BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. SSDP ) Kevin Robinson ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS ) AND DECISION For a Shoreline Substantial Development ) Permit (SSDP). ) ) SUMMARY OF DECISION A request for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) for a previously installed quarry spall wedge located on the marine slope, a 40 x 4 rock bulkhead, a french drain, and a tight line drainage system, is APPROVED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: The Applicant requests approval of a SSDP for the installation of: 1) a quarry spall wedge located on the marine slope; 2) a 40 x 4 rock bulkhead; and 3) a drainage system including a french drain, and a tightline. The subject property is located within the Conservancy Shoreline Environment and adjacent to Budd Inlet at 8235 Zangle Road Northeast, Olympia, Washington Hearing Date: An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of Thurston County on July 16, Testimony: At the hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: Robert Smith, Thurston County John Evans, Representative for Applicant 1 According to its legal description, the subject property is located in the NW ¼ Section, Township 12, Range 19 North, 02 West, Tax Parcel No

2 Exhibits: At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted: EXHIBIT 1 Development Services Department Report Attachment a Attachment b Attachment c Attachment d Notice of Public Hearing JARPA Application Environmental Checklist Vicinity Map Attachment e Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance issued May 29, 2001 Attachment f Attachment g Landscape Plan Topographic Map/Sections/ Attachment h Emergency Shoreline Administrative Exemption dated July 28, 2000 Attachment i Comment Letter from Environmental Health dated July 28, 2000 Attachment j Attachment k July 13, 2000 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Robinson from Harold Hahnenkratt, MC Squared July 14, 2000 Letter to John Evans, Bay Marine Contractors from David C. Strong, Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services EXHIBIT 2 Comment from Lloyd and Karen Pernela dated July 14, 2001 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requests approval of a SSDP for the installation of: 1) a storm drainage system including french drains and tightlines; 2) erosion control structure located at the toe of the slide mass; and 3) a 40-foot long rock bulkhead. The subject property at 8235 Zangle Road Northeast, Olympia, adjacent to Budd Inlet, which flows into Dana Passage and Puget Sound, is designated by the Thurston County Shoreline Master Program as Conservancy Shoreline Environment. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Attachment b, JARPA Application; Attachment c, Environmental Checklist, page 4; Attachment d, Vicinity Map; Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. SSDP , Robinson Page 2

3 2. The subject property is located in a Rural Residential Zoning district that allows One Dwelling Unit per Acre (RR 1/1). Surrounding land uses are residential to the north, south, and east. Budd Inlet is immediately west of the site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Attachment b, JARPA Application; Attachment c, Environmental Checklist. All RR 1/1 zoning, dimensional and setback requirements are satisfied by the proposal. Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. 3. The project has been completed after emergency approval was given by Thurston County. The completed project was designed to prevent property loss and erosion of the toe of the existing bank. The bank is composed primarily of sand and gravel with steep slopes. Exhibit 1, Staff Report. 4. The project was designed to blend into a natural environment that includes habitats for heron, songbirds, salmon, trout, herring, and shellfish. All natural vegetation and existing landscaping remain essentially undisturbed. The rock used along the shoreline as part of the project allows for marine habitat to live in and around the structure. The project will not have any long-term impacts on aquatic life in the vicinity or on other uses of Budd Inlet or other bodies of water. Evans Testimony; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Attachment b, JARPA Application; Attachment c, Environmental Checklist, pages 2 and 4; Attachment e, Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance; Attachment f, Landscape Plan; and Attachment g, Topographic Map/Sections. 5. The Applicant s residence is located on an old landslide site. Because of this location and activities of nature, the Applicant s drainage system was threatened and the property was at peril. Wave and tidal action and boat wakes at the toe of the bank, combined with the heavy rainfall of 1999, caused portions of the uplands to slide putting the property s drainfield and garage at risk. Without drainage corrections the sliding activity on-site would have continued, ultimately causing the drainfield to fail and sewage to flow into Puget Sound. When the Applicant noticed cracking at various locations on the property, Squared Engineering was contacted to remedy the problem. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1-2; Attachment b, JARPA Application; Attachment c, Environmental Checklist; Attachment g, Topographic Map/Sections; Attachment j, July 13, 2000 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Robinson from Harold Hahnenkratt, MC Squared; Testimony of John Evans; Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. 6. The Applicants applied to Thurston County for permits for the improvements on July 18, Because of the severity of the situation and the need for immediate repair, the County approved an Emergency Shoreline Administrative Exemption (SHAE) on July 28, The approval was pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) (b)(2)(d), after the project was determined to be in compliance with the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (SMPTR). A condition of the SHAE was that the Applicants submit for a SSDP and that the project be later reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the State Shoreline Act. Although the majority of the improvements are completed, the Applicant has applied for the SSDP as conditioned by SSDP , Robinson Page 3

4 the SHAE. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Attachment h, Emergency Shoreline Administrative Exemption dated July 28, 2000; and Testimony of John Evans. 7. The property is subject to the Thurston Critical Area Ordinance (CAO), which allows drainage facilities and erosion control structures subject to the standards of the CAO and the Thurston County Master program. As part of the review, the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report by an Engineering Geologist. The Report recognized the CAO standards and endorsed engineering improvements to stabilize the Applicant s property. Based on the Report and the review of it by the County and the Applicant, it was determined that improved drainage systems for surface and subsurface water flow were necessary for the site. In response, an erosion control structure consisting of approximately 200-tons of quarry spalls was placed on the slope to reduce slope movement. After placement, the spalls were covered with topsoil and the disturbed slope revegetated using native plants to add further slope stability. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Smith Testimony. Storm drainage was tightlined to the shoreline and dissipated at an existing bulkhead consistent with Thurston County critical area standards. Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. 8. Because the Applicant s residence was moving, a 40-foot long by 6-foot high new rock bulkhead was constructed to minimize slope creep and limit erosion caused by an adjacent bulkhead and wave action. A new drainage system was also installed to intercept surface and sub-surface water and convey it to the beach for discharge. The system included a french drain that runs parallel to the shoreline in front of the existing house and a trail drain that runs between the trail and the slope. Both of these drains tie into a tightline that conveys water to the beach. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1-2; Attachment j, July 13, 2000 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Robinson from Harold Hahnenkratt, MC Squared; Attachment k, July 14, 2000 Letter to John Evans, Bay Marine Contractors from David C. Strong, Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services; and Testimony of John Evans. 9. According to the Thurston County Development Services Department, the proposed project is consistent with all policies, general regulations, and environmental designations and regulations of the Residential Development Chapter of the SMPTR. The purpose behind this project was to stop a major landslide event that would be destructive to the upland property and the shoreline. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Attachment h, Emergency Shoreline Administrative Exemption dated July 28, 2000; and Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. There has been no evidence of impact to the water quality and aquatic environment. Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. 10. The Thurston County Environmental Health Department submitted comments and recommendations, which would require no alterations of the proposed project. Exhibit 1, Attachment i, Comment Letter from Environmental Health dated July 28, SSDP , Robinson Page 4

5 11. Written notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site and notice was published in The Olympian on July 6, 2001 at least ten days prior to the hearing. The site was posted July 6, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Attachment a, Notice of Public Hearing. No testimony from the public was presented at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70, WAC and Section One, Part V of the Thurston County Shoreline Master Program. Criteria for Review I. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit To be approved by the Hearing Examiner, the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must be consistent with: (a) (b) (c) The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act; The provisions of applicable regulations; and The Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region. WAC ; SMPTR page 195. Applicable Shoreline Master Program criteria, policies and regulations are set forth below. Regional Criteria Protection of water quality and aquatic habitat is recognized as a primary goal. All applications for development of shorelines and use of public waters shall be closely analyzed for their effect on the aquatic environment. Of particular concern will be the preservation of the larger ecological system when a change is proposed to a lesser part of the system, like a marshland or tideland. Applicants for permits shall have the burden of proving that a proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria, which must be met before a permit is granted. In any review of the granting or denial of an application for a permit as provided in RCW (1), the person requesting the review shall have the burden of proof. Shorelines of this Region, which are notable for their aesthetic, scenic, historic or ecological qualities shall be preserved. Any private or public development, which would degrade such shoreline qualities shall be discouraged. Inappropriate shoreline uses and poor quality shoreline conditions shall be eliminated when a new shoreline development or activity is authorized. SMPTR pages SSDP , Robinson Page 5

6 Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The slope stabilization project is consistent with the policies set forth in RCW and the Shoreline Master Program. Chapter RCW, the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between the local and state governments with local government having the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by the chapter and administering the regulatory program consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The Thurston County Shoreline Master Program provides goals, policies and regulatory standards for ensuring that development within the shorelines of the state is consistent the policies and provisions of Chapter RCW. 2. The slope stabilization project is consistent with the Regional criteria stated above. The drainage system, the bulkhead and the erosion control structure were installed to prevent a landslide and to control severe erosion on-site. After the project has been installed as an emergency measure there has been no impacts on water quality or the aquatic environment. The retaining wall has the effect of preventing harm to the shoreline. Findings of Fact Nos The improved drainage system is an upgrade of the previous system. Storm drainage is tightlined to the shoreline and dissipated at an existing bulkhead consistent with Thurston County Critical Area standards. Finding of Fact No. 7. The project is protective of the aesthetic and scenic qualities of the area. The retaining wall is not visible from Puget Sound or adjacent properties. The project did not adversely affect public health. Finding of Fact No The Applicant has met his burden of proof with respect to compliance with the policies contained in the Shoreline Master Program. Findings of Fact Nos The project site has a marine bluff that is considered a critical area under the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The CAO allows the proposed drainage facilities and erosion control structures subject to compliance with the standards in the CAO and SMPTR. The Applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report by an Engineering Geologist that details compliance with the CAO standards and endorses the engineering approach to stabilizing the Applicant s property. The materials submitted provide sufficient information to meet the requirements of the CAO. Finding of Fact With conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with all policies, general regulations, and environmental designations and regulations of the Residential Chapter of the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (SMPTR). 6. The project is consistent with the Regional Criteria (SMPTR pages 2, 5, and , , and ). All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction have been disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any surface water body. Stormwater SSDP , Robinson Page 6

7 runoff will be controlled to reduce suspended solids before entering any surface water body. Findings of Fact 6-9. The Applicant has met his burden of proof by submitting substantial evidence. Findings of Fact The project is consistent with the site's Conservancy Shoreline Environment designation (SMPTR page 121). The proposed project prevents unnecessary sewage outfalls to water bodies. Finding of Fact 3-5. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a SSDP is APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project construction must be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan and conditions outlined in the MDNS (Attachment e). 2. The Applicant must adhere to the Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual for the Thurston Region to ensure that there are no impacts to Budd Inlet, which flows into Dana Passage and Puget Sound. Proper erosion and sediment control practices shall be used on the construction site and adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering Budd Inlet, which flows into Dana Passage and Puget Sound. All areas disturbed by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given some other equivalent type of protection against erosion. Proper disposal of construction debris shall be on land in such a manner that debris cannot cause water quality degradation. Decided this 21 st day of August Jim Driscoll K:\sepa.sh\DECISION\SSDP\ Decision.kevin robinson.doc SSDP , Robinson Page 7