Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DDR2014-00039 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 12/9/2015
DDR2015-000039 Page 1 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O.Box 279 Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670 TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM: Planning Staff— Allan Borden • ahb@co.mason.wa.us RE: Special Use Permit(DDR2014-00039)to review new land uses at educational learning center on three parcels of Agricultural Resource Land west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. HEARING DATE: December 9,2015 1:00 pm STAFF REPORT I. Project Description. This report evaluates Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG) applies to update its current educational learning center Special Use Permit (SUP), DDR2009-00053, so as to: 1) Occasionally host all-day events on any day of the week with up to 400 people who will arrive on busses or in cars that will park in the south pasture; 2) Occasionally host all-day events on any day of the week where up to 100 individuals arrive in no more cars than can be accommodated by the currently permitted 72 parking spaces; 3) Regularly hold educational classes after 5pm and on the weekends for up to 30 individuals; and 4)Develop a recreational park connected to the existing trail system east of Roessel Rd and allow public access through the property for the use of these trails and this park on any day of the week. A Special Use Permit is necessary(Exhibit#2) as part of the public review required by the Mason County Development Regulations standards to evaluate the nature and scope of this proposed land use on Agricultural Resource Lands in this area of Mason County. II. Applicant. HCSEG/Pacific Northwest Salmon Center. III. Property Location.At 660 and 720 NE Roessel Road (Exhibit 42 and 4), and pastureland adjacent to the west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area, and State Route 3; within the northeast'/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 32,Township 23 N., Range 1 W. in Mason County Washington. [Parcel# 12332-50-00087(14.01 ac.), 12332-50-00088 (10 ac.), and 12332-50-00089 (10 ac.)]. Parcel # 12332-50-00088 is a new parcel included with this update SUP request; the other two parcels were part of the DDR2009- 00053 SUP request approved on August 30,2009. IV. Date of Complete Application: October 30,2015. V. Evaluations. PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report 'r CASE INDEX Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Pacific Northwest Salmon Center Special Use Permit DDR2014-000039 Exhibit# Date Description 1 November 30, 2015 Staff Report 2 October 30, 2015 Application for Special Use and Supplemental Information 3 October 30, 2015 Project Vicinity Ma Image 4 October 30, 2015 Project Map Close-up Image 5 October 30, 2015 Project Map 2013 Image 6 November 10, 2015 Map of Belfair UGA and Adjacent Area Zoning 7 November 10, 2015 PNWSC Traffic Analysis 8 October 30, 2015 Notice of Application 9 November 30, 2015 Affidavit of Posting 10 October 30, 2015 Septic Change of Use Justification 11 November 6, 2015 SEPA Determination 12 November 27, 2015 Comments of Ken Van Buskirk 13 August 31, 2009 Notice of Decision for DDR2009-00053 PNW Salmon Center 2014 SUP case index 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Emily Terrell,Hearing Examiner Pro Tem 3 4 RE: Hood Canal Salmon FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS 5 Enhancement Group OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Pacific Northwest Salmon 6 Center 7 Special Use Permit DDR2014-000039 8 9 INTRODUCTION 10 The applicants seek a special use permit (SUP) to occasionally host group events 11 from 100-400 participants, expand the educational center's hours after 5 pm and on weekends for classes up to 30 students, and develop a recreational park connected to 12 the existing trail system east of Roessel Road with public access. The SPU is 13 approved subject to conditions. 14 ORAL TESTIMONY 15 Staff Testimony 16 Allan Borden, Mason County planner, summarized the proposal. Mr. Borden noted 17 the Hood Canal Salmon Center had an approved Special Use Permit(SUP) from 2009 18 (DDR 2009-00053) which allowed the Salmon Center to convert an existing residence into classroom space and an existing barn into office space for purposes of 19 public education on endangered fish. The prior proposal only included two of the four parcels currently under review. The prior SUP approval had only anticipated the 20 conversion of the residence and barn but did not consider subsequent improvements including wetlands restoration and new parking areas. 21 22 Mr. Borden expressed concern regarding traffic generated by the proposed new uses, the capacity of the existing water and sewer systems, the apparent lack of a tie to 23 educational uses, and parking. He noted the uses proposed by the applicant fit the definition of an events center, a prohibited use in the ARL designation. The approved 24 uses in this zone promote agriculture and agricultural education. A farmers market 25 would be an approved use,whereas a wedding venue would not. Mr. Borden stated with respect to trails, there is parking off-site for trails located on Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) land. The off-site trail parking issue is not related to this SUP. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP P. 1 Findings,Conclusions and Decision I Mr. Borden stated there was not enough traffic mitigation proposed for vehicular and 2 bus traffic. He was also concerned that the proposal included two additional parcels that were not considered in the original SUP approval, though they are adjacent 3 properties owned by the same owner. Mr. Borden stated the new application expands parking into areas that were originally slated for agricultural uses. He also expressed 4 concern about the lack of an adequate stormwater plan. He stated the staff did not find adequate explanation of the number and type of activities planned for the site. Mr. 5 Borden initially stated he wanted to see the application remanded back to the 6 applicant to provide the necessary information regarding the full extent of the project. However, he agreed that the applicant could provide sufficient information if the 7 record were left open. 8 Applicant Testimony 9 Mendy Harlow, the applicant, stated the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group 10 operates out of the subject property.Ms. Harlow stated rather than have the Examiner deny the application or remand it back to staff; the applicant would prefer to have a I I chance to provide additional information. Ms. Harlow stated the Group is a non-profit entity with 38 acres of farmland. There is an office building, laboratories, and a 12 storage area. The barn has not been renovated. The group employs 12-14 full and part 13 time employees and provides education programs for school groups. 14 Ms. Harlow stated they plan to provide temporary parking in a pasture area approximately 20 times per calendar year. They are not proposing any new 15 impervious surface and the pasture will remain in use as pastureland. They do not anticipate a negative traffic impact. 16 17 Ms. Harlow stated the applicant will provide portable toilets for events and that the water system provides 80 gallons/minute. 18 Kevan Moore, a community organizer working with the applicant spoke in favor of 19 the project. He described the educational and environmental benefits of the Group's mission. 20 21 Public Testimony T) Ken Van Buskirk described the scope of the 2009 SUP approval and stated the present project is not in keeping with the limitations on use imposed by the prior SUP 23 approval. He stated the current operation of the site is also not in keeping with the 24 prior SUP approval and listed several outstanding code enforcement issues. 5 Jack Johnson stated he had owned the property prior to the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group and that he supports the Group's mission. He stated he is a septic system installer and that installation of a septic system at this.property would Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 2 Findings,Conclusions and Decision be very challenging given the soils on site. He stated portable toilets might be the 1 only feasible means of addressing sewage issues at this site. 2 Mr. Johnson stated he felt any revenue raising uses would be educational in that the 3 revenue would be funneled back into the Group's educational activities, whether the actual event was educational in focus or not. 4 Donald LePere lives near the subject and said his property is directly affected by 5 traffic generated by the site. He said the traffic is minimal and does not bother him 6 because he feels access to the tidelands is good for tourism. 7 Rob Drexler of the Chair of the Economic Development Council spoke in favor of the project. 8 Dr. Brian Peterson was a committee member on the Belfair Subarea Master Plan. Dr. 9 Peterson spoke in favor of the project. He stated the project was good for tourism and 10 community identity. He spoke in favor of the trails and proposed park and stated parks are allowable use in the ARL zone. He stated the project would spruce up the 11 barn and add a gazebo. Finally, he noted the use would provide a lower environmental impact than cattle grazing,the historical use of the property. 12 Larry Coppola is the Chair of the Allyn/Belfair UGA update and is a Port 13 Commissioner for the Port of Allyn. He stated the Port is in favor of the project 14 because it will provide economic development in the form of tourism. 15 Judy Scott is also a Port of Allyn Commissioner. She stated she felt traffic would not be an issue. 16 Lynn Longan is the Executive Director of the Economic Development Council for 17 Mason County. The Council and County Commission support the project. She stated 18 this project will be in the Land Use and Economic Development elements of the County's upcoming Comprehensive Plan. 19 Michael Henderson is a Board Member of the Salmon Center. He spoke in support of 20 the project. 21 Chris Ladner is a regular user of the Salmon Center trails. He is also a Rotarian. He 22 said he and the Rotary Club support the project. 23 John Campbell is on the North Mason County School District Board and the North Mason Transit Authority. He is a regular user of the facility. He spoke in support of 24 the project. 25 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision Applicant Rebuttal 1 The applicant stated they would prefer the Examiner leave the record open and allow them to provide additional information and clarification rather than have the record remanded back to staff. 4 They also stated they had a traffic study performed by Heath and Associates and that Heath had concluded the traffic was sporadic and the Center was a moderate 5 generator. The new parking would be temporary parking in an active pasture. G In response to some of Mr. Van Buskirk's comments, the applicant stated the trails 7 are existing and currently dog walking is allowed. They denied re-routing a creek. They acknowledged an incorrect date on the SEPA Checklist. They stated the parking 8 around the barn has not been expanded since 2009. They also acknowledged 9 removing a gate but described this as an acceptable action under the access easement. 10 Staff Rebuttal 11 Allen Borden stated he would support leaving the record open to allow the applicant more time to provide clarification and additional materials. He stated traffic remains a 12 concern and he would support a condition of approval that would require monitoring and revisiting if needed. He stressed the importance of proper water and sewer 13 facilities for events. 14 15 EXHIBITS 16 The 13 exhibits identified in the "case index" to the November 30, 2015 staff report 17 and the following exhibits were admitted into the record during the hearing. 18 Exhibit 14 Comments from Ken Van Buskirk dated November 27,2015 Exhibit 15 Comments for Ken Van Buskirk dated December 8,2015 19 Exhibit 16 Borden Tally from Traffic Analysis(Ex. 7) 20 The Examiner left the hearing record open to allow the applicant an opportunity to 21 provide further information and the staff an opportunity to review it. The Examiner entered the following exhibits into the record. 27 Exhibit 17 Applicant Additional Detail and Mitigation Solutions, December 23 30, 2016 Exhibit 18 Applicant Response to Van Buskirk (Ex. 14 and 15), January 5, 24 2016 25 Exhibit 19 County Response to Applicant Submittal,January 20,2016 Exhibit 20 County Amendment to December 9, 2015 Staff Report Section VIII,January 21,2016 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 4 Findings,Conclusions and Decision 1 FINDINGS OF FACT 2 Procedural: 3 4 1. Applicant. The applicant is the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group/Pacific Northwest Salmon Center(Group or Center). 5 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on December 9 2015, at 6 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners Meeting Chambers. The Examiner left the record open to allow the applicant to provide additional information 7 and for the County to review the applicant's information. The Examiner gave the 8 applicant until January 6, 2016 to respond. The County was granted an additional 14 days to review the applicant's submittal. The Examiner closed the record on January 9 21, 2016. 10 Substantive: 11 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant seeks a special use permit(SUP) 12 to occasionally host all-day events on any day of the week for up to 400 participants with the participants arriving on busses or in cars that will park in new temporary 13 parking in.the South Pasture; to occasionally host all-day events on any day of the 14 week for up to 100 participants who arrive in cars and park in the existing 72 parking spaces; to hold educational classes after 5 pm and on weekends for up to 30 15 individuals; and to develop a recreational park connected to the existing trail system east of Roessel Road and allow public access through the property for use these trails 16 on any day of the week. 17 The applicant intents to hold four (4) student enrichment events per year, six (6) 18 professional development events per year, and 15 center appreciation events per year — all of which will utilize the existing parking (Ex; 7 and 17). The applicant's traffic 19 analysis lists an additional 20 weddings and other celebratory events at the Center per year, all from May— September. These larger events will require the new temporary 20 parking in the South Pasture (Ex. A of Ex. 17). The applicant proposes to use the temporary parking site as pasture land from October through April of every year. 21 From May through September, the applicant intends to mow the pasture and create 22 200 parking spaces in two `back to back' parking columns with 50 cars per row and 100 per column. The applicant intends to mow only the center portion of the pasture 23 and will leave the perimeter in longer grass in order to slow and filter potential run- off from the site. No new impervious surface is proposed. The applicant agrees to a 24 condition of approval requiring the services of a parking attendant to direct traffic in the parking area. The applicant further agrees to a condition of approval requiring the 25 Center to employ an off-duty Sheriff's officer to direct traffic on SR 3 in the event notable and measurable traffic issues arise. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision The applicant has an existing Group B water system. This system is designed to serve fewer than 15 service connections and fewer than 25, or 25 or more people per day for fewer than 60 days per year provided the system does not serve more than 1,000 or more people for two consecutive days (See WAC 246-291-005 and Ex. 17). The 3 applicant intends to have more than 25 people on site roughly 45 days per year and will at no point have more than 400 persons on site. Therefore, the existing water 4 system should be able to serve the proposed use(Ex. 7 and 17). 5 The existing wastewater system cannot support the proposed use. Therefore, the 6 applicant plans to provide portable toilets on a schedule based on the number of proposed users and the length of the event. The existing wastewater system was 7 designed for a four bedroom home. In 2009, B-Line Construction determined the existing system was adequate to serve 20 staff members and five (5) visitors per day 8 plus laboratory use (15 gpd max) (Ex. 8). The applicant will utilize the existing wastewater system on days where there are no scheduled events and when there are 9 fewer than 25 guests for less than five hours. Otherwise, the applicant will provide 1- 10 8 portable toilets, depending on need (Ex. 17). At least one portable toilet.will be handicapped accessible. 11 The 2009 SUP approval (#DDR2009-00053) approved the conversion of the existing 12 residence into classroom space and the existing barn into office space for the purpose of public education on endangered fish. The prior SUP approval was limited to two 13 parcels with a cumulative total of 24 acres. This proposal encompasses three parcels 14 and a total of 34 acres. The new parcel is owned by the Center and is currently utilized as pasture. In total, the Center owns five adjacent parcels, including the 15 subject of this application. 16 The parcels are all designated Agricultural Resource Lands by the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. The site is immediately outside the Belfair Urban Growth Area. 17 There is no zoning. The property is generally flat, with berms, dikes, and road 18 through the properties. The land has been used to grow and cut hays and grasses in the past; and is part of the existing trail system of the Theler Center located to the 19 west. These lands were subject to an estuary restoration project in 2012 and 2013. This project removed berms, established drainage channels, and deposited materials 20 on former farm lands. The buildings include the converted residence, the barn, and 21 outbuildings. 22 The applicant intends to construct additional trails, parkland and a gazebo, none of which are part of this decision. The applicant will apply for separate permits when 23 they are ready to design and construct future improvements. 24 4. Characteristics of the Area. The Lynch Cove area of Hood Canal is to the 25 west of the subject property. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife(DFW) lands are located to the south, west and north of the property. The Mary Theler Wetlands Project is located farther to the south and southwest. The Project's trail alignments are situated to the west of the property. Along State Route 3 there is a manufactured Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision home park, a church, and a library. Other residential land uses occupy pockets of 1 areas between existing commercial land uses. 2 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There is no evidence in the record of 3 any significant adverse impacts. Specific issues of concern include traffic, parking, the trail system, the effects of the WSDOT SR 3 widening project, the 2012 wetlands 4 restoration project, reduction in Agricultural Resource Lands, access, and the SEPA environmental checklist. Specific issues are discussed below. 5 6 A. Traffic. As conditioned and mitigated, there is no adverse impact anticipated from traffic. The 2009 SUP contemplated total group sizes of about 30 individuals and 7 a handful of staff at any given time on the site. The present application expands these functions to approximately 50-410 individuals on site simultaneously. The 8 larger groups may use the site up to 20 times per year (Ex. 7). Most events will include less than 70 vehicle trips per day. The larger events will include up to 160 9 vehicle trips per day or roughly 25-35 PM Peak Hour Trips. The existing use has 10 approximately 15 PM Peak Hour Trips. The applicant's traffic study found the impact to be moderate and sporadic. A condition of approval will require the 11 applicant to employ an off-duty officer from the Mason County Sheriffs Office for traffic management control at SR 3 for the traffic exiting the site for any event 12 hosting over 300 people and which predominately arrive in passenger vehicles. 13 B. Parking. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4,most of the applicant's inteded 14 uses can be accommodated by the existing parking. The proposed larger events will require the new temporary parking in the South Pasture (Ex. A of Ex. 17). 15 The applicant proposes.to use the temporary parking site as pasture land from October through April of every year. From May through September, the applicant 16 intends to mow the pasture and create 200 parking spaces in two `back to back' parking columns with 50 cars per row and 100 per column. The applicant intends 17 to mow only the center portion of the pasture and will leave the perimeter in 18 longer grass in order to slow and filter potential run-off from the site. No new impervious surface is proposed. The additional temporary parking should 19 accommodate the proposed uses. The applicant agrees to a condition of approval requiring the services of a parking attendant to direct traffic in the parking area. 20 As mitigated,there are no anticipated impacts from parking. 21 C. Trail System Expansion and Parkland Not Considered. The applicant indicated 22 they eventually plan to construct a gazebo and future trail connection to the northeast of the property (See Att. A to Ex. 17). They also hope to create public 23 parkland on the property. However, no site plans or building plans have been submitted for any project. The applicant has not applied for a formal site plan 24 review for the proposed parkland; though public parks are an outright permitted 25 use in Agricultural Resource Lands. The parkland is in a conceptual stage. The trail system expansion, parkland improvements and gazebo are outside the scope of this decision. The applicant will be required to apply for permit approval for any future expansion of impervious surfaces, infrastructure or buildings. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I D. WSDOT SR 3 Widening Project Not Relevant. Mr. Van Buskirk argued the 2 rerouting of the no name tributary to Mindy Creek through the subject property could have a significant environmental impact (Ex. 14). The WSDOT widening 3 project is not part of the scope of this decision. The WSDOT project will undergo thorough environmental review and will be subject to public notice and comment. 4 There is no adverse environmental impact anticipated from the WSDOT project. The WSDOT project is outside the scope of the present decision and was not 5 considered herein. 6 E. 2012 Wetlands Restoration Project Not Relevant. The subject property was part of 7 an estuary restoration project in 2012-13. That project was anticipated at the time of the 2009 SUP decision but it was not part of the scope of that decision. 8 Similarly,the estuary restoration project is not part of the scope of this decision. 9 F. There is no Reduction in Agricultural Resource Lands. Mr. Van Buskirk argued 10 the present SUP represents an expansion beyond the scope of the original 2009 SUP that approved the use of the property for educational purposes (Ex. 14). As 11 noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, the HCSEG owns five adjacent parcels. The 2009 SUP allowed for the conversion and renovation of two existing buildings for the 12 purpose of allowing educational uses on the property. That SUP considered two of the three properties considered in this decision. The HCSEG has continued to 13 farm the properties immediately surrounding the offices and barns including the 14 additional parcel, the South Pasture. The use as agricultural land of the south pasture will remain with the exception of temporary parking in the mown center 15 of the field. There will be no parking in the field during the wet season. This use is similar to parking provided by pumpkin patches in the fall when a temporary 16 parking lot is created by mowing a portion of a hay field. No new impervious 17 surface will be created. By avoiding parking in this area in the wet season and thereby damaging the soils, the HCSEG will be able to continue the historically 18 agricultural use of the area. There will be no reduction in Agricultural Resource Lands,neither by designation nor by use, associated with this proposal. 19 G. Access is Permitted under Easement. Mr. Van Buskirk argued the 1991 Access 20 Easement Agreement (#576535) did not permit the Center to remove the gate 21 from their land (Ex. 14) and thereby allow the public to gain night and weekend access to the property. He also argued against public use of the trails(Ex. 15). The 22 hearing examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate easement rights. The application is approved with the understanding that the applicant has access 23 across the above easement. If the applicant does in fact not have such access, the applicant will have to provide for alternative access and integrate that access into 24 an amendment of its special use permit application. If and when such an 25 amendment becomes necessary staff will determine whether the MCC authorizes the amendment to be processed administratively or it whether it must be subject to additional hearing examiner review. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 8 Findings,Conclusions and Decision H. SEPA Environmental Checklist Not Considered. Mr. Van Buskirk provided I extensive comment on the SEPA environmental checklist. The County issued a 2 SEPA Determination of Non-Significant Impact on November 6, 2015. The SEPA determination was not appealed. No further comment on SEPA was considered 3 herein. 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 Procedural: 6 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) and 17.05.042 7 provide the Examiner with the authority to review and act upon Special Use Permits. 8 Substantive: 9 2. Zoning. The area outside the Belfair Urban Growth Area and therefore is 10 not zoned. The area has an Agricultural Resource Lands Comprehensive Plan I designation. Adjacent to the project area, the shoreline designation along Lynch Cove is Conservancy Environmental. 12 3. Review Criteria and Application. The review criteria for the Special Use 13 Permit application are governed by MCC 17.05.044, which are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. This project requires a special use permit because 14 Mason County Development Regulation 17.03.020 provides that educational learning 15 centers on properties designated Agricultural Resource Lands require special use review. MCC 17.03.020 also has additional requirements for educational learning 16 centers, which are addressed below. These criteria, in addition to miscellaneous criteria for all Hearing Examiner decisions, are quoted and addressed below. 17 18 MCC 17.05.044 SPECIAL USE REVIEW CRITERIA: 19 (1) That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 20 4. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as 21 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, the existing water system is adequate for the proposed use. The wastewater system is not adequate 22 for more than 25 persons per day. Therefore, a condition of approval will require the 23 applicant to utilize the existing wastewater system on days where there are no scheduled events and when there are fewer than 25 guests for less than five hours. 24 Otherwise, the applicant will provide 1-8 portable toilets, depending on need as described in Ex. 17. At least one portable toilet will be handicapped accessible. 25 The larger events could impose an additional 25 PM Peak Hour trips beyond the present use. Therefore, a condition of approval will require traffic mitigation. Specifically, the applicant shall employ an off-duty officer from the Mason County Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Sheriff's Office for traffic management control at SR 3 for the traffic exiting the site 1 for any event hosting over 300 people and which predominately arrive in passenger 2 vehicles. Additionally, a further condition of approval will require the applicant to employ the services of a parking attendant to direct traffic in the parking area. The 3 temporary parking in the south pasture will not prevent the applicant from continued use of that property as pastureland. Therefore,no Agricultural Resource Lands will be 4 eliminated by the approval of this proposal. 5 The Pacific Northwest Salmon Center provides a public benefit in the form of 6 environmental education, restoration and preservation. The Center provides agricultural education that increases public awareness of sustainable agricultural 7 practices which preserve the natural environment. 8 (2) That the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the intent of the 9 Comprehensive Plan. 1 5. As discussed in the Staff Report, the educational center is compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The expanded hours and educational offerings 11 will bring increased and improved educational programs for the immediate Belfair community and its surroundings. The proposal works toward the County goal of 12 protecting resource lands, supporting the environment, encouraging outdoor education, providing passive recreation, preservation and use of open space, and 13 growth to the local tourist economy. The proposal also increases access to publicly 14 owned natural resource lands, protects existing public access to shorelines, and provided increased access to adjoining recreational trails. The project allows for 15 continued use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. 16 (3) That the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at the site that 17 cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community at large. 18 6. No hazardous conditions are expected, nor have any been identified as a 19 result of the proposed schedule changes and temporary parking. All buildings and utilities will meet both the Mason County and State of Washington standards and 20 requirements, as a requirement for approval of building permits. As a condition of 21 approval, no new or expanded public occupancy will be allowed without proper inspection and permits for building,occupancy and fire code compliance.No adjacent 22 properties, nor the community at large, will be impacted by the introduction of hazardous conditions from the proposal. 23 (4) That the proposed use is served by adequate public facilities which are in place, 24 or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital 25 Facilities Plan. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, individual water and septic systems are in place to serve the existing campus. The approval request involves a Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision significant intensification of use. The applicant has demonstrated adequate water 1 facilities are in place (Ex. 17). Adequate septic is in place for the existing uses and 2 some of the smaller proposed uses when classroom size and class duration are limited. The applicant will provide portable toilets to meet the needs of larger events 3 and/or events of longer duration. According to the staff report, the proposal should not lower the level of service of transportation facilities below applicable minimum 4 standards and there is no evidence to the contrary. However, the larger events may result in significantly more PM Peak Hour Traffic. Therefore, a condition of approval. 5 will require the applicant to mitigate traffic impacts for these events by employing the 6 services of an off-duty police officer to direct traffic. The criterion is met. 7 (S) That the proposed use will not have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands. 8 8. As determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and Conclusion of Law No. 4, as 9 conditioned and mitigated, no significant impacts are expected to result from this 10 proposal, including impacts on adjoining properties. 11 (6) If located outside an Urban Growth Area that the proposed use will not result in the need to extend urban services. 12 9. As conditioned, the proposal will not require the extension of urban 13 services outside the Belfair Urban Growth Area. Though the applicant hopes to 14 eventually connect to the public sewer system, they are not currently in the UGA and are therefore ineligible. The applicant's proposal can be adequately met by the 15 existing water system but not the existing septic system. A condition of approval will require the applicant to provide portable toilets based on the schedule included in Ex. 16 17. As conditioned and mitigated, the project will not result in the need to extend urban services. 17 18 EDUCATIONAL LEARNING CENTER REVIEW 19 MCC 17.06.010: "Educational learning center" means a facility dedicated to environmental and resource education and research. This land use would be 20 permitted on lands designated for long term agricultural use in urban growth areas 21 with a special use permit. This land use would be permitted on agricultural resource lands with a special use permit, using the special use permit criteria and meeting the 22 standard that the proposed land use shall have no more cumulative impacts than if the land remained in traditional agricultural production. 23 10. The facility is currently operating as an educational learning center—The 24 facility's mission is enhancing public knowledge and appreciation for the value of 25 wild salmon and related ecosystems health, as well as teaching best management practices for agricultural land use. The expanded use will include additional educational and training opportunities such as four (4) student enrichment events per year, six (6) professional development events per year, and 15 center appreciation Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP P. 11 Findings,Conclusions and Decision events per year. The student enrichment activities will serve approximately 300 1 students at a time.The professional development classes are designed to educate up to 2 40 professionals at a time. Center appreciation events will bring in about 50 people at a time roughly 15 times per year. These events are designed to educate the public 3 about the center and its mission, honor benefactors, volunteers and friends of the Center, and to provide for fundraising opportunities to support the overall work at the 4 Center. Each of the above events is likely to need only the use of the existing parking area. Even the larger student enrichment events are likely to need only the existing 5 parking area as most students will arrive by bus. 6 There is no question that the Center as it exists qualifies as an educational learning 7 center under MCC. 17.06.010. Likewise, most of the events the applicant proposes qualify as educational opportunities. However, the largest events the applicant 8 proposes are `weddings and other celebratory events' that are staffed by outside parties (Ex. 7). These events could bring in excess of 200 attendees and result in 160 9 vehicles per day for one weekend day every weekend throughout the warmer months. 10 MCC 17.06.010 describes the overall mission of the facility without directly proscribing the uses that may occur there. Events and other celebrations are expected 11 20 days per year, a small percentage of the overall use of the facility, which is open daily. However, events that could result in 200-400 people 20 times per year 12 represent the vast majority of the expected visitors, based on the total number of classes and trips. The applicant argues these events, though not directly related to the 13 Center's education mission, nonetheless support the mission through revenue 14 generation. 15 MCC 17.06.010 specifically allows educational learning centers on agricultural resource land provided the use meets the special use permit criteria and also meets the 16 standard that the proposed land use shall have no more cumulative impacts than if the land remained in traditional agricultural production. The question is whether, acting 1 in the capacity of a wedding or event venue, the use creates more cumulative impacts 18 than if the land remained in traditional agricultural production. 19 As noted throughout this decision, the proposed use is adequately served by the existing water supply and as mitigated, can provide temporary toilet services scalable 20 to the size of the demand. The property is surrounded by agricultural and open space 21 uses. There are few humans that would be affected by any noise or glare, though nearby critical areas might be affected. As conditioned,the project will avoid glare. In 22 its prior use, the property had been used for heavy construction equipment and loud agricultural equipment. The noise of an event is similarly short in duration and likely 23 to be less amplitude over distance due to the higher pitch of human voices in compared to the lower rumblings of construction equipment. 24 25 The parking for these events will be temporary and located in a pasture that will remain primarily in agricultural use. The remaining issue is traffic. Agricultural tourism is allowable in the agricultural resource lands. This includes pumpkin patches and farm tourism. A common practice for pumpkin patches and corn mazes is to mow Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 12 Findings,Conclusions and Decision a field for temporary parking.Pumpkin patches and corn mazes can draw hundreds or 1 thousands of people in a weekend. A wedding venue with 160 cars is similar in its 2 traffic and parking impacts to pumpkin patches and corn mazes. Conditions of approval will require traffic mitigation and a parking attendant. 3 As such, based on the proposal, the proposed use will have no more cumulative 4 impacts on the land than some of the other permitted agricultural uses in Mason 5 County on similarly situated parcels of land. I 6 MISCELLANEOUS CRITERIA FOR ALL HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW: 7 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: 8 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 9 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 10 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 11 in the public interest. 12 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 13 Comprehensive Plan. 14 11. According to staff, the proposed development complies with the Mason 15 County Code Titles 6 and 8. The project is not subject to Title 16,which only governs subdivisions. The County's Comprehensive Plan supports development of 16 educational learning centers in Agricultural Resource Lands. As confirmed by staff in the staff report, the proposed use expansion should not lower the level of service of 17 transportation facilities below the minimum standards established within the 18 Comprehensive Plan. The existing on-site well is adequate to serve the proposal. As conditioned and mitigated, the applicant will provide adequate wastewater services 19 through the use of portable toilets. The project will also have no adverse impact upon health, safety and welfare since it will not create any significant adverse impacts as 20 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. These criteria are met. 21 DECISION 22 The proposal is consistent with all applicable SUP standards as outlined above and is 23 approved subject to the following conditions. 24 1. The applicant may utilize solely the existing wastewater system on days where 25 there are no scheduled events and when there are fewer than 25 guests for less than five hours. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide 1-8 portable toilets, depending on need as described in Ex. 17. At least one portable toilet shall be handicapped accessible. Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision u 1 2. The applicant shall employ an off-duty officer from the Mason County Sheriff's 2 Office for traffic management control at SR 3 for the traffic exiting the site for any event hosting over 300 people and which predominately arrive in passenger 3 vehicles. 4 3. The applicant shall employ the services of a parking attendant to direct traffic in the parking area when more than half of the temporary"parking area is needed for 5 any event. 6 4. The applicant shall obtain building and occupancy permits for each existing or 7 proposed building in which classroom space or event space is required. All existing buildings must be inspected for current occupancy and fire code 8 compliance. 9 5. The applicant shall not exceed either 60 days per year with in excess of 25 10 persons using the water service or more than 1,000 persons using the water service for two consecutive days. 11 6. The temporary.parking area in the South Pasture area may not be used for vehicle 12 parking during the months of October through April. Additionally, only that area needed to park 200 cars in two `back to back' parking columns with 50 cars per 13 row and 100 per column may be mown and utilized for this purpose. The primary 14 use of this area must remain agricultural use, specifically as pasture or active farm land. 15 7. All external light sources shall be shielded to prevent glare and all external 16 lighting shall be designed to illuminate pedestrian pathways and the landscaping surrounding buildings without spilling into open areas beyond the immediate 17 building. 18 8. The site plan and services presented by the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement 19 Group (Ex. 17) shall be implemented and in operation within 18 months of the date of this decision. 20 21 Dated this 3rd day of February,2016. 22 23 v tiQurA� 24 Hearing Examiner Pro Tern 25 Mason County Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 14 Findings,Conclusions and Decision I APPEAL 2 The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final and may be appealed to superior court 3 as outlined by the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. 4 CHANGE IN VALUATION 5 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected 6 by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SUP p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision ■ Parking Roessel Road HCSEG Property (emergency vehicle access) 58' 0% Grade Brick Hearth Storage 7ToIaluildin SquareFootage: 500' s '' 316' Weii/ g 3 q , Fireplace I-10.5—{ 1 Pump House 33.5' 0 0 0 61' East 978' ;5 Property 4 Line Garage Door IrVA 90� HCSEG's OA Rental Property Mindy 5 Creek 61' �� Drain Hose Garage Door Garage Door Garage Door Garage Door Bib 63' 75' Drain WDFW Property Parking 1 DDR2015-000039 Page 2 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 A. Characteristics of the site. The three parcels are 34 acres in size and are part of a group of five parcels that have been in agricultural use in size for many years and were designated Agricultural Resource Lands in April 1999 and June 2000 (Exhibit 45). General topography is flat;berms,dikes, and roads exist through the properties that have been used to grow and cut hays and grasses in the past;and part of the trail system of the Theler Center is located to the west. These lands were subject in part to an estuary restoration project in 2012 to 2013 that removed berms,established drainage channels, and deposited materials on former farm fields. The buildings present are a residence,barn, and outbuildings; wells and septic systems are associated with the buildings. B. Characteristics of the area. The Lynch Cove area of Hood Canal is to the west of the subject parcels. Washington Dept. of Wildlife lands are to the south, west and north of the subject three properties. The Theler Wetlands Project is located farther to the south southwest, and its trail alignments are situated to the west of the subject parcels. Along State Route 3,manufactured home park,church,and library development predominate(Exhibit#3). Other residential land uses occupy pockets of areas between existing commercial land uses. C. Shoreline Designation. Adjacent to the project area,the shoreline designation along Lynch Cove is Conservancy Environment, and Rural near the mouth of the Union River. Typical land uses are open space agriculture and the educational/recreational trails. D. Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Agricultural Resources Lands just outside of the Belfair Urban Growth Area and there is no zoning. IV. SEPA Compliance. A SEPA was released for public review on November 6, 2015 (Exhibit#11). The environmental checklist emphasizes the continuation of the educational learning center and proposed additional land uses,periods of use, and traffic amounts. Initial comments (Exhibit 412) are directed to the presence of farmland soils and nearby wetlands,proposed land uses on the three parcels and traffic generated, and concerns for adequate water, septic, fire protection, and access for such proposals. V. Other Required Permits. A building permit will be required for each proposed structure or structure modification. A stormwater site plan may be required during the review of the development permits, especially parking and impervious areas proposed. VI. Public Notification of Hearing. The Notice of Application(Exhibit 48)was published in the Mason County Journal for two weeks on November 4 and 11,2015. On November 24,2015 a Notice of Application was posted at entry gate site and at the local post office. This notice was mailed to neighboring property owners within 300 feet on November 9, 2015. An Affidavit of Posting of these notices was completed on November 30,2015 (Exhibit#9). PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report DDR2015-000039 Page 3 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 VII. Analysis. The following additional information is required for analyzing the proposal, preparing the necessary conditions,and providing consistency with dimensional and performance standards relevant county regulations. A. Mason County Development Regulations, Section 17.03.020 This section(A Matrix of Permitted Uses) states that educational learning centers require a Special Use Permit on properties designated Agricultural Resource Lands. The Development Regulations definition of educational learning center is: A facility dedicated to environmental and resource education and research. This land use would be permitted on lands designated for long term agricultural use in urban growth areas with a Special Use Permit. This land use would be permitted on Agricultural Resource Lands with a Special Use Permit,using the Special Use Permit criteria and meeting the standard that the proposed land use shall have no more cumulative impacts than if the land remained in traditional agricultural production. Applicant Justification: For these reasons stated above, a Special Use Permit is required. A Special Use Permit application was submitted by the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center (PNWSC)and includes supplemental information for consideration in their request(Exhibit #2). Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement. Group (HCSEG)seeks to update its existing Special Use Permit(SUP)DDR2009-00053 (Exhibit.#3) in response to increasing community demands for the use of its facilities and its services. Local schools desire occasional use of HCSEG's unique facilities for multi—district gatherings of school children to further GreenSTEM education as well as other science, math, and environmental education in a rich, natural, and stimulating environment. Other local groups desire to have occasional evening and weekend gatherings at the facility. Educational classes offered by HCSEG and its partners are facing a demand for more flexible scheduling. The recently completed Union River Estuary Restoration together with its enhanced trails, a project for which a SEPA review was completed, has increased public demand for use of HCSEG's property and its ADA-compliant access to the Theler-WDFW trail system, a significant amenity in the Belfair area. Under the current 2009 SUP, HCSEG has operated an educational learning center (the Salmon Center)which communicates the connection of land,people and salmon through several integrated, collaborative activities. The Salmon Center creates educational programming, conducts research and demonstrates sustainable agricultural practices at its certified organic farm situated at the edge of salmon habitat. The Salmon Center is located adjacent to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife property that includes the Theler Wetlands Trail system and the newly restored Union River Estuary. There is significant open space for a park and the public is welcomed to come and enjoy this open space, walk the trails, enjoy a picnic next to the garden, or just have a seat and enjoy the view of the newly restored estuary and the Lower Hood Canal. In 2009, the PNWSC established a learning center that enhances public knowledge and appreciation for the values of wild salmon and related ecosystem health. With particular reference to the requirement of Mason County Code (MCC) 17.06.010 that an "educational learning center" on agricultural resource lands shall have no more PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report -- DDR2015-000039 Page 4 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 cumulative impacts than if the land remained in traditional agricultural production, the applicant states that the granting of this requested SUP will not exceed that threshold. Traditional agricultural production includes,for example, livestock/animal production with resulting manure, wholesale and retail nursery operations orchards, kennels and stables, all of which would bring more people, more noise, and increased use of chemicals. Even with the modest increase in human traffic this SUP application seeks, the Center's impacts will remain well below that of traditional agriculture. Staff Response: The change in focus of this request centers on the provision of parking to serve the user groups who would arrive at the PNWSC properties for educational classes and outings during the weekdays and for community groups throughout the week. The applicant supplied a traffic analysis study for the intended uses and frequencies by the same professional engineer in 2009 permit review (Heath &Associates[Nov. 2015]in Exhibit# 7). A south pasture area with about 6 acres available for possible parking was shown on the 2014/201E site plan. This site has soil materials deposited during the estuary restoration project that were intended to provide rich soils for agricultural operations. Surface runoff in this area will be changed when some or much of the site is used for parking for visiting groups; some stormwater site planning for new uses is needed as part of this SUP review. Access along the Roessel Rd. easement is being questioned by public comments provided to Mason County following the granted 2009 SUP and the proposed 2014/ 2015 project review Mason County was provided with the perpetual easement from North Mason School District to the prior property owner and WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, recorded in 1991. B. Applicable Special Use Review Criteria (MCDR 1.05.046): 1. Will the proposed use be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare? Staff Response: The applicant states that the Salmon Center will bring increased and improved public access to public lands. The access roads and parking areas already exist. There will be an increase in traffic using these access roads, as noted in the Heath &Associates study. The applicant has had a septic system designer (Mr. Tahja-Syrett and B-Line Construction) validate that the proposed field office, classrooms, and small number of visitors land use will have no adverse effect on the existing on-site wastewater treatment system(Exhibit#10). 2. Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Staff Response: The applicant states that the Salmon Center is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as positive for the County in general and Belfair in particular. The applicant states that the proposed update to HCSEG's current SUP will be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In fact,the Salmon Center is particularly mentioned in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. On page IV-19, in the discussion of the Belfair Urban Growth Area, which the Salmon Center is now adjacent to, the Comp Plan states that"[w]ith the anticipated addition of pedestrian facilities,the continued development of a consistent town theme, an improved local economy, and the completion of the PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report DDR2015-000039 Page 5 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, Belfair will be served as a destination well into the foreseeable future." Nothing could be closer to the heart of the Salmon Center than seeing this vision realized. The Salmon Center continues to forge ties with its immediate neighbor,the North Mason School District and their Theler trail network. This portion of the Comprehensive Plan describes this North Mason School District(NMSD)Property as representative of the particular character or `theme' around which Belfair will be developed, "the town's anchor."Comp Plan, p. IV-19. The Salmon Center trails connect with the Theler trail network, allowing a loop trail and currently providing the only ADA compliant access to the Theler trail network. The restoration of the Union River estuary,recently completed, extends the trails network, increasing the attraction to lovers of birds, wildlife, and scenic vistas allowing more access to the Beauty of Hood Canal. Further, a growing Salmon Center directly supports many other policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Belfair Urban Growth Area Plan: Actions to encourage the Salmon Center development will attract visitors from all over the region,helping to fuelthe local economy. The Salmon Center and local schools may provide excellent opportunities to initiate educational programs. The applicant states that this proposal is consistent with GMA policies for resource lands protection as well as GMA policies supporting protection of the environment and supporting outdoor education,passive recreation and preservation and use of open space, and growth in the tourist economy. Encourage increased access to publicly owned natural resource lands.Protect existing public access to shorelines and water.Encourage acquisition of lands to provide additional public shoreline and water access. (Planning Goals,CVdPP 3.4 page 11-9)c Lands preserved for open space should provide multiple open space benefits whenever possible.Multiple benefits include,but are not limited to,active or passive recreation, scenic vistas,fish and wildlife habitat,natural surface water drainage systems and wetlands. ... Outdoor education and recreation in the form of viewing wildlife,waterfowl and other native organisms,plus learning about and experiencing aspects of local history should be provided for County Residents. ... Special consideration should be given to Mason County's extensive wetlands resources in regard to educating the public on the importance of preserving these areas.(Planning Goals,OS 407,500,501 pg.III6.3-6.4) The Countywide Planning Policies call for Mason County...to provide for the protection of water quality and address public education,stormwater and watershed management. (Land Use page 1V-63) . Trails should be used as a means to promote economic development and tourism. (Planning Goals,OS 602 page P111-6.4) Fish and wildlife habitat also provide significant social benefits. ...Wildlife provides the opportunity to educate the public about biological and ecological processes. (Land Use page 1V-39) PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report DDR2015-000039 Page 6 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 Tourism.Goal 17: "Promote the development of tourist and tourist-related activities as part of an economic diversity strategy providing employment and business opportunities in Mason County."Policies: 17.1 "Actively support tourism(including agritourism and ecotourism),recreation,cultural heritage,and social activities as a significant element in expanding employment opportunities.(Economic Development page X-19) These policies reinforce the location and purposes of the PNWSC proposal, and access to and educational opportunities for natural resources uses. This site is one of several possible locations around the county where Agricultural Resources Land exists and an educational learning center could be proposed. The Comp. Plan policies promoted these uses at the time when the PNWSC was located within the Belfair UGA, and not adjacent to the UGA. Finally, PNWSC states the Belfair Urban Growth Area Plan,in its strategic vision, sees Salmon Center growth as worthy of encouragement. "Actions to encourage the Salmon Center development will attract visitors from all over the region,helping to fuel the local economy."(See p. 14.) It is just the growth of the Salmon Center which requires it to seek this new SUP. 3. Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions at the site that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community at large? Staff Response: The applicant has stated that there will be no hazardous conditions or planned activities associated with the proposed project facilities, so mitigation to protect nearby properties is necessary. Proposed use of pastureland for the occasional parking will use best management practices for water quality and environmentally sound construction. 4. Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities,which are in place,or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan? Staff Response: HCSEG has its own water supply and septic system and actually, the Salmon Center is itself a public facility as determined by the Hearing Examiner in his 2009 decision granting the existing SUP. (Exhibit 13, see p. 9, para. 9 of the August 27, 2009, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision.) Proposed development will follow Mason County codes for construction and occupancy. No demand for services requiring new capital facilities project is anticipated with the proposal as presented. 5. Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands? Staff Response: The proposed uses will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The properties to the north, west, and south are owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and are open to the public for recreational purposes without restriction or limitation of volume. HCSEG's Salmon Center enhances access to these properties and provides access to the only public ADA accessible trailhead. The few properties to the east are properties that either front onto State Route 3 or are in common ownership with properties that do. The back(west) boundaries of these properties are hundreds PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report DDR2015-000039 Page 7 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 of yards from the most actively used portions of the Salmon Center property along Roessel Road. The surrounding land uses to the north, west and south are open space and natural resources oriented. Land uses to the east and southeast are residential, church and community library type uses and screened by existing vegetation and topography. The conclusions of the November 2015 traffic study state anticipated traffic is estimated at a moderate generator rate for sporadic events proposed. Traffic adverse effects on local road usage will be addressed as SR3 improvements are implemented(Exhibit#7) 6. If located outside an Urban Growth Area,will the proposal result in the need to extend urban services? Staff Response: The proposal is to the west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The applicant states that the existing well and septic system improvements will provide the needed services for this public facility; no extension of urban services will be required by the granting of this SUP. C. Applicable Title 15 Review Criteria: Per section 15.09.050 (C)(1-3),the Hearing Examiner shall review a proposed development according to the following criteria. 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. Staff Response: To address each Title: Title 6—There is adequate septic and water service currently provided for each property. If the proposal is approved, these services will need to support the public facility associated with the educational learning center and provide proper state health standards. Title 8 - The proposal will be located near stream, shoreline, wetland, or critical areas and buffers for development will be set at the greatest distance as much as possible. If additional areas of land use or natural resources habitat improvements are considered, state and county critical area standards must be integrated in those proposals.. Title 16—Since this does not involve subdividing or changing boundary lines, Title 16 does not apply. 2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. Staff Response: The proposed project and activities shall provide safe access to the property and the proper water and septic associated with the new land use, and serve as a public facility to operate as an educational center for the natural and resource lands in the vicinity. 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. Staff Response: The applicant provided a traffic study(Exhibit 47). showing that the proposal will affect the level of service of transportation to the three properties. These effects will need to be addressed to assess the traffic impacts and present some resolution to these effects. Neighborhood park facilities would PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report DDR2015-000039 Page 8 of 8 Revised 11/30/2015 not be required for this land use and the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan will not be lowered. VIII. Project Analysis: Based upon these policies and regulations,the project as proposed conforms to the Mason County Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The important points brought up during the SEPA review: The site plan in(Exhibit#2) in this application shows site modifications and accesses on the subject parcels not contained in the previous Special Use Permit proposal. A) the expanded areas of use-three parcels in proposal,including a new parcel (Parcel# 12332-50-00088)to be used for temporary parking uses during events. B) increase in proposed events through the year to include student& staff enrichment, community celebration, and center appreciation events, as well as accommodating park& trail uses in the vicinity. C) anticipated intensity of uses(size of participant numbers and frequencies of events)as noted in the November 2015 traffic/trip generation study (Exhibit#7). Conclusions. Staff finds the proposal is not consistent with the Mason County Development Regulations. Considering the information brought up by staff and public comment in the SUP and SEPA review, staff recommends the Hearing Examiner remand this request back to the applicant to present the full and/or phased elements of the projected land uses and anticipated activities at the educational learning center,per State Environmental Policy Act Rules in WAC 197-11-060.3(b) and the Mason County Development Regulations standards. IX. Choices of Action. A. Approve. B. Approve with condition. C. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). E. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15. PNW Salmon Center 2014&2015 SUP staff report MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 426 W Cedar Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 Ext.352 Mason County Permit Center Use: ( DDR LEI{ Special Use Permit: $1,135 Date c vlo" L`l Public Hearing: $2,005 or $070 for ADU's V-Z • jJ JUN 0 9 2014 426 W. CEDAR S►T. Special Use Application A Special Use is one that possesses unique characteristics due to size, nature, intensity of use, technological processes involved, demands upon public services, relationship to surrounding lands, or other factors. The purpose of this application is to provide for adequate oversight and review of such development proposals, in order to assure that such uses are developed in harmony with surrounding land uses,and in a manner consistent with the intent of the Development Regulations for Mason County; Ordinance No. 82-96. Acceptance of this application by Mason County does not guarantee approval of request. Type of Special Use Permit: ❑ Communications Tower ❑Accessory Dwelling Unit ❑Oversize Construction Other: Applicant Name Pacific Northwest Salmon Center Property Owners Pacific Northwest Salmon Center Mailing Address PO Box 2169 Belfair, WA 98528-2169 Phone 1 360-275-3575 Phone 2 Email mendy@pnwsalmoncenter.org Site Address 600 NE Roessel Rd Belfair, WA 98528 Tax Parcel# 12332-50_.900$f69 CW�Y I Legal Description Sam B.Theler's Home and Garage TRSPCL 3&4 of BLA#07-83 tr-36&35.Tax Parcels 12332-50-00087(Barn)and 12332-50-00089(House) Project Description Please see Attached Project Description. 1 (:\Community DevelopmentTA0SPECIAL USE Updated 10/2012 Page 1 of 3 0 Please provide a site plan that includes the following: 1. Indicate Scale and North Arrow. 2. Property line dimensions,easements,and right-of-ways. 3. The 16cation of all existing and proposed structures.Include square footage of existing and proposed structures. 4. Setback distance,in feet from all property lines and structures. 5'. Existing and proposed road access to and from the site. 6. Parking spaces. 7. Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields. 8. Location of drinking water supply.Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels. 9. Steep bluffs,wetlands,streams,and bodies of water. 10. Surface and storm water run-off routes. 0 On a separate piece of paper #of ages: 4 ),state your reasons for requesting a Special P P P P � P Use Permit and be sure to address the following six criteria. Your request will be evaluated based on these criteria. 1. Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health,safety,and welfare? 2. Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent.of the Comprehensive Plan? 3. Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions,at the site,that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community at large? 4. Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities,which are in place,planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan? 5. Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands? 6. If located outside of an Urban Growth Area,will the proposal result in the need to extend urban services? Provide a list(preferably printed on mailing labels or legal sized envelopes)of all property owners' mailing addresses within 300 feet of your parcel boundaries. Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bldg. 1. Applicant's Signature \ Date zJq TACommunityBevelopmentTACWEMLUSE Updated 10/2012 Page 2 of 3 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 426 W Cedar Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 Ext.352 Publication Cost Agreement Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I/WE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. 0 LJ (0 Signature ofWoperty Owner Date Print Name OR Signature of Applicant Date Print Name L\Corrimunity Developi-nent\PAC\SPECIA-L USE Updated 10/2012 Page 3 of 3 + 52 existing parking spaces [no existing deliniation]. 1 per 81 sf Existing trail access point Existing dwelling 4227 sf Existing well � 1135' � 1 Existing open fields Existing open felds] f N !,. Existing trail access point _ -----_ WWW ____ __ Existing livestock Pastures Existing drainage ditches __ 40'-0"Access easement `— -F 20 existing parking Spaces ! - ---- ---- - 1 per 232 sf Existing temporary structures Existing Gara es i Existing barn and �� ��" • '"w M livestock pastures Existing adminisrrative office Existing drainfield ' - --� Existing open fields TIVnFofeLry Jkrl--►ng w Existing paved surface 18 ft nom. ----- --- ------ -- 1 300 ft wetland buffer X� ' .G� Entragpel to r rty (I d to Hi_q%,,jay:3) f i - ,j All existing access and parking areas existing with all access routes less than 2%grade. q%q OCT 3 0 2015 0 60 120 240 360 480 Parking bays not currently delineated Feet Existing stormwater by direct runoff into 426 W. CEDAR S T. system of existing agricultural drainage ditches . j - TAnr.°nro nn nvic4inn firo{.vrtro n4c nr nn_c ifc firo cunnroccinn Project Description: HCSEG applies to update its current educational learning center Special Use Permit(SUP), DDR2009-00053, so as to: 1) Occasionally host all-day events on any day of the week with up to 400 people who will arrive on busses or in cars that will park in the south pasture ;2) Occasionally host all-day events on any day of the week where up to 100 individuals arrive in no more cars than can be accommodated by the currently permitted 72 parking spaces; 3)Regularly hold educational classes after Spm and on the weekends for up to 30 individuals; and 4)Develop a recreational park connected to the existing trail system east of Roessel Rd and allow public access through the property for the use of these trails and this park on any day of the week. sly Evaluation Criteria: Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG) seeks to update its existing Special Use Permit' (SUP) in response to increasing community demands for the use of its facilities and its services. Local schools desire occasional use of HCSEG's unique facilities for multi—district gatherings of school children to further GreenSTEM education as well as other science, math, and environmental education in a rich, natural, and stimulating environment. Other local groups desire to have occasional evening and weekend gatherings at the facility. Educational classes offered by HCSEG and its partners are facing a demand for more flexible scheduling. The recently completed Union River Estuary Restoration together with its enhanced trails, a project for.which a SEPA review was completed, has increased public demand for use of HCSEG's property and its ADA-compliant access to the Theler-WDFW trail system, a significant amenity in the Belfair area. Under its current SUP, HCSEG has established an educational learning center (the Salmon Center) which communicates the connection of land, people and salmon through several integrated, collaborative activities. The Salmon Center creates educational programming, conducts research and demonstrates sustainable agricultural practices at its certified organic farm situated at the edge of salmon habitat. The Salmon Center is located adjacent to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife property that includes the Theler Wetlands Trail system and the newly restored Union River Estuary. There is significant open space for a park and the public is welcome to come and enjoy this open space, walk the trails, enjoy a picnic next to the garden, or just have a seat and enjoy the view of the newly restored estuary and the Lower Hood Canal. With particular reference to the requirement of Mason County Code (MCC) 17.06.010 that an "educational learning center" on agricultural resource lands shall have no more cumulative impacts than if the land remained in traditional agricultural production, the granting of the requested SUP will not exceed that threshold. Traditional agricultural production includes, for example, livestock/animal production with resulting manure, wholesale and retail nursery SUP DDR2009-00053 was issued to the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center,a Washington nonprofit corporation.In 2012 Pacific Northwest Salmon Center merged with Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group,also a Washington nonprofit corporation.HCSEG remains as the succeeding corporation with Pacific Northwest Salmon Center now a registered dba of HCSEG. i operations orchards, kennels and stables, all of which would bring more people, more noise, and increased use of chemicals. Even with the modest increase in human traffic this SUP application seeks,the Center's impacts will remain well below that of traditional agriculture. MCC 17.05.044 Decision Criteria 1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Granting of the requested SUP will increase educational opportunities to the citizens of the surrounding area, increase beneficial social activities, and increase and improve public access to public lands. HCSEG will provide a new traffic analysis if necessary to address any concerns that may arise. 2. The proposed update to HCSEG's current SUP will be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the Salmon Center is particularly mentioned in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. On page IV-19, in the discussion of the Belfair Urban Growth Area, which the Salmon Center is now adjacent to, the Comp Plan states that "[w]ith the anticipated addition of pedestrian facilities, the continued development of a consistent town theme, an improved local economy, and the completion of the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, Belfair will be served as a destination well into the foreseeable future." Nothing could be closer to the heart of the Salmon Center than seeing this vision realized. The Salmon Center continues to forge ties with our immediate neighbor, the North Mason School District and their Theler trail network. This portion of the Comprehensive Plan describes this North Mason School District (NMSD) Property as representative of the particular character or `theme' around which Belfair will be developed, "the town's anchor."Comp Plan, p. IV-19. The Salmon Center trails connect with the Theler trail network, allowing a loop trail and currently providing the only ADA- compliant access to the Theler trail network. The restoration of the Union River estuary,recently completed, extends the trails network, increasing the attraction to lovers of birds, wildlife, and scenic vistas allowing more access to the Beauty of Hood Canal. Further, a growing Salmon Center directly supports many other policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. °'Ert�urage increased access to publicly awned natural resource lands.Protect existing public access to shorellnes and water Encourage acquisition of lands to provide additional public shoreline and crater access. %Planning Goals,CWPP 3.4 page 119) • "Lends preserved for open space should provide multiple open space benat`rts whenever possible. Multiple benefits include, but are not limited to, active or passive recreation, scenic vistas, fish and wildlife habitat, natural surface water drainage systems and wetlands. ... Outdoor education and recreation in the form of viewing wfldtife, waterfowl and.other native organisms,plus learning about and experiencing aspects of local history should be provided for County Residents" ...special consideration should be given to Mason County's extensive wetlands resources in regard to educating the public on the importance of preserving these areas."(Planning Goals, OS 407,500,501page P/11-6,3-6,4) • "The Countywide Planning Policies call for Mason Courtt�,..to provide far the pr�atsetlan of water quality and address pubrrc education,,stomwater management, and watershed management:"(Land Use page 11r-63) "'Trails should be used as a means to prruttote economic development and tcuni m.v (Planning Goats, OS 602 page P111-6:4) f 'Fish and wildlife habitat also provide significant social benefits. ... Wildlife provides the opportunity to educate the public about biological and ecological processes.'(Land Use page Tourism. Goal 17. "Promote the developmeM of tourist and tourist-mlated aotivkles as part of an economic diversity strategy providing employment and business opportunities in Mason County.' Policies: 17.1 "Actively support tourism(including agr9ourism and ecotourlsm), recreation, cultural heritage, and social activities as a significant element In expanding employment Opportunities."(Economic Oevelgpment payee X.-19) Finally, the Belfair Urban Growth Area Plan, in its strategic vision, sees Salmon Center growth as worthy of encouragement."Actions to encourage the Salmon Center development will attract visitors from all over the region,helping to fuel the local economy." (See p. 14.) It is just the growth of the Salmon Center which requires it to seek this new SUP. 3. The proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions to the HCSEG property or to any surrounding areas. No hazardous conditions exist now and none will be created as a result of the i granting of this SUP. � 4 4. Concerning adequate public facilities, HCSEG has its own water supply and septic system. And actually,the Salmon Center is itself a public facility as determined by the Hearing Examiner in his 2009 decision granting the existing SUP. (See p. 9, para. 9 of the August 27, 2009, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision.) 5. The proposed uses will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The properties to the north,west, and south are owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and are open to the public for recreational purposes without restriction or limitation of volume. HCSEG's Salmon Center enhances access to these properties and provides access to the only public ADA accessible trailhead. The few properties to the east are properties that either front onto State Route 3 or are in common ownership with properties that do. The back (west) boundaries of these properties are hundreds of yards from the most actively used portions of the Salmon Center property along Roessel Road. 6. The HCSEG property is outside of Belfair's Urban Growth Area and because the property does have an adequate septic system and an adequate water system no extension of urban services will be required by the granting of this SUP. �fq Q p MST m�v a J _J 2 29 31 32 Z �O t�_ I w � Z '`Q 2�v t xNE BYERLYIDR • NE WJ WAY NE ROESSEL RD _ _ Sourice � G.`i a C�I�iJ'e �eoEq ,i-cub •,U � a ve i p�piny er y m, ICON, IG�P:; sboo @Jld G . GI C@WIffi@RTk1 N inch= 500 feet w E S�Pza 00�`�jq L 1 inch =0 miles S h � II , 123294300090 123297500090 1z32943ot. 123290060010 123293006000 123294300120 123293360-1 123294300140 123294300260 "+� Y 123325000003 123325000116 123325000087 123322260000 123325000008 123325000009 123325000010 123325000013 123325000089 123325000014 - - 123325000019 123325000920. a r 123325000088 123325090221 123325090223 123325000090 O 123325090224 2 123325000023 123325000027 123325000029 123325000026 123325000028 123325000030 ' 123320060000 d 123325000035 123325000033 123325100924 123325000037 123325100024 123325000038 123320060010 123325000036 123325000091 oure.E ri,D • t I I be, coE e i b 12. , ,b utiv # 123320060010 -et Ma p•in.g, og ,I I �w op•, d the��GIS3 s , u�i, N 1 inch = 300 feet W E 1 inch = 0 miles S 123297500090 123300060000 123293006000 123290060010 123293360940 123310060000 p 123325000116 123325000087 123311100000 123322260000 123325000089 123311060420 _,� b c 123325090221 O z 123325000023 123325000027 123325000029 123325000026 123325000028 r ' �• �� � 123325000035 123328888888 123325000037 123325000038 123325000091 i 123325000040 123320060010 u c :E , DgM- �W.o�' USDA, USGS,AEX 3320060000 123Getr��a_gg )Vero and the GIS User Co nmun'ity`'r N l:�-� z � `� C�ell,I-LO t�f Lit C., 1 Inch = 300 feet W E Ltd y 1 inch = 0 miles i \ W- 300' 1 o // ARST ,✓ a y I i CAL R RD P G TLE LN �yQ i J rf ' L 1 Cf r Iw Hood WJ AY CCirLCIl w-2aq,00oy c.- c� � ♦�� HEATH &ASSOCIATES,INC Transportation and Civil Engineering November 10,2015 Mendy Harlow The Salmon Center P.O. Box 2169 Belfair,WA 98528 Subject: Trip Generation Pacific Northwest Salmon Centert;t�! ►� ��i. Ms. Harlow: The center is proposing to expand utilization of the site to provide more activity for the benefit of the public and providing availability for outside events such as weddings. The purpose of this letter is to outline the traffic and trip generation expected for each proposed new activity for review by Mason County. Each use is described along with the expected trip generation and vehicle type. Student Enrichment This use proposes up to 300 students and school staff on site arriving via 8 to 10 buses on a weekday (20 daily trips). The proposed schedule for the activity is from 9 AM to 2 PM. In order to provide professional support 10 additional volunteers for the center would be on site to lead tours and answer questions(20 daily trips, 10 PM peak trips). They would arrive at approximately 7:30 AM and leave at 4 PM. The center anticipates there would be approximately four student enrichment events a year. TABLE 1 Trip Generation Volumes—Student Enrichment Time Period Volume Net Increase in Daily Traffic 40 vpd Net Increase in PM Peak Total 10 vph Professional Development This use proposes u to 50 attendees arriving via cars with an expected vehicle occupancy of 2.0 on a P P P g P P Y weekday(50 daily trips,25 PM peak trips). The proposed schedule for the activity is from 9 AM to 4 PM. No increase in staff to support the professional development is proposed. The center anticipates there would be approximately six professional development activities a year. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Volumes—Professional Development Time Period Volume Net Increase in Weekday Traffic 50 v P d Net Increase in PM Peak Total 25 vph 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup 1 y V�A 98371 253 770 1401 Fax 253 770 1473 heathtraffiacom P � ) � ) Weddings and Other Celebratory Events This use proposes up to 200 attendees arriving via cars with an expected vehicle occupancy of 3.0 on a Saturday or Sunday(140 daily weekend trips,25 PM peak trips). The proposed schedule for the activity is 4 to 5 hours on a Saturday or Sunday. No increase in Salmon Center staff to support the event is proposed though an estimated 10 staff for the event would be expected(20 daily weekend trips). The center would anticipate events during the warmer months with an estimated 20 events per year. The center would only schedule one event a weekend which would occur on either a Saturday or Sunday. Most of the events would occur in the afternoon and/or early evening. TABLE 3 Trip Generation Volumes—Wedding and other Celebratory Events Time Period Volume Net Increase in Weekend Traffic 160 vpd Center Appreciation Events This use constitutes events honoring benefactors,volunteers and friends of the center. This use proposes up to 50 attendees arriving via cars with an expected vehicle occupancy of 1.5 on a weekday(70 daily trips,35 PM peak trips—arrivals near 6 PM). No increase in staffing is expected to support the event. The proposed schedule for the activity is from 6 PM to 10 PM. The center anticipates there might be up to 15 appreciation events per year with Thursday or Friday evenings the preferred day of the week. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Volumes—Appreciation Events Time Period Volume Net Increase in Weekday Traffic 70 vpd Net Increase in PM Peak Total 35 vph Community Park The site is also proposed to be a trailhead for a community park that also has other trailhead options. The increase in traffic by making the center available as a trailhead is harder to determine given the randomness of the users. The purpose is to be a good neighbor and to enhance the public's experience.around Hood Canal. It is not anticipated to provide significant increases in traffic to the center and should be considered a diversion of existing traffic that is already seeking trailhead access to the park. 2�LL 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253)770 1401 Fax(253)770 1473 heathtraffic.com l Conclusions Overall, considering the sporadic nature of when these activities may be scheduled throughout the year, the moderate traffic generation that would be created by these events,and in consideration of the ongoing improvements to the SR 3 corridor presently under construction,I do not see any of these uses having a negative impact on safety or traffic congestion in Belfair. Please let us know if you have any other questions or comments. I am also available to discuss the above with county staff as they review the information. Sincerely, Gregary B.Heath,P.E.,P.T.O.E. W(f 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup WA 98371 (253)7701401 Fax(253)770 1473 heatbtraffic.com i Page 1 of 1 Allan Borden - Update to traffic impact analysis From: Mendy Harlow <mendy@pnwsalmoncenter.org> To: <ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 11/10/2015 2:26 PM Subject: Update to traffic impact analysis Attachments: PNW Salmon Center trip gen letter.pdf Hello Barb and Allan, Attached you will find an update to the traffic impact analysis for Special Use Permit Application#DDR2014-00039. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. *Mendy Mendy A. Harlow Executive Director Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group The Salmon Center Farm at Water's Edge www.l)nwsahnoncenter.org PO Box 2169 Belfair,WA 98528 (360)275-3575*23 (360)275-0648 fax �fJ file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/LocaVTemp/XPgrpwise/5641FEB2Maso=a... 11/12/2015 it MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 DDR2014-00039 NOTICE OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT. III i Notice is hereby given that Pacific Northwest Salmon Center,who is the owner of the described property below,has filed an application for a Special Use Permit for the development of: Update current Educational Learning Center land use, approved in 2009, on two parcels (total 24.01 acres) on designated Agricultural Resource Lands west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. Present proposal will not propose new buildings and is intended to host 1) all-day events on any day of week for up to 400 people arriving by bus,2) all-day events on any day of week for up to 100 people arriving to property by car(72 parking stalls provided),and 3) educational classes for 30 individuals on evenings (after 5 pm) and weekends, and 4) allow public access to property for trail use on any day of week. To review this land use,the applicant must receive approval through a Special Use Permit public review and hearing by the County Hearings Examiner. Parcel Number: 12332-50-00087(14.01 ac.) and 12332-50-00089 (10 ac.) I Site Address: 600 and 720 NE Roessel Rd.,Belfair WA. Location of Project: Adjacent to the west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area and northwest of 22921 NE State Route 3;within the northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 32,Township 23 N.,Range 1 W. in Mason County Washington.. i Said proposed development is subject to Special Use Permit review(M.C.C. 17.05.040)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 ` 426 West Cedar St. 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 November 12, 2015. A Determination of Nonsignificance to be issued on November 6,2015 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Wednesday December 9, 2015; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at(360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information. i i I i AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ' NOTICE 14,, lea 31 STATE O>=.WASHINGTON ) ) ss• COUNTY & MASON I,. A6pt b6_ 4 -do hereby certify that I posted L copies of the attached C• on ?A day of k'1_L_— 20 �� in public places as follows: one at C'G �' �-� c Gr one at one at In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this- cry of f � , 20 By: z- r WX •Address: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me this day of ' "y�� '� 20 PS a�MAA(", Not Public the State of Was�►in on S10N•F . .0 R iding at V! •-'� I10TARy N' _ Commission Expires PUBLIC20 •.,_F • ......•NAG,�� - L - j \ RECEIVED Pacific Northwest Salmon Center OCT 3 Q 2015 Multi-Use Building Wastewater System Project Proposal 426 W. CEDAR ST. i Flow Strength Input Fixtures • Restrooms o Men's Bathroom—2 stalls& 1 sink o Women's Bathroom—2 stalls& 1 sink • Restroom use—office(5 employees max) 75gal 250mg/L • Restroom use—public-10/walkin/day 50gal 250mg/L • Restroom Use-Event—200 ppl max*-2 day event 1000 250 • Kitchen o Type II Hood o Commercial Dishwasher o Commercial Sink • Kitchen use—office(included above) • Kitchen use—event—200 ppl max 400 500mg/L Daily Use: • Flow= 125 gal/day x 1.5 safety factor= 190 gal/day • Waste Strength=250 mg/L • Organic Load=0.4lb BOD5/day Event Use: • Flow= 1400 gal/day x 1.5 safety factor=2100 gal/day • Waste Strength=325 mg/L • Organic Load=5.71b BOD5/day Peak Loading:. • Minimum'7 day cycle for system normalization: o Day 1—event 2100 gal @ 325 mg/L BOD5 o Day 2—event 2100 gal @ 325 mg/L BOD5 o Day 3—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 4—normal daily use 190 gal @.250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 5—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 6—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 7—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 • Average daily flow for an event week=735 gpd(includes 1.5 safety factor). • Daily BOD5 mass loading for an event week=325 mg/L(must be sized to max) • 720 gpd disposal capacity needed for event week capacity on-site disposal • 6 Glendon BioFilter modules @ 120gpd each=720gpd. • BOD5 removal should be accomplished via aeration(i.e.Nibbler,Whitewater, FAST,etc.) i :6 o Unit must be capable of 2.0 Is of BOD5 removal/day o Can use multiple units in series o Must time-dose to the ATU so large pump tank capacity will be needed upstream from the treatment unit in addition to the tankage needed for time-dosing the Glendon BioFilter. System Type • Pretreatment Required to remove 2.0 Is of BOD5/day • Disposal Component will be Glendon BioFilter based on soils present at site • System Components o OSI MVP control panel o Class I Division I shouldn't be required o 1500 gal Grease Trap o 3000 gal min. Septic Tank.(2 x 1500 gal singles?) o 4500 gal min.Surge Tank(2 x 2700 gal Castlerock tanks plumbed @ bottom?) o Treatment Unit(2 x V&tewater DF 50's in tandem?) o 2000 min, gal Pump Tank(2700 gal Castlerock tank) o Glendon control panel o GIendon pump vault setup o 6 Glendon M31 Modules for disposal Costs: • Feasibility Assessment-If they don't hire us to complete the project, they owe as fo afeasibility assessment o $500 design fee o $Perc Holes? o $Overhead? • Design Phase o Perc Holes$? o Design-$2500 o Permits-$952-$1133 • Installation Phase 10 Installation? o Permits? o Electrical? I I i 3000 GAL SEPTIC TANK I 2000 GAL PUMP TANK O 720 GPI PACIFIC NORTHWEST DISPOE SALMON CENTER O O CAPACI O MULTI-USE BUILDING GLEND( O BI OFI Ll (6 MOD' 1500 GAL GREASE TRAP TREATMENT UNIT 4500 GAL ATU SURGE TANK fI ' I Multi-Use Building Daily Flow Prediction Event Week Daily inflow and outflow from Surge Tank Day 1- Day 2- Day 3- Day 4- Days- Day6- Day 7- Event Event Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Inflow= Inflow= Inflow_= Inflow= Inflow= Inflow= Inflow= 2100 2100 190 190 190 190 190 Outflow= Outflow= Outflow= Outflow= Outflow= Outflow= Outflow= .720aed 720gpd 720gpd 720gpd 720gpd 720 d 720gpd In tank @ In tank @ In tank @ In tank @ In tank @ In tank @ In tank @ end of day= end of day= end of day= end of day= end of day= end of day= end of day= 1380 2760 2230 1700 1170 640 110 Pacific Northwest Salmon Center Multi-Use Building Wastewater System Project Proposal Flow Strength Input Fixhms Restrooms o Men's Bathroom—2 stalls& 1 sink o Women's Bathroom—2 stalls& 1 sink © Restroom use—office(5 employees max) 75gal 250mg/L 0 Restroom.use—public—10/walki.n/day 50gal 250mg/L v Restroom Use—Event—200 ppl max* -2 day event 1000 250 Kitchen o Type 11 Hood o Commercial Dishwasher o Commercial Sink a Kitchen use—office(included above) Kitchen use—event—200 ppl max 400 SOOmg/L Daily Use: * Flow—125 gal/day x LS safety factor=190 gal/day e Waste Strength=250 mg/L Organic Load=0.4 lb BOD5/day Event Use: Flow=1400 gal/day x 1.5 safety factor=2100 gal/day Waste Strength=325 mg/L a Organic Load.=5.7 lb BOD5/day Peak Loading: e Minimum 7 day cycle for system normalization: o Day 1—event 2100 gal @ 325 mg/L BADS o Day 2—event 2100 gal @ 325 mg/L BOD5 o Day 3—normal daily use 190 gat @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 4—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 a Day 5—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 6—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Day 7—normal daily use 190 gal @ 250 mg/L BOD5 o Average daily flow for an event week=735 gpd(includes 1.5 safety factor). Daily BOD5 mass loading for an event week=325 mg/L(must be sized to max) ® 720 gpd disposal capacity needed for event week capacity on-site disposal 6 Glendon BioFilter modules @ 120ppd each=720gpd. BOD5 removal should be accomplished via aeration(i.e.Nibbler,Whitewater, FAST,etc.) o Unit must be capable of 2.0 lbs of BOD5 removal/day o Can use multiple units in series o Must time-dose to the ATU so large pump tank capacity will be needed upstream from the treatment unit in addition to the tankage needed for time-dosing the Glendon BioFilter. System type © Pretreatment Required to remove 2.0 lbs of BOD5/day 0 Disposal Component will be Glendon BioFilter based on soils present at site System Components o OSI MVP control panel o Class I Division I shouldn't be required o 1500 gal Grease Trap o 3000 gal min. Septic Tank(2 x 1500 gal singles?) 0 4500 gal min. Surge Tank(2 x 2700 gal Castlerock tanks plumbed @ bottom?) o Treatment Unit(2 x Whitewater DF 50's in tandem?) o 2000 Hain. gal Pump Tank(2700 gal Castlerock tank) o Glendon control panel o Glendon pump vault setup - o 6 Glendon M31 Modules for disposal 3• -Y I.. Muiti-Use Building Daily Flow Predzetio� Event Week Daily inflow and outflow frOM Surge Tt7ifk Day I-Event Day 2—Event Day 3—formal Day 4—Normal Day 5—Normal Day 6 Normal IDay 7-Normal Inflow=2100 Inflow=2100 Inflow=190 Inflow=190 Inflow=190 Inflow=190 Inflow=190 Outflow=720gpd Outflow=720gpd Outflow=720gpd Outflow=720gpd Outflow=720gpd Outflow=720gpd Outflow=720gpd In tank end of In tank @ end of lntw&@ end of In tank @ end of In tank @ end of In�@ end of 1n tank @end of da 1700 da =1170 da -640 da =110 da =1380 da =2760 da =2230 i; f•. i.• I I f•• J a' �30no COAL SEPTdC TANK 2000 GAL PCJIVfP ANK 720 GPD 6 ©ISCAP�'C35AL HOOD CANAL SAL MO � � � q GLEND N MULTIUSE BUILDING GLEES©®I©FIL7ER F r SAP T UNIT 9..00•�4L GREASE TP TR�•i�EN 4500 GAL ATu SURGE TANK : .1 t ' i r 1• 3000 GAL SEPTIC TANK 2000 GAL PUMP TANK �. { •: o 720 GPD DISPOSAL. HOOD CANAL SALMO O O ® CAPACITY MULTI-USE BUILDING GLENDON BIGFILitR (8 MODS) 1500 GAL GREASE TRAP TREATMENT UNIT 4500 GAL ATU SURGE TANK ff YSIASTIFICIT/8)v 9#r SI)rf W STEWHINSYSTM t� . �. DATE.' 18 May 2009 NINE Pacific Northwest Salmon Center ADDRESS,- P.O.Box 3238 CITY,STATE,l/P. Belfair,WA 98528 S/TEAD©AESS, 720 NE Roessel Road SITEC/TY,STATE,lip Belfair,WA PARCEL NUMBER.• 123 32-50-00087 119AI XMIPT/9k Parcel 4 of Survey 34/51 B--IMECDAISTBUCTl4N, Me. 2971EPAIII10SLake10op,Sbellna,WA985B4 369,426.4221-office,3895971492-mobile,369126.9599-fax -- -->-- srar MASON COUNTY pN E �P5 c DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT sv° Planning Division 0 Y Y 426 W Cedar St, Shelton, WA 98694 aJ a� (360)427-9670 1864 ' DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) SEP2015-00089 Description of Proposal: Update current HCSEG educational learning center Special Use Permit, DDR2009-00053, to provide: 1) Host occasional all-day events on any day of the week a) for up to 400 people who will arrive on busses or in cars that will park in the south pasture; or b) up to 100 individuals arrive in no more cars than can be accommodated by the currently permitted 72 parking spaces; 2) Regularly hold educational classes after 5pm and on the weekends for up to 30 individuals; and 3) Develop a recreational park connected to the existing trail system east of Roessel Rd and allow public access through the property for the use of these trails and this park on any day of the week. Proponent: PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON CNTR Location of Proposal: 720 NE ROESSEL RD BELFAIR Parcel Number: 123325000087 Legal Description: SAM B. THELER'S HOME & GAR TRS PCL 3 OF BLA#07-83. Directions to site: Belfair: State Route 3, left onto NE Roessel Rd, site on right. Lead Agency: Mason County 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 review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. ,This information is available to the public upon request. Please contact Allan Borden at ext. 365 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development,. C i Shelton WA 98584 by 11/20/2015. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. /��- ('1 1 ilm f Authorized Local Government Official Date i - ---- 1 1 it y pV c , ' x ' 'K t I,'L:C c2r-p 2v5-- W06 ! �.. SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ` fit CEDAf7 ST UPDATED 2014 Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: hel This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer_is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:Jhel For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively.The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects)questions in Part B -Environmental Elements—that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. background[Lel �I 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lhel I The Salmon Center 2. Name of applicant:Itqtpl The Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) h1ay 2014 Page 1 of 16 - .--Y-- ......... - 1 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: hj elpl Mendy Harlow PO Box 2169 Belfair,WA '• 360-275-3575 4. Date checklist prepared: JLg_!pJ 11 103/15 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jhel Mason County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): hl elpl Ongoing activities 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. bLeM There has been general discussion of one day expanding the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center on this property, but we do not have funding, capability, or means for any further expansion at this time. The proposed renovations requested under this application are not dependent on any future expansion or use of the property. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. hj�e None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. hel No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. hel None 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) lbpjpj SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 2 of 16 In Compliance with our previous Special Use Permit, 2009-00053,the HCSEG's staff has been occupying the house and garage that were remodeled into an ADA compliant office building in 2009. We have been holding educational programs for groups of about 30 students regularly since 2009. HCSEG has established a learning center which communicates the connection of land, people and salmon through several integrated, collaborative activities. HCSEG staff creates educational programming, conducts research and demonstrates sustainable agricultural practices at our certified organic farm situated at the edge of salmon habitat. HCSEG's Salmon Center is located adjacent to WDFW property that includes the Theler Trail network and the newly restored Union River Estuary. There is significant open space and the public is welcome to come and walk the trails, enjoy a picnic next to the garden, or just have a seat and enjoy the view of the newly restored estuary and the Lower Hood Canal. HCSEG's Salmon Center has the ability to provide the only open public access to the Theler Trail network with ADA compliance. This revised Special Use Permit is being requested as required by Mason County Code to operate an Educational Learning Center on agricultural land in Mason County outside of a UGA. The proposed use at this time is to continue with the current occupation of the office building and garage and small educational programs and classes with about 30 participants. HCSEG also expects to have educational classes and programs for groups larger than 30 individuals a few times per year. These programs are held for school districts that request the opportunity to come to our property to learn from our education experts about the local ecosystems and sustainable agriculture. I order to, minimize traffic impact on Roessel Road,these will arrive primarily by school bus to the Salmon Center Property. In order to effectively teach future generations about sustainable agriculture and ecosystem health, we must have the ability to invite the public to our certified organic farm and the adjacent Union River Estuary. Specifically, the Salmon Center proposes that their property located at 600 NE Roessel Road be able to provide: 1. Public ADA compliant access to the property for the use of the trails any day of the week, 2. Occasional events any day of the week with about 400 individuals who arrive on buses or in cars who will park in temporary parking in the South pasture. 3. Occasional events where 100 individuals arrive in no more cars than we currently have parking spaces. 4. Regular classes after 5pm and'on the weekends for 30 or fewer individuals. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 3 of 16 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and ' range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. hel pM _ j 2-� i --A e C 61 � 123-37 � S-b l 6 600 NE Roessel Rd, see attached site plan. �J�`2 f + 00 o rA fr6 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS [helpl 1. Earth a. General description of the site Lhel (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? hel Approximately 0-2% c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. h( elpl Mukilteo Peat and Edmonds fine sandy loam. Soils will not be removed. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Ehel No e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. h( e No filling, excavation or grading proposed. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No impervious surfaces are currently being proposed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: hLel�] No erosion causing impacts are proposed. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 4 of 16 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, i operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and l give approximate quantities if known. i I No appreciable amounts of dust, odors or automobile emissions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: No impacts to air are proposed. 3. Water a. Surface Water: hL elm 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site is adjacent to the Lower Union River and Hood Canal. See attached site map. 2)Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. hf e Yes, the existing barn is within 200 ft of Mindy Creek. Work on this existing structure has been considered, but is not yet funded. When funding is secured, proper permits will be acquired and plans submitted. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 5 of 16 i No. The subject properties are located outside the 100-year flood zone. (Johnson Farm Properties Appraisal, January 27, 2005, Schaeffer Sinntett Hernandez Appraisal Group, Inc. Furnished upon request) 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well.Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. We do not expect more than a 5% increase in water withdrawl from our well. Our well is 179 feet deep and has been operational since 1979.We have a Group B water system managed by Northwest Water Systems. Use is for continuing agricultural use and potable use. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. Current septic system includes one 4 bedroom capacity residential system which serves the main house. This building will be renovated to serve as administrative space and will serve 13 employees. A septic system analysis completed by B-Line Construction shows that the system will be adequate for the proposed use arid no upgrades are needed. 'P0vt k'►e 1n'�r 5 VJtN b-c ', it Wi'efi 'ThtrC Pta.ttis b � 4�0•z 7h — 30 FLnP\c ar- 54fL. Based on an occupancy of 300, a new septic system will be designed for the barn and will be installed pending project and permit approval. C.Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 1hel No additional runoff will be created by the project. Existing stormwater is collected in an existing and historical ditch system on the property that flows through wetlands and then into Hood Canal. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197.11-960) May 2014 Page 6 of 16 I If so generally describe. hel 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? , g y I pl , No 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If l so, describe. I i No ' d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: None Required 4. Plants hel a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: hel _X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _X_shrubs X_grass X_pasture X_crop or grain X Orchards vineyards or other permanent crops. Y P P X_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? h[ elpl No vegetation e ation will be altered or removed c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. hel None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance P vegetation on the site, if any: hf elpl None known to be on or near the site. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species kn o Himila an Blackberry, scotch broom Bull thistle Y rY, , 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: hj gio SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 7 of 16 I birds: red-tailed hawk, Northern Harrier, great blue heron, bald eagle, Ii songbirds, American kestrel, sharp-shinned hawk,waterfowl ! mammals: deer, bear, beaver, coyote, muskrat fish: stickleback, coho salmon fry b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site, hel Steelhead, Summer Chum and Chinook run the Union River during their spawning cycle. This work will not impact these species. ' c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. hel No, the site is not part of a migration route d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: hL elpl HCSEG CONSISTENTLY WORKING TO RESTORE AND IMPROVE WILDLIFE HABITAT.HOWEVER, None required as a part of this proposal. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known to live on site. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. hf e • Electric— heating, all power • Some Solar electric b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. hel No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: LLLeI HCSEG will maximize energy efficiency, choose materials with lower transportation and other energy costs, Design and maintenance measures to reduce product consumption and waste. 7. Environmental health SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 8 of 16 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. hel No 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None known 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None known II 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: HCSEG will prohibit the use of toxic chemicals on our property. HCSEG's property is certified organic, so use of toxic chemicals is not allowed. b. Noise 1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? lhelpl None 2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site.1hel In the short term, there will be no change in the current level of noise from 8am-5pm due to the low volume of traffic related to the staff working on the property. Occassionally, there will be the noise of children playing and learning associated with field trips to the Salmon Center property and music associated with receptions. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 9 of 16 =. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: hj elpl None required 8. Land and shoreline use a.What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Jbpjo The current site use is agricultural and community service. Adjacent properties are natural resource, community service and residential. The proposed use will not affect current land uses on adjacent properties. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? h1 elpl Yes,the site has been used in the past and currently as working farmland. The proposed use will not result in any conversion of the land that is currently being used as farmland. 1 Will the proposal affect or be affected b surrounding working farm or forest land normal P P Y 9 9 business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: This proposal will not affect surrounding working farm lands. No c. Describe any structures on the site.ItgjpJ Farm house with attached garage, detached garage and shop, barn, lean-to equipment shed d. Will any structures be demolished? .If so,what?[tp_!pJ No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? hel Agricultural f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?1hel Agricultural resource land g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline,master program designation of the site? hj elp1 None SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 10 of 16 h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. hj elpl No f i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? hj g!o 13 employees j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? hl elpl None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: hf et! NONE NECESSARY L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: hel Avoidance m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Belfair Comprehensive Plan 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. hf g.!O None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. hf gjo None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: hel Avoidance 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? hj pjp] SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 11 of 16 None proposed currently. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? hjtel.J None. The entire property is lower than surrounding property structures. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Ltglo Preserving the character of the area. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? ltpM None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?Jt@jPJ No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?ltgjO None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: [help] No glare or additional lights are expected 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?Jtelo Hiking and birdwatching on adjacent WDFW property. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. hel No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: fhel No impacts to current recreational opportunities are expected. 13. Historic and cultural preservation SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 12 of 16 a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. h� elpl No b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. h� eiPl None known. Study performed by Gary Wessen for restoration work that took place in 2012 and 2013, permitted by Mason County. Supplied by request. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. hel HCSEG has a working relationship with the Skokomish Tribal Preservation Officer. d.Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None are required for this proposal. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. JLtLo Property is accessed from Roessel Road off of State Route 3, Belfair, WA 98528 b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?Jhel The site is not currently served by public transit. The approximate walking distance to State Route#3 is one-half mile. The site is served by an improved, paved street up to the paved driveway. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?Lhel There are currently 72 parking spaces on the property. No new permanent parking is planned for the project. HCSEG is requesting that temporary parking be allowed in the South Pasture for occasional receptions. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAG 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 13 of 16 d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation'facilities, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). hel No e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail,or air transportation? If so, generally describe.Itg!pI No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would . be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles).What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?JbPjP3 Approximately 50 trips per day from 8am to 5 pm. Peak volume would most likely occur in the PM hours as potential class attendees depart the site, although peak volumes will vary based on availability of classes and programs. See attached traffic assessment completed by Heath and Associates. g.Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affectedstreets n the area? If sob, generally describe.y the movemen of agriculturat and forest products on roads ors No h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Lhel None Required 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services.,(for example:fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.JtPjPJ No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.1hel None Required 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: hel electricity, natural gas,Water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Cable, Internet SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197.11-960) May 2014 Page 14 of 16 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Jhel No additional utilities are proposed C. Signature HEAP The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is rel 'ng on them to make its decision. Signature: Name of signee O CL) Position and Agency/Organization —14, Gu..�ly C. D(V G( �GS�%�'t Date Submitted: to D. supplemental sheet for non project.actions hf elpl (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197.11.960) May 2014 Page 15 of 16 1 a 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study)for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197.11-960) May 2014 Page 16 of 16 -771 Page l of 1 Allan Borden - SEP 2014,15-00089 comments to proposal description and SEPA Environmental checklist From: "Ken VanBuskirk" <kenvanb@gmail.com> To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@,co.mason.wa.us> Date: 11/27/2015 4:08 PM Subject: SEP 2014,15-00089 comments to proposal description and SEPA Environmental checklist CC: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us> Attachments: Scan0067.pdf; November 27, 2015.docx Allan thank you for extending the comment period. I've included a scanned signed comment document. Heck of a way to spend my Thanksgiving evening and early AM today!!! When I visited the site on Thanksgiving day I noticed that someone posted the WDFW property with a public notice after I contacted you on the 24th. The sign should be moved as the salmon center property is actually on the other side of road and further down the road. Could you get me a copy of the affidavit of the posting for my records. My comments were hurried but I hope they meet the deadline, and please make sure they are entered into the record regarding the special use permit. As I suggest in my comments I hope you consider recommending that the special use permit be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and possible follow-up as an enforcement matter. There is no agenda posted yet for the Hearings examiner public hearing posted on Mason County website. Best Ken VanBuskirk V7 file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56587FEDMasonma... 11/30/2015 !i November 27,2015 Allan Borden Mason County DCD Planning Division 426 W. Cedar St. Shelton WA 98584 Re:SEP 2014,15-00089 Comments to Proposal Description,and SEPA Environmental checklist Mr. Borden, As you are aware I requested and you granted a one week extension to the comment period for your Determination of Nonsignificance. In an attempt to understand the project and make reasonable and educated comments I went to the site on November 24 and called you from site and expressed my concerns about the public notice being inadequate as evidenced by lack of public notice being posted on subject properties. I contacted two PNWSC employees while there and asked about the new special use proposal. I asked specifically about the trail system east of Roessel road and was told it does not exist. I asked if I could walk through the property and they told me it was private property but I was allowed. My walk and the employees confirmed my suspicions about#(3)of the proposal description;the trail system east of Roessel road does not exist nor does the recreational park. Per our second phone conversation later on November 24 1 am sending these comments under protest of inadequate public notice,a vague and unclear proposal description and more importantly the County's failure to follow through with enforcement actions following your August 14,2014 request for additional information and January 28,2015 notification of incomplete application sent to project applicant. I remain concerned that many of the"proposed activities"started shortly after the DDR- 2009-00053 special use permit was approved and that the County failed to take enforcement actions after being notified of these numerous concerns. The applicant currently,among other things,offers a "dog walking trail",open to the public,and school buses from North Mason School district have been seen dropping off students to the site.There was also discussion at a North Mason school board meeting of offering a veterinarian technician course on site.When I asked where the course would be offered I was told the PNWSC. I am not sure if that course was ever approved and is currently being offered. This most recent application is not an"update"it is rather a significant change in use to include all the activities that were not covered under the 2009 SUP approval but were started regardless. ------_. There is also no mention of the proposed rerouting of a no name tributary to Mindy Creek through the applicant's property in connection with the WSDOT's SR-3 widening project which could have a significant environmental impact. Public Notice of Special Use Permit. On November 26, 1 again traveled down to the site and saw that someone had posted a public notice at the entrance after I called you on November 24. The"Public Notice" description posted is different than what is in the Determination of Nonsignificance. How can the public make informed comment?How could you issue a Determination of Nonsignificance effective November 6t'when the applicant only prepared the checklist on November 3rd and did not provide any information about a recreational park to be developed and claims to have an existing trail system east of Roessel Road, when in fact they don't. Proposal Description. It appears to be far outside the scope of the 2009 SUP. It also appears to be greatly different than what was submitted to you a year and a half ago,on June 5 2014. The current proposal now includes Parcel number: 12332-50-00088, 10 acres in size and Parcel number 12332-50-00116, .61 acres in size. These parcels were not included in the 2009 SPU and both were directly impacted by the restoration project. I feel this could have a significant cumulative impact on already dwindling agricultural resource lands to include these parcels in this current proposal. In the 2009 public hearing you had concerns about the grant that the applicant had applied for to fund that wetland restoration project. The 2009 SEPA review did not include the wetland restoration project. You noted to the hearings examiner that a SEPA review is intended to review the full scope of a project, not just individual phases. Your desire was for the Hearing Examiner to remand the case back to the applicant;to provide all of the necessary information regarding the full extent of the project.That obviously didn't happen. 1) -Host occasional all-day events on any day of the week a)for up to 400 people who will arrive on busses or in cars that will park in the south pasture;or b) up to 100 individuals arrive in no more cars than can be accommodated by the currently permitted 72 parking space; As above these all day events and after business hours events started happening shortly after the 2009 SPU was issued.Concerned with the traffic impacts and violations I reported my concerns to the County. At one point I asked the County to install a traffic counter before one of these weekend events.The counter was removed after the PNWSC complained. Please provide the hearings examiner with the complete file of citizen complaints regarding the 2009 SPU. The parcel that is referred to as south pasture was not in the original 2009 or in the 2014 applications. The parking area around the barn and in the vicinity of Mindy creek was expanded during the restoration project. 2) Regularly hold educational classes after 5PM and on the weekends for up to 30 individuals. 1(7 f This is way outside the scope of the 2009 original SUP and has been exacerbated by the PNWSC removing the gate at their entrance. Please provide the hearings examiner with a copy of 1991-Access Easement Agreement-#576535 Mason County court record in which perpetual covenants carry with land.There are specific restrictions and road maintenance obligations which were part of the vacation of Roessel Road. 3) Develop a recreational park connected to the existing trail system east of Roessel Rd and allow public access through the property for the use of these trails and this park on any day of the week. The application and maps do not include any indication where these existing trails are or where the park is to be developed. Please provide the hearings examiner with a copy of the 1980 Environmental Impact Statement for the Theler trails which specifically address public access for the Theler trails and was in part why Roessel road was vacated. Please suggest that the special use permit be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and follow-up with pursuit of an enforcement matter. SEPA environmental checklist First three pages of maps were not taken on the same date,as some show adjoining restoration project and some dont. Maps do not show all easements, ROW's,water rights,or existing trails and proposed recreational park. Does not accurately depict where County Roessel road ends and private road begins nor are parking spaces delineated. Wetlands,streams,and bodies of water are not accurately depicted nor is the rerouting of a tributary to Mindy creek depicted. Existing trail access point depicted on site plan was installed after 2009 as part of restoration project and is in direct violation of 1991 perpetual access easement agreement. Regarding the applicant's answers to questions in checklist. Most of answers are exactly the same from 2009. My comments are: A. Background, Page 2 of checklist, #4 shows date prepared of 11/03/15 which is after applicant signed the application on 10/30/15 and only three days later on 11/06/15 a determination of non significance was issued. #7 is the exact statement given in 2009 application! #8 applicant does not mention 1980 Theler trail EIS nor the 2014 Theler trail repair proposal recommendations and preferred alternative submitted by their engineer to reroute trail onto applicant's property. (7 i #11 The 2009-00053 Special Use Permit was to convert an existing residence into office space and an existing barn into classroom space.They mention the office space was remodeled but do not mention the barn.They also mention they have the ability to provide the only open public access to the Theler Trail network with ADA compliance. Access points are not on applicant's property and are in violation of perpetual easement agreement. (Mason County#576535) #12 Applicant now provides parcel numbers for four parcels which is quite different from both the 2009 and the 2014 application. This is not a simple update it is a significant change in acreage and potential impact. It indicates how closely this property was tied to the restoration project that was discussed in 2009. B. Environmental Elements Applicant makes no effort to describe"Develop a recreational park connected to the existing trail system east of Roessel Rd"in proposal description. Impossible for me to make complete comments without knowing entire scope of project. I can however offer comment on: 3.Water a.Surface Water: #2) Barn was supposed to be site of classroom space per 2009 SPU decision. Parking lot was expanded during restoration project into the buffer of Mindy Creek. (Google earth historical maps will verify) #5)-100 year-flood plain for the Union River is currently being considered for update as part of the Mason County SMP update.The applicant sites the 2005 appraisal of the Johnson Farm. b.Ground Water: 1) What is the current rate of use? Applicant fails to disclose that with the restoration project completed the shoreline has been altered and saltwater is in much closer proximity to wellhead.The possibility of saltwater intrusion must be considered. III� Regarding the agricultural use of ground water why are the "water rights"to the unnamed tributary to Mindy Creek not mentioned? 2) Applicant didn't proof read submittal from 2009 application. Building was renovated as an administrative space. Please note that they did change the occupancy of the barn from 200 in 2009 application to 300 in 2014 application. Please bring to the examiner's attention that in 2010 they went to the Mason County DCD and the Mason County Planning Commission in an attempt to extend the Belfair sewer system outside the UGA to service their property. Y7 7. Environmental health I a. health hazards: 2)Applicant fails to disclose the existence of main power transmission lines ROW through property and I directly over newly created trail access point in that ROW. b. Noise: 2)Applicant already exceeding the 2009 level of noise supposedly due to low volume of traffic related to the staff working on the property. When I viewed the property on November 2e I counted 20 vehicles for 13 employees during business hours. No way to gauge long term levels of noise with this current proposal. 8. Land and shoreline use: a.Current use Applicant has changed response from 2009. b.conversion of working farmlands. Proposal includes Parcel#12332-50-00088, 10 acres in size, as a parking area for school buses. What has been the crop/agricultural production on that parcel prior to 2009 and since then to present? g.SMP designation County is close to finishing the three year update. I believe the proposed designation is"Conservancy". h.Critical areas. (2009"environmentally sensitive") Application question has changed from 2009. Property has many critical areas, (wetlands,streams)as identified in the 2005 Johnson Farm appraisal. Many were impacted/modified as a result of the nearby restoration project and the placement of 35,000 CY of excavated material on applicant's property. L Reside nts/em p loyees. Are residents of caretaker's house included in the 13 employees? m. Proposed measures to ensure compatibility with ag and forest land. (not answered in 2009) In the 2014 rendition of this application applicant sites the Belfair Comprehensive Plan and goes to great lengths to site the "Salmon Center" and suggest that it supports policies and goals of the 2005 Comprehensive plan. Further suggests that the Belfair Urban Growth Area's Plan and strategic vision was to encourage development to attract visitors and fuel the local economy. What applicant failed to point out was that the 2005 Comprehensive plan is currently being updated and the"Salmon Center" that the Belfair subarea plan mentioned was inside the UGA,in an entirely different site and a far different structure with an adjoining"development" node of intense housing zoning. (R-10-10 housing !/ units per acre ) I' 13.. Historic and cultural preservation Mason County recently recognized Twin Errs cemetery to the Historic Register.Shell material was -enrounterd during the restoration project. The first logging railroad in Mason County bisected this property.The original community of Clifton started at-the mouth of the union.River and there was a =tel on the west side of river,as well as several large.barns from the Company farm in the project area. There are two documented cultural resource sites which are within 0.3 miles of this current project proposal.(45MS117 and 4SMS106.1 14.Transporlation/parldn,g a-and b.Needs to be cjosely scrutinized. Mason County recently placed an"End of County Road"sign on.Roessel Road after I provided them with a copy of perpetual easement agreement and the vacationing of Etoesset Road. tMason County#57.6535) c.Temporary parking should bedenied as parcel was notpart of original Z009 Slip and would impact workingfa.rm land. d-with the removal of gate pedestriarts now walk down moth the County portion of Roessel road and the private driveway to access property. No traffic signs,no lane or shoulders delineated. f.vehicular trips Applicant.uses exact verbiage from 2009.@ 50 trips.per day- I have repeatedly asked to County to install traffic counters to establish some sort of baseline_ Please place these comments in the public record regarding this special use permit if your determination of nonsignifcance is final please inform me of the process to appeal- Sincerely, y Ken Vangusldrk NE 61 Davis Farm Road Belfair -71"7 August 31, 2009 Notice of Decision Case: DDR2009-00053 Applicant: Pacific Northwest Salmon Center Notice is hereby given that Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, who is the applicant for the above-referenced Mason County Special Use Permit, has been granted approval of that Special Use Permit. The request was reviewed on August 11, 2009 by the Mason County Hearing Examiner and approved pursuant to the Mason County Title 1.05.044 Special Use Permit review, specifically to establish an educational learning center on two parcels (24 acres) of designated Agricultural Resource Lands near the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The proposal was subject to SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1). 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. 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. pits" HAWORMPermit Reviews0ecision coversheetdoc _ ..._- _ - ---- - i 0 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY Q 2 Phil 01brechts,Hearing Examiner D Z 3 0 4 RE: Pacific Northwest Salmon Center FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 5 Special Use Permit#DDR2009-00053 FINAL DECISION 6 INTRODUCTION 8 The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit in order to convert an existing residence into classroom space and an existing barn into office space for purposes of 9 public education on endangered fish. The Examiner approves the application subject 10 to the conditions recommended in the staff report. 11 ORAL TESTIMONY 12 Allen Borden—Mason County Staff 13 Mr. Borden began by entering Exhibit 13, a Department of Ecology Letter dated 14 August 4, 2009; Exhibit 14, a letter from Greg Landrom dated August 10, 2009; and Exhibit 15, an email from the Hearing Examiner on August 8, 2009. Mr. Borden 15 stated that he believed that-the project met the requirements for the special use permit, but voiced concerns regarding the SEPA review. The concern involved not knowing 16 the full scope of the proposal; essentially that not all elements of the project were 17 reviewed under the SEPA checklist, thus not producing a fully accurate determination. Specifically Mr. Borden had concerns about a grant (Ex. 12) the 18 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group has applied to fund a wetland restoration project on an adjoining parcel. This project would restore some prime salmon 19 habitat. The SEPA review did not include the wetland restoration project. Mr. Borden noted that a SEPA review is intended to review the full scope of a project,not 20 just individual phases. His desire was for the Hearing Examiner to remand the case 21 back to the applicant, to provide all of the necessary information regarding the full extent of the project. However,he did point out that it has been asserted that some of 22 the other phases of the project that give rise to concern have not been finalized and may at some point be undertaken by other groups on separate pieces of property. If 23 this were the case, those separate projects would require full permitting and review process,at which point the necessary SEPA review could be undertaken instead. 24 25 In rebuttal, Mr. Borden addressed the concerns regarding increased impacts of the new use of the site. Cumulative impact effect is"a subjective review, and there is no standard rule for review of potential use of land usage when transferring from purely agricultural uses to educational facilities on those lands. In regards to further 21�Z Special Use Permit P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0739871 DOC;I\13009.900000\} environmental review regarding further development associated with the land or I project, the review that will be required upon any further proposed usage would be sufficient to move on with the current SEPA review. Additionally, he believes that 2 separate SEPA reviews can be done for this project and the potential watershed 3 restoration project, because they are on separate properties and are not part of the same plan. 4 David Mann—Attorney for Pacific Northwest Salmon Center 5 6 Mr. Mann began by giving a brief overview of the project. There are currently two aspects of the project: the first is to convert a current barn on site to a classroom 7 space, and the second is to convert the current residence to office space. These are the only aspects of the project at this time, and the farm land will remain farmed. In 8 regard to Exhibit 12, a grant from the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group for some work on the adjacent property, the project could or could not happen, but is 9 more of a long-term proposal rather than a planned aspect of the current proposal for 10 the Salmon Center. Even if the project does happen, the projects are not interdependent, in that one can proceed without the other. And the current plan of 11 altering the current structures has no relation to the other plan, which is no more than a long-range proposal. 12 In his rebuttal, Mr. Mann addressed Mr. Van Buskirk's comments. He believes that 13 much of the concerns are a result of confusion regarding the extent of the project and 14 continued use of the property as agricultural farm. The project will not include parking lots, overnight accommodations, or anything beyond the renovations of the 15 two buildings that have been proposed. Unfortunately the other ideas were prior possibilities that ended up on a public website that have only caused confusion for the 16 public regarding the actual intended use of the property. In regards to what is allowed for agricultural uses and what has been done in the past, the letter from Mr. Johnson 17 goes into detail in that regard. As to what he believes are uses allowed by the Mason 18 County Code, the proposal is essentially maintaining past uses and stays well below the level of uses that appear to be allowed. There has also been traffic analysis 19 completed, and it is possible.that approximately four more vehicle trips would be made a day. But it is also important to evaluate that the farm will be used in a much 20 more environmentally sustainable manner, and in that sense will have a lower impact 21 than the past use. 22 Fred Barrett—President of Pacific Northwest Salmon Center 23 Mr_ Barrett Entered Exhibit 16, four 8 X 10 photos, and Exhibit 17, a letter from Jack Johnson. Mr. Barrett gave the background of the Pacific Northwest Salmon center, 24 regarding their role in the community and environmental stewardship, specifically 25 pertaining to sustainable salmon farming. He also gave a brief overview of the proposal, and the future use of the site as an educational facility for children, from elementary through high school, college research organizations, and the community, as well as office space for the organization. Additionally,the farm will be maintained Special Use Permit p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0739871.DOC;1113009.900000\} as a demonstration of agricultural best practices and will be maintained as a farm. 1 For clarification, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is a separate entity 2 from the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, and the dike grant project they have proposed is completely separate from the current project. The written testimony from 3 Mr. Johnson, the prior owner of the property, demonstrates the history of the farm in the past as a source of educational and outdoor experience for generations of children, 4 as well as outdoor enthusiasts that travel the trails along the property. Mr. Mann Barrett also urges approval of the application and believes that their use of the 5 property would produce less impact on the land than traditional agricultural practices. 6 Mr. Barrett reconfirmed that many conceptual plans were put forward in the past, but 7 that the only plan for this property is to convert the barn and residence. Unfortunately some of the confusion has arisen because of statements made on public websites 8 regarding prior proposals. 9 Will Langmack—Architect for Pacific Northwest Salmon Center 10 Mx Langmack prepared the site plan and did the architectural work for proposed 11 conversion. He gave a brief overview of the site, including sizes and proposals for the buildings, access, fire safety, and water supply. Mr. Langmack also stated that 12 other permits will be required for the change of use of the current structures, including building permits. Also, the plan does not include any addition of 13 impervious space on the site. 14 Neil Werner—Hood Canal Enhancement Group 15 Mr. Werner addressed the grant for a dike received in 2008, for property owned by 16 the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The grant is a standalone 1 project that is not related to, or reliant upon, the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center on the adjacent property. As part of conceptual planning for the project, all previously 18 proposed designs for the project were presented, although they do not necessarily represent the plans for the site in the future. Additionally, the parking lot that has 19 been mentioned as a part of their proposal is not part of any planning for the site and was rather a preliminary plan for the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center that was 20 subsequently abandoned. As such, there is no plan for a parking lot on either site in 21 the future. 22 John Bolender—Mason Conservation District,District Manager 23 Mr. Bolender gave a brief overview of the Mason Conservation District and its history. The group became involved in the project by a request of the Pacific 24 Northwest Salmon Center to assist in addressing the resource opportunities and 25 concerns on the property. The group concluded that the agricultural resources could be changed and increased as a result of altered agricultural practices. It is the opinion positive effect on the a have h would of the group that the educational center p abili and agricultural agricultural practices on the property, in regards to sustain ability gn I �' P P P Special Use Permit p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision {PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} . - - --- efficiency. Additionally, the proposal will not increase adverse impacts on the 1 property, but rather would give rise to positive impacts in the community as a result 2 of agricultural education. 3 Ann Whitman—Mary Theler Center Wetlands 4 Ms. Whitman read a statement from the board of her organization. Essentially, the group has trails visited and used by over 200,000 visitors every year. They encourage 5 expansion and cooperation of their trails with other groups and sites, if those 6 partnerships are positive for the environment and the visitors. Although they are not scientists or wetlands specialists, they see a positive impact from the proposed 7 project. 8 Bob Simmons—Director of WSU Mason County Extension Office 9 Mr. Simmons' group encourages and assists people in putting research based 10 knowledge to work in people's everyday lives. The WSU Extension encourages the diversification of the agricultural use of the project, as it will benefit both economic 11 and environmental sustainability of the farm. The group will be available to the Salmon Center for consultation in the future regarding agricultural use of the 12 property, and how best to manage it from that standpoint. Additionally,they believe the project will be beneficial,because it provides a valuable teaching center as well as 13 further public access to existing trails. Overall the project will be beneficial to the 14 County as a whole. 15 Frank Kenny—North Mason County Chamber of Commerce 16 Mr. Kenny relayed the message of the Chamber, and their unanimous vote to support 17 the Salmon Center as a valuable asset to the community. 18 Ken Van Buskirk—Neighbor 19 Mr. Van Buskirks believed that the community would benefit from seeing the long- range plan for the project, as well as to be aware of the cumulative impacts of the 20 whole project. His concern regarding the project is that the conceptual plans for the 21 current portion of the project take a significant portion of agricultural land out of commission,and that needs to be taken into consideration. 22 EXHIBITS 23 Exhibit 1: Staff Report dated July 30,2009 24 Exhibit 2: Application for Special Use& Supplemental Information 25 Exhibit 3: Project Vicinity Plan Exhibit 4: Map of Belfair UGA and Adjacent Area Zoning Exhibit 5: SEPA Exhibit 6: Notice of Application Special Use Permit p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} ------- .. - .' I Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Posting 1 Exhibit 8: Septic Change of Use Justification 2 Exhibit 9: PNWSC Traffic Analysis Exhibit 10: Wetlands Inventory Map 3 Exhibit 11: Comments from Ken Van Buskirk Exhibit 12: Application Materials for State Recovery Funds 4 Exhibit 13: DOE letter dated August 4, 2009 Exhibit 14: Letter from Greg Landrom dated August 10,2009 5 Exhibit 15: Email from Hearing Examiner to Allen Borden dated August 8, 6 2009 Exhibit 16: Four 8 X 10 photos 7 Exhibit 17: Letter from Jack Johnson Exhibit 18: Email from Hearing Examiner to Allen Borden dated August 12, 8 2009 9 FINDINGS OF FACT 10 Procedural: 11 1. Applicant. The applicant is the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center. 12 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 13 on August 11, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners Meeting Chambers. The Hearing Examiner left the record open for one week to 14 determine if further SEPA review was necessary, with the understanding that the 15 record may be left open for public comment on any additional SEPA review. The Examiner concluded the next day, August 12, 2009,that no further SEPA review was 16 necessary and closed the record at that time. 17 . Substantive: 18 3. Site/Proposal Description. The property consists of two parcels, 24 acres 19 in size, and part of a group of five parcels that have been in agricultural use for many years, and were designated Agricultural Resource Lands in April of 1999 and June of 20 2000(Exhibit 4). The property is generally flat,with berms,dikes, and roads through the property that have been used to grow and cut hays and grasses as part of the farm. 21 Part of the Mary Theler Trail Center is located to the west. The buildings present on 22 the site are a residence, bam, and outbuildings, wells, and septic systems for the buildings. The applicant proposes converting the 4,460-square-foot residence and the 23 4,227-square-foot barn for educational/classroom space and for offices. The classes will at most be comprised of approximately 30 students. No further renovations or 24 construction are proposed or planned. 25 4. Characteristics of the Area. The Lynch Cove area of Hood Canal is to the west of the subject property. Washington Department of Wildlife lands are to the south, west, and north of the property. The Mary Theler Wetlands Project is located farther to the south and southwest, and its trail alignments are situated to the west of Special Use Permit p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} the property. Along State Route 3 there is a manufactured home park, church, and 1 library. Other residential land uses occupy pockets of areas between existing 2 commercial land uses. 3 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There is no evidence in the record of any significant adverse impacts. The proposal is for the conversion of two currently 4 existing buildings to serve the-functions of the educational resource center. No further construction is to take place as part of the project, including no roads, parking 5 lots, or further structures. Since the classrooms will be limited to about 30 students 6 and the offices will only have a handful of employees, staff has determined that the project will generate 15 pm peak hour trips, which is four more than would be 7 generated by the current land use. See staff report and p. 6 of Ex. 9. Given these factors, the Examiner finds that the project will not create any significant adverse 8 impacts. 9 There appears to be some confusion and/or disagreement on the scope of this project 10 and hence its impacts. The special use approved by this decision only authorizes the proposal as described in the application, i.e., a classroom for about 30 students and 11 some office space. Any construction beyond that described in the subject application is not authorized by this decision. As noted in the conclusions below on SEPA 12 review, the wetland restoration project is not a part of this project and its impacts will be assessed independently if and when the project moves forward. 13 14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 15 Procedural: 16 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the 17 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon Type III decisions such as Special Use Permit applications. 18 2. Notice of Application. According to staff, public notice procedures were 19 followed in accordance with Section 1.05.052 of the Development Regulations and Section 15.07.010 of Mason County Title 15. Affidavits of publication, posting 20 notice, and mailing notice have also been provided(Exhibit 6) 21 WA 197-11-055 2 Timing o review o ro osals: The lead agency shall prepare () g f fP P g Y P P 22 its threshold determination and environmental impact statement(EIS), if required, at the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process, when the 23 principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified. 24 (a) A proposal exists when an agency is presented with an application or has a goal 25 and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated. (i) The fact that proposals may require future agency approvals or environmental Special Use Permit p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision RA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} review shall not preclude current consideration, as long as proposed future activities 1 are specific enough to allow some evaluation of their probable environmental 2 impacts. (4) Applicant review at conceptual stage. In general, agencies should adopt 3 procedures for environmental review and for preparation of EISs on private proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage. 4 WA 197-11-060 (3) Proposals: (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related 5 to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be 6 evaluated in the same environmental document. (Phased review is allowed under subsection (S).) Proposals or parts of proposals are closely related, and they shall be 7 discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are implemented 8 simultaneously with them; or(ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as their justification or for their implementation. 9 10 3. Necessity of Additional SEPA Review. The wetland restoration project does not need to be incorporated into the SEPA review of the subject application. 11 The projects are sufficiently independent to justify separate SEPA review. As noted in the SEPA regulations quoted above, to avoid misleading,.piecemeal environmental 12 review which is defined too narrowly, closely related proposals must be evaluated in the same environmental document. Case law demonstrates that the degree of 13 relationship between projects is defined by how dependant the projects are upon each 14 other. In Gebbers v. Okanogan County PUD No. 1, 144 Wn. App. 371, 183 P.3d 324 (2008), the court held that the potential rebuilding of an existing transmission line in 15 10 to 15 years was independent of the proposal to construct a new transmission line, even though the proposed and existing lines would serve as alternate power routes to 16 each other. The court concluded that a proposed new transmission line had independent utility and was not dependent on the rebuilding of the existing line, i.e., 17 the new line would function whether or not the existing line were rebuilt.. Similarly, 18 in an unpublished case, Manza v. Shoreline Hearings Board, 128 Wn. App. 1023 (2005), the court rejected the argument that SEPA review of shoreline permits for 19 proposed modifications of a dock and bulkhead, which did not include an earlier proposed owner-built single-family home and sewage septic tank, constituted 20 impermissible piecemealing of a proposal. The court reasoned that the home and 21 sewage holding tank were not dependent in any way on approval of permits for the proposed dock and bulkhead modifications. Thus, separate SEPA review of the latter 22 was proper. 23 Here the projects are sufficiently independent that separate SEPA review is justified. .. The Pacific Northwest Salmon Center is separate from the restoration project. It is 24 located on a separate parcel and will be developed by a separate applicant. The 25 subject project and the wetland restoration are mutually independent; each can move forward without the other. In addition, the funding on the restoration project has not been secured and is likely not at a stage in the design that it would be easy to identify the environmental impacts and meaningfully evaluate them. Special Use Permit p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision glrz {PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} I Su II bstantive. 2 4. Zoning Designation. The subject site is designated as Agricultural 3 Resources Land by the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. Because the property is outside of the Belfair Urban Growth Area there is no zoning. Adjacent to the project 4 area,the shoreline designation along Lynch Cove is Conservancy Environmental. 5 5. Review Criteria and Application. The review criteria for a Special Use 6 Permit application are governed by MCDR 1.05.044, which are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. This project requires a special use permit because 7 Mason County Development Regulation 17.03.020 provides that educational learning centers on properties designated Agricultural Resource Lands require special use 8 review. 17.03.020 also has additional requirements for educational learning centers, 9 which are addressed below. Also, all Type III decisions are subject to MCC 15.09.055(C) and that provision is quoted and addressed below as well. 10 MCDR 1.05.044(A): That the proposed use will not be detrimental to public health, 11 safety and we fare. 12 6. The public health, safety, and welfare will not be detrimentally impacted 13 by this project. Because this will become a public facility, it will bring increased and improved public access to public lands, as well as access to the adjoining Theyer 14 Trails. The access roads and parking areas already exist, and according to the traffic plan provided by the applicant, only four extra car trips per day are expected to the 15 site than during its previous use. Additionally, the septic designer for the project has asserted that the existing on-site wastewater treatment system will be sufficient for 16 the project. The learning center will also provide agricultural education that will 17 increase public awareness of sustainable agricultural practices which could potentially provide more sustainable farming opportunities for the community. 18 MCDR 1.05.044(B): That the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the 19 intent of the comprehensive plan. 20 7. As discussed at length in the Staff Report, the proposed use is consistent 21 and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The educational center will provide opportunities to initiate educational programs for both the immediate 22 Belfair community, as well as to bring surrounding areas to Belfair for learning experiences. Additionally, the proposal works toward the County goal of protecting 23 resource lands, supporting the environment, encouraging outdoor education, 24 providing passive recreation, preservation and use of open space, and growth to the local tourist economy. The proposal also increases access to publicly owned natural 25 resource lands, protects existing public access to shorelines, and provides increased access to adjoining recreational trails. Also,the project allows not only for increased public access to public lands and recreational facilities as well as outdoor educational Special Use Permit p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision �Z (PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\) opportunities, but allows for the continued use of agricultural land for agricultural 1 purposes. 2 MCDR 1.05.044(C): That the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions 3 at the site that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties in the community at large. 4 8. The proposed use will not introduce any hazardous conditions at the site 5 that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures. All building and all utilities 6 will meet both Mason County and State of Washington standards and requirements, as a requirement for approval of building permits. Additionally, it is likely that the 7 improved farming management will decrease the levels of hazardous materials being introduced into the environment than during its previous use. 8 MCDR 1.05.044(D): That the proposed use is served by adequate public facilities 9 which are in place, or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in 10 the County's Capital Facilities Plan. 11 9• The proposed land use will be a public facility. The development will follow Mason County Code for construction and occupancy, and according to the 12 staff report, no demand for services requiring new capital facilities projects are anticipated as a result of the project. The necessary roads and other necessary 13 facilities are currently in place to serve the project. As such, the project is served by 14 adequate public facilities which are currently in place. 15 MCDR 1.05.044(E): That the proposed use will not have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands. 16 10. The proposed use will not have a significant impact upon existing land 17 uses on adjacent lands. The use will continue to be that of a functioning farm, which 18 is the same use that currently exists, with the addition of educational facilities to be used occasionally and a small number of offices. According to the traffic study that 19 was submitted by the applicant, only four additional pm car trips will be made to the site than under the previous use. Additionally, the project will allow for greater use 20 of the existing trail system along the west portion of the property. The other 21 surrounding uses are well screened and separated from the property and will not be impacted. 22 MCDR 1.05.044(F): If located outside the urban growth area, that the proposed use 23 will not result in the need to extend the urban services. 24 11. The property is located to the west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. As 25 noted by staff, there is no need to extend urban services, as the existing well and septic systems will provide the needed services for the new public facility. Special Use Permit P. 9 Findings,Conclusions and Decision {PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} - . 7 7 Educational Learning Center Review 1 MCDR 17.06.010: "Educational learning center" means a facility dedicated to 2 environmental and resource education and research. This land use would be 3 permitted on lands designated for long term agricultural use in urban growth areas with a special use permit. This land use would be permitted on agricultural resource 4 lands with a special use permit, using the special use permit criteria and meeting the standard that the proposed land use shall have no more cumulative impacts than if 5 the land remained in traditional agricultural production. 6 12. As discussed previously, the project includes the change in use of a 7 residence and a barn to office and classroom space, for the purpose of enhancing public knowledge and appreciation for the values of wild salmon and related 8 ecosystems health, as well as for best management practices for agricultural land use. In order to effectively teach about environmental stewardship, it was necessary for 9 the educational facilities to be located on land that could be studied and used for 10 demonstration of those principles. 11 In regards to cumulative impacts, the proposed use consists of staff occupying the existing house and garage for administrative and educational research purposes, 12 which requires minimal renovations and upgrades. The existing barn will be upgraded to commercial code for use as part of the educational learning center, which 13 will hold small classes and educational programs for groups of about 30 students on a 14 needed basis. As a purely traditional agricultural use, the land could likely be used for intensive operations such as livestock/animal production, wholesale and retail 15 nursery operations,'orchards, kennels, or stables. According to the staff report,.all of these uses would bring in considerably more people, noise, chemicals, and long term 16 harm to the land than the proposed use. Additionally, as noted by the letter from the 17 previous owner, Jack Johnson, the prior farming of the property included heavy equipment and the operation of a construction business which included further heavy 18 equipment and chemicals on the property. The new use will be utilizing best management practices to demonstrate that environmental stewardship can be both 19 sustainable and economically beneficial for agricultural purposes. As such, based on the proposal,the proposed use will have no more cumulative impacts on the land than 20 were previously in use and will certainly have fewer impacts than some of the other 21 permitted agricultural uses permitted in Mason County on similarly situated parcels of land. 22 Type III Review 23 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 24 proposed development according to the following criteria: 25 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. Special Use Permit P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision �� > {PA0739871.DOC;1\13009.900000\} L 13. As indicated by staff, this development does not conflict with the 1 Comprehensive Plan. Review of Educational Learning Centers on Agricultural Lands j is through this Special Use Permit. The proposal meets the intent of Mason County 2 Code Title 6, as there is adequate and appropriate septic and water service currently 3 provided for the project. Upon submittal of a Building Permit, further evaluations will be made to ensure that the Code is sufficiently met in regards to building 4 standards. The project is consistent with Title 8 as there is no new construction to take place, and the proposal is located far from streams, shorelines, wetlands, and 5 landslide areas. Title 16 does not apply as the proposal does not involve subdividing 6 or changing boundary lines. 7 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. 8 14. As discussed previously, this project will have no discernable significant 9 adverse impacts on public health, safety and welfare as conditioned. The proposal 10 will provide safe access to the property and the proper water and septic are provided. Additionally, the property will serve as a public facility operating as an educational 11 center for natural resources in the vicinity,which serves the public interest. 12 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 13 Comprehensive Plan, 14 15. As indicated in the staff report, the proposal will not lower the level of 15 service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The project will provide 16 further access to public lands and adjoining existing trail systems. The provided 17 traffic study also shows minimal additional traffic will result from the proposal, and will not lower the level of service regarding transportation to the neighborhood. 18 DECISION 19 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested Special Use Permit for the proposed 20 Pacific Northwest Educational Center. 21 22 Dated this 27t'day of August,2009. 23 24 Prul X.,Olbrechts 25 Mason County Hearing Examiner Z�Special Use Permit P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision �•Z {PA0739871.D0C;1\13009.900000\}