BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCEEDINGS
June 13, 2000
Chairperson John A. Bolender called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. with the flag salute. Commissioners Cynthia D. Olsen and Mary Jo Cady were in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to approve the meeting minutes as circulated. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
C O R R E S P O N D E N C E
TIMBER ASSESSED VALUE (TAV) DISTRIBUTION
Notice was received from the Treasurers office of the TAV distribution in the amount of $269,393.06 for Current Expense; $1,837.90 Veterans Assistance; $4,102.45 Mental Health; and $300,375.71 for County Road.
MASON COUNTY ANNUAL REPORT
Received a copy of Mason Countys 1999 Annual Financial Report submitted by the Auditor.
SETTLEMENT OF STATE OF WASHINGTON V. NINE WEST GROUP, INC.
The Washington State Attorney Generals Office announced availability of funds from the settlement of State of Washington v. Nine West Group, Inc. in the amount of $633,000. Qualified entities can apply for grants up to July 7, 2000.
HIGHWAY 101 BYPASS
Brian Coolidge wrote of his concerns for Highway 101 Bypass. Copy also went to Public Works.
B U S I N E S S
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS
Special Occasion License for Alderbrook Ladies Club; Date: June 27, 2000; Time: 5 8 pm; Place: Alderbrook Golf & Yacht Club.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded there are no objections to the Special Occasion License for Alderbrook Ladies Club; Date: June 27, 2000; Time: 5 8 pm; Place: Alderbrook Golf & Yacht Club. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
Special Occasion license for Allyn Community Association; Date: July 15, 2000; Time: 11 am 10 p.m.; Place: Fenced area, Allyn Park, Allyn, WA.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded there are no objections to the Special Occasion license for Allyn Community Association; Date: July 15, 2000; Time: 11 am 10 p.m.; Place: Fenced area, Allyn Park, Allyn, WA. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
HEARING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
Ione Siegler, Budget & Finance Director, presented the staff report to consider a supplemental appropriation to the Current Expense Fund in the estimated amount of $87,630.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to approve the supplemental appropriation to the 2000 Current Expense Budget in the amount of $87,630 as presented by Budget Director Ione Siegler. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye. Order signed. (Exhibit A)
HEARING SET - SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
The Board heard a request to set a hearing for consideration of a supplemental appropriation.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded the Board approve Resolution No. 53-00 and set a public hearing on a proposed supplemental appropriation to the budget for the Current Expense Fund in the estimated amount of $15,000 for July 5, 2000 at 3:45 pm in the Commissioners Chambers, Courthouse Building I. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye. Resolution No. 53-00 (Exhibit B)
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE GRANT
Harris Haertel, Probation Services Administrator, explained that in 1998 they submitted a grant to the Washington State Law & Justice Advisory Council asking for funding in the amount of $43,000. The funding was designated to hire a restorative justice planner to develop community boards of citizen volunteers. These volunteers when trained are responsible to conduct conferences with non-violent misdemeanor offenders referred by District Court and then submit sentencing recommendations to the court for action. One of the goals of the grant was to increase community involvement with criminal justice system in a meaningful way. An interagency cooperation among the criminal justice agencies. Another goal was to reduce recidivism amongst offenders. In 1999 Linda Bondurant was hired as a restorative justice planner and the citizen boards were implemented. The community involvement and interagency cooperation has been realized. Recidivism also appears to be positively impacted.
He informed the Board that the Washington State Law & Justice Advisory Council has approved funding in the amount of $43,000 for the period of July 1, 2000 - June 30, 2001. He will be working with the Budget & Finance Director to bring back a request for supplemental appropriation.
Mr. Haertel recognized those who have actively participated in the project. The key to maintaining the restorative justice project is the willingness of District Court Judge Victoria Meadows; Linda Bondurant has been tireless in making sure the project has a restorative justice/community justice framework; and this project would not continue without the hard work and dedication of citizen volunteers: Jim Connolly, Ray Harley, Harry Martin, Sue Shelton, Ray Hansen, Mark Weston, Lyla & Melvin Hadley.
Judge Meadows added that those individuals participating in the restorative justice program are gaining from the volunteer standpoint and the offenders who are referred. The individuals are not the first time easy to deal with criminals. Some of the people have over five convictions. It is a challenge for everybody involved. Those individuals who put forth the effort are succeeding.
Linda Bondurant stated the volunteers are the part that changes the offenders thinking.
Jim Connolly expressed that this is one of the most fulfilling programs he has participated in.
Harry Martin added that Linda Bondurant has done a fantastic job with this program.
Ray Carley noted that they have a unique opportunity in working with the offenders. It is rewarding when you see someone succeed.
Chairperson Bolender concluded this program would not be happening without the substantial cooperation amongst all the people involved.
COPS IN SCHOOLS GRANT
Sheriff Whybark stated he has presented a quick offer to the school districts in the County that were not provided a school-based officer to see the numbers. They indicated they would be interested in seeing the numbers. This would include an officer for five districts: Grapeview, Hood Canal, Pioneer, South Side, and Mary M. Knight. They would ask for the monies to provide an officer to travel between the five different school districts as an officer on campus to provide training, research, and criminal enforcement for the next three years. The grant request is in the amount of $125,000.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to authorize the Sheriffs Department to apply for a federal COPS grant in the amount of $125,000 over three years for a school-based officer for five school districts and authorize the chair to sign. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
HEARING MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
The Board held a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 34-00, which extended the moratorium on the establishment of sexually oriented businesses in unincorporated Mason County, per RCW 36.70A.390.
Gary Yando, Community Development Director, explained that in January of 1998 the County adopted a moratorium prohibiting the location of any sexually oriented businesses in the unincorporated area of Mason County. The reason for the extensions is Mason County has been working on the out of compliance and invalidity orders associated with Growth Management and have found it difficult to have dedicated staff time to bring the draft ordinance through the public process.
He asked that the Board concur with the resolution approved on April 25, 2000 for continuation of the moratorium for six months.
Howard Spear commended the commissioners for having the moratorium until there can be proper provision for regulation and recommend the continuance until that can be accomplished.
Mr. Yando interjected that a draft ordinance has been completed and it will be sent out for the review of the Planning Commission and those that have shown interest in the past and also the Planning Department and Sheriff with a tentative schedule for a hearing before the Planning Commission on the third Monday of August.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to concur with action taken on April 25, 2000 and adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions associated with the moratorium approved per Resolution No. 34-00. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PARADISE ESTATES
Shandra OHaleck, Planner, presented the staff report for Paradise Estates proposal to dredge an existing Mason Lake marina and the placement of fill within a shoreline location.
The Planning Staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall comply with the specifications and conditions of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic project approval for this project.
2) A US Army Corps of Engineers Permit or Exemption in conjunction with a WA State Water Quality Certification shall be obtained prior to the performance of any activities waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark.
3) This project must comply with the general requirements of Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority Regulation 1 and Chapter 173-400 WAC.
4) The applicant shall comply with all requirements of Mason County Grading Permit Standards Chapter 33, Section 3309.4 and Section 3309.5 concerning engineered grading.
5) The applicant shall use best management practices for dredging and for placement of the fill and shall contain all material deposited within shoreline boundaries by bulkheading, diking, or other acceptable methods to prevent undesirable erosion.
6) All dredged materials shall be certified clean, and a copy of this certification provided to the Mason County Planning Department, prior to placing within shoreline jurisdiction.
7) All areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities must be revegetated, use bioengineering techniques, use clean durable riprap, or some other equivalent type of protection against erosion.
8) Dredging operations shall be self monitored to control leaks or spillage of dredged materials. Additionally, machinery or vessels shall use precautionary methods to prevent petroleum or hazardous materials from entering the water.
9) The project must be consistent with all the applicable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, its rules and the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
10) Applicant must coordinate with the Department of Ecology and Mason County Environmental Health Department to assure this dredging plan contains provisions for addressing potential Milfoil distribution.
Cmmr. Olsen asked what would be done with the material if it is contaminated.
Ms. OHaleck stated she believed it would be treated as a hazardous material and would no longer be approved for disposal on site.
Cmmr. Cady questioned what the situation is regarding Milfoil in that area.
Ms. OHaleck responded that Jerry Nelson May be able to answer that question.
Cmmr. Cady noted that Resource Management, Inc. has been taken out of the conditions and they have changed it to include Department of Ecology and Environmental Health.
Carl Franks asked who figured the numbers for the amount of material to be dredged as he found it to be grossly in error. There is reference to approximately 1.5 acres. There is 43,650 sq. ft. in an acre and when multiplied out he estimated the materials to be dredged at 3,630 cubic yards. He questioned how high of berm is being allowed. He did not believe there is room enough.
There is a drainage culvert and for some reason it has been deleted from the plan. He understood they were going to allow a 5 high berm. If the berm is only allowed to be 5 high there would be a maximum of 1,000 yards of material there.
He questioned about the Bass, which have spawned on site in the summer. Also, the bullfrogs have moved into the area and he was concerned about their staying in the area. He recommended that this project be postponed and put back until some of the unknown details are worked out.
Char Sapp submitted a map of the 1999 survey completed on Mason Lake showing the various Milfoil problems. She stated she is a resident and member of the Mason-Benson Club. She has recently been appointed a member of the Milfoil committee of Mason Lake. In addition, she submitted material explaining Milfoil and the problems associated with it. She noted that any miniscule part of an Asian Milfoil plant can transfer by water, boats, motor, wind, waterfowl and form new colonies of this evasive plant. The Environmental Protection Agency has indicated once in place it is there for good. Treatment can control its growth, but cannot eradicate it.
Seabie Sapp stated he has lived in Paradise Estates for over 20 years. He voiced concern about the lagoon. He concurred with the comments his wife made. He felt that if they start dredging material in an area where no one knows how deep it is and the material has been there for 30 years and they throw it up on the embankment it could be a health hazard.
The Board interjected that one of the conditions of the permit is if there are contaminants in the material it would not be placed where it is proposed to be placed.
Linda Reed, Chairman of the Milfoil Committee of Mason Lake, asked for postponement of the project until further information is available. The Paradise Estates lagoon is a somewhat sensitive area since it is privately owned. They have no jurisdiction over that area. The largest infiltration of Milfoil is on the outside of the lagoon. Anything going in has the potential to jeopardize the entire body of water.
Robert Hay, President of Paradise Estates, noted that most of the questions are internal questions. The engineer work on the lagoon was completed by Don Jordan. who is a retired engineer and has left the state. Bob Johnson architect has reconfirmed the figures, which were initially presented to the county. The berm work, which they are planning to do and how the berm will be constructed, is up to the engineer. The drainage plan for the culvert hasnt been submitted because they just spoke with the Army Corps of Engineers and have received a few ideas. When the drainage program is complete they will submit it to the Army Corps of Engineers and they will okay it from there. The Fish & Wildlife has provided a two-year window to complete the project.
He was on the Milfoil committee when it originally started. He does not recommend the project be held up. He talked with Resource Management Inc. who does not feel there is a conflicting problem due to the fact the Milfoil cleanup will be done well before they get into completing any work in the lagoon. Their window will likely be after Labor Day.
The lagoon is one-half to one acre in size. The Milfoil problem is very minor. The problem is outside the lagoon and in the lake. They will be taking and sealing off the lagoon so there is nothing going into the lake. All the dredge material will be put up on the shoreline. If the soil has contaminate it will be hauled off. They will follow the specifics the County requires to be done.
Cmmr. Cady asked how they propose to seal off the lagoon.
Mr. Hay responded there will be some sort of a barrier. They use some type of a heavy cloth barrier across the lagoon to keep anything going through there.
The Board questioned about notice to 30 of the 187 owners in the area.
Mrs. OHaleck responded that the regulations require that people within 300 of the project be notified.
Cmmr. Cady asked what the depth of the lagoon is.
Mr. Hay answered it is 5 - 8 feet from the surface of the water down to the hardpan.
It was questioned how effective the Milfoil treatment was in the lagoon last year.
Mr. Hay responded he understood from Resource Management Inc. there was no Milfoil left in the lagoon after the treatment. He has no knowledge of the current years status.
The Board also asked how large the marina is.
Mr. Hay stated it is 120 130.
Ron Moon stated he is a member of the Board and has been there since 1968. He explained they are going through the permit process. After the permits are obtained they can go to bid and try to determine which bidder will do the best job in the best manner that will be acceptable to all the agencies. They will be under a certain scrutiny. The figures submitted in the permit application are those that have been put together at the present time. They ask that the Commissioners issue their permit to proceed with their process and obtain the information they need.
Cmmr. Bolender asked if there were any calculations performed about the capacity of the waste area that is being proposed to hold the material.
Mr. Moon replied it was completed by a design architect, licensed engineer in the State of Washington.
Cmmr. Bolender asked if they were able to determine the area was large enough to accept approximately 1,500 yards of material.
Mr. Moon said originally it was supposed to be around 2000 yards of material.
Cmmr. Bolender asked if the area was reduced because the area was not suitable for taking more than 1500 yards of material.
Mr. Moon stated they will be excavating the material that is in the high bank, putting it in the front around the edge of the lagoon, putting the proper filter fabric, etc. and that will then be filled.. They do not know if they will dredge or pump it. This is strictly a presumed area, which will receive the fill, and is big enough to complete the job as now contemplated. If there is a problem they will have to accomplish other things to get rid of the materials.
Cmmr. Bolender noted that doing some quick calculations an acre is approximately 65,000 square feet. If they go down one and a half feet they are talking at least 3500 cubic yards of material. That is not what the permit is asking for. There is quite a difference in volume of material. If they excavated 1500 yards of material they would stop at that point. That May not be sufficient to add any benefit to what is being accomplished. He expressed concern that if the numbers are engineered there is a wide range of a variation in the numbers.
Mr. Moon stated at times the lagoon looks bigger than it is and there May not be as much sediment as in other areas.
Cmmr. Bolender asked how they reconcile the difference between 1500 and 3500 cubic yards of material.
Mr. Moon responded he cannot address that.
The Board asked about the footbridge design that is to be replacing the culvert.
Mr. Moon stated at the present time there is no footbridge. They dont know which type of facility they will be able to put in. The Corps of Engineers has just suggested another alternative they would prefer.
Dick Raymond voiced he is a property owner but does not live in the area. There are a lot of problems financing. He felt there could be good alternatives to study. He felt everyone in the community should have something to say about the project. He asked that the project be canceled or postponed and let the people who live there or have property there have more say on this.
Jerry Nelson stated he has property on Mason Lake. He has been on the Milfoil committee for most of the time. He too stressed that any little particle that breaks off the plant and the root will drift around and make another plant. That can live out of water up to six weeks. If they are planning on the dredging after October which is getting in the rainy season. If any of the particles wash back into the lake they are in trouble.
Carl Franks stated he is a retired engineer, superintendent from a construction company. He has yet to come across a job where the permit is bought and issued to the contractor and the work is accomplished. He strongly questioned the numbers issued for the volume. He stated a 5 high berm which is a triangle that is approx. 200 in length give or take plus or minus it would be just under 1,000 yards. It is a triangle 5 high by 50. He urged the Board to postpone the project to clarify the numbers listed.
Mr. Hay stated Paradise Estates has done a lot of work on the project. The Board of Trustees spent almost a year on this. They have made a lot of presentations to various committees and submitted requests. They have worked very close with each department in order to get as far as they have. They realize they are not done and have to take it to their board to sell the project. They need to move forward. The people that have done engineering work have a license and they depend on them. They are standing by their numbers.
Cmmr. Bolender stated when you multiply 44,000 square feet X 1.5 it is approximately 65,000 sq. ft X 1.5 feet (18") and now they are at a significant number. When that is divided by cubic yards it is approximately 3611 feet which is a rough calculation by a non-engineer. There seems to be a huge discrepancy.
He asked what they would propose if 1500 cubic yards of material is excavated and they find that they have only accomplished a third of the task.
Mr. Ray responded he assumed before they got to that point they would go back and recalculate their figures to see if they will stand behind the figures. If that didnt work they would need to haul the stuff out of there.
The Board stated that Fish & Wildlife have not commented. There was a comment brought up on bullfrogs and Bass.
Mrs. OHaleck referred to the copy of the hydraulic project approval issued for this project. Fisheries has taken habitat into consideration in the hydraulic project approval (hpa). She added that it appears the applicant will need to complete the project by 9/15/2000 otherwise they will need to have another hpa issued.
Cmmr. Cady stated that the design for footbridge is in the shorelines and there is no design.
Mrs. OHaleck responded that other departments are reviewing other issues with this. There is a grading permit on this project.
Cmmr. Cady stated she feels like they are not getting all of the facts. They are concerned that the other owners have not been part of the process. There is concern because there are no initial cost estimates, or that the amount of material is already questioned. It seems like there needs to be more preliminary work completed to give the answers. There seems to be too many discrepancies and concerns. She too voiced concern about the Milfoil. If there is a report coming out next month that tells how things went last year, it would be prudent to wait for that. She does not discount the amount of work gone on.
The Paradise Estates will meet on July 8.
The Board discussed the fact that the issue of financing is not within the Boards scope of consideration for the permit.
Cmmr. Cady encouraged that this hearing be continued to allow the 187 people have a chance for comment at the Paradise Estates meeting on July 8.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to continue the hearing on the shoreline substantial development permit #2000-0010 to July 11, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
LOWER HOOD CANAL GRANT APPLICATION
Debbie Riley, Environmental Health Manager, presented the Lower Hood Canal Source Identification Project with Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant G0000357. She explained this is the final document to be signed by the chair of the Board. The cost of the grant project is $74,800. The Centennial Clean Water Fund will provide $56,100 and $18,700 by the Lower Hood Canal Watershed Implementation funding.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to approve the Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant (#G0000357) between the State of Washington Department of Ecology in the amount of $74,800 of which $18,700 match will be coming from the Lower Hood Canal Watershed Implementation Committee Funds. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
TOBACCO PREVENTION MINI GRANT
The Board received a request to authorize to post, advertise and hire an Environmental Health Specialist I, II or III. This position will fill the vacancy created by Yvonne Roberts resigning to attend Veterinary School in Pullman, Washington.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to approve the request to post, advertise, and hire an Environmental Health Specialist I, II or III. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT - AMENDMENT #2
Steve Kutz, Public Health Services Director, presented Amendment No. 2 to the Washington State Department of Health Consolidated Contract. The changes and modifications include the addition of $2,188 to develop a tobacco coalition for Mason County; the other addition is reporting changes on the immunization contract.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to approve Amendment #2 to the Washington State Department of Health Contract (#C08617) in the amount of $2,188 for tobacco prevention for signature by the chairperson. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
The Board received a Professional Services Contract that was recommended for approval with Theresa Boling for the calendar year 2000. Mr. Kutz explained this is a renewal for a dental professional.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to approve the professional service contract with Theresa Boling in the maximum amount not to exceed $3,000. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
The staff report for the shoreline substantial development/conditional use permit for Mason County Public Works was presented by Shandra OHaleck. The proposal is to replace a failed culvert where Mason Lake Drive West crosses over Shumocher Creek.
The Planning Staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1) Applicant acknowledges this permit is for the submitted bridge design.
2) The applicant shall comply with the specifications and conditions of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval for this project.
3) A US Army Corps of Engineers Permit or Exemption in conjunction with a WA State Water Quality Certification shall be obtained prior to the performance of any activities waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark.
4) An erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed and submitted by the applicant prior to final project authorization by Mason County Planning Department. This plan must be designed to protect the creek, wetlands, and lake.
5) All dredged materials shall be moved to an upland site outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
6) All areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities must be revegetated, use bioengineering techniques, use clean durable riprap, or some other equivalent type of protection against erosion.
7) The project must be consistent with all the applicable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, its rules, and the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
Jerry Hauth, Public Works Director, stated that last summer he reviewed the draft ordinance and thought he had revised it to address issues. They are going to face these in a number of instances and it May not be the preferred option. There are other variables to be taken into account. Later on he will be asking the Board for authorization to purchase a number of bottomless culverts for different installations. In this case the proposed structure, box culvert, does meet the criteria necessary for the shorelines permit. It does meet the minimum requirements for Fish & Wildlife. Although it May not be the preferred alternative, but it does meet the minimum requirements. Historically, since 1993 they have been mitigating wetland impacts at a ratio of 3 or 4 to every 1 impacted. In this case, why it has been determined that a relatively pristine environment as referenced before should be allowed to be essentially drained, he cannot explain it. He referred to some maps and aerials of the project. They reviewed the creek and area of the wetland. He asked that the Board think of it relative to the actual size of the lake. It is approximately four miles. He referred to a USGS quads. There is a body of water that acts as a designed and engineered detention facilities.
Mason Lake is approximately 1,000 acres in surface area.
It was noted that Mr. Hauth works as a hydraulics engineers for the City of Edmonds as hydraulic engineer just under 10 years and has been involved through the state American Public Works Association, Surface Water Managers, the National Water Resource Managers Association.
Mr. Hauth stated that the purpose in the weirs although necessary for fish passage it was acknowledged that there were some limitations. It was their expectation that they will have to retain that surface area at a given elevation to maintain the wetland area, plus go in and manipulate the weirs during various seasons to stage floods. They would continue to use the area as a detention facility much like the dams at Lake Cushman.
Cmmr. Cady asked if there is any indication that the whole wetland area might be a breeding area for Kokanee.
Mr. Hauth responded that he has no knowledge of that.
During the largest flood events they are only passing a relatively small volume of water through there. It is being obstructed by the channel width, vegetation, and topography. Opening it up as it drains into the lake will allow the water to get to the lake quicker and at a higher volume. There is still no mechanism to convey it on through the lake.
Cmmr. Cady asked how much passage is there now with the temporary bridge in place.
Mr. Hauth commented that the bridge May be able to stay a little longer through the mid July. It is a 60 span bridge.
Rich Geiger stated the current opening is 25.
Mr. Hauth added there is a greater width as far as volume and it will vary according to the events.
Cmmr. Cady noted that several years ago there was heavy flooding and the lake level came up about two feet. There were distinct public health issues with the wells and septic systems being flooded on the lake. There are people who are opposing the permit and want to have a bridge put in, the rocks taken out, the log taken out and whatever water is in the system behind the logs in the wetland drainage would be allowed to flow freely than down into the lake. The Engineers professional opinion was that it would raise the level of the lake approximately two feet.
Mr. Hauth added that during a large storm event with a number of assumptions there is a potential in the range of feet as far as a storm event.
Cmmr. Cady asked if there was rain similar to the last week and this was free falling into the lake she asked what kind of harm there would be to the residents of the lake.
Mr. Hauth referred to three years ago when there was very wet weather. The worst case at the lake would be realized after they have had a month of rain and have had multiple storm events and the ground has reached a saturation point.
The Board stated if they could phase it would create more capacity back in the wetland so when the storm events happen Maybe there wouldnt be the drastic amount of flooding.
The question was raised on the difference of cost between the two proposals.
Mr. Hauth stated that between a 30 40 bridge structure vs. the box culvert there is no significant difference in cost. With a 100 bridge structure there could be a difference of cost. At one time the South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group proposed a steel bridge structure. He recommended strongly that the Board not consider that as it is a very high maintenance cost. They have systematically tried to get them out of the system.
The approximate cost for a 100 bridge would be $250,000 - $300,000. The box culvert is estimated at $100,000 $150,000.
In order to address the issue of bridge versus culvert they dont have to get out to 100 on the bridge.
Mr. Hauth stated that the rule of thumb is 1.5 stream widths. However, the velocity issue meets the minimum criteria.
The cost differential between a 60 bridge and the proposed box culvert would be $200,000 vs. $150,000.
Mr. Hauth added that there should be a stipulation that there are control structures to regulate the flow for any bridge structure.
In the SEPA compliance section Department of Ecology commented that the preferred alternative is a bridge. The Department of Fish & Wildlife has indicated that the average channel width of 32 should be met.
Todd Alsbury, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group Coordinator, stated they are the organization that came up with the comment that the original proposal did not meet fish passage requirements and they proposed at that time a bridge structure of at least 32 40 in width. This was based on the channel downstream of the creek, former culvert, which was impacted by the culvert and was widened by the culvert unnaturally. It May be a little less than 32 natural streambed. If they were to put in a bridge structure according to fish passage design requirements they only need to meet 1.2 times the width. With a bridge structure with no fixed bottom they do not need to meet an exact width requirement so even a 32 bridge structure May be proper. It would depend on water velocities through the structure. They would get somewhere between a 32 40 structure to not only meet, but exceed fish passage requirements. Also a point of contention is a grade control structure can take many forms. It could be a log weir, concrete rock weir, a roughened channel which would fix the wetland level at a certain point. It wouldnt necessarily be a structure in a stream, but would meet and exceed fish passage requiremetns. It would also be very satisfactory for the structural integrity of the bridge.
The Board commented that when bank stabilization work was occurring in Skokomish River the Fish & Wildlife told the County they could not introduce concrete into the river.
Mr. Alsbury stated that many times when they are introducing concrete, they are thinking about pouring concrete into the river, or having wet concrete in the streams. They have projects that were concrete and they were poured outside of the stream.
The fact that the entire wetland would be drained is not accurate. They have discussed with Public Works staff that the wetland is 110 acres in size. The amount of area impacted is 10 acres. With the structure as it is they would have 100 acre wetland.
The Board questioned why they would say that when there is definitely a slope with water running downhill. It seems to impact more than 10 acres.
Mr. Alsbury stated their original proposal actually maintained the wetland at its pre-existing level. They wanted to put a bridge, which would maintain the wetland. The problem they found was that there is no way to do that and meet fish passage requirements because the velocity through the structure would be too fast. They tried to compromise with that and allow a regrade into the wetland, which would become essentially stream spawning habitat instead of rearing habitat. They loose a little bit of wetland habitat and rearing potential and gain spawning potential.
They hired a professional engineer to study the site and from his determination the regrade would go from 200 400 up into the wetland and then would stop. The rest of the wetland would be maintained and the margins of the wetlands would become smaller, but there would still be a significant area of wetland for rearing habitat for fish and storage capacity for downstream impacts on Mason Lake.
Cmmr. Bolender asked about the potential investment of $250,000 or possibly twice as much as the minimum option, and what was to gain if the restriction below the lake doesnt allow the fish to get to the passage that they are trying to remove.
Mr. Alsbury stated SPSSEG has $10,000 appropriated towards a conceptual design report which has been completed for replacing those culverts and providing fish passage at that structure (navy railroad bridge).
The Navy is currently reviewing the design and is involved in the process. They are approaching Norm Dicks office to get legislative and federal assistance in getting the money for that. It is going to be something that will be done in the near future.
Based on the fact that Sherwood Creek and system is one of the most significant systems for Salmon in the South Sound they feel it is very important to do everything they can to restore it the best way they can the first time.
They talk about how it will meet minimum requiremetns and that is also one of the big issues that it will meet minimum requirements. Those requiremetns are basically geared toward adult fish passage and not juvenile fish passage. The big issue is the design will not be good for juvenile fish passage. The true impact of the bridge having an increased impact on Mason Lake is Five Pipes, the outlet to Mason Lake. From their engineers determination, the water level impact on Mason Lake would be in inches and not in feet.
The culvert design does not bring the wetland back up to the original level where it was pre-existing. Even with the box culvert design there would be a lowering of the wetland. They are not proposing a 100 bridge. They proposed from the beginning a concrete bridge with a rough in channel. Public Works did report that they noted peat moss and other material in the wetland that would act as a sponge or retaining devise for water. Every agency has recommended a bridge. They always come back to that being the recommended design from all the agencies, except the one that has to pay for it. He argued that the box culvert with the three-weir design will be at least expensive as the bridge.
Public Works original estimate for the box culvert was $98,000. If they include three weirs to the proposal those could be anywhere from $10,000 - $15,000. With the weirs they also have significant impact further than putting in the bridge. That is also an argument to not put in weirs if they dont have to.
Cmmr. Bolender stated they are balancing environmental and economic issues. He questioned if there is a way to quantify the additional environmental value that would come out of a larger investment. If they invest another 50% in resources he asked if they are gaining 50% or 10% of 1% in additional benefit and what benefits are being lost.
Mr. Alsbury stated it is difficult to measure it. They look at the current situation with salmon recovery where the only way to recover salmon is to provide the habitat that they previously used. They need to do everything they can to put the systems back to a natural functioning system. They agree that loosing a little bit of the wetland habitat is going to impact some of the plant species and even wildlife species that might live on the margin. They havent quantified any potential loss of land value on the lake, because they didnt see any potential loss.
Cmmr. Bolender noted that they have a restriction on the outlet and have previously had a restriction on the inlet. If the restriction on the inlet is taken there is still a restriction on the outlet. They still perceive some increase in lake elevation.
Robin Meyers, Biologist for Public Works, clarified about functions and values of wetlands. A biologist can look at certain things; open water components, emergent vegetation, shrubs, trees, covers, etc. There is a certain protocol methodology that the information is input such as how large the area is, large woody debris, snags. All of this information goes into the functions and values assessment. It gives a number and looks at every component of the system. Storm water tenuation, habitat for amphibious and other animals, fish and stream components, off stream channels, open water, etc. When there is an alteration to these systems and go back and run the test again, the numbers can be different. The wetland can have the same I index which is its value for the wetland.
Shandra OHaleck stated she went out to Mason Lake yesterday after having an unusual storm event last weekend when the Skokomish Valley flooded. Schumocher Creek is flowing fine and the wetland has flood storage capacity.
She indicated that Mr. Hauth has asked Allan Tahja to perform a watershed hydraulics analysis on the effect of the lake and at the most the lake will come up two feet.
Mr. Hauth stated the analysis has been documented and that is based on a number of assumptions and hopefully they were realistic. They determined lake level increases and volume behind that prior structure present. That was the basis for his comments before.
Cmmr. Olsen asked what it would take to double check and verify all the numbers.
Mr. Hauth responded in order to feel comfortable with the numbers it would take a calibration of a model. They assumed a given as far as inflow and outflow to be equal and ran through a hundred year event. One of the numerous types of hundred year events they would expect the worse case scenario to occur after a number of multiple storms coming through and Maybe not even as a result of a 100 year event, but after a long duration of a wet period.
Cmmr. Cady noted that a few years ago there were several 100-year events within a three-month period of time. It was estimated the lake came up two feet at that time. She questioned if it would come up that same two feet.
Mr. Hauth stated that nothing has changed downstream and if there was the same kind of storm coming in through there, there is nothing that would deter it from coming up that same two feet. He expected the flow would continue to be the same.
Cmmr. Cady questioned if Department of Ecology would allow the County to get rid of the barrier downstream before they do anything with the current project.
She stated she is not willing to issue a permit that would add more water into the problem area now.
The Board would like to get the right structure for fish passage and still protect the people downstream.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to continue the hearing to Tuesday, July 25, 2000 at 8:15 p.m. for the purpose of obtaining more information. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
The Board recessed at 12 noon until 12:10 p.m.
HEARING RESTRICTED PARKING
The Board held a public hearing to consider restricting parking on the North Side of Treasure Island Road, County Road No. 64980 from Milepost 0.10 to Milepost 0.12.
Bill Bullock, Public Works Transportation Planning Engineer, explained that a request has been received from the Treasure Island Community Club for a "No Parking" zone to be placed on the North Side of Treasure Island Road in the vicinity of its intersection with Grapeview Point Road, a private road. They have indicated the vehicles on the shoulders create a hazard as a visibility of the intersection of Grapeview Point Road is restricted entering onto Treasure Island Road.
It is recommended that the parking restriction be imposed on the North side of Treasure Island Road from Milepost 0.10 to Milepost 0.12 (50 either side of the intersection of Grapeview Point Road).
The intent for the parking restriction was to go from the bridge up to Grapeview Point Road and 50 beyond to provide the site distance to the west.
The interpretation of Public Works was that there was a problem with the site distance leaving Grapeview Point Road and that was the extent of the problem. There is Maybe two feet of shoulder and vehicles would certainly encroach on the paved area.
Cmmr. Bolender stated he understood vehicles are parking in the area and it is causing a hazard to people who are trying to drive across the bridge.
A site distance issue identifies two areas of 50 on either side of the Grapeview Point Road intersection. There is also an issue of exiting and entering the bridge. Vehicles have to physically park on each side of the bridge and wait for oncoming vehicles to cross before they proceed.
Cmmr. Cady questioned why vehicles are parking there.
Mr. Bullock stated the two or three times he has been out there during the week he did not see any vehicles parking in the area.
Gary Longmire stated the issue being discussed is the shoulder area that goes from the bridge beyond the Grapeview Point Road. There is an individual that has a substantial amount of vehicles including campers, trailers, trucks and they tend to park for an extended period of time. When coming off the bridge traffic has to wait. If a truck comes off the bridge from the island side to the shore side, all the vehicles have to back up in unison to allow a truck to pass when there are vehicles parked on the side.
Jack McLaughlan explained he lives on Treasure Island. He has called the Sheriffs Department because someone has parked a motorhome with trailer or boat behind it and once in a while runs a power cord across the road.
Jennie Chesley also lives on Treasure Island and has called the Sheriff to get rid of the junk in the yard. When they park their vehicles on the shoulder it is not just overnight, it can be there for over two weeks. They cant see the travelling vehicles coming from the other road. It is a problem, which she felt needs to be fixed.
There was discussion that leaving a vehicle on a right-of-way beyond 48 or 72 hours is considered an abandoned vehicle and can be towed.
There was discussion to consider the restriction from the bridge to 50 beyond the Grapeview Point Road.
Mr. Bullock read a letter dated March 23, 2000 from the Treasure Island Community Club, Inc. noting their intent is to restrict parking from the Treasure Island Bridge to a point beyond Grapeview Point Road.
The Board felt it would be reasonable to continue the hearing and give adequate notice for consideration of the parking restriction.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to continue the hearing to July 18, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. to consider expanding the "No Parking" restriction on the north and south sides of the street from Grapeview Loop Road to the Treasure Island Bridge. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BOLZ
Mr. Borden submitted the staff report for the shoreline substantial development permit sought by Bruno Bolz. The proposal is to construct a boathouse as part of an addition to an existing residence along Hood Canal.
It was recommended that the Board approve the shoreline permit with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall implement temporary erosion control measures (silt fencing, matting, and straw bales) during site preparation and construction.
2) The applicant shall use best management practices for construction of the structure and shall remove construction debris from the shoreline area following project completion.
3) The applicant shall implement the approved proposal in a manner that is consistent with all policies and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and its rules, the standards of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, and the building codes of the Mason County Building Department.
The Board reviewed the pictures of the project site.
It was noted the property is located west of the Sunset Beach Grocery.
The Board noted that it looks like the Bolz house is sitting on the beach. It was questioned if there is water up against the house.
Mr. Bolz responded at a 14 tide they would get water against the house.
A letter was acknowledged from Gladys Flakus, neighbor, who is in favor of the project.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to approve the shoreline substantial development permit for Bruno Bolz with the three conditions and adopt the Findings of Fact for the chairs signature. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE PROJECT ENGINEER
The Public Works Director asked for authorization to hire a project engineer to fill a vacancy.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to authorize the Department of Public Works to post, advertise, interview and hire to fill the position of Project Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
DESIGN SERVICES - CENTRAL SHOP FACILITY
Jerry Hauth, Public Works Director, requested the Board authorize Public Works to solicit proposals for provide design services for the proposed Mason County Central Shop Facility.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded the Board authorize the Department of Public Works to select consultants from the Mason County 2000 Consultant Roster, request proposals, select a consultant and negotiate a contract to provide design services for the proposed Mason County Central Shop facility, and authorize the chair to execute the contract for those services. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
CRP 1618 - BELFAIR-TAHUYA ROAD
The Board received a request to close the Belfair-Tahuya Road to traffic from 8:00 a.m. on Monday, June 26 to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 30, 2000 to facilitate the installation of a culvert.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to approve a resolution to close the Belfair Tahuya Road at Milepost 0.22 from 8:00 a.m. Monday, June 26 to 5:00 p.m. Friday, June 30, 2000 to remove and replace a large culvert in School House Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye. Resolution No. 54-00 (Exhibit C)
CALL FOR BIDS TIMBER HARVESTING
Mr. Hauth asked for approval to call for bids for timber harvesting from three Mason County road projects: Cloquallum Road CRP 1471, Crestview Drive CRP 1235, and Belfair-Tahuya CRP 1525. The forest practice applications, which were approved two years ago, are coming due and they cannot be renewed. He stated he did not have a suggested bid date at this time because they are pulling together the pieces for the contract. They will contact the Clerk to establish a bid time when available.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to authorize the Department of Public Works to call for bids for timber harvesting on CRPs 1235, 1471, and 1525. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
CRP 1680 BEAR CREEK DEWATTO ROAD
The Board received a request to replace a culvert to remove fish blockage in Bear Creek.
Cmmr. Cady asked what kind of arrangements has been made to administer the contract between Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group for this project. She stated that the County needs to establish formal contract agreements which outlines the Countys involvement will be on the specific project(s).
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to approve CRP 1680, Bear Creek Dewatto Road, for replacement of a culvert to remove fish blockage in Bear Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye. Resolution No. 55-00. (Exhibit D)
SOLICIT PHONE QUOTES - CALL FOR BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF LARGE CULVERTS
Mr. Hauth asked for the Boards approval to solicit phone quotes and/or call for bids for the purchase of large culverts necessary for the Old Belfair Highway and Bear Creek Dewatto Road. The pipes are large enough in size that they will be close to the phone quote limit.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit phone quotes and/or call for bids for the purchase of two large culverts to be placed in Bear Creek: one for CRP 1611, Old Belfair Highway and one for CRP 1680, Bear Creek Dewatto Road. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
SMALL WORKS ROSTER - CLEARING & GRUBBING
The last request presented by Public Works was to solicit telephone quotes/written bids from the small works roster for work on the Trails Road. There is one section out there that has not been upgraded by clearing and grubbing from milepost 3.32 to 4.38 (firehall to 5-pipes).
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded the Board authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit telephone/written bids for clearing and grubbing a section of Trails Road between milepost 3.32 and 4.38 (firehall to 5-pipes). Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
VETERANS ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS
Mark S. Einsel VFW 1694 Housing $400.00
Wendy Cooper VFW 1694 Utilities $374.90
Claude H. Harley VFW 1694 Housing $400.00
The Veterans Assistance Screening Committee is recommending approval on the above applications totaling $1174.90.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to approve the veterans assistance applications as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
The regular meeting adjourned at 1:02 p.m.
Rebecca S. Rogers
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
John A. Bolender, Chairperson
Mary Jo Cady, Commissioner
Cynthia D. Olsen, Commissioner