COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cathy Wolfe District One Diane Oberquell District Two Robert N. Macleod District Three HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. SSDP 2006101112 ) John and Mary Elizabeth Karpel ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS ) AND DECISION For Approval of a Shoreline Substantial ) Development Permit. ) ) A clerical error in the footer of the June 25, 2007 Decision has been corrected with the following Findings, Conclusions and Decision: SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to replace existing creosote railroad tie steps and to construct a bridge support which will extend to a 12-foot high stair tower for beach access and to resurface existing concrete step is granted with conditions. The property is located at 7438 Cooper Point Road, Olympia, WA. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: John and Mary Elizabeth Karpel (Applicant) requested approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to: 1) replace existing creosote railroad tie steps; 2) construct a bridge support which will extend to a 12-foot high stair tower for beach access; and 3) to resurface existing concrete step is granted with conditions. The property is located at 7438 Cooper Point Road, Olympia, WA. 1.. 1 The legal description of the property is: A portion of Section 15, Township 19 North, Range 2 West, W.M. Tax Parcel Number 12915220800. (The property is in unincorporated Thurston County but has an Olympia address. 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, Washington 98502 (360) 786-5490/FAX (360) 754-2939
Hearing Date: An open record public hearing on the request was held before the Hearings Examiner of Thurston County on June 4, 2007. Testimony: At the hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: Gayle Zeller, Associate Planner, Thurston County Mark Edelbrock, Edenstrom Landscaping Daryl McAllister Exhibits: At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record: EXHIBIT 1 Development Services Department Report with the following Attachments: Attachment a Notice of Public Hearing dated June 4, 2007 Attachment b Attachment c Site Map Zoning Map Attachment d JARPA Application Form received May 22, 2006 Attachment e Attachment f Attachment g Attachment h Attachment i Attachment j Attachment k Attachment l Site Plan, Cross-section Drawing of Stair tower Bridge Plan Landscape Plan Critical Area Administrative Review Correspondence dated May 18, 2007 Geotechnical Report dated September 26, 2007 prepared by David Strong, Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services. June 8, 2006 Comment Letter from John Ward, Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department Pictures of the Site EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 Enlarged Site Plan Structural Calculations for Lateral and Vertical Analysis and Design for Karpel Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 2 of 9
Residence, January 15, 2006 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 Color Photo of Public Hearing Site Posting Color Photo s of Site Color Photo of Karpel Backyard, submitted by Daryl McAllister EXHIBIT 7 June 14, 2007 Letter from John T. Karpel in response to revised condition No. 7 EXHIBIT 8 Vegetation Information submitted by Daryl McAllister Based upon the record developed at the open record hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions are entered in support of the decision of the Hearings Examiner: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested approval of an SSDP to: 1) replace existing creosote railroad tie steps; 2) construct a bridge support which will extend to a 12-foot high stair tower for beach access; and 3) to resurface existing concrete step. The property is located at 7438 Cooper Point Road, Olympia, WA. The property is within the Rural Shoreline Environment and located adjacent to Budd Inlet. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 1, Attachment d; Testimony of Ms. Zeller. 2. The subject property contains a marine bluff that extends to Budd Inlet of Puget Sound. The entire slope to the west of the property is classified as a marine bluff in the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The proposed stairway is subject to special review as required by the CAO. The slope stability map of the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington classifies this bluff as intermediate stability. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Testimony of Ms. Zeller. 3. Construction of a stairway on a marine bluff requires compliance with the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Marine bluffs are classified as critical areas in the CAO and are reviewed subject to technical reports to evaluate a project. As part of the proposal the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report on the impact of the proposed stair tower and bridge structure to the marine bluff. The report indicated that the stair tower and bridge would result in little to no impact on the bluff if ground cover was re-established within the marine bluff buffer area. The report also included a recommendation that stormwater be controlled on the site and that it be conveyed to the beach. The control and conveyance of stormwater would minimize erosion and thereby provide additional instability to the marine bluff. Testimony of Ms. Zeller 4. The subject property is 1.99 acres and zoned Rural Residential One Dwelling Unit per Acre (RR 1/1). The property is located within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (SMPTR). The SMPTR establishes the site to be Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 3 of 9
within the Rural Shoreline Environment. Residential Development and Boating Facilities Chapter of the SMPTR allows for stairways, stair towers and docks within the shoreline environments subject to the policies and general regulations. The Rural Environment has specific regulations. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Testimony of Ms. Zeller. 5. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) mandates that any substantial development on a significant shoreline is subject to issuance of a shoreline permit. The proposed stair tower is not an exempt use and has a fair market value over $5,000.00. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) is required. A substantial development is any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5000.00. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Testimony of Ms. Zeller. 6. The project is proposed to be developed on a slope of intermediate stability as depicted on the Washington Coastal Zone Atlas. Any development so categorized requires a structure design approved and stamped by a licensed engineer. The proposed design was reviewed and the plans stamped by Mark Jacob Leingang, P.E. of MC Squared, Inc. A summary of the plans and the design indicates that the stair structure would not impact the stability of the marine bluff. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Testimony of Ms. Zeller; Exhibit 1, attachment g 7. The proposed construction activity would involve replacement of existing creosote railroad tie steps on the marine bluff with 46-inch precast concrete steps; construction of a 12 6 long bridge support which would extend to a 12-foot high stair tower to for beach access, and the resurface of two sets of concrete steps that access the beach. The proposed stairway structure would be a spiral stairway attached to the top of the bluff by a 3 ft., 6 inch wide by 12-ft, 6-inch long bridge landing with Douglas fir planks. The stair tower will have wooden treads attached to a fir piling. The bottom of the fir piling would be set in concrete in the yard area behind the top of the bulkhead at a depth of 4 ft., 6 inches. The elevation of the replacement steps from the bridge to the top of the slope where the stairs start is approximately 12 feet. Exhibit 1, attachments e, f, g, and l, Photos 1-5. 8. The proposed stairway would be connected to the upper portion of the marine bluff with a bridge and railing. Exhibit 1, attachments g and l, Photo 4. The bridge would connect to stone steps leading to the top of the slope. The bridge would be anchored to the slope with a 2 ft. long x 4 ft.6 inch wide x 1 ft. deep concrete footing. Exhibit 1, attachment l, Photo 2 and attachment g. 9. The access design reviewed by the County Staff was one that included a spiral staircase as depicted in Exhibit 2. Testimony of Ms. Zeller, Exhibit 2. At the public hearing the Applicant submitted that the spiral staircase design (described in Findings 5 and 6) was not her preferred design. She stated that the preferred design called for an access trail to be along the slope of the bluff rather than the spiral staircase design. Testimony of Ms Karpel. In response the County s representative submitted that the trail access proposal of the Applicant was not considered because the design would have involved significant plant removal and cuts of the slope, a critical area. According to the County if such a Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 4 of 9
design were chosen more study and scientific data would have been required. Testimony of Ms. Zeller. The Applicant agreed to the spiral staircase design after the explanation by Staff. Testimony of Ms. Karpel. 10. A landscape plan for the slope was prepared for the application. The plantings as described in the plan would stabilize the soil exposed as a result of step replacement near the top of the bluff. Once the vegetation is established, any erosion occurring by runoff down the path would be minimized. Exhibit 1, attachment h 11. During the hearing confusion was voiced by the Applicant about proposed condition 7 which requires monetary assurance for the maintenance of the landscaping and slope protection. Because of the confusion it was suggested by the Hearing Examiner that the Applicant meet with Staff to discuss the monetary assurance issue. The parties were allowed to submit post-hearing comments relating to their meeting. In a post-hearing memo the County Staff submitted the following revision of condition 7: A monitoring report that evaluates the plant survival and success of the revegetation shall be submitted (1) year from the date of installation of the plantings. The monitoring plan shall ensure a 90 percent survivability of plantings. The monitoring shall continue every year up to three (3) years, with inspections occurring one year at a time, with the condition of 90% survivability of the plantings. At such time as staff confirms plantings are in compliance with this condition, the monitoring shall be discontinued. An as built landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department upon initial installation of plantings. The Applicant responded in her post-hearing memo that she did not oppose the revised condition. Exhibit 7. 12. The only comment from local or state agencies was from Thurston County Environmental Health Department (EHD) dated June 8, 2006. EHD staff stated there were no issues of concern. Exhibit 1,. Attachment k. 13. Written notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site May 22, 2007 and notice was published in The Olympian on May 25, 2005, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Notice was posted on May 18, 2007. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment a. 14. A public witness commented on the project at the hearing. He submitted that he did not oppose the design or the concepts proposed by the Applicant. He did however request that the design and the construction of the tower not interfere with any views from his property. Both the Applicant and the County staff agreed that the design would not impact views from any properties. Testimony of Mr. McAllister, Ms. Zeller and Ms. Karpel Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 5 of 9
CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70, WAC 173-27 and Section One, Part V of the Thurston County Shoreline Master Program. Criteria for Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to be approved by the Hearings Examiner, the proposal must be consistent with: (a) (b) (c) The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act; The provisions of applicable regulations; and The Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region. WAC 173-27-150. (a) Shoreline Management Act Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between the local and state governments with local government having the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by the chapter and administering the regulatory program consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The Thurston County Shoreline Master Program provides goals, policies and regulatory standards for ensuring that development within the shorelines of the state is consistent the policies and provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW. Some of the policies of RCW 90.58.020 are to foster all reasonable and appropriate uses; protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife; and give priority to single family residences and appurtenant structures in authorizing alterations to the natural condition of the shoreline. (b) Applicable Regulations: Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance Marine bluffs are protected by the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), Part 600: Geologic Hazard Areas. The proposed development is regulated under the CAO in Chapter 17.15.615 Geologic Hazard Areas Performance Standards for Allowed Uses and Activities. F. Shoreline Access Stair Tower, Landing, and Mechanical Lift. Refer to the General Regulations and specific Environmental Designation and Regulations for XVI. Residential Development contained within the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region, (1990), as amended. Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 6 of 9
(c) Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (SMPTR) Section Three Policies and Regulations for Use Activities XVI. Residential Development C. General Regulations 11. All stair towers meeting one of the following conditions must be designed by a licensed civil engineer: a. The location proposed is mapped as Unstable or Intermediate Stability in the Washington Coastal Zone Atlas prepared by the State Department of Ecology. b. All stair towers 24 feet in height or greater c. Other instances where the building official determines that site conditions dictate the preparation of plans by a licensed civil engineer. 12. Stair towers shall be designed to minimize obstructing the views enjoyed by adjoining residences. 4. Rural Environment d) A buffer of existing ground cover must be maintained in the area between the ordinary high water mark and twenty feet from the structure. The ground cover in the buffer may be disturbed only after approval of the Administrator where one or more of the following conditions apply: When the construction of access pathway is proposed to the shoreline, vegetation will be removed only within the boundaries of constructed access pathway. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. With conditions, the proposed development is consistent with policies as set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW. The proposed design of the project would be done in a manner that is reasonable and appropriate and protects against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 5 6, 7 2. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region, which implements the CAO. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 5 6, 7 3. There will be no disturbance of the Marine Bluff and the stair tower and walking bridge have been designed to protect the critical area. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 5 6, 7 Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 7 of 9
DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and the Conclusion based on the Findings the request for approval a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, for property at 7438 Cooper Point Road, Olympia, Washington, to replace existing creosote railroad tie steps and to construct a bridge support which will extend to a 12-foot high stair tower for beach access and to resurface existing concrete step is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must obtain a building permit from the Thurston County Permit Assistance Center prior to construction of the stair tower structure. Engineered plans are required to be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit. 2. The concrete steps and path shall be located in same footprint as the railroad tie steps that will be replaced. Prior to permit issuance, a revised site plan shall be submitted to the County depicting the exact location of the concrete steps. 3. Correct and effective erosion and sediment control practices shall be used at the construction site and adjacent areas in order to prevent upland sediments from entering any bodies of water, including Budd Inlet. All areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated, or given some other equivalent type of protection against erosion. Erosion control best management practices include, but are not limited to, installation of silt control fences and bank stabilization material. 4. All areas considered pursuant to local and state criteria as marine bluff and all associated 50-foot vegetated buffers shall be depicted on the final construction documents filed with the County. These documents shall include the following language: "To minimize damage to the shoreline due to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events no clearing, grading, filling, logging, removal of native trees or other native vegetation, or other construction activities shall be allowed within the landslide hazard or buffer areas except where exempted by and when prior authorization is obtained from Thurston County Development Services." 5. As a condition of approval, the following notation shall be placed on the construction documents: "No clearing, grading, filling or other construction activities shall be allowed within the Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction except as approved under this SSDP. There shall be no additional clearing or development prior to the replacement concrete steps or stair tower development except where exempted by and when prior authorization is obtained from Thurston County Development Services, Environmental/Shoreline Section." 6. Plant installation shall be fully implemented between October 15 and May 15 planting season. Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 8 of 9
7. A monitoring report that evaluates the plant survival and success of the revegetation shall be submitted (1) year from the date of installation of the plantings. The monitoring plan shall ensure a 90 percent survivability of plantings. The monitoring shall continue every year up to three (3) years, with inspections occurring one year at a time, with the condition of 90% survivability of the plantings. At such time as staff confirms plantings are in compliance with this condition, the monitoring shall be discontinued. An as built landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department upon initial installation of plantings. 8. Prior to permit issuance, an irrevocable assignment of funds to the County is required. The assignment of funds shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the cost of the installation and the three-year monitoring for the mitigation. The assignment of funds will be released when the Planning Section of the Development Services Department has reviewed and approved the final monitoring report. If the mitigation proposal, as approved, is not implemented, the County may cash the letter of credit in order to complete the installation of the vegetation. 9. All development shall be in substantial compliance with drawings and site plan submitted as part of the hearing record. Any expansion or alteration of the approved use will require approval of a new or amended Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Development Services Department will determine if a proposed amendment is substantial enough to require Hearing Examiner approval Decided this 2 nd day of July 2007. James M. Driscoll Hearings Examiner for Thurston County \\Tcbldg1d\VOL1\apps\track\Planning\Amanda Save File\JARPA - Shoreline Substantial Development XC\Decisions\2006101112.decision.karpel.doc Karpel Project 2006101112 SSDP Page 9 of 9