The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHX02 ORDER Prehearing Order for Consolidated SSDP and SEPA Appeal, Rock Island Shellfish matter, August 2025 PREHEARING SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATED SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION AND SEPA APPEAL HEARING PROCESS – ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH MATTER, FILE NO. SDP2024-00006 Page 1 of 4 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 GARY N. MCLEAN HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY Before Hearing Examiner Gary N. McLean BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY In the Matter of the Consolidated Hearing Process for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit application filed by ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH (ROBERT CARSON), Applicant/Respondent And an Appeal of the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the project filed by MARILYN SHOWALTER AND JAN WOLD, Appellants, JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL), Respondent SSDP File No. SDP2024-00006 PREHEARING SCHEDULING ORDER I. BACKGROUND. On July 8, 2025, the Hearing Examiner conducted an online Pre-hearing Conference for the above-captioned matter, where counsel and/or representatives for all named parties were present. The parties in this consolidated hearing process and their counsel or primary representatives of record are: Rock Island Shellfish (Robert Carson), the applicant for the PREHEARING SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATED SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION AND SEPA APPEAL HEARING PROCESS – ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH MATTER, FILE NO. SDP2024-00006 Page 2 of 4 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 GARY N. MCLEAN HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY requested Shoreline permit and respondent in the associated SEPA appeal, represented by counsel, Jess DeNike; Marilyn Showalter and Jan Wold, the appellants, challenging the SEPA MDNS issued for the application, represented by Ms. Showalter; and the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, SEPA Responsible Official, as a respondent, represented by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ariel Speser. In this consolidated hearing process, the applicant requests approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (“SSDP” or “Shoreline Permit”) to site an aquaculture farm to raise oysters on private tidelands in Hood Canal, located just west of the Hood Canal Bridge, assigned project file number SDP2024-00006. The appellants challenge the SEPA threshold determination (an MDNS) issued for this project on May 20, 2025. There is no dispute that the underlying SSDP application and associated SEPA appeal are consolidated into a single hearing process before the County’s Hearing Examiner, consistent with state law and County codes, including without limitation JCC 18.40.810(3). In the Pre-hearing Conference, the Examiner established certain deadlines for an exchange of information and various processes that should be followed as this matter moves forward. All parties were directed to comply with deadlines established and reiterated during the Pre-hearing Conference, without regard for when a written summary of such deadlines might be issued. Based on the substance of the pre-hearing conference, and information in the project file, the following Order is entered. 1. Hearing Date(s): The public hearing for this matter was originally scheduled to occur in late July, but all parties agreed to set a new hearing date to allow for motions and an exchange of information before the hearing opens. The hearing for this matter will begin on August 19th and continue on August 20th, if needed, and is subject to continuation as announced during the hearing until it is complete. Staff will be issuing follow-up notices to parties of record, and on the County’s website, providing additional details regarding start time and sign-in options. By agreement of the parties, the hearing will be online-only, eliminating possible delays associated with booking meeting rooms over several days. 2. Format for Consolidated Hearing: Unless the SEPA appeal is dismissed in its entirety based on a pending motion, the general format for the consolidated hearing process will be as follows: The hearing process will open with presentations and testimony from Staff and the applicant team, followed by public comments – all related to the Shoreline Permit application itself. Staff will be asked to make their presentation regarding their recommendation and analysis included in the Staff Report; then the applicant would have an opportunity to address the merits of their application; and all members of the public or interested parties will be allowed to offer comments on the Shoreline Permit PREHEARING SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATED SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION AND SEPA APPEAL HEARING PROCESS – ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH MATTER, FILE NO. SDP2024-00006 Page 3 of 4 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 GARY N. MCLEAN HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY application. General public comment on the appeal itself is not allowed. After the portion of the public hearing focused on the Shoreline Permit application concludes, testimony and evidence related to the SEPA appeal will begin. Only parties to the SEPA appeal and witnesses called by a party will be allowed to offer testimony during the part of the hearing focused on the SEPA appeal. All witnesses called during the SEPA appeal portion of the hearing shall be subject to cross- examination by other parties. 3. Issues Presented: For the underlying Shoreline Permit application, the applicant bears the burden of proof to show that their proposal satisfies applicable approval criteria. For the appeal, the specific legal issues, “errors”, and/or aspects of the MDNS determination that are at issue in such appeal are as set forth in that party’s written appeal statement, on file with the County. 4. Service and Filing: All filings and documents required to be exchanged shall be emailed from each party to all other parties. Materials that must be filed with the Hearing Examiner's Office shall be directed to the attention of the Examiner’s Clerk. Service and filing shall be accomplished by email, with briefs and other documentary materials provided in .pdf format. The date of service and the date of filing is the date of receipt. The parties are expected to work with one another in good faith and demonstrate appropriate grace to address technology or communication problems that might arise. 5. Motions, Responses, Replies: The parties agreed to establish a deadline of July 15th for all motions to be filed and shared with other parties. Responses to any motions were due by July 22nd. Replies were due by July 29th. Reviewing copies of materials submitted to the Examiner’s Clerk, it appears as though all parties complied with this timeline. Because the hearing date was continued, and prehearing procedures were established during the course of the Pre-hearing Conference, the appellants’ motions on these subjects were satisfied and are deemed withdrawn. The Examiner will endeavor to issue a written order on all remaining motions by the end of this week. 6. Staff Report due, with Response to Appeal. The Department’s Staff Report and written response to the pending appeal, and any written response from the project applicant, must be filed no later than August 5, 2025. 7. Witness and Exhibit disclosures. Each party must file a list of witnesses and .pdf copies of exhibits they might use during any portion of the hearing with the Examiner and all other parties. Disclosures must identify individuals who might be called as witnesses and the general subject of their testimony, and documents they may seek to introduce as evidence during the appeal portion of the hearing. Preliminary disclosures were due on July 29th. Final witness lists and exhibits are due no later than August 5, 2025. Failure to properly identify a PREHEARING SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATED SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION AND SEPA APPEAL HEARING PROCESS – ROCK ISLAND SHELLFISH MATTER, FILE NO. SDP2024-00006 Page 4 of 4 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 GARY N. MCLEAN HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY witness, potential expert, or exhibits as required by this Order will likely serve as grounds to exclude such witness or documentary evidence from consideration at the hearing, absent a showing of a compelling excuse or lack of prejudice to other parties. 8. Stipulated exhibits, shared file for witnesses encouraged. The parties are encouraged to work together to generate a list of overlapping witnesses and exhibits, and narrow such lists where possible in order to promote an efficient hearing process. An index of documents, and tabs separating copies of exhibits would be helpful for the Examiner to use during the course of the hearing. The parties are encouraged to agree upon “Stipulated Exhibits” that can be used during the hearing, to minimize delays. 9. A subsequent order may be issued to establish reasonable time limits for examination of witnesses or other matters that should be addressed before the hearing. ISSUED this 4th Day of August, 2025 _____________________________ Gary N. McLean Hearing Examiner