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 ) Jean Cathcart ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS ) AND DECISION For Approval of a Shoreline Substantial ) Development Permit. ) ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct a stairway at 2630 Gravelly Beach Loop Northwest to provide beach access from the top of a marine bluff is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Jean Cathcart (Applicant) requested approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to construct a stairway to provide beach access from the top of a marine bluff. The subject property is located at 2630 Gravelly Beach Loop Northwest in Thurston County, Washington and is identified as Tax Parcel Number Hearing Date: An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of Thurston County on August 26, Testimony: At the hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Roger Giebelhaus, Thurston County Development Services Department 2. Frank Cathcart

2 Exhibits: At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record: EXHIBIT 1 Development Services Department Report with the following Attachments: Attachment a Notice of Public Hearing dated August 14, 2002 Attachment b JARPA Application Form received April 17, 2000 Attachment c Attachment d Schematic Site Plan, Schematic Sections, Schematic Drainage Plan, and Schematic Landscape Plan; all dated July 22, 2002 Vicinity Map Attachment e Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued August 6, 2002 Attachment f Notice of Application mailed on May 12, 2000 Attachment g Attachment h Attachment i Slope Stability Report dated April 29, 1999, prepared by Morta Engineering and Testing May 3, 2002 Comment Letter from John Ward, Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department August 15, 2002 Comment Letter from Jack King, Thurston County Roads and Transportation Services EXHIBIT 2 Letter from Department of Ecology dated August 20, 2002 EXHIBIT 3 Enlarged Schematic Site Plan, Section Plan, Drainage Plan, and Landscape Plan dated July 22, 2002 Based upon the record developed at the open record hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions are entered in support of the decision of the Hearings Examiner: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a SSDP to construct a stairway to provide beach access from the top of a marine bluff. The subject property is located at 2630 Gravelly Beach Loop Northwest in Thurston County, Washington and is identified as Tax Parcel Number Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 1, Attachments b; Exhibit The subject property is zoned Rural Residential -- One Dwelling Unit per Acre (RR 1/1) and is developed with a single-family residence. Land uses to the north, west and east of Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 2

3 the subject property are also single-family residential. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and The southwest portion of the subject property contains a 22-foot high marine bluff that extends down to Eld Inlet of Puget Sound. The slope stability map of the Washington Coastal Zone Atlas indicates that the bluff is unstable. Although a 12-inch thick by sixfoot high seawall protects the toe of the bluff from wave action, the face of the bluff is subject to erosion from high winds, rainfall and surface water runoff. Sloughing has occurred in two areas in the vicinity of the proposed project area. The exposed areas consist of light brown course sand that, without protection, could dry out and blow away. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachments d and g. 4. The Applicant proposes to construct a stairway from the top of the bluff to a grassy area behind the seawall. The stairway would contain a total of five landings. The portion of the stairway between the top of the bluff and the third landing would be constructed within the bluff. 1 For this portion, retaining walls would be constructed on three sides of the steps to anchor the structure in place. A landscape bridge, aligning with the top of the marine bluff, would span the top of the stairwell. While the portion of the stairway constructed within the bluff would be constructed of concrete, the remaining portion would be constructed of wood. The lowest landing (landing 5) would consist of a 64- square foot (eight foot by eight foot) center-supported platform. The total height of the structure, including railings, would be approximately 27 feet. 2 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 3, Sheets SC-1 and SC The Applicant s Slope Stability Report (Exhibit 1, Attachment g) contains a slope stabilization plan that includes covering the sloughed areas with jute matting and hydroseeding them with an erosion control mix. In addition, the Report recommends transplanting groundcover plants such as ivy to those areas. The plants would hold the sand in place during heavy rains and high winds. The Applicant s Schematic Drainage Plan (Exhibit 3, Sheet SC-3) contains a note requiring compliance with the recommendations contained in the Slope Stability Report. Exhibit 1, Attachment g, page 2; Exhibit Surface water runoff would be tight-lined down the marine bluff via six-inch diameter flex tubing to prevent surface water from flowing over the surface of the embankment. Exhibit 1, Attachment g, page 2; Exhibit 3, Sheet SC No trees would be removed for construction. The stairway structure would include planters as well as a landscaped pedestrian bridge. Trees and shrubs would be planted along the toe of the bank and around the fifth landing. Testimony of Mr. Cathcart; Exhibit 3, pages SC-1, SC-2 and SC-4. 1 The third landing is feet from the top of the bluff. Exhibit 3, Sheet SC-1. 2 The stairway would be 23.9 feet high, and the railing would be three feet high. Exhibit 3, Sheets SC-1 and SC-2. Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 3

4 8. The entire stairway structure, except for a 36-inch high cable railing, would be located below the top of the marine bluff. The Applicant does not expect that the structure would be visible to neighbors. Testimony of Mr. Cathcart. 9. Eld Inlet is a Shoreline of the State, and the subject property is located within a Rural Environment as defined by the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (SMPTR). SMPTR, Section 5(V)(A); Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. The Residential Development section of the SMPTR contains policies and regulations applicable to construction of stairways within the shoreline. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page An SSDP is needed prior to undertaking substantial development on a Shoreline of the State. RCW Substantial development is any development that exceeds $2, in cost or fair market value. RCW (3)(e). The proposal s fair market value exceeds $2, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment b. 11. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Thurston County was designated lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. The County determined that, with mitigation, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on August 6, 2002 that became final on August 20, The MDNS contains five conditions of approval that address erosion and sediment control, disposal of construction debris, Shoreline Management Act compliance, disturbance of vegetation, and building permit requirements. Exhibit 1, Attachment e. 12. Written notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site on August 14, 2002, published in The Olympian on August 16, 2002, and posted on the property on August 16, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment a. 13. Comment on the SSDP application included an August 20, 2002 letter from the Department of Ecology (DOE). DOE commented that water quality certification might be required from the Department of Ecology, that the lower platform might be a deck rather than a landing, and that pre-existing site contours and other features must be indicated on the project plans. Exhibit 2. Other than the DOE letter, there was no public comment either for or against the proposal. The significance of the deck issue raised by DOE is that a deck would not be allowed within the shoreline area. Although County staff submitted that the platform (landing 5) could be considered either a deck or a landing (due to its size), the County treated the platform as a landing in its analysis of the SSDP application. Testimony of Mr. Giebelhaus. 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. Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 4

5 Criteria for Review For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to be approved by the Hearing Examiner, the proposal 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 Applicable Shoreline Master Program criteria and policies are set forth below. Regional Criteria (SMPTR Section 2(V)): B. 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. D. Residential development shall be undertaken in a manner that will maintain existing public access to the publicly owned shorelines and not interfere with the public use of the water areas fronting such shorelines, nor shall it adversely affect aquatic habitat. G. 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. Residential Development Policies (SMPTR Section 3(XVI)(B)): 7. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 8. Waste materials from construction should not be left on shorelines or beaches but stored upland. 10. Residential structures should be located to minimize obstruction of views of the water from upland areas. Residential Development General Regulations (SMPTR Section 3(XVI)(C): 11. All stair towers meeting one of the following conditions must be designed by a licensed civil engineer: a. The location proposed is mapped as "unstable" or "Intermediate Stability" in the Washington Coastal Zone Atlas prepared by the State Department of Ecology. b. All stair towers 24 feet in height or greater. c. Other instances where the building official determines that site conditions dictate the preparation of plans by a licensed civil engineer. Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 5

6 12. Stair towers shall be designed to minimize obstructing the views enjoyed by adjoining residences. Rural Environment Regulations (SMPTR Section 3(XVI)(D): [None applicable.] Conclusions Based on Findings 1. With conditions of approval, the proposed development is consistent with the policies set forth in Chapter RCW. 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. Some of the policies of RCW are to foster all reasonable and appropriate uses; protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife; and give priority to single-family residences and appurtenant structures in authorizing alterations to the natural condition of the shoreline. A stair tower to provide beach access is a reasonable use. Although the Department of Ecology suggested that the fifth landing might be considered a deck, the Hearing Examiner was unable to locate any standards or definitions to support requiring that the size of the landing be reduced. The fifth landing is incorporated into the stairway structure and does not appear to create any impacts that would be greater than or different from the impacts of a smaller landing. Neither the Shoreline Management Act nor the SMPTR, Thurston County Code or Uniform Building Code provide guidance on this issue. In light of these factors, the stairway is approved as proposed. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 13 and 14. The proposal protects against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife. The majority of the structure will be set back approximately 20 feet from the existing seawall; no work will be performed over water. An MDNS was issued for the proposal that contains conditions addressing erosion and sediment control, disposal of construction debris, and vegetation. These conditions, along with the slope stabilization measures and landscaping proposed by the Applicant, will protect against adverse impacts to the marine bluff and water quality. Conditions are needed to ensure that the Applicant complies with the recommendations contained in the Slope Stability Report and obtains water quality certification if necessary. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13. Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 6

7 2. With conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with the regulations of the Department of Ecology. Section of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) contains the following regulations applicable to all development on shorelines of the state: (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. (2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. The proposal complies with the standards contained in subsection (2) because the stairway structure would be 27 feet in height, with the majority of the height below the ground level of the bluff. The stairway would not obstruct the views of any adjoining properties. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and With conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. a. The proposal is consistent with identified Regional Criteria. An MDNS was issued for the proposal that contains conditions addressing erosion and sediment control, disposal of construction debris and vegetation. These conditions, along with the slope stabilization measures and landscaping proposed by the Applicant, will protect against adverse impacts to the marine bluff and water quality. The stairway structure will not affect public access to public shorelines; it is designed to provide beach access for a single-family residence on the top of a marine bluff. The aesthetic quality of the shoreline will be preserved through the addition of native plantings to the face of the bluff and landscaping of the stairway structure. Conditions are needed to ensure that the Applicant complies with the recommendations contained in the Slope Stability Report and obtains water quality certification if necessary. Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13. b. With conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with identified Residential Development policies. The MDNS issued for the proposal contains conditions addressing disposal of construction debris, minimizing disturbance of vegetation and revegetating disturbed areas for consistency with Policies 7 and 8. In addition to these measures, the Applicant proposes to stabilize the slope through hydroseeding and additional plantings. The stairway will not obstruct views of the water from upland areas. Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 7 and 8. Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 7

8 c. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with identified Residential Development regulations. Because the marine bluff is mapped "unstable," the final project plans must be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The structure will not obstruct views from adjoining residences. Findings of Fact Nos. 3 and 8. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the request for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct a stairway at 2630 Gravelly Beach Loop Northwest is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. All development shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and other drawings dated July 22, 2002 (Exhibit 3), except as modified below. 2. The final project plans shall depict existing site contours, material to be removed, and existing site development as specified in the August 20, 2002 letter from the Department of Ecology (Exhibit 2). 3. The final project plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Thurston County Permit Assistance Center prior to construction of the stairway. 5. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall satisfy all conditions of the August 6, 2002 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (Exhibit 1, Attachment e). 6. All development shall be in substantial conformance with the slope stabilization plan contained in the April 29, 1999 Slope Stability Report prepared by Morta Engineering and Testing (Exhibit 1, Attachment g). 7. It is the Applicant s responsibility to ascertain whether additional state or federal permit approvals are required (see Exhibit 2). Decided this 11 th day of September LeAnna C. Drevecky Hearing Examiner for Thurston County K:\sepa.sh\DECISION\SSDP\ DECISION.Cathcart.doc Cathcart, No. SSDP Page 8