Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA04 Declaration of Telegin Decl RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2025 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY 9 I In re Appeal of Rathvon Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, DCD File No. DECLARATION OF BRYAN I 1 SDP2023-00020 TELEGIN IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR 1") SUMMARY JUDGMENT I3 14 I,BRYAN TELEGIN,declare as follows: 15 1. I am counsel for John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver, Appellants in the above- 16 referenced matter. I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge. 17 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of comments that I submitted 18 to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development on September 27, 2024. The 19 comments were submitted on behalf of Mr. DiMaggio and Ms. Oliver and relate to the Type II 20 shoreline conditional use permit("SCUP")at issue in this case(DCD File No. SDP2023-00020). 21 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a comment letter by 22 Crescent Environmental PLLC on the Type II SCUP at issue in this appeal. This comment letter 23 by Crescent Environmental was transmitted to the County as an attachment to my September 27, 24 2024,comments referenced above and attached Exhibit A hereto.I have included them as a separate 25 exhibit to this declaration for ease of reference. 26 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of additional comments that I submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development on March 27, 2025. Telegin Law PLLC 216 6°'Street DECLARATION OF BRYAN TELEGIN- I Bremerton,WA 98337 bryan®teleginlaw.com (206)453-2884 DECLARATION OF BRYAN TELEGIN - 2 Telegin Law PLLC 216 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 bryan@teleginlaw.com (206) 453-2884 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the original staff report for the Type II SCUP at issue in this appeal, issued on April 10, 2025. I received this document via email on April 10, 2025, from Donna Frostholm, associate planner with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct the amended staff report for the Type II SCUP at issue in this appeal, issued on April 14, 2025. I received this document via email on April 14, 2025, from Donna Frostholm, associate planner with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the approved site plan for the Type II SCUP at issue in this appeal, dated April 8, 2025. I received this document via email on April 10, 2025, from Donna Frostholm, associate planner with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a copy of a topographic prepared for the permit applicant, Richard Rathvon, and submitted for the County’s review for the Type II SCUP at issue in this appeal. I retrieved this document from Jefferson County’s permit database at https://energovweb.jeffcowa.us/energov_prod/SelfService#/home. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is an excerpt from Jefferson County’s online landslide hazards map at https://gisdata-jeffcowa.opendata.arcgis.com/search?tags=environmental. The excerpt shows Twana Way as located within a landslide hazard area. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 25th day of June, 2025, at Bremerton, Washington Bryan Telegin EXHIBIT A Telegin Law PLLC | 175 Parfitt Way SW, Suite N270 | Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 www.teleginlaw.com | bryan@teleginlaw.com | (206) 453-2884 September 27, 2024 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020—Type II Land Use Application by Richard Rathvon at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, Washington Dear Ms. Frostholm: I represent John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver who reside at 161 Twana Way in Quilcene, Washington (Jefferson County Parcel No. 701153020). Mr. DiMaggio’s and Ms. Oliver’s property is located approximately 1,000 feet east of Jefferson County Parcel No. 701164005, a shoreline parcel owned by Richard and Renee Rathvon. On behalf of my clients, I ask that Jefferson County consider these comments the Rathvons’ pending application for a shoreline conditional use permit to construct a new single-family residence on their property—Application No. SDP2023-00020. A.Overview of the Project The Rathvon parcel is located on the shoreline of Dabob Bay, in an area known to provide ecologically significant habitat for Hood Canal summer chum salmon and Puget Sound Chinook, both of which are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The upland portions of the Rathvon parcel have a shoreline environmental designation of “Natural” under Jefferson County’s Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”). The purpose of this designation is to “protect[] from harm or adverse impact shoreline areas that are intact, have minimally degraded functions and processes, or are relatively free of human influence.” Jefferson County Code (“JCC”) 18.25.210(3)(c)(i). The aquatic environment adjacent to the Rathvon parcel has a shoreline environmental designation of “Priority Aquatic,” the purpose of which is to “protect[] to the highest degree possible and, where feasible, restores waters and their underlying bedlands deemed vital for salmon and shellfish.” JCC 18.25.210(3)(a)(i). This area is also known as providing premiere shellfish beds, with Taylor Shellfish located immediately across the bay, and Rockport Oyster just over a mile to the north. Access to the Rathvon parcel is via Twana Way, a narrow, steep, unpaved, primitive road. The surface of Twana Way is only eight to nine feet wide, with some areas as narrow as seven feet— falling far short of the Fire Apparatus Access standards of Quilcene Fire District #2, which require a 12-foot minimum “all weather” road surface, four-foot shoulder, and 20-foot minimum width clearance. Mr. Rathvon himself has observed that the road does not meet these minimum emergency access requirements and has proposed a detailed road improvement plan. The image below is from a presentation that Mr. Rathvon gave to his neighbors in October of 2023 detailing Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 2 of 8 an extensive road improvement or renovation plan, which Mr. Rathvon represented would be needed to enable safe and reliable access for service and emergency vehicles. Below are photographs of Twana Way, known to area residents as the “goat trail.” The conditions of the road are so primitive that it is difficult even for everyday vehicles to navigate, let alone large emergency response vehicles, service and delivery vehicles, and construction-related vehicles hauling building materials and equipment. The road is especially difficult for vehicles to navigate traveling uphill, as this narrow, primitive road rises more than 600 feet over an eighth of a mile, immediately adjacent to a steep embankment leading down to Dabob Bay. Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 3 of 8 Near the end of Twana Way, the Rathvons are applying to construct an approximately 3,500 square-foot single-family residence with an onsite septic system and well. Application materials available on the county’s online permit database include a site plan. However, no renderings of the proposed home are provided. Nor is any information provided about the proposed construction process, or how building materials and equipment will be transported to the project site. B. Comments on Rathvon Application A primary failing of the Rathvon application is its failure to address details of the proposed construction process. As discussed above, Twana way is a narrow, steep, unpaved, primitive road that is difficult even for everyday vehicles to navigate, especially going uphill. If the Rathvons propose to use this same road for moving construction materials and equipment to and from the project site, then there is a significant risk not only of damage to the road and adjacent hillside, utilities under the road, and interference with other uses (including pedestrian use of the road), there is also a risk of damage to the surrounding environment, including harm to the shoreline environment, inter alia, through increased runoff and sediment transport. In turn, Mr. Rathvon has proposed that the road be significantly improved. If this is still the applicant’s plan, then that should be included and evaluated as part of the project application, which may in turn trigger SEPA review. Any proposed renovation of the road would clearly raise issues of slope stability, potential damage to downstream receiving waters, and aesthetic degradation of the surrounding area. Nor has the applicant even demonstrated that he would have the legal authority to renovate the road without the prior approval of other landowners. Alternatively, if the Rathvons plan to transport building materials and equipment to the project site via some other route—e.g., via barge or aerial transport—then this, too, needs to be included in the project description and evaluated for impacts on the surrounding environment. Use of water transport would obviously come with a high likelihood of damage to the sensitive aquatic environment. These construction-related issues are directly relevant under JCC 18.25.320(1)(a), which provides that “[t]he location, construction, operation, and maintenance of all shoreline uses and Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 4 of 8 developments should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over the long term” (emphasis added). These issues are also relevant under JCC 18.25.590(2)(a) through (e), which require the applicant for a shoreline conditional use permit to demonstrate that the proposal “will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program,” that it “will not interfere with normal public use of the shoreline,” that “ the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area,” that the proposal “will not cause adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located,” and that “the public interest [will] suffer[] no substantial detrimental effect.” To remedy the applicants’ failure to include details of the construction process in the application, the County should require the applicant to fully disclose how construction materials and equipment will be transported to and from the project site. The County should evaluate the impacts of the construction process. Mitigation measures should be established to protect both the public and area residents, including a requirement that should any damage occur to Twana Way, the applicant shall fully remediate such harm at the applicant’s sole expense, returning the road and surrounding area to their original condition as of September, 2024. Next, there are significant errors and omissions in the applicant’s February 15, 2022 geologic hazard assessment by the Stratum Group. Attached hereto is a critique of that report prepared by David S. Parks of Crescent Environmental. Mr. Parks is a licensed engineering geologist and hydrogeologist in Washington State with over 35 years of experience evaluating land management effects on hillslope stability, coastal bluff landsliding, hydrogeology and water quality. His attached report concludes that the Stratum Group geologic hazard assessment not only contains significant errors and omissions, but also does not comply with the Jefferson County Code. Among other things: • That Stratum Group report failed to consult readily available information relevant to assessing slope stability, such as existing geologic assessments in the surrounding area, Jefferson County soil mapping, well logs, and historic shoreline imagery provided by the Washington Department of Ecology. • The Stratum Group report contains unsubstantiated claims concerning the height of the bluff on the western side of the Rathvon property, bluff erosion rates, and potential tsunami inundation levels. • The Stratum Group report does not comply with the elements of JCC 18.22.550 requiring identification and mapping of geologically hazard areas—including the requirement that such areas and their buffers be clearly depicted on the applicant’s site plan. • The Stratum Group report does not attempt to demonstrate that storm water quality, quantity, and flow paths will be comparable to pre-construction conditions—a significant oversight in light of the ecological significance of the aquatic environment to the immediate west of the project site. Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 5 of 8 • The Stratum Group report does not contain any description or observation of groundwater, and does not contain a description of how the proposal complies with the clearing, grading, excavation, and stormwater requirements of the Jefferson County Code. • Finally, the Stratum Group report fails to include a slope stability and surface erosion assessment of Twana Way. Again, this is a significant oversight given the proposal’s proximity to the ecologically significant aquatic environment of Dabob Bay. As Mr. Parks observes in his report: The scope of the geologic assessment completed by the Stratum Group should have included a slope stability and surface erosion assessment of the access road (Twana Way) leading to the project site. Twana Way is a primitive road on a steep slope leading down to Dabob Bay. Portions of the road are within the Critical Areas Buffer of the adjacent stream and will be used by heavy vehicles to deliver equipment and supplies before, during and after project construction. Use of the road by heavy vehicles such as loaded concrete trucks has the potential to cause surface erosion and sediment to enter the adjacent stream, which may then transport the sediment downstream to Dabob Bay. This primitive road should be assessed to determine if it can bear the heavy loads anticipated during truck use without failing and delivering sediment to downstream waters. In light of these many errors and omissions, Mr. Parks concludes that “because of the stated omissions and inaccuracies above and because of the failure to provide the information required by the Jefferson County Code in the geologic assessment (The Stratum Group Report), the geologic assessment should be rejected by Jefferson County Planning and revised.” In addition to the problems above, the Rathvon application materials fail to address several important issues and to meaningfully address several questions on the County’s conditional use application form. Question 2 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to “[e]xplain how the conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity and with the physical characteristics of the subject property.” To this, the Rathvon application answers: “Proposed SFR has been designed to be constructed 160’ from the OHWM as such, the home will sit within the existing mature forest creating an in-forest design resulting in a barely-visible footprint.” However, no renderings have been provided to show what the proposed single-family residence will look like (either from adjacent uplands or from the water). This is despite that Jefferson County’s Shoreline Master Program specifically provides that “[a]ll residential use and development should be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on . . . aesthetics.” JCC 18.25.500(1). The County should require the applicant to provide renderings of the proposed single-family residence to confirm that it will be designed and located to avoid adverse aesthetic impacts. See JCC 18.25.270(3)(b) (“The county shall have the authority to require the applicant/proponent to prepare special studies, assessments and analyses as necessary to identify Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 6 of 8 and address cumulative impacts including, but not limited to, impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, public access/use, aesthetics, and other shoreline attributes.”) (emphasis added). Relatedly, there is no discussion of potential cumulative impacts in the Rathvon application. This is despite that JCC 18.25.070(1)(b)(v) specifically requires the County to consider “[i]ndividual effects of the project and the incremental or cumulative effects resulting from the project added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” The County should require the applicant to specifically evaluate and disclose potential cumulative adverse impacts. Question 3 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to describe infrastructure serving the proposed project. In response, the Rathvon application notes that stormwater runoff “will disperse naturally.” The County should require the applicant to assess potential impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality. This is especially needed in light of the sensitive aquatic environment and ESA-listed species located just offshore. See JCC 18.25.320(1)(a) (“The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of all shoreline uses and developments should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over the long term.”). The County should also require the applicant to assess potential water quality issues caused by the proposed on-site septic system. Question 5 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to “[d]escribe any noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, outdoor lights or other impacts that will be generated by the conditional use.” The Rathvon application answers: “Any impacts such as noise, dust, fumes, etc. should be considered ‘as typical’ for construction and end use of a SFR.” This statement provides no “description” whatsoever. The County should require the applicant to provide an accurate and complete description of any such impacts. Question 6 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to “[d]escribe the pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking area associated conditional use.” To this, the Rathvon application answers, in part: “There is no pedestrian use.” This is a false statement. Pedestrians regularly use Twana Way and are likely to be impacted by increased traffic, both during construction and after. The County should require the applicant to fully assess such impacts. Question 8 on the County’s conditional use application form asks whether there are “any significant adverse impacts on the human and natural environments caused directly by the conditional use? If yes, can these impacts be mitigated.” To this, the Rathvon application answers “N/A.” No explanation is provided as to why this question is not applicable. The County should require the applicant to provide a full and complete response. JCC 18.25.630(16) specifically requires every application to include “[a] summary characterization of the effects of the project on existing ecological functions and processes in the vicinity of the project. If the project is likely to have adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions or processes, a mitigation plan shall be provided demonstrating measures that will be taken to offset impacts.” Similarly lacking is compliance with JCC 18.25.630(12), which requires every application to include “[a] description of the existing ecological functions and processes affecting, maintaining, or influencing the shoreline at/near the project site.” Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 7 of 8 Question 9 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to “[d]escribe how granting the conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel.” To this question, the Rathvon application answers: “2 adjacent parcels are currently used in the same manner as our proposal outlines.” This is not an answer to the question. The County should require a full and complete response. JCC 18.25.590 specifically provides that “[i]n the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the sum of the conditional uses and their impacts should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce a significant adverse effect to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users.” Question 12 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to describe how the proposed conditional use “complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and any other applicable local, state or federal law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in JCC 18.20 and JCC 18.30.” To this, the Rathvon application merely notes that the “septic permit has been submitted to Jeffco EH, and the well permit will be submitted to Jeffco EH at a later date.” Again, this is simply not an answer to the question. The County should require the applicant to provide a full and complete response. Question 13 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the applicant to “[d]escribe how the conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.” The Rathvon application answers: “Our proposal is consistent with zoning and the existing use of properties in the vicinity.” As above, this is not an answer. The County should require a full and complete response, including analysis of all applicable goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The Rathvon site plan depicts a stream to the immediate south of the project site, with a proposed 50-foot buffer. This stream buffer must be at least 150 feet pursuant to JCC 18.25.270(4)(e)(iii), which requires a “minimum buffer of 150 feet in all shoreline environments” for all “Stream/River Shores.” JCC 18.25.250(1) provides that “[w]hen shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist.” The Rathvon application fails to state whether such opportunities exist and, if they do, how this project is designed to restore and/or enhance ecological conditions. C. Conclusion The Rathvon application materials fail to demonstrate compliance with Jefferson County’s criteria for a shoreline conditional use permit. They do not address the construction process and impacts to Twana Way. The applicant’s geotechnical report contains numerous errors and omissions and does not comply with the Jefferson County Code. The conditional use permit application fails to address numerous significant issues. The county should require the applicant to address and correct all of the errors and omissions discussed above. Until that occurs, the county (and the public) is Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Comments on SDP2023-00020 (Rathvon Application) Page 8 of 8 not in a position to evaluate whether the applicant has met its burden to obtain a shoreline conditional use permit. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at bryan@teleginlaw.com or (206) 453-2884. Very truly yours, TELEGIN LAW PLLC Bryan Telegin Counsel for John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver cc: Client Attachments: Crescent Environmental PLLC, Review of geotechnical report and associated documents related to parcel 701164005, Jefferson County, Washington (Sept. 26, 2024) EXHIBIT B 1 9/26/2024 John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver Telephone: (732-241-9776) Email: dimaggiojohn17@gmail.com RE: Review of geotechnical report and associated documents related to parcel 701164005, Jefferson County, Washington. John and Michelle, Please accept this letter as my review of a geotechnical report and associated documents and information for parcel 7011164005, Jefferson County, Washington. The purpose of this review is to verify that the geotechnical report (Stratum Group Report) is consistent with requirements of the Jefferson County Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Plan codes and further, that the report contains adequate information to support the authors’ conclusions. Consistent with our Scope-of-Work dated 9/23/2024, Crescent Environmental PLLC reviewed a geotechnical report dated February 15, 2022 by Stratum Group, Ben Carlson, Licensed Geologist (L.G. #20120123) and Dan McShane, Licensed Engineering Geologist (L.E.G. # 1376) provided for Jefferson County parcel 701164005 as well as other available information (geologic mapping, aerial photographs, LiDAR data, well-logs) related to site geology, slope stability and surface erosion hazards on and adjacent to the subject parcel. I am a licensed engineering geologist and hydrogeologist in Washington State (#533) with over 35 years of experience evaluating land management effects on hillslope stability, coastal bluff landsliding, hydrogeology and water quality. My CV is attached. In conducting this review, I did not perform a site review but relied exclusively on available remote information related to the subject parcel and surrounding areas. General Comments—There are multiple omissions and inconsistencies in the Stratum Group Report as follows: Standard practice for preparing geological assessments for an area is to include previously prepared geologic reports relevant to the subject area being assessed. The Stratum Group report did not include any reference to existing geologic assessments for adjacent parcels. A search of the Jefferson County planning website showed two available geologic reports relatively near the subject parcel (NTI, 1997, NTI 2004). These reports should have been evaluated by the Stratum Group assessment. The following statement on page 6 of the Stratum Group Report does not appear to be consistent with slope measurements derived from the 2019 LiDAR digital terrain model available on the DNR LiDAR Portal: 2 “The bluff at the property is approximately 40 feet high at its maximum height. The bluff face slopes at approximately 10 degrees on the low, north end and slopes up to approximately 30 degrees toward the south end of the bluff.” Slope measurements obtained from the 2019 Digital Terrain Model (DTM) suggest the slope height of the bluff below the project area is closer to 45 feet high at its’ maximum height and has a maximum slope angle of 45 degrees. The Stratum Group Report does not include a description of how slope heights and angles included in the report were determined. Soil Unit Descriptions: The Stratum Group report does not make reference or evaluate the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil mapping (McCreary 1975) for Jefferson County, Washington, completed for the subject parcel. This omission from the report is consequential because the soil properties analyzed by the NRCS soil survey could directly influence the interpretation of slope stability, infiltration and runoff from the project area and would be important for characterizing subsurface conditions for analyzing ground water conditions and potential flow paths from on-site septic and storm water discharge to receiving waters below the project site. Water well drillers logs from wells on the subject parcel and adjacent parcels were omitted from the Stratum Group Report. Well drillers logs can provide information on subsurface conditions which can be used to infer groundwater flow conditions. Jefferson County Code (see #3 below) requires that geologic assessments include a description of subsurface condition and ground water. The discussion regarding past and future bluff erosion rates on page 12 should be supported by evidence. Unless highly sophisticated survey techniques are employed, it is not possible in my experience to measure bluff erosion rates on the order of 1 inch per year. I am not familiar with any bluff erosion study in Washington State that can claim accuracy of 1 inch/ year. When comparing historic survey maps (T-Sheets) to aerial photographs, to on-site observations it is necessary to state the objective accuracy of the maps in terms scale and available survey control datum used to geo-reference the different maps and images. Even with highly accurate terrestrial laser scanners, it is difficult to arrive at an objective accuracy of an inch or two because of the inability to control the location and the elevation of the instrument in the dynamic coastal environment. The authors should justify why they arrived at the stated rates of bluff erosion and provide evidence that estimated rates are accurate. Reviewing the oblique shoreline imagery provided by the Washington Department of Ecology for the project area between 1977 and 2016, (Photos 1-4) not included in the Stratum Group Report, there is an obvious area on the lower bluff face below the proposed project site that appears to have failed in 1994 and in later photos becomes progressively revegetated over time. These photographs should have been included in the Stratum Group Report. Lack of Tsunami Inundation Mapping for the project area: The statement made on page 13 regarding tsunami inundation height (“However, we anticipate this impact to be minor. The proposed building area as indicated on Figure 4 is well above the reach of any earthquake or landslide generated wave heights anticipated for this area”) should be qualified by reference to published information or an analysis should be included. As it stands, this statement is without foundation. For instance, the Tohoku earthquake (9.0) in Japan generated tsunami wave run-up heights of 133 feet (40.5 meters). The Washington Department of Natural Resources has calculated that there is about a 10% chance that a 9.0 intensity Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake will happen in the next 50 years. The Department of 3 Natural Resources had published maps of tsunami inundation hazard (WDNR, 2024) for the coastline of Washington, yet none of this information is included in the Stratum Group Report. The scope of the geologic assessment completed by the Stratum Group should have included a slope stability and surface erosion assessment of the access road (Twana Way) leading to the project site. Twana Way is a primitive road on a steep slope leading down to Dabob Bay. Portions of the road are within the Critical Areas Buffer of the adjacent stream and will be used by heavy vehicles to deliver equipment and supplies before, during and after project construction. Use of the road by heavy vehicles such as loaded concrete trucks has the potential to cause surface erosion and sediment to enter the adjacent stream, which may then transport the sediment downstream to Dabob Bay. This primitive road should be assessed to determine if it can bear the heavy loads anticipated during truck use without failing and delivering sediment to downstream waters. Code Compliance: 1. Jefferson County Code 18.22.550 Recording and Disclosure (3) requires that “the limits (or outer extent) of a geologically hazardous area be marked on site as follows: . . . a. High or moderately high geologically hazardous areas shall be identified and staked by a geotechnical professional.” Sub- section (4)(b) of this same rule provides “Geologically hazardous areas and buffers shall be shown on a site plan submitted with an application.” The Stratum Group Report does not indicate that the responsible geologist or geotechnical professional staked the boundaries of the geologically hazardous area or buffer, and further, these boundaries do not appear to be shown in the Stratum Group Report or on the site plan for the proposal. 2. Jefferson County Code 18.22.550 (6)(d) states “The applicant must clearly demonstrate in the geologic assessment that storm water quality, quantity, and flow path post-construction will be comparable to pre-construction conditions. The Stratum Group report on page 13 makes reference to the Washington State Storm Water manual but does not provide an analysis or statement that demonstrates that storm water quantity, quality, flow path post-construction will be comparable to pre-construction conditions. 3. Jefferson County Code 18.22.945, titled “Geologically hazardous area reports,” states in part: (2) Project Submittal Standards for Geological Reports. A geological report is required for site development proposals that involve development activity or the installation of structures within a geologically hazardous area, or as otherwise required but do not involve or require engineering design recommendations. The following minimum information is required: (a) Site information regarding the critical areas designations that affect site features; (b) Description of surface and subsurface conditions, including ground materials, vegetation, surface drainage, groundwater, and a preliminary geologic hazard assessment which includes the locations of structures and the 4 identification of the slope and/or coastal processes occurring at the site and factors that contribute to them; (c) Review of available site information, literature, and mapping; (d) Detailed description of slope and other topographic features; (e) Conceptual siting of structures and general recommendations, which include methods and practices that avoid and/or reduce slope and shore impacts. Minimum recommendations should include upland and slope drainage control, groundwater control, site vegetation management, and erosion control; (f) A description of how the proposal complies with the clearing, grading, excavation, and stormwater requirements in JCC 18.30.060 and 18.30.070, and the current version of the Storm water Management Manual for Western Washington; (g) A description of potential effects of the proposal on storm water quantity, quality, and runoff patterns post-construction; (h) A clear statement whether or not the proposal will affect or alter water movement to the geologically hazardous area and its critical areas buffer if the proposal is implemented; and (i) Identify measures to avoid or minimize alteration of storm water runoff patterns post-construction.” The Stratum Group Report does not appear to contain any description or observation of groundwater required by subsection (2)(b) above. The Stratum Group report does not contain well drillers logs of adjacent water wells in the area or available published studies describing groundwater resources of the subject parcel area such as: Grimstad, P. and R.J. Carson, 1981. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Eastern Jefferson County, Washington. Water Supply Bulletin No. 54. Washington Department of Ecology. The Stratum Group report does not appear to contain the analysis required of subsection (2)(f) above although it does recommend compliance with the Storm Water Management Manual for Western Washington on Page 13. The Stratum Group report does not appear to contain the required statement of whether or not the proposal will affect or alter water movement to the geologically hazardous area below the project site and its critical area buffer if the proposal is implemented, as required by subsection (2)(h) above. In my opinion, because of the stated omissions and inaccuracies above and because of the failure to provide the information required by the Jefferson County Code in the geologic assessment (The Stratum Group Report), the geologic assessment should be rejected by Jefferson County Planning and revised. 5 Sincerely, David S. Parks, M. S. Principal Geologist LG, LEG, LHG #533 Crescent Environmental PLLC 424 East First Street, Box 429 Port Angeles WA 98362 Cell: 360-640-3187 Email: crescentenvironmental@gmail.com Website: https://crescentenvironmen.wixsite.com/website 6 References McCreary, F.R., 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, (National Resource Conservation Service, NRCS). Northwestern Territories, Inc. 1997. Geotechnical Investigation for Tract 5 of Dabob View Tracts, in Section 15, Township 27 North, Range 1 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington (Parcel #701-153- 022) Northwestern Territories, Inc., 717 South Peabody, Port Angeles, Washington. 98362 Northwestern Territories, Inc. 2004. Updated to the Geotechnical Report Completed by NTI and Dated August 22, 1997, for 1146 Toandos Rd., Located in Section 15, Township 27 North, Range 1 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Northwestern Territories, Inc., 717 South Peabody, Port Angeles, Washington. 98362 Washington Department of Natural Resources Geology Portal. 2024: https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov 7 Figure 1: Map from Jefferson County GIS Portal showing parcel 701164005 subject to this review (Yellow Highlight). 8 Photo 1: 1977 Oblique Aerial Photo (WDOE, 2024). 9 Photo 2: 1994 Oblique Aerial Photo (WDOE, 2024). 10 Photo 3: 2006 Oblique Aerial Photo (WDOE, 2024). 11 Photo 4: 2016 Oblique Aerial Photograph (WDOE, 2024). EXHIBIT C Telegin Law PLLC | 175 Parfitt Way SW, Suite N270 | Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 www.teleginlaw.com | bryan@teleginlaw.com | (206) 453-2884 March 27, 2025 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Additional Comments on SDP2023-00020—Type II Land Use Application by Richard Rathvon at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, Washington—and RBLD2024-00109 (Related Building Permit) Dear Ms. Frostholm: I represent John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver who reside at 161 Twana Way in Quilcene, Washington (Jefferson County Parcel No. 701153020). Through this law firm, Mr. DiMaggio and Ms. Oliver previously submitted comments on the above-referenced shoreline conditional use permit on September 27, 2024. Please consider these additional comments on the Rathvon shoreline permit, and also on the related building permit (RBLD2024-00109). A. Failure to Provide Slope Stability and Surface Erosion Assessment of Twana Way As discussed in our prior comments, a major concern with this project is the ability of Twana Way—a narrow, steep, unpaved, primitive road—to support heavy equipment and construction traffic without damage to the environment. On September 27, 2024, we provided a geotechnical review by Crescent Environmental, LLC, which concluded that the Applicant’s geologic hazard assessment should have included a slope stability and surface erosion assessment of Twana Way. On November 6, 2024, Jefferson County requested that the Applicant provide an updated geologic hazard assessment, responding to the concerns raised by Crescent Environmental. The Applicant subsequently submitted an updated geologic hazard assessment on January 30, 2024 (dated November 14, 2024). Regrettably, the Applicant’s updated geologic hazard assessment still does not include a slope stability or surface erosion assessment of Twana Way. While the new report contains passing references to Twana Way, there is no assessment of the impact of increased heavy equipment and construction-related traffic on the road. Nor does the new report appear to evaluate any portion of the road outside the project site, despite that construction equipment and construction-related traffic will need to travel the entire length of Twana Way to reach the site of the proposed single- family residence. In sum, Crescent Environmental’s comment (quoted below) still has not been addressed. This issue of significant concern to the local community that relies upon Twana Way for access to their homes. The County should specifically require a geologic hazard assessment and surface erosion Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Add’l Comments on SDP2023-00020 & RBLD2024-00109 (Rathvon Application) Page 2 of 3 assessment of the entire length of Twana Way, to ensure that this primitive road is capable of supporting increased construction-related traffic, and that such traffic will not result in erosion and the discharge of sediment-laden stormwater to Dabob Bay and its shoreline, critical areas, or otherwise harm the environment. The scope of the geologic assessment completed by the Stratum Group should have included a slope stability and surface erosion assessment of the access road (Twana Way) leading to the project site. Twana Way is a primitive road on a steep slope leading down to Dabob Bay. Portions of the road are within the Critical Areas Buffer of the adjacent stream and will be used by heavy vehicles to deliver equipment and supplies before, during and after project construction. Use of the road by heavy vehicles such as loaded concrete trucks has the potential to cause surface erosion and sediment to enter the adjacent stream, which may then transport the sediment downstream to Dabob Bay. This primitive road should be assessed to determine if it can bear the heavy loads anticipated during truck use without failing and delivering sediment to downstream waters. Crescent Environmental PLLC, Review of geotechnical report and associated documents related to parcel 701164005, Jefferson County, Washington (Sept. 26, 2024). B. Failure to Address the Requirements of JCC 18.22.230 for Road Maintenance in Critical Areas According to the County’s online critical areas map, Twana Way is located in a moderate landslide hazard area. With increased heavy equipment and other construction-related use of Twana Way for this proposal, there is a significant risk that the road will be damaged and will need to be repaired. The Applicant (Mr. Rathvon) recognized this in his January 30, 2024 submission, where he wrote “road maintenance may be required during and/or after the construction process due to the use of the road by construction vehicles.” Despite this admission, the Applicant has not provided any details of what this work will entail, or how the construction process is anticipated to affect the road. Road maintenance within critical areas (including landslide hazard areas) is specifically addressed at JCC 18.22.230(4)(c). To engage in such activities, the following requirements at JCC 18.22.230(5) apply; yet, the Applicant has provided no information to ensure these requirements will be met. (a) Prior to the start of the activity for which an exemption is sought, the applicant must submit to the department a written description of the activity that includes at least the following information: (i) Type, timing, frequency, and sequence of the activity to be conducted; (ii) Type of equipment to be used (hand or mechanical); Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner Re: Add’l Comments on SDP2023-00020 & RBLD2024-00109 (Rathvon Application) Page 3 of 3 (iii) Manner in which the equipment will be used; and (iv) The best management practices to be used. The written description shall be valid for five years; provided, there is no significant change in the type or extent of the activity. (b) The activity cannot further alter, impact, or encroach upon critical areas or critical area buffers and no reasonable or practicable alternative exists. (c) The activity cannot further affect the functions of a critical area or a critical area buffer, and no reasonable or practicable alternative exists. (d) Best management practices must be implemented to minimize impacts to critical areas and critical area buffers during the activity. (e) Disturbed critical areas and critical area buffers must be restored immediately after the activity is complete. (f) Any impacts of the activity to a critical area or a critical area buffer must be mitigated, as approved by the administrator. JCC 18.22.230(5)(a–f). The County should not issue any permits for this project until the Applicant demonstrates compliance with the requirements above from JCC 18.22.230(5)—which should include, at a minimum, an evaluation of how increased heavy equipment and construction-related traffic will damage the road and the extent of anticipated maintenance activities, an identification of best management practices to prevent such harm, and an evaluation of how damage to the road (and associated maintenance activities) will affect all relevant critical areas. Very truly yours, TELEGIN LAW PLLC Bryan Telegin Counsel for John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver cc: Client EXHIBIT D DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR Re: Shoreline Conditional Use ) PROPOSED FINDINGS, (Administrative) Application ) CONCLUSIONS, AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS File No.: SDP2023-00020 Applicants: Richard Rathvon, 20 Liberty Knoll, Colts Neck, NJ 07722 SUMMARY APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION Proposal: Shoreline conditional use (administrative) and stormwater applications to construct a new house in the Natural shoreline environment designation along Dabob Bay. Residential development is proposed outside of the 150-foot shoreline buffer and 10-foot building setback. Construction of the house and installation of the septic system would be located within 200 feet of ordinary high water mark, but most of the concrete parking area is proposed outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The applicants have submitted a geotechnical report, a stream report, and a cumulative impacts report, and all development would be located outside of the stream buffer. The proposal is not subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Recommendations: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) recommends approval with conditions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Legal Description and Location: The parcel (701164005) is legally described as S16 T27 R1W TAX 2, and is located at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, Washington 98376. Site Conditions: The subject parcel is approximately 5.5 acres in size and slopes down to the west and Dabob Bay. Rural residential parcels are located to the north, south and east of the Rathvon property. The slopes on these parcels are steep and are well vegetated with forested habitats dominated by native plant species. Shoreline Designation: All work is proposed above OHWM in a portion of the shoreline designated as Natural in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as codified in Chapter 18.25 Jefferson County Code (JCC). Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted December 10, 2018) designates the subject parcels as Rural Residential 1 unit/5 acres. Pre-application Conference: No pre-application meeting was conducted. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 2 of 9 Application Date: A shoreline conditional use application was submitted to DCD on November 7, 2023. Site Visit: A site visit was conducted on July 30, 2024. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review: Jefferson County, acting as lead agency for SEPA, determined the proposal is categorically exempt from SEPA review pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(1)(b)(i). NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND COMMENTS Shoreline conditional use procedures (Type II permitting process) require that the application be noticed. Notice of Application: The application was noticed on August 28, 2024: • Published in The Leader on August 28, 2024; • Posted on the property on August 28, 2024; • Sent to agencies and tribes on August 28, 2024; and • Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on August 27, 2024. Comments Received: DCD received comments from Washington State Department of Ecology and property owners along Twana Way (a narrow primitive road). The following briefly summarizes the comment received for this shoreline application: • Suzanne Hawley, Sam Hawley, Jana Hawley, Sue Sigmen, and Teresa Kobzan submitted an email on September 25, 2024, expressing concern about impacts to Twana Way during construction and stated that the applicant should be responsible for returning the road to its current condition. • Nils Glomset submitted a letter, which was received on September 25, 2024. He indicated concerns about heavy machinery harming the road during construction. • Washington State Department of Ecology emailed comments on September 26, 2024, stating that the proposal must be consistent with the following SMP provisions: JCC 18.25.270 (buffers/critical areas), JCC 18.25.310 (vegetation conservation), and JCC 18.25.500 (residential). • Cindi Hawley and Christy Schenck emailed comments on September 26, 2024. They expressed concerns about the road (Twana Way) during construction and suggested that the applicant be required, once construction is complete, to restore the road to current conditions. • Stephanie McGregor and Paul Kooiman emailed comments on September 27, 2024. They expressed concerns about the potential for the existing road to be impacted as large trucks deliver equipment to the Rathvon parcel and the effects of this on pedestrian uses of the road; the impact of a larger house being used by part-time residents in the neighborhood; and the scale of the project could lead to environmental degradation. They requested a more in-depth review to protect the environment and existing conditions. • Bryan Telegin/Telegin Law, representing property owners John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver, emailed a letter on September 27, 2024. Concerns identified in the letter include, but are not limited to, protection of the shoreline environment and surrounding area, use of a primitive road to access the Rathvon property during construction, limitations of the submitted geotechnical report, and an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts is missing. Attached to the letter from the attorney was a review of the geotechnical report that had been prepared by Crescent Environmental PLLC (Crescent). Staff Comment: The majority of comments DCD received pertained to potential impacts to Twana Way during construction. This permit is a shoreline conditional use application for residential development on property located at 660 Twana Way that incorporates a stormwater permit to construct a parking area on SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 3 of 9 the property, just outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Road improvements are beyond the scope of this proposal and this permit for residential development does not authorize any modifications to Twana Way. The proposed residence would be constructed outside of the 150-foot-wide shoreline buffer and 10-foot- wide building setback, as required under JCC 18.25.270. Assuming all permit conditions are followed, no substantive impacts to the shoreline environment is expected. Based on the geotechnical assessment prepared by Crescent, additional information was requested of the project geologist (Stratum Group). DCD requested that a cumulative impacts assessment, prepared by a qualified professional, be submitted. This proposal was reviewed against all applicable sections of the JCC, including the SMP, and this staff report is intended to show compliance shoreline and stormwater permitting requirements. JEFFERSON COUNTY APPROVALS REQUIRED/APPLICABLE ORDINANCES A shoreline conditional use permit (Type II process) is required for residential development within the Natural shoreline environment designation. The proposal was reviewed against all relevant requirements, specifically: • Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 10, 2018; • Shoreline Master Program for Jefferson County, effective February 21, 2014; and • Jefferson County Code, Title 18 – Unified Development Code, adopted December 18, 2000 and effective January 16, 2001, as amended. STAFF FINDINGS The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code, including the Shoreline Master Program. 1. Proposal. The proposal is to construct a new single-family residence, most of which would be located within the Natural shoreline environment designation. Residential development is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and building setback. 2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed shoreline development is subject to the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The shoreline goal (EN-G-4) states: Implement Chapter 18.25 JCC to protect shoreline functions and processes while allowing appropriate development and uses within the shorelines of Jefferson County. Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program) and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal and the policies of ensuring the proposal complies with SMP goals and policies (Policy EN-P-4.1) and working cooperatively with Ecology (Policy EN-P-4.2). 3. Jefferson County Code – Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22). The proposed development is within shoreline jurisdiction, and is subject to the critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC. DCD staff reviewed the application for the potential presence of critical areas. After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and a site visit, it was determined that the following have the potential to occur on the property: geologically hazardous areas (high and moderate landslide hazards, unstable shoreline slope stability, seismic hazards, erosion hazards), fish and wildlife habitat SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 4 of 9 conservation areas (primary association for listed species, patchy fringe of eelgrass), frequently flooded areas (Zone VE), critical aquifer recharge areas (susceptible), and seawater intrusion protection zones (coastal). Staff Comment: The proposed development is landward of the floodplain mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. For this reason, no Habitat Assessment was requested of the applicant. The proposed development is proposed outside of the 150-foot buffer and 10-foot building setback. Since no development is proposed below OHWM and the proposal avoids direct impacts to the shoreline buffer and minimizes the potential for indirect impacts, no mitigation plan was required of the applicant. The applicants submitted a Stream Assessment report (dated December 19 2022) that was prepared by Peninsula Environmental. This report states that most of a Type Ns stream with a 50-foot buffer is present on a parcel immediately south of the Rathvon property, with the stream crossing the Rathvon property in the southeasternmost corner of the parcel. The stream buffer extends north onto the Rathvon property but all development is proposed outside the stream buffer. No stream buffer impacts are proposed so mitigation plan was required of the applicant. A Geotechnical Hazard Assessment, prepared by Stratum Group (dated February 15, 2022), was submitted. This report recommends that all development (including discharging stormwater) be located at least 30 from the shoreline bluff slope and provided vegetation retention criteria. As part of the comment from Telegin Law, a report prepared by Crescent stated there were inaccuracies and omissions in the report prepared by Stratum Group. Based on the county request for additional information, Stratum Group prepared a response (received October 11, 2024) and a Geology Hazard Assessment Update report (dated November 14, 2024). Subsequent to this, the applicant submitted a Geology Hazard Assessment for Twana Way Improvements. Road improvements are not proposed within shoreline jurisdiction or at the parking area on the Rathvon parcel so this report is beyond the scope of this proposal to construct a single-family residence. Residential development in critical aquifer recharge areas and seawater intrusion protection zones is allowed; therefore, no aquifer recharge report was required. The shoreline application was noticed to state agencies and tribes. DCD did not receive any comments indicating that critical areas have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposal. The shoreline permit will be conditioned to comply with mitigation measures and recommendations in the submitted reports. It should be noted that Telegin Law submitted additional comments on March 27, 2025. The letter states that the updated geotechnical report does not include a slope stability or surface erosion assessment and that road maintenance has not yet been adequately addressed. Staff Comment: The current application is to construct a new single-family residence within shoreline jurisdiction. Evaluation of Twana Way, which is located beyond the limits of shoreline jurisdiction, is outside the scope of the shoreline application. The shoreline permit has a condition clarifying that the shoreline permit does not authorize any work on Twana Way. 4. Jefferson County Code – Stormwater (JCC 18.30.060 and 18.30.070). Residential development is required to comply with JCC requirements for controlling stormwater, which includes compliance the current version of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Staff Comment: A Stormwater Management Plan was prepared by Evergreen Engineering Services (dated June 24, 2024). The permit is conditioned to comply the stormwater management design criteria and best management practices in the engineered stormwater plan and the recommendations in and the geotechnical report. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 5 of 9 5. Jefferson County Code – Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC). The proposal is subject to the policies and regulations of the SMP. The regulations from the following sections in the SMP are applicable to this application: • JCC 18.25.500 Residential • JCC 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria • JCC 18.25.590 Conditional use permit criteria • JCC 18.25.260 to 18.25.320 (Article VI) General policies and regulations JCC 18.25.500(1) identifies policies for residential development. Policies that are applicable to the proposal are addressed below. (a) Residential use is not water-dependent but is a preferred use of the shorelines when such development is planned and carried out in a manner that protects shoreline functions and processes to be consistent with the no net loss provisions of this program. Staff Comment: The proposal avoids direct impacts to the shoreline buffer and the residential structure will be constructed outside of the 10-foot building setback. The permit has been conditioned to require best management practices (such as installation of silt fencing along the limits of clearing) be implement to minimize the potential for the shoreline environment to be adversely affected during construction. (b) All residential use and development should be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on shoreline processes, aquatic habitat, biological function, water quality and quantity, aesthetics, navigation, and neighboring uses. Staff Comment: The proposal is not expected to have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, biological functions, or aesthetics and is consistent with neighboring uses, assuming all permit conditions are followed. All development is proposed above OHWM so aquatic habitat and navigation will not be negatively affected. (c) All residential use and development should be properly managed to avoid damage to the shoreline environment and prevent cumulative impacts associated with shoreline armoring, overwater structures, stormwater runoff, septic systems, introduction of pollutants, and vegetation clearing. Staff Comment: No in-water or overwater structures are proposed. The proposal has been reviewed by other agencies, tribes, and county departments, and DCD did not receive any comments indicating the proposal has the potential to negatively affect the shoreline environment or result in cumulative impacts. The applicant will be required to comply with the stormwater manual and the recommendations in the geotechnical report. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the shoreline are expected. (g) Residential development should be designed to: (i) Maintain or improve ecological functions and processes; and (ii) Preserve and enhance native shoreline vegetation; and (iii) Control erosion; and (iv) Protect water quality; and (v) Preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics; and (vi) Minimize structural observations to public views and normal public use of the shoreline and the water. Staff Comment: As proposed, the residential expansion meets all of the above. The applicant is proposing to build outside of the shoreline buffer so shoreline vegetation will be preserved. The recommendations in the geotechnical report and the engineered stormwater plan should minimize the SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 6 of 9 potential for erosion to occur. The proposal is not expected to affect water quality, negatively affect shoreline aesthetics, or affect use of the shoreline. JCC 18.25.500(2) identifies uses and activities that are prohibited outright, such as in-water, overwater, and floating residences and residences that may need armoring/structural protection. Staff Comment: The proposal is not a use or activity that is prohibited outright. JCC 18.25.500(3)(a) presents the shoreline environment regulations for the Natural environment designation. Staff Comment: The Natural environment designation states that one single-family residence may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. JCC 18.25.500(4) presents development regulations for primary residences and property subdivision. The following addresses those regulations that are applicable to the application. Residential regulations not applicable to this proposal, such as cluster development, multi-story, multi-unit, and subdivision requirements, are not discussed. (a) Residential use and development shall be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on shoreline processes, aquatic habitat, biological functions, water quality, aesthetics, navigation, and neighboring uses. Staff Comment: The applicants are proposing residential development outside of the shoreline buffer. This proposal avoids impacts to the shoreline environment to the extent possible and is consistent with no net loss requirements in JCC 18.25.270. In addition, the applicants will be required to implement stormwater best management practices to minimize the potential for water quality degradation and erosion impacts during construction. (b) The buffer requirements in Article VI of this program apply to residences, normal appurtenances, and accessory dwelling units, except that docks, floats, and beach assess structures and other water- dependent and water-related structures accessory to residential use may be permitted to encroach into the buffer in accordance with the applicable provisions of this program. Accessory structures must be sited and designed to not require shoreline armoring within 100 years. Staff Comment: The existing residential structure will be constructed outside of the 150-foot shoreline buffer and 10-foot building setback. Accessory structures are not proposed. JCC 18.25.540 lists shoreline substantial development permit criteria: To be authorized, all uses and developments shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with this program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required. Staff Comment: The permitting process for residential structures in the Natural environment designation is shoreline conditional use (administrative). The application was reviewed against all applicable sections of the SMP. JCC 18.25.590(1) states the purpose of conditional use permits: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in administering the use regulations of this program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the county or the Department of Ecology to control any undesirable effects of the proposed use. Final authority for conditional use permit decisions rests with the Department of Ecology. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 7 of 9 Staff Comment: The permit has been conditioned to state that work on this proposal shall not begin until the applicant has received Ecology approval. JCC 18.25.590(2) states specifies criteria that must be met to issue a conditional use permit: Uses specifically classified or set forth in this program as conditional uses and unlisted uses may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and the SMP. (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of public shorelines. Staff Comment: The proposal is located on private land and will not affect public use of shorelines. (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with adjacent residential uses. (d) That the proposed use will not cause adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located. Staff Comment: Based on information submitted, no adverse effects to existing shoreline conditions would be expected. To minimize the potential for adverse effects, permit conditions have been added that require the applicant to construct the new structure consistent with application materials submitted as part of project permitting. (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Staff Comment: The scope of this permit is limited to construction of a new single-family residence, as shown on the approved site plan. Based on this, no substantial detrimental effects are expected. JCC 18.25.590(3) addresses cumulative impacts: In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the sum of the conditional uses and their impacts should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce a significant adverse effect to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users. Staff Comment: This portion of the shoreline is used for residential purposes and the proposal is consistent with other development in the area. The proposed development is allowed under the SMP, and the potential impacts for similar requests in the areas would be consistent with the polices of RCW 90.58.020. JCC 18.25.590(4) identifies limits to the shoreline permit: Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under county zoning or subdivision code requirements shall not be construed as shoreline variances under this program. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this application as no land use variance permits are needed. JCC 18.25.270 addresses critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with all applicable policies and regulations, and all development has been proposed outside of the shoreline buffer. The proposal has been conditioned to require compliance with the stormwater plan and geotechnical recommendations. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 8 of 9 JCC 18.25.280 addresses historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. Staff Comment: DCD did not receive any comments indicating that the proposal has the potential to affect these resources so it is assumed to be consistent with this provision. JCC 18.25.290 addresses public access. Staff Comment: Not applicable - the proposal to construct a single-family residence does not require public access. JCC 18.25.300 addresses shoreline setbacks and height. Staff Comment: The existing residential structure is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and building setback and will meet height requirements. JCC 18.25.310 addresses vegetation conservation. Staff Comment: Vegetation within the shoreline buffer will not be impacted by the proposal. An existing footpath may be used from the proposed house location to access the beach. The shoreline buffer will remain vegetated and the proposal is consistent with the vegetation conservation provisions in the SMP. JCC 18.25.320 addresses water quality and quantity. Staff Comment: The proposal is conditioned for compliance with the stormwater plan prepared for this project and the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Compliance with this manual is intended to minimize the potential for water quality impacts during construction and to ensure that construction materials are not transported to or placed in the waters or intertidal areas. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SHORELINE PERMIT Based on the preceding findings, DCD recommends Approval of the conditional use application. Staff found the proposal to be consistent with applicable Code requirements and should be granted subject to conditions. Any of the staff recommended conditions of approval may be adopted, rejected, or modified by Ecology, who has final review and approval of shoreline conditional use applications. 1. This proposal requires final permitting approval from Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Construction shall not begin until Ecology has sent written authorization to proceed. 2. Substantial progress towards completion of the project shall be performed within two years of the issuance of the permit. 3. Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as approved for this shoreline permit shall receive separate review by DCD. 4. A silt fence shall be installed 160 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as shown on the approved site plan, to prevent sediments from being transported from the construction area to the shoreline. At the drainfield location, the silt fence shall be placed no closer than 150 feet from OHWM. The permittee shall contact DCD planning to review the silt fence installation prior to proceeding with any other work on the property. 5. The permittee shall ensure that all construction-related activities for the house, including ground clearing and stockpiling equipment, are conducted at least 160 feet from OHWM and that all ground disturbance to install the drainfield is conducted at least 150 feet from OHWM. 6. This shoreline permit is for construction of a new single-family residence and development on the subject property is limited to that shown on the approved site plan. 7. This permit does not authorize any modifications to the existing access road. It is the responsibility of the permittee to obtain any required permits. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 9 of 9 8. The permittee shall ensure that all development, including ground-disturbing activities, occurs outside the 50-foot buffer associated with an off-site stream. 9. The permittee shall comply with the 2019 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and with the stormwater plan prepared by Evergreen Engineering Services (dated June 24, 2024). This includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stormwater requirements: a. BMP T5.10B – Downspout Dispersion Systems (for roof downspout flow); b. BMP T5.12 – Sheet Flow Dispersion (for driveways); c. BMP T5.13 – Post-construction Soil Quality and Depth (to restore disturbed areas; d. Exposed soils shall be stabilized; e. Pollutants (such as motor oil and construction debris) shall not be released or discharged; f. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be routinely inspected and maintained; and g. Unnecessary ground disturbance is not allowed. 10. The permittee shall adhere to all conclusions and recommendations in the Geologic Hazard Assessment report (dated February 15, 2022) and Geologic Hazard Assessment Update (dated November 14, 2024), both of which were prepared by Stratum Group. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The single-family residence shall be constructed at least 30 feet from the top of the shoreline bluff; b. Stormwater shall not be discharged within 30 feet of the top of the shoreline bluff slope; c. Tree and cover vegetation removal is limited on the bluff and buffer; and d. Yard debris and waste shall not be placed on the bluff face or near any steep slope. 11. No fill or other materials may be placed in the waters or intertidal areas of Jefferson County. Prepared by Donna Frostholm, Project Planner on April 10, 2025. EXHIBIT E DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR Re: Shoreline Conditional Use ) PROPOSED FINDINGS, (Administrative) Application ) CONCLUSIONS, AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS File No.: SDP2023-00020 Applicants: Richard Rathvon, 20 Liberty Knoll, Colts Neck, NJ 07722 SUMMARY APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION Proposal: Shoreline conditional use (administrative) and stormwater applications to construct a new house in the Natural shoreline environment designation along Dabob Bay. Residential development is proposed outside of the 150-foot shoreline buffer and 10-foot building setback. Construction of the house and installation of the septic system would be located within 200 feet of ordinary high water mark, but most of the concrete parking area is proposed outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The applicants have submitted a geotechnical report, a stream report, and a cumulative impacts report, and all development would be located outside of the stream buffer. The proposal is not subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Recommendations: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) recommends approval with conditions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Legal Description and Location: The parcel (701164005) is legally described as S16 T27 R1W TAX 2, and is located at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, Washington 98376. Site Conditions: The subject parcel is approximately 5.5 acres in size and slopes down to the west and Dabob Bay. Rural residential parcels are located to the north, south and east of the Rathvon property. The slopes on these parcels are steep and are well vegetated with forested habitats dominated by native plant species. Shoreline Designation: All work is proposed above OHWM in a portion of the shoreline designated as Natural in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as codified in Chapter 18.25 Jefferson County Code (JCC). Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted December 10, 2018) designates the subject parcels as Rural Residential 1 unit/5 acres. Pre-application Conference: A pre-application meeting was conducted on October 25, 2022. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 2 of 9 Application Date: A shoreline conditional use application was submitted to DCD on November 7, 2023. Site Visit: A site visit was conducted on July 30, 2024. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review: Jefferson County, acting as lead agency for SEPA, determined the proposal is categorically exempt from SEPA review pursuant to WAC 197-11- 800(1)(b)(i). NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND COMMENTS Shoreline conditional use procedures (Type II permitting process) require that the application be noticed. Notice of Application: The application was noticed on August 28, 2024: • Published in The Leader on August 28, 2024; • Posted on the property on August 28, 2024; • Sent to agencies and tribes on August 28, 2024; and • Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on August 27, 2024. Comments Received: DCD received comments from Washington State Department of Ecology and property owners along Twana Way (a narrow primitive road). The following briefly summarizes the comment received for this shoreline application: • Suzanne Hawley, Sam Hawley, Jana Hawley, Sue Sigmen, and Teresa Kobzan submitted an email on September 25, 2024, expressing concern about impacts to Twana Way during construction and stated that the applicant should be responsible for returning the road to its current condition. • Nils Glomset submitted a letter, which was received on September 25, 2024. He indicated concerns about heavy machinery harming the road during construction. • Washington State Department of Ecology emailed comments on September 26, 2024, stating that the proposal must be consistent with the following SMP provisions: JCC 18.25.270 (buffers/critical areas), JCC 18.25.310 (vegetation conservation), and JCC 18.25.500 (residential). • Cindi Hawley and Christy Schenck emailed comments on September 26, 2024. They expressed concerns about the road (Twana Way) during construction and suggested that the applicant be required, once construction is complete, to restore the road to current conditions. • Stephanie McGregor and Paul Kooiman emailed comments on September 27, 2024. They expressed concerns about the potential for the existing road to be impacted as large trucks deliver equipment to the Rathvon parcel and the effects of this on pedestrian uses of the road; the impact of a larger house being used by part-time residents in the neighborhood; and the scale of the project could lead to environmental degradation. They requested a more in-depth review to protect the environment and existing conditions. • Bryan Telegin/Telegin Law, representing property owners John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver, emailed a letter on September 27, 2024. Concerns identified in the letter include, but are not limited to, protection of the shoreline environment and surrounding area, use of a primitive road to access the Rathvon property during construction, limitations of the submitted geotechnical report, and an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts is missing. Attached to the letter from the attorney was a review of the geotechnical report that had been prepared by Crescent Environmental PLLC (Crescent). Staff Comment: The majority of comments DCD received pertained to potential impacts to Twana Way during construction. This permit is a shoreline conditional use application for residential development on property located at 660 Twana Way that incorporates a stormwater permit to construct a parking area on SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 3 of 9 the property, just outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Road improvements are beyond the scope of this proposal and this permit for residential development does not authorize any modifications to Twana Way. The proposed residence would be constructed outside of the 150-foot-wide shoreline buffer and 10-foot- wide building setback, as required under JCC 18.25.270. Assuming all permit conditions are followed, no substantive impacts to the shoreline environment is expected. Based on the geotechnical assessment prepared by Crescent, additional information was requested of the project geologist (Stratum Group). DCD requested that a cumulative impacts assessment, prepared by a qualified professional, be submitted. This proposal was reviewed against all applicable sections of the JCC, including the SMP, and this staff report is intended to show compliance shoreline and stormwater permitting requirements. JEFFERSON COUNTY APPROVALS REQUIRED/APPLICABLE ORDINANCES A shoreline conditional use permit (Type II process) is required for residential development within the Natural shoreline environment designation. The proposal was reviewed against all relevant requirements, specifically: • Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 10, 2018; • Shoreline Master Program for Jefferson County, effective February 21, 2014; and • Jefferson County Code, Title 18 – Unified Development Code, adopted December 18, 2000 and effective January 16, 2001, as amended. STAFF FINDINGS The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code, including the Shoreline Master Program. 1. Proposal. The proposal is to construct a new single-family residence, most of which would be located within the Natural shoreline environment designation. Residential development is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and building setback. 2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed shoreline development is subject to the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The shoreline goal (EN-G-4) states: Implement Chapter 18.25 JCC to protect shoreline functions and processes while allowing appropriate development and uses within the shorelines of Jefferson County. Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program) and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal and the policies of ensuring the proposal complies with SMP goals and policies (Policy EN-P-4.1) and working cooperatively with Ecology (Policy EN-P-4.2). 3. Jefferson County Code – Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22). The proposed development is within shoreline jurisdiction, and is subject to the critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC. DCD staff reviewed the application for the potential presence of critical areas. After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and a site visit, it was determined that the following have the potential to occur on the property: geologically hazardous areas (high and moderate landslide hazards, unstable shoreline slope stability, seismic hazards, erosion hazards), fish and wildlife habitat SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 4 of 9 conservation areas (primary association for listed species, patchy fringe of eelgrass), frequently flooded areas (Zone VE), critical aquifer recharge areas (susceptible), and seawater intrusion protection zones (coastal). Staff Comment: The proposed development is landward of the floodplain mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. For this reason, no Habitat Assessment was requested of the applicant. The proposed development is proposed outside of the 150-foot buffer and 10-foot building setback. Since no development is proposed below OHWM and the proposal avoids direct impacts to the shoreline buffer and minimizes the potential for indirect impacts, no mitigation plan was required of the applicant. The applicants submitted a Stream Assessment report (dated December 19 2022) that was prepared by Peninsula Environmental. This report states that most of a Type Ns stream with a 50-foot buffer is present on a parcel immediately south of the Rathvon property, with the stream crossing the Rathvon property in the southeasternmost corner of the parcel. The stream buffer extends north onto the Rathvon property but all development is proposed outside the stream buffer. No stream buffer impacts are proposed so mitigation plan was required of the applicant. A Geotechnical Hazard Assessment, prepared by Stratum Group (dated February 15, 2022), was submitted. This report recommends that all development (including discharging stormwater) be located at least 30 from the shoreline bluff slope and provided vegetation retention criteria. As part of the comment from Telegin Law, a report prepared by Crescent stated there were inaccuracies and omissions in the report prepared by Stratum Group. Based on the county request for additional information, Stratum Group prepared a response (received October 11, 2024) and a Geology Hazard Assessment Update report (dated November 14, 2024). Subsequent to this, the applicant submitted a Geology Hazard Assessment for Twana Way Improvements. Road improvements are not proposed within shoreline jurisdiction or at the parking area on the Rathvon parcel so this report is beyond the scope of this proposal to construct a single-family residence. Residential development in critical aquifer recharge areas and seawater intrusion protection zones is allowed; therefore, no aquifer recharge report was required. The shoreline application was noticed to state agencies and tribes. DCD did not receive any comments indicating that critical areas have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposal. The shoreline permit will be conditioned to comply with mitigation measures and recommendations in the submitted reports. It should be noted that Telegin Law submitted additional comments on March 27, 2025. The letter states that the updated geotechnical report does not include a slope stability or surface erosion assessment and that road maintenance has not yet been adequately addressed. Staff Comment: The current application is to construct a new single-family residence within shoreline jurisdiction. Evaluation of Twana Way, which is located beyond the limits of shoreline jurisdiction, is outside the scope of the shoreline application. The shoreline permit has a condition clarifying that the shoreline permit does not authorize any work on Twana Way. 4. Jefferson County Code – Stormwater (JCC 18.30.060 and 18.30.070). Residential development is required to comply with JCC requirements for controlling stormwater, which includes compliance the current version of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Staff Comment: A Stormwater Management Plan was prepared by Evergreen Engineering Services (dated June 24, 2024). The permit is conditioned to comply the stormwater management design criteria and best management practices in the engineered stormwater plan and the recommendations in and the geotechnical report. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 5 of 9 5. Jefferson County Code – Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC). The proposal is subject to the policies and regulations of the SMP. The regulations from the following sections in the SMP are applicable to this application: • JCC 18.25.500 Residential • JCC 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria • JCC 18.25.590 Conditional use permit criteria • JCC 18.25.260 to 18.25.320 (Article VI) General policies and regulations JCC 18.25.500(1) identifies policies for residential development. Policies that are applicable to the proposal are addressed below. (a) Residential use is not water-dependent but is a preferred use of the shorelines when such development is planned and carried out in a manner that protects shoreline functions and processes to be consistent with the no net loss provisions of this program. Staff Comment: The proposal avoids direct impacts to the shoreline buffer and the residential structure will be constructed outside of the 10-foot building setback. The permit has been conditioned to require best management practices (such as installation of silt fencing along the limits of clearing) be implement to minimize the potential for the shoreline environment to be adversely affected during construction. (b) All residential use and development should be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on shoreline processes, aquatic habitat, biological function, water quality and quantity, aesthetics, navigation, and neighboring uses. Staff Comment: The proposal is not expected to have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, biological functions, or aesthetics and is consistent with neighboring uses, assuming all permit conditions are followed. All development is proposed above OHWM so aquatic habitat and navigation will not be negatively affected. (c) All residential use and development should be properly managed to avoid damage to the shoreline environment and prevent cumulative impacts associated with shoreline armoring, overwater structures, stormwater runoff, septic systems, introduction of pollutants, and vegetation clearing. Staff Comment: No in-water or overwater structures are proposed. The proposal has been reviewed by other agencies, tribes, and county departments, and DCD did not receive any comments indicating the proposal has the potential to negatively affect the shoreline environment or result in cumulative impacts. The applicant will be required to comply with the stormwater manual and the recommendations in the geotechnical report. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the shoreline are expected. (g) Residential development should be designed to: (i) Maintain or improve ecological functions and processes; and (ii) Preserve and enhance native shoreline vegetation; and (iii) Control erosion; and (iv) Protect water quality; and (v) Preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics; and (vi) Minimize structural observations to public views and normal public use of the shoreline and the water. Staff Comment: As proposed, the residential expansion meets all of the above. The applicant is proposing to build outside of the shoreline buffer so shoreline vegetation will be preserved. The recommendations in the geotechnical report and the engineered stormwater plan should minimize the SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 6 of 9 potential for erosion to occur. The proposal is not expected to affect water quality, negatively affect shoreline aesthetics, or affect use of the shoreline. JCC 18.25.500(2) identifies uses and activities that are prohibited outright, such as in-water, overwater, and floating residences and residences that may need armoring/structural protection. Staff Comment: The proposal is not a use or activity that is prohibited outright. JCC 18.25.500(3)(a) presents the shoreline environment regulations for the Natural environment designation. Staff Comment: The Natural environment designation states that one single-family residence may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. JCC 18.25.500(4) presents development regulations for primary residences and property subdivision. The following addresses those regulations that are applicable to the application. Residential regulations not applicable to this proposal, such as cluster development, multi-story, multi-unit, and subdivision requirements, are not discussed. (a) Residential use and development shall be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on shoreline processes, aquatic habitat, biological functions, water quality, aesthetics, navigation, and neighboring uses. Staff Comment: The applicants are proposing residential development outside of the shoreline buffer. This proposal avoids impacts to the shoreline environment to the extent possible and is consistent with no net loss requirements in JCC 18.25.270. In addition, the applicants will be required to implement stormwater best management practices to minimize the potential for water quality degradation and erosion impacts during construction. (b) The buffer requirements in Article VI of this program apply to residences, normal appurtenances, and accessory dwelling units, except that docks, floats, and beach assess structures and other water- dependent and water-related structures accessory to residential use may be permitted to encroach into the buffer in accordance with the applicable provisions of this program. Accessory structures must be sited and designed to not require shoreline armoring within 100 years. Staff Comment: The existing residential structure will be constructed outside of the 150-foot shoreline buffer and 10-foot building setback. Accessory structures are not proposed. JCC 18.25.540 lists shoreline substantial development permit criteria: To be authorized, all uses and developments shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with this program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required. Staff Comment: The permitting process for residential structures in the Natural environment designation is shoreline conditional use (administrative). The application was reviewed against all applicable sections of the SMP. JCC 18.25.590(1) states the purpose of conditional use permits: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in administering the use regulations of this program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the county or the Department of Ecology to control any undesirable effects of the proposed use. Final authority for conditional use permit decisions rests with the Department of Ecology. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 7 of 9 Staff Comment: The permit has been conditioned to state that work on this proposal shall not begin until the applicant has received Ecology approval. JCC 18.25.590(2) states specifies criteria that must be met to issue a conditional use permit: Uses specifically classified or set forth in this program as conditional uses and unlisted uses may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with RCW 90.58.020 and the SMP. (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of public shorelines. Staff Comment: The proposal is located on private land and will not affect public use of shorelines. (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with adjacent residential uses. (d) That the proposed use will not cause adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located. Staff Comment: Based on information submitted, no adverse effects to existing shoreline conditions would be expected. To minimize the potential for adverse effects, permit conditions have been added that require the applicant to construct the new structure consistent with application materials submitted as part of project permitting. (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Staff Comment: The scope of this permit is limited to construction of a new single-family residence, as shown on the approved site plan. Based on this, no substantial detrimental effects are expected. JCC 18.25.590(3) addresses cumulative impacts: In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the sum of the conditional uses and their impacts should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce a significant adverse effect to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users. Staff Comment: This portion of the shoreline is used for residential purposes and the proposal is consistent with other development in the area. The proposed development is allowed under the SMP, and the potential impacts for similar requests in the areas would be consistent with the polices of RCW 90.58.020. JCC 18.25.590(4) identifies limits to the shoreline permit: Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under county zoning or subdivision code requirements shall not be construed as shoreline variances under this program. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this application as no land use variance permits are needed. JCC 18.25.270 addresses critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with all applicable policies and regulations, and all development has been proposed outside of the shoreline buffer. The proposal has been conditioned to require compliance with the stormwater plan and geotechnical recommendations. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 8 of 9 JCC 18.25.280 addresses historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. Staff Comment: DCD did not receive any comments indicating that the proposal has the potential to affect these resources so it is assumed to be consistent with this provision. JCC 18.25.290 addresses public access. Staff Comment: Not applicable - the proposal to construct a single-family residence does not require public access. JCC 18.25.300 addresses shoreline setbacks and height. Staff Comment: The existing residential structure is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and building setback and will meet height requirements. JCC 18.25.310 addresses vegetation conservation. Staff Comment: Vegetation within the shoreline buffer will not be impacted by the proposal. An existing footpath may be used from the proposed house location to access the beach. The shoreline buffer will remain vegetated and the proposal is consistent with the vegetation conservation provisions in the SMP. JCC 18.25.320 addresses water quality and quantity. Staff Comment: The proposal is conditioned for compliance with the stormwater plan prepared for this project and the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Compliance with this manual is intended to minimize the potential for water quality impacts during construction and to ensure that construction materials are not transported to or placed in the waters or intertidal areas. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SHORELINE PERMIT Based on the preceding findings, DCD recommends Approval of the conditional use application. Staff found the proposal to be consistent with applicable Code requirements and should be granted subject to conditions. Any of the staff recommended conditions of approval may be adopted, rejected, or modified by Ecology, who has final review and approval of shoreline conditional use applications. 1. This proposal requires final permitting approval from Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Construction shall not begin until Ecology has sent written authorization to proceed. 2. Substantial progress towards completion of the project shall be performed within two years of the issuance of the permit. 3. Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as approved for this shoreline permit shall receive separate review by DCD. 4. A silt fence shall be installed 160 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as shown on the approved site plan, to prevent sediments from being transported from the construction area to the shoreline. At the drainfield location, the silt fence shall be placed no closer than 150 feet from OHWM. The permittee shall contact DCD planning to review the silt fence installation prior to proceeding with any other work on the property. 5. The permittee shall ensure that all construction-related activities for the house, including ground clearing and stockpiling equipment, are conducted at least 160 feet from OHWM and that all ground disturbance to install the drainfield is conducted at least 150 feet from OHWM. 6. This shoreline permit is for construction of a new single-family residence and development on the subject property is limited to that shown on the approved site plan. 7. This permit does not authorize any modifications to the existing access road. It is the responsibility of the permittee to obtain any required permits. SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Residence Page 9 of 9 8. The permittee shall ensure that all development, including ground-disturbing activities, occurs outside the 50-foot buffer associated with an off-site stream. 9. The permittee shall comply with the 2019 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and with the stormwater plan prepared by Evergreen Engineering Services (dated June 24, 2024). This includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stormwater requirements: a. BMP T5.10B – Downspout Dispersion Systems (for roof downspout flow); b. BMP T5.12 – Sheet Flow Dispersion (for driveways); c. BMP T5.13 – Post-construction Soil Quality and Depth (to restore disturbed areas; d. Exposed soils shall be stabilized; e. Pollutants (such as motor oil and construction debris) shall not be released or discharged; f. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be routinely inspected and maintained; and g. Unnecessary ground disturbance is not allowed. 10. The permittee shall adhere to all conclusions and recommendations in the Geologic Hazard Assessment report (dated February 15, 2022) and Geologic Hazard Assessment Update (dated November 14, 2024), both of which were prepared by Stratum Group. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The single-family residence shall be constructed at least 30 feet from the top of the shoreline bluff; b. Stormwater shall not be discharged within 30 feet of the top of the shoreline bluff slope; c. Tree and cover vegetation removal is limited on the bluff and buffer; and d. Yard debris and waste shall not be placed on the bluff face or near any steep slope. 11. No fill or other materials may be placed in the waters or intertidal areas of Jefferson County. Prepared by Donna Frostholm, Project Planner on April 10, 2025. EXHIBIT F DWW W W W W W GSDSDSD P P P P P P P P P 5' SIDEYARD SETBACK APPROXIMATE STREAM OHWM LOCATION 50FT STREAM SETBACK PROPERTY LINE1 6 0 ' S E T B A C K PROPOSED PARKING AREA 5' SIDEYARD SETBACK R. P.PROPOSED RESIDENCE W T. 1 0 0 ' S E T B A C K PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PROPANE TANK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE DABOB BAY APPROVED SEPTIC DRAINFIELD LOCATION PER SEP2022-00114 OHWMP 1 5 0 ' S E T B A C K EXISTING DRIVE WELL LOCATION 100FT WELL RADIUS REPORTED POWER UTILITY BOX PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK W W W GPARKING AREA SEPTIC FIELD SEPTIC TANK PROPOSED STRUCTURE AREA OF LAND DISTURBANCE, TYP. ESTIMATED LAND DISTURBANCE = 12,950± SF UTILITIES, TYP. OVERALL SITE PLAN A1.0 3309 WALLINGFORD AVE. N SEATTLE, WA 98103 PH: 206.728.0480 WWW.McCLELLAN-TELLONE.COM © 2024 MCCLELLAN | TELLONE PROJECT: RATHVON RESIDENCE 660 TWANA WAY QUILCENE, WA 98376 CLIENT: RICH & RENEE RATHVON AUGUST 15, 2024 DATE: SHEET TITLE: SHEET: 01 McCLELLAN TELLONE REV PHASE / ISSUE DATE 06/24/24PERMIT SET 08/15/24PERMIT REVISION 1 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN 1" = 30'-0" N DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY SITE AREA: 238,273 ft² IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 25% = 59,568 ft² FRONT YARD: NA SIDE YARDS:5 ft REAR YARD:5 ft SHORELINE:150 ft + 10 ft BUILDING HEIGHT:35 ft IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCULATIONS PERMITTED: 59,568 ft² / 25% EXISTING DRIVEWAY = 4,300 ft 2 ROOF AREA = 3,676 ft 2 PARKING AREA = 1,304 ft 2 DECKS = 60 ft 2 WALKWAYS = 148 ft 2 TOTAL PROPOSED: 9,488 ft² / 4% 2 LIMITS OF WORK 1" = 50'-0" N 01 DWW W W W W W W W W W W W GGGGP P P P PSS SDSDSD SDSDSD SD SD P P P P COVERED TERRACE PROPOSED RESIDENCE PRIMARY SUITE DECK EX. DRIVE 16 0 ' S E T B A C K GARDEN 87.0' T.O. SBFR +88 WALK WAY +89+87 PARKING AREA ENTRY +74 +76 +86 +86 +76 +86 +74 +76 +86.5 +86 +86 +89 +73 +76 +72 1 0 0 ' S E T B A C K 26'-6"58'-8" ± TO PROPERTY LINE447'-4" ± TO PROPERTY LINE PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS, TYP CONCRETE PARKING AREA WITH CURB LINE OF ROOF ABOVE, TYP. OUTDOOR SHOWER BELOW PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK APPROVED SEPTIC DRAINFIELD LOCATION POWER UTILITY BOX UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY FINAL PLACEMENT, TYP. ds ds ds ds DISPERSION BLOCK PER STORMWATER PLAN, TYP. NOTE: REF. STORMWATER MGMT. PLAN PER CIVIL ENGINEER 15 0 ' S E T B A C K 34'16' 17'-3" V.I.F.24'25' V.I .F . 14'-6"9' -10 " 9'-6"4' 26'-6"80'16' 30' ENLARGED SITE PLAN A1.1 3309 WALLINGFORD AVE. N SEATTLE, WA 98103 PH: 206.728.0480 WWW.McCLELLAN-TELLONE.COM © 2024 MCCLELLAN | TELLONE PROJECT: RATHVON RESIDENCE 660 TWANA WAY QUILCENE, WA 98376 CLIENT: RICH & RENEE RATHVON AUGUST 15, 2024 DATE: SHEET TITLE: SHEET: 01 McCLELLAN TELLONE REV PHASE / ISSUE DATE 06/24/24PERMIT SET 08/15/24PERMIT REVISION 1 N 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H Records: 698 County of Kitsap, Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INC…Powered by Esri Landslide Hazard Legend KEYSOILS: 3 Jefferson County Washington Open Data Site Landslide Hazard Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County, Washington Summary Landslide risk based on soil types for eastern Jefferson County View Full Details Download Details Dataset Feature Layer May 15, 2017 at 10:59:11 AM PDT Info Updated May 15, 2017 at 10:59:11 AM PDT Data Updated May 12, 2017 at 3:21:58 PM PDT Published Date Records: 698 View data table Public Anyone can see this contentI want to use this 6/23/25, 1:22 PM Landslide Hazard | Open Data Portal https://gisdata-jeffcowa.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/553e2a3518124f83acaa8fe46a7244f9_5/explore?location=47.829915%2C-122.792060%2C16.00 1/1