WITHAM SSDP/CUP05-25-99-1
CITY CLERK
JAN 12 '01 AM 9:52
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
APPLICATION FOR A SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND APPEAL OF SEP A
MITIGATED DETERMINATION
OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MONS)
ISSUED AUGUST 19, 2000.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: CHARLES
AND MARDELL WITHAM.
APPELLANT SUQUAMISH TRIBE.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SSDP/CUP05-25-99-1
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION
SUMMARY
Charles and Mardell Witham have filed an application for a Shoreline Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit to allow the ongoing use of a rock structure for shoreline
stabilization which they built to protect their single family residence. This rock structure was
designed by Mr. Leland Jones of Shannon and Wilson, Inc. in response to an emergency caused
by a massive landslide which occurred on the Witham property in February of 1999 The
landslide endangered both the Witham residence and the residence of their neighbors to the north,
Gerald and Shannon Childs. The rock structure was built under emergency permits granted by
the City of Bainbridge Island and the State of Washington. The Withams' application is joined by
Mr & Mrs. Childs and by Mr. & Mrs. Hansen, their neighbors to the south. The rock structure
design required to stabilize the slope extends across the entire width of the Witham property and
onto a portion of the Hansen property and the Childs property.
A revised SEPA MONS was issued by the City of Bainbridge Island on August 19,2000
requiring mitigation for loss of upper intertidal beach habitat caused by the placement of this rock
structure along the slope face waterward of the Ordinary High Water line on the shoreline of
Manzanita Bay. Mr and Mrs. Witham objected to the wording of the Conditions imposed by the
City, and objected to the City's refusal to allow mitigation credit for the removal of creosoted
timbers from the shoreline
The Suquamish Tribe also filed an appeal ofthe Director's decision to issue a SEP A
MONS on this project The Tribe asserts in its appeal that an Environmental Impact Statement
should have been required for this proposal and that the mitigation measures in the MONS are
inadequate. During the public hearing, the attorney for the Tribe, Mr. Scott Wheat, withdrew the
portion of the Tribe's appeal which requested a mitigation measure requiring restoration of
shoreline vegetation to achieve the natural system function of the shoreline existing prior to the
landslide Mr Wheat acknowledged that revegetation of this shoreline area to the natural
ssOP/nTP05-25-99-1
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -1-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
condition existing prior to the slide was highly improbable. The Tribe objects to the location of
the Ordinary High Water mark accepted by the City of Bainbridge Island. The tribe also asserts
that the area of intertidal beach habitat to be restored should be expanded to 3,18 I sq. ft.
The application for Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit is
approved with conditions. The appeal of Charles and Mardell Witham is granted in part and
denied in part. The appeal of the Suquamish Tribe is denied.
A request was made by the City to reopen the record after the close of the public hearing
to add additional documents This request was objected to by the applicant The Suquamish
Tribe did not object. The request was denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Charles and Mardell Witham are the legal owners of two parcels of real property located
on the shores of Manzanita Bay in the City of Bainbridge Island. The Witham residence is located
on one of those parcels; identified by Tax Lot No. 4157-000-003-0000. Immediately adjacent to
the Withams' residential lot is an undeveloped lot also owned by the Withams, this lot is identified
by Tax Parcel No. 4157-000-004-0009 The Witham residence address is 6498 N.E Monte Vista
Drive, Bainbridge Island, W A 98110 A true legal description of the parcels owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Witham are included in Attachment A and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. Charles and Mardell Witham have applied for a Shoreline Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit from the City of Bainbridge Island to allow the continued
use of a rock structure built on their properties for purposes of shoreline stabilization after a
massive landslide occurred in February of 1999. This rock structure has been in place since June
of 1999. The structure was originally built under emergency permits granted by both the City of
Bainbridge Island and the State of Washington.
3. The rock structure built by the Withams for shoreline stabilization was designed by Leland
Jones, a professional engineer with Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Mr. Jones is a geotechnical
engineer who was retained by the Withams to design a structure to stabilize the slopes on their
shoreline properties after a massive slide. Mr. Jones designed a rock structure which was built
across the entire width of the Witham property along the shoreline of Manzanita Bay. The
structure extended onto the properties of Reed and Brigitte Hansen to the south and onto the
property of Gerald and Shannon Childs immediately to the north. The application for SSDP/CUP
has been jointly applied for by all three neighbors, the Withams, the Hansens and the Childs.
4 The Childs' residence is located at 6506 N.E. Monte Vista Drive on Bainbridge Island.
The Childs' signed an owner/applicant agreement on April 9, 1999 authorizing the Withams to
make an application for a SSDP/CUP for the slope stabilization project on the Witham, Childs and
SSDP/CUP05-25-99-1
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vlsta Drive.
Page -2-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Hansen properties. The Childs' property is identified by Tax Lot No. 4157-000-005-0008. The
true legal description for the Childs' property is also included in Attachment A to this Decision
and is incorporated herein by reference (EXHIBIT 8 BP).
5 Reed and Brigitte Hansen own residential property immediately to the south of the
Witham property. They also signed an owner/applicant agreement on April 5, 1999 giving their
consent to an application for the SSDP/CUP sought by the Withams for the slope stabilization
project The Hansen residence is located at 6454 N.E Monte Vista Drive and is identified by
Tax Lot No. 4157-000-002-0001. The true legal description for the Hansen property is also
included in Attachment A and is incorporated herein by reference. [EXHIBIT 9 BY]
6 The Witham, Hansen and Childs properties are located in a Rural shoreline environment
which allows low density residential development The properties have a zoning designation of
R-2 allowing two residential units per acre density The properties carry a Comprehensive Plan
designation of ORS-2 (Open Space Residential) The soil survey for Kitsap County indicates that
the area where these properties are located has soils which are vulnerable to slumping. Other
landslides have occurred along the shoreline in this neighborhood
7 On February 24, 1999 a massive landslide occurred on the northerly lot owned by the
Wit hams This lot was an undeveloped lot covered by mature vegetation including both
deciduous and evergreen trees. The Withams retained Mr. Leland Jones of Shannon and Wilson,
Inc., a Geotechnical Engineer, to determine the cause of the slide On May 27, 1999, Mr. Jones
submitted his final geotechnical analysis of the slide conditions on the Witham property.
fE)(7ifBIT 8.] Mr. Jones' report concluded that the Witham property is located on an area where
an old landslide occurred several thousand years ago. This deep seated landslide extended from
the top of the slope above Monte Vista Drive to about sea level on the eastern border of the
Witham property This old landslide area had accumulated a colluvium layer on which the
Witham residence had been built and on which large trees and other vegetation had grown over
the years. Prior to the slide in 1999, the slope angle on both lots of the Witham property was very
steep, approximately 45 degrees. These steep slopes were marginally stable and would have
failed if it had not been for the trees on the slope, with root systems adding reinforcement and
strength to the colluvium. The reason the slopes were so steep on the Witham lots, is that the
ground at the toe of the slopes had been eroded and undercut by wave action. The undercutting
steepened the normal slope. More than thirty years prior to the slide, a bulkhead had been
constructed across the southern Witham lot The area between the toe of the slope and the
bulkhead was filled to ground level. This landfill added to the stability ofthe steep slope in front
of the Witham residence. On the northerly lot, however, no such bulkhead or other toe protection
had been put in place, therefore, erosion continued. In the Winter of 1998/99 Bainbridge Island
experienced an extended four month period of record rainfall. Groundwater saturation was
unusually high and the colluvium became saturated. The February 1999 slide occurred when the
already marginally stable slopes were subjected to the additional stresses of the unusually high
seepage forces and saturated colluvium. Nearly all the slide debris slid into Manzanita Bay
SSDP/Cl,rp05-25-99-1
Witham - /1498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -3-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Because of the speed of the slide and the momentum the slide generated, some of the slide debris
slid out into Manzanita Bay 100 feet or more from the shoreline. Mr. Jones concluded that the
slopes on the Witham properties after the slide were unsafe and would continue to slide,
endangering both the Witham residence and the Childs residence unless a rock buttress was built
along the toe of the slope to increase slope stability. Mr. Jones concluded that there was no need
to install drainage for slope stability on the Witham property because the rock buttt~ss installed
along the western shore was adequate to stabilize the slopes west of the Witham htuse and in the
slide area. {EXHIBIT 8) ,
8. At public hearing Mr. Jones testified that, in his expert opinion, nothing tha~ the Withams
had done in the development of their residential property had contributed to the caj.Ise of the slide
on the unimproved lot
9. Prior to the landslide occurring on the Witham property, the shoreline had Ij>een
compromised by a bulkhead which protected the residence located on Lot 3. In adKIition, the
Childs' property was bulkheaded using rock. The areas, to the east of the bulkheads on the
Hansen, Childs and Witham residential properties had been landscaped and vegetation had been
trimmed back from the shoreline. Both the Hansen and Witham properties had fill behind the
bulkheads which had been leveled and landscaped for recreational use by the owners The
bulkheads on the Witham and Hansen properties were built beyond the Ordinary ~gh Water
Mark sometime in the 1960's, prior to the adoption of the Shoreline Master Prognlm. Prior to the
slide, the only unbulkheaded portion of the three properties was the Witham unimwoved Lot 4,
this lot was the site of the massive slide. The upper intertidal beach habitat on this ,80 feet of
natural shoreline was buried by slide debris
10 Since an emergency condition existed on the Witham property which mand~ted immediate
remedy, the usual project review procedures were not available to the City or the '1pplicant. An
Emergency Exemption Permit was issued by the City on March 19, 1999. On Manch 22, 1999 the
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WSDFW) issued a Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) Permit for the Witham project. [See EXHIBIT 13 BP.] On April ,2, 1999 an
amended Hydraulic Project Approval was issued by the WSDFW. This April 2, HPA restricted
construction of the rock buttress structure waterward of the Witham residence and did not
authorize construction of a rock buttress structure on the adjacent undeveloped lot to the north.
{See EXHIBIT 15 BP.j Again on April 7, 1999 the WSDFW issued an amended HP A Permit [See
l:XHIHIT 12 BY] Again on April 23, 1999 the WSDFW modified and reissued its HPA Permit
for the Witham project, extending authorization for the placement of a rock buttress structure
waterward of the Witham residence and continuing onto the adjacent undeveloped lot to the north
and onto the Childs' property {See EXHIBIT 16 BP.j On June 14, 1999 David S Berry of
Caicos Corporation, representing Mr. & Mrs. Witham, informed the City by letter that the
SSDPfCUP05-25-99-1
Witham - n498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -4-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Witham slide revetment structure had been completed. [See EXHIBIT 23 BP.] The application for
Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit was filed with the City on May 25,
1999
I I The placement of this rock structure across the shoreline of the Witham property has
caused a permanent loss of upper intertidal beach habitat. The rock structure is built waterward
of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) on the Witham property. The structure is landward
of the OHWM on the Hansen and Childs properties. {EXHIBIT 8]
12. A SEPA MONS was issued by the city on December 4,1999 requiring mitigation for 2,880
sq.ft. oflost upper intertidal beach habitat. This 2880 sq.ft. measurement was provided by
WSDFW. On December 21, 1999, representatives of Washington State Department ofFish and
Wildlife, the Washington State Department of Ecology, City of Bainbridge Island Department of
Planning and Community Development and Mr Witham met at the site. The parties took
measurements and made another estimate of the size of fill intrusion on the upper intertidal beach
habitat along the shoreline This December estimate was approximately 3,227 sq.ft. {See
EJ(HIHIT 29, Page 2. / A revised MONS was issued by the City on January 15, 2000 modifYing
the measurement for the area of intrusion into the upper intertidal beach habitat. This modified
MONS was withdrawn by the City in early February, 2000 By letter dated February 14, 2000,
{EXHIBIT 49]. the City asked the applicant to submit a document showing the location ofthe
slide toe graphically depicted on a scale drawing. Mr. Witham provided documentation for the
location of the mean high water line on his property post slide [EXHIBIT 55/. This new
measurement was accepted by the City of Bainbridge Island {EXHIBIT 56] to calculate the area
of fill intrusion for mitigation purposes. The new measurement for this area of intrusion on the
upper intertidal beach habitat was agreed to be 1,952 sq.ft. {EXHIBIT 56] A final SEPA MONS
issued on August 19, 2000. {See EXHIBIT 7.} It is from this last revised SEPA MONS that both
the Withams and the Suquamish Tribe have appealed.
13 When determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for the Witham property, the City
agreed to use the Ordinary High Water Mark identified by the applicant at its post slide location
on the shoreline (Staff Report, Page 23.) The City, relying on the Geotechnical Engineering
Report provided by the applicant {EXHIBIT 8], determined that there was no evidence in the
record to show that this slide was other than a natural event which reestablished the Ordinary
High Water Mark for the Witham property. (See discussion in the Staff Report at Page 37.)
Members of Planning Department staff visited the Witham site in December of 1999. Staff
observed that the lobe of the slide remained substantially in place. Tidal action and wave action
had made little change in the slide debris footprint and content some ten months after the slide.
Staff concluded that because of an act of nature (the massive landslide which occurred on Lot 4)
the Ordinary High Water Mark on the shoreline had changed from its original location and under
SSDPfCIJP05-25-99-1
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -5-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
natural conditions would have remained as a permanent change to the Ordinary High Water Mark
location for that shoreline. Based on these conclusions the area offill intrusion on the upper
intertidal beach habitat was reduced to 1,952 sq.ft. and mitigation measures required in the
August 19, 2000 SEP A MONS were defined by this measurement.
14 Mr. Theisfeld, a Habitat Biologist for the Department ofFish and Wildlife, stated at the
public hearing that his department supports a requirement of2,880 sq.ft. of upper intertidal beach
habitat restoration as mitigation for this loss The WSDFW, however, did not appeal the August
19,2000 revised SEPA MONS issued by the City of Bainbridge Island.
15. The Suquamish Tribe in its appeal, asserts that the loss of functioning intertidal habitat at
this site measures 3,181 sq .ft. as determined in the December 21, 1999 site visit. (This calculation
was memorialized in EXHIBIT 75.) The Tribe does not accept the post slide OHWM location
relied on by the City in calculating the area of intrusion for mitigation purposes in the August 19,
2000 SEPA MONS.
16. In its appeal, the Tribe contends that the slope failure which resulted in this massive slide
on the Witham property was caused by City permitted development up gradient from the site
which allowed increased storm water runoff and ground water pressures to saturate the steep
slopes on the Witham property and accelerate the landslide. The Tribe did not provide any expert
testimony to support these conclusions, but instead relied upon the lay opinions of neighbors of
the Withams. There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the Tribe's contention that
the slide on the Witham property was caused by poor land use planning, clearing or storm water
practices permitted by the City as alleged in the Tribe's letter of appeal. The only expert opinion
contained in the file, which addresses the cause of the slide on the Witham property, are the
documents submitted by Leland Jones of Shannon and Wilson, Inc. Mr. Jones also testified at the
hearing. Mr Jones is a qualified Geotechnical Engineer who conducted a geotechnical analysis of
the site and reviewed the work previously done by other members of his engineering firm at the
site. {leXHIBIT 8.1 Mr. Jones testified that no offsite groundwater or stormwater runoff analysis
was done by his company. Melva Hill, City of the Bainbridge Island Public Works Department,
also testified that the City has not done a stormwater analysis for properties in this area. Some
improvements were made to the ditching system along Monte Vista Drive after the slide.
Shannon and Wilson found that the high water table beneath Monte Vista Drive created a
potential for piping and instability of the steep slopes north of the Witham property, however, this
piping potential is not related to the slide on the Witham property, it is a natural condition related
to the geology of the area. The study concluded that a longer term assistance to the stability of
other property in the neighborhood might benefit from a comprehensive study of drainage control
from the property east of Monte Vista Drive. However, this study was not required on the
Witham property since the buttress fill will provide the long term stability needed to stabilize the
SSDP/CUP05-25-99-1
Wilham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -6-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
slopes and protect them from piping. Mr Jones' geotechnical analysis is the only expert analysis
done on the site There is no evidence in the record to substantiate the Tribe's claim that the slide
occurred as a result of manmade conditions. To the contrary, the geological conditions at the site
coupled with the unusual weather conditions of 1998/99 were the contributing causes identified in
Mr Jones' geotechnical analysis. [EXHIB/T 8.}
17 The rock structure which has been placed along the shoreline in front of the Hansen,
Childs and Witham properties does not interfere with the normal public use of the public
shoreline The rock structure is located on private tidelands and has been located as close as
possible to the toe of the slope to provide slope stability and to minimize intrusion onto the
tidelands [Testim01~V of I,eland Jones at the public hearing]
I 8. This rock structure has been designed by the Geotechnical Engineer to create a slope
stability with an acceptable safety factor for the Witham and Childs residences. The project has
significantly changed the physical nature of the shoreline. Prior to the slide, the Withams' Lot 4
was entirely vegetated and unimproved. The Witham residential lot was fully developed and
landscaped down to the bulkhead. Efforts have been made by the Withams to add soil and
vegetation to the top of this rock structure to minimize its visual impact on the shoreline.
Mitigation measures have been recommended by the Department of Planning and Community
Development which require the applicant to plant vegetation to cover to this large rock structure
to improve visual aesthetics and make the site more compatible with surrounding property uses
The rock structure cannot be altered, since it was designed to be the minimum necessary to
provide slope stability for these lots. The applicants have done extensive research to determine
what vegetation, ifany, will grow on top of the rock buttress. They have sought the advice of the
Kitsap Conservation District, the Washington State Extension Service and the City of Bainbridge
Island Environmental Planner. They have placed more than 100 yards of topsoil on the structure
to provide a planting base for vegetation. They have had little success growing groundcover.
The depth of the rock across the face of the structure at the shoreline is 12-15 ft., making
revegetation efforts at the shoreline nearly impossible. The applicants have tried to meet the
requirements of proposed mitigation for vegetating the site, however, most consultants have
advised them that their probability of success is low. [Testimony of Charles Witham in EXHIBIT
60, letters from Mardell Witham.} During testimony at the public hearing Mr. Jones was asked
whether planting of upland vegetation on the rock buttress would change the safety or efficiency
factor for slope stability provided by the rock buttress. It was Mr. Jones' opinion that the
addition of soils and vegetation on top of the rock buttress for the purpose oflessening its visual
impact and increasing its compatibility with other properties in the vicinity would not lessen the
integrity of the rock buttress structure from an engineering point of view, so long as the rock
buttress structure itself was not altered from its present design or location.
SSDP/CUPOS 25 99-1
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -7-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
19 Mr. Leland Jones testified that there has been no adverse impact on neighboring beaches
as a result of placement of this rock structure on the Witham property. There has been a slight
improvement to the beach on the Hansen property after placement of the rock structure. The
Childs' rock bulkhead has remained in place and the beach located on the Childs' property has not
been affected by the placement of this rock structure along the shoreline, according to Mr Jones.
There was no study done to determine the drift pattern in the waters in front of the Witham
property before or after this project was built. Some beach scouring will occur at the base of the
rock buttress.
20 The rock structure built on these three properties measures 248 ft. in length from north to
south, 80 ft in width, and rises 52 ft from the fill line on the west to the top of the revetment or
rock structure on the east. [Testimony of Debbie Randall at public hearing and ~XHIBIT 99,
Staff Report.]
21 The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife required, as a condition of their
emergency permit for this project, that the Withams remove three creosoted pilings and 120 ft. of
creosoted bulkhead [See EXHIBIT J OEfor additional conditions attached to the Hydraulic
Project Approval dated April 2, 1999.] The WSDFW agreed with Mr. Witham that a 5% to 10%
mitigation credit should be allowed for the removal of these timbers from the site. [EXHIBIT 41,
Letter dated 126/2000.]
22. In kind and on site replacement of resource function cannot be provided on this site since
the rock structure now in place cannot be altered. The physical characteristics of the site
determined the size of the structure necessary to stabilize the slope on these two lots. Mitigation
for the loss of upper intertidal beach habitat must therefore take place in an alternative location.
The city has determined that 1'1 replacement ratio by area will mitigate adequately for habitat loss
at this site (SEPA MONS Condition l(a)).
23 Although the applicants have been attempting to locate a site for mitigation measures
required for replacement of lost upper intertidal beach habitat, no site has been identified which is
acceptable to the City, the State of Washington and the applicant. Work on finding a mitigation
site is continuing. Steve Theisfeld made several suggestions for mitigation sites in the County but
outside of the City of Bainbridge Island. Mitigation sites proposed by Mr David Berry ofCaicos
Corporation on behalf of the applicants prior to the hearing, were not approved by the Director
24 During the public hearing, Mr Wheat, on behalf ofthe Suquamish Tribe, withdrew the
Tribes' appellate issue relating to replacement of riparian vegetation at the site.
24 The Suquamish Tribe, in its appeal of the SEPA mitigation measures, has objected to the
SSDP/Cl~OS-2S-99-1
Witham 6498 NR Montc Vista Drive.
Page -8-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
replacement ratio of 1.1 for mitigation required by the City of Bainbridge Island. There is
substantial evidence in the record to support the City's replacement ratio of 1: I rather than the
increased 1'1 5 ratio requested by the Tribe. In EXHIBIT 29, Ms. Randall of the Department of
Planning and Community Development outlines the City's position regarding this replacement
ratio Ms. Randall points out that prior to the slide the shoreline along the Witham property was
already substantially obstructed. The unimproved lot, where the slide occurred, was an
approximately 80 ft. portion of shoreline which contained dense native vegetation down to a
naturally occurring Ordinary High Water Mark The remaining shoreline on the Hansen, Witham
and Childs properties was obstructed by bulkhead and nearly devoid of near shore vegetation.
The shoreline below the Witham and Hansen residences was obstructed by creosote treated
wooden bulkheads placed 15-20 ft. waterward of the natural Ordinary High Water Mark and fill
had been placed landward to create level grassy recreation areas. This bulkhead had been in place
since the 1960's. The shoreline below the Childs' residence was obstructed by a rock bulkhead
placed 3-5 ft. waterward of the natural Ordinary High Water Mark. The slope on the Childs'
property had been substantially altered with retaining features placed below the residence and
most native vegetation had been cleared from the slope face. After the slide activity only portions
of the Childs' rock bulkhead and the Hansen's bulkhead remained. Therefore, prior to the slide, a
majority of the shoreline, now covered by the rock buttress structure, was not providing high
quality habitat. Due to the manmade features placed along the shoreline, there was obstructed
interaction of the upland with the tideland. Native vegetation did not overhang or easily drop into
this area and soil, air and salt water spray transfer could not easily occur at these sites, except
where the natural shoreline remained along the face of the Witham Lot 4. Prior to the slide there
were materials in place on the Hansen and Witham properties which were hazardous to native
species, namely the creosoted timbers which had been used to form the bulkhead along the
shoreline. The Shoreline Master Program requires mitigation to be in kind and of equal or greater
value than the habitat lost. In this case the replacement will be of equal or greater functional
value which satisfies the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program.
26 It is appropriate that the applicant be allowed to outline a plan for more than one type of
mitigation activity to meet the goal of habitat function restoration. As a condition of the
emergency approval for placement of the rock buttress structure, the Withams were required to
remove the creosoted timbers from the bulkhead on their property and several creosoted pilings
which were located in the tidelands. This hazardous material was removed and has been replaced
by inert rock material. In removing these creosoted timbers, the Withams have mitigated some of
the adverse impacts to the shoreline environment which existed on their property prior to the
slide. It is appropriate that this removal of creosoted timbers be credited toward mitigation at this
site since the removal of those creosoted timbers contributes to the overall goal of restoration of
natural habitat function at this site It is recognized that this site is still significantly impacted by
the placement of the rock buttress structure along the shoreline, however, hazardous material has
SSDPfCUP05-25-99-1
Witham 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -9-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
been removed from interaction with the waters of the tidelands in compliance with the policies of
the Shoreline Master Program. Mitigation credit was agreed to by the WSDFW even though the
timber removal was a required condition of the HPA permit. Credit for this timber removal is a
reasonable request by the applicant which recognizes the applicant's efforts to diminish
environmental impacts at the site.
27 The Staff Report sets forth the chronology of the permit applications and the decisions
which constitute the history of this emergency Shoreline Exemption project and the subsequent
filing of an application for Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit on the
Witham property A review of that history shows that all parties were responding to a significant
emergency which existed on the Witham property. It is without dispute that there was confusion
regarding the requirements for applications for the emergency exemption to get this project
started. A review of the record shows attentive efforts by both the applicant and the City to
respond to the emergency as it presented itself in FebruarylMarch of 1999. The original
permitting allowed by the City and the State of Washington limited emergency measures to that
part of the shoreline directly in front of the Witham residence. During the course of design and
placement of a rock buttress along the shoreline of Lot 3, it became apparent that the slide was
continuing to sluff to the north and the Childs residence became endangered. At that point in time
the emergency exemption was extended to include Lot 4 and the Childs and Hansen properties.
The record shows that information regarding the conditions at the location of the slide continued
to change during the course ofthe design of the project, especially in the early months, and that
the permitting for the project was amended to reflect new information provided by the applicant
and his consultant. Conditions at the site changed the design of the rock buttress recommended
by the Engineer As that additional information was provided to the City and to the WSDFW,
additional amendments were added to emergency permits and deadlines for construction at the
buttress were extended. Changes in the conditions of the site were not known to the applicants at
the time of the original slide but became apparent as the project progressed. Geological
conditions on the property continued to destabilize the slope on the Witham property after the
original slide on February 24, 1999 and those conditions required a redesign and reengineering of
the rock buttress proposed by the Geotechnical Engineer during the course of the project.
Because permits were required from both the State of Washington and the City of Bainbridge
Island, there was some inherent delay in the permitting process, however, there is no indication
from the history of the project that those delays in obtaining permits were unreasonable in the
context of the information provided by the applicant and his consultant and the communication of
the changes at the site to the agencies involved in issuing permits.
28 The Staff Report dated October 25, 2000, describes in detail the provisions of the
SSDP/CUP05-25-99 I
Witham ~ 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -10-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Shoreline Master Program as they relate to this shoreline project It is apparent from a review of
the policies and regulations included in the Shoreline Master Program that an emergency structure
such as the one built on the Witham property cannot fully meet the requirements of the Shoreline
Master Program. It was the testimony of Mr. Leland Jones, the Geotechnical Engineer for this
project, that the rock buttress built on the Witham property is the minimum necessary to protect
the Witham and Childs residences and to ensure the stability of the steep slopes on the two
Witham lots. The design of the structure cannot be altered since any alteration may reduce the
safety factor for slope stability The Washington Administrative Code does provide for the
protection of single family residences from slope instability That protection is of necessity
located in the native vegetation zone outlined in the Shoreline Master Program. In this
circumstance the slope stabilization feature has totally replaced the native vegetation zone
Mitigation measures have addressed the replacement of vegetation on the slope.
29. Restoration of beach habitat to its pre-slide condition is impossible due to the placement
of the rock buttress structure waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Mitigation measures
therefore have allowed off-site replacement to compensate for loss of intertidal habitat.
30 A review of the Staff Report and the records of the Planning and Building Departments, as
well as other documents provided by the City and the applicant, show a concerted effort both on
the part of the applicant and the City to comply with the policies and intentions of the Shoreline
Master Program. The massive landslide at this site destroyed much of the natural shoreline
protected under the regulations ofthe Shoreline Master Program. These adverse impacts to the
shoreline can be mitigated but cannot be eliminated
,lit has been demonstrated by the applicant that a smaller revetment, or a nonstructural
solution, such as soft bank protection using protective berms, drift logs, brush beach feeding and
vegetative stabilization were not feasible at this site due to the geological conditions of the slope.
12. The City and the Applicants agreed that the words "private consulting entities" should be
stricken from the last two sentences of SEP A paragraph 1 f and also that the words "a minimum
of' should be stricken from SEPA Revised Mitigation Measures, Paragraph la. at the beginning
of the third line before the number 1,952 sq.ft.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I . This matter is properly before the Hearing Examiner for decision on an application for a
SSDP/CUP05-25-99-1
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -11-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit for a permanent rock buttress along
the shoreline of property owned by Charles and Mardell Witham in the City of Bainbridge Island.
The appeals of the SEPA MONS issued August 19, 2000 are also within the jurisdiction of the
Hearing Examiner
2 On November 3,2000, a public hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner to
consider the application. Prior to the hearings, notice was published in the Bainbridge Review on
October 18, 2000 Notice of the Public Hearing was mailed to owners of property within 300 feet
of the proposed project, and notices were posted at the City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce and
the Ferry Terminal on the 16th day of October 2000 In addition, notice was posted at the site on
the l8'h day of October, 2000.
3 The application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit/Conditional Use Permit has
been joined by two neighboring property owners: Gerald and Shannon Childs and Reed and
Brigitte Hansen The rock buttress structure, needed to stabilize the slope on the Witham
property, required a design which extended onto both the Childs and Hansen properties.
4 This rock buttress structure was constructed pursuant to Emergency Permits obtained
from the City of Bainbridge Island and the WSDFW in February/March/April and May, 1999.
This project qualified for an Emergency Exemption because it was an appropriate means to
address an emergency situation which constituted an imminent threat to the safety of the Childs
and Witham residences and to the shoreline of Manzanita Bay.
5 The emergency situation caused by an extremely dangerous geological condition on the
site, did not allow compliance with all policies and regulations contained in the Shoreline Master
Program. Emergency exemptions are allowed under the Washington Administrative Code. The
WAC anticipates that there will be circumstances where all policies and requirements of the
Shoreline Master Program cannot be met by a project. This project was done under an
Emergency Exemption Permit and the record shows that the requirements ofthe Shoreline Master
Program have been met where possible.
6 Mitigation required by the Shoreline Master Program is based on the adverse impacts to
the shoreline caused by the project It is the responsibility of the property owner to mitigate the
impacts to the tidelands caused by the placement of a manmade structure or revetment along the
shoreline which destroys beach habitat The Washington Administrative Code, Section 173-27-
040(2)( d), allows emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the
elements. An emergency is defined as an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health,
safety or the environment, which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full
SSDP/ClJP1)5-25-99-t
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive,
Page -12-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
compliance with SEP A All emergency construction, however, must be consistent with the
policies ofRCW 90.58 and the local Shoreline Master Program. The Bainbridge Island Municipal
Code requires critical area restoration and mitigation for unavoidable impacts to critical areas
under BIMC 16.20. Where negative impacts to critical areas are necessary and unavoidable, the
applicant is required to take measures to minimize those impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to mitigate the unavoidable impacts to the shoreline upon which the rock buttress has
been built. Since it is not possible to restore natural function to the beach area underneath the
rock buttress structure, an in-kind replacement off-site is an appropriate mitigation requirement
for this project. The reason for the rock buttress at this location is to protect the homes built on a
geologically hazardous slope. The Witham residence is protected by this rock buttress and their
property is benefitted by the slope stability provided by the buttress. It is the applicants'
responsibility to mitigate for the unavoidable negative impacts to the shoreline, which of necessity
remain, due to the rock buttress placed on the property. (BIMC 16.20) SMP Section III, 0,
Regulations 4-8.
7 Mitigation measures required by the City are reasonable and will meet the requirements of
the Shoreline Master Program to protect this environmentally sensitive area. These measures will
mitigate for impacts which were unanticipated The Withams' use of their residential property did
not directly contribute to the cause of this massive landslide, according to the expert opinion of
Mr. Jones. The Witham residence has been located at this site since 1969. It was built on this
platted lot prior to the adoption of the City of Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master Program.
8 Shoreline Master Program, Section VII,J,2,a(I), requires the applicant to demonstrate
"the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020, or its successor, and the
policies of the Master Program." The applicant has shown that the rock buttress structure built
on the property is required to protect their single family residence and the residence of their
neighbor to the north from slope instability. The use of this property for single family residences
is permitted under the Shoreline Master Program of the City of Bainbridge Island. This rock
buttress has been designed to provide the minimum impact to the shoreline and still maintain the
required safety factor for slope stability to protect the single family residences owned by the
Withams and the Childs' The use of this rock buttress structure on a permanent basis is
consistent with the policies of the Revised Code of Washington 90 58.020 and with the policies of
the City of Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master Program.
SSDP/CUP()5-25~99-1
Witham 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -13-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
9. Shoreline Master Program, Section VII, J, 2, a(2), requires that the applicant demonstrate
"the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the public shoreline." This rock
buttress structure has been built on privately-held tidelands. The structure is located entirely on
private property and will not interfere with the normal public use of public shoreline.
10 Shoreline Master Program, Section VII, J, 2, a(3), requires that the applicant demonstrate
"the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
uses within the area" This application for permanent use of this rock buttress structure has been
joined by the neighbors both to the north and immediately to the south of the Witham property.
The rock buttress replaces a portion of a rock bulkhead and a timbered bulkhead which existed at
the site prior to the slide A shoreline revetment feature is allowed under the BIMC, to protect
single family residential sites along the shoreline. Because of its massive size, this rock buttress
structure significantly changes the pre-slide visual aesthetics of the shoreline. Prior to the slide,
Witham Lot 4 was a naturally treed and vegetated undeveloped lot without shoreline bulkheading.
The shoreline along Monte Vista Drive has been developed into single family residential lots,
many of which are protected by bulkheads along the shoreline. The building ofthis rock buttress
structure to protect the Witham and Childs residences is consistent with the use of the properties
along this shoreline for single family residential use. According to the Geotechnical Engineer
retained by the applicant, the design of this project is the minimum necessary to ensure slope
stability for the Witham property Mitigation measures have been required under the SEPA
MONS to soften the visual impact of this rock buttress A vegetation cover will be planted to
soften the visual impact of this massive rock structure. Vegetation will make the site more
visually compatible with other uses along the shoreline.
I L Shoreline Master Program, Section VII,J,2,a( 4), requires the applicant to demonstrate
"the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse affects to the shoreline environment
designation in which it is located" Severe adverse environmental impacts to the shoreline were
been caused by this massive landslide A rock buttress structure along the shoreline of the
Witham property will cause adverse impacts to the shoreline. These unavoidable adverse impacts
have resulted in a substantial loss of upper intertidal beach habitat and loss of a natural vegetative
zone along the shoreline The applicants' Geotechnical Engineer testified that the design of the
rock buttress structure is the minimum necessary to ensure the safety of the single family
residence located on the property. Mitigation measures required under the SEP A MONS will
mitigate some of the adverse impacts of the buttress structure. The use of this shoreline property
for single family residences is a permitted use. Off site mitigation will help compensate for loss of
upper intertidal beach habitat at the site. The applicant has shown that reasonable steps have been
taken to minimize the adverse environmental impacts unavoidably caused by this slope
stabilization project. Compliance with conditions attached to the August 19,2000 SEPA MONS
will further mitigate those impacts.
12. Shoreline Master Program, Section VII, J, 2, a(5), requires the applicant to demonstrate
SSDP/CUP05-25-99-1
Witham - /1498 NE Monte VIsta Drive
Page -14-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Page-15-
SSDP/ClTPOS-2S-99-1
Witham ~ 649R NE Monte Vista Drive.
15 The Shoreline Master program does not require a determination of the cause of the slide
event or an assignment of responsibility for the slide as a part of the application for placement of a
slope stabilization feature on the property. The property owners have applied for a permit to
retain a rock buttress structure for slope stabilization on their residential property located along
the shoreline. The Shoreline Master Program requires mitigation for impacts caused by the
placement of that structure along the shoreline. To use this rock buttress structure on a
permanent basis a permit must be obtained from the City of Bainbridge Island allowing its
placement. The rock buttress structure adversely impacted the upper intertidal beach habitat and
the native vegetation zone located on the Witham property Mitigation for those impacts is the
responsibility of the applicant and is a proper condition to the approval of a permit to build and
14. The slope stability structure built on the Witham property complies with the applicable
provisions of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. The Suquamish Tribe did not provide
substantial evidence to support its contention that the City of Bainbridge Island had improperly
measured the area of intrusion into the upper intertidal beach habitat along the Witham shoreline
The Tribe relied on a preliminary measurement made in December of 1999 on a site visit
unattended by any Tribe representative. Subsequent to that visit, the applicant and the City of
Bainbridge Island did further calculations at the site and amended the measurements that were
taken at that December meeting. This later measurement was adopted by the City and included in
its revised SEP A MONS dated August 19, 2000. Documentation was provided to support this
new measurement Substantial weight must be given to the decision of the Director to use this
new measurement in the revised MDNS.
13 Shoreline Master Program, Section VII, J, 2, a(6), requires that the applicant demonstrate
"the proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan" Private single family residential uses are specifically permitted on this site,
along with accessory uses.(see BIMC 18.27.020.) An accessory use is defined by BIMC
18.06030 to be a use "customarily incidental and related to the principal use on the same lot."
This shoreline revetment structure is incidental to the primary use and necessary for the continued
use of this property as a single family residential site The Comprehensive Plan also designates
this area for single family residential use and shoreline revetments are allowed to support single
family residences along the shoreline where necessary because of unstable geological conditions.
"the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental affect." Since this massive rock buttress
structure is located entirely on privately-held tidelands, public beach pedestrian access is not
affected The public will continued to have access over the waters of the State of Washington
along this shoreline. The visual aesthetics of the shoreline have been significantly changed by this
rock buttress structure since it replaces a naturally treed and vegetated undeveloped slope. This
slope, however, was substantially changed by a massive landslide which removed all vegetation
and sent slide debris out into Manzanita Bay. Mitigation measures are required to soften the
visual impact for the public's visual enjoyment of the vegetated shoreline Offsite mitigation
measures will replace lost beach habitat.
maintain a shoreline slope stabilization feature.
16. The City of Bainbridge Island's conclusion that this massive slide occurred because of
natural geological and meteorological conditions existing at the site during the Winter of 1998/99
IS supported by the report ofthe Geotechnical engineer There is no scientific evidence in the
record to support the Suquamish Tribe's contention on appeal that this slide was a result of
anthropogenic modification of the slope. To the contrary, Mr. Leland Jones, the Geotechnical
Engineer who studied the site, testified that the Withams' use of their property had not
contributed to the cause of the landslide on their unimproved lot. There are no comprehensive
studies of drainage patterns on properties surrounding this site. Other than speculation, there is
no identified source, other than excessive rainfall, for the increased groundwater which saturated
the slope on the Witham property and caused the slide {EXHIBIT II.]
17 At the public hearing, Scott Wheat, representing the Suquamish Tribe, withdrew the
Tribe's appeal issue regarding replacement of riparian vegetation at the site. Mr. Wheat
acknowledged, after hearing testimony from the applicant and reviewing the record, that
revegetation of the Witham lot to its natural vegetated state pre-slide is improbable
18 The Hearing Examiner must accord substantial weight to the Department of Planning and
Community Development's determination that an Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary
because adverse impacts can be mitigated in an MONS. {RCW 43.2I.C090; WAC
/97.1 /6110.3. vi; Swift v. Island County 87 Wa.2nd3411, 1976.]
19 The appellant Tribe has the burden to show that the Planning Department made a mistake
when it issued the MONS. {See Levitt v. Jefferson County, 74 Wa.App.668, (1994)] The issue on
appeal is whether there are significant adverse environmental impacts associated with a proposal
that cannot be mitigated. SEP A does not require that all adverse impacts be eliminated
{Morantha Mining v. Pierce County, 59 Wa. App. 795, (1990)1
20 Mitigation measures imposed by the Planning Department must be stated in writing and
must be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. {WAC 197.1 J.660}
21. Mitigation measures must be related to an identified adverse impact of the proposal and
must be based on policies identified by the Planning Department and incorporated into regulations
plans or codes which are formally designated by the agency. [RCW 43.2J.C.060; WAC
/97.//.660; and Levine v. Jefferson County. //6 Wa.2nd,575, (199/)J
22. The applicants have demonstrated that the rock buttress structure built on their property is
the minimum necessary to provide the protection for their residences presently existing at the site.
The requirements of the Shoreline Master Program have been met where possible. A Shoreline
Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit is needed to allow the continued use of this rock
buttress structure on a permanent basis. The requirements for a Shoreline Substantial
SSDPfCliP05-25-99-1
Witham 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive
Page -16-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
Development/Conditional Use Permit can be met provided the SEPA MONS conditions for
mitigation are met Those conditions are made a part of this Shoreline Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit approval and are as follows:
SEPA MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS.
l.a The landowners shall submit to the Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community
Development Director a mitigation plan to create and/or restore 1,952 sq.ft. of upper intertidal
beach habitat, pursuant to Chapter 16.20, Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC).
Implementation of this plan will result in the mitigation of that intertidal habitat area
irrevocably destroyed by the placement of the rock slope support structure, along the slope
face, at Ordinance High Water and waterward of Ordinary High Water (as measured post
slide) Mitigation credit for the removal of the creosoted bulkhead and creosoted pilings from
the site shall be determined by the Director when approving the mitigation plans offered by the
applicant. This credit for the removal of hazardous materials from the site by the applicant
shall not exceed 5% of the total mitigation replacement required since the bulkhead structure
has been replaced by a rock buttress.
b The plan shall be submitted in complete form, pursuant to BIMC 16.20.110 Mitigation plan
required, within one-hundred eighty days of the approval date of the underlying land use
application by the City. Commencement of the mitigation plan shall occur within one-hundred
eighty days of City approval of the plan. Reasonable time extensions may be granted by the
Director, based on the status of other public agency approvals necessary for mitigation
activities (including local, state and federal approvals.)
c. The plan shall be authored by a consultant with expertise and experience in the design
of such plans. The plan shall clearly delineate the location of the target mitigation
area(s), which are preferred to be in the vicinity of the water body Port Orchard,
however other portions of Puget Sound may be appropriate. The area(s) must be
created and/or restored to provide for functional upper intertidal beach habitat within a
reasonable period of time, where there is at present a lack of, reduced, or impaired
upper intertidal beach habitat functions.
d. The plan may involve removing foreign materials from intertidal areas, such as
creosote-treated pilings, stray treated lumber pieces, large concrete blocks, etc., from
appropriate intertidal areas.
e. If the plan includes replanting or regrading activities that would require monitoring
over time to assure continued function, then the plan shall include the following items:
Thc plan shall include an itemized estimate of mitigation cost at fair market value.
The plan shall mclude a specific funding mechanism, for example a bond or similar
surety device, linked to the estimated timeline for execution of the activities, and
monitoring for success of the habitat functions for a specified period of time. Such
SSDP/CUP05-25-99-t
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Dnve.
Page -17-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
surety shall be made to the City of Bainbridge Island.
f The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director, in consultation with
reprcsentatives of the WSDFW, other public agencies with recognized expertise in
such habitat management, as so determined by the Director.
This mitigation measure is imposed pursuant to BIMC 16.04.l60(D)(1) and (2); and, City Shoreline
Mastcr Program, Section III General Policies and Regulations, D. Environmentally Sensitive Areas,
Regulations 4 through 8
2.a The landowners shall submit to the Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and
Community Development Director annual landscape plans for the re-establishment of
vegetation across the rock slope stabilization structure. Implementation of the plans
will result in the visual mitigation of that vegetation destroyed and replaced by the
rock structure. The plan species and locations should be selected so as to obscure
from Manzanita Bay approximately twenty-five percent of the rock structure within
three years of initial planting.
b The landscape plans shall incorporate text and graphic (to a common scale) depiction
of the planting schedule and maintenance program. The plans shall propose location,
type, and quantity of plant species in relation to property lines. Plants may be trees,
shrubs and/or ground cover Plants should be native to Puget Sound basin and
drought resistant. Suggested species include Wax Myrtle (Myrica californiea),
Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra), Hooker's Willow (Salix hookeriana) and Kinnickinnick
(Arctostaphylos uvaursi). Soil amendment and irrigation system(s) may be necessary
for success ofthe plantings and such features are approved as part off this mitigation.
Plant survival mayor many not successful given the inelement slope conditions. An
initial plan shall direct the first year's activities, and then there shall be subsequent
plans provided at the end of the first year and at the end of the second year, possibly
amending landscaping for the coming year pursuant to growth results discovered thus
far
c. The first annual plan shall be submitted in complete form within sixty days ofthe
City's approval date of the underlying land use application. Commencement of the
planting schedule shall occur within the first month of the proximate planting season
of plan approval by the City.
d. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director, in consultation with a
representative of the WSDFW. If the landscape plans are not successful at the end of
the three-year period, no additional mitigation attempts will be required.
This mitigation measure is implemented pursuant to BIMC 16.04.160(D)(I) and (2); and, City
Shoreline Master Program Section III General Policies and Regulations, D. Environmentally
SensItive Areas. Regulations 4 through 8 and, Section III General Policies and Regulations, E. Native
Vel;etation Zone, Regulation 3.
SSDPfCUPo5-2S-99-1
Witham 6498 NE Monte Vista Dnve.
Page -18-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
DECISION
The applicants' request for a Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit
to allow the permanent use of the rock buttress structure built along the shoreline of their
property located at 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive in the City of Bainbridge Island is approved. The
SEPA appeal filed by the applicants Charles and Mardell Witham is decided as follows.
I The Withams' request for an amendment to the SEPA mitigation measures allowing the
applicant credit for removal of creosoted bulkhead and creosoted pilings from the site is allowed.
2 The SEPA MONS Section 1.a. shall be amended to add as a final sentence to that
paragraph. Mitigation credit for the removal of the creosoted bulkhead and creosoted
pilings from the site shall be determined by the Director when approving the mitigation
plans offered by the applicant. This credit for the removal of hazardous materials from the
site by the applicant shall not exceed 5% of the total mitigation replacement required since
the bulkhead structure has been replaced by a rock buttress.
3 The SEPA MONS shall be modified pursuant to an agreement between the City and the
applicant to change the wording of paragraph 1.a. and by deleting the words "a minimum of' in
the first sentence, just prior to the number 1,952.
4 The SEPA MONS shall be amended pursuant to an agreement between the City and the
applicant to amend the language of paragraph I. f at the end of the sentence by deleting the words
"and private consulting entities"
The Witham appeal requesting a change in the measurement for the amount of intrusion
into the upper intertidal beach habitat from 1,952 sq.ft. to 1,800 sq.ft. is denied, except as it may
be reduced by the credit allowed by the Director for removal of creosoted timbers from the
bulkhead and pilings.
The Suquamish Tribe's appeal of the August 19,2000 SEPA MONS issued by the City is
denied. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for this project. The Director's
decision to issue a SEP A MONS for the Witham project is affirmed. Mitigation measures
imposed by the City in its Mitigated Determination of Non significance are sufficient to mitigate
the significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the building of this rock buttress
structure along the shoreline.
Dated this 12th day of January, 2001,
~.~~
SSDP/CllP05-25-99-1
Witham - 6498 NE Monte Vista Drive
Page -19-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
~~~~
Robin Thomas Baker
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
This Decision on the SSDP/CUP is final unless the decision of the Hearing Examiner is
appealed to the City Council within 21 calendar days as allowed in Shoreline Master Program
Section VII, J, 5(e)
The Decision on the appeals of the Revised SEPA MONS issued August 19,2000 is final
unless appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with BIMC 16 04. 170(F).
SSDP/Cl:P05-25-99-1
Witham {'498 NE Monte Vista Drive.
Page -20-
Hearing Examiner
City of Bainbridge Island
1 e,t.,K nOM' tm'
lZ.SF! MIL -r....P
195, \j~CJ
~21, 270
42),11()
Ll-l La'!: to i-~~.
'iR p'l'l-l Of LoT 1
;>.LG 10"1' 50 p,>>lK
2)(Jl T,.;i... l.J>.ND:
BLpG5,E7C.
l'.PJlt<'Si \I;>.1..uE
oAf '^' "' co' Of" LO' W '" ,,,,,,')9E!'.LG fL'
"I' ,^, S:c.n'E "po' 'M ""."w !O poe (P"" "
,," eN of LO' " """ "I' " TOP Of ,N" '" SW,"
POB ,GW "OS fefG. pDJ TO Of "",0 0" Le' 10
fOR
,,;"/, I J FltK " SY.'~ '"::r\ FtN -::. 5[) 1,(11: l'
sN<l" iH SI'IL'i Jl,.LG tOP Cf 5D BJl,NK 9fT
:1R of SD U::': 11 1;; sl'3"Ol'39"E. Jl,.LG
lell-'28f.. fjl. fOB T\1 N""n'1'JW TO
41),tl0
''IN<Jl,.BLE Al/.
10
1..J>J'lD ust.
~l"OU ?l'>f<K 81,'10
Nf
oOJ
223,340
136,490
1'S9,e3G
l"n~~
0004(,A36
,EO"0N 14 'O'NS"lP 25 RANGE 2E ",,1'00 p""K
",,, .", ,.,.,~ -,0< '",., _",,, ,_,,, ",. .. , ,.-" ",0<-"
""""., ".'" ,., """ "".' ""'" " ",,,,' ."'" ., '" ~., .... , .'" ,. ".
",,, .." ,.,.". .. .- " ,.,.' , .'" .' ,. ,,,, '" ., " ,,,.. " " , -, ,-
,,,_,.,, _, ", co .." ,.., ", ~" ,~ "' ,," " , ,,,,, ,,,, ......" "" .... - "'" "
,,,,... ,_, ,W' "."... ".. .. '" ",,, " ."...' ="~,,.. "-,, -,," "" ... '"
," " ,.. " _"" .~ ._,,,." ~, ..,,,,,, " ,.'" ' co ,.., ..' " ,- """. ...."
,,,,,,_ """", , ......', "'"'''' ., ", ..._. .....' co ~, '" ,., "..' ,"" .,..,.". ~, -,
," ~.",. "" " ,,' " ,., "" - " ",., ' ... ,. _., ".' ,"'"'''''' - ,,' " ""..... ."
"... ",. .. "". " . ",,, "." ".,,' ". .' ._ .. .,,, " _""., ..' _" ".". w ~, "
FoHn Or 8'f.G:NN1~G>
VJ'1'D:
BLDGS.e'tc:
~KE"t YJl.LUB
,\,Jl,..X:
,00
,,"
"^,p
cHG
'f/02}'",.
ST....Tl1SfLf,'Ji CODf.
51
.00
51"1,-15
,M
,o.CRf,S.
sffP [l.r~
163
\._tJO MN'll'l'1J1J py. 8LVO to E
8p.,WBFlI:IGE rstJl.l'lD 'till. 9\)110
11
t-j
1S
\'
"
15
....lLtE:N
ce
6-'Jll ~I)
FtllLl.P
:;f,lffBY
c,,,,-,.r.
359,930
U),160
tJO,19()
35-3,1S0
.,0CrloN \' ,0."H" 2S ,N'GC 2E "","OU r"'"
,,,. ", WO" ,," "" " "" " , " ,~~ .. "' ,,,,,, . .." """".. ., " " ," .". ," · ~ " ". , "
",..,.,,, ..' "" " ". "" " ",,, ..' " ,.. " ... '0 .." ". ". "' " - ",,, ", .., ",.",.. .. ~..
,.,."".. " ." .." .. ,,' ," " ,'" ", ..'" " '" " ,. .,.""" ~ ". " " ,,,, " ",,, ", ".. "
,~ " "" ," .. "' ,.. .... "" '" ,,' ".". "" " ,. .. ...,,'" .. ",. .> ,." ,"" ,,, .. , .. ,-
11.-2499
p1\.GE
1f\XJ1$L'E p,,1/
(/>.CCOUN't NO.
10
1-1-14\11
000<193401
~11SAr COUN~~ ASSS5S0~
ASSESSI'IEN'Y Rdt..t. foR tIJ>,H<BR1DGf.. rst.>>lD
A5SESSl-lEJl'r fOR -rAXF.5 rl\.1ABLE HI 2Q\l1
us..,
"","
"^"
cH.G
::>3"
"
"
QO
snUs
TAX siJl,.TUSfLEVY coDE
....CRf.S,
srF? ;>.C.
'flJl,.9511G
531
Q05_01Z-Q00
otS(l-lZR s1>J'Df<1\-
t' C) !lOy. 1046<\
BAltHiR1DGf. lSLl'J'lT.'
4\;:'
v-NO:
BLOGS,EiC:
Mt\KE'T Vl\\.,Vl:;:
,""
:;:00
,OR
;000
4121/G}
"S3,3O,O
r]l,}(ABLE ;.'i
01
l)Sf.
"",0
Nf, MANl'YOIJ "Nt\( SLW
Qsa2
190
o
190
1'llH1
0004\3914.
SC,"'ON " ,,'N,"" " """GO" """,,0<1 ,"'"
"" ... ",,,.. -". .... -"~' " "..,., -"' ,,","" .."' .""" ,- "" ,,,,,. " .."'"
.".... ..- ,.. ...".. ..".." ""...... " ,,-,' ,..." " ~ .-.. -" ",.." "" ,.. ,-
,,, "...." - ,.. ....... ..' " '" .., ","',. .. .. ,,,. .. ,,, " -, ,,~, -...." .."
", ".." .... "..,. _, " ,,,. 'O' M" ...,c'." .... ~.. " ."...., ,- ..". ",."
"oll'l'1' of BEGllIN1t>1C,.
MP
CI-IG
1'/\JZ3~
CODE
51
'"
Sl:tIjS
5T~tllSfLS'lY
t\.oU:5.
SF,t' AC
,""
1~311B'J
980S0
"'
O\l,,_DD~OOO'O
fN-"\\C>E:I.l A\...IC:E. f-
."
f 1.:' BO;\
l'~f.S10N
."
o
Ll'J'lO:
E1..DGS,f.1:C:
AAl'-\<f.1 \lJl,.Llj'f..
l;..xABL'S 1>'<<
2(lOliM
fOR
93900
tJJ{O USE:
)
)
,
sl1US
1M 51'J.;rus/lJ:;l/'l' caDE
M14!><
G0053129
1'/023
5311'.n
"^" .
cr\G II
6_0i)(,-013-""\
228,420
,6,5tlG
)01,000
uo
00
AC\>.SS
SffPJI,(:
.:.El''fOI1L ~ANO
1.JIJ"O:
BLOGS,S'l:C:
l'IJ\?$st VJl,LUf.:
T""
fO\'.200
Ml'J'l.1i'Otl piU'1<
20
98)1.0
2~ pJ>.NGE
1L F L
SEctION l~ 10~NS111P
",:,1< OOlS LO"! 11 D-Ol
<l.lb SHf.(l.!DN' ;to
!3'R"E.MSR10N WI\.
~
~
to
Ii
\
.
)01,000
215,310
189,220
404.590
t/023"-'
,CHON" ,,,,,"sHLF " """"' 2C """ou p>J"
.." ... ,,,., -'" .... .-,." ",~,..- "'-,...-'''~'' .~ ,", -"" ,,,,,
,,_. ...- ,-,. ."" "'.-" " ..",,- .. -, " " ....". -- -, " ,.,,,,,,-
,"0 "sH1S 0' R,CDRP. (AS PCR "",,0011)
'l'I'Jl.1I1'LtA.V
LAND:
BLpGS,E:'l:C:
W>J'.\<f.T VALuE,
,""
FOR ZOO
10'
M14N
00055308
u-ND USE
"^,p
cl-lG
MJ'<Nll0U I'/'JlK BLVD
coot:
"
00
HC
Sl1<"tJS/LE\f'(
...CRE.5.
sfFP 1\C
10540
51"1'\.15
,""
1:'3\800;,
,OS4U jQ.NlTOU BE.AO\ OR Nt
BA1NB~IOGE ISLAND W~ 9~ltO
CAirl'if<1t'IE
o;.(,_Dfl6_U14-GOO<;
Lf..l\Kf. 'o11LSO~
590
40
'rI'JfJ\DLf. j>,.l/
1110
l.WD USf.
'HS'tA DR
64 90 tiE MONT'/:.
5111J5
l-tOS3
131304904(,
liD2)':>
51AtUStLE.I/'! com:
l?3161)
MP
c!-\G
,""
)I}O_OG,-Of)D
"
A_2S00
..AGE
)\
cO
r<l'!SM' coUtI'r'i ASSESSOR
"s'EsS"E"' RaCL ,oF ""eN""O''" """,0 <pceooN' NO
;..SSf.SSMEN'r FO'" 1f\XES ?l'<'!I\B1..E Il>1 20CH
pC
M>>lz,Jl,NITP> SAl
HI ,,01 1.1 FE.R InM1101aS
J\C",ES
s~TP
R1I1'lGE. 1E
IjtlD 11'1"1'
,
6490 ~E ~Otl1f. VIS'll'< DR
B....1N8RIDGt 15hAND WA 9S110
SECTION
elX 000
'^"'"
oS iOWl"SI-lIF 25
,,-OT 1 1'G'o1 l{<\]
P
P!ll\..Ll?
GOUL!
5,0
",
"",D.
fOf!. 100'1. 1M
tiE ~OtlTf.. V1S1/\ DR
20eO
sn:US
,"
'1.,:>3182
1~()OO_t)02-000
7/0'
PAGE A-2502
KITSAP COUNTY ASSESSOR
,
)4/27/011
SECTION 08 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 2E MANZANITA BAY
LOT g, MANZANITA BAY, INrLUDING TIDELANDS, ACCOIlDING TO PLAT RECOil OED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 45 AND 46, IN KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TO"ETHER WITH AN UNDIVIDED 1/43RD INTEREST IN LOT 11, MANZANITA BAY, ACCORDING TO PLAT
RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 or PLATS, PAGES 45 AND 46, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
436,870
232,ilOO
204,870
436,870
428,940
232,000
196,940
428,940
TAXABLE AV:
M093
00051258
MA'
CHG
.n
00
ACRES;
SFFP At
6'~2 MONTE VISTA DR NE
BIII!'lB!l.IDGE ISLAND 0111 981104262
HIIl.JlY, JO::;!'.PH .JR ~ PATRICIA
41~'-ono 009 onU4 15318q6
SECTiON 08 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 2E MANZANITA BAy
BLK 000 LOT 8 TGW 1/4] UNO INT IN LOT 11 PER 8106170112
."
00
ACRES
SfTP AC:
FOR 2ilOl TAX: LAND:
BLOGS,ETC;
LAND USE: 11101 MARKET VALUE:
TAXABLE AV:
M093
00051408
TAX STATUS/LEVY CODE: Tl0235
SITUS 6522 NE MONTE VISTA OR
MA'
CHe
.25
.00
ACRES:
6~;~ MONTE VISTA DR NE SFFP AC:
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 981104262
TAX STATUS/LEVY CODE; T/02]~
SITUS: 6518 NE MONTE VISTA DR
MAR,IN WILLIAM ~ MYRNA
~15-' 000 008-000S 15H888
SECTION 08 TUWNSHIP 25 RANGE 2E MANZANITA BAY
PARCEL I; LOT 7, MANZANITA BAY, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 45 AND 46, RECORDS OF
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL 11; AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN LOT II, MANZANITA BAY, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN
VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 45 AND 46, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
449,200
232,000
217,200
449,200
436,630
232,000
204,630
436,630
PAGE A-2501
FOR 2001 TAX; LAND;
BLDGS,ETC;
LAND USE: 11101 MARKET VALUE;
TAXABLE AV
MAP ~ M093
CHG ~ 00050979
TAX STATUS/LEVY CODE: T/0235
SITUS: 6514 NE MONTE VISTA DR
FRITTS JAMES ~ JAMEE
OR36il031587611
,~/o WASHINGTON MUTUAL
188 106TH AVE NE STE 52U
BELLEVUE C WA 98004
4. 57 000 007-0006 1 ~3187n
:';ECTION 08 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 2E MANZANITA BAY
tlLK 000 LOT 6 TGW 1/43 UNO INT IN LOT 11 PER 8106170110
MA'
CHG
. "
.cO
ACRES.
SFFP AC:
LAND;
BLOGS,ETC;
MARKET VALUE;
LAND USE: 11101
FOR 2001 TAX;
TAX STATUS/LEVY CODE: T/0235
snus: 6510 NE MONTE VISTA DR
KITSAP COUNTY AS~ESSOR
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND (ACCOUNT NO.)
2000 ASSESSMENT FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 2001
TAXABLE AV
MAP ~ M093
CHG ~ 00048lJ2
TAXAB:"E AV;
M093
0004Q860
11 OF PLATS, PAGES 45 AND 46 IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
MANZANITA BAY
PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME
11 \IF SAID PLAT.
SECTION 08 TOWNSHIP 2S RANGE 2E
LOT 5, MANZANITA BAY, ACCORDING TO
rOGE,HER WITH 1/43 INTEREST lN LOT
216,47()
110,560
105,910
216,47U
55,360
55,360
o
55,360
333,870
166,880
166,990
]33,870
FOR 2001 TAX; LAND:
BLOGS,ETC;
LAND USE; 11101 MARKET VALUE:
LAND;
BLOGS,ETC;
MARKET VALUE;
LAND USE: 11101
FOR 2001 TAX:
17
CO
ACRES:
SFFP Ae;
TAXABLE AV:
M093
00050948
TAX STATUS/LEVY CODE: T/0235
SITUS:
65iO NE MONTE VISTA DR
BAI~BRIDGE ISLAND WA 9~110
TAYLOR ALLAN ~ NORMA TRUSTEES
4,57 000 Oil6~OU07 153Hl62
-,")4/27/00
CHILDS GERALD 01 ~ SHANNON
3.136191
HIJr-TINGTON MTG CO THE
7515 HUNTINGTON PARK DR
COIlJMB1JS DH 4J23~
'52
415'-000-005-0008 1531854
,>,,>
fOR 2001 tAX: LAND;
BLDGS,ETe;
LAND USE; 91000 MARKET VALUE;
TAXABLE AV:
M091
00056640
SECTION 08 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 2E MANZANITA BAY
BLK 000 LOT 4 TGW 1/43 UND INT IN LOT 11 PER 8106170108
MAC
CHG
. "
.co
ACRES:
SFFP AC:
TAX STATUS/LEVY CODE: T/U235
SITUS
64';H NE MONTE VISTA DR
BAiNBRIDGE: ISLAND WA 9811"
WITHAM r W
41 '7~1100 OU4-111109 1 ~ 11847
SECTION 08 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 2E MANZANITA BAY
BLK 000 LOT J TGW 1/4l UNO !NT IN LOT 11 PER 11106170107
MA'
CHG
. "
.<lO
ACRES.
SffP AC
SITUS h4'l1l NE MONTE VISTA DR rOR 2001 TAX: LAND;
BLDGS,ETC:
TAX 3TATUS/LEVY CODE: T/0235 LAND USE: 11101 MARKET VALUE;
TAXABLE AV;
MU93
00052242
64g8 NE MONTE VISTA OR
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND Wi". 9~1l(1
WITHAM CHARLES i> MARDELL
41 7_ O(lU-OOJ~OOI!O 1 ';318J9
MANZANITA BAY
RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 45 AND 46, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WA.SHINGTON;
MANZANITA BAY, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 45
JECTION 08 TOWNSHIP 2:, RANGE 2E
LOT 2, MANZANITA BAY, A(CORDING to PLAT
AN UNDIVIDED 1/4JRD INTEREST IN LOT 11,
AND 46. IN KrTSAp rOUNTY, WASHINGTON.
4'lS,550
278,030
495,550
BLOGS,ETC;
MARKET VALUE::
LANI' USE: 11101
MAC
rHG
.00
ACRES
b~~4 NE MONTEVI3TA DR SFFP Ae.
BA:NBRIOGE ISLAND WA 981101Ll4
TAX :::;TATTJS/LEVY CODE: Tl02J5
HANSEN REED ~ 3RIGITTE