Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP2012-00004 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TYPE I LAND USE PERMIT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT EXEMPTION WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT(RCW 90.58) PROPONENT: LAWRENCE R GEARHEARD MICHAEL F GEARHEARD 10674 NE VALLEY RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981101339 DATE ISSUED: April 12,2012 DATE EXPIRES: April 12, 2013 MLA NUMBER: MLA12-00017 CASE NUMBER:SDP12-00004 PROJECT PLANNER: David Wayne Johnson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SHORELENE EXEMPTION FOR ROCK RETAING WALL WATERBOD Y AND/OR ASSOCIATED WETLANDS: OAK BAY- PUGET SOUND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel number 976 800 037, Oak Bay Waterfront, Tracts Lot 57, Section 29, Township 29N, Range 1E,WM located at 361 Bay Way, Port Ludlow 98368 FINDINGS: 1.) The Administrator finds that this application complies with applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code, all other applicable ordinances and regulations, and is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map. 2.) See BLD12-00027 for findings, conditions and approval that apply to this project and property. 3.) A Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan (HMP), prepared by Westech Company(dated March 2012) was submitted to address construction of a retaining wall within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffer. The retaining wall will be constructed landward of the existing house. Prior to building final, the applicant is to implement the approved HMP. 4.) The parcel is located within a coastal SIPZ(seawater intrusion protection zone)according to the County GIS map. There are voluntary and mandatory measures identified in the Jefferson County Seawater Intrusion Policy (Resolution 44-22, effective September 23, 2002)that apply to well drilling proposals and building permit applications on existing lots of record. A Coastal SIPZ is defined as: all islands and area within one-quarter mile of marine shoreline, but no history of chloride concentration above 100 mg/L in groundwater sources within 1000 feet. 5.) Jefferson County determined that this proposal is categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i). 6.) The site plan as submitted with the Shoreline Exemption application on January 30, 2012 has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated April 12, 2012 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 7.) This approval is for a Rock Retaining Wall landward of OHWM only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on future permits. 8.) NOTICE: This permit does not excuse the proponent from complying with other local, state, and federal ordinances, regulations, or statutes applicable to the proposed development, but consistent with RCW 90.58. Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken subject to the applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. If during excavation or development of the site an area of potential archaeological significance is uncovered, all activity in the immediate area shall be halted, and the Administrator shall be notified at once. The Federal Endangered Species Act rules to protect threatened Chinook and Summer-run Chum salmon became effective on January 8, 2001. Bull trout have been listed as threatened since early 2000. Under the ESA, any person may bring lawsuit against any individual or agency that"takes" listed species (defined as causing harm, harassing, or damaging habitat for the listed species). In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service can levy penalties. All areas in Jefferson County are included as"critical habitat"for a listed species. Development of property along any marine shoreline, freshwater shoreline, or floodplains could harm habitat if protective measures are not taken. To minimize the potential to damage habitat, all property owners developing adjacent to marine shoreline, freshwater shoreline, or floodplains are advised to do the following: -All development activities should avoid unstable slopes, wetlands, and forested areas near surface waters - Remove minimal vegetation for site development, especially large trees -Allow trees that have fallen into surface waters to remain there - Infiltrate stormwater from buildings and driveways onsite through drywells rather than discharging directly into surface waters or roadside ditches The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requires landowners within 660 feet(1/8th of a mile) of an eagle nest to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This Eagle Act prohibits anyone from "taking" bald eagles. This federal law defines the term"take"and describes the possible legal consequences when a "take" occurs. Among other actions, "take" includes a disturbance of bald eagles or their habitat. Under federal law a permit may still be required for activities that impact bald eagles or their habitat. Contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/)to learn more about how this law affects your project. Any individual, group, or agency can bring suit for a listed species"taking", even if you are in compliance with Jefferson County development codes. The risk of a lawsuit against you can be reduced by consulting with a professional fisheries habitat biologist, and following the recommendations for site development provided by the biologist. For more information, contact the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9.) The Development Review Division finds that this proposal is consistent with Shoreline Master Program Section 15.25.090(5), which exempts the"construction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence[in shoreline jurisdiction]for the owner's or owner's family's use..."from the substantial development permit(SDP) requirements under certain provisions. Exemptions from the substantial development permit requirements do not exempt a proposed development from compliance with the applicable policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program or other applicable Federal, State, or local permit or license requirements. CONDITIONS: 1.) VOLUNTARY MEASURES OF COASTAL&AT RISK SIPZ: Water conservation measures: 1. Roof and other intercepted precipitation shall be routed to on-site detention ponds and/or other approved means and allowed to be released to the soil slowly. 2. Water collected from Storm water and roof catchments may be used for watering lawns and gardens. Unless catchment water has been treated to meet drinking water standards, there shall be no cross connections allowed between the potable supply and impounded water. 3. Water withdrawn from wells on each property shall not be used for watering of lawns and/or gardens. 4. Ground water withdrawn from each property shall be restricted to a rate of three (3)gallons per minute. 5. Installation of water conserving fixtures such as low flow toilets, faucets and shower restrictors and other water saving plumbing fixtures. 6. Landscaping plan (xeriscaping, native vegetation with minimal amounts of irrigation). Please NOTE that the above listed measures are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is intended to be illustrative of the types of water conservation measures. 2.) VOLUNTARY MEASURES OF COASTAL &AT RISK SIPZ: 1. Installation of a flow meter. 2. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration. 3. Submittal of monitoring data to County. 3.) The project shall adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs)to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. 4.) Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as described above shall receive separate review from this Department. daex 1#1.124 De en of Community Development taff c: Department of Ecology, Shorelands Office, Rick Mraz Washington State Department of Fish &Wildlife, Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Jeff Schreck MICHAEL J ANDERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TYPE I LAND USE PERMIT APPLICANT: LAWRENCE R GEARHEARD MICHAEL F GEARHEARD 10674 NE VALLEY RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981101339 DATE ISSUED: lip 240— DATE EXPIRES: 14 74 13 MLA NUMBER:MLA12-00017 PROJECT PLANNER: David Wayne Johnson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ROCK RETAINING WALL SHORELENE EXEMPTION FOR ROCK RETAING WALL PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel number 976 800 037, Oak Bay Waterfront, Tracts Lot 57, Section 29, Township 29N, Range 1E, WM located at 361 Bay Way, Port Ludlow 98368 CONDITIONS: 1.) The applicant shall implement the approved HMP. PRIOR TO BUILDING FINAL, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT DCD (360-379-4450) TO SCHEDULE A SITE VISIT TO REVIEW PLANT INSTALLATION RELATIVE TO THE APPROVED HMP. A BUILDING FINAL SHALL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE MITIGATION AREAS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY DCD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED HMP. 2.) VOLUNTARY MEASURES OF COASTAL&AT RISK SIPZ: Water conservation measures: 1. Roof and other intercepted precipitation shall be routed to on-site detention ponds and/or other approved means and allowed to be released to the soil slowly. 2. Water collected from Storm water and roof catchments may be used for watering lawns and gardens. Unless catchment water has been treated to meet drinking water standards, there shall be no cross connections allowed between the potable supply and impounded water. 3. Water withdrawn from wells on each property shall not be used for watering of lawns and/or gardens. 4. Ground water withdrawn from each property shall be restricted to a rate of three(3) gallons per minute. 5. Installation of water conserving fixtures such as low flow toilets, faucets and shower restrictors and other water saving plumbing fixtures. 6. Landscaping plan (xeriscaping, native vegetation with minimal amounts of irrigation). Please NOTE that the above listed measures are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is intended to be illustrative of the types of water conservation measures. 3.) VOLUNTARY MEASURES OF COASTAL &AT RISK SIPZ: 1. Installation of a flow meter. 2. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration. 3. Submittal of monitoring data to County. 4.) The project shall adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs)to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. 5.) The project shall comply with Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Elements#1 through#12 of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. 6.) Residential developers and individual builders shall be required to preserve shoreline vegetation and reduce the associated risk of erosion during construction and any future activity which may impact the stability of the shoreline. 7.) Maximum lot coverage is not to exceed 25%. Lot coverage is defined as amount of impervious surface which includes roof tops, driveways, concrete, etc. 8.) Building setbacks from S. Bay Way are no less than 20 feet. Side setbacks are no less than 5 feet. Shoreline setback is no less than 30 feet. FINDINGS: 1.) The Administrator finds that this application complies with applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code,all other applicable ordinances and regulations,and is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map. 2.) See BLD10-00205 for findings and conditions that apply to this project and property. 3.) The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff on April 12, 2012 for the potential presence of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) under the provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC). After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and an investigative site inspection, the following ESAs were confirmed to be present on the subject property: Stable Shoreline Slope Stability; Coastal SIPZ. 4.) Marine shorelines and islands are susceptible to a condition that is known as seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion is a condition in which the saltwater/freshwater interface in an aquifer moves inland so that wells drillec on upland areas cannot obtain freshwater suitable for public consumption without significant additional treatment and cost. Maintaining a stable balance in the saltwater/freshwater interface is primarily a function of the rate of aquifer recharge (primarily through rainfall) and the rate of groundwater withdrawals (primarily through wells). The Washington Department of Ecology is the agency with statutory authority to regulate groundwater withdrawal for individual wells in Jefferson County. New development, redevelopment, and land use activities on islands and in close proximity to marine shorelines in particular should be developed in such a manner to maximize aquifer recharge and maintain the saltwater/freshwater balance to the maximum extent possible by infiltrating stormwater runoff so that it recharges the aquifer. 5.) The parcel is located within a coastal SIPZ(seawater intrusion protection zone) according to the County GIS map. There are voluntary and mandatory measures identified in the Jefferson County Seawater Intrusion Polio (Resolution 44-22, effective September 23, 2002) that apply to well drilling proposals and building permit applications on existing lots of record. A Coastal SIPZ is defined as: all islands and area within one-quarter mile of marine shoreline, but no history of chloride concentration above 100 mg/L in groundwater sources within 1000 feet. 6.) The applicant is proposing to create or add 104 square feet of impervious surface and 104 square feet of land disturbing activities. JCC 18.30.060 and 18.30.070 require your proposal comply with Minimum Requirement #2 (Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention) of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. 7.) Jefferson County determined that this proposal is categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i). 8.) The site plan as submitted with the Building Permit application on January 30, 2012 has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated April 12, 2012 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 9.) This approval is for a Rock Retaining Wall only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on future permits. 10.) NOTICE: This permit does not excuse the proponent from complying with other local, state, and federal ordinances, regulations, or statutes applicable to the proposed development, but consistent with RCW 90.58. Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken subject to the applicable policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. If during excavation or development of the site an area of potential archaeological significance is uncovered, all activity in the immediate area shall be halted, and the Administrator shall be notified at once. The Federal Endangered Species Act rules to protect threatened Chinook and Summer-run Chum salmon became effective on January 8, 2001. Bull trout have been listed as threatened since early 2000. Under the ESA, any person may bring lawsuit against any individual or agency that"takes" listed species (defined as causing harm, harassing, or damaging habitat for the listed species). In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service can levy penalties. All areas in Jefferson County are included as"critical habitat"for a listed species. Development of property along any marine shoreline, freshwater shoreline, or floodplains could harm habitat if protective measures are not taken. To minimize the potential to damage habitat, all property owners developinc adjacent to marine shoreline, freshwater shoreline, or floodplains are advised to do the following: -All development activities should avoid unstable slopes, wetlands, and forested areas near surface waters - Remove minimal vegetation for site development, especially large trees -Allow trees that have fallen into surface waters to remain there - Infiltrate stormwater from buildings and driveways onsite through drywells rather than discharging directly into surface waters or roadside ditches The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requires landowners within 660 feet(1/8th of a mile) of an eagle nest to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This Eagle Act prohibits anyone from "taking" bald eagles. This federal law defines the term "take"and describes the possible legal consequences when a"take" occurs. Among other actions, "take" includes a disturbance of bald eagles or their habitat. Under federal law a permit may still be required for activities that impact bald eagles or their habitat. Contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/)to learn more about how this law affects your project. Any individual, group, or agency can bring suit for a listed species"taking", even if you are in compliance with Jefferson County development codes. The risk of a lawsuit against you can be reduced by consulting with a professional fisheries habitat biologist, and following the recommendations for site development provided by the biologist. For more information, contact the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11.) A Mitigation and Habitat Manpgement Plan (HMP), prepared by Westech Company(dated March 2012) was submitted to address construction of a retaining wall within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffer. The retaining wall will be constructed landward of the existing house. Prior to building final, the applicant is to implement the approved HMP. APPEALS: Pursuant to RCW 36.70C,the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal this final decision to Jefferson County Superior Court within twenty-one (21)calendar days of the date of issuance of this land use decision. For more information related to judical appeals see JCC 18.40.340. 1 ^ ^ !W D 'd inistrator MLA12-00017 3 of 3 I:\F_MLT_IssuePermit_U.rpt 1 I A` �' '"'°fir' WESTECH COMPANY �;...: Environmental Consulting -Site Permitting MITIGATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN I361SOUTH BAY WAY, PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON SOUASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 976800037 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ' x* A. _ ..�? 4 3 'a�' 'gyp 'Si 1 ' tad , t erg P M1 r. I ..41 I March 2012 lECIEOVE0 ' G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. APR 1 0 2012 Charles Tanner JEFFERSON COUNTY ISubmitted to: DEPT OFCOMMUNIIYDEVELOPMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY IDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street IPort Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: IWESTECH COMPANY P.O. Box 2876 IPort Angeles, Washington 98362 P.O. Box 2876 - Port Angeles,Washington 98362-Telephone: (360) 565-1333-Fax: (360)452-6708 Iemail: brad @westechcompany.com I ' MITIGATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 361 SOUTH BAY WAY, PORT LUDLOW,WASHINGTON U ASSESSOR'S PARCEL#976800037 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 March 2012 1 G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Charles Tanner Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: ' WESTECH COMPANY P.O. Box 2876 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 I I I CONTENTS I CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE NO. I1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 I 2.0 METHODS 6 2.1 Approach 6 2.2 Methods 6 I 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN 7 I 3.1 Regulatory Setting 7 3.2 Existing Conditions 9 3.3 Project Impacts 12 I 3.4 Plan Components 16 3.5 Detailed Mitigation Measures 16 3.6 Implementation and Timing 17 I 3.7 Mitigation Monitoring 17 3.8 Contingency Plan 19 I4.0 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND PLANTING PLAN 20 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 I 5.1 Conclusions 25 6.2 Recommendations 25 I6.0 REFERENCES 26 TABLES 1 Table 1. List of Native Plants for Buffer Mitigation and Enhancement 23 FIGURES I Figure 1. Location Map 2 Figure 2. Vicinity Map 3 Figure 3. Parcel Map 4 I Figure 4. 2011 Aerial Map 5 Figure 5. Site Topography 10 Figure 6. Site Map with Existing & Proposed Development 13 I ' Figure 7 Site Map with Proposed Rock Wall 14 Figure 8 Planting Area A 21 Figure 9 Planting Area B 22 IAPPENDICES Appendix A—Site Photographs A-1 IWW1239SouthBayHMP.TOC/032112/mas i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 The Property (Site) is located at 361 South Bay Way, Port Ludlow, Washington. ' The Property is owned by Lawrence R. and Michael F. Gearheard of 10674 NE Valley Road, Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1339. It is recorded as Assessor's Parcel # 976800037. The Site lies within Jefferson County, Washington ' in the Southeast quarter of Section 29 of Township 29 North, Range 1 East, W.M. (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). The Site is located approximately 2.9 miles north of Port Ludlow on the western shores of Oak Bay in the Hood Canal. The property is approximately 430 feet long by 70 feet wide. The parcel abuts a sand beach to the north and rises to about 75 feet above msl. The parcel is ' approximately 0.70 acres in size. An existing driveway provides vehicular access to the property. The property currently houses a small shed and deck. The foundation for a residence is currently in progress. A temporary shed has also been placed on ' the property, but will be removed following construction of the residence (see Appendix A for Site Photos). ' The marine shoreline along this Property is considered a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and has been designated as critical habitat for Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook (50 C.F.R. 226). The shoreline is classified as a I "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area" (FWHCA) by Jefferson County, requiring a 150 foot buffer from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and a five foot building setback from the buffer. ' It is the intention of the owner to replace the current residence on-site with a new structure with the same footprint. The owner has currently laid the foundation for ' this structure. The owner also intends to place a new septic system landward of the living structure, a waterline to support the septic system, and a rock wall to stabilize the hill behind these structures. ' Because the proposed plan is inside a potentially reduced buffer(112.5 feet), it will disturb soils and some existing vegetation and slightly increase impervious surfaces on-Site, the Property owners have contracted with Westech Company (Westech) to satisfy the County's requirements in regards to Critical Areas. This Report constitutes a Habitat Management Plan which will describe existing conditions on ' the Site, define the impacts of development, and outline a management proposal to maintain and enhance the existing functions and values of the buffer and its associate watershed. This document is intended to satisfy the requirements of pertinent Jefferson County ordinances. ' VWV1239SouthBayHMP/0420912/clt 1 I I z.,; - Ul Ili N— 71) ;,..0 '0 ar 1 0 S co 3'. „ CD CD CV C\I a3 c I mir en eL 0)LL 0 .& : 112 cr. 41 Tr r 0 0 7.0i 1- 43 0-4-J tri (c) 0 c c (13 03 0_ Li j I as Z To- Z.-- 144 r 0 3 1 CiP41k to.›. i,_Clo ira 0 0 _c c) iii . • I 7 eg To * cc A a) c) L„) C. ) ti re) a) 8 - m 4.) .3t 47 tir lit, 0 Z (/) E 0 IOD 'Z't ■• 0 0 I E i' 0 z z .., 0 a) a) ce E 4, r- D C GO ii. Z CL I CO .= c• co 713 Tv- a_. 0 0 a) ea c o 0 c — ..1:- ,i0 I = -t./.3 .5niullir ..* Ci) C 0 .a.; ..-- C 0 0 c 03 0_ CO —7"'- .1.- co CO ci. 4., ,12 co cr E '1.' I --0-i -0 c.-.. kl 0 .C. (/) V in 0 m _ -.= as td. / \ , (0, 0 Ilk nrom- -40,4. lio — a o. _1 I v..„..,..,tec 0 ...c tc. E ).. 0 • El.? CI 5 G._ • 0) I c,, c $ ID a:. c ?0 0 — 4r Cr c 49 I g ... 0 0 t c ti I Z C k LI 4.1 II :... 03 0 _ .c. ..0 p:. 0 (13 I ' 1 I 1 1 I I I I I _N _N O O N N a, z Q o E o U I U c 0 _c L i- I i. . U L n I o uJ I ti 2Y — c t ca 2 U I W N i N ri,... W ' = ®' r I. q `v I A TN\ ______ _ 2 N s r. t 1 I I N N A- C) O N N CO Q D 0 O I / ., o U U c o U N N iii 2 \ ' O U) I N • /L .c T)/J \ , I Q ...i CO I \ \ ., u U (a CL .,,,,..1 ED- e, V 0) it I Q cks l }' 1 , yp��, ph_ h I iV w 0 V yy,' 474$ 7 a, f h I I N _N _ O O N N t A C c R5 U ,_ i ,,,, :0.1.,, — — — --- I N I i � p U I - ) e 0,4eary, 1 1 i-- 1 ti 1 o i cz 1 2 all } I v I r - I- 3 .° I "_ I { o 6 - .„ ci I Lys I 110 1.:11 II , a , - -f -- --- __ I I ' 2.0 METHODS 2.1 APPROACH ' The approach for this investigation into the impacts of development of this Site included a detailed review of County Assessor's parcel maps, Critical Area Maps, aerial photographs of the Site, mapped locations of Species of Concern by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, mapped locations of ESA listed species' critical habitat by NOAA NMFS and topographic maps of the area. A Site Plan prepared by Creative Design Solutions was also reviewed (see Section 3.3). ' Westech Company's field investigations for the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) were carried out in March 2012 by Dr. G. Bradford Shea, Principal Ecologist, and Mr. Charles Tanner, staff Environmental Scientist. During Site visits, the Property was inspected and Site characteristics were noted. Relevant measurements were taken for mapping purposes, photographic documentation of the Site was acquired, and potential mitigation actions were identified. ' 2.2 METHODS Westech Company's field reconnaissance involved examining the existing conditions found at the Site. This included reviewing the area proposed for development in relation to the natural features found on-site. Botanical studies were conducted involving identification of plant species that could be found growing at the Site. Site measurements were taken (including dimensions of proposed planting areas) using a fiberglass tape measure. ' A qualitative assessment of the landscape was conducted to determine the presence of invasive species, the composition and characteristics of forests in the ' critical area, evidence of historical land uses, the slope of lands adjacent to critical areas, soil textures and stability and an assessment of the role of existing vegetation in supporting soil stability. Westech also assessed the extent of existing ' human disturbance in the critical areas. This information was used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project. This Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been formulated to ' "maintain or enhance the existing functions and values of the associated watershed" (JCC 18.22.480). A Habitat Management Plan (Chapter 4.0) has been ' developed to describe the goals and objectives of the HMP as well as the performance standards that will be utilized to assess the effectiveness of the plan. This Plan is intended to restore and enhance the integrity of the Site by improving ' the quality of habitat and erosion control though planting of additional native vegetation at the Site. I ' WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 6 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN 3.1 REGULATORY SETTING ' There are several jurisdictional issues related to the development of this parcel of land. The southern uphill portion of the Property is shown on Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps as being in a seismic hazard area (Jefferson County 2012). ' The County describes these as "Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These areas are identified by the presence of: 1) poorly drained soils with greater than 50 percent silt and very little coarse material; 2) loose sand or gravel, peat, artificial fill and landslide materials; or 3) soil units with high organic content" (JCC 18.22.160). Alterations in this buffer are ' not allowed except as permitted by Jefferson County. Requirements for a permit include an approved drainage and erosion control plan and specific grading ' requirements (JCC 18.22.170). The Site is zoned Rural Residential 1:5 (RR1:5), which has a maximum density ' of one dwelling per five acres with a minimum lot size of one acre. The purpose of rural residential zoning is to allow for "continued residential development" in areas of the County of "relatively high density pre-existing patterns of ' development," including "along the County's coastal areas" (JCC 18.15.015). The Site is located along a section of the Hood Canal that is considered a ' "Shoreline of Statewide Significance" and is regulated under Jefferson County's Shoreline Master Program. This shoreline has been designated under the Shoreline Master Program as a "Conservancy" shoreline. These are defined as ' areas with "valuable natural, cultural, or historical resources or environmental conditions that should be protected, conserved, and managed to the extent that a continual supply of those resources such as soil, water, timber, fish, shellfish, or ' wildlife are not degraded or depleted but are maintained." They also include "areas containing sensitive environmental conditions that may limit the potential for development or use, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, flood prone ' areas, eroding bluffs, marshes, bogs, swamps, and accretion shore forms." The permitted activities in these areas include "low density residential and recreational uses...provided these activities do not significantly degrade or ' deplete resources and respect limiting environmental conditions." The purpose of this designation is to "protect, conserve, and manage existing resources and valuable historical and cultural areas in order to ensure sustained resource ' stabilization and that sensitive natural conditions are not subject to inappropriate uses" (JCC 18.25.130). 1 1 WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 7 Under the Shoreline Master Program the standard set-back for residential structures is "30 feet or one foot for each foot of bank height, whichever is greater." This set-back is to be measured from the bank's edge when the bank height is greater than 10 feet and shall not exceed 100 feet. The elevation of the bluff at this property is approximately 30 feet (JCC 18.25.410). This shoreline has been designated "critical habitat" for threatened salmonid species, specifically the Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum. This listing comes from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Growth Management Act (36.70A RCW) ' mandates that the County protect such critical areas. Jefferson County carries out this mandate by classifying this shoreline as a "Fish and Wildlife Habitat ' Conservation Area" (FWHCA). These areas are considered to be of "critical importance to the maintenance of endangered, threatened or sensitive species of fish, wildlife, and/or plants" (18.22.200). ' Jefferson County requires a buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) for areas in which "federally listed species have a primary association." ' In addition, a five foot building setback from the buffer is required. Local and site specific factors may be taken into account and the buffer width is to be "based on the best available information concerning the species/habitat in questions" (JCC ' 18.22.270(2)). Any project located within this buffer must follow Jefferson County drainage and erosion control, grading and vegetation retention standards (JCC 18.22.270). ' Landowners may obtain a reduction in the size of the buffer required for FWHCAs. The administrator has the "authority to reduce buffer widths on a case- by-case basis" provided that standards are met for avoiding and minimizing impacts and that the buffer reduction does not "adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent FWHCA or other critical area" (JCC ' 18.22.270). However, the administrator may not reduce the buffer to less than 75 percent of the standard buffer (JCC 18.22.270). Any projects that"alter, decrease or average the standard buffer" require an accompanying Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (JCC 18.22.265). Because this project involves elements to be built in the buffer area, but behind previously constructed features, an HMP is required. ' The Jefferson County Codes list the necessary features of a Habitat Management Plan (JCC 18.22.440). An HMP is to be completed by persons with ' a "minimum of a bachelor's degree in wildlife or fisheries habitat biology, or a related degree in a biological field from an accredited college or university with a minimum of four years experience as a practicing fish or wildlife habitat biologist." ' WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 8 These documents must include maps showing the proposed development Site and its relationship to surrounding topographic and cultural features; the nature and density of the proposed development; and the boundaries of forested areas. The report shall also describe the density and nature of the proposed ' development in enough detail to allow analysis of impacts on identified fish and wildlife habitat. The report must describe how any adverse impacts resulting from ' the project will be mitigated. Possible mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, establishing buffer zones, preserving plant and tree species, limiting access to habitat areas, seasonally restricting construction activities and establishing a timetable for the periodic review of the plan (18.22.440). ' 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Site is located approximately 2.9 miles north of Port Ludlow on the western ' shores of Oak Bay in the Hood Canal. It is approximately 430 feet long by 70 feet wide. The parcel is approximately 0.70 acres in size. An existing driveway provides vehicular access to the property. ' Figure 5 shows topographic features surrounding the Site. The parcel abuts a sand beach to the north and rises to about 75 feet at above msl at its southern edge. The ' grade across the latter half of the property is approximately 100 percent. The property is separated from upland areas by South Bay Road, after which the terrain continues to grade upward to about 200 feet above msl at Oak Bay Road. ' The property can be divided between a nearshore beach area and a partially disturbed area upland area characterized by common second growth lowland forest ' species. The beach was observed on March 5, 2012 at approximately 10:00 a.m. The tide at ' this time was at approximately +5.7 feet. The beach consists of sand in the upper intertidal zone and a mix of sand and cobble in the middle intertidal zone. Shells of butter clam (Saxidomus giganteus), pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and pacific ' littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea) were observed along the shoreline, indicating that the adjacent shoreline provides habitat for these species. No kelp e were observed, ugh he lower intertidal zone was not visi the beds high or tide.alga Logs have been though placed t or moved naturally to a point at the ble upper edge of the upper intertidal zone. A strip of dune grass is present immediately behind the logs across a portion of the property. ' Other plants that dominate the area just upland of the upper intertidal zone include Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), salal (Gaultheria shallon) and sword fern (Polystichum ' munitum). A disturbed area covered in short grasses also exists immediately behind the logs. This area is apparently used for storing a small row boat and providing access to the nearshore beach. WW1239SouthBayHMP1032112/mas 9 I I N_ O O N N C ` .i( • S II ti k..� L its • o J L Y Y V/ • + • V j f W CD 1 •` 1 f U 1 • I • 1 ' �/I! L I . . yi .�i" fi p CO + P Aew- 1:8 ) .:7,1: • Jti U 1.v o O ` { •//•S�_ ■ •1 • CL '^ 11 ■ 1 I ci I . o •; ma 1 al . • i at LO - r • + • r r (4.5 71.1.--7 I _ r_ _i 1N4 y' :y j" • 1 V i ii ..„1 t / , 1 1 ' r" ;,. ...1 �� . - �i. fag 1, "; .'v 1 P• i y .V 3, ;A a ::; j. }l emu.. JO 1 J }� 1' O' S a l7 ••ill" dr w , .:-:. . . _,:-.-:.,— ,„,:::,,,.- ..-, .,t.Pr .4/ I 4�1 s U Vi ",k.' dp 0,- ....- 3 .2. i R.;;;•-7.t., ''' .0........„.....-0...........,....r•or T . : II 1 The shoreline adjacent to the property has been designated as critical habitat for ' two species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act: Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum (50 C.F.R. 226). ' From the beach habitat, the bluff rises rapidly at an incline of at least 100 percent. The face of the bluff is dominated by salal and sword fern. The bluff levels off at a height of about 30 feet above msl, before continuing up at an approximately 100 ' percent grade. ' The upland area is characterized by second growth lowland plant species. Dominant tree species on the Site include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western red cedar (Thuja plicate). Other tree species observed on the site include ' Grand fir (Abies grandis) and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). The older trees in this area appear to be approximately 30 to 40 years old. The groundcover in the upland area is dominated by salal and sword fern. Additional ground cover plants present include dull Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor). At least one large snag is present on the Site. Plants abutting South Bay ' Road to the south include Himalayan blackberry and Indian plum. Other than Himalayan blackberry, no other invasive species were observed on-Site. ' The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped four dominant soils on and in the immediate vicinity of the Site. Because NRCS maps can be inaccurate at this scale it is not possible to determine the actual boundary between ' these soils or the specific soils among these that are found on-site. These soils include: ' • Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil is moderately well drained and has a depth to water table of about 18 to 36 inches. It has no frequency of ponding of flooding. It consists of gravelly sandy loam and very gravelly sandy loam to 60 inches depth. • Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes: This soil is ' moderately well drained and has a depth to water table of about 18 to 36 inches. It has no frequency of ponding of flooding. It consists of gravelly sandy loam and very gravelly sandy loam to 60 inches depth. ' • Alderwood gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil is moderately well drained and has a depth to water table of about 18 to 36 inches. It has no frequency of ponding of flooding. It consists of gravelly loam, gravelly sand loam and very gravelly sandy loam to 60 inches depth. 1 ' WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 11 I • Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This well drained soil has a depth to water table of more than 80 inches. It has no frequency of flooding or ponding and consists of gravelly silt loam, gravelly loam, very gravelly loam and weathered bedrock to 42 inches. Other minor soils (4.0 percent cover) mapped in the upland area are gravelly loams and gravelly sandy loams that range from well drained to excessively well drained. The sole exception is the Swantown gravelly loam which is somewhat poorly drained. This soil has been mapped to the east of the Site. Coastal beaches soils have been mapped on the beach adjacent to the Site and tidal marsh soils to the east of the Site along the beach. ' The area immediately adjacent to the bluff has been disturbed. Figure 6 shows the present level of development on the Site. An unpaved road provides access to the Site from South Bay Way, extends north across two adjacent parcels to the west of ' the Site and entering the northwest corner of the Site. Five separate structures are presently located on the Site. A deck approximately 12 feet by 7.5 feet abuts the edge of the bluff. Stairs extend from the east end of the deck down to the cleared ' area adjacent to the beach. Uphill from the deck to the east sits a small storage shed approximately 8 feet by 6.5 feet. A foundation for a house occupies the footprint of the previous home placed on the parcel. This foundation is approximately 28 feet by 20 feet. A 12 foot by 6 foot shed is currently located west of the foundation; however, this is a temporary structure and will be removed upon completion of the project. The area immediately behind the foundation has been cleared for vegetation and a two to three foot walkway runs along the western edge of the foundation and between the foundation and the deck. ' 3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS The landowners plan for this Property entails the continued development of two ' projects currently underway on the Site as well as the placement of a septic system and supportive rock wall on the Site. The primary impacts associated with these projects are those generally associated with construction. Figures 6 and 7 show a map of existing and proposed structures on the Site. Currently existing structures on the Site, described from those closest to the shoreline to those furthest away, include the following: 1 provide s rovide access to the nearshore area and extend from approximately seventy-five feet from OHWM to less than 50 feet from OHWM. • A 13 foot by 7.5 foot deck adjacent to the top of the bluff that connects to the stairs (the larger "existing deck" between the structures shown between "existing deck" and "existing cabin" in ' Figure 6 is no longer present; this is now a cleared walkway). ' WWI 239SouthBayH MP/0420912/clt 12 I I• / N_ O O N N I Q 9q - 0 . -,.„ ei 2 i ----,,,,,t‘ 1 c a) (7) c . 1 W i cror � ti +. V I / iN � i L j �� �1 4a3' �1 a 'Z fn 1 i i il I i i '� i - «w. a' cn o N y 2 , , , i +41- *Ail, i 0 il 1 c3.) t i 1 'co li ti i t �v I' ; 1 v p t sib t•x !I n!W f c 1 `� •c co i � � Cty �. �i 4�rt rte g, a ., _ . .. 2 I ' cn 4 i C f .: �� .,- N U 2 2 I w y Y Q- �i LL Q Ce U4:2 i A' r 1 O (n [ sg i i 8 I'll a 4..4 i Q t I!P gt Eu � 2 ii i ` 4 '' H illIP''''tig. < ^, �ii A k 1 g i �� WE g ;la ii * i 1g 1 I Rte a o° I I I _N _N O O C•1 N 1 CC C C CE O Q a-., H Q h� �Qi� U ,t� m CD U I6 YlS > wo 7O� W viikp N in Ct co I 0 cii U i IO CE Z 1 - O CC k=z N z la_ U)T.., W 0 O J_ Q a O m a_ it ec I v 0 mm� L 2 dC w J i cm 1' i I i r .. rrod„Vte, 1.8 . . ) or* - 0 _, or 8 , 1 , _ _ _ __ \ _ , al \ ___ 0 I \ .., , On 1 I 1 • The foundation of a new living structure. This is built on the footprint of the former structure, shown as "existing cabin" in Figure 6. This structure is approximately 28 feet by 20 feet and is set back about ' five feet from the existing deck. A two to three foot walkway currently lies between the existing deck and this foundation and extends around the western edge of the foundation. • A 6.5 foot by 8 foot shed located about 14 feet to the east of the living structure foundation. This shed has been completed. ' • A partially-constructed 12 foot by 6 foot shed is located about 8 feet from the southwest corner of the living structure foundation. This is a ' temporary structure that will be removed upon completion of the project. ' In addition to these structures, three more structures are proposed for construction on the Site. A 1,500 gallon Glendon septic tank will be placed where the previous septic system was removed and a water line run from the tank to replace the ' existing water line (See Figure 6). Figure 7 shows the rock wall that will be placed between the residence and the hill to the south. This rock wall is intended to support the integrity of the hill and prevent further erosion of the hillside. ' The potential impacts of project will result primarily from the processes of grading and clearing on the Site as well as removal of some earth and the movement of ' construction vehicles on the Site. These potential impacts include the following: • The area surrounding these structures has already been cleared. This has created the conditions for potential short-term erosion and soil instability caused by the construction process and the removal of some vegetation in the buffer. Additional earth moving and grading during the construction process may contribute to increased erosion. • The removal of some native vegetation in the buffer zone. Native ' vegetation has already likely been removed to clear the area surrounding the structures. More may be removed in order to place ' the rock wall and by the movement of construction vehicles on the Site. Vegetation in the area adjacent to the location for the rock wall includes salal, Indian plum, sword fern and Douglas fir. 1 • Because the residence is being built on the same footprint as the previous structure, this part of the project will not increase the amount ' of impervious surface on the Site. The temporary shed will not add to the amount of long-term impervious surface as it will be removed upon completion of the project. ' WW 1239SouthBayHMP/0420912/clt 15 • The removal of vegetation from the Site has already resulted in the 9 Y direct loss of some habitat. Many species of bird, small mammal and ' insect use native plants for food sources and refuge. The loss of this vegetation in the buffer zone could reduce habitat for these organisms. The Management Plan below is intended to offset these adverse impacts. The 9 p Mitigation Measures developed in this Plan are intended to compensate for the impacts to the shoreline habitat and buffer zone. 3.4 PLAN COMPONENTS ' The components of the Mitigation Plan include the following: • Erosion control methods will be used to prevent on-Site rill or sheet ' erosion from moving sediments over the bluff and toward the adjacent shoreline. This will be accomplished through project timing and emplacement of control measures during construction. A silt fence has already been placed on the Site between the proposed residence and the bluff. • Native vegetation will be planted to mitigate disturbance to existing plants in the buffer zone. • No nutrients, pesticides or other contaminants will be used within 100 feet of the shoreline. ' 3.5 DETAILED MITIGATION MEASURES The detailed mitigation measures corresponding to the Plan Components listed ' above area as follows: • Timing of construction should be limited to the "dry season" between April 1 and October 15. By limiting construction to this time period, less effort will be required to inhibit erosion and silt runoff. All graded areas should be covered or re-vegetated prior to November 1. If it is necessary to continue construction into the "wet season," then extra measures will be required for erosion and silt runoff control. • All erosion control measures should be installed prior to beginning grading or other ground-disturbing construction activities. A silt fence ' has already been placed between the residence structure and the bluff. This should be kept in place. Straw bales, jute netting or other appropriate material should be kept on-Site and used to stabilize any open areas following grading. WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 16 I I ' Three areas within the buffer zone will be re-vegetated with native plant species as per the Planting Plan described in Chapter 4.0 in order to reduce future erosion and enhance buffer function. Planting ' success will be monitored and will conform to performance standards as described in Sections 4.6 and 4.7. If performance standards are not met, additional plantings or other remedial actions will be taken to ' meet standards as per requirements in Section 4.7. • Implementation of these Mitigation Measures is anticipated to ' mitigate impacts associated with the further development of the Site and disturbance to the buffer zone. However, the narrow size of buffers at this site and the limited filtering capacity of sandy soils will ' limit the extent to which the Site will filter long-term pollution and sediments entering the adjacent waters. To minimize the potential for contaminants to enter these waters, no additional nutrients, pesticides or additional contaminants should be used on the Site within 100 feet of the OHWM. it I 3.6 IMPLEMENTATION AND TIMING The continuation of construction on the Site should be conducted between April 1 ' and October 15 in order to minimize ground-disturbing activities during the rainy season. Any work carried out during the rainy season should have all erosion control measures in place prior to beginning. I New plantings in the buffer zone should be carried out during early fall if possible (September-October) to avoid the necessity of supplemental watering. Plantings can be placed during the winter or early spring (March-May) if necessary. If plantings occur during summer months, supplemental watering with a drip irrigation system or equivalent method may be necessary. Westech recommends that ' monitoring of these plantings be conducted by an independent landscaping firm, certified arborist, registered nursery or qualified botanists. 3.7 MITIGATION MONITORING ' Buffer areas serve a variety of functions. They are important in that they reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses by stabilizing soil and preventing erosion; filter suspended solids, nutrients and toxic substances; moderate impacts of ' stormwater runoff; and reduce noise disturbance and light intrusion. They can also provide important habitat for wildlife. ' The narrow size of buffers at this Site (less than 50 feet from OHWM for the stairs) and the limited filtering capacity of sandy, gravelly soils limit the extent to which the mitigation measures will filter pollution and sediments from ongoing activity. This WW 1239SouthBayHMP/0420912/clt 17 can include pollutants from hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pesticides and fertilizer. Literature on buffer size indicate that buffers of 100 feet may be necessary to ' consistently filter sediments and pollution that occur in stormwater runoff (Wenger 1999, Mayer et al. 2005). Precluding the use of pesticides, nutrients and other potential contaminants within 100 feet of the OHMW will limit the impact of these ' pollutants on nearshore critical habitat. Because buffer zones serve these functions, it is important that the Mitigation Measures that are implemented to offset significant impacts are successful. Monitoring over an extended period of time provides the best assurance of ' success. Monitoring success of erosion control measures during construction will be carried out daily. Any evidence of erosion or sedimentation leaving the construction area will result in immediate action to block erosion and sediments. ' Such siltation can best be blocked through the use of additional silt fences, straw bales, or temporary berms. ' Monitoring the success of new native plants (as per the Habitat Plan described in Section 4.0) should be carried out and enforced by the county according to the following schedule: ' • Following construction, the areas shown in the Habitat Plan (Section 4.0) should be replanted. ' The percent of replanted native vegetation should remain at 90 percent of the original area planted. If monitoring indicates that this ' vegetation drops below this level, contingency measures must be implemented. ' • The homeowners should have a monitoring report prepared by a qualified professional at the end of the first growing season. Follow- up monitoring reports should be completed at the end of the second ' and third full years after construction and restoration. These reports should address the success of the plantings. Any plant mortality should be noted and corrected if plant survival falls below 90 percent ' during the first three years. Documentation should include any necessary corrective measures that include supplemental planting to compensate for plant mortality and notation of the apparent reasons for such mortality. All reports should be submitted to Jefferson County for review and concurrence. tFor this plan to be successful, the County must monitor compliance with its conditions. The failure of the County to monitor the implementation of the Plan may lead to its ineffectiveness. 1 WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 18 1 3.8 CONTINGENCY PLAN ' A Contingency Plan should be followed if Mitigation Measures a pp ear to be failing. This plan should address, in particular, any mortality of revegetated areas below the 90 percent survival level at the end of three years. Should level be exceeded, the Contingency Plan should included an assessment of the reasons for failure by a qualified botanical professional and the development of a plan for introducing ' plants likely to be successful in the location where performance standards were not met. I ' WW1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 19 4.0 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND PLANTING PLAN ' A Planting Plan as diagrammed in Figures 8 and 9 will be implemented to mitigate for the disturbance of native vegetation in the buffer areas. A list of native plants that will be used for mitigation and restoration can be found in Table 1. Re- vegetation and planting of additional vegetation will occur as an integral part of the Project to compensate for environmental impacts caused by the ground-disturbing activity. ' Most of the area immediately adjacent to the location of the proposed residence, shed, deck and stairs is heavily vegetated and will not require additional vegetation. ' This includes the face of the bluff and the hill behind the residence. The three areas designated for additional plantings include: ' • Planting Area A is a 10 foot by 10 foot area adjacent to and landward of the upper intertidal zone. This planting area lies immediately behind the line of dune grass that lines the logs atop the upper ' intertidal zone in the area presently covered by low-cut mixed grasses. This area should be planted with the mix of shrubs and ground cover found in Table 1. ' • Planting Area B is an approximately 10 foot by 15 area that will be planted on and around the location of the temporary shed. When this shed is removed it will allow covering this area with a mix of shrubs and groundcover(Table 1). • While the rock wall will control the continued erosion of the hill, the construction project will likely remove vegetation in this area. The strip behind the wall should be replanted with the shrubs and ground Icover found in Table 1. Success of the planting plan depends on choosing species that are suitable to both ' the on-Site soil conditions, but that are hardy and capable of handling nutrient poor soils, shading and some salt spray. The native vegetation selected for this ' Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan were chosen for these reasons. Soils on the Site are mostly gravelly loams and well drained. Normal rainfall will quickly drain through these soils. Plants may require additional watering during the first year in order to meet performance criteria. A simple drip irrigation system would be the most effective method of accomplishing this. ' The species size and number of plants that will be used to revegetate these areas is shown in Table 1. Plants will be placed in a semi-random fashion within the areas indicated in Figures 8 and 9. Trees will be placed on ten-foot centers and shrubs ' WW 1239SouthBayH MP/0420912/clt 20 I N N O O N N I >+ cn (B O Li Q ( __ i O li y Iz: ' ( -C C V L. 1 IA I ti. al cn 1 4 y8 Q °ti F ' - ' I cp c N i-�� a s (� Q I ce (,)z e,,,, N / + I °x p Z 0 °� i O ! II Q2 Q°) v2V2 �� ! IOW amW , 6ma (� / + I,-,-E QON II bNltm2 {({(1yy1 (��(11jj ry� I l V1 I �C0.i f W F ? \` ..-77-- / I 7- L.WZrk II I e 1 ilp . il P n1/5 N a) I . / / / i 1 Ati 4 ,, II , o w t u cu eL I V '7 � O II /Z\--- , L _yy n 1 / :Ij W` GC agr ° I I � QO m QINw .m (B i i I zz� OOi�' L �`WWQ gyp~p I �2QiW2�F 4 Q N0 40 I W4 Q�06! � "� qo"°,2� UI Q (n' 2Aa� x `LE "~�J2J VWj OtiW I h� ti4g2 WR 4 O I I II li I 1 I _N N_ O O N N I > w o co Q 1 0 cad°N -��� `T oo`` U ,_ N I Z (Y ) 0 4"e'Z WU ' 7 ' S K. wo W CO 0 ai U I 0 0) RS d L I a _ _ - - _ �/ z f+ .___.__.—.f —. — 1 -- ao m / cwi�-1 Q a ct om C I >- w � II U ¢� LI w 2 I Av., 11L ,_ o zw9 I I ^ , ditifigi UV i IPi 0 Ilk) ,1 _ • 1 i •d►� w - - - - - - �- �_ o I - - - - - - - - - - - �� __ I I I 1 TABLE 1. LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS FOR IBUFFER MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT ILocation Species Scientific Name Number Size A Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 5 1 gallon IA Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 5 1 •allon A American Elymus mollis 20 3.5 " pot dune.rass IA Coastal strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 25 4 " pot B Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 4 1 gallon I B Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis 3 1 gallon B Ocean spra Holodiscus discolor 3 1 •allon B Sword fern Polystichum munitum 10 1 gallon IC Oregon 'rase Mahonia nervosa 7 1 g allon Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis 7 1 gallon IC C Ocean spra Holodiscus discolor 7 1 gallon C Sword fern Polystichum munitum 15 1 •allon I I I I I 1 1 gm 1 WW1 239SouthBayH MP/040912/clt 23 I will be planted on six-foot centers. Staggering of plants in this fashion, rather than planting in straight rows, will create a more natural appearing configuration. Plants may be clustered by species in order to promote natural reseeding. Plants installed in the fall usually out-perform those installed in the late winter or ' spring. Planting projects scheduled for early October to mid-December are generally the most successful. The earlier plants go into the ground in the fall, the more time they have to recover from transplant shock, adapt to the site, and expand their roots systems before the growing season. They will require less water and grow more vigorously than if they are planted in the spring. To increase the potential for the planted species to survive, four inches of mulch should be placed around the installed plants with the mulch two inches away from the stem of the plants. 1 ' WW 1239SouthBayHMP/0420912/clt 24 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS ' The property presently contains an existing deck, stairs leading from the deck to the nearshore area, a shed and the foundation for new residence. A new residence is ' being constructed on the footprint of a residence previously located on the property. A second shed is currently present on-Site, but will be removed upon completion of the project. The property owner also intends to place a septic system and water line ' on the property as well as a rock wall intended to provide support for the hill behind the residence. The proposed project is being constructed inside the buffer zone, though it will move the present structures no closer to the shoreline than has ' previously been the case. Measures outlined in this report will be enacted to mitigate additional construction ' on the Site and incrementally improve habitat and vegetation in the nearshore area. Erosion control measures will build on a silt fence currently in place and be used during construction to minimize sheet and rill erosion. A Planting Plan (See Figures ' 8 and 9 and Table 1) will be implemented to provide additional vegetation adjacent to the rockwall and nearshore portion of the property. The site of the temporary shed will also be replanted once this structure is removed. I 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS This report constitutes a Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan. A Planting Plan has been included in this report and we recommend that it be implemented on the ' Site upon approval by the County. Benefits deriving from this plan will only take place if it is implemented and enforced by the County. ' The silt fence presently emplaced on the property should be left in place and additional materials kept on Site to address any erosion observed during construction. The Planting Plan outlined in this report should be implemented; the Plan should be monitored according to the instructions outlined in this plan and the Contingency Plan implemented in the event that plant survival in the revegetated areas falls below 90 percent. Property owners should refrain from the use of ' pesticides or additional nutrients on the Site and should introduce no contaminants within 100 feet of the OHWM. While these measures will provide mitigation for additional construction and use of the Site, the shoreline and critical areas marine critical areas may experience continued cumulative impacts as a result of the narrow size of the buffers and limited filtering capacity of the soils in this area. vWV1239SouthBayHMP/0420912/clt 25 6.0 REFERENCES Creative Design Solutions. 2012. Unpublished Site Plan for 361 South Bay Way, Port Ludlow, Washington. Port Angeles, Washington. Jefferson County. 2012. Online Map Database. htt ://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/. tY P p 1 Jefferson County, Washington. ' Jefferson County. 2009. Jefferson County Critical Areas Code. Title 18.22 JCC. Department of Community Development. Port Townsend, Washington. ' Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cron uist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University tY of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Lyons, C.P. 1997. Wildflowers of Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, ' Washington. Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds, and T.J. Canfield. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, ' Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm ' Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing Company. Redmond, Washington. Taylor, R. 1995. Northwest Weeds. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula Montana. Wegner, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extend and Vegetation. Athens, Georgia: Institute of Ecology, University of ' Georgia. VWV1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 26 I I I I I I I I I I IAPPENDICES I I I I I I I IVWV1239SouthBayHMP/032112/mas 27 APPENDIX A ' SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 1 VWV1238SouthBayHMP.APPA/032112/mas A-1 I --.. ;:ilh. „17' ' • " r t !V X r 4 '111 Y I n T r r ,w ..+ 'yd.•./fi-1 n#...,yy ' ' ! ' q 9t i t .i." � ''g�yr.A.' ww e I ,- .I ,LF' . o ='x/�'Y. --.....:;s:,,,-47:;1-.1:;;:.:. ,lu- -�n� ,.:, ''d✓''Vn"; �° ' 'w5µ A '•Y� f �•. ' :ar i y 7 3 e✓ '�'� a Y, • . !yew:.8 ,^ ,11 1. Footprint of previous residence. . �,�, �' ,� I . F i . ,s. F I 4 ,1.1 s., , 1 , , , ... ,, .. .., .. ,,. .. , ., , , , - ,. ... . _ . .,;, 0:- .,.., ,,,I.; .., '44r'k. ,,,, 111 I Via« : sr '�'^"� ' 35 ',....= ze �" T eY w : 2. Proposed area for rockwall. I I A-2 WW1238SouthBayHMP.APPA/032112/mas I * -r r.. i k i w1 ZY ,ay. I P I ., mow; v a F ,-'rk.7-. ' . ,, :,-"•.-, .„, 7,...c.,, ,,,,,,,r-fi 0 , i i ' ,:i , I ' + M, -; v .'. a I -,..00000,0, '�^ '�r' . 1_ e> . ;x' 3. Front of house and existing stairs. w a,^ k '•V Nor p ■ t .. . . q� R a. Y + 4 x •� -• :71,*'', i•t � k.,gs.;a M}rg, ';',.-4;.`i•-•.4-•..7„;' a Y �e� .�.. y^ i , I '�1 ~. , .. S.Y .sw!. 4 v - ,•'" s$ d t T y 1 x 4. Forest area above house. I I A-3 WW1238SouthBayHMP.APPA/032112/mas I 4, ,�4 -q+ IF a*'" prr Z F��afi . r 1 a ! . ,E} i 7. " r,A j e w r-` s�'� c '�x:�.,�° /;,--'''' ��1 4 � rs3aa��n'� . N�f' 'it '-''''''-,...4.} A ,�iy yr .i ,y'� { X Y +"-I J } 4 Pt �` �L"i� Y � ''',.4,,, -' , �• A� .r�SH X ,1� �±:`I?' t doe. t r , '' .,,.,,,7,,,v,.:,„,:; h S 4 6. 4, feL.°' ,�y, O, N T . if �y x' 7 r` s.. _..,%.4',., `,r: ,,,;;;.,..,;•' -',.= "�yy "' ki? fir.�...,y .1.1. --...._,. �w w+ew Ts % ,.,-it �. v _� * s t ,, A I • a * (tee ,ly. lg A.'r"� r 5. Rockwall Area. I *-n .e � " ..i�f �i� 1 r R Y• r ;• F?k � ,* Iii t` I I II �a c :%C",,;-:-.,. ,k + W � e X �. a »'hCxF r ;y. y,? , k..y %-...'� `':N gyp - ffi Y a -'' � S.-� � ',., ,� n4w I 6. Boat storage and well house near road. I IWW1238SouthBayHMP.APPA/032112/mas A-4 .,_ a ••• ��� • •4••i•i• ••�.�.,. • 1 C y n rt v (---) D Q Q @ 63 (0 N 1od20s1-e C' C A,o 4 421.0.7 v '-i- ti� ■ AP C C Q C CD I N 68.5.3.54*E 5 419.54 n O N 3d26 57"E 419.82 O y Q A\' #' A O st S 420.38 <0 , '-/ 7 I f u r ti o I I - - LZ'651, M.99,65P1 N m o M aSS,6ZPl N cn <4 D A.,I I !!6 QI I I M ,49,6ZP1 N Im O C CC t?r'tks m �� C C m c �7 II ! o � < '�R, o < z G� ml D r —1 i ] err- D -< o ?FC r�oi��0` c ° c C C C D. C o � 0 n HV) ti � NOS�.1-- o -u --n � � a � z•® � x z o ° � C � rnD � � n 0 z C ° c z Z o C4 CZ 73. ;ate jV l� o w, LO may , o � N- ( 1111 ")6.1"."1 — "" c ° o °' NORTH CO ) 0 o N U, • • ♦i�i*i *• • 4,• ••• .. ♦•••e� CO ••••ii•iii c >q ) �s�i�i�i�i rr�te, 47 ••��*. 1"-' u v O •N �� 1 ti � - v a Z x "i 0, ` t.- O w Il z lo 0 0 o _o o zc ~r� ~ . CD = ale° ` q _ o. v It: u v a I" m w �1 c :0 3 0 0 a > 0ZQj w o p Q co W � _c r _ v c b 3 � 0 0p °° w •- 0 p o t0 ` 7 I �1 Cr - E „ co 1.3 y �'_ 1 >- C 0 in E .o _c o _ Q — LLI Z Q v _ E `vr p m U 4 4 D cL N 4 _ a `o ��d E _ Z /' 4 4 4 .. v L . O�G� N � On `D Q ( 4 4 4 4 4•. 0 a .0 ). Q� CO Z I V •••••• .. C u- W n 4 4 •: v - 0 b. , O r *412 14 a m U n 'LI 4 °o m e Y � N.-`U 3?, 1-- 2 L� Z a a° _O O W 0 - tV .yo QZ / 11 ' c ? Q g in Z4.•••••• c __ c _l___._. _ r Y E 1 / / W p / / to CC 1441 a) 11 / O CC O 41OPP /I ` I/ V U 0 1 03 co 4%.1 % 1 W W �. J ter , 1 1— F�- � 14-- i 1 A 4\.-*4141 16)(1 er‘ • i 1 -1 effy `r1 i C., , f 1 1 1 1 I $ y I p i :13, 1 O i II • 1 �'\. z t ( .5e241‘......_.0 , 1/41/ON 1 I r . David W. Johnson From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:11 PM To: David W. Johnson Subject: MLA12-00017 Gearheart- HMP Review David: I have reviewed the Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) prepared by Westech Company(dated March 2012)for the Gearheard application to construct a retaining wall. I agree that the mitigation proposed in this report will address the impacts associated with construction of the retaining wall. I suggest adding the following to the permit: F—A Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan (HMP), prepared by Westech Company(dated March 2012) was submitted to address construction of a retaining wall within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffer. The retaining wall will be constructed landward of the existing house. Prior to building final,the applicant is to implement the approved HMP. C—The applicant shall implement the approved HMP. PRIOR TO BUILDING FINAL,THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT DCD (360-379-4450)TO SCHEDULE A SITE VISIT TO REVIEW PLANT INSTALLATION RELATIVE TO THE APPROVED HMP. A BUILDING FINAL SHALL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE MITIGATION AREAS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY DCD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED HMP. H—Final Zoning Approval—Add a hold to the building case file for an onsite review by DCD of the mitigation areas. Let me know if you have any questions. Donvtcv Frost—holm/1i Associate PCanner/WetCandSpeciaCist Jefferson County Department of Community Deveoopment 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend,'Washington 98368 dfrosthoCm@cojefferson.wa.us 360.379.4466 Department of Community Development is open from 9:00 to 4:30 Monday through Thursday;DCD is closed on Friday. All e-mails 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. 1 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Review 0p0: I Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 PERMIT#: BLD12-00027 Received Date: 1/30/2012 SITE ADDRESS: 361 S BAY WAY PORT LUDLOW, 98365 OWNER: LAWRENCE R GEARHEARD PHONE: 206-842-1498 MICHAEL F GEARHEARD 10674 NE VALLEY RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981101339 OAK BAY WATERFRONT SUBDIVISION: Block: Lot: 57 PARCEL NUMBER: 976800037 Section: 29 Township: 29 N Range: 01 E CONTRACTOR: OWNER/BUILDER PHONE: REPRESENTATIVE: MICHAEL J ANDERSON PHONE: (360) 531-1011 330 CLEVELAND ST PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 PROJECT DESCRIPTIOr ROCK RETAINING WALL TYPE OF WORK NON SQUARE FOOTAGE: TYPE OF IMP NEW MAIN: VALUATION 3,000.00 ADD'L: HEAT TYPE: CODE EDITION: 2009 HEAT BASE: HEAT TYPE: OCCUPANCY: UNHEATED: #OF STORIES: OCCUPANCY: OTHER: CONST TYPE: GARAGE: 104 SHORELINE: CONST TYPE: DECK: SETBACK: BANK HEIGHT: SEWAGE DISPOSAL: WATER SYSTEM: BEDROOMS: BATHROOMS: Exist: Exist: Prop: Prop: Total: Total: Routing Date: Type Amount Paid By: Date: Receipt: Approved/Date Permit $83.25 LYK 01/30/12 131410 Plan Check $54.11 LYK 01/30/12 131410 State Building Code $4.50 LYK 01/30/12 131410 Total: $141.86 +leiJEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COliM UNUTY DEVELOPMENT • ` T 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 • www.c9-4454. .wa.uskoi 51 Fax www:c;ojdfersan.wa.crs//c�ntmdevetopment Master Permit Application MLA: la- 1-7 • r project•> f - -,,=sheets as necessary): a • a. _ e cOo_ _— - Tax Parch . r q vo 'i# O. r Property S (acres/swam Site Address a Mons to Property: 3&' L 5, eAq W4g, Peel/-uo'Y f U'4 Property Owners)of l P14 LC 1,.. &E11-17J-144-72.1) Telephone: 2OI f AL l*i if) Fax: email: �` Q-- Mating Address: /o 614 Ai 1/A-L1 t ? 444. 1314-►`Brio,E... bvA- 4t LLB 0/ArlilicarttlAgent(Iffl fferentfromowner): Telephone: Fax email: Mailing Address: . kind of Permit?(Check each box that applies 0 Lot or Road Segregation ❑Critical Areas Stewardship Plan ❑ Demolition Permit . ❑Variance Minor,Major or Reasoned*Economic Use) ❑Single Family ❑Garage Attached l Detached El Cmclitional Use[C(a).C(d),oir Cj ❑ Ma timed kdome_. -❑ Modular- • - . - ❑Ctiscretionary'D'or Unnamed Use Celassificslion 13 Commercial*- - ❑Special Use(Essential Paella Fates)*` a Change of Use 0 or Address ❑l Approach Short Plat** O Home Business 0 Cottage Industry 0 Elincrmg Site Plan** ❑Propane 0 Long Plat** 0 Sign - -_ - - . - - ❑Planned Rte Residential Development(PRRDlAmendments*' ❑Ailawed`Yee'Use Consistency nay Analysis ❑plat VacatiaU '+ ❑Stonmwater Management ❑ Master (� P � ,. " ©Site Plan Approval Advace Damnation(SPAAD)* ©Stns '• .y* .,- . . ; ❑Temporary Use - ❑Shoretire M �*1 ❑ttireess T * + ? "O Forest Practices A of Slx-Yea Malted= O Jefferson I , v f Nayniquin a Pre—Applkaffan Cenfareece CI Tree VegetEdion ` DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • DESIGNATION OF AGENT . I hereby Vie.Ai ` 443046'/2400 - to acct as my agent in matters to this application for pemr'gs)- XOwNEN S iowouRE • id//fir %. QA,. I /11 -- By signkig this application form,the awre8aagent attests that the'mtorma grr provided herein,and in any attadrsrauds,is lure and cored to the best of his,her or its knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the ownedagent with respect to this eppiradion packet may result in this ism* g null and vim. I further agree to save,indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County Mist all Habadies,judgments,court costs,reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue a againstJefferson County as a resu t of or in consequence of the granting Qf tlts pamm. - I further agree to provide access and_right of entry to _,;::f---f County and its employees,reprerovitativesor agents for the sole purpose of apptcation review and any regtaied.tater -•■ is right of entry wit be assumed unless the apps itfoms the County'ins writing at the . time of the she `• Date: ii let 1-- 1 The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a resrdt• • -issuance ofthisperndt may negatively Impact upon one or more threatened or endangered specs and could lead to a potential'take of en endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the `Endangered Spades Act'or'ESA?Jefferson County makes no asawances torte applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued we not violate the ESA. Any individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regettffng your acton(s)even if you are in- ■ the y. County development Cods.The Applicant that he,she orit holds Ind vidual and no ' .•to t' plying with the ESA. The Appicant has read this signs er1d dates lt below. Signature: ;Lr/� / > ( • Date: . 2• c:1PeemitCwwr\ 'ORMsa##\DRD PORMACurrent DRD FoonsVitsoar Penult Apprualion 5-29-08 aoc . ti c,. % JEFFERSON COUNTY � V M DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPM C E FE_,q v 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend •Washington 68 \4:s .„." -- O 360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax 1 I JAN 3 G 20 12 �`) i'NG`). http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ L JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Stormwater Calculation Worksheet MLA# a- ` l PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: LIYAAW r M�1 (—. DETERMINING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: This stormwater calculation worksheet should be completed first to classify the proposal as"small,""medium,"or"large." The size determines whether a Stormwater Site Plan is required in conjunction with a stand-alone stormwater management permit application, building permit application, or other land use approval application that involves stormwater review. The basic information will also be helpful for completing a Stormwater Site Plan, if required. ,t, PARCEL SIZE(I.E.,SITE) Size of parcel 7e/ 4 acres An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Multiply the acreage by this figure. Size of parcel in square feet `- q-(o sq/ft Land-disturbing activity is any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover(both vegetative and non-vegetative) acid/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, excavation,and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and road construction. Native vegetation is vegetation comprised on plant species, other than noxious weeds,that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples include species such as Douglas fir,western hemlock,western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow,elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; herbaceous plants such as sword fern,foam flower,and fireweed. i.,,.I 11 II), r .:.K• k • k .. ..�._.. _.. .a.- • I. AND VOLUME OF CUT/FI Calculate the total area to be cleared, graded,filled, Answer the following two questions related to excavated,and/or compacted for proposed development conversion of native vegetation: project. Include in this calculation the area to be cleared for: 4 Does the project convert' acres or mo - of Construction site for structures sq/ft native vegetation to lawn or landscap-d areas? Drainfield,septic tank,etc. ---- — sq/ft Circle: Yes o Well, utilities,etc. _ sq/ft Does the project convert /2 acres or more of native vegetation to •-sture? Driveway, parking,roads,etc. ----- sq/ft Circle: Y, No Lawn, landscaping,etc. --�� sq/ft Other compacted surface, etc. ------- sq/ft Indic e Total Volumes of Proposed: Total Land Disturbance sq/ft ■ Cut Fill 17 (cu/yd) [over] I stormwater calc worksheet Rev 9-9-2010—REV.9/9/2010 1 I--1 0) = 0) O' LL Q Z LL 0 I-1 O O -J O - .. CO CC 4 a) — N ti CO 0 v - CO CO 0 0 L O. r- -0 X 2 "O +J Cl) X ; C U O = I-1 W O 0 N -I-. 'fl H co 0) LU -- O L L L 1— ti Q _0 U U U H Z 0 CO (... ' p J O_ Q_ C. = F-- H O O co O) 1 O CD N O -0 = O CO U O) Cr "O w C = 3 3 I— to o ¢ o CID J C.J 0 y -0 CC CC Z C) C Cr) 1- LLI 3 • CC 0 3 N Z U LLI Q CC 0 1- ti O Z Cf) 2 LLI Z -0 CC O CC Is- W W CO CC 2 >- Q C W d- LL Lt7 2 J W Q O W J W CL O) 2 3 CO CC LU CC J CO O N W F— Q Q O C9 LU J H -- CC r- I- O J X 0 C9 CC CO a N Q J ¢ CL 2 >. LLl rn 3 I- LL_ CD O J N O W W W O CC )- O I- U J Z H U LLI 'O Q CO Q X W Z LLJ O: CC cJI CO 1- LLI I- a) J LU ¢ CO U 2 0) O_ CC 2 ti Z O Y Q CC 0) t0 M 3 U CO I-1 0) Q 2 Q 7 O_ O CC H O Q C9 O I- W iH `� U J E r- m C9 t0 - +.1 O N... O CO 7 CO O O ti O N O CO Q I~ W ti O C:] P- O tT O O L0 O O O "O L CO CO I� U a) N N a 3t C O O a) C - CU O +1 a) W a) a) a a) -- = o t a) V t0 a) 'O > t0 U C_ L 0- - O t0 O. C- O t0 X i-. U -0 X 0 CO O_ (0 -- •- (0 a) I— I— X I— CA t0 )E )E 1— DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TIME SHEET Date Time Comments tn--012 Lti 15 • UDC CONSISTENCY REVIEW Project Planner: Master#MLA1 2-00017 Review Type Proiect Description BLD12-00027 I ROCK RETAINING WALL PRJ12-00015 ROCK RETAINING WALL SDP12-00004 I SHORELENE EXEMPTION FOR ROCK RETAING WALL Primary: LAWRENCE R GEARHEARD Site Address: MICHAEL F GEARHEARD 361 S BAY WAY 10674 NE VALLEY RD PORT LUDLOW WA, 98365 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981101339 MICHAEL J ANDERSON REP 330 CLEVELAND ST PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 Project Location: Parcel number 976 800 037, Oak Bay Waterfront,Tracts Lot 57, Section 29, Township 29N, Range 1E, WM located at 361 Bay Way,Port Ludlow 98368 Parcel Number: 976800037 S-T-R:29-29N-01E Total Acreag( 1 Legal Description OAK BAY WATERFRONT TRACTS LOT 57 Land Use: 9800 Flood District: Fire District: 3 Planning Area: 7 Flood Map(FIRM)Panel No: School 49 Zoning: COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY PLAN: UGA: UGA Trans MPR: WAT SUPPLY UTILITY: Service Area PUD: [ vf Plot plan states"property line" [ Assessor's Map(Property lines ubmitted plot plan must match the property lines as identified on the Assessor's 1/4 map) [ Legal Access to Property NO [ tj' Parcel Tags or Scanned Docume YES NO [ "' ESA's: Special Report h earby ES NO [ Designated Ag YES S [of�/Shoreline Designation: )NO 6/'. . [ VI Shoreline Slope Stability: 0 m• . _ Stream Type:YES NO Fish&Wildlife:YES NO Wetlands: YES NO Rare Plants:YES NO Seismic: YES NO Landslide: YES NO Flood: YES NO Erosion: YES NO Aquifer Recharge Area:YES NO SIPZ: none At Risk High Risk Coastal CMZ: none High Risk Moderate Risk isconnected CMZ Stormwater site plan sub d: YesNo [ V" Forest Lands: YES NO Adjoining Forest Lands: _ Commercial/ Rural/ Inholding [ L}/Mineral Lands: YES NO [ v( Agricultural Lands: YES 4.00 [ tK Archaeology: YES 10 [ frr Stormwater: New Impervious Surface_ l °it _Land Disturbing Activity 1,04 ESA's Stormwater Req's: Min Req#2 Min Req#1 thru#5 Min Req#1 thru#10 Engineering [v1 Notice Provisions/Disclos. e: Airpo YES NO MRL YES NO Forest Lands YES NO [ Vj' Landscaping Require. a ( , [VJ Parking Spaces Requir-• NO 2 Other [ LA'' Building Height: 35' UBC Standard k4 [ f,,] Impervious Surface coverage percentage: Resource Lands&Public: 10% Rural Residenti. : 25% Rural Industrial: Per UDC Sec 6.7 Rural Commercial: 60% Area of Building Coverage:60%in Rural Industrial Lands only [ l.] Total Building(s)Size: RVC:20,000 SF CC:5,000 SF NC:7,500 SF GC:10,000 SF All others:subject to septic&watercoretrairts/Nor�e specified [ c-] Setbacks: Front: w Left Side: Right Side: Rear: q-6 Shoreline Setback: �a LSHA Setback: [ vr Road Classification: Road Approach: XISTING1 ' RAP [ L]' SEPA Required: YES XEMPT [ (,, Flood Certificate: [ (;,j— Existing Case(s) &Condition(s): Violations: Yes o [ Recorded Date of Subdivision: AFN Over 5yrs=UDC Plat Conditions: <5yrs=Plat Conditions on plat or Old Ordinance [ J— Lots/Require Declaration of Restrictive Covenant YES tM 0 ubmitted: YES NO [\ UGA No Protest Agreeme YES ubmitted: YES NO [ V Site Visit conducted 111001111 NO [ i Require Final Zoning Approval iurvimm [v ADMIN: Setbacks entered in Permit Plan case N/A New Parcel Tags entered in Permit PI N/A E Special Reports Scanned N/A Es t..4 INo parcel tags found for parcel y ", Associated CASES status issued finaled description 976800037 BLD10-00204 F 8/24/2010 5/24/2011 DEMO EXISTING CABIN MLA10-00151 ZON 10-00054 A 8/19/2010 SPAAD- Site Plan Approval Advanced Determination for residential development MLA10-00227 PRJ10-00177 P NSFR SEP10-00066 A 8/23/2010 BLD10-00205 R 8/30/2010 Replacement of a Single Family Residence SDP10-00082 A 10/5/2011 SHORELINE EXEMPTION FOR SFR MLA12-00017 SDP12-00004 P SHORELENE EXEMPTION FOR ROCK RETAING WALL BLD12-00027 P ROCK RETAINING WALL PRJ12-00015 P ROCK RETAINING WALL c o/a rrJ%J/ !/V ../3-.'- 60,7°x. r %i2 Zia 4.0f sx -2-Sx 3./y • 4 /9.64 C$ 6) /9,6,14 x #4.9-rauhs, gO3s 6- .511,zlbs 4 t Guts