 12 years after program initiation.
I have several comments. Why do you allow one industry to impact another
industry - one that is the presiding activity of Kalsin Bay.
Why don't we do some baseline studies here at Kalsin Bay. Why don't we
study the effects of the Transfer Facility on Afognak Island before you go
ahead with this project. Let's study it close to home since many of the
variables are the same.
You hear the testimony from the people. All the people who use the area,
are saying no to this project. I hope you take into consideration the
testimony from the people.
Elizabeth Odell
Box 5589 Chiniak
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
ez,� +�eaF�S . = 1
iJE
I �
G S��s�sience ���esTy�e G+��c� c� re j��e 111�rfi
1 e S cen
s C��in y`� r19
ClC�V'�CU / I J
1
�es ,
, (A rv\r
I r, cr h
.kt 5� � ►1fi2i-�-K,
t"
IG
Statement for Planning and Zoning Commission,
Kodiak Island Borough
Friday, January 24, 1997
I want to start by telling you that in the past I have been:
Chairman of Planning and Zoning Commission, Johnsonburg, PA.
Deputy Director of Redevelopment Authority of Armstrong
County, PA.
Director of Urban Renewal and Coordinator of Community
Development, Jamestown, ND.
Director of Urban Renewal, Iowa City, IA.
As you can see from my background, I am well familiar with
the tasks you have to accomplish, the process you have to follow, and
the difficulties you must face. With this in mind I wish to address my
remarks in two areas: (1) concerns about the process and (2)
concerns about the Log Transfer Facility. I have prepared a
thoughtful statement in writing; let me request that I be allowed to
present it without interruption.
Concerns about the Process:
As I observe the process that has been followed in this matter,
I am concerned that some procedures have been inappropriate:
1. I understand that David Nesheim was a member of this
commission for about a year prior to presenting this application on
behalf of Lesnoi, Inc.. Properly, he resigned from the Commission
prior to submitting that application and technically there is not a
conflict of interest. However, his membership, in such close proximity
to this action, suggests the possibility of giving undue weight to his
influence and may be questionable participation on his part.
2. In previous meetings "emotional" testimony has been
discounted. Perhaps we should make a distinction between
"emotional" words that may be irrational and inflammatory and
feelings that come from the heart and experience of people. These
people, who are citizens of this Borough, have strong feelings about
their home and the quality of their life. Some of them have lived in
the area for 20-30 years, long before Lesnoi existed, long before the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was passed. The reason for
holding a Public Hearing is to hear what those people have to say.
3. At the Public Hearing that was held last week in Chiniak,
David Nesheim was asked if he would like to make a presentation at
the beginning or at the end of the meeting. The consequence of this
was to give up a leadership decision to Mr. Nesheim and allow him to
avoid making any formal presentation at all.
4. At that same Public Hearing the rules laid out by the
Chairman called for a five minute time limit. However this time limit
was never enforced on Lesnoi allowing them to take up
approximately 50% of the time.
5. The one time that the 5 minute rule was invoked was when
a fisherman, Chuck McWethy, came forth to present testimony and
was so frequently interrupted that he was not able to make a proper
presentation. Then he was called for taking more than five minutes.
6. At the Public hearing in Chiniak, representatives from
Lesnoi, Inc. were allowed to rebut, interrupt, harass, badger and
intimidate participants freely and without restraint.
7.On several occasions the chairman himself offered rebuttal to
testimony from participants. Clearly this would indicate a
predetermined bias in favor of the applicant and suggests the
possibility of using the influence of the Chair to promote the
applicant.
For these reasons I am concerned that the process that has
been used has been unbalanced and unfair
Concerns about the Log Transfer Facility:
Amid the abundance of words and paper that have flowed
from Lesnoi, Inc., I hope that the commission takes careful note of
some of the long term effects of this issue:
1. If this permit is issued you will be establishing, for the first
time, and industrial facility in an area that has heretofore been
maintained as a conservation district. Kalsin Bay will have a shipping
lane running down the middle of it. There is no industry there now,
there are no large ships moving in and out of the Bay. The area will
be forever changed.
2. Furthermore, by taking this action you will establish a
precedent that opens the possibility for other industrial facilities, and
other shipping operations to come into the area.
3. There are fourteen (14) conditions which attempt to address
some of the concerns that have been raised about this facility. No one
has addressed the question of how these conditions will be enforced.
Who will pay the cost? Does the Borough have the manpower to
monitor this facility for compliance to the conditions?
4.One of those conditions, condition number four (#4), requires
a cash bond of $5000 to ensure proper cleanup of the facility when it
is abandoned. That is surely not an adequate amount to cover the
cost for cleanup. This can hardly be a restraint to a company that can
afford to spend $500 a day in advertising.
5. Lesnoi has the time and money to exercise a strong influence
on this matter. They have a full time employee who can take the
time to influence the Borough staff in preparing their report. They
have the money to place full page ads in the newspaper to promote
their interest. They have published an overwhelming amount of
paper. They have filled you with words and promises. In all these
things they are promoting their own self interest.
6. Listen to the people. In all the testimony so far, no one has
spoken in favor of this facility. No one. In a democratic process, the
will of the people should prevail. That is why we hold Public
Hearings, to hear the will of the people. You as a planning and Zoning
Commission are charged with representing the will of the people.
Listen to the people.
Thank you for your attention.
Paul Alexander
January 24, 1997
Re: Lesnoi - CUP Application for Log Transfer Facility (LTF)
Kodiak Island, Chiniak Bay
Chairman and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission,
As in any legislation or proposal that is developed by staff and
placed in front of the Public for comment, the issues exchanged
can have an impact on the decision making process.
The Commission acts, ideally, independent of all other forces to
ensure their deliberation is unclouded. Staff acts as a
resource.
I found it interesting that initially Borough Code Section
17.67.050A, which applies to the presentation of the value,
spirit, character and integrity of the surrounding area, was in
conflict with this project but now is met through certain con-
ditions developed by staff and/or the Commission and adjustments
as to intent for the project guidelines made by the applicant.
I found it interesting that KIB Code Section 17.67.010 was not
applicable initially but now appears to be, although it is not
readdressed specifically in the Findings of Fact to now support
the LTF. I would submit that staff needs to be consistent in
addressing these points, counter points and conditions which are
placed on the CUP. If applicable to this section, it should be
identified as to how it meets this code or the intent thereof.
After all, if it did not fit initially, how does it now apply?
The following are specific recommendations for amendments and
additions to the Conditions of Approval.
No. 2 after (on January 30, 2001) add: with a two-year interim
progress review to ensure the intent of the CUP and other agency
permits requirements are being met.
after - last sentence Impacts, that there have been no
infractions of any conditions of the CUP or other regulatory
agency permit requirements.
No. 3 - Increase bond to $ 50,000.00
No. 4 - Insert after prior to:
issuance of a CUP permit and beginning construction on
the LTF
No. 4 - Insert after prior to:
issuance of a CUP permit and beginning construction on
the LTF
No. 11 - Insert after prior to:
issuance of a CUP permit and beginning operation
Page Two
No. 13 - Insert after prior to:
issuance of a CUP permit and beginning operation
New Conditions:
No. 15 - that a spill response plan with equipment in place be
completed and approved by the KIB Community Development
after public review and prior to the issuance of the
CUP permit or the beginning of construction of the LTF.
No. 16 - an ingress and egress highway play be developed and
approved by KIB Planning and Zoning Commission and DOT
for log truck traffic patterns at the point of the LTF
yard to insure that traffic users especially those
traveling on a regular basis are fully aware of the log
truck traffic and that the minimal distance of clear
visibility of the inlet and outlet approval to the LTF
yard is 1,000 feet.
No. 17 - This conditional use permit is contingent upon review
and approval by all applicable federal and state
permitting agencies.
Comments:
This is not a Native non -Native issue. It is an issue of a land
owner's right to develop land for commercial use and to ensure
that the use of the land is compatible with the environment in
which the commercial enterprise takes place. The recommendations
for amendments to existing condition language and new conditions
to be added is merely to strengthen the security of the citizenry
of Kodiak Island and the already existing and major industry of
fisheries and the users thereof.
Additionally, the changes ensure that the CUP permit is granted
but that prior to issuance by the KIB, applicant has to show con-
sideration both in compliance to all conditions of the KIB or
federal or state agency permitting requirements but have in place
surveys, water quality, spill response, traffic safety plans and
bonds to ensure the citizenry that they are a good neighbor and
that these very issues are addressed adequately before rather
than after the fact.
This brings no burden to the applicants as they would need to
meet the conditions regardless, but it does bring relief to the
citizenry and members of the fishery business that their neighbor
has exposed the full scale of operation with all requirements in
place prior to the development of the LTF.
These comments are made without prejudice to either party but are
made to ensure that if this permit is approved, that all practic-
able safeguards are in place to the best of all of our abilities
Page Three
and that both the Kodiak Island Borough Community Development
staff and Planning zoning Commission are an integral part of the
results as they represent the entire citizenry of Kodiak, Alaska.
sincerely,
,-Jack L. McFarland_
Borough Resident
ERNEST M. SCHEIDLER
POST OFFICE BOX 8125
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
January 20, 1997
Mr. Jerrold Friend
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
RE- Application by Leisnoi Inc For a conditional use lermit to operate a log transfer
faciI4 at Myrtle Creek on Kalsin Bay in the vicinijy of Chiniak. Alaska
I come before this Commission as a member of a family whose income is provided in a large
part by the timber industry. 1 am proud of my wife's association with Afognak Native
Corporation who are harvesting their timber resources on Afognak Island. I am also proud of
Afognak's commitment to the values of this community, and their contributions to this
community.
Now a Corporation has come to you with a request for a conditional use permit. Many
conditions have been attached to this conditional use permit with the intent of addressing
community concerns over certain issues. I would contend, however, that the high level of
objections to this conditional use permit will never be appeased no matter how many
conditions you attach. To me, the issue at hand is not about logging, it's not about Native
Corporation's, it's not about private property rights. What this all boils down to is character,
ethics, responsibility and trust.
This request for a conditional use permit is a business deal, an agreement, a contract. In its
essence, this contract says that Leisnoi will do this and this, and in exchange the conditional
use permit grants them the first step in gaining access to the use of certain public resources,
notably the tidelands area and the use of offshore facilities, neither of which they own. In
return for the use of these facilities, Leisnoi is claiming that the community will receive short
term economic benefits of up to ten years. You as commissioners are charged with deciding
if this is a good business deal for the community. To be blunt, can Leisnoi be trusted to hold
up its end of the deal once it has its conditional use permit in hand? It has been my
experience, and I believe this community's experience, that the actions of Leisnoi
demonstrate a corporation which is particularly lacking in the characteristics which make a
good business deal work to everyone's satisfaction.
Since the beginning of its logging operations in Chiniak, Leisnoi has demonstrated a history of
abuse of the public trust. The community of Chiniak in Leisnoi's four short years of logging
i operations has had to deal with at least three presidents, three logging operators, and we've
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 20, 1997
Page 2
lost count of the trucking operators. We all remember the ethics violation of our former
State Senator, Fred Zharoff, who while Acting President of Leisnoi was taped at a Leisnoi
Board Meeting stating that he would use his political office as leverage in Leisnoi's favor. Then
there was the illegal Log Transfer Facility in Kalsin Bay next to Ginny Sargent's place. A
scheme which was built as if no one would notice. The community of Chiniak was promised
that there would be regular public meetings to keep the community informed of Leisnoi's
logging plans. But we watched them go from selective cutting to clear cutting and now we
find that they plan to begin logging activities on two of the major watershed drainages, the
Roslyn River and Twin Creeks on February I of this year. With this Myrtle Creek facility, this
will put development on every major drainage of the Chiniak community with no public
meetings or discussions of how the logging will proceed and how Leisnoi is approaching their
activity in these sensitive areas with regard to the community's watershed.
Then there is the arrogance which Leisnoi displays to this community. We all watched them
squirm under the public fury over the appearance of No Trespassing signs along the Chiniak
Highway which ultimately cost them the political resolution to the Stratman litigation they
were seeking through U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski. The community rose up and stated
that resolution of this issue should be decided fairly by the courts, and not through political
favors of our Alaskan Congressional Delegation.
Then there are the frequent assertion of private property rights. We all enjoy the same rights,
but with those rights come responsibilities. That is what Planning and Zoning is all about.
Chiniak was a community prior to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and before the
creation of Leisnoi, Inc. However, Leisnoi has never respected the community's
comprehensive plan which calls for visual buffers along all residential areas, public roads, and
public lands. In addition the plan calls for the protection of the Chiniak Watershed. Then
Leisnoi President Ed Ward's response in a public meeting in Chiniak to our concern over
respect of the community's Comprehensive Plan which has been adopted in Borough
Ordinance is that Leisnoi can log to our property lines and there is nothing we can do about
it. A more responsible, a more community minded corporation would have recognized
Chiniak's right to exist as a community and would have taken steps to comply with the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan on their own volition. Leisnoi has created an
environment where the community has become deeply polarized with its major landowner
because that landowner has demonstrated that they will always act in their own short term
interest as opposed to long term planning and cooperation.
There have also been conflicting statements made by Leisnoi throughout the public process.
For example, there have been conflicting statements made about the intent to log the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January20, 1997
Pagege33
Monashka Bay area. Of course, logging that area would put the trucks right back on the road
to the proposed Log Transfer Facility at Kalsin Bay. But perhaps it is not wise to think too far
ahead and speculate whether this Corporation would ignore the timber assets of Monashka in
the future. Then there is the issue of whether or not this Log Transfer Facility is needed to
make Leisnoi's operations economically viable. There were statements made by Dave
Nesheim at both the Fishermen's Hall meeting and a Planning and Zoning work session that
Leisnoi loses money on a material percentage of their timber under the current operations.
However, when fisherman Chuck McWethy attempted to bring up that fact at the Chiniak
public hearing, all three Leisnoi representatives, President Bruce Robertson, CEO Ed Ward
and Lands Manager Dave Nesheim all shook their heads and looked at each other and did a
three stooges routine of "Did you say that?", " I didn't say that", 'Who said that", in an obvious
attempt to derail Mr. McWethy's presentation, in which they succeeded.
Then there is the small matter of a dump truck which according to the story told was
operating illegally on the Chiniak Highway without plates or rear safety equipment (no lights).
Chiniak residents reported the truck but when State Troopers inquired about the vehicle they
were told that the vehicle had not been operating on the State Highway and in fad was in the
shop. Soon thereafter, on a dark morning when it was blowing northeast 45, a Chiniak
resident drove up on this truck (it had no rear lights) and reported it. The Troopers located
the vehicle and issued the citation. The point is, if Leisnoi will lie about something as small as
a motor vehicle operating without plates and safety equipment, do you trust them to notify
the Borough over as sensitive an issue as a violation at the proposed Log Transfer Facility?
These are examples of the ones we know about. As they say, 99% of the iceberg is below
the surface.
There is a popular notion these days that says that government must be run more like private
business. One of the most important duties of any business is to guard against the loss of its
assets. As a Planning and Zoning Commissioner, your stockholders are the public who own
property in this community and your assets are the public resources. You ultimately control
what this community will look like through the Planning and Zoning process. The public are
all shareholders which includes your families and your families heirs. The lone advocate for
the Log Transfer Facility is Leisnoi. No one else stands with them. From the working
public's point of view this is a bad business deal and unacceptable risk of a major asset for little
return. This is because Leisnoi is perceived and has a history of dealing in bad faith with this
community.
Remember the parable of the frog and the scorpion? Briefly, there once was a scorpion at
the side of a wide river. He wished to cross the river because hunting was better on the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 20. 1997
Page 4
other side. However, scorpions cannot swim and so he asked a nearby frog if the frog would
please carry him across the river on his back. The frog refused saying, "If I let you on my
back, you will sting me and I will die." The scorpion replied, "No, no, no. For I need to
cross the river and if I sting you we both would die for I cannot swim and I would drown."
The frog acknowledged that this made sense and agreed reluctantly to carry the scorpion
across. The scorpion climbed on the frog's back and the frog began to swim. About halfway
across the river the frog felt a sharp pain in his back. He knew the scorpion had stung him.
'Why oh why did you sting me, scorpion? Now we will both surely die."
"Because it is my nature." replied the scorpion. "Because it is my nature."
If I may repeat what many people at the Chiniak public hearing said to you, when given a
choice between the logging trucks on the road and a log transfer facility at Kalsin Bay, the
emphatic response was they would rather have the trucks on the road. What accounts for
this seemingly unusual declaration?
I believe again it is a matter of trust and integrity. We know we can trust the integrity and
diligence of the Alaska State Troopers to keep Leisnoi operating legally on the roads, and
provide enforcement of safety and equipment standards. We cannot trust Leisnoi to operate
a log transfer facility at Myrtle Creek because there is no way to ensure that Leisnoi is
operating withing applicable agency standards as well as the conditions of the permit. With
the departure of DEC engineer Bill Reith, who I have had the privilege of working closely
with, the Kodiak DEC shop is no longer capable of providing enforcement of the nature
required by the LTF. And the Borough, by their own admission, does not possess the
necessary expertise or personnel to be an effective watchdog. We cannot trust Leisnoi to
operate a log transfer facility at Myrtle Creek, because there are no practical oversight
mechanisms to guard the health of Kalsin Bay and Leisnoi cannot be trusted to be a
responsible member of this community and police itself. It's just not their nature.
Now I must turn to the second issue on my agenda which I find difficult to address. This is
because I must take this Commission to task. I an reluctant to do so because I know what an
unpleasant feeling it is to give of yourself in a public position with little or no thanks and then
be brought to task by some irate citizen. I know this from personal experience. I admire
each of you for your gift of service to this community and I applaud you for it. However, I
must address the manner in which the Chiniak public hearing was conducted on January 15,
1997.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 20, 1997
Page S
The public hearing in question began by the Chairman laying out the procedure for the
meeting as we had a large turnout. Each person was to limit his testimony to five minutes,
and all comments and testimony would require the recognition of the chair to take the floor.
The chair then turned to Dave Nesheim and asked whether he would like to go first or last.
This was our first due as to the direction this so called public hearing was to take. As the
applicant, Leisnoi should not have been granted that option, but should have been required
to make their presentation first. Dave elected to go last.
So testimony began with the chair referring questions posed to the commissioners to the staff
of Leisnoi. Soon, however, Leisnoi was asking the chair for the opportunity to respond not
to questions, but to concerns and comments presented by the public to the commission.
This then further deteriorated with Leisnoi rebutting all comments, and in some cases
testimony and comments were rebutted by the Chair. I carve to that meeting Mr. Chair
with prepared testimony. But I quietly pocketed it about an hour into the meeting as what
started as a public hearing devolved into a public bashing with Leisnoi staff allowed to freely
interrupt, comment and dispute the hearing each member of the community tried to present.
The result is that Leisnoi received well over 50% of the time when it was our understanding
that the Commission traveled to Chiniak to hear testimony from the people who lived there.
What I saw was that the meeting was not about hearing the concerns of the residents of
Chiniak, but rather to convince the residents that this Log Transfer Facility application was a
reasonable request. Many of us left feeling that the application was a done deal, and that we
had been set up.
Given the Commissions sensitivity to the appearance of bias, the meeting in Chiniak was an
extraordinary event for nothing could have demonstrated a bias in favor of the applicant more
clearly than the manner in which this meeting was conducted.
And finally, a comment on ballast water. Oddly enough, I have some personal experience
with this issue through my profession as a wastewater and water treatment plant operator. I
am from a small town on Lake Huron, and last summer on a visit back to see Mom I had the
opportunity to visit the Water Treatment Plant facility and of course we talked shop. THE big
issue in the water industry on the Great Lakes is the effect of foreign invaders called zebra
mussels which come into the Great Lakes through ballast water of ships. With no natural
indigenous predators, this creature is costing municipalities hundreds of thousands of dollars
to remove from their intake structures for municipal water. A more ominous effect of the
population explosion of these creatures is that they are clearing the water of the lakes as they
filter it through their bodies. Sounds good until further research has shown that they are so
efficient that they are wiping out the bottom of the food chain. Without the small creatures to
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 20, 1997
Page 6
feed the big fish whole ecosystems of the Great Lakes will be altered forever. This is not
speculation. The damage to the commercial and sports fishing industries will be enormous.
To conclude, I very much would have liked to have stood before you in favor of this
application. I feel strongly that it is in the best interests of our community to have its Native
Corporations economically strong and healthy, as the benefit that flows back in the forms of
payments to vendors, taxes and dividends to their shareholders which are then spent in the
community is a strong economic machine. I would like to see Leisnoi successful and a good
neighbor who interacts with other property owners in a non -confrontational way. And I
would like to see our Chiniak Comprehensive Plan fully implemented so that all who have
built their lives in Chiniak, Leisnoi included, understand and respect the objectives of a Plan
that was designed to maintain the character of Chiniak. But as stated previously, it's just not
the nature of Leisnoi. And the Standards of Chapter 17.67.050 C, that granting this
conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health, safety, convenience and
comfort cannot be guaranteed with any certainty.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ernest M, Scheidler
Lot 8, Brookers Lagoon Subdivision
I am a lifetime Kodiakan who has lived in Chiniak for six
( months. I hope my neighbors can forgive me for thinking like a
Kodiakan on this issue. I have seen many changes as our area has
grown. I have often heard it said that after the fish are gone, after
the trees are harvested, we will have tourism to fall back onto and
we will be able to show the world our Island beauty forever. I
wonder what we will have left to show?
Reflecting on this current issue which affects us all has caused
me, in part, to become mindful of the past. Anyone who remembers
Gibson Cove in its pristine condition could tell you what an asset to
this community it would be, had it been preserved in that state. A
well thought out Urban Renewal plan could have given us a town as
charming as the one destroyed by the tsunami in 1964. Several
years ago, an honest tourist bluntly stated that my town resembled
nothing more than the industrial area of his town. A road system
tour changed that person's perspective of where we really are and
what we are about.
A few days ago I picked up a copy of the 1997 Kodiak Visitor's
Guide, a well -designed publication that does an excellent job of
showcasing what we have to offer. Among the attractions, there is a
two -page spread covering the road system, complete with mileage
logs. Although the future home of the Kodiak Rocket Launch site is
pointed out, the log storage facility at Women's Bay and the Chiniak
logging areas are not. Isn't the average tourist more curious about
something he or she can readily see, rather than what has yet to
materialize? Could it be surmised that we are proud of the one place
and ashamed of the others?
In the 1950's it was a real treat for my family to "go out the
road" to visit Jake Blank on the south shore of Kalsin Bay. Even as a
small child I realized this was a special place, it was nothing like
town, nothing like all the places we passed to get there. I wanted to
live there. I never dreamed it would be possible, but now I do live
there.
If this bay is preserved as it is, it will be an asset to all of
Kodiak Island. A pure and yet easily accessible place that we can all
be proud to show off and to enjoy for ourselves. A place where
someone yet unborn can stand upon the shore and reflect on what a
wise decision was made to keep this land as it was, as it is, for all
time.
1v1-ar hoski