Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2020-000006 Hearing, Cancelled Commercial Aquaculture Bldg - SHR Permit / Conditions - 10/14/2020 �a4 57ATp l.n O y S• �f JR STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 •Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service -Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 November 23,2020 Marissa Watson Mason County Planner MWatson@co.mason.wa.us Subject: Mason County Permit SHR2020-00006; Pacific Rim Aquaculture, LLC -Applicant Incomplete Shoreline Variance Permit 743 Dear Marissa Watson: On November 3,2020,the Department of Ecology(Ecology) received the Mason County decision on the subject Shoreline Variance Permit to finish constructing a 3848-sf building two feet from a bulkhead for the use as an aquaculture hatchery. The proposal also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system, algae growth system, and grow-out ponds/tanks outside of the existing storage building, all at least 25 feet landward of the bulkhead. The site address is 40560 N. Highway 101. By law,Ecology must review all Variance Permits for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) • The Mason County Shoreline Master Program. After reviewing Variance Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision: We have determined that the permit filing was incomplete and therefore cannot be evaluated by our department as a"complete submittal,"as defined in Chapter 173-27-130 WAC. The following items are needed to complete it: 1. Per WAC 173-27-180(9): A site development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate scale to depict clearly all required information,photographs and text which shall include: (note: only missing items are listed) (a) The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed. (c)Existing and proposed land contours. The contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property and the extent of proposed Marissa Watson November 23,2020 Page 2 change to the land that is necessary for the development.Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours approximated for that area. (f)The dimensions and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements including but not limited to; buildings,paved or graveled areas,roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities.* (g)Where applicable,a landscaping plan for the project. (i) Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether temporary or permanent. 0) Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material. (k)A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads,utilities,existing developments and uses on adjacent properties. (m) On all variance applications the plans shall clearly indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance,the physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and uses. *The site plans submitted with this permit do not accurately reflect the requirement that the water intake/outflow system and the outside algae growth tanks and grow-out ponds/tanks be set back at least 25 feet from the bulkhead as measured from the waterward face of the bulkhead. This requirement comes from Condition 12 of the Mason County Hearings Examiner's Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Final Decision, dated November 2,2020. 2. Provide information on whether the outdoor grow tanks and water system will be constructed on site or will be constructed off site and brought in to be installed(or some combination thereof). Specifically, state whether any concrete will be poured on site and, if so,describe what will be poured and where,and the methods to be used to prevent uncured concrete, slurry, or runoff from coming into contact with waters of the state. 3. Provide specific information on the water filtration system. Include manufacturer's specifications. The development described in this permit MAY NOT LEGALLY BEGIN until this permit has been completed and properly evaluated by Ecology. What Happens Next?According to WAC 173-27-130(5),this permit is void until the information identified above is received by Ecology. The list of items required for a complete permit filing is set forth in WAC 173-27-130(3). The minimum information required on permit site plans and vicinity maps is set forth in WAC 173-27-180. Marissa Watson November 23,2020 Page 3 Please send the requested materials to me at rebecca.rothwell@ecy.wa.gov on or before January 25, 2021. If we do not receive the needed materials by this date we must return this incomplete permit to you. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(360) 407-7273. Sincerely, &C«Att0 Rebecca Rothwell, Shoreline Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Amy Morris-Young, Pacific Rim Aquaculture, LLC, orramy@yahoo.com MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Notice of Decision for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance Permit SHR2020-00006 Notice is hereby given that Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC, who is the applicant for the above referenced permit, has been granted conditional approval for Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Variance Permits to finish constructing a 3848 square foot building two feet from a bulkhead at 40560 N. Hwy 101 subject to a 115-foot shoreline buffer.The current application (SHR2020-00006) intends to re-permit the storage building for the use as an aquaculture hatchery.The new proposal also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system (1200sf), algae growth system and grow out ponds/tanks (2400 sf), outside of the existing storage building all at least 25' from the bulkhead.The application is approved subject to all of the conditions listed within the staff report and by the Hearing Examiner within the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision, dated 11/02/2020. This shoreline substantial development permit decision is final and subject to appeal to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW. The shoreline variance permit is subject to the approval of the Washington State Department of Ecology. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied. Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 - Development Code - No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval, the Hearing Examiner shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the initial two year period by permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension before the Hearing Examiner PRIOR to the expiration date. Please contact Marissa Watson of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 367 or MWatson@co.mason.wa.us, with any questions on this issue. I BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 3 R1 : Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC 4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Shoreline Substantial OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION 5 Development/ Shoreline Variance 6 SHR2020-00006 7 INTRODUCTION 8 The Applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit and 9 shoreline variance to construct a 3848 square foot building two feet from a bulkhead at 40560 N. Hwy 101 subject to a 115-foot shoreline buffer. The applications are 10 approved subject to conditions. 11 12 TESTIMONY I; Marissa Watson, Mason County planner, summarized the proposal and noted that the 15 recommended conditions include conditions from the settlement agreement that 14 applied to the appeal of the 2013 shoreline permit. Ms. Watson also read written 15 comments from neighboring property owners,Ex. 9. 16 Amy Morris-Young, Applicant representative, noted that the Applicant will use a filtration system that only puts pristine water back into the canal. Any waste will go 17 into a free-standing septic system that is above ground and won't involve any leaching into the canal. She had a septic expert available to answer questions about 18 the functioning of the septic system. 19 EXHIBITS 20 Exhibits 1-8 in the "Case Index" of the September 23, 2020 staff report were admitted 21 during the October 14, 2020 hearing. In addition, the following exhibits were admitted during the hearing: 22 23 Exhibit 9: October 12,2020 letter from Jim Bolt 24 FINDINGS OF FACT 25 Procedural: SSDP/Shoreline Variance P. I Findings, Conclusions and Decision f r 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC. 1 2 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the application at 1:00 pm on October 14, 2020,Zoom Meeting ID No. 828 2762 2560. 3 Substantive: 4 3. Project/Site Description. The Applicant has applied for a shoreline 5 substantial development permit and shoreline variance to finish constructing a 3848 6 square foot building two feet from a bulkhead at 40560 N. Hwy 101 subject to a 115- foot shoreline buffer. The storage building was previously permitted under a 7 shoreline substantial development permit (SHR2012-00013) and Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2012-00005) for shellfish processing and storage, approved by the 8 hearing examiner in 2013. Construction of the building was initiated, but the permits expired before completion. The current application (SHR2020-00006) intends to re- 9 permit the storage building for the use as an aquaculture hatchery. The new proposal 10 also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system (1200sf), algae growth system and grow out ponds/tanks (2400 sf), outside of the existing storage building. 11 The project lot is approximately 1.5 acres with the majority consisting of a narrow 12 unusable strip that runs along highway 101. The developed portion of the lot contains the unfinished storage building of 3484sf, a concrete and rock bulkhead, a boat ramp, 13 a non-functioning boat railway, a 320sf cabin,and a septic system and drainfield. 14 Under the prior shoreline and resource ordinance permits, the applicant of the time 15 initially requested to build a storage building of 4000sf for processing and storing shellfish. The Hearing Examiner granted the request, the Department of Ecology 16 provided final approval, and subsequently the shoreline permit was appealed and a 17 negotiated agreement was settled upon, resulting in revised conditions of approval. Under these revised conditions the existing building was limited to 3,850 square feet 18 plus an allowance for one-foot roof eves. The prior applicant was issued a building permit for the building on October 28, 2013 and commenced construction and 19 inspections. According to the building permit case history the building was never finished and the building and shoreline permits eventually expired from inactivity. 20 21 Due to the expiration of the previous shoreline permits and the change of use from a shellfish processing building to an aquaculture hatchery, the current applicant is 22 requesting new shoreline permit approval for the storage building in its current location of 2 feet from the bulkhead, as well as approval to place the algae growth 23 tanks, grow out ponds/tanks, and water system all within the shoreline buffer and setback 25' from the bulkhead. 24 25 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is zoned Rural Residential 5 and consistent with this zoning designation, the surrounding area is characterized by residential development, primarily single-family homes and vacation homes. The SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision subject parcel is lot 5 of the plat of Beacon Point Resort, which until the 1980's operated as a vacation resort with several small cabins and a large boathouse. The Applicant's commercial operation is the only commercial activity within site of the project area. 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. As conditioned, the project does not 4 create any significant adverse environmental impacts beyond those authorized by shoreline regulations. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Aesthetic. The proposal has been designed and mitigated to minimize 6 aesthetic impacts. As noted in the staff report,the proposed building is a replacement within a smaller footprint located farther from the side property line. The building 7 will be constructed adjacent to the ordinary high water mark, where its bulk and scale will have a maximum impact on shoreline aesthetics. The shoreline master program 8 ("SMP") has no direct limitations on building size, so it is difficult to apply an objective standard on what scale is appropriate from an aesthetic standpoint. 9 However, MCC 17.04.214(b) limits the size of buildings to 3,000 square feet in the 10 RR5 zone except for dwellings and agricultural buildings. Such a size is consistent with the size of buildings typically associated with homes that predominate in the 11 RR5 district. For these reasons the 2013 hearing examiner permit approvals limited building size to 3,000 square feet with the option available to the Applicant to 12 increase the size to 4,000 square feet if the Applicant was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of County staff that the increase in size was necessary to make the 13 building commercially viable. The ultimate result of the 2013 shoreline permit 14 appeal was an agreement to limit the size of the building to 3,850 square feet. This Decision defers to the results of that review process that the proposed 3,850 square 15 feet is aesthetically compatible with shoreline resources. In addition to the agreed upon size limitation, the aesthetic impacts of the project 16 site have been minimized to the extent practicable with the Applicant's operational 17 objectives. The tallest structure proposed is the existing storage building, which is less than 27 ft. There is a six-foot fence separating the subject lot from the nearby 18 residential lot and the Applicant has indicated that trees and shrubs will be added between the fence line and the storage building. This landscaping has been made a 19 condition of approval. The subject lot is visually obscured from SR 101 by a row of trees and vegetation that border the right of way and the lot. There is no adjacent 20 property to the south that would be visually impacted by the subject proposal. 21 B. Noise. The Shoreline Hearings Board in the Marnin decision (SHB No. 22 07-021) determined that the County's noise regulations are sufficient under the County's shoreline regulations to mitigate noise impacts. In addition to the County's 23 noise regulations, noise impacts are further reduced by conditions limiting the hours of operation and requiring that outdoor compressors and other noise generating 24 equipment shall be located more than 50 feet from the property lines. Noise is further 25 mitigated and residential compatibility protected by a condition that does not allow more than five persons involved in the aquaculture operations outdoors on the premises at any given time. Truck traffic is limited in type and number as well. SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I C. Traffic. The proposal does not appear to be large enough to generate any 2 significant amount of employee traffic. As to truck traffic, the conditions of approval limit the number and size of truck to numbers agreed upon by the Applicant and 3 neighbors in the 2013 shoreline permit settlement. 4 D. Lam. As conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant light impacts. The conditions of approval prohibit nuisance illumination and glare to 5 adjoining neighbors. The conditions further require that the Applicant acquire staff 6 approval for any lighting prior to lighting installation to assure compliance with this standard and that employees working outdoors at night avoid shining lights at 7 adjoining residences. 8 E. Ecological Function. The preponderance of evidence marginally establishes that the proposal will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. 9 The habitat management plan for the 2013 permits concluded that the proposed 10 structures and repairs will not have any significant adverse impacts on wildlife or fish resources and habitat. A primary reason for that conclusion was that all of the 11 proposed construction and repair would occur within the footprints of existing structures and as a result there would be no displacement of habitat. Under the 12 current proposal, the existing storage building will remain in the same location with required building code upgrades and FEMA floodproofing, if needed. The areas 1' where the water system and algae growth tanks and grow out ponds are planned for 14 are gravel with a few sparse clumps of grass. There was no updated habitat management plan or any other expert opinion 15 provided on the environmental impacts of the proposal and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation. Instead, the Applicant, staff and Washington State Department 16 of Ecology have discussed an In-Lieu Fee Use Plan as the primary mitigation for the 17 project. The Applicant has worked with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council to prepare a Draft In-Lieu Fee Use Plan, Ex. 5. The mitigation fee is based upon a fairly 18 detailed assessment of the nature and severity of impacts as outlined in the draft plan itself. However, no evidence has been presented by anyone that the in-lieu fee will 19 serve to fully mitigate project impacts, or more importantly, to lead to result of no net loss of ecological function. 20 In addition to the in-lieu fee, a few other measures have been taken to mitigate 21 against impacts to ecological function. Specifically, the staff report recommends a condition requiring the removal of loose debris that is strewn along the shoreline and 22 buffer and a condition requiring the planting of at least three trees and ten shrubs in the northern portion of the property. Both those conditions are adopted. In addition, 23 water quality appears to be adequately protected by DOE regulations, as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5H below. 24 Even with these additional measures, it is short of ideal that no biological analysis 25 has been done on the project's impacts since the 2013 permits. In particular, given that SMA no net loss requirements were adopted into the County's SMP after the 2013 permits, a new environmental analysis would have been very useful. However, the SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision same reasoning that applied in 2013 appears to still apply today — the proposal is 1 limited to the same footprint as in 2013,which in turn was within the same footprint as 2 pre-existing buildings. In the absence of any factors that have made the shoreline more environmentally sensitive, it is still somewhat reasonable to conclude that 3 impacts to shoreline resources will remain minimal. Of significant added assurance is that the Department of Ecology has been involved with the in-lieu fee discussions to 4 mitigate the environmental impacts of the project. The detailed assessment of environmental impacts used to set the fee amount suggests that the fee is designed to 5 fully mitigate environmental impacts. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, 6 the preponderance of evidence establishes that the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function and will not create significant adverse impacts to shoreline 7 resources. 8 F. Navigation and related boating activities. The proposal will have no adverse impacts to navigation of shoreline waters or related boating activities. All 9 construction is proposed landward of the ordinary high water mark and there is 10 nothing in the record to suggest that the operations and deliveries associated with the project will have any significant impact on the public's use of public waters. 11 G. Odor and Water Quality. As conditioned, the proposal appears to protect 12 against significant odor and water quality impacts. Odor and water quality is an issue raised by project opponents In a letter dated 13 October 12, 2020, Ex. 9, project opponents requested measures to control odor and/or 14 protection water quality, specifically that the Applicant be required to remove from the site all bio-waste from the aquaculture process. They further requested the 15 Applicant be prohibited from disposing of the filtration system waste into the existing septic system on the site. The Applicant has indicated that a two-tier water system 16 will be utilized that will "filter[ered] to exacting standardized testing before being 17 returned to the canal." The Applicant responded at hearing that the waste from the filtration system will be placed into a stand-alone above-ground septic system that 18 will not leach the waste into the ground. Water quality impacts due to construction appear to be minimal. Currently, 19 grading and excavation activities are not projected for this proposal. If FEMA regulations require the Applicant to raise the foundation and/or place on pilings, the 20 staff report notes that meeting the requirements of MCC 8.52.160 (erosion control 21 measures) will be required of the building permit. Further, a condition of approval requires that all construction activity be subject to DOE erosion control standards. 22 More explanation from staff and/or the Applicant would have been helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the Applicant's water quality treatment efforts. In 23 particular, an explanation of whether NPDES permitting standards are specifically tailored to addressing water quality impacts of shellfish operations would have 24 provided some needed assurance that water quality is adequately addressed beyond 25 the unsupported statement by the Applicant that it is subject to strict water quality standards. Ultimately, under the preponderance of evidence standard it is concluded that the water filtration and stormwater controls adequately mitigates water quality SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision impacts given the Department of Ecology's pervasive regulation of shellfish 1 operations and water quality. DOE's regulation of water quality and the addition of a stand-alone system may address water quality issues, but there is no basis to conclude that these measures would control odor. At the same time, it is recognized that there is no evidence in the record that the bio-waste will create any odors if the Applicant complies with septic 4 tank and water quality regulations. Nonetheless, in dealing with such large and concentrated quantities of shellfish it is plausible that odor could result as feared by 5 project opponents. There currently is no evidence in the record to eliminate this 6 concern. Consequently, a condition of approval adopts the suggested odor controlling condition requested by project opponents in Ex. 9, subject to waiver by staff if the 7 Applicant establishes that the requested measures are unnecessary to prevent significant odor. 8 It is recognized that the 2013 settlement agreement, Ex. 8, contained a condition, Condition 13, mitigating against odor impacts that involved two-year monitoring of 9 the project site. In Ex. 9, project neighbors requested that all of the conditions of the 10 two-year settlement be included in the conditions of approval. The staff recommended conditions of approval included almost all of the Ex. 8 settlement 1 1 conditions but did not include odor condition No. 13. It's unknown why staff declined to incorporate this mitigation measure. It is recognized that the measure 12 may not have been found necessary since use of the proposed building has changed from aquaculture processing in 2013 to a hatchery under the current application. The 1 ' change from processing to hatchery could certainly result in less waste and hence less 14 potential odor and water quality impacts. Ultimately, however, if the hatchery process can still result in odor issues, the odor condition recommended in Ex. 9 will 15 serve to adequately protect against odor and water quality impacts since all waste generated from the proposal will be required to taken off-site. Consequently,the Ex. 9 16 odor condition is found to serve as an adequate substitute to Condition 13 of the 2013 17 settlement agreement, Ex. 8. 18 6. Necessity for Variance. As is fairly evident from the Applicant's site plan, Ex. 4, the buffers to Hood Canal, the Ns stream and the setback to the adjoining highway do 19 not leave any building area that can be reasonably used to build a reasonably sized building while also providing safe vehicular access to SR 101. The proposed 20 hatchery building is taken to be of a reasonable size in deference to the Shoreline 21 Hearing Board settlement agreement between the Applicant and its neighbors that the 3,850 is an acceptable size for the proposed location. 22 23 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 24 Procedural: 25 SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(i) and 0) authorizes the I Examiner to review and issue a final decision regarding shoreline substantial 2 development permit and variance applications. 3 Substantive: 4 2. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation for the project site is Residential. 5 6 3. Review Criteria for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance. The Applicant's shellfish hatchery qualifies as aquaculture under the 7 aquaculture definition of MCC 17.50.020 because the operation involves the culture and farming of shellfish. The Applicant is required to obtain a shoreline substantial 8 development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. MCC 15.09.055(a). Table 17.50.090A authorizes aquaculture outright in the 9 Residential shoreline environment. MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(c) requires a decision on a 10 substantial development permit application to be based upon the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County ("MCSMP"), and the policies and procedures of Chapter 11 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA"). MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(C). A "substantial development" is any development of which the total cost for market 12 value exceeds $5,000 (subject to an inflation factor) or any development that materially interferes with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the 13 state. The proposed building is clearly well above the minimum market value. 14 A shoreline variance is required for the project because the proposed building and 15 associated structures encroach into the 115-foot shoreline buffer and setback imposed by SMP 17.50.110-A in the Residential shoreline environment. MCC 16 17.50.400(C)(3)(c) governs the criteria for variances. 17 MMC 15.09.050 imposes review criteria for all Type III permits, which includes the 18 shoreline variance. 19 The staff analysis and findings thereto of SMP policies are adopted by reference and all applicable SMP policies are found to be met for the reasons identified in the staff 20 report. Review criteria for all other applicable regulations identified in this 21 conclusion of law are quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 22 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 23 24 MCC 17.50.110(1)(b): Proponents of new shoreline use and development shall 25 employ measures to mitigate unavoidable adverse environmental impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline resources. SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 4. The regulation is met. The significance of the "no net loss" standard is 1 highlighted in RCW 90.58.140(5)(B), which singles out "no net loss" as a standard that must be met for issuance of shoreline variances. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5E,the proposal will create no net loss of ecological function. 3 MCC 17.50.210B1a: Shoreline developments adjacent to areas suitable for 4 aquaculture shall practice strict pollution control procedures. As required by MCC 8.52.170(G), design and siting of all new construction and major new development shall not adversely impact water quality. 6 5. The regulation is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5G, DOE 7 regulations and other mitigation measures assure that water quality will be adequately protected. 8 9 MCC 17.50.210B1c: Site preparation and construction in the vicinity of aquaculture operations shall not result in off-site erosion, siltation, or other reductions in water quality. Land uses on erosion hazard areas shall meet the requirements of MCC 8.52.160. 11 6. The regulation is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5G, the proposal 1 will likely not involve any clearing or grading unless FEMA regulations require some design alterations. In that event, the project is conditioned to comply with DOE erosion control standards. 14 MCC 17.50.210B1e: Consistent with mitigation sequencing, aquacultural uses and 15 developments may be required to provide mitigation where necessary to offset significant adverse impacts to normal public use of surface waters. 16 14. The regulation is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5F,the proposal 1 is all located upland of the Ordinary High Water Mark and shall not impact the 18 normal public use of surface waters. 19 MCC 17.50.210B1f. Aquaculture development shall not cause extensive erosion or accretion along adjacent shorelines. 20 21 15. The regulation is met for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 6. 22 MCC 17.50.210B1g: Aquaculture structures and activities that are not shoreline 23 dependent or do not have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers required by this Program to minimize the detrimental 24 impact to the shoreline. 25 16. The regulation is met. The proposal is construed as shoreline dependent and thus not required by the regulation to be located outside shoreline buffers. SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision However, even if it does not qualify as shoreline dependent or to have a functional 1 relationship to the shoreline, the shoreline variance approved by this Decision should 2 be construed as authorizing waiver of this regulation as well, since there is no difference in application of the shoreline variance criteria between the regulation 3 quoted above and the 115 foot buffer/setback requirement. 4 As outlined in the staff report in its analysis of SMP Aquaculture Policy No. 11, the proposal could arguably qualify as shoreline dependent or shoreline related. The 5 MCC 17.50.020 definition of "water dependent" is a use that cannot exist in a 6 location that is not adjacent to water. One of the examples listed in the definition is aquaculture. However, "water related" is defined as a use that is not intrinsically 7 dependent upon a waterfront location but whose operation cannot occur economically or functionally without a shoreline location, such as uses requiring a large amount of 8 water. The proposal functionally is most aligned with the "water related" definition since the only reason it needs to be located close to the shoreline is for its intake of 9 Hood Canal saltwater, which could be provided by an extended piping system if the 10 building were located outside shoreline jurisdiction. 11 Ultimately, MCC 17.50.210B 1 g must be construed as not applying to the proposal because the proposal qualifies as aquaculture. There is no question that the proposal 12 qualifies as aquaculture under the SMP as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3. There is also no question that the MCC 17.50.010 definition of"water dependent" 13 lists aquaculture as a water dependent use. The judicial rules of statutory construction 14 dictate that absent some obvious ambiguity,the words of a statute must be given their plain meaning. State v. Slaugh, 312 P.3d 676, 680 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). Given 15 that there is no ambiguity in the"water dependent" definition of MCC 17.50.020 as it applies to aquaculture, there is no basis to carve out implied exceptions to the water 16 dependent definition for purposes of MCC 17.50.210131g for the proposal because it 17 can arguably be operated outside the shoreline. 18 MCC 17.50.210B1i: Aquaculture activities shall, to the greatest extent feasible with regard to the economic viability of the operation and protection of the environment 19 be located, designed and operated so that native plant and animal populations, their respective habitats and the local ecological balance are maintained. 20 21 17. The regulation is met. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5E, the existing storage building will remain in the same location with required building code upgrades and 22 FEMA floodproofing, if needed. The areas where the water system and algae growth tanks and grow out ponds are planned for are gravel with a few sparse clumps of 23 grass. As further determined in Findings of Fact 5E and 5G, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or an plant and animal 24 populations or their habitat. 25 MCC 17.50.210B1(i)(i): New or expanded aquaculture shall be located, designed and maintained to assure no net loss of ecological functions, as demonstrated in a SSDP/Shoreline Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision habitat management plan or equivalent report (e.g. biological assessment or I biological evaluation). 18. The regulation is marginally met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, the record is lacking in a habitat management plan or equivalent. The draft in-lieu fee plan is accepted as a marginally adequate substitute for this purpose, but an 4 explanation of how the fee program was designed to compensate for any net loss should have been provided. 5 6 MCC 17.50.210B1(i)(iv): Disease and pest control may be authorized, provided methods are allowed by federal and state regulations and follow best management 7 practices. To the maximum extent practicable, aquaculture use and development shall employ the least harmful best management practices to control birds and mammals. 8 19. The regulation is met. According to the staff report, no pest control 9 measures are proposed. The proposal is conditioned to comply with the regulation if 10 pest control is used in the future. 11 MCC 17.50.210B11: Aquaculture development shall be designed and constructed with best management practices to minimize visual impacts and shall be maintained 12 in a neat and orderly manner. Aquaculture facilities, except navigation aids, shall use 13 colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment where practicable. 14 20. The regulation is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5A. 15 MCC 17.50.210B1m: Proposed aquacultural developments shall make adequate provisions to control nuisance factors such as excessive noise and odor and excessive 16 lighting. Permits shall include allowance for work at night or on weekends but may 17 require limits and conditions to reduce impacts, such as noise and lighting, to adjacent existing uses. 18 21. The regulation is met for the reasons identified in Findings of Fact No. 5C. 19 5D and 5G. 20 MCC 17.50.210B1n: Aquacultural discards shall be disposed of in a manner that 21 will not degrade associated uplands, wetlands, shorelines, or aquatic environments. Discards shall not be disposed of in a manner which results in offensive odors or 22 increases the vector population.All waste-materials and discards shall be disposed of in strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, 23 including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act(RCW 90.48). 22. The regulation is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5G. SSDP/Shoreline Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision MCC 17.50.210B1o: Equipment, structures and materials shall not be abandoned in the shoreline or wetland area. 23. The proposal is conditioned to meet this regulation. MCC 17.50.210B1p: Precautionary measures shall be taken to minimize the risk of 4 oil or other toxic materials from entering the water or shoreline area. 24. The proposal has been designed and conditioned to protect water quality 6 as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5G. The staff report notes that the potential for pollution is otherwise minor and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the 7 proposed hatchery and associated structures could involve the discharge of any oil or toxic materials. x RCW 90.58.020: 9 1() . . . [I]t is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This 1 I policy is designed to ensure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, 12 will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse impacts to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, 1 ' and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public 14 rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. 15 25. The policy is met. The project has been extensively conditioned to ensure that it is compatible with shoreline resources and the public health, does not 16 unreasonably interfere with navigation and is compatible with adjoining uses. As 17 conditioned the project is consistent with the policy of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act as expressed above as well as all other applicable policies is to shorelines of statewide significance identified in RCW 90.58.010. 19 Shoreline Variance 20 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c): Review Criteria for Variance Permits. 21 The purpose of a Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, 22 dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program, where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict 23 implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. 24 25 i. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances SSDP/Shoreline Variance P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and 1 the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 26. The criterion is met. Denial of the permit would thwart the policies 3 enumerated in RCW 90.58.020 because it would deprive the Applicant of a "reasonable and appropriate" use of its waterfront property, a use that is dependent 4 upon its waterfront location to maximize commercial use of shellfish resources. Extraordinary circumstances justify the variance for the reasons identified in Finding 5 of Fact No. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect because 6 the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. 7 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c)(ii)(a): That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or 8 performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly y interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; 10 27. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6,the only location the 1 1 proposed building can be located is within the shoreline buffer to Hood Canal due to the size of the lot and other site constraints. The proposal is construed as a reasonable use 1? of the waterfront property due to its close functional relationship to the salt water of Hood Canal and the fact that the proposed size is reasonably necessary to accommodate 1' a viable shellfish hatchery operation. 14 ( )( )( )( )( ) P f MCC 17.50.400 C 3 c ii b : That the hardship which serves as a basis or the 15 granting of the Variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features 16 and the application of the Master Program, and not, for example from deed 17 restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 18 28. The criterion is met. The variance is necessary due to the size of the lot and other lot constraints as identified in Finding of Fact No. 6. 19 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c)(ii)(c): That the design of the project will be compatible 20 with other authorized uses in the area and with uses planned for the area under the 21 comprehensive plan and this program and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; 22 29. The criterion is met. The proposal is reasonably aesthetically compatible with 23 other authorized existing and planned uses for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5A and the proposal will not adversely affect surrounding uses or the 24 shoreline environment for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. 25 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c)(ii)(d): That the Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of specialprivilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 30. The criterion is met. Aquaculture is an allowed use in the shoreline Residential environmental designation. The Applicants simply seek to construct a reasonably sized aquaculture structure on their property, which would be an opportunity available to most other waterfront owners who didn't have similarly constrained properties. 4 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c)(ii)(e): That the Variance requested is the minimum 5 necessary to afford relief;and 6 31. The criterion is met. As previously noted, the size of the proposed building is 7 reasonable given the settlement agreement between the neighbors and the Applicant. 8 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c)(ii)(f): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 9 32. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will 1 not create any significant adverse impacts and thus the public interest will suffer no I 1 substantial detrimental effect. 12 MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(c)(iv): In the granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like 13 actions in the area. For example, if Variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the Variances should also 14 remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce 15 substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 16 33. The criterion is met. The proposal has gone through extensive review and mitigation to assure that all adverse impacts are addressed. If multiple similar 17 proposal were approved there is nothing to suggest that cumulative impacts would be 18 significant. 19 Universal Review Criteria 20 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 21 proposed development according to the following criteria: 2, 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. 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 24 in the public interest. �5 SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 1 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 34. The criteria are met. No subdivision of land is proposed, the proposal is exempt from SEPA review and sanitary waste facilities will be subject to the review 4 and approval of the County health department. All applicable regulations have been addressed in this decision, except for building, stormwater, and sanitary waste standards that will be applied during other permit review. Since the proposal has no 6 adverse impacts as mitigated, it does not impact the public health, safety and welfare. Since the project promotes economic development while not adversely affecting the 7 environment and adjoining uses it is in the public interest to authorize the development. The staff report concludes that the proposal will not lower level of 8 service standards for transportation and park facilities and there is no evidence to the 9 contrary. IU DECISION 11 The Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Variance are approved, subject 12 to the following conditions: 13 14 1. The northeast most portion of the parcel,between the storage building and fence shall be enhanced with suitable soil medium of suitable depth to support native 15 trees and shrubs, which shall be planted 12 feet and 6 feet on center, respectively. This will result in at least 3 trees and 10 shrubs. The trees shall be at least 3 years old, 16 and the shrubs shall be at least two gallon in size. 17 2. Outdoor lighting shall be directed and/or shielded in a manner to prevent nuisance illumination and glare to neighboring residents. Any installation of outdoor 18 lighting shall be subject to the prior approval of staff based upon application of this condition. 19 3. The property owner shall limit the hours of operation of the facility (not applicable to any legal/permitted harvesting of shellfish that have been grown from 20 seed at this site's beach) to the hours of lam to 7pm from September 1 st to April 21 30th. From May 1st through August 31 st, hours of operation (not applicable to any legal/permitted harvesting of shellfish that have been grown from seed at this site's 22 beach) shall be limited to the hours of 8am to 6pm; provided, however, such hours may be extended to lam to 7pm upon advance notice given to the neighbors. During 23 low tide in winter months,the property owner may allow up to five employees on the beach after 7pm upon advance notice to the President of Beacon Point Resort 24 homeowners Association; provided, however, that such employees shall avoid 25 shining lights from the beach in the direction of neighboring residences and shall conduct gathering activities in a manner that avoids any load noises of a nature that might unreasonably disturb neighboring residences. The allowed hours of operation SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision apply to the use of boats and vehicles at the property. The operation shall be limited 1 to no more than fifteen (15)trucks per week and no more than four(4)trucks per day for trucks between 14,001 and 55,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. For any truck over 55,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, such trucks shall be used only after notices 3 to and permission from the President of the Beacon Point Resort homeowner's Association. These limitations on truck access shall not apply during the construction 4 of the facility. 4. The use of water and septic loads shall be reviewed and approved by the 5 County Environmental Health Department. Fresh water from the community 6 domestic water system shall not be used to clean oysters. 5. The overnight parking of vehicles shall be limited to the parking areas 7 indicated on an approved site plan. 6. Outdoor compressors and other noise generating equipment locate outside 8 the facility building (or on the roof) shall be located on the southwest side of the building. 9 7. Processing (including shucking), freezing, or retail sales shall not occur at 10 this site. 8. The building design shall meet the requirements of the Mason County 1 1 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. 9. The proposed "discharge" of water through the water system 12 inflow/outflow tank(s) shall be consistent with all applicable water quality and septic standards. 1' 10. No more than five persons may work on aquaculture activities in outdoor 14 areas of the subject parcel at any one time. Staff may increase this number on a permanent or temporary basis to the extent that the applicant is able to demonstrate 15 that a greater number will not unreasonably adversely affect neighboring properties. 1 1. Equipment, structures, and materials shall not be abandoned in shoreline 16 or wetland area. 12. The facility building shall be set back at least 2 feet from the wall of the 1 bulkhead. Such setback shall be measured from the exterior wall of the building to the 18 inside wall of the bulkhead. The water intake/outflow system and the outside algae growth tanks and grow out ponds/tanks shall be set back at least 25 feet from the 19 bulkhead as measured from the waterward face of the bulkhead. 13. The storage building footprint shall not exceed 3,850 square feet plus an 20 allowance for one-foot roof eves. The water system shall not exceed 1200 sf. 21 Together,the algae growth and grow out ponds/tanks shall not exceed 2400 sf. 14. Debris that is strewn along the shoreline and in the buffer of the subject lot 22 shall be removed and disposed of at an appropriate off-site waste or recycling facility. 15. A statement of sale of ILF credits shall be required to be submitted to 23 Mason County Community Services-Planning Department, prior to issuing any development permits on the subject lot. 24 16. The applicant shall not store any bio-waste from the aquaculture process 25 on-site. The applicant is further prohibited from disposing of the waste of the filtration system in the existing permitted septic system on the site. Staff may waive SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision this condition to the extent that the Applicant establishes the condition unnecessary 1 for protection of water quality or odor control. 2 17. All construction activity shall be subject to DOE erosion control standards. 3 18. Pest control methods are only allowed to the extent authorized by federal and state regulations and follow best management practices. To the maximum extent 4 practicable, aquaculture use and development shall employ the least harmful best management practices to control birds and mammals. 5 19. Equipment, structures and materials shall not be abandoned in the 6 shoreline or wetland area. 7 Dated this 2nd day of November'2020. .- 9 Phtf A.01brcchis I Mason County Hearing Examiner Il Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 12 This approval of the shoreline substantial development permit is final and subject to 1' appeal to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board as governed by Chapter 14 90.58 RCW. The Department of Ecology must concur in approval of the shoreline variance and it's decision will also be subject to appeal to the Shoreline Hearings 15 Board as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision 16 should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied. 17 18 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SSDP/Shoreline Variance p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision SHR2020-00006 EXHIBIT 1 CASE INDEX Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC EXHIBIT# DATE DESCRIPTION 1 September 23, 2020 Staff Report 2 June 25, 2020 Shoreline Variance/SDP Application 3 June 25, 2020 Aerial Photo/Parcel Map/vicinity map 4 June 25,2020 Applicant Drawings 5 August 14, 2020 Draft ILF Use Plan dated August 2020 (sub for HMP) 6 August 20, 2020 Photos of site 7 August 19, 2020 Notice of Application and Public Hearing 8 July 30, 2013 Permit Conditions Per SHB NO.13-003 RE: SHR2012- 00013 &VAR2012-00005 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Building Vlll-615 W. Alder Street,Shelton, Wa 98584—360.427.9670 DATE: September 23, 2020 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning staff, Marissa Watson; mwatson@co.mason.wa.us; 360.427.9670 ext. 367 RE: Shoreline Variance and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Request by Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC. Permit#SHR2020-00006. STAFF REPORT I. APPLICANT. Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC II. Date of Complete Application:August 14, 2020 III. PROPERTY LOCATION. 40560 N. Hwy 101; Lilliwaup,WA. Parcel#22406-53-00005. IV. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. BEACON POINT RESORT LOT: 5 &T/L'S. V. EVALUATION. PROPOSAL: Request is for a Shoreline Variance and Substantial Development Permit to finish constructing, to current building code, a previously permitted storage building (3848sf),which is setback two feet from the bulkhead on parcel 22406-53-00005.The Page 1 SHR2020-00006 storage building was previously permitted under a shoreline substantial development permit (SHR2012-00013) and Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2012-00005), with the previous use being shellfish processing and storage.These permits have since expired. The current application (SHR2020-00006) intends to re-permit the storage building for the use as an Aquaculture Hatchery.The new proposal also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system (1200sf), algae growth system and grow out ponds/tanks (2400 sf), outside of the existing storage building, but all within 25' of the bulkhead. Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC has also proposed to renew the use of the tidelands as an oyster harvest site.This portion of the project is not reviewed in the application because no structures within the water are being proposed in conjunction with the harvesting. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal with conditions. A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND AREA.The parcel is near the northern boundary of Mason County with the Hood Canal bordering the site's eastern extents and highway 101 bordering to the west.The area is characterized by permanent and recreational single family residences.The lot itself is approximately 1.5 acres with the majority consisting of a narrow unusable strip that runs along highway 101. The developed portion of the lot contains an unfinished storage building of 3484sf, concrete and rock bulkhead, boat ramp, non-functioning boat railway, 320sf cabin, septic, and drainfield. B. ZONING:The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5.Allowed uses are single family residential, hobby farm (small scale commercial agriculture, including aquaculture and wood lots), church, local community and recreation centers, group homes, cell towers, fire station, fish hatchery, and public utilities. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION.The Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural. D. SEPA COMPLIANCE AND OTHER PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.The proposal is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800(1)(b). Public Notice procedures were followed in accordance with Sections 15.07.010 and 15.07.030 of Mason County Title 15. Notice of Public Hearing for the Application was posted in the Mason-Shelton Journal on 08/27/2020, and on-site on 08/20/2020. In addition, the Notice of Application was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the proposal on 08/25/2020. (Exhibit 7)A full application packet and the ILF Use Plan (HMP) was made available to the Washington State Department of Fish &Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe on 08/19/2020.A 28-day comment period followed with no comments received from the Skokomish Tribe and WDFW regarding the project proposal. E. OTHER PERMITS. Upon approval of Shoreline Variance and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,the applicant will have to apply for a building permit to finish and upgrade the current storage building to code. VI. ANALYSIS. Page 2 SHR2020-00006 Resource Ordinance&Shoreline Master Program There is a mapped Type Ns stream to the west of the site that enters a culvert under Hwy 101, continues through the culvert beneath the subject property, and daylights at the face of the bulkhead,just to the south of the boat launch.The storage building's proposed use is aquaculture and per MCC 8.52.170(E)(4) and (E)(4)(b) shall be allowed within a setback without a Variance to the extent that they are conducted so as to minimize any impact on the values and functions of the FWHCA and provided they are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, the Geologically Hazardous Areas chapter, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, and any other applicable policies and regulations. A marine shoreline buffer and building setback is established per the Mason County SMP 17.5.110-A(115 feet). Per MCC 17.50.110.B.2.b.iii (General Regulations) New shoreline development shall be located landward of the minimum shoreline buffer plus building setback, except as specified in this Program or with the approval of a Shoreline Variance.See Aquaculture policy 11. A. Mason County Shoreline Master Program a. Applicable Aquaculture Policies(below Staff Answers) 1. Aquaculture is of statewide interest. Aquaculture is dependent on the use of the water area and, when consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the environment, is a preferred use of the water area. Properly managed, it can result in long-term over short-term benefit and can protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Staff: The proposal reviewed in this application pertains to the development on the upland portion of the property only. The intention is to use the existing storage building and gravel parking area of the upland as a hatchery for abalone,geoduck, and sea cucumber seedlings. The project will also include algae growing greenhouses and grow out ponds/tanks for the baby sea creatures, as well as a water intak%utflow system. The applicant will have to obtain all required permits/approvals from state and federal agencies regarding any water discharge to the Hood Canal. 2. Potential locations for aquaculture practices are relatively restricted due to specific biophysical requirements such as water quality, temperature, substrate, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. Priority should be given to aquaculture uses in areas having a high potential for such uses. Staff: The project that is the subject of this permit review will be contained in tanks within the storage building and within grow out ponds/tanks. The site possesses biophysical requirements that will aid in the growth of the seedlings in the hatchery, the water from the Canal, at this location, will be utilized due to the optimal salinity. Page 3 SHR2020-00006 Note: The applicant also plans to utilize the tidelands to grow oysters, but is not proposing any structures that would require permitting with the County at this time. 3.The County should strengthen and diversify the local economy by encouraging aquaculture uses. Aquaculture operations should be protected against encroachment from incompatible, competing uses. Staff.Policy 3 encourages and supports the development of aquaculture uses. The prosed hatchery intends to grow, at a minimum, sea cucumbers, geoduck, and abalone, while employing a local seasonal workforce. 7. Shoreline and upland development in productive aquaculture areas or those areas with a high potential for aquaculture uses should be reviewed for detrimental impacts on aquaculture. Staff.• The proposal is for upland development, to finish permitting an existing storage building and to place a water intak%utflow system and algae growth tanks and grow out ponds/tanks in an existing gravel area landward of the bulkhead. The use of before mentioned structures is aquaculture and thus consistent with policy no. 7. 8. Maximum effort to protect water quality should be made in areas with high potential for aquaculture and current aquaculture areas that have been identified as sensitive areas. Staff: Water discharges to the Hood Canal from the upland water system will be required to obtain the required permits/approvals from the Department of Ecology and/or Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant is aware and has state in their ILF USE Plan that "any salt water that we intake from Hood Canal will be warmed, utilized then filtered to exacting standardized testing before being returned to the canal". 9. The county should consider local ecological conditions and provide limits and conditions to assure appropriate compatible types of aquaculture for the local conditions as necessary to assure no net loss of ecological functions.Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions or adversely impact eelgrass and macro-algae. Aquacultural facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, or establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts. Unavoidable impacts to ecological functions shall be mitigated. Page 4 SHR2020-00006 Staff: The project proposal is limited to the upland, within tanks in an area that has historically acted as gravel parking area, and within tanks in an existing storage building. The outdoor tank portion of the proposal would occupy the only area suitable for mitigation thus the option of a mitigation bank was discussed with the applicant and the Department of Ecology, per MCC 17.50.110.B.1.g.iii of the Chapter Ecological Protection, Critical Areas, No Net Loss, the County may also approve the use of alternative mitigation practices such as in-lieu fee programs, mitigation banks, and other similar approaches. Though the applicant has provided a Draft In-lieu Fee Use Plan, staff recommends that the permit be conditioned to require the removal of debris in the shoreline and buffer area as well. Water discharges from the inflow/outflow water system will have to meet the Department of Ecology 401 water quality standards and no non-native species will be introduced as part of the project. 10. Recognition should be given to the possible impacts that aquacultural activities might have on the aesthetic quality of the shoreline area. Staff: Prior to the existence of the 3484sf storage building, an even larger 4600 sf storage building existed on site in approximately the same location, once used by the Beacon Point Resort as a boat house. The aesthetic quality of the shoreline will not change significantly due to the storage building already existing for many years prior. There is a fence between the building and the adjacent residential parcel. The tanks/ponds and water system will be located in an area that once was occupied by a shed and gravel parking lot. No structures are proposed waterward of the bulkhead. Planting shall be required between the storage building and residential property to the north. 11. Structures or activities associated with aquaculture should be located landward of shoreline buffers unless clearly shoreline dependent. Staff.. a. Though the need for a Shoreline Variance could be argued either way,for or against, based on policy no. 11, staff believes a shoreline variance would be required based on the following: The project proposal is for an upland hatchery contained in tanks. The only part of the project that will be within the aquatic environment is the pipe that will transport salt water into the hatchery water system. Based on the shoreline master program definitions of water dependent, water enjoyment, water oriented, and water related use, staff believes that the definition of water related use is the most appropriate when evaluating this project. Page 5 SHR2020-00006 Water Related Use. A use that is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose operation cannot occur economically and functionally without a shoreline location because(1) The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water, or(2) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water dependent uses and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Thus based on policy no. 11, the storage building, grow tanks, and water system should be located landward of shoreline buffer, if lot size allowed. The proposal could still be functional and setback 115 feet from the shoreline with an adequate pipe length to provide salt water to the water system. b. Also, the previous shoreline permitting approval from 2012 regarding a shellfish processing and storage building was the subject of several complaints and concerns from the Beacon Point Resort community and resulted in an appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB NO. 13-003). A settlement was reached based on a list of permit conditions that were required of those 2012 permits. Staff believes conducting a shoreline variance process with hearing gives the residential community,surrounding the subject parcel, a chance to provide public comment and add testimony that can be evaluated based on the new aquaculture hatchery proposal. Criteria questions and answers for a shoreline variance request located in section C. 12. Aquacultural activities should be operated in a manner that allows navigational access to shoreline owners and commercial traffic. Staff: No structures or storage of shellfish is being proposed on the shoreline. b. Applicable Aquaculture Regulations(below Staff Answers) 1. General Aquaculture Regulations. a. Shoreline developments adjacent to areas suitable for aquaculture shall practice strict pollution control procedures. As required by MCC 8.52.170(G), design and siting of all new construction and major new development shall not adversely impact water quality. Staff: The upland development consists of utilizing an existing storage building to grow shellfish seedlings within tanks, to place algae growth tanks, grow out tanks/ponds, and a water system on top of an existing gravel parking area. The applicant has indicated that a two tier water system will be utilized that will 'filter[ered]to exacting standardized testing before being returned to the canal." Page 6 SHR2020-00006 c. Site preparation and construction in the vicinity of aquaculture operations shall not result in off-site erosion, siltation, or other reductions in water quality. Land uses on erosion hazard areas shall meet the requirements of MCC 8.52.160. Staff.•Building permit will be condition to require DOE erosion control standards. Currently, grading and excavation activities are not projected for this proposal. If FEMA regulations require the applicant to raise the foundation and/or place on pilings, meeting the requirements of MCC 8.52.160 shall be required of the building permit. e. Consistent with mitigation sequencing, aquacultural uses and developments may be required to provide mitigation where necessary to offset significant adverse impacts to normal public use of surface waters. Staff: The proposal is all located upland of the Ordinary High Water Mark and shall not impact the normal public use of surface waters. The applicant has submitted a Draft ILF Use Plan as the required mitigation for this project. f. Aquaculture development shall not cause extensive erosion or accretion along adjacent shorelines. Staff.• The development proposal is all upland and the applicant intends to continue to harvest oysters within the tideland. Currently it is not projected that the proposal will cause extensive erosion or accretion. If, after, additional FEMA review, it is found that the foundations have to be elevated and/or placed on piling, a sediment and erosion control plan shall be required. g. Aquaculture structures and activities that are not shoreline dependent or do not have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers required by this Program to minimize the detrimental impact to the shoreline. Staff.See answer to Policy No. 11. i. Aquaculture activities shall, to the greatest extent feasible with regard to the economic viability of the operation and protection of the environment be located, designed and operated so that native plant and animal populations, their respective habitats and the local ecological balance are maintained. Staff.• The existing storage building will remain in the same location with required building code upgrades and FEMA floodproofing, if needed. The areas where the water system and algae growth tanks and grow out ponds are planned for are gravel with a few sparse clumps of grass. Page 7 SHR2020-00006 i. New or expanded aquaculture shall be located, designed and maintained to assure no net loss of ecological functions, as demonstrated in a habitat management plan or equivalent report(e.g. biological assessment or biological evaluation). Staff. Per MCC17.50.110 Ecological Protection, Critical Areas, No Net Loss, section B.1.g.iii The County may also approve use of alternative mitigation practices such as in-lieu fee programs, mitigation banks, and other similar approaches provided they have been approved and sanctioned by the Department of Ecology and other state and federal agencies. The applicant, the County, and the Department of Ecology discussed an In Lieu Fee Use Plan as a viable option for this project and the applicant has worked with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council to prepare a Draft In-Lieu Fee Use Plan attached to this report as Exhibit 5. The County will be recommending, as a condition of approval of the shoreline permits, that the applicant provide the County a statement of sale of ILF credits prior to issuing the building permit for the storage building. Staff is also recommending conditioning the permit to include the removal of loose debris that is strewn along the shoreline and buffer. If embedded in the substrate fish and wildlife should be consulted. iv. Disease and pest control may be authorized, provided methods are allowed by federal and state regulations and follow best management practices.To the maximum extent practicable, aquaculture use and development shall employ the least harmful best management practices to control birds and mammals. Staff.• The proposal does not propose any pest control measures. If,such a need becomes apparent to the applicant, best management practices, as allowed by federal and state regulations, will be adhered to. I. Aquaculture development shall be designed and constructed with best management practices to minimize visual impacts and shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner.Aquaculture facilities, except navigation aids, shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment where practicable. Staff. The tallest structure proposed is the existing storage building, which is less than 27 ft. There is a six foot fence separating the subject lot from the nearby residential lot and the applicant has indicated that trees and shrubs will be added between the fence line and the storage Page 8 SHR2020-00006 building. The subject lot is visually obscured from hwy 101 by a row of trees and vegetation that border the right of way and the lot. There is no adjacent property to the south that would be visually impacted by the subject proposal. Staff will be recommending that the tree and shrub planting between the storage building and the fence line be a condition of this permit. m. Proposed aquacultural developments shall make adequate provisions to control nuisance factors such as excessive noise and odor and excessive lighting. Permits shall include allowance for work at night or on weekends but may require limits and conditions to reduce impacts,such as noise and lighting, to adjacent existing uses. Staff.• The nature of the proposal as a hatchery and not a processing facility indicates that noise created from trucks will be limited, due to the infrequency of required delivery and receiving. Noise should be minimal from staff vehicles entering and leaving the site. Staff is recommending the working hours of 7am to 7pm and that any deliveries and receiving occur during this time frame. Staff believes with the recommended conditions of this permit noise, odor, and excessive lighting will not be a nuisance. n. Aquacultural discards shall be disposed of in a manner that will not degrade associated uplands, wetlands, shorelines, or aquatic environments. Discards shall not be disposed of in a manner which results in offensive odors or increases the vector population. All waste- materials and discards shall be disposed of in strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). Staff.•As indicated by the applicant, the waste water from the hatchery tanks will be subject to a two tier water filtration system and meet the standards of the Federal Clean Water Act,Section 401 and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act. o. Equipment, structures and materials shall not be abandoned in the shoreline or wetland area. Staff.• The applicant is aware of this requirement and has no plans to add fill on or near the property. p. Precautionary measures shall be taken to minimize the risk of oil or other toxic materials from entering the water or shoreline area. Staff.•Based on the recommended conditions, the potential for pollution is minor. Page 9 SHR2020-00006 c. Shoreline Variance Review Criteria for Shoreline Variance Permits (below Staff Answers) The purpose of a Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program, where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. i. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Staff:Approval of the application does not result in a thwarting of RCW 90.58.020. ii. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the OHWM, and/or landward of any wetlands, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. Staff.• The site is restricted by its size and triangular shape making it impossible to site a structure, and obtain reasonable use, in order to meet the required 115'structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark, the minimum 10'front setback from the highway(with administrative variance), and the 90'setback from the type Ns stream that daylights at the waterward side of the bulkhead. Aquaculture is unique to the shoreline and thus a preferred use. (b) That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the Variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. Staff.•See above (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses in the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and this program and will not cause Page 10 SHR2020-00006 adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. Staff.• Though this building of 3484sf is larger than those of the Beacon Point Resort lots, historically there was an even larger building of 4600 sf in its place,for many years. The previous building was utilized as a boat house for the resort. The zoning for this location is RR5 which allows residential, as well as small scale commercial agriculture including aquaculture. RR5 zoning also does not limit the size of agricultural buildings or aquaculture buildings. The addition of the tanks and water system will be located in an area of gravel and will be further away from the residential area than the existing storage building. (d) That the Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area. That the Variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief. Staff: The variance application is for the reduction of the 115' shoreline setback to two feet, where the unfinished storage building currently is sited, and for the new additions of the water system, algae growth tanks and grow out ponds/tanks setback at least 25' from the bulkhead. The portions of the Beacon Point Resort Plat that are developed with residential structures are at a minimum of 16' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The current location of the storage building allows for vehicle turn around clearance and ingress/egress off of highway 101, thus moving the building landward further could potentially cause a traffic hazard. Previous Permitting Information: Under permits SHR2012-00013 and VAR2012-00005, Harfam (applicant)and Geo-Oyster Holdings (property owner)requested to build a storage building of 4000sf for processing and storing shellfish. The Hearing Examiner granted the request, the Department of Ecology provided final approval, and subsequently the shoreline permit was appealed and a negotiated agreement was settled upon, resulting in revised conditions of the SHR2012-00013 and VAR2012-00005 approval. Under these revised conditions the prior applicant was restricted to "the building footprint shall not exceed 3,850 square feet plus an allowance for one foot roof eves." The applicant applied for a building permit for a 3848 sf steel commercial storage building for oyster processing, was issued a building permit(COM2013-00077) on October 28,2013, and commenced construction and inspections.According to the building permit case history the building was never finish, never received all required inspections, and the building department never received the elevation certificate that showed the first floor and utilities were Page 11 SHR2020-00006 the required height above the base flood elevation at that time. The permit thus expired from inactivity. Due to the expiration of the previous shoreline permits and the change of use from a shellfish processing building to an aquaculture hatchery, the current applicant Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC is requesting new shoreline permit approval for the storage building in its current location of 2 feet from the bulkhead, as well as approval to place the algae growth tanks, grow out ponds/tanks, and water system all within the shoreline buffer and setback 25'from the bulkhead. (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Staff.•Staff feels, with the conditions recommended within, the public interest would not suffer any substantial detrimental effect. iii. In the granting of all Variance Permits,consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the Variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Staff: RCW 90.58.020 does considered Aquaculture as unique to the shoreline and thus a preferred use. Without a variance to the 115 foot setback, the owner would only have a thin triangular area of 300 to 400 square feet outside of the buffer and setback, and therefore lacks a reasonable use of their land. iv. Variances from the use regulations of this master program are prohibited. Requests for varying the use to which a shoreline area is to be put are not requests for Variances, but rather requests for conditional uses. Staff.•Aquaculture is a use allowed in rural residential 5 zoning and in the shoreline area. d. Shoreline Substantial Development The project requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit per the Project Classification Table 17.50.090_A of the Shoreline Master Program.The fair market value of the project proposal shall exceed $7,047. Proposed development shall be consistent with the policies and regulations of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and applicable policies enumerated in Chapter 90.58 RCW in regard to shorelines of the state and of statewide significance. Page 12 SHR2020-00006 B. Shorelines of Statewide Significance The State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated the Hood Canal as a "Shoreline of Statewide Significance" and the County's Shoreline Master Program states, "In managing shorelines of statewide significance, Mason County shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:" a. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; b. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; c. Result in long term over short term benefit; d. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; e. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline; f. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; g. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriated or necessary. The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.To this end, uses shall be preferred which area consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shorelines. The proposal is considered aquaculture and is unique to the shoreline, thus a preferred use. C. Mason County Code Title 15 -A Comprehensive Plan Review:Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and regulations.The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following 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. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code. 2) The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare. 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. The development proposal will not lower the LOS for transportation or neighborhood park facilities. VII. CONCLUSION. Based upon the Variance criteria set forth above staff recommends the approval of the variance and substantial development permit with the following conditions. The following are the applicable conditions from the previous shoreline permitting (SHR2012-00013 &VAR2012-00005)that were drafted per the settlement agreement Page 13 SHR2020-00006 SHB NO. 13-003, as well as additional conditions recommended for this particular proposal: 1. The northeast most portion of the parcel, between the storage building and fence shall be enhanced with suitable soil medium of suitable depth to support native trees and shrubs, which shall be planted 12 feet and 6 feet on center, respectively.This will result in at least 3 trees and 10 shrubs. The trees shall be at least 3 years old, and the shrubs shall be at least two gallon in size. 2. Outdoor lighting shall be directed and/or shielded in a manner to prevent nuisance illumination and glare to neighboring residents. Any installation of outdoor lighting shall be subject to the prior approval of staff based upon application of this condition. 3.The property owner shall limit the hours of operation of the facility (not applicable to any legal/permitted harvesting of shellfish that have been grown from seed at this site's beach) to the hours of 7am to 7pm from September 1st to April 30th. From May 1" through August 315t, hours of operation (not applicable to any legal/permitted harvesting of shellfish that have been grown from seed at this site's beach) shall be limited to the hours of Sam to 6pm; provided, however, such hours may be extended to 7am to 7pm upon advance notice given to the neighbors. During low tide in winter months,the property owner may allow up to five employees on the beach after 7pm upon advance notice to the President of Beacon Point Resort homeowners Association; provided, however,that such employees shall avoid shining lights from the beach in the direction of neighboring residences and shall conduct gathering activities in a manner that avoids any load noises of a nature that might unreasonably disturb neighboring residences.The allowed hours of operation apply to the use of boats and vehicles at the property.The operation shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15)trucks per week and no more than four(4)trucks per day for trucks between 14,001 and 55,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. For any truck over 55,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, such trucks shall be used only after notices to and permission from the President of the Beacon Point Resort homeowner's Association.These limitations on truck access shall not apply during the construction of the facility. 4.The use of water and septic loads shall be reviewed and approved by the County Environmental Health Department. Fresh water from the community domestic water system shall not be used to clean oysters. 5.The overnight parking of vehicles shall be limited to the parking areas indicated on an approved site plan. 6. Outdoor compressors and other noise generating equipment locate outside the facility building (or on the roof) shall be located on the southwest side of the building. 7. Processing (including shucking), freezing, or retail sales shall not occur at this site. 8.The building design shall meet the requirements of the Mason County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. 9.The proposed "discharge" of water through the water system inflow/outflow tank(s) shall be consistent with all applicable water quality and septic standards. 10. No more than five persons may work on aquaculture activities in outdoor areas of the subject parcel at any one time. Staff may increase this number on a permanent or temporary basis to the extent that the applicant is able to demonstrate that a greater number will not unreasonably adversely affect neighboring properties. 11. Equipment, structures, and materials shall not be abandoned in shoreline or wetland area. Page 14 SHR2020-00006 12.The facility building shall be set back at least 2 feet from the wall of the bulkhead. Such setback shall be measured from the exterior wall of the building to the inside wall of the bulkhead.The water intake/outflow system and the outside algae growth tanks and grow out ponds/tanks shall be set back at least 25 feet from the bulkhead as measured from the waterward face of the bulkhead. 13.The storage building footprint shall not exceed 3,850 square feet plus an allowance for one foot roof eves.The water system shall not exceed 1200 sf.Together,the algae growth and grow out ponds/tanks shall not exceed 2400 sf. 14. Debris that is strewn along the shoreline and in the buffer of the subject lot shall be removed and disposed of at an appropriate off site waste or recycling facility. 15. A statement of sale of ILF credits shall be required to be submitted to Mason County Community Services-Planning Department, prior to issuing any development permits on the subject lot. VI I. CHOICE OF ACTION: 1. Approval of Shoreline Variance and SDP permit#SHR2020-00006. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny permit(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 15.09.090 of Title 15. Page 15 4,thlb;f Z, �E D CA����CE L RECEIVED: RECEIVE Q MASON COUNTY JUN 2 5 2020 COMMUNITY SERVICES 615 W. Alder Street Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health 0 615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584 Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798 PERMIT NO.: ..J 1+C,262_0:::L ,® SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION SHORELINE PERMITS CONDITIONAL USE* SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE* ✓ EXEMPTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures (WAC 173-14) and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development (any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $7,047.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in the Master Program. Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that may further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be returned. *Shoreline Variances and Conditional uses require public hearings and have additional pages that shall be attached to this application.01 A 41 I�C` �" APPLICANT: L-r-C.5O A : C! e - ADDRESS: I I L i � �''�'Q.-LCyJs�reet) VVA (city) I (state) (zip) TELEPHONE: �7 ZS) 2_3 k` :11,5� (home) C��� business) 1 cLnct ne— AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: � �0/a P (street) (city) (()state) (zip) TELEPHONE: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: General location (include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline): Rev. March 1, 2018 Include all parcel numbers: Projects located in open water areas, away from land shall provide latitude/longitude. OWNERSHIP: Contract Applicant Owner�� Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner: / ! / Sf- i 27 (street) sate) (�) DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON: ci ► � py) - — Development proposal (identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materia to be used, construction methods, principle dimensions, and other pertinent information): Existing Use (identify current use of property with exist improvements): R4e a , Reason for requesting development: do Wz J, S 1 KU fJ d_,e(J A eq d &z - _` ' 4 0 ci �he applicant shall provide, at a minimum, the following information: a. SITE PLAN -drawn to scale and including: i. The boundary of the parcel(s)of land upon which the development is proposed; ii. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This may be an approximate location provided, that for any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the OHWM the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the OHWM is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest OHWM of a shoreline; iii. Where appropriate, the proposed land contours using five-foot intervals in water area and ten-foot intervals on areas landward of OHWM, if development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other alteration of land contours; iv. The dimensions and location of existing structures which will be maintained; V. The dimensions and locations of proposed structures; parking and landscaping; vi. The location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drain fields, water, gas and electricity; vii. The location, source, composition, and volume of fill material; viii. The location, composition and volume of any extracted materials, and proposed disposal area; b. CROSS SECTION, drawn to scale including: i. The existing ground elevations; ii. The proposed ground elevations; iii. The location and height of existing structures; IV. The location and height of proposed structures; V. The OHWM. c. VICINITY MAP, including: i. The location of subject parcel using natural points of reference (roads, state highways, prominent landmarks, etc.). ii. If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, identify the proposed disposal site on the map. If disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to nearest city or town. iii. On the map, or separately, give a brief narrative description of the vicinity of the proposed project including identification of the adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical characteristics. d. ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. Provide names and mailing addresses of all real property owners within 300 feet of property line boundaries w ere development is proposed. Vic`% ACKOWLEDGEMENT: I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the forgoing information and all attached information is true and correct. ZD Appli ant or Authorized Represents a (date) CP► MASON COUNTY 1 COMMUNITY SERVICES Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health i 615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584 Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VARIANCE The purpose of a Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program,where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Variance Permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), except those areas designated as wetlands, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; vve S r ' I ° t 1 � -�"r - S j (,-`T,-vr ezv'o 104 Ce S i�I 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance Is spedfically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; That the design of the project will be compatible h other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Rev.March 1,2018 - That the variance aut rized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; i1VP a" .-�U c 1 ° )Fin a- p Vim' 5. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; L�L (� 6. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; �kduce-llt PC )'Yi 0 , /)-)z t�(Z i 1 r ,- 1 Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of�eordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to Items 1-6 above, that: 1. The strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards set forth in this master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; Wa t-i r A-. V Ce U C, a �i� ZJ, 2. The public rifts of navigation d use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance; or oi OLAJ -e`J` '- -� I L' 1 W Page 2 of 3 In the granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. ACKOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the forgoing information and all attached information is true and correct. !� -2020 (property own or authorized representative (date) Page 3 of 3 cn SITE LOCATION OWNER CONTACT f 40560 N.US HIGHWAY 101 OCEAN REEF HOLDINGS LLC PACIFIC RIM AOUACIILTURE LLC �— U ULLIWAUP WA 98555 DAVID CUI,OWNER DNAD CUI MID GINA ZHANG _ L1J AMY WORMS-YOUNG,ADMINISTRATOR ARTY MORRIS-YOUNG,ADMINISTRATOR (— PARCEL NUMBER:22406530ODD5 CIO 3912-134TH ST.NE 2902 OAKES AVENUE _—--- — _ MARYSVILLE,WA 98271 ANACORTFS.WA 91 RANGE:2W 206-666-6678 DAVID CELL 425-238-41 822 58 W =N C', T 4 425-238-4158 AMY CELL — U W cD N <Ln G wco co LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEMA W Q a W BEACON POINT RESORT LOT.5 Nk T/L'S ZONE:VE \,V\I / BASE FLOOD ELEVATION 18 FEET `, YYY F�F, US _ c N ZONING SIZE ELEVATION BETWEEN 0 FEET AND 10 FEET PMN� ... .... ... _ LA USE US ' _ U 19-RESIDENTIAL-VACATION AND CABIN �� W SIZE IN ACRES:1.50 _ _ 1 — SFM1N1 UME —' EXISTING TREE CANOPY 1 . .. PAVED PROPANE TAW �T .. TOP OF CDNC - PAD ELEVATON UTILITY 5.5 FEET E)aST I POLE CHAIN LINK_J — z�8�12-0• ylpp0 •O• FENCE 1 . . O. 2-6 12-0r WATER FlRST FLOOR 3., 0.3- 11-0• WA HEATTRAF 10•-0" 14 0"11- WA TOWER CONC . _ 0 11-0• WA TOWER 5.000 FLOOR .. . . . ... DO �� PUMP RETURN 5,000 GAL gp8 -0• EXISTING GRAVEL WOOD — Hp� 5,000 T.0 qp•_p•X —_ DRIVE FENCE'• •`� FILTER oT�o NG 2 10'-0 CAtETP1OR _ FILTER/ 1.0 f T.0 TOP a o PROPOSEDCONC TOP OF GONG PAD ELEV ALGAE CROW TANKS 5'-0" Z PA)ELEVATDN 6.0 FEET 960 SF L� �- -----� 6.0 FEET SUB ON GRADE ELEVATION 5.5 FEET SITE ELEVATION EXISTING TREE CANOPY 48'-D' 5.0 FEET PROPOSED Z e '-\ ALGAE GROW TANKS ry 1070 SF SLAB ON GRADE ELEVATION 55 FEET W W SETBACK LINE EXISTING BUILDING Uj Qi FOOTPRINT 3900 SFFIRST FLOOR Qi U SALT WATER \ \ p�� •i SLAB ON GRADE ELEVATION LI) INTAKE PIPE \ '"�X BOAT 5.0 FEET CD \ \ NA7YFAp RAMP O \\\ r O O \ LLJ V) ROCK BULKHEAD CONCRETE BULKHEAD Lr) TOP OF _ BULKHEAD Q O ELEVATION ` .0. 5.0 FEET I :D LQ N BOTTOM OF \ \ : : : I U 6 BULKHEAD L0 N ELEVATION \ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : I _ 00 CT' 2.0 FEET Icy (7)_ �� (n LLJ Q in IJ U O Q LIJ U <�0 d D(ISTING-- HOOD CANAL B . . . . DATE 02/14/2021 OTHER DATES I : SHEET A1 .01 1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16•-''—O• i U) CO Lu w WA F- WA TOWER HEP� = W CO WATER TOWER ALLO N PUMP RETURN ALL G4LL0 nn,�HOUSE 5AO GALL 20_ m < W WATER O CN EGG Q Q n ` \Ly FILTER E r, Q 3 W) y V PROPOSED3 -i-,co ALGAE GROW TANKS Z)F v 960 SF W LQ J W LL LV N F- PROPOSED ALGAE GROW TANKS 1030 SF U U) 75'-0"X 52'-0' J SETBACK LINE EXISTING BURRING j' FOOTPRINT 3900 SF BOAT F70 RAMP ROCK BULKHEAD CONCRETE BULKHEAD REFERENCE PLAN FOR ELEVATION BELOW k' z z O d PUMP DWNG WAREHOUSE HOUSE z W WATER SUE WATER FILTER DETNL 2 RETURN PROPOSED PROPOSED �r SEE SHEET 1.02 SEE ALGAE GROW TANKS ENCLOSURE EXIST CARETAKER HOME ALGAE GROW TANKS ENCLOSURE DETAIL TOP OF ROCK R CONCRETE BULKHEAD ELEVATION 5.0 FEET F S 2 DETAIL 2 HEET 1.02 SNEET1.02 •� Qi n HEIGHT OF BULKHEAD RATS �•�� O SUB ON GRADE ELEVATION WOOD SLAB ON GRADE ELEVATION FIRST FLOOR O 5.5 FEET FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION 5.5 FELT STAB ON GRADE ELEVATION 6.25 FEET 5.0 FEET O O O LLJ To Ln 0 1 SITE ELEVATION VIEW FROM HOOD CANAL SCALE: 1/16•=V-0• _ � N U U L.n _ [if U' rn LLl Q V Q m PUMP WATER J HOUSE HEATER EXIST CARETAKER HOME O Q LL.I WATER WATER WATER WATER LL U FILTER RETURN TOWER TOWER .i � PR07ANF'. K U Lo of 4 n AVERAGE SITE GRADE ELEVATION 5.0 FEET a J TOP OF CONCRETE CONCRETE FLOOR TOP OF CONCRETE CONCRETE FLOOR WOOD TOP OF CONCRETE HOUSE KEEPING PAD SUB ELEVATION HOUSE KEEPING PAD SLAB ELEVATION FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION HOUSE KEEPING PAD ELEVATION 7.0 FEET ELEVATION 7.0 FEET 6.25 FEET ELEVATION 6.0 FEET 6.0 FEET 5.5 FEET DATE 02/14/2021 OTHER DATES WRIER NW E N TER ALL0300WATER CO AT EXISTING CARETAKER HOME REFERENCE PLAN FOR ELEVATION ABOVE SHEET Al . 02 2 SITE ELEVATION VIEW OF WATER SYSTEM SCALE: 1/16•=r-O' Mason County WA GIS Web Map J R 4y � .1. 33a 365 ao f 9/29/2020, 11:09:08 AM 1:3,050 0 0.03 0.05 0.1 mi i—+ ) ~—� 0. County Boundary �—+- 11 0 0.04 0.08 0.16 km Tax Parcels (Zoom in to 1:30,000) Contours 5 ft Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye. Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN,and the GIS User Community,Esn, HERE. Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Mason County WA GIS Web Map Application Richard Diaz I Esri,HERE,Garmin I Earthstar Geographies Legend Untitled Map �� Imagery 7/21/2018 .� �', rr ,l,' - 40560 US-101 i �'• ..r, '�4 'x. � - - )t -15 'T'� K �� � .. ] ;Y°v;.I _. � ,�',�^Y•.'. ,�Y' tit' f `- `' ; ZA Tr 4 ;� O � ! � � .fit �•����.t. �� i�. •i� t�-'`1 ,` ���•� �,`y .! •.�Y-. t\Xi. :.�<�t ;f1 -4]�'. .tea .ice fi..rr� i'T• t4 c. �C. �� 1i +Z !`, t t .- 1 ,'s. • Y Y. \ I^�iit'fiLL7;s �� yM a AN ~ � `.b.' � �y��.ti ..yam, - 'T✓- � 1 •� 1 �t sue. a. "y 3.y • p,c-a N PC I N T Z 0--F sY Portion of GOVERNMENT LOT 4 r ;;•SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH , RANGE 2 WEST ,W.M. Portion of SECTION I , TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH RANGE 3 WEST,W.M. MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON MARCH, 1978 \ ARFN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: / ., .•, ,`1•}�; IOT L Q SECTION f. SONNSHIP 14 MOM, RANGE I NEST. Y.M., IN MASON COUNTY,ISISNINGTON, 4F-,NQ 30074; EXCEPTING THEREFRON S.R. 101, G ALSO, EXCEPTING ALL TRAY POSITION!LYING N.STARLT OP -n pNUM[Nr+/(Riess Tao E E: J �.i pt,� �, \ ` S.A. 101; VENIjULAN'' �` \ LOTS 1,2 0 1 OF OCIEALSO, 6XCLPTING MsgA COUNTY BNOR'L PLAT M. 140 M Elf" rdts[,cou '. v' E'("•% '\ A, Y wT Av pN[A(AQOao[c x / / \ ` [2COROED[1RDER AD'It- S00T(1{ I R or,L:Ts,Noce., B 1 �\ 'F CowL rpxVMLwT r'MA1s Ur Yr / TOGETHER MIT X ALL TIDELANDS AS CONEYED AT TILE 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON LYING IS FRONT OF, ADJACENT 10 A YA•AAOw nI[r/[wTrc K.M:[. / 'rb v // DA ARurr IN ON sw 10 P RNNFP, Atc ,�L �, // PARCEL I ®CON[R[r[MOWM[w/rIYAN,NT �*` ! 4; + / THE SOVSTICAAS piABYEB OF SItCTIBN 1, IMAMS IF I[ S.oNw•o MA R[[Po[o wo ,�/, �RNA,R.o [ HORTN. MBGL 3 NAST.N.M., IN MYDN mISRTY. MSHIHGTOII, • �or sNRr[.B,ru[�[. NOTE, S Rr[r9 AND'NT x[riow / / II t1N'. ,r rK.1 caR•rc sxAII EXCEPTING THEREFROM S.R. loll NOr T S[[AVIN w01M Y SPONx / L 'B4, Fes_ [[AfwOv(p Ow OA R([Oa[ [TN([rt NN`Nt A,rorxl p OH[ 4 ALSO,ItC F.P1ING sA PRAT Q 7!R 80t11'HNEMT QIARTTR CORO(e�N YOLVY(F,Or r[ATB.vIAe(s( 9 / „R/ i'oF �, Or SAID SWTTR.AST ARSRR AMEBA M AOMI.I 0I A Nav[N[[N• INS EAEro pr rN[ `/ .fE/ " �• L[Nr.RUNNING S NS`j0'S3` I PltU11 3TR Bp�TTINLST ET IT TO A POINT GN IYE UST LIME A S'7TRe0'E 39.IB rE l.Av[r.pR TNR Nu M/ � -[FTo. rP rROM ns SOUTUAEr MAN-, TOGETTHER MSTX ALL E.O IN FAA AB C, AOMD NY TRAP STATE OF MASHIMON SA LYING IN FRONT,OP. AUMCiK1 SO i ABOTTINC DM 9ATD PRDPERTTO ALSO, EXCEPTING PROM AEI.•RAIL FOREGOING THAT PORTION h` AS CONl2Y®BY YIUST CLAIM DECO TO SAACOM POINT COMPANY, /'` 4.{q t�• ,t . 9.H' P � �. A LIMITED PARINNRSHS P, RECORD®MY 11. 196 9' "'0" e±l P p AUDITOR-8 rtli SD:1423 z:. ,lf ry Aj. �IKEEf R[f L 4rNASA.[ASH" '0♦ /! � __ N�k'c(yb p riy �,'if O / NAAN+IWwT Y 0 / 0 / IZ RA1 NOTE: NO VEHICULAR VILINl7Y MAP ACCESS RSA.[... 1• THE COST OP CONSTRUCTING AND MAX[FIRNNING BAz OV MDI HERX301 O®IGTSD AS PUBLIC 10]b5 SOUIYE.BL 91t mRtGA�IDM OV Am Or THE ONMEAR OF TIE lots IRA ME PLAT tlmb OP F 3DDITEGRAt PLATE TV.T MAY REAVES EY BAIO ATRSLTS, AND TNR'Zwj[ ��,'11�.TO COVENANTS: MAINTAIN ANAAc EU[ BSLO,T•LY THE OB1IWTI0H1 aP ME Q1d6MIMON Y MHICtl TITLE THE ACAOS AND STREET[ MY NE RAW. IN HIE ram_ 1. ALL IAT'6 SMIJ.BE SI]BTECT TO AN GSEMENT P FCET IRA WIDTH LVF.NT I SHE Q WERE OF ANY WTS EDAVED BY THE ROADS�ON SYNBATE _ AND SAIUTA.EL AND ADJACENT TO ALL LOT LINES. UCEPT•MAT THIS EASE- OF TRIS PLAT SNAIL PETITION THE BOARD OF COUNTS'L'ONHISSIMPERS M NWT RAA BE TEH PEEL IN MID"ALONG-I LINES MERE LOTS ABE NOT INCLUOR THESE ROADS OR STREETS IN THE PUBLIC ROAD SYSTEM, ME I MAY GOOUS PO0.PURPOSES OF INSTALLATION ANO MINTEMANCE OF UTILITIES PESTITIONEU SHALL RA OBLIGATED TO BRING ME SANE TO MUNTY ROAD / AND DRMTMAGE AND ALL LOTS SHALL ALSO BE SUWECT TO THE RIGHT OF SIAADARDS [M Alp RERPECt9, INCLUDING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-MAY, OVERBtAC MS FSOMTS OF ELECTRIC APO TELEPHONE MIRES OVER PORTION[ PAID,I'D AC E BY IN COII-Y. •rx� .[xnro.ocx�„q OF LOTS ANEM NO OKAY CURVATURE CAVEAA T SMI[TO OCCUR. L. [pTb 1 THACOOM[SHALL NOT BE US®EXCEPT FOR BESIDENTIAL / I. 'MP.SALE OR LEASE Q'IE69 TUN A NHOLE InT 3H ANY POIPOSAS NO A[AIDEMCE SMALL BE PERMITTYD TO RAIN ON RAID iLO1N�jE2l1M D}ATIBD AMD PILED WDER TI TU 15.20 MBDN W[MY fA6 OfHEp THµ ONE SINGLE-FAMILY p LLING RATER CNE YEAR FROM P�I• ..-... - __ A,a�r�� ^Ig l�R�.Y jMH IBITED EXCEPT IH COMPLIARCE WITH TITLE DATE OP SALE OF TUT. tHi Lv 16.tD OA 3E.1e Aq1 COUNTY CODE. 5. NNE CABIN ON THE ON THE LOT LIHE BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4 S111, ` rt a,� ' '' �� CST ► zG : 1 . 5 gaeP ; strc L crvt2—' F-ACanJ Fp 1 T oo 5 EA CO N PO I N T' a ��'� Z - WA- S y 5" -�►� .° zoo s WE 0 .� J IT Q JKEES C K Fr- l f=,, : E Linl ) (? L° F- ��^� r v f ° G 19 C-.D T 1 DE f`t.� NSF Xo p� FEMA to R�Qu I hZF TO (3C j5 U►L T' 10, Spr PLC KoUNn Pt �/ 4s Ll S I?' PRO TCH F—R Y !� � �• p/� ; p�r,P �rN� � iNtF�►�ioNS�` �� C � F I � (� I 1� �? — �r A uA LU LTUR � N u vv `I 1 1N A T Pump. ti 4:-7ACo �a s YS Z o t+6A --� CEX Is i r� �.0 } 2f7T E-:- ® tJ o. 1 t d - ten.....-.,.. R flood Canal Coordinating Council In-Lieu Fee Use Plan Pacific Rim Aquaculture 40560 N Highway 10, 1Lilliwaup, WA PART A: IMPACT PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Description Provide a brief description of the development project and the types of activities that will impact aquatic resources including buffers. If a more detailed project description is available in other documents in the application package,this section should just summarize the project description and cite the more detailed document(s). In April, 2020, our parent affiliate Ocean Reef Holdings LLC purchased the property at 40560 N Hwy 101, Lilliwaup, WA with the intention of using the existing warehouse and land for the purposes of an indigenous sea creature species hatchery, including but not limited to geoduck, abalone and sea cucumber seedlings. The property would also have algae growing greenhouses and grow-out ponds for baby sea creatures. We were also informed by the seller that parcel was "grandfathered" for harvesting and selling the oysters existing on the tidelands of this parcel. That was not accurate, and we have applied to the Washington State Department of Health for a new Oyster Harvest Permit. All proposed work described in this Use Plan is for the development of the upland portion of the property only. This Use Plan does not address any future work below the Ordinary High Water Mark within Hood Canal. Scenario 1 —No FEMA Floodplain Requirements The proposed project is to install interior tanks within the large (3,848 square feet(sf)) metal building; construct an algae growth system(2,400 sf) which will include the exterior hatchery, algae greenhouses, grow ponds and tanks; and construct the water system tanks and pump house (1,200 sf) on concrete slabs directly on the land. Additionally the large metal building will upgraded to current Building Codes. Scenario 2—FEMA Floodplain Requirements: lowest point of flooring to be six-eight feet above the floodplam. The proposed project is to construct an elevated platform(s)for interior tanks,machinery and equipment within the large metal building. Construct exterior platforms on piers for algae growth system(2,400 sf) which will include the exterior hatchery, algae greenhouses, grow ponds and tanks. Construct the water system tanks and pump house (1,200 sf). The area under new infrastructure would be permeable,with existing gravel and shell beds, and any tidal or floodwaters would be able to go over that property and return to Hood Canal. Additionally the large metal building will upgraded to current Building Codes. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 Pilings would be concrete and wood pilings(approximately 12-inch diameter)to elevate structures or equipment to the required level. It is estimated that 72 piles will be needed to support the proposed facilities. Existing and Proposed Conditions of Marine Ri arian Habitat Existing Proposed Structure Structure Structure Coverage Area Coverage Area SF S Residence and Deck 600 600 Large Metal Building 3,848 3,848 Algae Growth System 0 2,400 Water System and Pump House 0 1,200 TOTALS 4,448 8,048 All land-based work will be coordinated with Mason County, Washington State and pertinent Federal entities. See attached Vicinity Map, Site Plans and Site Photos. 2. Existing Conditions of Aquatic Resources Provide a brief description of the aquatic resources and buffers on the development site. Include the location, landscape position, size, vegetation, soils,hydroperiod, source of water, surrounding land uses, and functions. The project site is located on the marine shoreline in Hood Canal near Lilliwaup, WA. The area is composed of residential waterfront parcels, and constrained by N. Highway 101. Our 1.5 acre parcel is developed with a small (320 sf) one-bedroom detached residence and deck, large metal building (3,848 sf), driveway and parking areas. The upland developable area of the property is limited to approximately 0.6 acres as the parcel is triangular shaped with approximately one-half of the upland acreage being a narrow band to the south along HWY 101. The property has approximately 300 feet of marine shoreline that is armored with a vertical concrete and rock bulkhead. The majority of the shoreline in the vicinity of the project site is armored. There is sparse shoreline vegetation, as the parcel is mostly flat, lacking tree or shrub coverage, and strewn with natural rocks and seashells; any foliage (i.e. blackberries) is growing along the berm which aligns Highway 101. The beach material is composed of gravel,rocks and shells. WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species website database indicates that hardshell clams and oyster beds are present. An intermittent/ephemeral freshwater stream occurs on the southern portion of the property. To the north of the property approximately 670 feet, a perennial freshwater stream enters Hood Canal. No wetlands occur on the property. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 3. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Aquatic Resources Describe how adverse impacts from the project,both direct and indirect,to aquatic resources will be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. This should include consideration of project location, surrounding land uses, design, construction practices, monitoring efforts and/or other relevant factors. Describe the type and expected acreage of unavoidable impacts. Cite corresponding drawings showing the impact area boundaries including buffers. As explained above, we are not yet certain as to how much land will be displaced by our needed equipment, as that is TBD. However, we would strive to minimize impacts in either scenario, as follows: • Minimize onsite construction time by prefabricating concrete slabs/ponds/tanks at our Marysville warehouse; • Strictly filter and test any salt water intake before returning it to Hood Canal; • Add native trees and plants to the north side of metal building as noise and view buffer with neighbors; 4. Impacts to Aquatic Resource Functions Describe how the functions below are expected to be lost or altered due to your project. Also, include a discussion of the potential indirect and/or temporary impacts to the remaining aquatic resource(s). 1. Water quality: briefly describe characteristics of aquatic resources relative to water movement, extent of vegetation as it relates to potential for slowing and filtering water(e.g., extent of grazing), extent and duration of ponding, opportunity to improve water quality, and so on. • As per County, State and Federal requirements, as well as OCRs of the Beacon Point Homeowners Association, any salt water that we intake from Hood Canal will be warmed, utilized then filtered to exacting standardized testing before being returned to the canal. • Also as per Beacon Point HOA Water Association, water from that resource may only be used for Residential purposes (that is, in the existing one bedroom residence on the site, in which our manager will live). Any commercially used water will be desalinated salt water from Hood Canal,which again will be strictly filtered and test before returning to the canal. 2. Hydrologic: briefly describe characteristics of aquatic resources relative to the ability and opportunity of the aquatic resource to store water. • Because the project area is along a marine shoreline,water from the upland areas generally drains to the marine environment, although some may filter to groundwater. Stormwater drainage systems on existing and proposed structures will be installed as required under Mason County building code. 3. Habitat: briefly describe characteristics of aquatic resources relative to habitat functions such as interspersion of habitats, corridor connectivity,plant species richness,buffer condition, and so on. • Site use and development is allowed by variance from a Residential to mixed Residential/ Commercial use. This upland parcel is already disturbed and not providing habitat functions to upland terrestrial species or the marine shoreline. The installation of native vegetation will not be to the extent to provide habitat functions to the upland or adjoining tidelands. There will be no change to that site use. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 PART B: JUSTIFICATION FOR USING AN IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM 1. Description of Compensatory Mitigation Options Considered Provide a brief description of the potential (or lack thereof) for each type of compensation listed below. The type of compensation proposed to mitigate for the project impact should be ecologically appropriate. a. Wetland mitigation banks, b. In-lieu fee programs, c. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach, d. Permittee-responsible mitigation through on-site and in-kind mitigation, and lastly e. Permittee-responsible mitigation through off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation. The federal rule on compensatory mitigation titled Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (Federal Rule) 33 CFR Section 332.3(b) specifies that when considering options for successfully providing the required compensatory mitigation, the district engineer shall consider the type and location options in the following order: 1. Wetland Mitigation Banks, 2. In-Lieu Fee Programs, and lastly 3. Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. The Federal Rule emphasizes the use of a watershed approach to Compensatory Mitigation. The watershed approach involves consideration of several factors to assure proper implementation: • Watershed needs and Compensatory Mitigation projects to address those needs, • Landscape scale, • Historic and potential aquatic resource conditions, • Past and projected aquatic resource impacts, and • Terrestrial connections between aquatic resources. The changes to the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation are intended to increase the Compensatory Mitigation project success rate and improve the health of the aquatic resources in mitigated areas. The Compensatory Federal Rule was developed to provide better aquatic resource mitigation than the traditional focus on on-site/in-kind, which may not always be feasible or appropriate mitigation. Any proposed activity that impacts aquatic resources still needs to be addressed in the following order: • Avoid. Proposed impacts must be avoided to the maximum extent possible. • Minimize. Impacts that cannot be avoided should be minimized. • Compensate for remaining impacts. Impacts that cannot be avoided must be compensated for through Compensatory Mitigation. The project site is located on the marine shoreline in the Central Hood Canal Assessment and Management Unit and will impact Marine Riparian Habitat only (defined within the ILF Program to be from the Ordinary High Water Mark upland at least 200 feet). No wetland impacts will occur with implementation of the project therefore consideration of a wetland mitigation bank does not apply to this project. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 The proposal is to utilize the buildable upland portion of their property. No on-site or offsite mitigation options occur nearby so the permittee is asking to be allowed to participate in the In-Lieu Fee Program to fulfill compensatory mitigation as identified by the regulatory agencies. The preferred mitigation approach is use of the HCCC ILF Program. 2. In-Lieu Fee Program Selection Rationale Provide rationale for proposing the ILF program as mitigation. Describe how the aquatic resource mitigation needs of the impact project correspond with the purpose, goals, and objectives of the ILF program. The proposed project is location within the Marine Service Area for the HCCC ILF Program. The HCCC ILF Program's primary goal is to increase aquatic resource functions in the Hood Canal watershed. This is accomplished by advancing mitigation requirements with rigorous site assessment and selection processes that fully support priorities for conserving and restoring Hood Canal. The US Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology oversee the ILF Program. In addition, an Inter-agency Review Team composed of local, state, tribal and federal entities provide technical support and guidance to the program. Short and long-term maintenance and monitoring are required on all ILF Program projects and properties, and all mitigation site properties are protected through site protection documents in perpetuity assuring that mitigation site will persist. To accomplish this goal, the HCCC has incorporated the following objectives into the ILF Program: • Provide a viable option to ensure the availability of high-quality mitigation for unavoidable, site-specific impacts to freshwater wetlands and marine/nearshore aquatic resources in the Hood Canal watershed. • Promote "net resource gain" (defined as restoration of ecological processes) and improved ecological functions of the Hood Canal watershed. • Combine the mitigation requirements from individual permitted projects within a service area into larger mitigation sites. • Provide an effective and transparent accounting structure for collecting in-ILFs, disbursing project funds, and conducting compliance reporting, as required under 33 CFR § 332.8. • Work in an efficient and transparent manner with the Interagency Review Team, co- chaired by the USACE and WDOE to review, analyze, and implement mitigation projects and enact amendments to the ILF Program. The HCCC has four strategies to accomplish its goal and objectives. These strategies are to: restore aquatic resource functions; enhance existing aquatic resources; establish new functions where they no longer exist; and, preserve intact or fully functioning aquatic resource functions. Compensatory mitigation can take one of these four forms: 1. Restoration: returning a damaged aquatic resource to its original condition through restoration of habitat forming processes; In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 2. Creation: converting an area that has no significant aquatic resources into an aquatic resource area with all of the physical and biological characteristics to replace the area lost or damaged; 3. Enhancement: making changes or improvements to an aquatic resource to replace the functions or values performed by the resources lost or damaged; and 4. Preservation: protecting aquatic resources in an area that is equivalent to the area damaged, and that might otherwise be impacted or lost. The mitigation strategy selected for each permitted impact will be based upon an assessment of type and degree of disturbance at the landscape and/or drift cell scales. Restoration generally will be the first mitigation option considered because the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potential ecologically important uplands are reduced compared to enhancement or creation. Restoration also has potential to produce more substantial gains in aquatic resource functions compared to enhancement and preservation. 3. Proposed Use of In-Lieu Fee Credits Show the number of ILF credits that are proposed to be purchased or transferred from the ILF program. Debits associated with the proposed upland development action were calculated using the methodology specified in the HCCC ILF Instrument. Temporary impacts (persisting less than 1 year)have not been calculated for this project as this stage of review.No in-water work elements are included in this Use Plan. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 Temporary emporary Riparian iparian (terrestrial edge, (terrestrial edge, bluff/rock face, Total Comments bluff/rock face, supralittoral,and supralittoral,and alluvial alluvialfloodplain) floodplain) Area of Impact in Acres 0.161 ENTER 0.161 7,000sfimpact area Degree of Impact DOI Factor 1.2 to 2.0 0.4to0.66 Duration 1 0to 0.33 Permanent in place greater than ear Intensity 0.67 0to0.22 High:commercial activity Cumulative 0.11 0to0.11 Low:projectonl impacts marine riparian(not a sediment supply source Total for DOI Factor(Permanent Impacts or 1.2,whichever is greater;Temporary Impacts or 0.4,whichever isgreater) 1.78 0 Risk Factor 1.2 to 3.0 0.4 to 1.0 Type of Habitat 0.5 0to 0.5 Low:covers arse and lacking tree or shrub coverage. Low:low functioning performing habitat class;impaired with anthropogenic Quality of Habitat 0.1 0to0.17 disturbance present. Moderate:relatively intact connectivity to relatively disturbed habitats.Riparian Habitat Connectivity 0.3 0to 0..17 habitat south of site narrow band but intact. Imperiled S ecles 0.3 0to 0..17 Moderate:spatial overlap only with critical habitat forsalmonidspecies. Total for Risk Factor(For Permanent Impacts or 1.2,whichever is greater;For Temporary Impacts or 0.4,whichever is greater) 1.2 0 Total Numberof Habitat Class Debits (Area X DOI X Risk) 0.343 0.000 0.343 Based on 2016 updated credit cost:Open Space riparian restoration medium Cost per Habitat Class Credits-Exhibits $85,185.00 $85,185.00 scale/intensity project. Total Mitigation Fee(Debits X Cost) $29,239.81 $0.00 $29,239.81 Land Fee-Table 4 $188,000.00 $188,000.00 Mason County Land Fee updated 2016. Total Land Fee(Debits XCost) $64,531.13 $0.00 1 7531.13 4. Credit Purchase or Transfer Timing This section should note the anticipated timing of purchase or transfer of the credits and any other details regarding credit use that may be relevant to the permit process. It is not necessary to disclose credit costs or specific financial arrangements made between the applicant and ILF program sponsor. When purchasing credits,the final sale should generally not occur until regulatory agencies have issued the permits relevant to the aquatic resource impacts. Prior to impacting aquatic resources, permit applicants must submit to the regulatory agency the proof of purchase (e.g., statement of sale) or transfer of credits. Upon approval by the regulatory agencies that use of the HCCC ILF Program will fulfill the mitigation obligation for the proposed project and issuance of conditioned permits or authorizations,the project applicant will purchase mitigation credits from the HCCC. HCCC will provide the project applicant with a Statement of Sale indicating that credits have been purchased. The project applicant will then submit a copy of the Statement of Sale to the appropriate regulatory agencies to verify that they have met the conditions of their project permits or authorizations. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup,WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 Vicinity Map o rR n - P AMU Boundary_Line-Revised f f�,•' rx.ro Fxu,n CAnal In Lieu Fee MRIgati— fiograi B • ✓ r t ❑canon Uay / sununela P,n, .� i 'ter l_n UN• try ti \,°op N O` 009 o`� PorQ Oo `on 2 � n N Beacon PI W Figure 1. Vicinity Map In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup, WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 Site Plan g�Lc j_ !UT 5 I Zr-- I. S Aca5 quo $FACon) P01 P r Nth F-+.c'�.�4, � 3��� SF STR-ucruizES a 4� 7k• ALCAE sySTF�Y� ; Z�(DCiSF K EAco kl PD I tJ r N, c Z- WA rr . Sy sTz-ivy : 2 00 s F 0 N A PR1VAT15 � � ?b ADD 11'REES/5 �'u8y YVEL Q .� j� Q i3ii FFFa2/f=C-rCF_ Pcw , v Al ti „� � o. o h � EX ISrING k, , y 1 @ -r I DE F ^/u7 '\ FEMA V Re au I m 0 To 13� 6UIL T ON ly 0Al 1 A7 , A, pt" � P P-Ij PRO POSED H A TCH ERY �h��� • Pl� : P�Zo P L_ '_ .�I M F N S,ONs : PACIFIC- RIM . Va. 6 s000 s", AG U A C.U LT U R E Figure 2. Site Plan (intake pipes and any in-water work not included within this Use Plan). In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup,WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 s� en��ns . `l T 0 w A T-F42— s y s T ant- ON P►�v'P Kl A C�C E.S S PUMP I R t=AC0 tJ • (SROPccF-D � T PoWr A L_G A C c;r,o ttirH sys rz�t -�, C-1RAV5L �'A K t tJ6 E. of 8 LP(7, — M ICY F3r �= CEX r.S i r►iG ) `. PEg FaMA r ��� N ATC R"Y FZ vo K M!W Y 8 fr -64EV. r c. 2-FT - rCiN� 1ti�J� 5AvVA L !-F E I C ttTS or -z P�A ►n, C, PF. 2 i�E- MA Rt Q U I�rr (e\J Figure 3. Site Plan Cross-Section. In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup,WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 sitF - PLAN ' o DGTAIL_ vvATE12 SysrCM • N --� 6)(ISRA Ole PUMP WATEP, WATE WATF-f, vVA Ek WATT-=2 HOUSE it 7-09-W F I l-TER i ow E.{_ TovVi`_2 F4 GkTF_P_ C Per F-M A , rn be oc v'a-iv_� 4 k SAL-itQ ITY To SoLkT14 As- f::9_ -c 5 f' O L'c T-L Figure 4. Detail Water System (intake pipes and any in-water work not included within this Use Plan). In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup,WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 Site Photos a v - ciio:W_ In-Lieu Fee Use Plan—Pacific Rim Aquaculture Lilliwaup,WA DRAFT—Upland Development Only August 2020 1 I nlown Jill '` • + �1. a August 2020 August 20, 2020 Am- Ji x f Ij 1 C1 t 1 u f t� f � 6 MASON COUNTY • COMMUNITY SERVICES Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Notice of Application and Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC,who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for Shoreline Variance and Substantial Development Permit (SHR2020-00006)to finish constructing,to current Building Code, a previously permitted storage building(3848sf),which is setback two feet from the bulkhead on parcel 22406-53-00005.The storage building was previously permitted under a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2012-00013) and Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2012-00005),with the previous use being shellfish processing and storage.These permits have since expired. The current application (SHR2020-00006) intends to re-permit the storage building for the use as an Aquaculture Hatchery.The new proposal also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system (1,200sf) and algae growth system (2,400sf), outside of the existing storage building, but all within the buffer and setback of the shoreline. Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC has also proposed to renew the use of the tidelands as an oyster harvest site.This portion of the project is not reviewed in the application because no structures within the water are being proposed in conjunction with the harvesting. Location:40560 N US Highway 101, Lilliwaup, Wa 98555 Parcel Number: 22406-53-00005 Date of complete Application:August 14,2020 The proposed development is reviewed under the applicable chapters of the Shoreline Master Program, Resource Ordinance,Title 15,and Shorelines of Statewide Significance Regulations.The proposal requires Hearing Examiner approval,with final approval with the Department of Ecology. This proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1)(b). Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should join the virtual Public Hearing via Zoom on October 14, 2020 at 1:00p.m. or mail comments or questions to Marissa Watson, Planner, Mason County Department of Community Services, 615 W. Alder St.; Shelton,WA 98584. Or Email at MWatson@co.mason.wa.us. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held on October 14, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project via Zoom. Directions on how to access the hearing will be located on the Mason County website at https://www.co.mason.wa.us/hearings-examiner/index.php under the appropriately dated agenda, or you can call the Hearing Examiner Clerk at 360.427.9670 ext. 365 for assistance. Written and oral testimony will be accepted up to the close of the hearing. A decision on these applications will be made within 120 days of the date of the complete application. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Application and Public Hear- ing Notice is hereby given that Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an ap- plication for Shoreline Variance and Sub- stantial Development Permit (SHR2020- j 00006) to finish constructing, to current Building Code, a previously permitted stor- age building(3848sf),which is setback two feet from the bulkhead on parcel 22406- 53-00005. The storage building was pre- viously permitted under a Shoreline Sub- stantial Development Permit (SHR2012- 00013) and Resource Ordinance Variance i (VAR2012-00005), with the previous use being shellfish processing and storage. These permits have since expired. The current application (SHR2020-00006) in- tends to re-permit the storage building for the use as an Aquaculture Hatchery.The new proposal also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system (1,200sf) and algae growth system (2,400sf), out- side of the existing storage building, but all PUBLIC NOTICES within the buffer and setback of the shore- line.Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC has also proposed to renew the use of the tidelands on October 14, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. by the as an oyster harvest site. This portion of Mason County Hearing Examiner on the the project is not reviewed in the applica- proposed project via Zoom. Directions on tion because no structures within the water how to access the hearing will be located are being proposed in conjunction with the on the Mason County website at https:// harvesting.Location:40560 N US Highway www.co.mason.wa.us/hearings-examiner/ 101, Lilliwaup, Wa 98555 Parcel Number: index.php under the appropriately dated 22406-53-00005 Date of complete Ap- agenda, or you can call the Hearing Ex- plication: August 14,2020 The proposed aminer Clerk at 360.427.9670 ext. 365 for development is reviewed under the ap- assistance.Written and oral testimony will plicable chapters of the Shoreline Master be accepted up to the close of the hear- Program, Resource Ordinance, Title 15, ing. A decision on these applications will and Shorelines of Statewide Significance be made within 120 days of the date of the Regulations.The proposal requires Hear- complete application. ing Examiner approval,with final approval 2670 August 27 1t with the Department of Ecology.This pro- posal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11- 800(1)(b). Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should join the virtual Public Hearing via Zoom on Octo- ber 14,2020 at 1:00p.m.or mail comments or questions to Marissa Watson, Planner, Mason County Department of Community Services, 615 W. Alder St.; Shelton, WA 98584. Or Email at MWatson@co.mason. wa.us. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held i i Easy Peel®Labels i Bend along line to i 1 0 Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge"A SAVERYO 86T"' i/1rS D f: Roy VJ , I�f e (s� m�C�� ;eA 6-r t-Yi, pmi-Y �. D , I3 v X �f 3Oo 0054 1-0 VYi a Ik ]�lo ry� �(I� � olympi'a7 VVA gg5oq -73cO e_,h'✓1fr)0 , WA 9r234 k�k"V vJc,- qes&Z(o C�y - D.e(o r� 1_-c ,iz r1 `l K� r� r?� � AA t,c h r©�- rba��, 23 - 20grr+ A-Ve S� 1�20 ►Ste`'' M1E E�`ZZ p, � , �v�C s l 3 &Mmamosh ,WA 9F(v-74 <-e.f_ui rn , WA 96.3 9m ll2 fret Dime- P rli'cek !41 MaYi7-a-Ro , e_f- a.I , ���►1� �otih � Ao-r,4o N, #VVy 101 TO-ska- 3a,__-Ts(v Li'1 I►`vvct �� �dA 55 a -N e_ls av�_ Vj r 1114NIOIV 4- L'V n 4- 1'et t3old t 1 a-k 0 e e.. M,0-km-et, .40600 N . Hwy l o ► R\/a.A 1n/A q&S55 `�o �o�SS came! 6'lelh t�q II'Wc� Sdri DI'e30) cR C?y l d 9-(e 4 1<a,.. ArYn L_e.Mon )'er, e-1- a 61-1,cnnerS0 ' !�'t-eve_ Cady 40& 3o N . ovVy 1c)1 gt, La-lliwa-up ; WA 495!5�-5 L-)cs Moi n,es, WA 99'1 Wa,r re& +- 1-)a-r l e-rI e- 1 0 e o k t , 6:�f 0-1 o l za- -Pe GI 1 ee V_tnni�e k !Munroe, �j �o r�SS // N, NWy tol L.I'l 11'VVa.-u-P, VVA 19 S5 5 pa-f cz.;1d - r► ny �anlow, Ke..14 y M ®ors -Fbr + L : � ra ka W- S e Lii'm , V1�A 9 fa GI Rc. Z'A� �- 0_Y(d - F3 , Setts , , M Y e rs 1 r us t-, '4 - a!) 010 4572-1 - e+ st ohcc-1 ¢ Dar! 1 Tacorna , WA gg140(' I�y6 5 �4 vi`rt Tryst Sf � L Vrs"°� e�o 2©(f3 /�� 13lic2_ Ner©Yl � Cal��►�P � w� g�504 Po r+IaAlld ) OR Q 72-( ( V s � Nquettes faciles h peler Repiiez A la hachure afin de t, www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® thSens mnt r6vr ler le rebord Pop-upMC ; 1-800-GO-AVERY i "At 6•t 7 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF MASON J RE: (Parcel#or Address of Site): 2?--11t a Le - 53 - d S I, Marissa Watson , Planner for Mason County, do hereby certify that I have posted copies of the attached: 1-10 C OF w `-- v /. `'. On this 2-0 day of /�v , 20 '2o , in conspicuous places as follows: o One at The Site o One at o One at In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this 2-¢ day of 20 2U Signed b Marissa Watson Mason County Community Services Department 615 W.Alder St—Shelton, WA 98584 Subscribed and sworn before me this ZN day of P� �. si ned this document. 20 2t) ';g WI au i ss� W Spa' r5oikp �� ! lJ� &Z' NOTARY N: s N PUBLIC $ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, .• s Printed Name of Notary: Alr,ctn.e.. m Po.ySSC �s�•'•• 24 .•• ���•''•0SN�N�►��+ residing at: {MaSar1 Co = #saw Z Zy' Zl�L( My Commission Expires: (Notary Seal) 1:!5YCh;b,'f 8 MASON COUNTY (360) 427-9670 Shelton ext.352 �A90N COUN?P DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING- PLANNING- FIRE MARSHAL (360) 482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2012-00013) and Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2012-00005): Approved with Conditions Applicant : Harfam Property Owner: Geo-Oyster Holdings Permit Conditions Revised per Settlement Agreement (SHB NO. 13-003) -and Corrected from 7/23/2013 Mailing L_l) The applicant shall increase the vegetation enhancement recommended in the habitat management plan to 1500 square feet from the recommended 1,000 square feet.The applicant will submit a revised site plan to the County depicting the new planting and enhancement areas to scale, and including planting densities that match the planting densities for the original 1,000 square-foot area. 2. The northeast most 11 feet of the concrete slab shall be demolished to allow at least 12 feet of unpaved ground between the fence and the pavement for planting with trees and large shrubs. A portion of the concrete adjacent to the shoreline maybe left if structurally necessary to maintain the integrity of the bulkhead. The unpaved buffer(30 by 12 feet)shall be enhanced with suitable soil medium of suitable depth to support native trees and shrubs,which shall be planted 12 feet and 6 feet on center,respectively. This will result in at least 3 trees and 10 shrubs. The trees shall be at least 3 years old,and the shrubs shall be at least two gallon in size. '3.' A performance bond an amount determined by the County Planning Department shall be filed with a bank or insurance company to assure that the mitigation recommended in the Habitat Management Plan be completed and maintained for at least three years. 4. A Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan shall be filed on the parcel's title. 5. Outdoor lighting shall be directed and/or shielded in a manner to prevent nuisance illumination and glare to neighboring residents. Any installation of outdoor lighting shall be subject to the prior approval of staff based upon application of this condition. 6. The property owner shall limit the hours of operation of the facility(not applicable to any legal/permitted harvesting of shellfish that have been grown from seed at this site's beach)to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM from September 1'to April 30'h. From May I'though August 31',hours of operation(not applicable to any legal/permitted harvesting of shellfish that have been grown from seed at this site's beach)shall be limited to the hours of 8AM to 6PM;provided,however, such hours may be extended to 7AM to 7PM upon advance notice given to the neighbors. During low tides in winter months,the property owner may allow up to five employees on the beach after 7PM upon advance notice to the President of Beacon point Resort homeowners Association;provided,however,that such employees shall avoid shining lights from the beach in the direction of neighboring residences and shall conduct gathering activities in a manner that avoids any load noises of a nature that might unreasonably disturb neighboring residences. Pagel of 2 7/30/2013 The allowed hours of operation apply to the use of boats and vehicles at the property. The operation shall be limited to no more that fifteen(15)trucks per week and no more than four(4)trucks per day for trucks between 14,001 and 55,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. For any truck over 55,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, such trucks shall be used only after notice to and permission from the President of the Beacon Point Resort homeowners Association. These limitations on truck access shall not apply during the construction of the facility. 7. The use of water and the septic loads shall be reviewed and approved by the County Environmental Health Department. Fresh water from the community domestic water system shall not be used to clean oysters. 8. The overnight parking of vehicles shall be limited to the parking areas indicated on an approved site plan. 9. Outdoor compressors and other noise generating equipment located outside the facility building(or on the roof) shall be located on the southwest side of the building. 10. Final processing(including shucking),freezing,or retail sales shall not occur at this site. 11. The building design shall meet the requirements per the Mason County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance's "General Standards"(Subpart 5.1)and per the"Accessory Structures"(Subpart 5.2). 12 Wet storage bags and the rocks that anchor them shall not be placed on the property in any manner that unreasonably interferes with navigation. (unchanged) 13. rior to installation of an oyster washer,the WA Department of Health and/or the Mason County Department of Health shall verify that the proposed discharge of the"used"water is consistent with applicable water quality and septic standards. Staff shall also investigate and mitigate as reasonably necessary the issue of whether the facility operations will generate any unreasonable odor. At the least, staff s investigation will consist of investigating whether similar operations at other sites have generated any odors and/or establishing a two year monitoring program where staff visit the site at least once per year to monitor odor levels from facility operations. The property owner shall pay for any costs reasonably incurred by staff in complying with the odor conditions. 14. No more than five persons may work on aquaculture activities in outdoor areas of the subject parcel at any one time. Staff may increase this number on a permanent or temporary basis to the extent that the applicant is able to demonstrate that a greater number will not unreasonably adversely affect neighboring properties. 15 Bags used to wet-store oysters on the tidelands shall be unison in color and shall be dark in color, such as browns,tans,cream and dark greens. Bags can have colored tags no larger than the size of a standard business card(2"X 3.5")attached for sorting purposes. 16. Equipment, structures and materials shall not be abandoned in shoreline or wetland area. 17 As identified in COL no.22,the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the repairs to the bulkhead will not adversely affect water quality,fish shellfish and other wildlife resources and habitats. 18. The facility building shall be set back at least 2 feet from the wall of the bulkhead. Such setback shall be measured from the exterior wall of the building to the inside wall of the bulkhead. 19. The building footprint shall not exceed 3,850 square feet plus an allowance for one foot roof eves. Page 2 of 2 7/30/2013 To: Mason County Hearing Officer Re: Comments and Requests From Adjacent Home Owners ("The Neighbors") Date: 10/12/20 From: The Neighbors We ("The Neighbors") are the homeowners north of the Pacific Rim Aquaculture's, LLC (the applicant) proposed project. (parcel 22406-53-00005) In 2012 we were the group that appealed the DOE shoreline permit for this site and later reached an agreed settlement. With only two exception, the same families have owned the seven properties for over forty years. We have learned we must organize and be vigilant to protect our property rights and residential neighborhood environment.And,thus our comments and requests with this memo. We would like to acknowledge that the applicant has met with us on several occasions and we have had many virtual discussions regarding their plans for the site. To date, we have a good working relationship with the applicant. Our overall goal is to avoid what we went through in 2012. We also would like express our thanks and appreciation to the county staff and particularly Marissa Watson for her timely and generous work answering our questions and providing material. 1. We request that ALL aspects and conditions of our 2012 Shorelines Hearing Appeal settlement be incorporated into any final permit by the county for PRA, LLC, and that PRA stipulate agreement to the settlement. 2. We request the applicant be required to remove from the site, all bio-waste from the aquaculture process. Further we request the applicant be prohibited from disposing of the waste of the filtration system in the existing permitted septic system on the site. 3. We request that at a minimum,the applicant strictly adhere to all county ordinances regarding light, sound and odor limits for the property. 4. We request that all construction of new facilities and equipment meet the minimum county seawallibulkhead setback of twenty-five feet. We further request that the applicant meet all necessary existing building standards for completion of the existing warehouse type building on the property. Thank you for your time. Our group may attend the Zoom hearing on the 15t`. Marissa Watson From: Jim Boldt <duckabushcommunications@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 2:36 PM To: Marissa Watson;Amy Morris-Young Subject: Morris/PRA, LLC.-formal comments and requests for county shorelines application Attachments: final comments and rquests to application.doc Marissa, Attached are the comments and requests from "the Neighbors" regarding Pacific Rim Aquaculture, LLP's application for substantial shoreline development variances, parcel 22406-53-00005. Please enter our document into the record of the hearing on the 15th of October, 2020. Thank you Jim Boldt For"The Neighbors" Beacon Point 40600 Hwy 101 North Lilliwaup,Washington 98555 253-797-1617 "The STAND a person takes on an issue is usually determined by where they SIT for dinner!" Please consider our environment before printing this document. The information contained in this message and its attachments is intended only for the recipients)named above. This information may be privileged and confidential in nature and protected by law, including litigant contractual matters and copyright. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error,please delete the message with its attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank you. 0 _-- Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 MASON COUNTY • COMMUNITY SERVICES Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Notice of Application and Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC,who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for Shoreline Variance and Substantial Development Permit (SHR2020-00006)to finish constructing,to current Building Code, a previously permitted storage building (3848sf),which is setback two feet from the bulkhead on parcel 22406-53-00005.The storage building was previously permitted under a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2012-00013) and Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2012-00005),with the previous use being shellfish processing and storage.These permits have since expired. The current application (SHR2020-00006) intends to re-permit the storage building for the use as an Aquaculture Hatchery.The new proposal also includes the addition of a water intake/outflow system (1,200sf) and algae growth system (2,400sf), outside of the existing storage building, but all within the buffer and setback of the shoreline. Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC has also proposed to renew the use of the tidelands as an oyster harvest site.This portion of the project is not reviewed in the application because no structures within the water are being proposed in conjunction with the harvesting. Location:40560 N US Highway 101, Lilliwaup, Wa 98555 Parcel Number: 22406-53-00005 Date of complete Application:August 14,2020 The proposed development is reviewed under the applicable chapters of the Shoreline Master Program, Resource Ordinance,Title 15,and Shorelines of Statewide Significance Regulations.The proposal requires Hearing Examiner approval,with final approval with the Department of Ecology. This proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1)(b). Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should join the virtual Public Hearing via Zoom on October 14, 2020 at 1:00p.m. or mail comments or questions to Marissa Watson, Planner, Mason County Department of Community Services, 615 W. Alder St.; Shelton,WA 98584. Or Email at MWatson@Co.mason.wa.us. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held on October 14,2020 at 1:00 p.m. by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project via Zoom. Directions on how to access the hearing will be located on the Mason County website at https://www.co.mason.wa.us/hearings-examinerlindex.php under the appropriately dated agenda,or you can call the Hearing Examiner Clerk at 360.427.9670 ext. 365 for assistance.Written and oral testimony will be accepted up to the close of the hearing. A decision on these applications will be made within 120 days of the date of the complete application. v� F-ACOn1 PC r r An Lk C-F— Pmv� . pL2LIF— Al � �� o�� o� �' /Z XV 19 O FO SHAD H ^TCH EAR Y f2ACIF' IC- N , I� wy PP, D-, � t t , I . ,po sip - Po t M r Y.� ,T t --__- � � CEXIsII�G -- -1-- --- ►��F CA WA TC-P- WATT-:Z, VVAT4� W A- e-P-- ��� F I L.-TGIR, N -----� It �13r:-:: S I \ N To So LtT14 N . . K y 4 aV 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. Signature of Property Owner Date Print Name OR Zo '��y � Aii /17U &0 Signatur f Applicant ate Print NVne H U N L 1=_Iv I c_/iv.1-1) v V v ,v L--1C--2 ,. U Parcel Number: 224065300004 Legal Description: BEACON POINT RESORT LOT: 4 &TJL'S ADJ Size in Acres: 0.27 Owner: 9 LAUZEN, GARY L & DEBRA J 423 209TH AVE SE SAMMAMISH WA 980747005 Parcel Number: 224065300003 Legal Description: BEACON POINT RESORT LOT: 3 & S 33' OF LOT 2 &T.L's ADJ Size in Acres: 0.39 Owner: ( L) PAVLICEK, BRET B & DIANE L 40590 N US HWY 101 LILLIWAUP WA 98555 Parcel Number: 224065300001 Legal Description: BEACON POINT RESORT LOTS 1 & 2 EX S 33' OF LOT 2 7 T.L's ADJ Size in Acres: 0.43 Owner: BOLDT, JAMES M & CYNTHIA 40600 N US HIGHWAY 101 LILLIWAUP WA 985559708 Parcel Number: 224063290030 Legal Description: PCL 2 OF BLA#04-02 PTN TR 3 G.L.4 Size in Acres: 0.34 Owner: LANGLOW ET AL,JENNY L K& B SELLS,P & S SKANSI, L GRAHAM, J &J NAKAHARA 45218TH STREET TACOMA WA 98406 Ocean Reef Holdings LLC Affiliated with Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC c/o 3912 134th St NE Marysville, WA 98271 i I David Cui, Owner/ Primary Officer (877) 333-6699 (206) 666-6678 June 4, 2020 MEMO TO: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife To WDFW: I am the owner of Ocean Reef Commodities Group LLC, a seafood wholesaling operation with a base of operations in Marysville, Washington. I am the primary Partner of Ocean Reef Holdings LLC, which was established for the purchase of the real estate parcel at 40560 N. Highway 101, in Lilliwaup, Washington, in April, 2020. 1 am also the primary officer of Pacific Rim Aquaculture LLC, a venture corporation in WA state, which was formed in 2012 with the goal of establishing a seafood hatchery for indigenous shellfish including, but not limited to, abalone, geoduck and sea cucumbers. Pacific Rim Aquaculture has my/our express permission to harvest and sell oysters from the tidelands of 40560 N. Hwy 101. This parcel was used for oyster farming prior to our purchase, and we wish to re-establish that use of the property and its existing shellfish. Thank you for your assistance, David Cui Mason County Planning Department RE: Pacific Rim Aquaculture proposal for 40560 N Hwy 101 Zoning: Rural Residential 5 Shoreline Designation: Residential (buffer 100ft+ 15ft structure setback) Front setback:25 ft from the outer boundary of the access easement/right-of-way closest to the development. FEMA Floodplain:Zone VE with BFE of 18.00 ft A VE zone is a Coastal High Hazard Area. It is an area of special flood hazard extending from off shore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources.The area is designated on the FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) as Zone V1-30,VE,or V. (V=Velocity and the E means that an elevation (base flood elevation) has been assigned to this zone.) Regulations on Coastal High Hazard Areas are found in Mason County Code (MCC) 14.22.220. Please note that elevations are in relation to mean sea level. The planning department only makes a determination whether development is inside or outside the floodplain. It is the building department that will determine if elevating and other methods of floodproofing are required. Beyond MCC 14.22.220,the building code has regulations regarding flood proofing and that code is vague regarding commercial buildings in VE zones,thus the need for FEMA input. At this time our building department contact,Trish Woolett, is still waiting on a response from FEMA. They have acknowledged that they are researching the topic. At the pre-application meeting on 02/03/2020, which included the applicants,the building department, planning, public works, environmental health, and the fire marshal,the proposal presented included an indoor aquaculture hatchery,outdoor tanks, outdoor water heater and pump house, and use of an existing house as a manager/custodian dwelling. Because the site is roughly 146 ft wide,at its widest point, and narrows even further to the south,the standard shoreline setback and buffer could not be met with this proposal.The required front setback further limits the site's development. At the widest point of the property the setbacks would limit development to approximately 6 ft that would further narrow to the south.Thus the Mason County Shoreline Master Program would require the applicant(s)to apply for a Shoreline Variance and Substantial Development Permit. A Habitat Management Plan is required to be submitted as part of the variance permit package. During the site visit on 03/03/2020,which included the applicants,the county planning department, and Department of Ecology, it was mentioned that the outdoor tank portion of the proposal would occupy the area suitable for mitigation. Per MCC 17.50.110.B.1.g.iii,the County may also approve use of alternative mitigation practices such as in-lieu fee programs, mitigation banks, and other similar approaches provided they have been approved and sanctioned by the Department of Ecology and other applicable state and federal agencies.Although this was not discussed at the site visit,the county and Ecology also noticed that there may be opportunities for some on-site mitigation. This could include removal of gravel and debris, and possibly some riparian planting. If you decide to start the process of applying for the shoreline permits,a Shoreline Permit with Shoreline Variance attachment form must be filled out, all questions must be addressed, and required drawings provided.The shoreline permitting is required to go to a Hearing Examiner for decision,with final review and decision by Ecology. The project will be evaluated to determine whether it meets • Shoreline variance criteria (WAC 173-27-170) • The Shoreline Management Act,specifically RCW 90.58.020 • Shoreline substantial development criteria (WAC 173-27-150) • All applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master Program, including MCC 17.50.210 Aquaculture. Please note that the above is the Planning Department's notes based off of the site plan and project description that was provided at the pre-app meeting on 2/3/2020,discussion at the pre-app, and discussion on site on 03/03/2020.