FOR THE CITY OF MEDINA. SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a Substantial Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING FOR THE CITY OF MEDINA ifi EXAMINERI Y MAR ED I NA In the Matter of the Application of Rick Chesmore, on behalf of Bacon/ Groat Point Single Family 898 Crescent Falls Trust Residence For a Substantial Development Permit FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a Substantial Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new, approximately 16, 288 square foot single family residence and associated improvements on property located at 8925 Groat Point Drive in Medina, Washington, is APPROVED. Conditions of approval are necessary to address specific impacts of the proposed project. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Rick Chesmore, on behalf of 898 Crescent Falls Trust, requests a Substantial Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new, approximately 16,288 square foot single family residence and associated improvements. The property is located at 8925 Groat Point Drive in Medina, Washington. Hearing Date: The held an open record hearing on the request on February 15, The Hearing Examiner kept the record open until close of business on February 16, 2012 to receive a copy of a geotechnical report from the Applicant. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: Robert Grumbach, City Development Services Director Kristen Clem Kissinger, City Planning Consultant Rick Chesmore, Applicant Representative Dan Nickel, Watershed Company Michael Sokaskin John Bacon, Applicant Page 1 of 17

2 Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report, dated February 8, Substantial Development Permit Application, dated October 7, Legal Notices a. Notice of Complete Application, dated December 14, 2011 b. c. Notice of Application: Declaration of Mailing, Declaration of Posting, and Affidavit of Publication, dated December 19, 2011 Notice of Hearing: Declaration of Mailing, Declaration of Posting, and Affidavit of Publication, dated January 30, message from Lennox Scott, dated January 19, Applicant Response to Public Comment: Memorandum from Rick Chesmore, dated January 25, Agency Comment and Correspondence: from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, dated January 23, Applicant Response to Agency Comments: Memorandum from Rick Chesmore, dated January 25, Site Plan( sheet A1. 0), dated October 4, Revised Site Plan and Floor Plans ( sheet X01, X02 and X03), dated January 13, Site Plan Landscape ( sheet L1. 0), dated November 11, Structural Coverage( sheet A1. 2), dated October 4, Impervious Coverage( sheet A1. 3), dated October 4, Existing and Proposed Building Section( sheet X.04), dated January 3, T.E. S. C. Plan( sheet C-2), dated November 14, Grading and Drainage Plan( sheet C-4), dated September 23, Boat Dock Elevations ( sheet A- 1. 7), dated October 4, Bellevue Utilities( sheet A- 1. 6), dated October 4, DNS, dated January 27, 2012, and SEPA Checklist, dated October 6, Shoreline Improvements Memorandum from the Watershed Company, dated December 20, Hedge Reciprocal Covenant Agreement, dated September 13, Site Photographs( 9), dated January 12, Additional Correspondence with applicant a. Structural and Impervious Coverage: from Rick Chesmore, dated February 7, 2012 b. Generator: from Rick Chesmore, dated January 26, 2012 c. Barging: Letter from Jim Bickford, Project Manager, Schuchart/Dow, dated November 30, Site Plans a. Existing with Floor Plan Overlay, Sheet A 1. 1, dated February 14, 2012 b. Proposed Dock Improvements, Sheet A- 1. 7, dated February 14, 2012 Page 2of17

3 Construction Mitigation Plan drawing, undated Version 2.0 Site Plan, Sheet X 01, dated February 14, Site Plan Landscape, dated October 7, Memorandum from Rick Chesmore, dated February 15, 2012 GeoSource Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard and Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated June 10, 2011 The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS Application and Notice 1. Rick Chesmore, on behalf of 898 Crescent Falls Trust( Applicant), 1 requests a Substantial Development Permit( SDP) to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new, approximately 16,288 square foot single family residence and associated improvements on property located at 8925 Groat Point Drive in Medina, Washington. 2 Associated improvements would include retaining walls, pool, spa, existing dock repair, covered moorage roof replacement, existing bulkhead replacement, public sewer line removal and replacement, beach restoration, and storm water outfall replacement. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 1; Exhibit 2; Exhibit The City of Medina( City) determined that the application was complete on December 14, Exhibit 3.a. The City published notice of the application in The Seattle Times, posted notice on the subject property and at City posting locations, and mailed notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property on December 19, Exhibit 3.b. On January 30, 2012, the City published notice of the associated open record hearing in The Seattle Times, posted notice on the subject property and at City posting locations, and mailed notice to owners ofproperty within 300 feet ofthe subject property. Exhibit 3. c. 3. State Environmental Policy Act Review( SEPA) The City acted as lead agency and analyzed environmental impacts of the proposed development under the State Environmental Policy Act( SEPA), Ch C RCW. After review of the Applicant' s SEPA checklist and other information on file with the City, the City determined the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and issued a Determination ofnonsignificance( DNS) on January 27, Crescent Falls Trust exists to benefit John E. Bacon and Debra Bacon, Trustors, and is managed by Michael V. Griffith, John D. Bacon, John E. Bacon, and Debra Bacon,Trustees. Exhibit 2. King County Assessor Records list Michael V. Griffith as taxpayer of record for the subject property. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 4. An Owner' s Declaration of Agency within the application identifies Rick Chesmore, Architect, as agent for John E. Bacon and Debbie Bacon. Exhibit 2. 2 The subject property is identified by Tax Assessor' s Parcel Number A legal description ofthe subject property is included with the application. Exhibit 2. Page 3 of 17

4 Kristen Clem Kissinger, City Planning Consultant, testified the DNS was not appealed. Exhibit 18; Testimony ofms. Kissinger Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Property The subject property is designated Single-Family Residential under the City Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 1. It is the basic policy of the City to retain and promote the high-quality residential setting that has become the hallmark of the Medina community. City Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, page 14. City Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposal promote maintaining Medina' s high quality residential setting and character, and preserving and fostering housing development consistent with the City' s high quality residential setting. 3 Comprehensive Plan, pages 14 and 34. The property is located within the City' s R-20 Residential zoning district. Surrounding property to the north and west is also located within the R-20 district. Lake Washington abuts the property to the south and east. Lots within the R-20 district must be at least 20,000 square feet in size. Medina Municipal Code (MMC) A. All structures must be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark( OHWM). Ch MMC, Figure 1. In addition, proposed development must adhere to a minimum 30-foot wide front setback and 20-foot wide side setbacks. MMC (B). Private docks must be set back a minimum of 12 feet from side lot lines. MMC The design and construction of a bulkhead must comply with City building code and the City' s shoreline management master program. MMC Swimming pools and spas exceeding two feet in height- as measured from the lowest point of original grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, around the perimeter of the pool to the highest point of the structural rim of the vessel- must be set back as required of structures generally within the zoning district in which they are located. MMC A; B. Pools not exceeding two feet in height above ground level must be set back no less than 15 feet from the rear property lines. Pools and spas may not intrude into front, side, Lake Washington shoreline, or private lane setbacks. MMC B. Ms. Kissinger testified that as proposed, the development would comply with City zoning code, and that calculations under the zoning code would be confirmed by the City during building permit application review. Testimony ofms. Kissinger. Site Conditions and Development Proposal Groat Point Drive provides access to the subject property from the north. The property measures approximately 73, 835 square feet in size, and slopes down to the south and east from Groat Point Drive at approximately seven-percent grade. The property is developed as a large residential estate, with a pool, sport court, spa, site walls and three-story, City 3 City staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as particularly relevant to the proposal: Land Use Goal LU-Gl and Housing Goal H-Gl. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 3. Page 4of17

5 single-family residence approximately 10, 000 square feet in size. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 4; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit The existing structures and residence would be demolished. A new single-family residence would be constructed upon an approximately 9, 500 square foot building footprint. A detached garage would be constructed in the north portion of the subject property between the proposed residence and north property boundary. The new residence would be approximately 36 feet in height from the lowest point of original grade to the highest point of the roof, and would contain approximately 16,288 square feet of living space. The new residence would be approximately 25 feet in height from the high point of original grade, and 28 feet above the average grade. 4 The Applicant' s Geotechnical Report states the subject property is suitable for proposed development if risks described in the Report are accepted and Report recommendations are followed. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 2, 7 and 8; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 18; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 28. The Applicant would also construct a new pool and spa on the subject property to the east of the proposed residence. A stone tile deck surrounding the proposed pool would be located approximately 62 feet west of the Lake Washington shoreline. The Applicant' s project narrative describes the proposed pool and spa as in-round gunite vessels with a vanishing edge facing toward the lake. An enclosed mechanical room would contain pool and spa operating equipment. Dark plaster and larger stone would be used in pool and spa complex design to visually integrate the complex with the proposed bulkhead, existing beach, and lake. Mr. Chesmore testified that proposed pool and spa design would be reviewed by the City under an Administrative Special Use Permit application submitted by the Applicant at the time of building permit application submission. Exhibit 9; Exhibit 23; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore. A new synthetic putting green and sand trap would be constructed adjacent to the north of the proposed pool. Mr. Chesmore testified that the proposed putting green would consist of pervious surface, and that no impervious surface would be constructed waterward of the putting green. Exhibit 23; Exhibit 26; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore. An existing eight-inch diameter sewer line on the subject property would be removed and relocated from an existing 10 foot wide sewer easement running through the subject property to a new utility easement approximately 15 feet from the north property boundary. The City of Bellevue Utilities Department requested the new easement for 4 MMC (D) allows a maximum height of 30 feet from the highest point of original or finished grade, whichever is lower, and no more than 36 feet from the lowest point of original grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, when structural coverage is limited to 13 percent. Exhibit 1, StaffReport,page 8. Page 5 of 17

6 installation of a new 3- phase power line to serve an existing sewer surge pump. 5 The existing sewer line is owned by the City of Bellevue. According to the City staff report, installation ofthe new sewer line would require granting a 20 foot wide easement and constructing two manholes for City of Bellevue access. Mr. Chesmore testified that the issue of sewer line removal and relocation would be resolved through communication with the City of Bellevue within the next four weeks. Mr. Chesmore added that the sewer easement is used by owners of three adjacent properties, and service would be interrupted for one day at most ifthe sewer line is removed and relocated. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 5; Exhibit 27; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore The Applicant would also construct a replacement moorage roof cover and repair an existing wood dock. The replacement roof would be placed on top ofthe existing steel pylon structural system attached to the dock. The existing roof measures square feet in size; the replacement roof measures square feet. Mr. Chesmore testified the replacement roof would be made of bronze. The existing dock structure would be clad in new wood material providing at least 40 percent open grating on the dock surface. Ms. Kissinger testified that the replacement moorage roof would be located within the City' s covered moorage area, and thus is allowed in the proposed location. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 9; Exhibit 27; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. The Applicant would remove a portion of existing bulkhead to create beach area on the east shore ofthe subject property and replace an area of existing rockery bulkhead with a boulder bulkhead on the south and east shore. The bulkhead would be moved landward and spawning gravel would be placed waterward ofthe new location. Approximately 440 lineal feet of existing bulkhead would be replaced and approximately 125 lineal feet of beach would be restored. Mr. Chesmore testified that bulkhead removal to create a small beach would not impact beaches on neighboring properties. Spawning gravel would also be added to the beach area. Ms. Kissinger testified that placement of spawning gravel in the beach area would allow for wave energy displacement. Exhibit 1, StaffReport,pages 1 and 6; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. The Applicant would construct new site walls and install new landscaping. New site walls would retain soil and create terraces, water features, driveways, and an auto-court on the subject property. A new driveway consisting of pervious and impervious pavement would extend from Groat Point Drive to the auto-court and to the garage entrance. A new entry gate with adjacent walls constructed within City right-of-way would extend across the driveway. 6 A path of impervious surface would lead from the The Applicant' s memorandum dated February 15, 2012 states the Applicant" may be relocating the sewer line" to the newly established utility easement. Exhibit Mr. Chesmore testified that the Applicant has received preliminary approval from the City to locate the new entry gate and associated columns within City right-of-way. Testimony ofmr. Chesmore. Page 6 of 17

7 auto-court to the spa and pool on the south side of the proposed residence. Impervious surface deck would be constructed adjacent to the south of the proposed pool and spa. Stairs and a crushed rock path would lead from the pool and spa to the existing dock and to the beach that would be established through bulkhead removal. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 5; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 26; Exhibit The Applicant would remove 43 trees, including 14 Redwood trees along the north property boundary to make way for sewer realignment. Eighteen trees to be removed are designated significant under City code. Three existing trees within 30 feet ofthe shoreline would be retained following construction. Ms. Kissinger testified a City Tree Removal Permit and mitigation, as applicable, would be required for proposed tree removal. New trees, ornamental grasses, shrubs, and perennials would be planted throughout the site. New shrubs and herbaceous understory would be planted at the bulkhead to enhance insect and spider habitat at the shoreline. Native emergent vegetation would be planted in rain gardens to manage stormwater runoff. Mr. Chesmore testified that proposed landscaping would include a total of approximately 2,200 square feet of shoreline enhancement plantings. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 5 and 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 26; Exhibit As proposed, the Applicant would use an existing irrigation line to withdraw water from Lake Washington for use in irrigating the subject property. Ms. Kissinger testified that the Applicant does not currently hold a water right under Washington state law to withdraw water from Lake Washington for this use. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 9; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. 16. Proposed development would include excavating up to 4,675 cubic yards of earth, importing approximately 3, 895 cubic yards of fill, and exporting up to 700 cubic yards of earth from the subject property. Mr. Chesmore testified that clean fill and pea gravel would be imported to the site to aid in construction of a daylight basement within the proposed residence. Ms. Kissinger testified that the Applicant would need to obtain a grading and drainage permit from the City to implement proposed construction. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 1; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. Shoreline Management Act( SMA) 17. The State Shoreline Management Act( SMA) and the Medina Shoreline Master Program City SMP) govern work within 200 feet of the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark. City ofmedina SMP; RCW (2) 0. Any " substantial development" within the shoreline requires approval of a substantial development permit. Substantial development is any development in which the total cost or fair market value exceeds 5, , or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. RCW ( 3)( e).' Development" includes construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals, bulkheading; driving of pilings; placing of obstructions; or Page 7 of 17

8 Under Washington Administrative Code( WAC) ( 2)( g), construction within the shoreline jurisdiction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for their own use or use oftheir family, including normal appurtenances, is generally exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit. But grading exceeding 250 cubic yards is not exempt from the requirement. According to the City staff report, proposed development would include grading of up to 1, 335 cubic yards of earth that would trigger the substantial development permit requirement. As proposed, site grading, stormwater management, irrigation work, retaining wall installation, and landscaping would occur within 50 feet ofthe shoreline. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 5 and 6. Under WAC ( 1)( d), if any part of a proposed development is not eligible for a permit exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire development proposal. The estimated cost of single-family residential development and associated improvements on the subject property is approximately $20 million. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 5. The primary goal of the City SMP is to preserve the City' s shoreline for single family residential use in a manner that also protects and preserves the natural features along the shoreline and the quality of Lake Washington. City SMP, Section II.A, page 7. The City SMP Shoreline Conservation Goal is to preserve and protect the resources and amenities of Lake Washington for use and enjoyment by present and future Medina citizens consistent with property rights. Conservation Policies encourage design and construction of shoreline development to minimize adverse effects on natural systems, and encourage integration of uses and activities in upland areas that may have a detrimental impact on the shoreline or water quality into shoreline planning efforts. City SMP, Section II.B, page 7. The City SMP designates the subject property as an Urban shoreline environment. Exhibit 1, StaffReport,page 1. Medina' s shoreline is classified into the Urban and Recreation Conservancy Environment categories, " reflecting the fact that residential development is dominant along the shoreline." The Urban classification is intended to indicate that the City' s shoreline, except for public areas and private recreation areas, has been designated in its entirety for low-density single-family urban residential development. City SMP, Section III,page 10. Residential development is permitted under City SMP use regulations subject to City zoning and subdivision code regulations. Piers and other forms of moorage are also permitted within the shoreline area. Covered moorage structures are permitted within the City' s covered moorage building zone triangle. Bulkheads may be constructed of large rock at the shoreline, as long as bulkheads do not extend into the lake beyond the normal high water mark and minimize transmittal of wave action to other properties. Utilities may also be installed within the any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this chapter at any state of water level. RCW (3)( d). Page 8 of 17

9 shoreline area as long as the area is restored and upgraded to City standards. Utilities should be placed underground and consolidated with existing easements wherever possible. City SMP, Section IV,pages 13, 15, 16 and Pursuant to City SMP, Section IV.B.2, development shall be discouraged in environmentally sensitive areas unless it can be shown that measures can be taken to mitigate all related adverse impacts. Lake Washington is designated a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. MMC A.5. Under MMC , no buildings or structures are to be constructed within 15 feet of the lake edge. According to the City staff report, no buildings or structures are proposed within the setback area except for sewer utilities, stormwater outfalls, and shoreline retaining and restoration structures. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 5. Public and Agency Comment 22. An from Lennox Scott dated January 19, 2012 expressed concern about noise, bulkhead, and view impacts of proposed development on the Scott property. The addressed an existing agreement governing the subject property and the Scott property. A reciprocal covenant agreement, executed September 13, 1993, governs adjoining property described as Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Groat Point Estates Replat. The reciprocal covenants that run with the land require maintain of a hedge planted on the boundary line between the two properties or less than two feet from the boundary line. The covenants require that the hedge be at least eight-feet tall above existing grade on the boundary line from the point where the boundary line intersects the shoreline bulkhead to a point on the boundary line 70 feet inland from the point where the boundary line intersects the bulkhead. In other areas along the boundary, the hedge must be maintained at least 10- feet tall. Exhibit 4; Exhibit Ms. Kissinger testified that the Applicant would address the hedge concern through implementation of the Applicant' s revised landscape plan; compliance with the reciprocal covenants governing the hedge; and through replacement bulkhead design. Testimony of Ms. Kissinger. 24. A January 25, 2012 memorandum from Mr. Chesmore states the proposed mechanical room serving the pool and spa would be located on the north side of the proposed residence, opposite the Scott property. An emergency natural gas generator would also be located on the north side of the proposed residence and surrounded by a noise mitigation wall. Noise levels would be measured at the subject property boundary upon completion of construction and mitigated, if necessary, for compliance with King County noise standards adopted by the City. Replacement bulkhead design would include smooth transitions at adjoining bulkheads on neighboring properties. Wave action would be evaluated to ensure no undue erosion on neighboring properties. According to the memorandum, proposed red-twig dogwood and willow plantings would be maintained to Page 9of17

10 preserve the Scott view corridor. An Alaskan Yellow cedar would be moved outside the view corridor. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 9; Exhibit Karen Walter, Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, requested in an dated January 23, 2012 that proposed development include the following elements: skylights within the replacement moorage cover or other moorage cover constructed features allowing light to transmit through the moorage cover to the water below during daylight hours; documentation of existing water rights; and a demonstration that the proposed bulkhead is the least damaging alternative. The message suggested use of less hardened structures for bulkhead replacement, or if rock must be used due to physical constraints, planting of additional native trees and shrubs that would overhang the bulkhead. Exhibit 6. The Applicant would not include skylights or other features in the replacement moorage cover. Dan Nickel, Watershed Company, responded to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe' s comment that as proposed, the replacement moorage cover would extend 12 feet high above the lake surface. Mr. Nickel testified that the proposed north-south orientation of the moorage cover would allow sunlight to reach all portions of the underlying water at all times during daylight hours. Mr. Nickel added that proposed bulkhead and shoreline improvements represent the least environmentally damaging alternative, providing rocks, logs, gravel and native plantings for shoreline enhancement. Ms. Kissinger testified that the City' s landscape consultant has reviewed the Applicant' s shoreline enhancement and restoration plan and has determined it is consistent with City requirements. Exhibit 7; Testimony ofmr. Nickel; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. Michael Sokaskin, resident of 116 Overlake Drive East, testified to express concern about construction period length and potential erosion and noise generated by proposed construction. Mr. Sokaskin testified in support of barge use for proposed construction. John Bacon testified that the proposed development strategy should manage the impact on neighboring properties. Testimony ofmr. Sokaskin; Testimony ofmr. Bacon. The Applicant' s proposed Construction Mitigation Plan drawing depicts temporary fencing along the bulkhead perimeter of the subject property, four bioretention ponds for water filtration just inside the perimeter, and two material staging areas in the north and south portion of the property. The material staging areas would be accessed by construction access roads extending north and south over the property from Groat Point Road. The access roads would contain approximately 18 parking spaces, two site trailers, temporary material staging areas, and truck turn-around areas. A crane would be centrally located on the subject property to assist in construction. The drawing also depicts a 42-foot wide by 108- foot long barge that would be used if necessary to transport construction materials and equipment, connecting to the subject property through a temporary bridge. Installation oftemporary sediment fencing and best management Bacon/ Groat Point SDP Page 10 of 17

11 practices would limit sedimentation and erosion during construction. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7; Exhibit 14; Exhibit Mr. Chesmore testified that as proposed, all construction materials and equipment would be transported to the subject property by truck over Groat Point Drive. The City staff report states that the barge may need to be used as a result of public roadway constraints and a need to maintain open access through Groat Point Drive to neighboring properties. If a barge is used, it would likely be a" Sea Horse" vessel measuring 108- feet long by 42- feet wide and carrying a crane. Another crane fixed on the subject property may also be used to load and unload the barge. If used, the barge would likely be anchored on the north side of the existing dock where water is sufficiently deep. Mr. Chesmore testified that a determination whether a barge would be necessary would be made at the time of review of a request for approval of a construction mitigation plan( CMP). Mr. Chesmore added that the barge would be accessed through a temporary wood and steel bridge extending from the subject property. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, pages 4 and 5; Testimony of Mr. Chesmore. Mr. Chesmore testified that a private stormwater outfall serving only the subject property would be replaced as part of proposed construction. Mr. Chesmore testified that once replaced, stormwater runoff from the subject property would be collected on site and tightlined to biofiltration ponds and a catch basin in the proposed parking area. The City staff report states the ponds and catch basin would then drain to Lake Washington at five outfall locations within the proposed replacement bulkhead. The catch basin would contain an oil/water separator for water quality. Mr. Chesmore testified that proposed development would reduce overall lot coverage on the subject property compared to existing lot coverage. Exhibit 1, StaffReport, page 6; Testimony ofmr. Chesmore. Ms. Kissinger testified that any application for a grading and drainage permit or approval of a CMP associated with proposed development would be heard by the City separately from the SDP application. Ms. Kissinger testified that the Applicant must also submit a building permit application to the City before the request for CMP approval can be heard and decided by the City Planning Commission. Ms. Kissinger added that federal and state permits required before City building permit issuance would restrict proposed construction to appropriate fish windows, as applicable. Robert Grumbach, City Development Services Director, testified that the development proposal also triggers site plan review by the City Planning Commission. Testimony ofms. Kissinger; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 32. Staff Recommendation Ms. Kissinger testified that City staff recommends approval of the SDP request with 15 proposed conditions of approval. Proposed conditions of approval concern final design and site layout; construction permits; required state and federal agency approvals; notification of sewer work by City of Bellevue Utilities; vegetation installation; proof of Page 11 of 17

12 water rights certificate; use of stormwater best management practices, including those for spill prevention; and term of construction activities. Exhibit 1, StaffReport,pages 11 12; Testimony ofms. Kissinger. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide requests for Substantial Development Permits( SDP). Medina Municipal Code (MMC) ; MMC Table ( C). Criteria for Review Shoreline Management Act The Shoreline Management Act is codified at RCW Applicable policies of RCW include those 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 alternations to the natural condition of the shoreline. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed to " minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public' s use of the water." RCW See Buechel v. Dep' t ofecology, 125 Wn.2d 196, 203 ( 1994). In promulgating the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, the legislature recognized that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development" of the state' s shorelines. RCW The legislature also determined that" unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest." RCW Accordingly, the Shoreline Management Act requires local governments to develop a master program to regulate shoreline uses consistent with its guidelines. RCW ( 1). Shoreline Management Act Regulations The Department of Ecology shoreline regulations are located in Chapters and of the Washington Administrative Code( WAC). Chapter sets forth procedures and guidelines for local adoption of shoreline master programs that are not applicable to the Applicant' s permit request. Chapter sets forth permitting procedures and permit criteria. The Hearing Examiner reviews the application under the following criteria: 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 WAC, Page 12 of 17

13 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 ofpermits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. WAC Thus, the Hearing Examiner must review the relevant City of Medina shoreline master program goals and policies. Medina Shoreline Master Program The primary goal of the Medina Shoreline Management Master Program( SMP) is" To preserve Medina' s shoreline for single family residential use, in a manner that also protects and preserves the natural features along the shoreline and the quality of Lake Washington." Medina SMP, Section II.A., page 7. The City SMP Shoreline Conservation Goal is to preserve and protect the resources and amenities of Lake Washington for use and enjoyment by present and future Medina citizens consistent with property rights. Shoreline Conservation Policy 2 provides that future substantial development of the shoreline shall be designed and constructed to minimize adverse effects on the natural systems, including aquatic habitats. Shoreline Conservation Policy 3 provides that the control of uses and activities in upland areas, which may have a detrimental impact on the shoreline or the water quality of Lake Washington, should be viewed as an integral part of shoreline planning. Medina SMP, Section 11.B, page 7. Shoreline structures in or near the water shall not be constructed from materials that have adverse physical or chemical effects on water quality, vegetation, fish, or wildlife. During construction, the developer shall be required to control the entry of contaminants into the lake within acceptable water quality standards. Landscaping shall be encouraged as a method of retaining a sense of nature in developed shoreline areas, and shoreline structures shall be designed to minimize transmission of wave energy. Medina SMP, Section IV.B.1,. 4,. 8, and. 10, page 11. No part of a moorage structure that comes in contact with the lake may be treated with or consist of substances which would be harmful to aquatic environment. Medina SMP, Section IV.E.3(a)( v), page 14. Land surface modification is only permitted if necessary for an approved development or use of the subject property, or if incidental to landscaping for any use on the subject property. Modification must be the minimum necessary to accomplish the underlying reason for the modification; ensure no direct or indirect adverse impacts on adjoining property or Lake Washington; must re-vegetate or otherwise cover surfaces exposed during modification; stockpile dirt, rocks and similar materials on the subject property as far away from the lake as possible and strictly contain materials to prevent erosion and runoff; and deposit only clean Page 13 of 17

14 materials on the subject property that do not contain substances that could pollute the lake or cause harm to aquatic or shoreline habitants. Medina SMP, Section IV Ḋ , page 12. The criteria for review adopted by the Medina City Council are designed to implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure consistency with City development regulations considering the type of land use, the level of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. Applicable policies of the Shoreline Management Act( SMA) include those to foster" all reasonable and appropriate uses"; protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, and vegetation and wildlife; and give priority to single family residences and appurtenant structures in authorizing alterations to the natural condition of the shoreline. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed to" minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public' s use of the water." RCW The City gave adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the proposal. The proposal is for development of a new single-family residence and appurtenant structures on the subject property, following demolition of an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures on the subject property. Proposed development would reduce overall lot coverage on the subject property compared to existing lot coverage. The City acted as lead agency under SEPA and determined that proposed development would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The City' s determination was not appealed. A substantial development permit is required for the proposed development under the SMA due to proposed grading on site. As proposed, the pool and spa complex would be visually integrated with the shoreline. No impervious surface would be constructed waterward of the proposed putting green. Any removal and relocation of the existing sewer line on the subject property would minimize service disruption to properties in the vicinity. Dock repairs would incorporate grating for light penetration to the lake surface; the proposed replacement moorage cover would also allow light penetration to the lake surface during all daylight hours. Bulkhead removal and replacement would result in beach restoration and addition of fish spawning gravel. New shrubs and herbaceous understory would be planted at the bulkhead to enhance insect and spider habitat at the shoreline. Only clean fill would be imported onto the site. As proposed, development would comply with governing reciprocal covenants; mitigate any noise spilling onto neighboring properties, as required; provide for smooth transitions at neighboring bulkheads; and protect the Scott view corridor. The proposed Construction Mitigation Plan would incorporate bioretention ponds and an oil/water separator for water quality treatment, temporary sediment fencing for erosion control, and best management Page 14 of 17

15 practices to limit erosion and sedimentation. If necessary to limit impacts on neighboring properties and roadway, a barge would be used to aid in proposed construction. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtains all required state and federal permits for proposed development; installs vegetation in accord with a City-approved landscape plan; implements stormwater best management practices during construction; and obtains proof of a water rights certificate for proposed irrigation withdrawals from Lake Washington. Findings 1 3, 7-12, 14 18, With conditions, the proposal is consistent with applicable shoreline regulations. The Department ofecology shoreline regulations are located in Chapters and of the Washington Administrative Code( WAC). Chapter sets forth procedures and guidelines for local adoption of shoreline master programs that are not applicable to the Applicant' s permit request. Chapter sets forth permitting procedures and permit criteria. This proposal is being reviewed under the criteria set forth in WAC These criteria are intended to implement the policies of the SMA, which requires that all shoreline projects be consistent with an approved local Shoreline Master Program. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtains all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; installs shoreline plantings; implements stormwater best management practices during construction; and obtains proof of a water rights certificate for proposed irrigation withdrawals from Lake Washington. The proposal is consistent with the City SMP, as described in more detail below. Findings 1, 6 18, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with the City of Medina Shoreline Management Master Program( SMP) and applicable shoreline regulations. The property would maintain its residential use following proposed demolition and construction, consistent with the City SMP and the property' s Urban environment designation under the City SMP. The City analyzed the potential environmental impact of the proposal and determined that the current proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The City' s determination was not appealed. Proposed development would take place on property adjacent to and property over Lake Washington, an environmentally sensitive area. No buildings or structures are proposed within the setback area designated to protect the lake, a designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, except for sewer utilities, stormwater outfalls, and shoreline retaining and restoration structures. No impervious surface would be constructed waterward of the proposed putting green. The Applicant would remove a section of bulkhead, install spawning gravel on the beach, and install shoreline plantings to enhance habitat. Spawning gravel would minimize transmission of wave energy. The replacement moorage cover would be slightly smaller than the existing moorage cover for a slight decrease in impact, and would allow daylight to reach the lake surface during all daylight hours. The property complies with City lot size thresholds for lots located No. SDP Page 15 of 17

16 within the City' s R-20 Residential zoning district. As proposed, development would comply with required front and side lot line setbacks and setback from the Lake Washington OHWM. Development would incorporate best management practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Only clean fill would be imported onto the property for development. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that the Applicant obtains all required local, state, and federal permits associated with the proposed development; installs shoreline plantings; prevents any toxic or deleterious materials from entering Lake Washington; and implements stormwater best management practices during construction. Findings 1 3, 5 14, 16, 19 21, 25, 26, 28, DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for Substantial Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new, approximately 16,288 square foot single family residence and associated improvements on property located at 8925 Groat Point Drive in Medina, Washington, is APPROVED, with the following conditions: Final design and layout of the site shall substantially comply with the drawings provided in Exhibit 8 and 9, Sheets A1. 0 and X01. Revisions to this approval shall be reviewed pursuant to WAC Substantial revisions ofthe substantial development permit shall require approval by the hearing examiner as a Type 2 or 3 decision as determined by the Director pursuant to MMC Pertinent construction permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction activity authorized by this permit. All conditions set forth in approving the substantial development permit shall be included as conditions for approving construction permits. Required approvals from state and federal agencies must be obtained prior to issuance of building permits. This includes a Hydraulic Project Approval( HPA) from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Regional General Permit( RPG) from the Army Corps of Engineers for the pier improvements. Bellevue Utilities shall notify the City of Medina prior to beginning construction work on the sanitary sewer relocation and at the conclusion of when the relocation work is completed. Vegetation shall be installed per the planting plan in Exhibit 10, Sheet L prior to finalizing building permits. The Applicant' s contractor shall utilize qualified geotechnical personnel to monitor construction activity and confirm that all appropriate mitigation measures are properly undertaken with the project. 8 This decision includes conditions designed to mitigate impacts of this proposed project as well as conditions required by City Code. Page 16 of 17

17 Proofof water rights certificate is required prior to any allowances to install any irrigation system that will draw water from Lake Washington. Proof of the certificate shall be provided to the City and the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to City approving installation of the irrigation system. Address numbers at least six inches in height shall be placed at the end of the pier prior to finalizing building permits. Stormwater best management practices shall be employed at all times during construction work. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into surface waters. The permittee shall report all spill immediately to the Washington Department of Ecology( ) and the City of Medina. The permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state or local statues, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with Shoreline Management Act( RCW ). Construction pursuant to this permit will not begin or is not authorized until twenty-one( 21) days from the date the permit decision was filed pursuant to RCW (6), except as provided for in RCW ( 5). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW ( 8) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms or condition thereof. Construction activities shall be commenced within two years of the effective date as set forth in RCW However, the City may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the Department of Ecology. Authorization to conduct construction activities shall terminate five years after the effective date as set forth in RCW However, the City may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology. Decided this 2nd day of March KIMBERLY A. ALLEN Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center LLC Page 17 of 17