The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 Comment ReceivedDonna Frostholm From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:37 AM To: rrathvon@gmail.com Cc: 'Terry McHugh'; 'Richard Rathvon' Subject: RE: October schedule Attachments: sdp023-00020 comments_001.pdf Rich, It is good that you could make 10:00 work as I am in a meeting from 9:00 to 10:00 on Tuesday mornings. As you requested, I have attached the comments I received during the 30-day notice period. See you next week, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: rrathvon@gmail.com <rrathvon@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 2:42 AM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: 'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olypen.com>;'Richard Rathvon' <rich@rathvonconsulting.com> Subject: RE: October schedule ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Donna, Good morning. Let's keep the meeting at 10:00 am as you had originally suggested. Also, could you please provide me a copy of the several comments that you referenced below and that we would be discussing on Tuesday? We look forward to meeting with you. Regards, N.W1 From: rrathvon@gmail.com <rrathvonPgmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 11:05 AM To:'Donna Frostholm' <DFrostholm@co.iefferson.wa.us> Cc:'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olvpen.com>;'Richard Rathvon' <rich@rathvonconsuiting.com> Subject: RE: October schedule Donna, Yes, we can meet on Tuesday. Could 9:00 or 9:30 am work? Just let me know. If you are unable to change, let's keep the meeting at 10:00 am and I will adjust my other meeting. Thank you. Regards, Rich From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.iefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 10:54 AM To: rrathvo;i@gmail.coni Cc: 'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olvpen.com>; 'Richard Rathvon' <rich@rathvonconsultine.com> Subject: RE: October schedule Rich, Would you be able to come to DCD at 10:00 on 10/15? I received several comments on the proposal so it would be good to discuss next steps during the 10/15 meeting. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: rrathvon@gmail.com <rrathvon@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 4:44 PM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.iefferson.wa.us> Cc:'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olypen.com>;'Richard Rathvon' <rich@rathvonconsulting.corn> Subject: RE: October schedule ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Donna, Just checking in. We are available to meet on Tuesday, October 15, if needed and if it would be helpful. Also, I would like to discuss, generally, the next steps and expected time frames going forward Just let us know. Thank you. Regards, Rich From: rrathvon@gmail.com <rrathvon@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2024 7:55 AM To:'Donna Frostholm' <DFrostholm@co.iefferson.wa.us> Cc: 'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olypen.com>; 'Richard Rathvon' <rich rathvonconsulting.com> Subject: RE: October schedule Donna, OK, I will touch base during the week of September 30tn Thank you. Regards, Rich From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.iefferson.wa.us> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 4:47 PM To: rrathvon@gmall.com Cc: 'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olvpen.com>; Richard Rathvon <rich@ rathvonconsultin .com> Subject: RE: October schedule Hi Rich, I could meet with you on Tuesday, October 15 in the morning if a meeting is needed. I will have a better idea of whether we need to meet to discuss next steps for shoreline permitting after the comment period ends. Let's touch base sometime shortly after September 27. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: rrathvon@gmail.com <rrathvon@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 5:38 AM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm co.iefferson.wa.us> Cc: 'Terry McHugh' <tmch@olypen.com>; Richard Rathvon <rich@ rathvonconsulting.Ccm> Subject: October schedule ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Donna, Good morning. I will be in the Port Townsend / Dabob area on October 14 and/or 15. If needed, I wanted to be available for a meeting with you or other members of your department on one of these days to discuss any outstanding items relating to the permitting process. Please let me know. Thank you. Regards, Rich Donna Frostholm From: Steph McGregor <starphanie@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 2:22 PM To: Donna Frostholm Cc: Paul / Stephanie Mckooiman Subject: Comments in response to SDP 2023-00020 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Donna, I am writing in regard to the application for conditional use and subsequent documentation submitted regarding the property located at 660 Twana way. As homeowners and neighbors in the area, we have concerns regarding the information submitted in this application and permit and would suggest further review by the county prior to granting approval of the proposed project on this property. I'd like to address a few of the points we have a particular issue with. In the supplemental application / conditional use document: Point #3: The applicant indicates that the road/driveway, which was constructed 40+ years ago has been maintained with consistent use. While this is true for current residents, 'consistent use' in today's terms has not and does include the construction of a new home, which will require the use of large trucks and additional vehicular traffic on the road. Furthermore, the applicant has already organized a 'road meeting' with neighbors on the 13th of September 2023, over a year ago, acknowledging that the current road WILL pose issues for the large construction project the applicant is planning. Applicant attempted to extract money from current residents to pay for upgrading the road to allow the building of the project, with an estimate provided by the applicant eclipsing $60,000. Residents agreed that the applicant, and the applicant alone should be responsible for upgrading the current road to a condition that will allow for the use of heavy trucks, machinery, and the necessary equipment involved in building a 3500 SF home in proposed location and that the applicant, and applicant alone should be responsible for returning the road to the current condition (or better), as did ALL residents when homes were built many years ago. Applicant is also incorrect in stating that the construction of this project is in 'ordinary' use of the current road, as most homes and residents of Twana way are NOT full-time residents, so road usage will be unfairly allocated to use of current residents compared to applicant. There will absolutely be a 'change to impact' which is inconsistent with information supplied by the applicant. Point #6: Our parcel (#701153026) is adjacent to the applicant's parcel, and easement access for the applicant's project and design WILL impact our pedestrian use of our property as we regularly walk this road and our property when we are present on -site. Other current residents also use this road and associated easement to walk and access the neighborhood, so this information also is incorrect and inconsistent with current use of land use. Point #9: Applicant states that two adjacent parcels are 'currently used in the same manner' is also incorrect. The applicant is intending to build a much larger home and footprint than current SFR properties on -site, and furthermore intends to make this property their primary residence, which is different from how the current homes are presently used since both homes (and ours) are second homes / seasonal / part-time residences. Applicant's use of road, environment, and impact on the neighborhood will be significantly greater than the existing resident use. Additionally, since purchasing our home in 2016, we have had the opportunity to witness the dynamic landscape of the area. The current drainage and maintenance is adequate for the home sizes and footprints, but large storms can, and often do cause additional displacement of trees and debris, mud, etc. Additionally, there was a big slide in the area prior to our home purchase, but it highlights that there have clearly been issues with removal of land and trees previously. Our concern is that the scope and scale of this project, especially with a 'concrete driveway'- which in our understanding would not allow for moisture migration similar to other more porous materials - will impact the area in ways that could negatively affect current homes and environment. We have been told that due to the utilities being buried under the current road, impact to the road may cause utilities to be disturbed to current residents and require additional cost to address. Since there are already numerous examples of large truck impacts (septic, well, etc) we have seen on the road relating to this project, we fear there may be even more unknown costs and disturbances and more oversight should be pursued. We would ask the county for a more in-depth review of this application, especially given the efforts by many conservation groups and mutual dedication by current residents to preserve the natural environment, including the NAP and surrounding DNR lands. We would also request that the applicant, if allowed to move forward with the proposed project, be required to update the road based on use, and to return the road to the same or better condition after completion of project, at applicant's sole expense. We would also request to receive any notice of and participate in any hearings and receive a copy of the decision. These notices can be mailed to our address on file or received at mckooimansAgmail.com Thank you - Stephanie McGregor & Paul Kooiman Donna Frostholm From: Bryan Telegin <bryan@teleginlaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 10-24 AM To: Donna Frostholm; DCD Front Staff Subject: Comments on SDP2023-00020—Type II Land Use Application by Richard Rathvon at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, Washington Attachments: 2024 09 27 Comments on SDP2023-00020.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Dear Ms. Frostholm and DCD, Attached, please find comments submitted on behalf of my clients, John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver, concerning SDP2023-00020, a Type II Land Use Application by Richard Rathvon at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, Washington. Please confirm receipt. Please also add my email address (bryan@teleginlaw.com) to the county's service list for all future decisions relating to this application. Thank you, -Bryan Telegin Counsel for John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver Bryan Telegin Telegin Law PLLC 175 Parfitt Ave SW, Suite N270 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: 1.206.453.2884, ext. 101 Email: bryan@teleginlaw.com http://teleginlaw.com This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information If you are not the intended recipient; any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message, including any attachments /01� •TELEGIN ;A Law September 27, 2024 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO dfrosthobn@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 Telegin Law Nuc 1 175 Parfitt Way SW, Suite N270 I Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 www.teleginIaw.corn I bryan@teleginlaw.com 1 (206) 453-2884 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. _':v Twana way improvements naac7 3 �� Higher Cost Option example IL rRAGT Inr "• antr+ar.r gym: rnwr 0 �r�.�ra n...d•.ra r � �S?,� /L 1-gyp' •� .. .v i.rr «.++`� �� 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. IrF�: 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]II 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 stonnwater 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 tern."). 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 BrPTeleggin4--- Counsel for John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver cc: CIient Attachments: Crescent Environmental PLLC, Review of geotechnical report and associated documents related to parcel 701164005, Jefferson County, Washington (Sept. 26, 2024) Crescent Environmental PLLC Environmental Consulting 9/26/2024 John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver Telephone: (732-241-9776) Email: dimaggiojohnl7@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: "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 ortwo 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 off 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 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 he 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 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. 4 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 maii.com Website: htt s: crescentenvironmen.wixsite.com website 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: htt�s:l/geologylsortal.dnr.wa.gov Figure 1: Map from Jefferson County GIS Portal showing parcel 701164005 subject to this review (Yellow Highlight). y rye(' - ;Y.-- .. + -- _ •r .+- -.'� �rti;t'`y : �:' �}`.• c• 5+�� fir- " ��`•�?`�i' �ti Photo 2: 1994 Oblique Aerial Photo (WDOE, 2024). ' +. ., • _ y".� �L . 1. i ., � � t `, �rlS • f i _ '` � r' � as it - a �� _ �� _ � � "�s+� -- ,�, - ...,► � _ . A46 4,%i"r Photo 4: 2016 Oblique Aerial Photograph (WDOE, 2024). 11 Donna Frostholm From: Cindi Hawley <cindihawley@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 1:58 PM To: Donna Frostholm Cc: Christy Schenck; Dee Dee Hawley Subject: Re: Type II Land Use Application #SDP 2023-00020 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Date: Sept 26, 2024 To: Donna Frostholm, Project Coordinator, Jefferson County Department of Community Development Re: Type II Land Use Application # SDP 2023-00020 These comments are regarding the property owned by Richard Rathvon, 660 Twana Way, Quilcene. We are the owners of the next -door neighboring property of Mr. Rathvon, located at 662 Twana Way, Quilcene. After reading the application documents of Mr. Rathvon's we have concerns about the impact to the road during and after construction. Twana Way is a steep and narrow dirt road of a little less than one mile, and both of our properties are at the bottom of this road. It seems that the documents submitted thus far do not discuss the impact of construction on Twana Way. There is the potential for significant damage to the road and we feel that the permit process should address this potential damage. We request that consideration be given to possible issues during and following construction. We do not feel that we should be liable or held accountable for the damage and that the road should be maintained and repaired by Mr. Rathvon during and following construction. We do not feel that we should be required to return the road to its current condition due to issues created during construction. Thank you for considering our comments. Cindi Hawley Christy Schenck Property Owners of 662 Twana Way, Quilcene Donna Frostholm From: Carp, Lizzie (ECY) <Icar461@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 11:38 AM To: Donna Frostholm Subject: RE: SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Notice of Application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Donna, Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. The project will need to be consistent with the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, including the provisions of section 18.25.270 (Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection), 18.25.310 (Vegetation conservation), and 18.25.500 (Residential). It will also need to be consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in WAC 173-27-160. Thank you, Lizzie Carp (she/her) Wetland/Shoreland Specialist WA Department of Ecology I Southwest Regional Office I Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program (564) 200-4184 1 lizzie.carp@ecy.wa.gov From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 7:58 AM To: Carp, Lizzie (ECY) <Icar461@ECY.WA.GOV>; DFW R6CSplanning <R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov>; Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP)<stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; shlanayl@skokomish.org; mpowers@pgst.nsn.us; Strong-Cvetich, Luke <Istrong@jamestowntribe.org>; ascagliotti@jamestowntribe.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org Subject: SDP2023-00020 Rathvon Notice of Application External Email Greetings All, Jefferson County Department of Community Development has received an application to construct a new single-family residence within shoreline jurisdiction. If you have any comments on the proposal, please send your comments to me by September 27, 2024 (see attached). Here is a link to the shoreline conditional use application: litt s: test.co.jefferson.wa.us WeblinkExternal Browse_as x?id=6339666&dbid=0&re o=Jefferson Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Donna FrosthoCm, P-WS Associate Planner - Lead/1WetlandSpecialist Je►fer•sorr Counry Deparhnent of Comnrunity Development 621 S(eeridanStreet, Port'rownseruC'Washington 98368 316037g•4466 is DCD IS OPEN MONDAY-THURSDAY FROM 9:00-12:00 and 1:00 - 4:30; CLOSED FRIDAY. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Donna Frostholm From: adleorocks <adleorocks@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 8:01 PM To: Donna Frostholm Cc: Sam Hawley; Jana Hawley; Sue Sigmen; Teresa Kobzan; Suzanne Hawley Subject: comments on Rathvon construction permit for 660 Twana Way, Quilcene Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Date: Sept 25, 2024 To: Donna Frostholm, Project Coordinator, Jefferson County Department of Community Development Re: Type II Land Use Application # SDP 2023-00020 Property in question is owned by Richard Rathvon, and is located at 660 Twana Way, Quilcene We are property owners who live on the Twana Way road. We have read the Rathvon application documents and do not find any mention of the impact of the proposed development on the road. Twana Way is a narrow dirt road and we are concerned that the construction vehicles used in the proposed development may cause significant damage to the road. As part of the application permit, we would request that consideration be given to said damage and, therefore, that Mr. Rathvon shall be held accountable for returning the road to its current condition (as of September 2024). We do not feel that we should have to bear any costs for fixing issues to the road caused by the construction. Thank you for your consideration of our concern with the Rathvon construction permit application. Regards, Suzanne Hawley, Sam Hawley, Jana Hawley, Sue (Hawley) Sigmen, Teresa (Hawley) Kobzan Owners of property located at 664 Twana Way, Quilcene s�i��oz3 �noaz� I- I ! �'► A) 4 i G W 4) 3 �gp -77<(- cDF7-,?, A/ hoc r � , ►3� j�.��.tJ6 lq-T--- 460 ,�-,� 6*(�'¢ / S s vs c� i �4 �3 C�� To e4� v FfA �v 6 r0 2 6 cl A.1 rf ,/ AAF SEP 2 5 2024 / Jefferson County G Community Development 1� I- F-4 S m e roc 1 ,r ►�-► e 'fr ( /V