HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Rpt Termination Point SDP 2022-19 finalStaff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Application No. SDP 2022-00019
Installation of a stormwater system
for the Termination Point Subdivision with outfall
located 20 feet landward of the OHWM of Squamish Harbor
April 24, 2024
Prepared by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Planning Division
FINDINGS
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
1. Landowner: Termination Point Properties LLC
Applicant: John Magnuson
8235 Bucklin Hill Road
Bainbridge Island, 98346
2. Location: This proposal is located approximately 250 feet south of SR 104, and 2,000 feet west of the Hood Canal Bridge in the Shine Area. The Termination Point Subdivision (TPS)
is approximately 25 acres in size, and has Shine Road along the northern edge and Squamish Harbor (Hood Canal) along the southern edge.
The property receives access from Linda View Drive and Harbor View Drive both County Roads, and Ricky Beach Drive a private road. Assessor parcel number (APN) 998600012 is comprised
of Lots 22 to 35 of TPS Recorded Volume 4 Page 25 of Long Plats (Exhibit 31). APN 998600009 is Lot 19 of TPS, which would contain the outfall of the drainage system for the subdivision.
The Assessor parcel information for the two parcels and the notice to titles is attached (Exhibit 30).
3. History: The TPS created (56) fifty-six lots, which were each approximately 0.3 acres in size. The plat was recorded in Volume 4 Page 25 of Long Plats in 1961 (Exhibit 31). Linda
View Drive, Harbor View Place, and Ricky Beach Drive were both constructed around 1961 (Exhibit 38) and made county roads. In 2022 Ricky Beach Road was changed from a county road to
a private road. A development moratorium was placed on certain lots in the TPS through Resolution 69-83 and Resolution 90-97 due to land stability concerns. In the Summer of 2013 Jefferson
County pursued legal action against the landowner for unauthorized work in the form of tree cutting and land disturbing activity that occurred within the landslide hazard area without
authorization (Exhibits 24 & 25).
The Statum Group prepared a Geotechnical Report dated December 24, 2019 (Exhibit 7), which assessed the geologic hazards of the entire TPS. Page 1 to 3 of the Geotechnical Report divided
the TPS into three different Zones: Zone A (not landslide hazard); Zone B area above the slope that could be developed with requirements; and Zone C that was determined to be inappropriate
for development because it is located within the landslide hazard and poor soils.
Zone A is generally comprised Lots 1-4, Lot 35, and Lots 42-45. Lots 1 to 4 that already contain residence. The moratorium was lifted on Lots 42-56 (area north of Linda View) in 2014
by Resolution 21-14. Lots 22 to 34 located above the slope are located within Zone B. The applicant is seeking to consolidate the flat portions of these lots into 4 parcels comprised
of: Parcel A Lots 22-24; Parcel B Lots 25 to 27; Parcel C lots 28 to 30; and Parcel D lots 33 to 35
per SEPA Checklist (Exhibit 4). The remaining lots are in Zone C are that is not appropriate for residential development from a geologic perspective.
Linda View Drive, Harbor View Place, Ricky Beach Drive are already in existence and provide access to 19 lots already allowed to be developed. Currently, the existing drainage system
has a series of man-made drainages, culverts, and a perched outfall that discharges stormwater drainage on the face of the landslide hazard area (head scarp). The existing drainage
system discharges stormwater through the landslide hazard area located below the slope and head scarp to a Np stream (perineal non-fish bearing) with an outfall to Squamish Harbor.
The Geotechnical Report recommended to not direct drainage and stormwater through a landslide hazard area. Geotechnical Report and Engineered Stormwater Plan recommended that the
stormwater drainage be tight lined from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope to reduce the likelihood of landslides.
4. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to install a stormwater system to avoid the infiltration of stormwater into the ground in the slope that contains unstable slopes, and poor draining
soil and in an area that has been subject to recent deep rotational slides (between 1996 to 1999). The stormwater system (Exhibit 6) would collect stormwater from north side of Linda
View Drive through road ditch along Linda View Drive. It also entails the installation of an 8 inch collector lines running from along the eastern edge of Lots 42 to 45 (from north
to south), and another 8 inch collector line from the southern edges of Lots 54 to Lot 52 (from west to east). Another 8-inch PVC collector line would be installed in the mid slope
area to collect all the natural drainage and the proposed drainage from the development on Lots 22 to 32 (from west to east). The 8 inch collector lines have been designed to accommodate
up to 5,000 sq ft of impervious surface from roof and driveways. The 8 inch collection pipes for lots 22 to 31 would be located a minimum of 60 feet from the top of the slope (head
scarp) per the Geotechnical Report.
The engineer drainage plan also requires the placement of rocks at all outfalls to reduce energy. The size of the rocks would meet the Table V-1 of the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual
of Western Washington (Exhibit 23). The drainage would be directed into an approximate 167-foot-long by 14-foot-wide (with a 2 foot separator) by 1 foot deep biofiltration swale to
remove any contaminants primarily from the road. The biofiltration swale would contain plants, compost, and check dams to help slow down and treat water. An 8-inch PVC pipe would
collect drainage from Lots 33 to 35 (from north to south). All of this drainage would be directed to the Catch Basin 3 located in the middle of Lot 32. From Catch Basin 3 the stormwater
would be directed to the east through an 18-inch PVC pipe to Catch Basin 2. From Catch Basin 2 the stormwater would be routed down a steep slope to the south to Catch Basin 1. From
Catch basin 1 the stormwater would directed to a diffusion “T” and at a large rocks energy dissipater. This outfall would be located at the base of the slope and 20 feet landward of
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
A 130-foot portion of this stormwater pipe with a dispersion “T” and rock outfall to prevent erosion would be located within the 200 foot of Squamish Harbor, which is regulated by the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan (SMP). The SMP regulations are found in Title 18.25 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). This proposal is located within an area that is designated
Natural by the SMP. The stormwater system is considered a utility that serves the TPS. This proposal is not exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit per WAC 173-27-040,
and therefore a Shoreline Substantial Development permit is also required. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit is a Type III permit and is the main focus of this review. The
stormwater outfall 20 feet landward of the OHWM may also require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the WA State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
5. Profession Studies Submitted and Reviews of engineered drainage plan to address slope stability for the Termination Point Subdivision (TPS):
Consultant Report Exhibit Date Issue addressed
JC Wilson Final Stormwater Final Engineered drainage
Engineering Plan 6 10/18/22 Plan for TPS
Stratum Geotechnical Geologic Assessment of the
Group Report 7 12/24/19 TPS
Marine Survey & Biological Report (BiOp Habitat Assessment, No Net
Assessments shoreline, & stream) 8 9/28/22 Loss,& Mitigation of drainage
Stratum Geotechnical Geotechnical Response to
Group Assessment 9 7/28/21 to Eng. Stormwater Design
Jefferson County Review PW review & recomm. for
Public Works (PW) 17 6/29/22 Stormwater Design
NTI Engineering Drainage & Erosion Plan 20 11/21/14 Engineering calculations
JC Wilson Initial Stormwater Initial Engineered drainage
Engineering Plan 21 4/22/22 for TPS
Stratum Geotechnical Review of 4/19/22 drainage
Group Assessment 22 4/21/22
6. Site Description: Development within the TPS is comprised of: houses on Lots 1 to 4; the construction of Linda View, Harbor View Lane, and Ricky Beach Road; and installation of utilities
primary in the upper bench area; and the existing primitive drainage system for the development. No other development has occurred with the TPS due to the landslide that occurred between
1996 to 1999, which placed development moratoriums of much of the remaining parcels. The moratorium was placed on the subject lots due to concerns about slope stability concerns related
allowing residences being placed within this area that contains unstable slopes.
The site generally slopes from northwest to southeast. Lots 1 to 4, Lots 42-56 (area north of Linda View) and the northern half of Lots 22 to 31 located along Linda View Drive are
located in an area that has a slope ranging between 0 to 16 percent slope per Page 23 of Stratum Group 2019 Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 7). The southern portion of Lots 22 to 31 contain
a vertical slope (headscarp) that ranges from 70 feet at the eastern edge (near Ricky Beach Drive) to 110 feet in height at the western edge of the property (per page 25 of Stratum
Group 2019 Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 7). The western half of Lots 32 to 35 are located along Linda View Drive are generally flat, while the eastern half contains a depression.
The lower bench area below the headscarp is accessed from Ricky Beach Drive a paved private road. Per page 3 of the Stratum Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 7), the lower bench area (Zone
C) contains a landslide complex in an area of ground deformation (fractures, shifting, down-dropping, and shallow slide). Zone C is also in the runout zone for landslides sourced from
the steep headscarp bluff along the northern edge of Zone C. The landslide debris and poor soils contained in Zone C are unstable area and not appropriate for residential development
per the Page 3 of the Stratum Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 7). Portions of the TPS were cleared as outlined in the aerial photos attached (Exhibits 28 & 29).
7. Shoreline Designation: This proposal is located along a section of Squamish Harbor that is designated Natural by the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan (Exhibit 32). The shoreline
analysis is in Section II(1) Below.
8. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted August 28, 1998) designates the subject parcels Rural Residential (RR) 1:5. The proposed drainage
improvements is an appurtenance to the approved TPS.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan the proposal is subject to all applicable sections of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Goals and policies of the Shoreline section of the
Comp Plan are incorporated by reference from the Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.
9. Critical Areas: The Critical Areas Map indicates that the area north of the slope and headscarp has a slight landslide hazard and the area below the slope and head scarp has a high
landslide hazard. The area comprised of Lots 7, 20 , and 21 of the TPS contains areas that were subject to landslides in 1998-1989, which are also considered high landslide hazard.
The areas approximately 150 feet north of Squamish Harbor are listed as erosion hazard. The area within Squamish Harbor is listed as seismic hazard, which is outside of the TPS.
The Critical Area Map also does not indicate that the parcel contains any streams. The area along Squamish Harbor contains special flood hazard (floodplain) that is designated Coastal
High Risk (VE1) (Exhibit 27).
Section 18.22.210 JCC states
Identification and mapping of critical areas.
(1) The approximate location and extent of critical areas within the county are displayed on various inventory maps available on the Jefferson County geographic information system (GIS)
web site.
(2) The critical areas maps are provided only as a general guide to alert the viewer to the possible location and extent of critical areas. These maps shall not be relied upon exclusively
to establish the existence/absence or boundaries of a critical area, or to establish whether all of the elements necessary to identify an area as a critical area actually exist.
(3) The type, extent and boundaries may be determined in the field by a geotechnical professional, wetland specialist, wildlife biologist or staff person according to the requirements
of this chapter. In the event of a conflict between a critical area location shown on the county’s maps and that of an on-site determination, the on-site determination will apply.
Staff Comment: The existing drainage where the stormwater from the TPS being discharged is not listed as a Type Np – non fish perineal stream per the Jefferson County Critical Area Map
(Exhibit 27). However, the WA State Department of Natural Resources who determine stream typing as part of WAC 222 and the Habitat Assessment prepared by Marine Surveys and Assessments
(Exhibit 8) determined that the existing drainage to Squamish Harbor to be a Np stream. DCD agrees with this determination and is regulating this drainage as a Np stream. A Np stream
has a 75 foot buffer and this is addressed in the Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 8).
The Critical Area analysis is in Section II (2) below).
10. Conformance with the Consolidated Development Permit Process, Chapter 18.40 JCC.
A Stormwater Permit (ZON 2021-00005) for the drainage system for TPS was submitted to DCD on January 20, 2021. The Jefferson County Public Works reviewed the engineered drainage and
erosion plan and geotechnical reports for the drainage plan (Exhibits 18 to 23). Jefferson County Public Works completed their review and their recommendations were provided to DCD
Planning for the stormwater permit on June 29, 2022 (Exhibit 17). However, because a 150 foot portion of the outfall is located within shoreline jurisdiction a shoreline substantial
development permit was required. Because a Shoreline Substantial Development permit is a Type III permit it is required to be processed prior to the issuance of the Type I stormwater
permit per Section 18.40.030(2) JCC. Therefore, DCD will process the stormwater permit (ZON 2021-00005) if the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is approved.
A Shoreline Substantial Development is Type III permit per Table 8-1 of Section 18.40.040 JCC. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was submitted on October 26, 2022 (Exhibit
2). Jefferson County Department of Community Development Planning Division (DCD) requested additional information on the SEPA checklist on November 23, 2022 (Exhibit 3). The applicant
submitted an amended SEPA checklist on April 14, 2023 (Exhibit 4). The Shoreline Substantial Development Application was deemed completed on May 10, 2023.
On May 10, 2023, a Notice of Application was mailed to property owners existing within 300-feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property, a sign was posted on the property, and
Notice was also published in the Port Townsend Leader (Exhibit 5) as required in Section 18.40.210 JCC. This application was provided a 30 day comment period. The notice also indicted
the Optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process was being utilized per WAC 197-11-355.
Copies of the application materials were routed on May 10, 2023 (Exhibit 34) to the following agencies: Jefferson County Public Works; WA State Department of SEPA and Shoreline Sections;
East Jefferson Fire and Rescue; Skokomish, Jamestown S’Klallam, and Suquamish Tribes; the Point No Point Council. These agencies along with the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW) the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and parties who commented on the preliminary DNS were also routed the Final DNS issued
on April 17, 2024 (Exhibit 36). The following summarizes the comments received on this proposal and the DNS as of the date of this staff report:
A letter received from the Washington State Department of Ecology dated June 9, 2023 providing general comments (Exhibit 10)
An e-mail from Kris Miller, Skokomish Tribe dated May 10, 2023 questioning the format of the SEPA checklist submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 11).
An e-mail from Elena Rodriguez dated May 11, 2023 bringing up issues with the tree removal and clearing that had occurred within the TPS over time (Exhibit 12).
Allie Taylor with the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe provided an e-mail dated May 31, 2023 addressing archaeological requirements for the proposal (Exhibit 13).
E-mail from Linda Colasurdo dated May 31, 2023 (Exhibit 14).
E-mail from Marilyn Showalter dated June 7, 2023 (Exhibit 15).
E-mail from Jan Wold dated June 11, 2023 comprised of three documents addressing the potential environmental impacts of the proposal on Hood Canal (Exhibit 16).
E-mail from Sue Corbett dated June 11, 2023 (Exhibit 33).
E-mail from Lizzie Carp, WA State Department of Ecology Shorelands Section dated September 26, 2023 (Exhibit 35).
Staff Comment: Comments related to the Shoreline Substantial Development and Stormwater Permit on the Drainage Plan are addressed in the staff report and through the conditions of approval.
11. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): This proposal is not exempt from SEPA since it does entail the placement of a new construction on lands covered by water (per WAC 197-11-756).
DCD issued a preliminary threshold determination of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on May 10, 2023 per WAC 197-11-355. The purpose of this proposal to improve the drainage
system that currently directs stormwater and drainage through the landslide hazard complex and instead collect the stormwater and drainage and treat it through a bioswale before tightlining
it from the upper bench to lower bench before discharging it to the bottom of the slope to an outfall with a diffusion “T” located 20 feet landward of the OHWM.
The final DNS was issued for this proposal on April 17, 2024 (Exhibit 36), which was based on the existing development regulations that are addressed in this proposal, along the Studies
and Reports addressed in Section I(5) above. In addition, the Habitat Assessment, No-Net Loss Shoreline analysis, mitigation plan to address impacts of locating the drainage improvements
within Shoreline Jurisdiction and within Np Stream, and the effects determination that indicates that this proposal would not effect or not likely adverse ESA Species and their critical
habitat. This staff report addresses the comments received on the preliminary DNS.
II. ANALYSIS:
1. SHORELINE
A. Definitions:
Section 18.25.100(21)(e) JCC – “Utility distribution lines” means pipes, wires, and associated structural supports.
Section 18.25.100(21)(e) (f) JCC - *“Utility facilities” means facilities directly used for the distribution or transmission of services to an area, excluding utility service offices.
Staff Comment: DCD considers the existing stormwater system to be a utility since it distributes stormwater run-off from the TPS to a natural discharge to Squamish Harbor. This entails
running the stormwater from the top to the bottom of the slope through the landslide complex area utilizing a series of ditches and culverts. One of the perched culverts is discharging
stormwater on the face of the headscarp. Because these facilities pre-date the adoption of the adoption of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan it would be considered a pre-existing
use.
This proposal is intended to reduce the potential for landslide by collecting the stormwater above landslide slope directing the stormwater to three catch basin, bio-swales, and a tight
line system to the bottom of the slope to an outfall. The outfall would be discharged to a diffusion “T” and large rock located 20 feet landward of the OHWM. The proposed engineered
drainage system would be located withing the area of the existing primitive drainage system.
B. 18.25.220 Uses allowed in each shoreline environment designation
Table 18.25.220 – Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Shoreline Environment Designation
P = Use may be permitted subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit or statement of exemption approval. See Articles VI, VII,
VIII, IX and/or X of this chapter for details.
C(a) = Conditional use administrative. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details.
C(d) = Conditional use discretionary. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details.
X = Prohibited use.
* = Exceptions and limitations may apply as noted in this program. See specific section for details.
Shoreline Uses
Environment Designations
Landward of OHWM
Natural
Utilities:
Essential public facilities
C(d)*
Oil, gas and natural gas transmission lines
C(d)*
Power/tidal energy generation facilities
X
Desalinization plants
X*
Sewage systems
X*
Water systems
X*
Electrical and communication lines
C(d)
Staff Comment: Although a stormwater system is not a specific use listed as a utility, a stormwater system is considered a utility and is a similar use a sewage system, water system
or electrical and communication lines. Although all of these uses are listed as prohibited (X) the * = Exceptions and limitations may apply as noted in this program. See specific section
for details.
For this proposal this would entail meeting the Utility Section of 18.25.530 JCC (below).
C. 18.25.530 Utilities.
(1) Policies.
(a) New public or private utilities should be located inland from the land/water interface, preferably outside of the shoreline, unless:
(i) The utility requires a location adjacent to the water; or
(ii) Alternative locations are infeasible; or
(iii) Utilities are required for permitted shoreline uses consistent with this program.
(b) Utilities should be located and designed to avoid public recreation and public access areas and significant historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific or educational resources.
(c) Pipeline and cable development should be designed and sited to avoid crossing aquatic lands. If a water crossing is unavoidable, it should be located in an area that will cause the
least adverse ecological impact, be installed using the methods that minimize adverse impacts, and be the shortest length feasible.
(d) Utility facilities of all kinds that would require periodic maintenance activities should avoid shoreline locations to prevent disruption of shoreline ecological functions.
(e) New utilities should use existing transportation and utility sites, rights-of-way and corridors, rather than creating new corridors.
(f) New utility installations should be planned, designed and located to eliminate the need for structural shoreline armoring or flood hazard reduction measures.
(g) Utility facilities and corridors should be planned, designed and located to protect scenic views. Where feasible, conveyance utilities should be placed underground or alongside or
under bridges, unless doing so would cause greater ecological impact or harm.
(h) Power generating facilities and other utilities using emerging technologies such as tidal energy generators should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the potential impacts are
fully understood. Before approving such facilities, the county should consider whether the benefits to the public outweigh the potential impacts. The county should ensure such facilities
are designed and located to protect ecological functions and shoreline resources.
Staff Comment: 1(a) The existing drainage for the TPS is currently being discharged to Squamish Harbor through the landslide complex area. The engineered drainage plan has a 130 foot
section of the tightline and outfall within the shoreline jurisdiction. This proposal has been designed to minimize impacts to that landslide hazard area while safely discharging the
drainage to Squamish Harbor. This proposal drainage system would be located within the area of the current primitive drainage system. There is no alternative to the proposed designed,
which has been reviewed through the engineered drainage plan, the Geotechnical Engineer, Jefferson County Public Works Department, and DCD.
1(b) This proposal is located within the lower section of the TPS. This area is not available to the public but to the landowners within the TPS. This proposal would not impact public
recreation and public access areas and significant historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific or educational resources. This proposal has been conditioned to have an inadvertent
discovery to address the minimal land disturbing activity that would occur from the proposed drainage system. This would include the 130 foot section of the drainage system that is
located within shoreline jurisdiction.
1(c) The tightline would be located within the existing drainage area for the TPS. The Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan done by Marine Survey Assessments determined that this
drainage is a Np Stream, and addressed Mitigation to the Shoreline, Np Stream and their associated buffers. The proposed engineered drainage system would place the drainage and stormwater
from the existing ditches along Linda View Lane, 8 inch PVC collector lines, a bio-filtration swale, and an 18 PVC inch tight line, three catch basins and an outfalls. This would replace
the existing drainage system that routes drainage through the landslide hazard area through open ditches and perched culvert. The proposed drainage system would also still allow the
natural drainage to follow the Np Stream drainage and outfall to Squamish Harbor.
1(d) The design and maintenance of the tightline and outfall should prevent disruption of shoreline ecological functions.
(1)(e) This proposal is located adjacent to existing roads and drainage areas of the TPS. This proposal would minimize the grading and removal of vegetation per the SEPA Checklist (Exhibit
4) and Habitat Assessment and mitigation Plan (Exhibit 8).
1(f) This proposal would be located 20 feet landward of the OHWM and outside of the Special Flood Hazard area. This proposal should not require shoreline armoring based on the diffusion
“T” and rock outfall to disperse the stormwater discharge.
1(g) This proposal should not be visible since the proposed 18 inch pipeline would be located within the existing Np stream and the outfall would be located 20 feet landward of the OHWM.
In addition, this proposal would minimize the removal of existing vegetation, which would screen this proposal from the view of Squamish Harbor.
1(h) Not Applicable
(2) Shoreline Environment Regulations.
(c) Natural.
(i) Utility development is prohibited.
(ii) Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed; provided, that the operator makes every effort to protect shoreline ecological functions and the natural features therein. Removal
of existing utilities is preferred over time.
(iii) Utilities accessory to and serving permitted uses are allowed.
Staff Comment: The property is located within a Section of the Shoreline that is designated Natural by the SMP (Exhibit 32). The existing drainage system through the landslide complex
is considered a utility. This proposed engineered drainage system would place tightlines (8 and 18 inch PVC pipes), bio-swale, and outfall to route the drainage from the top to the
toe of the landscape hazard area. The engineered drainage system would be located in the area of the existing drainage system. The drainage system would serve the TPS that was established
in 1961. The development within the subdivision requires a drainage system, and the proposed upgrade will help prevent landslides by not having open diches and outfalls discharge stormwater
through the poor soils with the landslide complex.
(3) Regulations – General.
(a) All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, except in situations where no other
feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of the water body, and pipe sleeves shall be used to
facilitate repair without future encroachment on surface waters and wetlands, unless more feasible or technically superior alternatives exist that provide equivalent protection, as
deemed by the administrator.
(b) Utilities that are not water-dependent shall be located outside shoreline buffers unless it is demonstrated that alternative locations and alternative technology are infeasible.
(c) The construction, operation and maintenance of utilities shall not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes or adversely impact other shoreline resources and
values.
(d) The following information shall be required for all proposals for utility facilities:
(i) A description of the proposed facilities; and
(ii) The rationale and justification for siting the proposed facility within shoreline jurisdiction; and
(iii) A discussion of alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination; and
(iv) A description of the location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project and any plans to include facilities or other types of utilities in the project;
and
(v) A plan for the reclamation of areas disturbed both during construction and following decommissioning and/or completion of the useful life of the facility; and
(vi) A plan for the control of erosion and turbidity during construction and operation; and
(vii) An analysis of alternative technologies; and
(viii) Documentation that utilities avoid public recreation areas and significant natural, historic or archaeological or cultural sites or that no alternative is feasible and that all
feasible measures to reduce harm have been incorporated into the proposal.
(ix) When feasible, utility lines shall use existing rights-of-way, corridors and/or bridge crossings and shall avoid duplication and construction of new or parallel corridors in all
shoreline areas.
(e) Utility facilities shall be constructed using techniques that minimize the need for shoreline fill. When crossing water bodies, pipelines and other utility facilities shall use pier
or open pile construction.
(f) Vegetation clearing during utility installation or maintenance shall be minimized, and disturbed areas shall be restored or enhanced following project completion consistent with
the requirements of this program.
Staff Comment: (a) &(c) The stormwater from roads and impervious surface (roofs) would be treated through the bio-retention swale before entering the tightline system. The stormwater
run-off and drainage would not impact sea life as addressed in the Effects determination that addressed the impacts of the proposed drainage system on ESA species and their critical
habitat (Exhibit 8). (b) . The area would naturally drainage to Squamish Harbor. The existing drainage from the TPS that has an outfall Squamish Harbor. The upgraded drainage system
would have an outfall 20 feet landward of the OHWM. The drainage from the outfall would be discharged to Squamish Harbor through the existing water course. There is no other alternative
for the 130 feet of drainage facilities within the shoreline.(d) The engineered drainage plan, the geotechnical reports and Biological study address this criteria. (e) & (f) The placement
of the tightline and outfall within the existing Type Np stream would require minimal removal of native vegetation or fill. This proposal is required to mitigate the impacts from the
placement of 130 feet of drainage and outfall within the shoreline jurisdiction and within the Type Np stream and associated 75 foot stream buffer. The required mitigation measures
is address in the Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 8).
D. Substantial Development Permit
WAC 173-27-150 states the review criteria for substantial development permits.
(1) A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with:
(a) The policies and procedures of the act;
(b) The provisions of this regulation; and
(c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency
with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local
government.
(2) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program.
Staff Comment: This proposal does not meet criteria for developments exempt from substantial development permit requirement found in WAC 173-27-040. Therefore, a Shoreline Substantial
Development permit is required (this review). This proposal complies with the SMP that was addressed in Section II(1) above. This includes the Utilities Policy & Regulations found
in Section 18.25.530 of the SMP (See Section II(1)(C) above). Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), the Shoreline Management
Permit and Enforcement Procedures (WAC 173-27), and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan.
Therefore, the proposed upgrade of the existing drainage facilities (utilities) meets the Substantial Development Criteria of WAC 173-27-150. The complete record of this decision will
be sent to the WA State Department of Ecology Shorelands Section for filing.
2. Chapter 18.22, Jefferson County Critical Areas:
Special Flood Hazard (100 year floodplain)
Section 18.22.430 JCC – Protection standards – Incorporation by reference of Chapter 15.15 JCC and additional requirements.
This article incorporates by reference the classification, designation and protection provisions contained in the Jefferson County flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC)
with the following additions:
(1) Compliance with FIRMs. The FIRMs identified in the flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC) shall be used to determine flood hazard areas for compliance with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulatory requirements. Such flood hazard areas shall be subject to the criteria of the flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC).
(2) Compliance with National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. Development proposed within regulated frequently flooded areas and floodplains shall ensure no impacts to listed
fish and wildlife habitat as required by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) September 22, 2008, final Biological Opinion (BiOp) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in Puget Sound (NMFS Tracking No.: 2006-00472 (or as amended by NMFS)).
(3) Habitat Assessment Requirements.
(a) A habitat assessment that meets all the requirements of JCC 18.22.940 shall be submitted to the department for review if any portion of the proposed project occurs within a special
flood hazard area (floodplain), as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
(b) The administrator may request federal assistance in reviewing the submitted habitat assessment.
(c) The administrator may waive the requirement to submit a habitat assessment only if:
(i) The entire proposal meets one of the exemptions listed in Chapter 15.15 JCC and does not require a state hydraulic permit;
(ii) The proposal requires a federal permit that is reviewed by federal agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with the Endangered Species Act (this could include, but is not limited
to, project actions covered by separate consultation under Section 4(d), 7, or 10 of the Endangered Species Act);
(iii) A habitat assessment previously has been prepared and the proposed project clearly fits within the nature and scope of that habitat assessment; or
(iv) If FEMA approves an alternate process for Jefferson County to demonstrate compliance with the Biological Opinion (such as a programmatic review), this department may waive the requirement
to submit a habitat assessment. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)]
Staff Comment: 1. All improvements would be located a minimum of 20 feet landward of the OHWM.
No development is proposed within the special flood hazard areas outlined in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Exhibit 27). 2.& 3 A Habitat Assessment was prepared by Marine Survey and
Assessments to address the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) September 22, 2008, final Biological Opinion (BiOp). This report indicated that this proposal included an effects
determination on ESA species and their habitat. This proposal was determined to not likely impact any ESA Species or their habitat. DCD agrees with the findings and conclusion of
the Habitat Assessment to address the BiOp.
B. Geologically Hazardous Area
Section 18.22.520 JCC - Regulated activities.
(1) Any development activity or action requiring a project permit or any clearing within an erosion or landslide area shall:
(a) Comply with the requirements in an approved geotechnical report when one is required, including application of the largest buffer or building setback;
(b) Utilize best management practices (BMPs) and all known and available technology appropriate for compliance with this chapter and typical of industry standards;
(c) Prevent collection, concentration or discharge of stormwater or groundwater within an erosion or landslide hazard area and be in compliance with JCC 18.30.070, Stormwater management
standards; and
(d) Minimize impervious surfaces and retain vegetation to minimize risk of erosion or landslide hazards.
(2) Any development activity or action requiring a project permit or any clearing within an erosion or landslide area shall not:
(a) Result in increased risk of property damage, death or injury;
(b) Cause or increase erosion or landslide hazard risk;
(c) Increase surface water discharge, sedimentation, slope instability, erosion or landslide potential to adjacent downstream and down-drift properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
(d) Adversely impact wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers; or
(e) Be identified as a critical facility necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare. This includes, but is not limited to, schools, hospitals, police stations, fire departments
and other emergency response facilities, nursing homes, and hazardous material storage or production. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)]
Staff Comment: (1) Although this proposal will require minimal grading or clearing within the landslide hazard area, the placement of the engineered drainage facilities is subject to
these requirements. (a) A comprehensive Geotechnical Review was prepared for the proposal (Exhibit 7), which includes the previous geotechnical analysis done for the TPS. This report
recommended a 75 foot setback for residences and septic systems, and an 60 foot setback from collection pipes from the top of slope within Lots 22 to 35. The geotechnical analysis
(Exhibits 9 & 22) also examined the impact of the engineered drainage plans (Exhibit 6, 20, & 21) on slope stability of the TPS. (b) This proposed drainage system utilizes Best Management
Practices (BMP), which were reviewed by the Jefferson County Public Work Stormwater Engineer (Exhibit 17). (c) The purpose of the engineered drainage plan is to meet requirements to
prevent the stormwater and drainage from being discharged through the landslide complex. (d) addressed through the Biological Assessment (Exhibit 8). (e) Not Applicable for this drainage
system designed to serve the TPS, which is not a critical facility as listed above. However, the design of this proposal is to minimize the potential for landslide, minimize erosion,
and treating the drainage and stormwater in a manner that will not impact Squamish Harbor.
Section 18.22.530 JCC – Geologically Hazardous Protection Standards
(1) Clearing, Grading and Vegetation Removal.
(a) Minor pruning of vegetation for view enhancement may be allowed through consultation with the department. The thinning of limbs on individual trees is preferred to topping of trees
for view corridors. Total buffer thinning shall not exceed 25 percent and no more than 30 percent of the live tree crowns shall be removed.
(b) Vegetation shall not be removed from a landslide hazard area, except for hazardous trees based on review by a qualified arborist or as otherwise provided for in a vegetation management
and restoration plan.
(c) Seasonal Restrictions. Clearing and grading shall be limited to the period between May 1st and October 1st, unless the applicant provides an erosion and sedimentation control plan
prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington that specifically and realistically identifies methods of erosion control for wet weather conditions.
(d) Only the clearing necessary to install temporary erosion control measures will be allowed prior to clearing for roads and utilities construction.
(e) The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be protected to prevent erosion as required by the engineered erosion and sedimentation control plan.
(f) Clearing for roads and utilities shall be the minimum necessary and shall remain within marked construction limits.
(g) Clearing for overhead power lines shall be the minimum necessary for construction and will provide the required minimum clearances for the serving utility corridor.
Staff Comment: The placement of the proposed drainage system within the existing drainage system area would minimize land disturbing and vegetation removal. This proposed engineered
drainage system has been condition to install this proposal between May 1 to October 31.
(2) Existing Logging Roads. Where existing logging roads occur in geologically hazardous areas, a geological assessment may be required prior to use as a temporary haul road or permanent
access road under a conversion or COHP forest practices application.
Staff Comment: Not Applicable to proposal. However, Ricky Beach Road is an existing paved private road that is available to provide access for the construction of the drainage system
on the lower bench.
(3) The department may also require:
(a) Clustering to increase protection to geologically hazardous areas; or
(b) Enhancement of buffer vegetation to increase protection to geologically hazardous areas.
Staff Comment: The area at the top of the headscarp currently contains grass on lots 22 to 34. DCD is recommending that the area within the 50 foot buffer located at the top of the
landscape hazard area (headscarp) within Lots 22 to 34 be revegetated within native vegetation. DCD recommends that this area be revegetated with shore pines planted 20 foot on-center
and that native shrubs (such as snowberry, nootka rose, evergreen huckleberry, sword ferns, red osier dogwood, etc) be planted 5 foot on-center between the trees. This vegetation may
be pruned to preserve views. As an alternative to the DCD staff recommended vegetation plan, the applicant may have a biologist or geotechnical engineer submit a plan to DCD for review
and approval. This is intended to have deep rooted native vegetation that does not require watering within the landslide hazard buffer between the top of the headscarp and the 60 foot
buffer for the 8 inch collection lines.
(4) The provisions in this section are in addition to those required in JCC 18.30.060, Grading and excavation standards, and JCC 18.30.070, Stormwater management standards.
Staff Comment: DCD stormwater review (ZON 21-0005) will be completed if the pipes and outfall within shoreline jurisdiction is approved (this proposal).
(5) If there is a conflict between applicable published standards, the more restrictive protection requirement applies.
Staff Comment: This proposal meets this requirement.
(6) Drainage and Erosion Control.
(a) An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a stormwater site plan that meets all the requirements of JCC 18.30.070(4)(e), when the project
application involves either of the following:
(i) The alteration of a high or moderately high geologically hazardous area or its critical area buffer; or
(ii) The creation of a new parcel within a high or moderately high geologically hazardous area; and
(b) Shall discuss, evaluate, and recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of adjacent properties during and after construction.
(c) Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a marine bluff that is mapped as high or moderate erodible or susceptible to landslide or debris flow. The applicant must
demonstrate that the stormwater discharge cannot be accommodated on site or upland by evidence presented in a geological assessment as required by JCC 18.22.945, unless waived by the
administrator. If drainage must be discharged from a bluff to adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the face of the bluff and directed to the water by tight line drain and provided
with an energy dissipating device at the shoreline, above ordinary high-water mark (OHWM).
(d) The applicant must clearly demonstrate in the geological assessment that stormwater quantity, quality, and flow path post-construction will be comparable to pre-construction conditions.
Staff Comment: This proposal has been designed to meet these requirements. The engineered drainage, geotechnical reports and assessments, were review by the Jefferson County Public
Works Stormwater Engineer on June 29, 2022 (Exhibit 17). DCD has incorporated the Public Works recommendations through conditions 1 to 13 of this review.
(7) Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply:
(a) During clearing for roadways and utilities, all trees and understory vegetation lying outside of approved construction limits shall be retained to the maximum extent practicable;
(b) Clearing limits, as shown on the approved site plan, shall be marked by orange construction barrier fencing to be installed prior to beginning any clearing, grading, or other land-disturbing
activities;
(c) Vegetation within identified clearing limits may be removed upon permit issuance. All vegetation within the high or moderate geologically hazardous area or its critical area buffer,
but outside the marked clearing limits, shall be retained. Cleared vegetation shall not be placed within a high or moderate geologically hazardous area unless it is used as part of
a mitigation plan consistent with other critical area mitigation provisions, is reviewed by the geotechnical professional, and is approved by the administrator; and
(d) Within a high risk CMZ, vegetation removal shall not be allowed. Vegetation removal outside of a high risk CMZ shall not be reviewed under this article. Should this provision conflict
with other vegetation retention requirements specified elsewhere within this title, the more restrictive protection requirement applies.
Staff Comment: The proposed engineered drainage system would be located within the area of the existing of the primitive drainage system. This would minimize the removal of native vegetation.
The proposal has also been required to mitigate for the placement of the drainage system within the Np stream and shoreline areas through the mitigation plan (Exhibit 8). This proposal
meets these requirements.
(8) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Development Standards.
(a) Development activities or actions requiring project permits or clearing shall not be allowed in landslide hazard areas unless a geotechnical report demonstrates that building within
a landslide hazard area will provide protection commensurate to being located outside the landslide hazard area and meets the requirements of this section. This may include proposed
mitigation measures.
(b) Top of Slope Building Setback. All development activities or actions that require project permits or clearing in erosion and landslide hazard areas shall provide native vegetation
from the toe of the slope to 25 feet beyond the top of slope, with an additional minimum 15-foot building and impervious surface setback, unless otherwise allowed through a geologic
assessment. The minimum building and setback shall be increased from the top of the slope as follows:
(i) For high landslide hazard areas, the setback shall be equal to the height of the slope (1:1 horizontal to vertical) plus the greater of one-third of the vertical slope height or
25 feet.
(ii) For moderate landslide hazard areas, the setback shall be 40 feet from the top of slope.
(9) Geotechnical Report for Toe of Slope Building Setback May Be Required. A geotechnical report may be required based on slope height and stability indicators.
(10) Larger Native Vegetation Width May Be Required. The department may require a larger native vegetation width than the standard buffer distance as determined above if any of the following
are identified through the geological assessment process:
(a) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse impacts;
(b) The area has a severe risk of slope failure or downslope stormwater drainage impacts; or
(c) The minimum native vegetation width or building setback requirement may be decreased if a geotechnical report demonstrates that a lesser distance, through design and engineering
solutions, will adequately protect both the proposed development and the erosion or landslide hazard area. The department may decrease the setback when such a setback would result in
a greater than 1:1 slope setback.
(11) Seismic Hazard Development Standards.
(a) Development activities or actions requiring a project permit occurring within 200 feet of a “high hazard” seismic hazard area may be allowed with an approved geotechnical report
that confirms the site is suitable for the proposed development and addresses any fill or grading that has occurred on the subject parcel.
(b) Development activities or actions requiring a project permit within a seismic hazard area shall be in accordance with JCC Title 15.
(12) Reducing Buffer Widths. The administrator may reduce geologically hazardous area buffers as follows:
(a) Buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent with a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical professional with a state stamp; provided, the geotechnical report identifies recommendations
for preventing or minimizing risks post-development.
(b) All buffer reductions 25 percent or greater and all development within a high or moderate geologically hazardous area shall require a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical
professional. The administrator may require a third-party review based on JCC 18.22.930 or the applicant enters into an indemnity and hold harmless agreement with the county that is
approved by the county’s risk manager and the prosecuting attorney. If the administrator requires a third-party review of the geotechnical report, the administrator shall be responsible
for identifying and transmitting the geotechnical report to the third-party reviewer.
(13) Increasing Buffer Widths. Buffer widths may be increased on a case-by-case basis, as determined by the administrator, to protect the functions and values of a geologically hazardous
area and to reduce risks to public safety and welfare. Information that may be used to support this determination, includes but is not limited to:
(a) The landslide area is unstable and active.
(b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe landslide or erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively protect the proposed project from the risks posed by the landslide
hazard area.
(c) The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover.
Staff Comment: The following addresses the Geologic Hazard Protection Standards 8 to 13 above. The Geotechnical Report and Assessments performed by the Stratum Group (Exhibits 7, 9,
& 22) address the setbacks for structures and drainage facilities. DCD agrees with the Geotechnical Report requirements of a 75 foot setback for residences and septic system and a
60 foot setback for drainage facilities from the top of the slope of the landslide hazard area (headscarp).
(14) Landslide Hazard Areas – Additional Standards. The following activities may be allowed in active landslide hazard areas when all reasonable measures have been taken to minimize
risks and other adverse effects associated with landslide hazards, and when the amount and degree of the alteration are limited to the minimum needed to accomplish the project purpose:
(a) The standards of subsection (1) of this section shall apply.
(b) Developments that will not increase the threat to the health or safety of people and will not increase potential for landslides on or off the site and meet the reasonable economic
use exception in JCC 18.22.260.
(c) Utility lines and pipes that are above ground, properly anchored or designed so that they will continue to function in the event of a slope failure or movement of the underlying
materials and will not increase the risk or consequences of static or seismic slope instability or result in a risk of mass wasting. Such utility lines may be permitted only when the
applicant demonstrates that no other feasible alternative is available to serve the affected population.
(d) Access roads and trails that are engineered and built to standards that minimize the need for major repair or reconstruction beyond that which would be required in non-hazard areas.
Access roads and trails may be permitted only if the applicant demonstrates that no other feasible alternative exists, including through the provisions of Chapter 8.24 RCW. If such
access through critical areas is granted, exceptions or deviations from technical standards for width or other dimensions and specific construction standards to minimize impacts, including
drainage and drainage maintenance plans, may be required.
(e) Stormwater conveyance through a properly designed stormwater pipe when no other stormwater conveyance alternative is available. The pipe shall be located above ground and be properly
anchored or designed so that it will continue to function in the event of a slope failure or movement of the underlying materials and will not increase the risk or consequences of static
or seismic slope instability or result in increased risk of mass wasting activity.
Staff Comment: The engineered drainage system was reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer (The Stratum Group) and the Jefferson County Public Works Stormwater Engineer to ensure that these
requirements are met.
Section 18.22.540 JCC - Required Assessments and Reports.
(1) Map Review. The Jefferson County geologically hazardous areas maps (erosion, landslide, and seismic) provide an indication of where potential geologically hazardous areas are located
within the county. The department will complete a review of the map to determine if the proposed activity is located within a hazard area.
(2) When a Geological Assessment Is Required. A geological assessment shall be required when the proposed activity is located within a potential hazard area.
(3) Work Must Be Performed by a Geotechnical Professional. A geotechnical professional, as defined in JCC 18.10.070, shall complete a field investigation and geological assessment to
determine whether or not the site for the proposed activity is affected by the geologic hazard, as provided in subsection (4) of this section.
(4) Geological Assessment Types. The geological assessment shall be submitted in the most applicable form as follows:
(a) A geological letter. When the geotechnical professional finds that no moderate or high hazard area exists within 200 feet of the site, a stamped letter may be submitted demonstrating
those findings;
(b) A geological report. When the geotechnical professional finds that a moderate or high geologically hazardous area exists within 200 feet of the site, but will not impact the site
or need engineering design recommendations;
(c) A geotechnical report. When the geotechnical professional finds that a moderate or high geologically hazardous area exists within 200 feet of the site, and will require engineering
design recommendations or other mitigation measures necessary in order to construct or develop within the geologically hazardous area.
(5) The department shall review the geological assessment and either:
(a) Accept the geological assessment and approve the application; or
(b) Reject the geological assessment and require revisions or additional information. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)]
Staff Comment: The Geotechnical Reports and assessments meet these requirements. DCD agrees with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Geotechnical Reports and Assessments.
Section 18.22.550 JCC - Recording and Disclosure.
(1) The following information shall be included in a notice to title that must be signed, notarized, and recorded with the county auditor prior to permit issuance for development in
a geologically hazardous area requiring a geotechnical report:
(a) An abstract and description of the specific types of risks identified in the geotechnical report;
(b) A statement that the owner(s) of the property understands and accepts the responsibility for the risks associated with developments on the property given the described condition,
and agrees to inform future purchasers and other successors and assignees of the risks; and
(c) A statement that the owner(s) of the property acknowledge(s) that this chapter does not create liability on the part of Jefferson County or any officer or employee thereof for any
damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made under this chapter.
(2) Expiration of Geotechnical Reports. Unless there are documented significant changes, modifications, or other geologic events to render an existing geotechnical report invalid, an
existing report shall be considered valid. Validity shall be examined upon submittal of proposed developments or every five years, whichever is later.
(3) Geologically Hazardous Areas – Marking Limits. The limits (or outer extent) of a geologically hazardous area shall be marked on site as follows:
(a) High or moderately high geologically hazardous areas shall be identified and staked by a geotechnical professional. For landslide hazards, the top or toe of slope closest to the
proposed activity shall be marked. For erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and high-risk channel migration zones, the extent of the geologically hazardous area closest to the proposed
activity shall be staked on site.
(b) Stakes shall be installed and marked as necessary to clearly identify the geologically hazardous areas present; provided, the distance between each of the stakes shall not exceed
50 feet.
(c) Staked limits of the geologically hazardous area shall remain on site based on the type of application, as follows:
(i) Stakes for building or septic applications shall remain in place until a final building certificate of occupancy for a building permit or a final for a septic permit is issued.
(ii) Staking for a subdivision, a planned rural residential development, a binding site plan, or a rezone shall remain in place until a final county approval is issued. If, at the time
of subsequent building, septic, or other land use application, the stakes are no longer in place, the administrator may require restaking of the geologically hazardous area by the project
geotechnical professional.
(iii) Staking for any other application requiring land use review shall remain in place until the department of community development has made a site visit to review the staking relative
to property boundaries and proposed activities, as shown on a submitted site plan.
(d) The staked location of the on-site geologically hazardous areas shall be shown on a site plan submitted with an application.
(e) If more than one geologically hazardous area is present, only the most restrictive geologically hazardous area (area closest to the proposed activity) shall be staked by the geotechnical
professional.
(4) Buffer Marking. The location of the outer extent of geologically hazardous area buffers shall be marked in the field as follows:
(a) Geologically hazardous areas and buffers shall be shown on a site plan submitted with an application.
(b) Geologically hazardous area buffers shall be staked on site prior to beginning any clearing, grading, or other land-disturbing activities. The administrator may waive this requirement
if all development activities are outside of the geologically hazardous area buffer.
(c) The administrator may require signs be posted at the buffer edge if the proposed activity is commercial or industrial, or if the proposed activity is proposed on public lands. [Ord.
5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)]
Staff Comment: This proposal has been conditioned to meet these requirements.
C Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs)
Section 18.22.620 JCC – FWHCA Regulated Activities.
(2) Utilities. Placement of utilities within designated fish and wildlife habitat areas may be allowed pursuant to the following standards:
(a) Construction of utilities may be permitted in FWHCAs when no practicable or reasonable alternative location is available and the utility corridor does not cause or increase habitat
fragmentation for state or federally listed species and meets the requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and maintenance outlined below. Utilities are encouraged to
follow existing or permitted roads where possible.
(b) Construction of sewer lines or on-site sewage systems may be permitted in FWHCA buffers when it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to meet state or local health code requirements;
that there are no other practicable alternatives available; and construction meets the requirements of this article. Joint use of the sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be
allowed.
(c) New utility corridors shall not be allowed in FWHCAs with known locations of federal- or state-listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species, except in those circumstances
where an approved habitat management plan is in place.
(d) Utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the environment of fish and wildlife habitat areas.
(i) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid cutting trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet) measured on the uphill side.
(ii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation at not less than preconstruction vegetation densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction
or as soon thereafter as possible due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives for a three-year period.
(e) Utility towers should be painted with brush, pad or roller and should not be sandblasted or spray-painted, nor shall lead-based paints be used.
(f) Utilities should follow best management practices for avian protection.
Staff Comment: These requirements were addressed in Section II(1)(C)(1) (Shoreline Utilities Policies) above.
Section 18.22.630 JCC - FWHCA Protection Standards
(1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated FWHCA shall adhere to the requirements in this section.
(2) Drainage and Erosion Control. In addition to complying with the stormwater requirements of Chapter 18.30 JCC, the applicant must clearly show that stormwater quantity, quality, and
flow path post-construction will be comparable to pre-construction conditions.
(3) Grading. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in Chapter 18.30 JCC.
(4) Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply:
(a) Vegetation within FHWCAs or buffers shall be retained to the extent practicable. Unless exempt under this chapter, vegetation removal or alteration of a FWHCA or a buffer shall require
review and approval by the department.
(b) Altering the habitat conditions of FWHCAs or buffers without prior review and approval by the department is prohibited.
(c) All trees and understory vegetation lying outside of road rights-of-way and utility easements shall be retained (except for hazard trees) during maintenance clearing of rights-of-way
for roadways and utilities; provided, understory vegetation damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned.
(d) Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained.
(5) Buffers – Standard Requirements. The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the edges of all FWHCAs in accordance with the following:
(a) Buffers Generally.
(i) Buffers shall be established for activities adjacent to FWHCAs as necessary to protect the integrity, functions, and values of the resource, consistent with the requirements in Tables
18.22.630(1) and 18.22.630(2) of this section.
(ii) A building setback line of five feet is required from the edge of any buffer area; however, nonstructural improvements such as septic drain fields may be located within setback
areas and buffers.
(iii) Utilities including sewer lines and on-site sewage systems may be permitted in FWHCA buffers only when no practicable or reasonable alternative location is available.
(iv) Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition; however, minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views or provide access may be permitted as long as the function and character
of the buffer are not diminished.
(v) Lighting shall be directed away from the FWHCA.
(vi) The administrator shall have the authority to increase a buffer width, if supported by appropriate documentation showing the increase is needed to protect the functions and values
of the FWHCA.
(vii) The administrator shall require signs be posted at the buffer edge if the proposed activity is commercial or industrial, or if the activity is proposed on public lands.
These requirements were addressed in Section II(1)(C)(3) (Shoreline Utilities General Regulations) above.
(b) Prescriptive FWHCA Buffers.
(i) The standard buffer widths required by this article are considered to be the minimum required to protect the FWHCA/stream functions and values at the time of the proposed activity.
When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation to protect critical area functions, the administrator may require additional documentation before allowing a proposal for buffer reduction or
buffer averaging.
(ii) The standard buffer shall be measured landward horizontally on both sides of the stream from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as identified in the field. Nevertheless, the required
buffer shall include any adjacent regulated wetland(s), landslide hazard areas or erosion hazard areas and required buffers but shall not be extended across paved roads or other lawfully
established structures or hardened surfaces. The following standard buffer width requirements are established; provided, portions of streams that flow underground may be exempt from
these buffer standards at the administrator’s discretion when it can be demonstrated that no adverse effects on aquatic species will occur.
Table 18.22.630(1): Stream Buffers*
Stream Type
Buffer Requirement
Type “S” – Shoreline Streams
150 feet
Type “F” – Fish Bearing Streams
150 feet
Type “Np”– Non-Fish Bearing Perennial Streams
75 feet
Type “Ns” – Non-Fish Bearing Seasonal Streams greater than or equal to 20% grade
75 feet
Type “Ns” – Non-Fish Bearing Seasonal Streams less than 20% grade
50 feet
*Note:
(a) The buffers above shall apply to culverted streams.
(b) The buffers above shall not apply to lawfully established piped streams. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the pipe was lawfully established; failure to demonstrate
compliance with this requirement shall result in buffers being required.
(c) Stream type shall be determined using the criteria in WAC 222-16-030, or as amended.
18.22.640 Buffer reductions and averaging.
(1) The administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-case basis; provided, the specific standards for avoidance and minimization in JCC 18.22.660 shall
apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The buffer reduction shall not adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent FWHCA or other critical area.
(b) The buffer shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard buffer, unless it can be demonstrated through a special report prepared by a qualified professional that there
will be no net loss of FWHCA functions or values.
(c) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient does not exceed 30 percent.
Staff Comment: The placement of this upgraded drainage system in shoreline jurisdiction is addressed is Section II (1) above in the shoreline analysis. The placement of the drainage
system within the Np stream is also addressed in the Geologically Hazardous Section of Section II(2)(B) above. The impacts of placing the drainage system in the Np stream and the 75
foot buffer is addressed in the Mitigation Plan of the Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 8).
This includes a determination that placement of the drainage system within the Np stream will not adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent FWHCA or other critical
area. The existing drainage system pre-dates the adoption of the Critical Area Code (Title 18.22) and the upgraded drainage system would be located within the same area as the existing
drainage system. Maintenance of a drainage facility and utilities are exempt from the Critical Area Code per Section 18.22.230(4)(e) and (f) JCC provided that the proposal additional
protection requirements of Section 18.22.230(5) are met. The DCD Code Administrator has determined that the proposed drainage system as designed and conditions meets these requirements.
III. RECOMMENDATION BASED ON ANALYSIS:
Based on the foregoing findings, analysis, and conclusions, the DCD recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the application for shoreline substantial development permit (SDP 2022-00019)
for the proposed engineered drainage system for the TPS, with the following conditions of approval.
DCD recommends that the first 13 conditions of approval are from the Jefferson County Public Works Review letter dated June 29, 2022 (Exhibit 17).
1. The proponent shall construct the stormwater management facilities specified in:
a) Stormwater Permit Application signed by Russel Trask 11-5-2020;
b) Drainage & Erosion Control Report that includes the engineering calculations prepared by Kent Robinson of Northwestern Territories, Inc. (NTI) signed by Justin Wilson PE dated 2-10-
2015;
c) Geologic Hazard Assessment prepared by Stratum Group dated 12-24-2019;
d) Stormwater Plan Review Response from Stratum Group, dated 7-28-2021;
e) Stormwater Plan Review letter by Stratum Group, dated 4-21-2022;
f) Response Letter, dated 4-22-2022, from Engineer of Record (EOR), Justin Wilson PE, JC Wilson Engineering & Consulting LLC, 18 pages;
g) Storm Drainage Plan from EOR, dated 4-22-2022 6:34 PM, 9 pages.
2. The proponent shall abide by the construction stormwater pollution prevention plan and implement the Best Management Practices: C103 High Visibility Fence, C207 Check Dams, C209 Outlet
Protection, C233 Silt Fence, and C235 Wattles.
3. The proponent shall implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs): T5.13 Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth, soil amendment for all disturbed soils, T9.10 Basic Biofiltration
Swale for Basic Treatment of road surfaces, and 100-year storm event Conveyance system of pipe, catch basins, yard and roof drains, ditches, swales, berms, and outfalls to protect Geologic
Hazardous Zone employing BMPs: C202 Riprap Channel Lining, C207 Check Dams, and C209 Outlet Protection.
4. Location of the 8 inch diameter stormwater collection pipe for lots 22 to 34 shall be setback from the top edge of the steep bluff by at least 60 feet, in accordance with the Stormwater
Plan Review Response from Stratum Group, dated 7-28-2021.
5. At the time of building permit review, individual lots shall be limited to no more than 5,000 square feet of hard surfaces (roofs, driveway), and be required to control of all of
their stormwater with collection from all non-forested surfaces (roofs, foundations, driveways, lawns, etc.), and conveyed to the storm drainage pipes or ditches as shown on the approved
storm drainage plan.
6. Prior to final approval of the stormwater permit, easements for access to repair, replace, maintain, inspect, and monitor shall be recorded for all of the storm drainage conveyance
system of pipe, catch basins, yard and roof drains, ditches, swales, berms, and outfalls.
7. Sites with greater than 1 acre of disturbance trigger the requirement to have a developer provided Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) inspector and site log book,
as per Element #12 Manage the Project, of Minimum Requirement #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. The CESCL inspector must be identified by the time of start of construction,
and must be present on-site or on call at all times.
8. The proponent should verify with WA State Department of Ecology as to whether they are required to apply for an NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP).
9. Prior to commencing land disturbing activity, the proponent shall notify Jefferson County Public Works (JCPW) and arrange a Preconstruction Meeting.
10. Before any construction begins on-site, erosion control facilities shall be installed.
11. In accordance with the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, Section 18.30.080 (1) (f): Clearing, grading, and construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management
facilities shall be inspected by JCPW. In order to enable the department to conduct inspections in a timely manner, the applicant shall notify the department in a timely manner regarding
the project construction schedule.
Typical Inspections:
• Installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures (Required)
• Clearing (and Grading) and road subgrade preparation;
• Placing roadway gravel base;
• Placing roadway crushed surfacing top course;
• Placing improved roadway surface (chip seal or asphalt concrete);
• Construction of stormwater management facilities; (Required)
• Final plat review.
• (Additional inspections may be deemed necessary as project progresses.)
12. After construction is complete and prior to final DCD project approval, the proponent shall submit a letter to the Public Works Department, from the Engineer of Record (EOR), certifying
that the stormwater management facilities have been constructed per the approved plans & specifications. If the stormwater management facilities were constructed other than shown on
the approved plans, the EOR shall submit record drawings showing the changes. It is the responsibility of the proponent to schedule inspections with the EOR, his designee &/or qualified
inspection firm(s), approved by the EOR, to provide for said final certification.
13. To meet MR#9 Operation & Maintenance, and ensure that the approved stormwater management facilities are appropriately maintained for the life of the project, prior to final project
approval, the proponent shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with Jefferson County. The Public Works Department will send a copy of the Agreement
to the proponent which has been signed by the Public Works Director. The proponent shall sign the Agreement before a notary, file it with the Jefferson County Auditor, and provide Public
Works with a copy of the recorded document. County Auditor 2022 recording fees are $203.50 for the first page and $1 for each additional page.
14. The proposal shall comply with the engineered drainage plan dated October 18, 2022, except as modified through this decision. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the
approved drainage plan shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
15. The applicant shall obtain a Stormwater Permit (ZON 2021-00005) for DCD prior to the implementation of this proposal. The proposal shall be implemented incompliance with the finding,
conclusions, and recommendations of the following engineer and geotechnical reports: NTI Engineering Drainage and Erosion Control Report dated November 21, 2014; JC Wilson Engineering
Stormwater Plan dated October 18, 2022 and April 22, 2022; Stratum Group Geotechnical Report/Assessments dated December 24, 2019, July 28, 2021 and April 21, 2022.
16. The proposal shall be implemented incompliance with the finding, conclusions, and recommendations of the Marine Surveys and Assessments Habitat Assessment, No Net Loss, and Mitigation
Plan dated September 28, 2022.
17. Prior to final approval of the engineered drainage plan, the applicant shall fully implement the Mitigation and Planting Plan prepared by Marine Surveys & Assessments dated September
28, 2022.
18. Vegetation shall not be removed from a landslide hazard area except as outlined in the approved drainage plan and the Mitigation and Planting Plan prepared by Marine Surveys and
Assessments dated September 28, 2022 (per Section 18.22.530(1)(b) JCC).
19. Clearing, grading and installation of the engineered drainage system shall be limited to the period between May 1st and October 1st (per Section 18.22.530(1)(c) JCC).
20. Prior to the implementation of this proposal, the applicant shall revegetate areas deficient in native trees and naïve shrubs within the 50 foot buffer located at the top of the
landscape hazard area (head scarp) within Lots 22 to 34. DCD recommends that this area be revegetated with shore pines planted 20 foot on-center and that native shrubs (such as snowberry,
nootka rose, evergreen huckleberry, sword ferns, red osier dogwood, etc) be planted 5 foot on-center between the trees. This vegetation may be pruned to preserve views. As an alternative
to the DCD staff recommended vegetation plan, the applicant may have a biologist or geotechnical engineer submit a plan to DCD for review. This requirement is from Section 18.22.530(3)
JCC.
21. The Geotechnical Report and Assessments performed by the Stratum Group recommends a 75 foot setback for residences and septic systems and a 60 foot setback for drainage facilities
(8 inch collection pipes) from the top of the slope of the landslide hazard area (headscarp) per Section 18.530(12) JCC.
22. Prior to the issuance of any development permits on Lots 22 to 34 of the TPS, a notice and disclosure of the geologically hazardous areas shall be filed with the Auditor that meets
the requirements Section 18.22.550(1) JCC.
23. Prior to any clearing or land disturbing activity for the installation of the engineered drainage system, the geotechnical engineer shall stake the 60 foot buffer for the drainage
system (collector pipes) and the 75 foot buffer for residences and the septic systems from the top of the headscarp area. The engineer shall also stake the location of the toe of the
land disturbing activity for any areas located outside of the proposed engineered drainage system and outfall. This shall be in compliance with Section 18.22.550(3) JCC.
24. The applicant shall comply with the Jefferson County Inadvertent Discovery Plan. All contractors and personnel shall be familiar with the inadvertent discovery plan as attached to
this permit. If any possible historic, archaeological and/or cultural artifacts are inadvertently discovered, the applicant shall immediately stop all work on the project and shall
notify the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Jefferson County Department of Community Development, and affected tribes. A full copy of the plan will be
provided to the applicant upon issuance of any development permits.
25. The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal permits. This may include a Hydraulic Project Approval from the WDFW.
26. The applicant shall submit a stamped letter from a geotechnical engineer licensed in Washington State that the engineered drainage plan was installed as designed (IAD) to geotechnical
report and geologic assessments submitted for this proposal. The IAD letter shall be submitted to the Jefferson County DCD and the Public Works Department for review and approval prior
to utilizing the engineered drainage system.
Staff Contact: Greg Ballard, Project Planner