Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SHR2012-00009 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 9/24/2012
September 24, 2012 Notice of Decision Case: SHR2012-00009 Applicant: City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities Notice is hereby given that City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, who is the applicant for the above-referenced Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development / Conditional Use / Variance Permit, has been granted that Shoreline Permit. The request was reviewed on August 28, 2012 by the Mason County Hearing Examiner and approved with conditions pursuant to the Mason County Title 17.50 Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations, specifically for Landfill and Utilities activities. SEPA review for the proposal was completed by City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities as Lead Agency. This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 - Development Code - No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval, the Hearing Examiner shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the initial two year period by permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension before the Hearing Examiner PRIOR to the expiration date. Work on approved project must begin by September 2014. This permit expires September 24, 2017. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues,please contact Allan Borden,Senior Planner with Mason County Dept.of Community Development at 360-427-9670 x365. i JACKJOHNSON P.O. BOX 1119 BELFAIR WA 98528 CITY OF TACOMA TRANSPORTATION - UTILITIES P.O. BOX 11007 TACOMA WA 98411 I BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 : City of Tacoma FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Shoreline Substantial OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Development/ Conditional Use/ Variance Permit (SHR2012-00009) 8 INTRODUCTION 9 The Applicant requests a shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP"), shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance in order to replace some 10 support structures for the Potlatch Transmission Line as it traverses North Bay of Case Inlet. The Applicant proposes to replace four in-water 120-ft. high support 11 structures with one new in-water 170-ft. high support structure for an existing over- 12 water transmission line and to move four structures on the landward side of the shoreline further away from the shoreline. The SSDP and shoreline conditional use 13 permit is requested for all proposed construction within shoreline jurisdiction and the variance is necessary to authorize the placement of fill waterward of the ordinary high 14 water mark ("OHWM") of North Bay. The shoreline permits and variance are all 15 approved subject to conditions. . 16 TESTIMONY 17 Allan Borden, senior planner, answered questions from the Examiner. He noted that there are wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction that have been addressed in a critical 18 areas report. Mr. Borden clarified that the conditional use permit is required for the proposed fill. He noted that the variance is necessary to put fill waterward of the 19 OHWM. Mr. Borden confirmed that if the variance were denied, the Applicant would 20 not have any other reasonable use left for the property because the Applicant only has an easement for utility use. 21 Pat Leach noted that a good portion of the property is only an easement for utility use 22 and that the property couldn't be used for anything else. Mr. Leach also confirmed that undergrounding would be cost prohibitive, three to four times what it costs for 23 the overhead lines. Mr. Leach noted that the reason the land towers are being moved 24 is to accommodate the greater height of the 170-foot replacement tower and to enhance shoreline aesthetics. 25 SSDP/CUP P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Joe Remky, on behalf of the Applicant, noted that the only place that the Applicant I has undergrounded a transmission corridor was in the Blair Waterway at the Port of 2 Tacoma. The costs are very high because of the underwater construction and the cable used is expensive and difficult to procure. 3 Scott Swartz, environmental consultant on behalf of the Applicant, testified that there 4 are no impacts to birds anticipated because the number of towers will be significantly reduced, i.e. reducing the number of towers in the water from four to one. The span 5 of the tower is too great to cause any electrocution of birds. The towers serve as 6 nesting sites for Osprey, protected by the Migratory Bird Act. In order to prevent any adverse impacts, the towers will be removed outside of nesting season. The 7 Applicant is also working with Fish and Wildlife to build an artificial nesting site. Replacing the next isn't required, but the Applicant would like to do so. Mr. Swartz 8 also answered Examiner questions about the amount of in-water fill that will be 9 removed by the proposal. 10 EXHIBITS 11 The exhibits identified in the"Case Index"attached to the August 28,2012 staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. In addition, the following 12 documents were also admitted at the hearing: 1' Ex. 14: Biological Assessment 14 Ex. 15: Critical Areas Report Ex. 16: Proposed Construction Schedule 15 FINDINGS OF FACT 16 Procedural: 17 1. Applicant. The Applicant is the City of Tacoma, Department of Public 18 Utilities. 19 2• Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject application on August 28, 2012 at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Commissioners 20 Meeting Room. 21 Substantive: 22 3. Project/Site Description. The Applicant requests a shoreline substantial 23 development permit ("SSDP"), shoreline conditional use permit and shoreline variance in order to repair and replace some support structures for the Potlatch 24 Transmission Line as it traverses North Bay of Case Inlet. The Applicant proposes to 25 replace four in-water 120-ft. support structures with one new in-water 170-ft. high support structures and to move four support structures on the landward side of the shoreline further from the shoreline. Two of the four support structures on dry land, SSDP/CUP p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision located on the west side of bay, are outside the shoreline jurisdiction. The other two I support structures, on the east side of the bay, are currently within the shoreline 2 jurisdiction and are proposed to be moved outside the shoreline jurisdiction. The SSDP and conditional use permit is requested for all proposed construction within 3 shoreline jurisdiction and the variance is to authorize the placement of fill waterward of the ordinary high water mark("OHWM") of North Bay. The entire project takes up 4 a one-mile long stretch of the Potlatch transmission line, including 0.6 miles that crosses North Bay. 5 6 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area (exhibit 5) is characterized by medium-density rural development consisting of single-family residences along 7 the State Route 302 and North Bay Road. The existing power line spans the marine fetch of North Bay Case Inlet between Allyn and Victor (Exhibits 3, 8, and 9). On 8 the east side of Case Inlet and to the north of the power line is the WA. Dept. of Fish 9 & Wildlife day use public access properties. 10 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. Overall the impacts of the project are highly positive because the project involves removing a significant amount of fill and 11 construction from the waters of North Bay. As conditioned there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. 12 The in-water footprint of the project will be reduced by 75% and the wood and 13 concrete footings will be replaced by tubular steel pilings. This reduction in footprint 14 will clearly improve navigation and associated public access and recreation. The reduction in footprint along with moving the land-based towers further from the 15 shoreline will also improve shoreline aesthetics. 16 As concluded in the biological evaluation, Ex. 14, the reduction in footprint will improve aquatic habitat conditions. The biological evaluation notes that construction 1 of the proposal will elevate turbidity and recommends conditions to mitigate these 18 impacts, which are made a condition of approval for the SSDP and conditional use permits. Beyond construction impacts, the biological evaluation finds no adverse 19 impacts to water quality associated with the proposal. The biological evaluation assesses impacts to all Endangered Species Act endangered and threatened birds and 20 fish that could be impacted by the proposal and concludes as to each species that 21 either the project had"no effect" or `may affect but not likely to adversely affect". 22 Two of the landward support structures are currently located within a Class III wetland. During demolition, approximately 2,555 square feet of wetland and 1,885 23 square feet of buffer will be disturbed. Mitigation measures recommended by the critical areas report, Ex. 15, require the replanting of the disturbed areas with native 24 species and monitoring to ensure survival. The disturbed area is currently populated 25 by invasive or weedy species, so the removal of the towers and restoration of native plants should provide an overall. positive benefit to the wetland. The mitigation recommended in the critical areas report is required by this decision. SSDP/CUP p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I In addition to addressing wetlands, the critical areas report also does a thorough 2 assessment of all other critical areas potentially affected by the proposal and recommends the same set of mitigation measures recommended in the biological 3 evaluation. The critical areas report concludes that the mitigation measures recommended by the report will "adequately offset impacts from the actions 4 associated with the construction and removal of marine structures." 5 The staff report acknowledges that the towers within North Bay are in a floodplain, 6 but concludes that in the deep waters of the proposed location there will be no increase in flood hazard or reduction in flood storage capacity. The staff report also 7 concludes that the proposal will not disrupt normal surface water drainage. There is no evidence to the contrary or reason to conclude to the contrary. 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9 10 procedural: 11 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) authorizes the Examiner to review and issue a final decision regarding shoreline substantial 12 development permit requests, shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline 13 variance requests. 14 Substantive: 2. Shoreline Environment. The Shoreline Master Program environmental 15 designation for the site is Urban. North Bay is a shoreline of statewide significance. 16 3. Necessity for Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit is required for the proposal because the proposal qualifies as an unclassified use. The 1 conditional use permit is not required because of Landfill Use Regulation No. 1. 18 Staff testified at the hearing that both a conditional use and a variance were required 19 for the project because of Landfill Use Regulation No. 1, which governs the placement of landfill water ward of the ordinary high water mark and provides as 20 follows: 21 Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on 22 biological wetlands except that they may be permitted as a Conditional use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland 23 structural alternative is possible. Landfill in wetlands for non-water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a 24 Conditional Use PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: 25 (1) Extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. SSDP/CUP p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I (emphasis added). 2 The provision above authorizes in-water landfill with a conditional use permit for two 3 situations. First, landfill may be permitted as a conditional use if the proposal qualifies as water de r a uaculture. MCC 17.50.040 defines as water pendent o q 4 dependent use as "a use that cannot exist in other than a waterfront location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation". The 5 proposed transmission line structures do not qualify as water dependent — 6 theoretically the transmission line and its support structures could be routed around North Bay as opposed to through it. The proposal also does not qualify as 7 aquaculture. Consequently, the first reference to a conditional use permit in the regulation quoted above does not apply to the proposal. 8 Second, in-water landfill is authorized by a conditional use if it meets the two criteria 9 at the end of the quotation above. A conditional use is authorized for "such fill". If 10 "such fill" qualifies the first sentence of the quotation (all in-water fill), the proposed fill can be authorized by conditional use. If"such fill"qualifies the wetland fill of the 11 preceding sentence only, the conditional use wouldn't apply to the proposed in-water fill (since it doesn't involve a wetland) and a variance would be required. It is 12 concluded that "such fill" only applies to the filling of wetlands and not to the in- water fill of the subject proposal. There are two reasons for this interpretation. First, 13 the use of indefinite pronouns in this manner is typically done to qualify the closest 14 sentence. Second, if"such fills" did qualify the first sentence, this would lead to an irrational result where nonwater dependent landfills within wetlands are authorized 15 outright and water dependent wetlands would require a conditional use permit as referenced in the first sentence of the regulation. 16 Since both references to conditional use permits in Landfill Use Regulation No. 1 do 17 apply to this proposal, it must be concluded Landfill Use Regulation No. 1 prohibits 18 the proposed in-water fill. Landfill Use Regulation No. 1 simply prohibits the proposal as construction waterward of the ordinary high water mark that is not water 19 dependent. A variance is required to waive this restriction. 20 Although Landfill Use Regulation No. 1 does not require a conditional use permit,the 21 permit is still required because the utility line project qualifies as an unclassified development project. MCC 17.50.034 provides that unclassified development 22 projects require a conditional use permit. The project classification table of MCC 17.50.050 does not classify utility projects. Given that utility projects can have a 23 major impact on shoreline resources, it is reasonable to conclude that MCC 17.50.034 requires a conditional use permit for utility projects in general. 24 25 4. Necessity for Variance. As previously identified, Landfill Use Regulation No. 1 prohibits landfill to be placed waterward of the OHWM if it supports a project that is not water dependent. Further, the project classification table of MCC SSDP/CUP p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 17.50.050 imposes the same restriction. A variance to both of these requirements is 1 necessary for the proposed landfill. 2 5. Necessity for SSDP. A shoreline substantial development permit is 3 required for the proposal. MCC 15.09.055(A) requires a shoreline substantial development permit for any "substantial development" in the shoreline. "Substantial 4 development" is not defined in MCC Title 15, but it appears to be intended to encompass any development that does not fall within the permit exemptions outlined 5 in MCC 15.09.055(A). No exemption applies to this proposal and the proposal will 6 clearly be located within the shoreline of North Bay. 7 6. Permit Criteria. MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(c) requires a shoreline substantial development permit to be consistent with the Mason Shoreline Master Program and 8 the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW (the Shoreline Management Act). The Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") as composed of shoreline policies, found in 9 Chapter IX of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Shoreline Use 10 Regulations, Chapter 17.50 MCC. MCC 17.50.080 governs the criteria for conditional use permits. MCC 17.50.090 governs the criteria for variances. 11 Applicable shoreline policies and use regulations are quoted below and applied 12 through corresponding conclusions of law. 13 Landfill Policy No. 1: Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so 14 that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources, or alteration of local currents will occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life, property 15 ecological values or natural resources. 16 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any 17 adverse environmental impacts. The mitigation measures proposed in the biological evaluation and critical areas report, as imposed by this decision, will assure that no 18 adverse impacts occur to ecological values or natural resources or result in any other harm as referenced in the criterion above. 19 Landfill Policy No. 2: Priority shall be given to landfill for water dependent uses. 20 21 8. The project is not water dependent, but given the magnitude of the transmission line it is fairly clear that requiring the lines to be rerouted over land 22 would be cost prohibitive. 23 Landfill Policy No. 3: In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation 24 restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and 25 destruction of habitat should be considered. SSDP/CUP p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will reduce total surface 1 water coverage, thereby improving navigation and presumably reducing impediments 2 to water flow and circulation. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 the proposal will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic habitat. 3 Landfill Use Regulation No. 1: Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary 4 high water mark except that they may be permitted as a Conditional Use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural 5 alternative is possible. Landfill in biological wetlands for non-water dependent uses 6 may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional use PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (I) Extraordinary or unique circumstances 7 relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. 8 10. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, landfill is proposed in violation 9 of the criterion above and is one of the reasons for the requested variance. 10 Landfill Use Regulation No. 2: Landfills are not permitted on estuaries, tidelands, 11 marshes,ponds or swamps except that they may be allowed for water dependent uses as a Conditional Use. 12 11. The landfill is not proposed within any estuaries, tidelands, marshes, 13 ponds or swamps. 14 Landfill Use Regulation No. 3: Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it 15 can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulic and floodplain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. 16 12. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not reduce flood 1 storage capacity or increase flood hazard. 18 normal disrupt d t surface water Landfill Use Regulation No. 4: Landfills shall not p 19 drainage. 20 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed landfill will not 21 disrupt normal surface water drainage. Landfill Use Regulation No. 5: Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion. 23 14. As conditioned. 24 25 Landfill Use Regulation No. 6: Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information (at a minimum): a. Character and source of fill material; SSDP/CUP p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision b. Method of placement and compaction; 1 c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any; 2 d. Method of perimeter erosion control; e. Proposed use of fill area; 3 f Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns; g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping. 4 15. The staff report identifies all the required information, presumably upon 5 the application materials supplied by the Applicant. 6 Landfill Use Regulation No. 7: Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation, 7 retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion. 8 16. As conditioned. 9 10 Landfill Use Regulation No. 8: Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. 11 17. As conditioned. 12 RCW 90.58.020: This policy (Shoreline Management Act policy) is designed to 13 insure the development of these shorelines (of the state) in a manner which, while 14 allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against 15 adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of 16 navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. 17 18. The proposal substantially improves navigation and shoreline ecological 18 resources while also supporting a major and essential utility service. The criterion is satisfied. 19 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. 20 21 19. The proposal improves shoreline ecological values as well as aesthetics and navigation, all of which promotes the state-wide interest. 22 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 23 20. The proposal will significantly reduce the amount of development in the 24 shoreline,thereby improving its natural character. 25 RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit. SSDP/CUP P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 21. The proposal substantially improves navigation and shoreline ecological 1 resources while also supporting a major and essential utility service. The criterion is 2 satisfied. 3 RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 4 22. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will benefit the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 5 6 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 7 22. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will reduce 8 impediments to navigation, which in turn increases public access. 9 RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the 10 shoreline. 11 23. In improving navigation the project modestly increases recreational opportunities. 12 Conditional Use 13 14 SMP Use Regulation 17.50.080(1): That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and the policies of the master program; 15 24. As determined in the preceding conclusions of law, the proposed use is 16 consistent with all applicable state and county shoreline policies. 17 SMP Use Regulation 17.50.080(2): That the proposed use will not interfere with the 18 normal public use of the shorelines; 19 25. As previously discussed, the proposal improves navigation. It will have no adverse impact on normal public use of the shoreline. 20 21 SMP Use Regulation 17.50.080(3): That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area; yy 26. The proposal improves compatibility by reducing the number of support 23 towers and placing some towers further away from the shoreline. 24 SMP Use Regulation 17.50.080(4): That the proposed use will cause no 25 unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; SSDP/CUP P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision L -- 27. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal provides for an I overall highly significant positive impact to the shoreline environment. 2 SMP Use Regulation 17.50.080(5): That the public interest suffers no substantial 3 detrimental effect. 4 28. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal so the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 5 �I 6 SMP Use Regulation 17.50.080(6): Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. 7 29. The proposed use is not prohibited by the master program. 8 9 Variance 10 MCC 17.50.090(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property 11 not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. 12 30. As determined in prior decisions, based upon case law regarding 13 constitutional property rights, a "reasonable use" of property depends on the uses allowed by a local zoning code as well as factors such as the size of the property, 14 investment backed expectations and the burden on the property owner if the use is not allowed. In this case utility lines are allowed as a conditional use, the Applicant 15 proposes to reduce adverse impacts from the currently existing development and 16 denial of the use would impose a substantial cost upon the Applicant and the general public who is served by the Applicant's power grid. For these reasons the denial of 17 the variance would significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the Applicant's property. 18 MCC 17.50.090(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the 19 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 20 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or 21 the applicant's own action. 22 31. The hardship is the results from the location of North Bay within the pathway of a major existing power transmission line, which qualifies as a unique 23 condition related to the property. 24 MCC 17.50.090(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 25 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. SSDP/CUP P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 32. As previously determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and Conclusion of Law 2 No. 26,the criterion is met. 3 MCC 17.50.090(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 4 necessary to afford relief. 5 33. The variance simply allows the Applicant to reduce the size and impacts 6 of an existing permitted use in order to repair/replace a deteriorating facility, an action that would most likely be authorized for any other similar type of authorized 7 development proposal. The request is the minimum necessary to afford relief as there is nothing to suggest that the Applicant will be placing more fill than necessary for its 8 new support structures and the number of support structures in the water has been reduced to one. 9 10 MCC 17.50.090(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 11 34. The public interest will suffer no substantial detriment or effect since the project will provide significant environmental benefits with no negative adverse 12 impacts while also improving navigation and supporting a necessary public service. 13 MCC 17.50.090(6): The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not 14 be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. 15 35. Navigation will be improved by the proposed reduction of landfill. 16 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 17 proposed development according to the following criteria: 18 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 19 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 20 in the public interest. 21 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 22 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 23 36. The project has no perceptible impact on level of service standards. It is 24 consistent with the comprehensive plan as demonstrated by its compliance with the 25 shoreline policies quoted above, which are the most directly applicable comprehensive plan policies. With the approval of the subject shoreline permits the project has achieved consistency with the County's zoning regulations and SSDP/CUP P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision consistency with more specific development regulations will be achieved via 1 building, grading and other applicable permit review. As the project significantly 2 reduces the adverse impacts of the currently existing facilities and has no significant adverse impacts associated with it, it does not adversely affect public health safety 3 and welfare and the project is in the public interest. The proposal complies with Title 8, Environmental Review, since a SEPA MDNS was properly issued for the 4 project. There is nothing to suggest the project would violate the sanitary standards of Title 8 and no subdivision is involved that would implicate any Title 16 regulation. 5 6 DECISION 7 The Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use Permit and Variance are 8 approved for the proposal as described in Ex. 1-10 and 14 and 15, subject to the 9 following conditions: 10 1. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) shall be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to beginning any site preparation and l l construction work. 2. A Section 10 Permit(Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899)or exemption must be 12 granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to work within navigable waters of the United States. 1' 3. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction will be 14 disposed of in such a manner as to prevent their entry by erosion or from drainage into any water body. 15 4. All excess debris/fill not required for the project design must be removed from the site after project completion. Such debris may not enter or cause water 16 quality degradation of State waters. 5. Fill materials for tower foundation abutments shall be of such quality(source 17 or concrete origin)that they will not cause degradation of water quality. 18 6. Silt fencing, straw, or jute matting to be installed and maintained for erosion control in all disturbed upland areas. Erodible cuts shall be protected by 19 planting or matting immediately following construction. 7. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place during 20 their usage, and the site shall be restored to a natural condition shortly after 21 abandonment by construction activity. Fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion. Perimeters of fills shall be 22 provided with vegetation,retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. 23 8. Construction to occur during daylight hours to minimize noise impacts. 9. The applicant/owners shall apply for a Mason Environmental Permit 24 10. The applicant/owner shall implement the recommendations of the 25 Archaeological Survey of Tacoma Power's Potlatch Transmission Line Phase 2 North Bay Crossing Project prepared by Gary Wessen(Wessen& Associates); April 1012. SSDP/CUP p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 11. The proposal shall comply with all mitigation, conservation and impact l minimization measures recommended in the biological evaluation, Ex. 14, and 2 critical areas report, Ex. 15. 3 Dated this 1 lth day of September, 2012. 4 5 6 hil Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 7 8 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 9 This shoreline substantial development permit decision is final and subject to appeal to 10 the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW. 11 Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural 12 requirements are satisfied. The shoreline variance and conditional use permits are subject to separate review and approval by the Washington State Department of 13 Ecology. 14 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 15 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SSDP/CUP p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I CASEINDEX City of Tacoma —Tacoma Public Utilities Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use /Variance Permit SHR2012-00009 Exhibit# Date Description 1 August 28, 2012 Staff Report 2 May 21, 2012 Substantial Development, Conditional Use, and Variance Applications 3 August 3, 2012 General Location Ma 4 May 21, 2012 Project Area Ma 5 August 3, 2012 Area Overhead Photo 6 May 21, 2012 Slopes and Wetlands Ma 7 May 21, 2012 Site Layout Ma 8 May 21, 2012 Site Photos Page A 9 May 21, 2012 Site Photo Page B 10 May 21, 2012 Project Plans # 1 to 14 11 July 19, 2012 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance TPU 12 July 23, 2012 Notice of Application 13 August 16, 2012 Affidavit of Posting Tacoma Public Utilities SHR2012-00009 case index.doc Mason County Department of Community Development Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 August 28, 2012 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden; 360.427.9670 ext 365; ahb(&co.mason.wa.us RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2012-00009). STAFF REPORT I. Introduction. This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit/Variance for the proposal is replace four in- water 120-ft. high structures with one new in-water 170-ft. high tower structure within the existing over-water powerline alignment across North Bay. Review is done under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IX, Shoreline Management Program, Utilities and Land ill Policies,the Mason County Shoreline Master Program 17.50.060 Use Regulations Utilities and Land ill ; Shoreline Master Program 17.50.080 Conditional Use; and Shoreline Master Program 17.50.090 Variance. This project is part of the repair and replacement efforts by City of Tacoma- Tacoma Public Utilities along the Potlatch Transmission Line. The project includes removal old towers and placement of a new tower within the tidelands,temporary work access, and native plant revegetation of the project site. See attached Project Description for more details(Exhibit 11). Staff recommends permit approval with conditions. II. Applicant: City of Tacoma-Tacoma Public Utilities(Pat Leach) III. Agent: Scott Swarts/David Evans&Associates Inc IV. Date of Complete Application: May 21,2012. V. Site address and Project Location: Crossing North Bay Rd. and State Route 302 located just north of Allyn and north of Victor. Parcel No. 12216-32-80310. (Exhibit 4) VI. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site and area. The general area(exhibit 5) is characterized by medium-density rural development consisting of single-family residences along the State Route 302 and North Bay Road. The existing powerline spans the marine fetch of North Bay Case Inlet between Allyn and Victor(Exhibits 3, 8, and 9). On the east side of Case Inlet and to the north of the powerline is the WA. Dept. of Fish& Wildlife day use public access properties. B. Shoreline Master Program Designation.tion. The Shoreline Master Program environmental designation at the site is Urban. Tacoma Public Utilities SHR2012-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 1 C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation surrounding the site near Allyn is Urban Growth Area and near Victor is Rural Area. D. Zoning. The surrounding properties are zoned as Rural Residential 5 (RR-5)to the east near Victor, and as Allyn Urban Growth Area Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Business Park(BP) zone to the west. VII. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal was reviewed under SEPA authority by City of Tacoma/Tacoma Public Utilities; a DNS was issued on July 14, 2012 (Exhibit 11). The Shoreline Management Permit application for a Substantial Development/Conditional Use/Variance Permit(SHR2012-00009) is attached(Exhibit 2)and a Notice of Shoreline Management Permit(Exhibit 12)was issued on June 7 & 14, and July 26 &August 2, 2012. The Affidavit of Publication of Shoreline Management Permit is attached(Exhibit 13). VIII. Other Permits and Reviews. The proposal will require a Mason Count Building P P q Y g Permit, Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and approvals from Washington Dept. of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Biological Evaluation for the project has been prepared for the Corps of Engineers review of in-water elements of the project. The applicant submitted an archaeological survey of the area of the project,prepared by Wessen&Associates, and includes project cultural resources recommendations for upland work sites. IX. Analysis. The proposal is replace four in-water 120-ft. high structures with one new in- water 170-ft. high tower structure within the existing over-water powerline alignment across North Bay(Exhibits 6 & 7). One existing upland structure on each side of the bay crossing will be moved further upland when replaced. The eastside tower will be moved outside shoreline jurisdiction; the westside tower is already outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The project includes removal of four tower and foundations, installation of new marine foundation and 170-ft. tower and six temporary wooden poles driven into the marine bottom to aid in restringing lines to new towers; and removal of temporary work access to upland sites, and native plant restoration of those project sites. This project is within the jurisdiction of a Type 1 water(North Bay Case Inlet) and is reviewed under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program review standards. Per the Mason County Development Code 15.09.055 A. 1.,this proposal requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SDP) due to the cost exceeding $5,800 as well as being beyond the scope of"normal maintenance and repair"as defined under WAC 173-27-040(2)(b). This SDP proposal is reviewed under Utilities Chapter, the Landfill Chapter, the Conditional Use Chapter, and the Variance Chapter of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IX. Shoreline Management Program, and the Mason County Code, Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Chapter 17.50.060. The applicable policies and use regulations are the following; project details are presented in Exhibit 10 (#1 to 14): Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Program Policies: Utilities: 1. If possible,power distribution and telephone lines should be placed under ground in reasonable alternative. Tacoma Public Utilities SIMO12-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 2 The proposal is to replace powerlines and towers in an existing utility alignment resulting in fewer structures in the water. Placing underground lines would be cost prohibitive. 2. High voltage transmission lines should be placed in the water only when there is no reasonable alternative The existing power lines will remain over the water and connected to the single new in-water tower. 3. The possibility of making use of public utility rights-of-way to provide additional public access to lakes, streams,or saltwater should not be overlooked when granting such rights- of-way.Planning for location of towers, substations,valve clusters,etc., so as not to obstruct such access should be pursued. The dimensions of the existing utility right-of-way remains the same, with upland towers moved father from the saltwater. The utility easement is still available for limited access and views to surrounding lands. Chapter 17.50.060 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations: Utilities: 1. Discharges from sewage treatment plants shall not be allowed into Totten Inlet regardless of the environmental designation. Project not in Totten Inlet; and no sewer effluent into waterbodies. 2. Any excavation for a utility line must be restored to pre-project configuration,replanted with native species and provided with maintenance care until the newly planted area is established. Site preparation for all project elements will involve site erosion control and restoration with native plantings in upland sites. Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX, Shoreline Master Program Policies: Landfill: 1. Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources,or alteration of local currents will occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life,property,ecological values or natural resources. The proposed fills(marine concrete&wooden pilings; upland tower removal and vegetation restoration)will not affect bank stability or water conditions in the vicinity. 3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction,navigation restriction,impediment of water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered. Proposed fills will be limited to the site of tower removal and installation and will not impede tidal flows or affect navigation in the vicinity, and work site rehabilitation will include temporary tower and fill removal and buffer vegetation restoration as proposed. Chapter 17.50.060 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations: Landfill: 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands except that they may be permitted as a Conditional use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland structural alternative is possible. Landfill in wetlands for non- water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional Use PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1)Extraordinary or unique j circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location;(2) No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. Fills will be within the Case Inlet tidal channel as a necessary element to install the replacement tower footings but will not affect the direction or volume of channel flows. Landfill will take place on the east side site as part of the tower removal and native plant restoration. Tacoma Public Utilities SH O12-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 3 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geo- hydraulic and floodplain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. The new tower location is in deeper water at the center of the North Bay Case Inlet marine fetch, apart of the floodplain where no effects to flood hazard or storage capacity will occur. 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage. Proposed fills will not affect the natural surface drainage in the marine area or the upland tower restoration site. 5.Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion. Upland fills and the temporary work areas will be replanted, these elements will be part of project best management practices for the project. 6.Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information(at a minimum): a. Character and source of fill material; Heavy riprap for work pads and planting soils will be obtained from approved upland pit sources. b. Method of placement and compaction; Fill materials will be placed and compacted to meet engineering standards. c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any; No surfacing is proposed in this project. d. Method of perimeter erosion control; Silt fencing and jute matting and hydroseeding of annual species to be done prior to planting woody species. e. Proposed use of fill area; Tower foundation at new marine site and upland site restoration where towers are removed. f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns. Concrete pilings will be at the edge of the marine channel alignment and the old tower removal will provide for proper drainage from the surrounding grade. g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping. Straw,jute-matting, hydroseeding of exposed areas and replanting of native plants in the upland sites. 7.Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation,retaining walls,or other mechanisms for erosion prevention.Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion. These will be part of the construction best management practices used by the applicant. 8.Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. Clean riprap and soil materials will be obtained from approved upland pit sources. Chapter 17.50.080 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Conditional Use Evaluation: Uses which are classified or set forth in the Shoreline Master Program as conditional uses may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. "The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and the policies of the Master Program." The applicant has worked with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers, the WA. Dept offish and Wildlife, and Mason County Dept. of Community Development while designing the proposed powerline replacement proposal to lessen the impacts of the existing utility easement across North Bay Case Inlet.. The proposal will protect the Statewide interest of preserving the utility connections with production at Lake Cushman and distribution in the Tacoma area. The proposed tower replacement permits the continued electric utility use through the shoreline area via the existing powerline easement. 2. "The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shoreline." Tacoma Public Utilities SHR2012-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 4 The proposed powerline replacement project will protect the normal public use and access in the vicinity of the Case Inlet saltwater shoreline. This tower abutment project will improve the condition of the tower structures along the utility easement,protect the marine environment areas during the proposed repairs, and,following shoreline buffer vegetation replanting, enhance fish and wildlife habitat and access to the saltwater shoreline (Exhibit 10). 3. "The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses in the area." The proposed powerline tower improvements are compatible with the continuing area use of residential and recreational activities along Case Inlet. Providing a safer alignment of utility towers through the shoreline area, utility service can continue safely to the Tacoma urban areas, while assuring recreational user access to shoreline properties. 4. "The proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is located." The current power utility alignment has long provided the needed power transmission through the area to properties in Pierce and Mason Counties. The proposal reduces the number of in-water towers and moves upland towers away from the Case Inlet shoreline. Sediment and erosion control practices will limit water turbidity during the project, and on- site plant restoration will take place once the work areas are removed at the end of project. 5. "That the Public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect." The proposed replacements along the powerline tower alignment make the necessary on- going service improvements and will assure continued use of the shoreline areas by landowners, visitors, and recreational users along the saltwater areas of Case Inlet. Permit conditions will assure that impacts to the shoreline areas are minimized during preparation and construction of the proposed work along North Bay. Mason County Code Section 15.09.057 Variance Criteria The elements of the Tacoma Public Utilities proposed replacement of the powerlines and support towers and concrete support columns in the tidelands requires the evaluation and compliance with the Variance review criteria. Both the Mason County Development Regulations and the Mason County Shoreline Chapter of the MCC refer to MCC Section 15.09.057 for the findings required for approval of a variance. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the following variance criteria: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; The strict application of the Landfill standards[the applicant must demonstrate the following: (1)Extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2)No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists.]significantly interferes with a reasonable use of this proposal to replace an existing utility improvement located over the saltwater and in the tidelands of Case Inlet. The proposal to remove four existing in-water towers and replace with one pole tower at a central in-water position in the existing alignment through Case Inlet, reduces the current impacts to the existing Tacoma Public Utilities SHR2012-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 5 utility alignment. To remain in the alignment and make needed improvements to the utility lin, the column foundation work must be done in the shoreline area. Other work alternatives of rerouting the utility line or burying the lines would be more costly, more environmentally damaging to the shoreline, and more impacting to neighboring properties than remaining with the overhead tower replacement in the utility alignment. 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship, which serves as a basis for granting of the variance, is the location of the utility easement and proposed tower replacement and old tower removal within the natural feature of the mudflats and tidelands of Case Inlet. The restrictive development standards of Landfill Chapter of the Shoreline Master Program, as noted in criterion (1) above, require the review of the Variance for the column foundation work to be done within the shoreline area. The proposed work is the repair to an existing 85 year-old utility alignment and impacts are minimized as the four old towers are removed and replaced by the one tower midway in the Case Inlet shoreline area. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; The existing utility alignment established in 1925 provides power conveyance from Lake Cushman to the City of Tacoma. Existing residences along Case Inlet in the Allyn and Victor area were built well after the presence of the powerline alignment. The design of the powerline removal and replacement is compatible with these residences, and these actions reduces the number of structures in Case Inlet and do not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment.. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; As these proposed removal and replacement of existing towers is part of the needed repairs to the utility maintenance efforts, this Variance request is the minimum necessary to afford relief so that the Applicant can make the needed repairs to the existing system and provide continued utility service to the public. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The public interest will not suffer any detrimental effect to make the proposed repair. It is staffs concern that it is in the public interest to allow the proposed removal and replacement of utility towers, rather than letting the utility structures continue to deteriorate,fall into the shoreline areas, and cause system failure or impacts to shoreline views. 6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. Tacoma Public Utilities SFMO12-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 6 Public rights of navigation will be improved as four in-water towers (two pairs) are removed and one in-water pole tower is established. Two upland towers will be moved outside of the 200 foot deep shoreline management area as part of the re-stringing of the utility lines 7. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. A reasonable use of the land is to continue the operation of the existing electric utility line within the Tacoma Public Utility easement. The proposal calls for the removal or replacement of towers in unsafe condition and the restoration of a portion of the vegetation management area. Without the variance,the applicant will be unable to make the needed repairs to deteriorated portions of the utility powerlines and future operations of the powerline may be affected. The proposal is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, the Development Regulations (as addressed in the variance findings 1-6), the Mason County Code (as addressed in the variance findings 1-6), the Growth Management Act, and all other county ordinances. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following review criteria: 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code (MCC), especially Title 6, 8 and 16. This staff report served to review the conditional use and variance requests from the MCC Shoreline Master Program Chapter. The development being reviewed does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the MCC, including the Shoreline Master Program Chapter 17.50.080 Conditional Use and Chapter 17.50.090 Variance standards. There are no adverse effects to critical values or environmental areas that result from the proposal. 2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare as the project proposes to maintain an existing infrastructure element (public utility transmission line), is compatible with surrounding land uses, and does not adversely affect the natural environment(reduction of towers within the marine shoreline and upland areas). The request evaluates the needed rock fill and foundation materials that will protect the new tower structure and tideland area. 3. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. Tacoma Public Utilities SHR2012-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 7 The proposal does not lower the Level of Service for transportation or neighborhood park facilities, as it is a reasonable effort to protect an existing powerline structures along public utility easement that connects Mason County with Pierce County. X. Conclusions. Staff finds that the proposal as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX. Shoreline Management Program Policies, and Mason County Code, 17.50.060 Shoreline Master Program Utilities and Landfill Chapters, and the criteria of the Conditional Use and Variance Chapters. A decision made on this request should include the conditions listed below: 1. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) shall be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to beginning any site preparation and construction work. 2. A Section 10 Permit(Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899)or exemption must be granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to work within navigable waters of the United States. 3. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction will be disposed of in such a manner as to prevent their entry by erosion or from drainage into any water body. 4. All excess debris/fill not required for the project design must be removed from the site after project completion. Such debris may not enter or cause water quality degradation of State waters. 5. Fill materials for tower foundation abutments shall be of such quality(source or concrete origin)that they will not cause degradation of water quality. 6. Silt fencing, straw, or jute matting to be installed and maintained for erosion control in all disturbed upland areas. Erodible cuts shall be protected by planting or matting immediately following construction. 7. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place during their usage, and the site shall be restored to a natural condition shortly after abandonment by construction activity. 8. Construction to occur during daylight hours to minimize noise impacts. 9. The applicant/owners shall apply for a Mason Environmental Permit to implement the restoration of native vegetation plantings addressed in the Biological Evaluation prepared by David Evans&Associates dated April 2012 10. The applicant/owner shall implement the recommendations of the Archaeological Survey of Tacoma Power's Potlatch Transmission Line Phase 2 North Bay Crossins? Project prepared by Gary Wessen(Wessen&Associates); April 1012. XI. Choices of Action. 1. Approve. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). 5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15 Tacoma Public Utilities SHR2012-00009 North Bay Tower replacement report.doc 8 r V MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Courthouse Annex P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION / PERMIT NO. etHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT V SHORELINE VARIANCE DATE RECEIVED 'e�1'. d�y� SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE SHORELINE EXEMPTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program.The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals,polices,and performance standards established in the Master Program. Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be returned. / 1 APPLICANT: L i f5/ aL vwcL— Ga n.a ��6 :C �/tZ 14,eS Of 11v'.,,_+Lear- ADDRESS: W street) ry j (city) (state) j�`7 (ziP) TELEPHONE: Z S3. S0 Z (home,) (business) he AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: L"",3 Gya-AS�g ASSac.d4ai , C4dN: SCott gwar4s� ADDRESS: - 11 t5 r4 .4V(2el-U/,e- (streel) ,f(2 TELEPHONE: (city) 472So sta 3 (zip) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline): p �k B a- C rc3 SS c n% 6e-4-WeeAS l2 3 C 2 ay. ►� .3 . 1nl��lan� Pr OA On e-C S 1a e- c-� Nor- i3c,.Y Gel-l- ,s e2 n 9R 3 oZ ca.1u 41,e- LcLS/_ Legal description (include section; township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude location)-include all parcel numbers: J C'A-to tl S ! 7. c o✓.4.s k n Z Z N,�P 01 VW. Ll—1 n 3 4 O 16 N ('A �— !Z 2. � 1 8 G 2 V/ 1OAq Mari tie : E)64-1.+q ('Z216328©3(O }7tp ,Se� 1221G ZZZZZ22 OWNERS Contract Applicant Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner: (street) (city) (state) (zip) DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information): 4P- RGS;C rO. e_CA-- w b,-,/J LA s feek lug+tee SJee s40c_4urlEf (1)11 s e>? A-ov,.sers ors aAc .ec} -E,`o ZfS -�0� Z("J-Tcor �a�L C'pl+ct��� �Cts 'LS 0A FXtS�t. �'�a-.a.AS arc C'.�Od� i ��S eA cased �n co�cr ,e mew �,.0o' ` �---1 wo,,t8 bc� s,PP°4e6 s+ee� Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements: Gorr` &--1- b P.n i i /I ce CL uf� Reason for requesting development: nf'PU Eb Scicsml� y�G�C�L3� iJ!�e TC�v�e-r S /eant1 n ACKOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare,to th best of my knowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is true 7aW &-4VJ O (applicant or authorized representative) date) .............................................................................. TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area: If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade level,indicate the location of any residential units that will have an obstructive view: If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested,make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program: REVISED: 06-25-03 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building III, 426 W. Cedar St. P.O. Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE The purpose of Conditional Use Permit is to allow greater flexibility in varying the new application of the Use Regulations of the Master Program. Conditional Use Permits should also be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in R.C.W. 90.58.0200. In authorizing a Conditional Use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use. Uses which are classified, or set forth in the Master Program as conditional uses, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. Show that the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of R.C.W. 90.58. and the policies of the Master Program. The �o�c�s�c ��,�L�� S �`'^�"_J � 'IevT 2n11 c�S ry ��!�2 �c� Sd�ore_lw.� CnV fA y .` PA- aA) it-pru� V IS11u-� Ae S�e: 'C CG nS�uf?rQ- � �S y 01A\� ()Oe-S 116�' i w�(>�C-� P use- o r eA,Set'rr-\R'J-. 2. Show that the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shoreline. e h 0 VA 6 e-r s4ru 4 3 res i /i Ald rfA '9 ck, -Ff- 14 +0 (XA� L 1�,� �4 �s �� ©v-)e- s ho r4e l;A e- -,+ru cu re- b y �'� P l�t�vt cc��,, A- ('��e r v(p (C'V1 '\ ' fry.� p A w 7.. 3. Show that the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. -Flp - voPoSCX) 3_c�© p-, i S eK\s-fin �-���s�-►� �ss��.�► /,'i e cro s s;Ac . ex:'s �� �s���� ka�s b e-e-^, r n P/4ce 4. Show that the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located. \ -RA.2 r'), o S417U C--v z S- 5. Show that the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. ?" �V�L 'A,r'-" re((.S - of( r v,r'e G�.� ensGyme-4 wi 1l II__/1 o-/ a V�S�Y a-PF'C-t-PC� �`rnCe -l'��t `�roJe�4 ! o,3 bee -+b `` ► y ,n'�v��z�II -��e n v v�doe r - wc�-f�e �-Iru Aj re.S G�c� e-kVAi nc'-b2 Other uses, which are not classified or set forth in the Master Program, may be authorized as conditional uses provided that the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the Use Regulations of the Master Program. Uses, which are specifically prohibited by the Master Program, may not be authorized. In the granting of all Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Conditional Use Permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses should remain consistent with the policies of the Master Program and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Please attach any additional information, as needed. ` MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VARIANCE The purpose of the Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program, where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variance Permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), except those areas designated as marshes, bogs, or swamps, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. Show that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. p e J ro;�c ; 5 �: IN ; l v my Tke Ivy-ltic�'t�� boo r 1p-> 75 vrCen� �L.�Li �s "f" �e r'1'i�rt�,.1`t v vvi {?P c i✓S Sci r y (\e c c z o "�U C r o S 5 J�(�r--� I�C�, 2. Show that the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the Variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. J -11�Q E'X�5{i ��� R-WCVer S7`/Vc:f,j CS GirE Q L Cf0 in ti h e` I eL.� ton ..-1erw� o c'r�nT ru�7 C? vJ C-recCl�-,n W 1 rU/�S,v •SSi n L'o�/:dc�r jS nn Lconol�.cti\ - �t lc'_ o.n we,ulC� ��svl-4- ivy Sic r:� ccct,� 3. Show that the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. t �in� COfr c]Or" '7r 2-Ui�4-- )'Yl. cif .k \Q , q p re L'C -11 �ry rf'o, C Revised 1/95 Shoreline Variance Page 2 4. Show that the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary toafford relief. aAe CxSSCCLcl '0A r�Ji hn r CO Fr"60 5. Show that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. ailS'F1niSS `L L' fir. \CA S rPV ' U �r eC W i �1 l✓h rc �/2 u rC--I iLe r2/)V"f'p^p Yj �L.0 jL nC ��2. v cvi t✓1-�J�C'r S tIL. re. 1 r� .G Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within marshes, bogs, or swamps, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to Items 1 through 5 above, that: 6. Show that the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. ' nC4-0 �� -� {fw � c r c In granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional request for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Revised 1/95 ANDERSON &SONS INC. WALTER BERG P.O. BOX 108 16550 AGATE PASS RD. NE ALLYN WA 98524 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 WASHINGTON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION HAROLD CAREY STATE LANDS DIV. P.O. BOX 330 P.O. BOX 47440 TAHUYA WA 98588 OLYMPIA WA 98504 MICHAEL POZZI JACK JOHNSON 70 NE RAINBOW PL. NO. P.O. BOX 1119 BELFAIR WA 98528 BELFAIR WA 98528 TAYLOR UNITED INC. CITY OF TACOMA 130 SE LYNCH RD. TRANSPORTATION - UTILITIES SHELTON WA 98584 P.O. BOX 11007 TACOMA WA 98411 WASHINGTON DEPT. OF FISH &WILDLIFE JAY YANAMURA 600 CAPITOL WAY NO. 29708 226T" AVE. SE OLYMPIA WA 98501 BLACK DIAMOND WA 98010 STEVE CASE VIOLA SMITH P.O. BOX 812 3241 ESTATE ROUTE 302 HILLSBORO OR 97123 BELFAIR WA 98528 MIDWEST FUNDING & FINANCIAL TSP INVESTMENTS LLC 28015 SMYTH DR. 2001 CENTER ST. VALENCIA CA 91355 TACOMA WA 98409 cn i n R p i23 K1 T2 R1 8 {{N r p v T23NR2W �� T23N 2 wP �5Q NE BYERLY DR r RD NE SQUIRE LN Kitsap O� ME NOS Puget Sound 00 E ALTA DR I o 110 v Q, 4�7 Wf /4/ _ 66 FORTH BA yRO t 44/ l 1 t J [ T22NR2W 0 x u, 2 R1 uJ w/m' "C NAHUM LN 10 O > O F. RDA 4(1 w ERO E � T k `v1� I —� GQMPPO`II�R��N 9 F441VO DR GAO E(P EVE Co w l ` Pierce E PATHFINDERS DR ��(Q'P � I I I C2 w 1 w Puget Sound i N Sl [z — QO�I T�c�i Pu uhII h&S 1 inch =4,000 feet W E v 1 inch = 1 mmiiless��Q,�,l S V�if���-IV ,( 271 Coulter Creek Q H iBM 17 ,• fE,ARE qw I Polot vWtor - - 4-U O 1 i i 7 I 5 :1 PROJECT AREA Q U L' \ 9 2 51 C $ � Sherwood �� -'• Creek Rocky Creek / _ lym Shore- D — Rocky Poin ROCKY Source:TOPO!National Geographic USGS Site Map h Potlatch Transmission Lines- North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project 0 .5 1 EPSY00000002 Figure DAVID EVANS ...o Scale in Miles February 2012 ASSOCIATES—. (240111d Yw��y-OPO Vd�) saIiw 0 = taaui laal 009 = yaui 6 µ;xi. r ..! All �► r�x A ,a tr J. y ✓« ymotAV S ac y IL - r s f� •a�*! 1 /+��11 '^II�/]�\////�J/� K }T�d ! ;ir.�...�A r�V�'�I v.y m r- •. �~, _ J V II/ MF '°tea `�'4 y���\r, �;` t I'� YRIN Iwaw—w,roW- •I wpmq kPO•IN •ta•Ld N41•<t,e•a•nNK`•lo'wewN�w%w^•4e[•>G�•1 M•1^•Ia+M WssiNeq�rgQt Mrstw wtlsWlwd MsMM WW MPOPOwWMM d•wasuai•P41•PwpcvnquwN•wy�a,nowpgf•Hu•u•«Usi�slsr.,Mlwwlwsl/ip1tAtMtllvtllw�•Is+ w,nM%A wdn owdtw Rawuro su•Fa wi wftuft—Ad jW=%R A.1 I 1 04 VRWWWPW pwsAo s vwmm rtoz dIBnjged lYIOMOY Y O"V"GI A" �n l j T"ig 000( 09L 009 osz 0 y Z000-OOOOASd3 gw e (sNn u 00-a»�Rjfl # join ►d AJ!n48216u.wao AuG(WoN %os m 91 UO0-1�In6lKils -seu!7 uo!ss!ursulul Ua)BAQd a�mw�n ouPm wl•ow��voa� %sl�s tqurdNU suijaw Dw aU{lorng- %S a10 atnpn4S#AN)oS g deal spueRaM MAN Pue sadolg 9Pur1ISMUMN edols ,vnPn4SGAOLt.a I= 4A ; Ir MA g F a <a a g A 0 I i i k a2) R' F I i StNn01 951 e 0 ►� ,, MW-1 �,X_1 r I EX f •d� 7 EX� N -3 f Stri g 51 e 2 5' �N a Depth Contour(meters) ® Remove Structure Site Layout M a p a t • Sounding(meters) + Set New Slructure Coast Line Stringing Location Potlatch Transmission Lines- North Bay Crossing Rebuild Protect VAtland A eat ® 0002 ���EPSY0000 0 250 500 750 1,000 -- Figure g February 2012 T M»�a�CM{PGA hA�Nr�,be� Ile E4clr<Y Pwvw EplenaM Nw•IT NM OM.I�MMM yMM�rA dd..lb61r{b cgJsl DCA rtrA..rnln•rlMrry w�..��..bu+.�ea.rr•M wMwWM rKM.wMiwM �wIMr.MN bl{mfM FkMM MrWH qpwu Wr a o[A d r WWd Od s w{w•rrr«h.a wwX erw{vlw+.«Anr.w•r IYI�M.ryroY IrAMY MSM/r.r writ',E.A tibRuls r np�Os•M nr►4«7 ruron wnMur ba.r1u-cena.nl of[>F A l r,v�yY .• T t• Fi 1: . t 7 !►i ref � � � ' . �'. '' � "`,,� � +� 0 O"Mew of prefect men looWv wW acrow Site Photographs ) Norm Bay. A •i. &WM Say .. _ -.- EPSYOOOO0002y2Ol2 . — I ChPm►Nast Heron Nett �i • iA rC _ d.. �+ +M6�w. T----I C2� North Be crossing during - y �'�D Site Photographs Geotechnlcal Boring. Potlatch Transmission Lines- Close-up of Photo 2. North Bay Crossing Rebuild Project e EPSY00000002 Figure owvlo tvwNa Feb+vwy2012 —ASSOCIAT!•... PORTION OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 17, SW 1/4 OF SEC 16, SE 1/4 OF SEC 16 TWP. 22 N RGE. 1 WEST W.M. LAKE (�KOENEMAN 3 302 Y v /KITSAP COU NTY LAKE � PIERCE COUNTY DEVEREAUX 5 ALLYN UGA FPR — MITIGATION mLIMITS OJECT SITE - SITE COM A POWER R I 144 0 R R,O w• ¢ VICTOR P �ACOMA P ILA RDKP � f7 MI TO PURDY iE z Z 8.WK CUFfON RD LNDERSON cc �D -1 z Lo e 302 -- ZW OU cn W I1y 3 0 � VAUGHN BA m TREASURE ISLAND s VICINITY MAP 0 1/2 MI 1 MI 2 MI CONVERGENCE ANGLE- -183Y AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT J n I/q� C CHANGING BY 010' A �/ Li l! J ItYEAR l�' RSPSSffi10E �: PROJSC! LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECIl: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUND APPLICANT: UT/LONG: 1rI:NORTH BAY Iff TACOMA PUBLIC 071JTES LATITUDE 47'23' 24' N jig/AZ; ALLYN, WA DAVID RVAN• LONGITUDE 12T 49' 08' W amwsNOCIATtN'*a' DATUM HORIZ SOUTH NAD 83/91 COUNTY: MASON ss-fMA�E VERT: NAVD 88 SPATE: WA now SEMZT 1 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHIM TIM:VICINITY MAP PORTION OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 17, SW 1/4 OF SEC 16, SE 1/4 OF SEC 16 TWP. 22 N, RGE. 1 WEST W.M. NEW 3-POLE ACCESS ROAD STRUCTURES NoRr q Y --- sR SEE SITE ACCESS PLAN--WEST. Rp OLD TOWERS ORDINARY HIGH TO BE WATER LINE DEMOLISHED SEE MARINE Iq SEE PLAN AND FOUNDATION PROFILE SHEETS. PLANS. NORT,y A,q y 0 OLD TOWERS I TO BE SEE PLAN AND DEMOLISHED PROFILE SHEETS. SEE SITE MITIGATION SITE ACCESS PLAN-EAST. ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE DECLINATION:—1877' ACCESS ROAD CHANGING BY 0'10' A YEAR NOTE: OVERHEAD pm% I NEW SINGLE-POLE POWER LINES OMITTED 0 300 600 1200 STRUCTURES FOR CLARITY, l III: PBOJWr LOCATION: PR0P088D PROJIwLl (REFERENCE2/ NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSI0N LINES NORTH BAY CR065NG REBUILD APPl1CANT: LAT/IONG: IN:NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLJC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W ?MR/AT-ALN. WA GAVID EVANH COUNTY: MASON ,wASSOCIATR8,,,wWSE VERT. NAVD 88 mm DATUM: HORIZ SOUTH NAD 83/91 97ATB: WA ,N, SHEET 2 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 n�.dseaso SHSBT TITLE: PRO,ECT PLAN VIEW - TAX PARCEL ID: 1$' GRAVEL 1122167590041 ACCESS ROAD TAX PARCEL ID:122167590031 _ s W I ._ 1 R.O.w� TAX PARCEL TACOMA ' ID:122167590042 -� �- LIMITS OF PUBLIC WEND ! r-� DISTURBANCE UTILITIES R/IMP TAX PARCEL ESMT. RE TORA ON ID:122167590032 A EA ( `TAX PARCEL i TAX PARCEL to. ID:122167590043 v �-� L TACOMA PUBLIC r 122164360030 ` STAGING AREA t}'t`UT1LITlES IESMT. / TAX PARCEL f l r r/ ( j ID:1122167590033: �) 1 t Ej N !!i r ( SINGLE POLE S ' I a ( f' STRUCTURE (TYP� ' � 1 :REM YED r T-r l u Y ~ ORDINARY HIGH ���IIr PARCEL WATER t--�--�� - I { ! ID: �122167590044 LINE I I ra / 1 r i ,: .TAX PARCEL r r-- `` f! �I0:122167590034 LIMITS OF V f LT I, < DISTURBANCE TAI�Omg PU�L UTIES ESMT. 200' SHORELINE M^, BUFFER COW O?GENCE / ANGLE- —1e73r / AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT / CHANGNG BY 0'10' A YEAR � / NOTE: OVERHEAD POWER LINES OMITTED 0 60 120 240 FOR CLARITY, REFERENCE PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROaDM. NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES 19 NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT: IAT/IANG: �(;NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTIUTiES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24" N NEAR/AT''NORTH AY WA DAVID EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' DC W P MASON AmaASSOCtAT[Sam DATUM: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83/91 +6-sti.o.. M VERT. NAYD 88 SPATE: wA wmikelm mi" e'e o"O �6P 3 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SIEW TM'IZ:SITE ACCESS PLAN-EAST TAX PARCEL IN TAX PARCEL 122174-400040 , TACOMA PUBLIC ID:122174400050 LIMITS OF ASPHALT , UTILITIES ESMT. / DISTURBANCE ROAD / i rAx' P_ ARE APPROACH } ':: l R.O.W. / ID:122174360010 s .' 200' SHORELINE ' GATE l _ BUFFER ' 1 B GRAVEL , `y~ PARCEL TLC D:—i`" / TAX PARCEL ACCESS TAX A E ,. ID:122174400000 � ROAD ':: - 12217006000 !` iJ 17 UMjTS OF ( ) (J DISTURBANCE j 1 EXISTING_� WERS !f T00 BE 4r / w .REMOVED STI`ING' OO' �.AREA, 3 POLEL— STRUCTURE (T1fP) L / — /1 d\ r� l J r ORDINARY 1 /( / HIGH TAX PARCEL ID ,, ��// I } ( WATER 122174390040 U$ AX PARCEL I LINE Q AX PARCEL ID: 122174400030 1 �d TACOMA 4^d 122205021001 PUBLIC WSDOT TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES R.O.W. ' UTILITIES ESMT. ESMT. ^ TAX PARCEL ID:122174400020 gP�( cC I R.O.W. N / CONVERGENCE / ANGLE- -1677 / AT THE CENTER OF PROJECT CHANGING BY / 010' A YEAR / / / NOTE: VERHEAD _ 7 POWER LI MITTED o as 120 240 / / 1 FOR CLARITY. 41 a mcs PRQnWT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: J NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD IN APPLICANT: LAT/LDNG: IN;NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UnuTIES LATITUDE 4T 23' 24' N NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA CAVID NVANs LONGITUDE 122' 40' 08' W COUNTY: MASON mmASSOCIATES oe. DATWL: HORIZ: SOUTH NAD 83M STATE: WA �.MAV. K VERT- NAVD 88 BEIRT 4 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 rlbw�mweeoo BIIBBT TM'LB: SITE ACCESS PLAN-WEST ,.. aw wu 1m �.f'f: 1 1 - I 1 :/:1:1: 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 :1 1 J / AVG 1• -, I 1 � T /t lNvkLL o / pea V=,`==_==-===mm - - -mmmm__-__'`i�____i__ t �n - lemmmmm MEMMMME �' C�DDDDDmm '_�`•L_••_DDDD D T T�If.r7_____.�. r! __ mmmma INS; \DD—XZDD♦ ____-11 /7 __.1i,DD___________..r ___________w___i�r\ i ___ __ t_ ___________ ....D _Emmmmmmmmmmm ____________ __1 _M --------------Ciiii�,.__r. --------------.I /•--I ________i_____i:r_.i _ is —___iw_______ �Cil i __ ,/I',, CIDDDDCDDDODCComm >�GDC of;1f�DDii .• --R., -----------r� — o toNo �' �t _____rIi//__il■ _GDw�_-�IDDD_i__Du..r'Iri'ri__-1. ■� � ' _Dw_Dw�i_w_____D►�Ei____I C . r.la+..r� r/a� _ww► b ii_ D=DDCDDDDDDDCDDDD;:J.DO • DDD:M====DDD==a D�ci DD _________i____. Zu manczcmmmmmmm , cAmmmmmmm _mmm _______I I .I a• •.f•. a i■ _ME i_i___W A. _iI - __MMZZZ_C �� .�i1�. •Fi.— _ small- _ -- Am--ME 111111 11111 Saw L/ 11se'-0'f TEMPORARY LINE POLE TO • z m EXISTING EXISTING m SPREAD CONDUCTORS. SEE m TOWER, TYP CONDUCTORS, cv 58.0 TYP <m _NEW MARINE m F to N ellFOUNDATION AND POLE a co 3` ul m SEE MF-4 N to m TEMPORARY LINE POLE TO SPREAD CONDUCTORS. SEE S8.0 t AA, BOTH EXISTING CIRCUITS MAY BE MOVED TO �; N- � J. 1 PLAN -WORK AREA THE NORTH IN LIEU OF SPREADING THE �? C SCALE: NTS EXISTING CONDUCTORS AS SHOWN. S N Z z NEW NEW POLE SEE 51.0 MARINE EXISTING FOUNDATION CONDUCTORS W EXISTING T0WER :j F V m � 7 Fj 2 ELEVATION -WORK AREA SCALE. NTS zlu O r (a awL/et/O :MY([ rl dO c J$� .�aoo ...��.�•a NOSVN -'AM MOO 16/£E OVN RUIOS IMH :R=VQ msalvl�Otsva� M .90 ,6* M WILIONOl eNVAa CHAVO VM 'NA AV :y�� N X XZ It 3OrUiLYl S3tLnLLn onend V110OV1 AVB Ve W ON :t)kIO7/iPt �OflddV O11f1831J 9NS9O2q �1V8 HllION S3NIl NOISSINSNVHI H31V110d AVG HLSON �L32md amd08d -KOUV30Fi LMOHd Ko r�-At rx rc rrn rc L LI■ Yt vu yp��■ M 711d J • ra .VC t rx rs� rA rr y { —� s a rx Z1W • du Am= f Ld• L �7� PCIE I COW PIlE W cxaur EL+,dam STEEL PIPE P21&TP WuW gas WOLDE EL—S.tl bJ ELEVAl10N mda r �'l ItHF>Y MCE #: PROJXCT IACATION: PROPOSED PROJIRM: NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPI1cAN't: LAT/I,oNa: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES LATITUDE 47' 23' 24- N Dwvi0 EVANS LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W NEAR/AT: ALLYN, WA CODN µ,A8S00iATas4.a DATUM: HOW. SOUTH NAD 83/91 TY: MASON ,q-M*A,,,,»SE VERT. NAVD 88 STATE: WA a-b—W"rr'W mm wo SST 8 01 14 DATE: D4/18/2O12 Pt, 429B.AM SST TTTU:MF-5 PILE CAP ELEVATION 1! a C Eli pRIQUL W CWC PLLE CAP BAR!BUT.TOP FOLLOM sDK OF 00W tmill loos 1Y? 9 E*L+1B.JD CONK rn�� ! !e r1A TIP(4 EA MX) ss �rn IUW+o.s uumnw a-do w SECTION _,.�. 2®, + s e m 1oP!BOT.TOP POLE BM FOLLOW rnour COLIC PILE CAP SLOPE or OCK oPna+u u �2&1AWL EL+iEus /6 I—1 TYP(4 EA eIDq e SECTION w 31Ir-T—�' 2 I ocdo r.c IiHP138ENCS /: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSED PROJECT: 1 NORTH BAY POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINES NORTH BAY CROSSING REBUILD APPLICANT- LLT/IANQ: IN:NORTH B TACOMA PUBLIC UTIUTE AY S LATITUDE 47' 23' 24' N �/.�.AY WA DAVID rvANs LONGITUDE 122' 49' 08' W COUNTY: MASON wrA��001AT�!sa DATUM: HORIL• SOUTH NAD B3/91 -aYA�a PERT: NAYD 8B SPATE: WA SHEET 9 OF 14 DATE: 04/18/2012 SHEET TME:YF-B PILE CAP SECTIONS v1: 1 m EXISTING CONC. FOOTINGS FOR j OH 1 POWERLINE TOWERS I� o o Z 1 (TYPICAL) s { W1 I l z w? AD ? Z A4 WETLA A � �U7 m _AL u1 OHWM 3A, ,>ryLAI A& �O AL I s4 At. Ak m N13 I 0_' 4 5 O ~ Z I �O EXISTING BUILDING LEGEND 0 20 40 80 — ' — — WETLAND BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET WETLAND AREA WEIIAND DATA PLOT W1# P WETLAND FLAG W/# u UPLAND AREA OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OH OVERHEAD WIRES Cl vJ NORTH Tri'La: EXISTING CONDITIONS sir PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HOR17- PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION UNE— UTITUDE: 47' 22' 23` N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID BVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD ^HoASSOCIATEs�wo. IN WETLAND A APPLICANT: 4e-tWA. ea NEAR/AT: NORTH'BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES wad*°""r°°° 42seR@mo COUNTY: MASON rtrar SPATE: WA SHEET 10 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 ALI AlL PROP RED O BUFFf o0 a -RESTORA-T10N_ ,,>� ,r ' to ao L4 1� AREA PROPOSED F_ z WETLAND ,� z RESTORAT10N- AILr*1 AR8A 1 1 � � ; �1 c / -- ' t _RbPOSEQq c MIEIL M A cRAv A c� r RESTORATION PLANTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QNTY SIZE HT, GAL. SPACING REMARKS SHRUB ® CORNUS SERICEA RED—OSIER DOGWOOD 156 HT,1'-2', 2 GAL 4' O.C. CONTAINER, WELL BRANCHED ® ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 55 HT,1'-2', 2 GAL 4' O.C. CONTAINER, WELL BRANCHED GROUNDCOVER ® HYDROSEED MIX 1,517 S.F. NOTE: SEE PLANTING NOTES, DETAIL AND HYDROSEED MIX SHEET 4. IMPACT/RESTORATION SUMMARY ® WETLAND IMPACT/RESTORATION AREA = 2,158 S.F. ® WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT/RESTORATION AREA = 765 S.F. 0 15 30 60 ® TEMP. WETLAND DISTURBANCE/RESTORATION AREA = 397 S.F. SCALE IN FEET TEMP. WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE/RESTORATION AREA — 1,120 S.F. 1' — 30 LEGEND Zs UPLAND AREA — — — — WETLAND BOUNDARY 11 WETLAND AREA CRANE PAD AREA ROW RIGHT—OF—WAY STRAW WATTLE 100' SLE 100' SOUTHERN LINE EASEMENT 100' NLE 100' SOUTHERN LINE EASEMENT I l NORTH , RESTORATON PLANTING PLAN PROJECT LOCATION: LATAONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE- 9 LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23' N NORTH BAY CROSSING— D"ID 6VAN8 LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD AmoASSOCIATE ma. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 40-Is,A SR NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY Bom-~W-Vol-m° COUNTY: MASON TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Herr aaeia®o STATE' w'A SHEET 11 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 COD STAKE STRAW WATTLE 4 X ' X 24 INCHES TAKE SPACING 8 TO 10 INCHES 3 TO 7 INCHES (ADJOINING FT MAXIMUM IN DIAMETER HTLY ABUT WATTLES , 8INCHES LOW MINIMUM PLAN SECTION STRAW WATTLE INSERT NOT TO SCALE S>E99T TMU: DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: [AT/LONG: HORIZ: PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD BB POTLATCH TRANSMISSION UNE- LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23' N NORTH BAY CROSSING- DAVID HVANS LONGITUDE: 122' 48' W W REBUILD AmDASSOCIATEB j". IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 46-tftAmiaM NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY&MwLk TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES F90 � COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 12 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 0 o ROOT CROWN 1'-2" ABOVE o e PLANTING SOIL GRADE °p BARK MULCH. HOLD BACK 4' FROM MAIN STEM 3" MEDIUM BARK MULCH FINISH GRADE PLANTING SOIL — SEE NOTES FERTILIZER EXISTING SUBGRADE MIN. 2 X ROOT BALL SHRUB PLANTING FiYDRC*EM W( NOT TO SCALE KIND/VARIETY % BY WEIGHT MIN. X GERM PERENNIAL RYE 50X 90% RED FESCUE 30X 80% COLONIAL BENTGRASS 20X 85% APPLICATION RATE: 150 LBS/ACRE ERO—FIBER WOOD FIBER MULCH: 1,500 LBS/ACRE NUTRICULTURE SEED STARTER FERTILIZER (16-45-7):—50 LBS/ACRE CANFOR ECO—TAC GUAR TACKIFIER: 60 LBS/ACRE STAY MOIST MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT: 60 LBS/ACRE NOTES 1. CLEAR AND GRUB ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCLUDING CRANE PAD RESTORATION AREA, AS SHOWN ON SHEET 11. GRUB TO A DEPTH SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE ALL ROOTS, ROOT CROWNS, AND OTHER VEGETATIVE MATERIAL. ALL VEGETATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SITE. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT CRANE PAD RESTORATION AREA, SHALL BE AMENDED WITH 6' TOPSOIL TYPE A. TOPSOIL SHALL BE TILLED INTO THE TOP 12" OF EXISTING SOIL TO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 3. APPLY TIME RELEASE FERTILIZER (BUFFER PLANTS ONLY) OSMOCOTE TM OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT, PER MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. 4. HYDROSEED ALL PLANTING AREAS WITH SPECIFIED HYDROSEED MIX ABOVE. 5. ALL PLANTS IN THE PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE PLANT SCHEDULE (SHEET 11) AND DETAIL (THIS SHEET). 6. ALL PLANT PITS SHALL RECEIVE 3' MEDIUM BARK MULCH RINGS SHM TnU: DETAILS PROJECT LOCATION: IAT/LONG: HORIZ PROPOSED PROJECT: NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM-- VERT. NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— LATITUDE: 47' 22' 23' N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAVID BVANS LONGITUDE 122' 48' 44' W REBUILD AmA000CIAT88 iwo. IN: WETLAND A APPLICANT: 'O'VAA�- NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY a � COUNTY: MASON TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES STATE: WA SHEEP 13 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 MATCH NO WORK WEST EXISTING 18� GRADE OF STAGING. WETLANDS 12" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE PER WSDOT EXISTING STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT NOTE: GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (MIRAFI 14—N COMPACTED SUITABLE NATIVE MATERIAL. OR APPROVED EQUAL) SHALL BE UNSUITABLE NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED BELOW CRUSHED SURFACING OVEREXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH BASE COURSE FOR SEPARATION. STRUCTURAL FILL. SUBGRADE SHALL BE WRAP AROUND CSBC. COMPACTED TO 95% MAX. DRY DENSITY. CRANE PAD NOT TO SCALE NOTE& CRANE PAD RESTORA 110N GENERAL 1. REMOVE ALL STRUCTURAL FILL, GEOTEXTILE LINER AND CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE MATERIALS FROM DISTURBED WETLAND AND BUFFER AREAS AND DISPOSE OFF—SITE. 2. SCARIFY COMPACTED SUBGRADE MIN. 4" DEPTH. 3. BACKFILL DISTURBED WETLAND AND BUFFER AREAS WITH 18- (MIN.) MIX OF 50% NATIVE SOIL AND 50% COARSE COMPOST MULCH. MULCH SHALL COMPLY WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, 2009, SECTION 8-02.3(11). SIZE RANGE OF MULCH SHALL BE FROM 1/2 INCH TO 1-1/4 INCHES WITH A MAXIMUM OF 100 PERCENT PASSING A 1 INCH SCREEN. 4. HYDROSEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS, WITH HYDROSEED MIX AS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 13. 5. PLANT WETLAND AND BUFFER PLANTING AREAS AS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 11. Timm Tm: DETAILS C�J PROJECT LOCATION: LAT/LONG: HoR1Z PROPOSED PROJECT NORTH BAY CROSSING DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 POTLATCH TRANSMISSION LINE— LATITUDE: 4T 22' 23" N NORTH BAY CROSSING— DAV1D EVANB LONGITUDE: 122' 48' 44" W REBUILD A"A880CIAT89 irw. IN; WETLAND A APPLICANT: <a-IMAvermam NEAR/AT: NORTH BAY TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Phh CAM COUNTY: MASON STATE: WA SHEET 14 OF 14 DATE: 4-18-12 i 3628 South 35t'Street Tacoma.Washington 98409-3192 TACOMA POWER T TACOKA IVNLIC VTILITI[E ACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Determination of Non-significance (DNS) SEPA File Number: SEP2012-40000183278 Description of Proposal: Tacoma Power (TPWR) is proposing to replace its two existing 115kV transmission line circuits crossing the North Bay of Case Inlet, Mason County, Washington. The proposed Potlatch Transmission Lines North Bay Crossing Project would replace the existing Potlatch #1 and #2 lines, and structures crossing North Bay between the communities of Allyn and Victor. The Project would be approximately one mile in length. The portion of the project that would cross the North Bay would be approximately 0.6 miles. Eight of the existing lattice towers and foundations, constructed in 1925, will be replaced. The four in-water structures and foundations will be replaced with one 170 foot pole structure atop a new foundation mid-bay within the existing alignment. Two sets of structures and foundations on either side of the bay will be replaced with new pole structures and foundations approximately 300 feet further from the shoreline. Proponent: City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Light Division, dba Tacoma Power Location of proposal, including street address, if any: Potlatch 115 kV Transmission Line in Mason County, Crossing North Bay Case Inlet and North Bay Rd_ and State Route 302 near the communities of Allyn and Victor, within the southwest'/, Section 16, Township 22 N, Range 1 W; Latitude 47-23-24 N / Longitude 122-49-09 W Lead Agency: City of Tacoma City Contact: Pat Leach, P.E., S.E., Project Manager 3628 South 351h Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3192 Phone: 253-502-8122 E-Mail: pleach@cityoftacoma.org I( � 3628 South 35"Street T Jar- Tacoma,Washington 98409-3192 -- ------------- - TACOMA POWER T TACONA IV{LIC VTILIT116 ACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES Determination: The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after a review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The issuance of this SEPA Determination does not constitute final project approval. The proponent must comply with applicable requirements of the City of Tacoma and other agencies with jurisdiction prior to receiving construction permits. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the issue date below. Comments must be submitted by August 2, 2012. Responsible Official: David Ward, P.E., Transmission and Distribution Section Manager 3628 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3192 Phone: (253) 502-8286 Issue Date: July 19, 2012 You may appeal this Determination of Non-significance: You may appeal this determination to the City of Tacoma Hearing Examiner by filing a written Notice of Appeal together with a filing fee as set forth in TMC 13.12.680, no later than 14 days after the issuance of this determination, or August 2, 2012. Signature: JZ MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P.O. Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 SHR2012-00009 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT. Notice is hereby given that Tacoma Public Utilities who are owners of the described property below,have filed an application for a Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit/ Variance for the development of: NEW HEARING DATE TO REVIEW: Along existing over-water powerline alignment across North Bay, replace four in-water 150-ft. high structures with one new in-water 170-ft. high structure. One existing upland structure on each side will be moved further upland when replaced. The eastside tower will be moved outside shoreline jurisdiction; the westside tower is already outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Parcel Numbers: 12216-32-80310, 12217-43-60010, 12216-43-60030. Site Address: +/- 300 E North Bay Rd; Allyn WA. Location of Project: Over North Bay Case Inlet and along North Bay Rd. and State Route 302; within the southwest '/4 of Section 16, Township 22 N., Range 1 W. in Mason County Washington. Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit, conditional use, and variance review(M.C.C. 17.50)and associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 279 SHELTON,WA 98584 The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173- 14-020. The final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is June 14, 2012. Written comments will be accepted up to the NEW HEARING DATE of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday AUGUST 28,2012; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at(360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information. A Threshold Determination is pending by Tacoma Public Utilities under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this project must be received by August 28, 2012 at the time of the public hearing. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE 12 dddD°t STATE OF.WASHINGTON ) TMAM ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do hereby certify i that I posted copies of I, the attached PLO hze- 01� cc on G day of 20 l Z in public places as follows: , one at P.�5 � ��SScj Sc one at Aw one atA:&tc ow 0 l� In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of posting Notice this day of 05' , 20 l By. -Address: - +' 27 S W4 9,6q Notary Public State of Washington STATE OF WASHINGTON ) KATHLEEN SOINE SS. My Appointment Expires Aug 22,2014 COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me thisA&I�ay of 20 Nota Pub i for the tate�f Was ington Residing at LD Commission Expires