STAFF REPORTCITY OF
BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND
STAFF REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date: October 24, 2016
To: Gary R. Christensen, AICP, Director
From: Christy Carr, AICP, Senior Planner
Project: Imeson Shoreline Substantial Development Exemption
File Number: PLN50438 SSDE
Owner: Mike Imeson, Boulder Glen LLC
Project Location: 6967 NE Bergman Road
Tax parcel number 092502 -2- 060 -2009
Environmental
Review: The project is not subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as
provided in Washington Administrative Code (WAC 197 -11 -800).
I. Introduction
The subject property is located on the north shore of Little Manzanita Bay in the Shoreline Residential
Conservancy shoreline designation and Priority Aquatic A aquatic designation. The total parcel area is
4.5 acres, although only approximately 2.50 acres is upland area. The remaining parcel area is tideland.
The parcel is presently undeveloped. The proposed development activity includes the construction of a
single - family residence and associated appurtenance structures. Staff recommends denial of the
shoreline substantial development exemption (SSDE) application based on the findings of facts and
conclusions in this staff report and summarized in Section V (page 9).
All proposed uses and development occurring within the shoreline jurisdiction must conform to the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master
Program (SMP). The proposed project meets the definition of "development" as provided in the SMA
and Bainbridge Island SMP; appropriately, the applicant submitted a Shoreline Substantial Development
Exemption (SSDE) application (Attachment A) and supporting documentation to evaluate the merits of
the permit request. Compliance with the provisions of the SMP, SMA and applicable BIMC regulations is
described below.
II. Compliance with Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master
Compliance with applicable sections of the Bainbridge Island SMP is described in the following sections:
PLN50438 Imeson SSDE Page 1
A. Section 3.0: Shoreline Designation Policies and Regulations
The purpose of the Shoreline Residential Conservancy designation is to accommodate compatible
residential uses while protecting, conserving, and restoring shoreline ecological functions and processes
Due to the more sensitive characteristics of these areas, a higher level of development standards is
warranted. As proposed, the proposal is not consistent with development standards addressing
setbacks, shoreline buffers, lot coverage limitations and protective measures for critical areas and water
quality.
B. Section 4.0: General (Island -wide) Policies and Regulations
Table 4 -1. Shoreline Use and Modification
Single- family residential development and appurtenant structures are permitted uses in the Shoreline
Residential Conservancy shoreline designation.
Table 4 -2. Dimensional Standards
Residential development is subject to the 30 percent side yard setback and zoning requirements. Staff
measured the 30 percent side yard from an east -west orientation. Lot width is approximately 325 feet;
therefore, the 30 percent side yard setback is 97.5 feet. The site plan shows approximately 125 feet in
total side yard. The proposal is consistent with the 30 percent side yard standard.
The subject property is located in the R -2 zoning designation and requires a 5 -foot minimum side yard.
The site plan shows a portion of the proposed residence within the minimum 5 -foot minimum side yard
setback. The proposal is not consistent with the minimum zoning side yard standard.
The maximum building height within the shoreline jurisdiction is 30 feet. No elevation drawings or other
information regarding height was provided by the applicant. Insufficient information was provided to
determine if the proposal is consistent with the maximum height standards.
Table 4 -3. Shoreline Buffers
The subject property is located in the Shoreline Residential Conservancy shoreline designation on an
undeveloped lot; as such, the prescriptive shoreline buffer is 150 feet.
C. Section 4.1.2: Environmental Impacts
All shoreline development, uses and activities are required to result in no net loss of ecological functions
and processes necessary to sustain shoreline resources. Compliance with the applicable provisions of
Section 4.1.2 are summarized in Section D. below.
D. Section 4.1.3: Vegetation Management
Site- Specific Vegetation Management Area
PLN50438 Imeson SSDE Page 2
Development within the shoreline jurisdiction must be located and designed to protect existing native
vegetation from disturbance to the fullest extent possible, to mitigate impacts to existing vegetation,
and to meet the standard of no net loss of ecological functions and processes. Two alternative methods
may be used to meet the goals and policies of the Vegetation Management Section. Due to the
configuration of the parcel — forming a headland on the north shore of Little Manzanita Bay — the 150 -
foot prescriptive shoreline buffer encumbers the majority of the property. Pursuant to SMP Section
4.1.3.5.3.a, the applicant is proposing specific dimensional standards to meet the Vegetation
Management goals and policies as determined through a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) prescribed in
SMP Appendix B -4.
Pursuant to SMP Appendix B -4:
• HMPs shall clearly demonstrate that greater protection of the functions and values of critical
areas can be achieved through the HMP than could be achieved through providing the
prescribed habitat buffers.
• HMPs are primarily intended as a means to restore or improve buffers that have been degraded
by past activity, and should preserve, and not reduce, existing high quality habitat buffers.
• HMPs shall provide habitat functions and values that are greater than would be provided by the
prescribed habitat buffers. When habitat buffers are a component of an HMP, they shall be at
least the minimum size necessary to accomplish the objectives of the HMP.
The HMP must demonstrate the following:
(1) The proposed development is for a residential use.
The proposal is for single - family residential use.
(2) The site - specific proposal assures there is no net loss of the property's specific shoreline
ecological functions and associated ecosystem -wide processes pursuant to Section 4.1.2, Impact
Analysis and No Net Loss.
The purpose of the prescriptive 150 -foot shoreline buffer on undeveloped lots in the Shoreline
Residential Conservancy designation is to "advance shoreline protection when future
development occurs" (Documentation of Marine Shoreline Buffer Recommendation Discussions,
Memorandum, 2011, Herrera Environmental). The HMP (Attachment B) proposes to reduce the
shoreline buffer to 50 feet, an area of no disturbance other than buffer enhancement; and
provide a "forest protection zone," the remaining forested area of the parcel to be conserved;
and a "mitigation zone," an 8,000 square foot area of invasive species removal and native
replanting.
Pursuant to SMP Section 4.1.2.4.1, all shoreline development, use and activities shall be located,
designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner that protects ecological functions and
ecosystem -wide processes and is required to utilize mitigation sequencing. The HMP provides a
summary of mitigation sequencing. The first action, in order of priority, in mitigation sequencing
is, "Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action" (SMP
Section 4.1.2.6.1.a). The HMP does not address why the proposed residence cannot be located
outside the prescriptive 150 -foot shoreline buffer in order to avoid impacts. It does state, "The
proposed septic system is also located in an area that is presently limited to herbaceous
PLN50438 Imeson SSDE Page 3
vegetation, so no clearing will be required to accommodate it" (See HMP, page 8). The HMP
does not state how big this area is and /or why the residence cannot also be located in an area
where no clearing will be required to accommodate it, thus avoiding impacts.
Further, the proposed residence is 4,139 square feet with a total lot coverage of 5,172 square
feet. (Note the HMP text and site plan provide different numbers for the square footage.) SMP
Section 4.2.1.7 contains provisions for encumbered lots —those parcels that are significantly
encumbered by shoreline or critical area buffers — including allowing a building area not to
exceed 2,500 square feet with maximum lot coverage of 1,200 square feet. While this section of
the SMP is not directly applicable, staff considers 1,200 square feet a good metric when
considering the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed lot coverage is nearly 4_5
times larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed on encumbered lots. The HMP does not address
the potential to minimize impacts by reducing the footprint of the house.
A number of actions are proposed to minimize impacts, including configuring the house to avoid
significant tree removal, constructing the house on piles to limit ground and root disturbance
and utilizing low impact development (LID) techniques including infiltration and pervious
pavement. These actions would minimize impacts relative to conventional construction
practices.
Rectifying impacts is proposed through post- construction site stabilization and invasive species
removal and replanting with native shrubs and groundcover in a total of 8,000 square foot area.
A direct tie is not made as to which specific impact invasive species removal is rectifying and
whether or not invasive species are, in fact, already performing buffer functions.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed through native vegetation replanting for "all vegetation
areas disturbed through construction of the house at a ratio of 2:1 for mitigation plantings
occurring within 50 feet from the OHWM and 3:1 for mitigation plantings within 50 -150 feet
from the OHWM" (See HMP, page 9). The total temporary disturbance footprint of the house is
stated to be 5,154 square feet (see HMP, page 6); however, the total lot coverage of the house
is 5,172 square feet which likely means the total disturbance area is greater than stated. The
HMP also states the house will be accessed by an approximately 100 - foot -long by 10- foot -wide
pervious driveway. The conceptual drainage plan included in the HMP shows the driveway to
range from 13 to over 15 feet wide. The site plan included in the HMP shows the driveway with
a 6,378 square foot footprint.
Presuming the numbers in the HMP are relatively accurate, the total area disturbed through
construction of the house and driveway is approximately 11,532 square feet, although the HMP
proposes only to mitigate for areas disturbed for construction of the house. This may be
because the proposed driveway follows an area where existing vegetation is limited to mowed
grasses, although no rationale is provided for not providing mitigation for the driveway
footprint. The mitigation planting plan included in the HMP shows four mitigation areas totaling
10,050 square feet. Two of these areas, totaling 2,550 square feet are separated, and likely
functionally isolated, from the shoreline by the existing and proposed driveway. A third 6,500
square foot area is located outside of the proposed 50 foot shoreline buffer with the smallest
(1,000 square feet) area located within the proposed 50 foot shoreline buffer. Given these areas
and their locations, it is unclear how "a ratio of 2:1 for mitigation plantings occurring within 50
PLN504381meson SSDE Page 4
feet from the OHWM and 3:1 for mitigation plantings within 50 -150 feet from the OHWM" is
achieved.
The site - specific proposal in the HMP is required to assure there is no net loss of the property's
specific shoreline ecological functions and associated ecosystem -wide processes. While the HMP
provides a summary of potential impacts to shoreline ecological functions associated with
residential development (See Table 1, page 10), it does not adequately summarize the
property's specific shoreline ecological functions and associated ecosystem -wide processes. For
example, Herrera's Marine Shoreline Buffer Recommendations Discussions Memo states:
Buffers to protect the large woody debris function important to habitat structure and shoreline
stability were suggested to be between 33 and 328 feet. However, given that trees located 300
feet landward from the edge of a bluff or bank would not immediately be recruited on the
nearshore, consideration should be given to the site's potential tree height and the current and
expected rate of bluff or bank retreat when establishing buffers for providing large woody debris.
The proposed development includes removal of six significant trees. While the configuration of
the house minimizes the number of trees removed, the HMP does not describe the property's
specific functions and processes relative to the role of significant trees in wood and debris
recruitment or slope stability. Removal of riparian vegetation is particularly important for
ecosystem -wide processes at the reach or landscape scale relative to forage fish and salmonid
habitat:
By maintaining bank stability and contributing large wood to the aquatic environment riparian
vegetation forms and maintains habitat complexity. Riparian vegetation and large wood improve
beach stability and contribute to roughness and sediment trapping. This includes improved
capacity of beaches to retain sand, a crucial substrate for forage fish spawning (Pentilla 2007).
The HMP notes the presence of both forage fish spawning and juvenile salmonid habitat at the
site and in the project area, but does not address how the potential impacts or proposed
mitigation will protect or otherwise affect these ecosystem -wide processes.
Interactions between riparian vegetation and the nearshore marine environment are important
to the survival and population of numerous species. The establishment of significant protection
for marine riparian areas is an important management strategy. The West Sound Nearshore
Integration and Synthesis Project was recently conducted to identify priority areas and priority
nearshore project opportunities to support the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawyscho). Out of 421 projects, protection of the subject property and
adjacent and nearby properties associated with Little Manzanita Creek was ranked eighth on the
list of Tier 1 priority projects, with Tier 1 intended to be a small, selected subset of the most
beneficial projects.
Overall, the HMP does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed site - specific management
area assures no net loss of the property's specific shoreline ecological functions and associated
ecosystem -wide processes. Specific project impacts are not identified, project avoidance and
minimization measures are inadequate, there is no direct tie between project impacts, site -
specific conditions and functions and proposed mitigation measures, and ecosystem -wide
processes— particularly those associated with forage fish spawning and juvenile salmonid
habitat — are not addressed.
PLN50438 Imeson SSDE Page 5
(3) The site - specific proposal uses the scientific and technical information compiled to support the
shoreline buffer standards of Section 4.1.3.5(3)(b), and /or other appropriate technical
information which, as determined by a qualified professional, demonstrates how the proposal
protects ecological functions and processes and how it meets the goals and policies of the
Vegetation Management Section.
Scientific and technical information supporting the shoreline buffer standards is provided in:
Documentation of Marine Shoreline Buffer Recommendation Discussions, Memorandum, 2011,
Herrera Environmental; Addendum to Summary of Science, 2011, Herrera Environmental;
Bainbridge Island Current and Historic Coastal Geomorphic /Feeder Bluff Mapping, 2010, Coastal
Geologic Services, Inc.; Best Available Science, 2003, Battelle; Bainbridge Island Nearshore
Habitat Characterization and Assessment, 2004 Battelle.
Each of the above - listed documents is referenced in the HMP; however, specific scientific and
technical information compiled in the documents is not used to demonstrate how the proposal
protects ecological functions and processes. For example, Herrera's Marine Shoreline Buffer
Recommendations Discussions Memo states:
Factors relevant to the effectiveness of marine shoreline buffers, or of a given buffer width,
include the type and intensity of surrounding land development, influence of groundwater,
stability of slopes or bluffs, types of pollutants and their sources, vegetation dynamics (such as
type and density), and geomorphic functions of driftwood or other habitat features that might
affect the functions and values of the buffer (Brennan et al. 2009).
The memo spends considerable time on the fact that the necessary buffer widths vary
considerably depending on the site - specific characteristics and the functions to be protected.
The HMP fails to provide a link between the site, the functions to be protected and the buffer
width proposed. The HMP proposes a 50 -foot shoreline buffer but does not provide any detail
as to why this width was chosen, no explanation of the factors relevant to the effectiveness of
this buffer width and no justification for 50 feet when recommended buffer widths in the
scientific and technical information used to develop the City's prescriptive buffer widths range
from 16 to over 300 feet, depending on function.
(4) The Administrator shall have the Habitat Management Plan reviewed by an independent third
pa rty.
The City requested review of the HMP by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
WDFW staff conducted a site visit and provided comments on the HMP (Attachment C).
Comments included:
The location of the house and the proposed vegetation management plan does
not meet the "no net loss" standard and will result in a significant impact to a
key, limited, sensitive, shoreline buffer;
The proposed project is disruptive to a very limited and critical shoreline
habitat. In addition, there is space available on this parcel where residential
development can occur without encroaching into the shoreline critical area
buffer;
PLN504381meson SSDE Page 6
It is important that we protect the few remaining areas with intact forested
riparian marine shorelines; and
To develop a property within a critical area buffer when that parcel has
sufficient room to accommodate a residential home outside of the buffer
appears to be counterintuitive to the Shoreline Master Program.
Shoreline Structure Setback View Requirement
In accordance with SMP Section 4.1.3.11.1.b, the shoreline structure setback provisions apply where an
existing primary single - family residential structure is located within 100 feet of the subject property line.
All measurements are to the closest primary residential structure on either side of the subject property
as measured parallel to the shoreline.
The subject property is a headland. The adjoining development is located only on one side, outside the
shoreline buffer. SMP Section 4.1.3.11 does not include this particular scenario; however, SMP Section
4.1.3.11.4.c.i and SMP Section 4.1.3.11.5.c both use the distance from the OHWM to the most
waterward portion of the primary residence structure of the adjoining property to determine the
shoreline structure setback line. As such, the shoreline structure setback line for the subject property is
determined by the distance from the OHWM to the most waterward portion of the primary residence
structure of the adjoining property to the north. The proposed development must meet the shoreline
structure setback view requirement unless a shoreline variance is granted.
This information was provided to the applicant as part of the pre - application conference (Attachment
D). Insufficient information was provided by the applicant to verify if the proposed development meets
the shoreline structure setback view requirement.
E. Section 4.1.5: Critical Areas
Geologically Hazardous Areas
The City's GIS database shows geologically hazardous areas (landslide hazard — slope greater than 40
percent) on the subject property. The site plan submitted with the SSDE application shows a steep slope
on the subject property.
The applicant was notified as part of the pre - application conference that the Geological Assessment
Report submitted with the pre - application (Krazan, 2005) must be updated to reflect the proposed
development and current SMP regulations (Attachment D). The City's Development Engineer provided
comments to the applicant on June 28, 2016 requiring an updated critical areas report and third party
review for the proposed buffer reduction (Attachment E). No additional information was provided by
the applicant to verify if the proposed development meets the requirements of SMP Section 4.1.5 or
SMP Appendix B -9.
Critical saltwater habitat
The shoreline at the project site is mapped critical saltwater habitat (WDFW- mapped Pacific herring
spawning and surf smelt and critical habitat forjuvenile salmonids). Pursuant to SMP 4.1.5.5.4, new
stormwater outfalls and discharge pipes shall not be located in critical saltwater habitats or areas where
outfall or discharge will adversely affect critical saltwater habitat.
PLN50438Imeson SSDE Page 7
In order to approve
the outfall tee as proposed
on the conceptual
drainage plan included with the HMP,
the applicant would
need to provide a narrative
showing that the
following can be met:
a. There is no feasible alternative location for the outfall or pipe; and
b. The outfall or pipe is placed below the surface of the beach or bed of the water body; and
C. The discharge point(s) on the outfall or discharge pipe is located so the discharges, including
nutrients and flow, do not adversely affect critical saltwater habitats.
G. Section 4.1.6: Water Quality and Stormwater Management
All shoreline development must minimize any increase in surface runoff through control, treatment, and
release of surface water runoff so that the receiving water quality, shore properties, and features are
not adversely affected. In addition, low impact development (LID) techniques must be considered and
implemented unless the site is demonstrated to be unsuitable for low impact development techniques.
The HMP states that through the use of LID techniques, including an infiltration trench and pervious
pavement, stormwater will be designed for 100 percent infiltration but with an overflow to the trench to
accommodate extreme events that would disperse through a dispersion tee above OHWM. The
conceptual drainage plan included with the HMP shows the dispersion tee 10 feet above OHWM.
Accessory underground utilities are a prohibited use in the Priority Aquatic A designation. Prior to
approving the conceptual drainage plan, the OHWM would need to be field- verified.
H. Section 4.2.2: Cultural Resources
Cultural resources provisions apply to cultural, archaeological and historic resources that are either
recorded by the State Historic Preservation Office, affected Indian tribes and /or by local jurisdictions, or
have been inadvertently uncovered. A primary cultural resources policy is to prevent the destruction of
or damage to, any site having historical, cultural, scientific or educational value as identified by the
appropriate authorities, including affected Indian tribes (SMP Section 4.2.2.2.1).
The Suquamish Tribe provided comments on the proposed development (Attachment F). The subject
property is located within the Tribe's adjudicated usual and accustomed grounds and stations ( "U &A ").
Suquamish Tribal members harvest fin fish in Manzanita Bay, primarily coho and chum salmon. Clams
were also commonly harvested all along the shores of Manzanita Bay until the area was deemed
Unclassified by the State of Washington Department of Health. It is expected that harvest will resume
when clams are safe to eat. The Tribe stated: "Any regulatory decisions that could lead to additional
contaminants or impacts in Manzanita Bay are in direct conflict with the Tribe's efforts to have future
harvest opportunities. The Tribe requests that buffers and critical areas be preserved to maintain Tribal
Treaty harvest opportunities."
1. Section 5.9: Residential Development
Single - family residential use consistent with controlling pollution and preventing damage to the natural
environment is a priority use in the shoreline (SMP Section 5.9.2 and 5.9.3.1). A summary of the
proposal's consistency with applicable residential development regulations is provided below.
PLN504381meson SSDE Page 8
All residential development must:
Meet setback and height standards in Table 4 -2 and dimensional provisions of BIMC Title 18, Zoning.
See Section II -B, above. The proposal is inconsistent.
Meet all provisions of SMP Section 4.1.2, Environmental Impacts, such that the development results in
"no net loss' to shoreline environmental functions and processes.
See Section II -D, E and G, above. The proposal is inconsistent.
Include no more than a total of two hundred (200) square feet of impervious surface is allowed in the
side yard setback outside of the Site - specific Vegetation Management Area.
The site plan submitted with the application shows less than 200 square feet of impervious surface in
the side yard setback. The proposal is consistent.
Be located and designed to avoid the need for shoreline stabilization and flood protection works for the
life of the structure.
The application materials did not include sufficient information to verify if the project is located and
designed to avoid the need for shoreline stabilization and flood protection works for the life of the
structure.
Be located and designed to protect existing ecological function in accordance with Section 4.1.2,
Environmental Impacts, and Section 4.1.3, Vegetation Management, and use low impact development
techniques of Section 4.1.6.6(3) to:
i. Minimize area of disturbance as provided in Section 4.1.4, Land Modification; and
ii. Minimize soil compaction; and
iii. Infiltrate stormwater runoff when the site is suitable for infiltration.
See Section II -D, E and F, above. The proposal is consistent.
Provide a stormwater conveyance that is designed according to the provisions of Section 4.1.6, Water
Quality and Stormwater Management.
See Section II -F, above.
Be located to protect existing views from primary structures on adjacent properties. Primary Structures
shall meet the provisions for structure setback line as provided in Section 4.1.3.
See Section II -D, above.
V. Conclusion and Recommendation
The purpose of the prescriptive 150 -foot shoreline buffer on undeveloped lots in the Shoreline
Residential Conservancy designation is to advance shoreline protection when future development
occurs. Due to the configuration of the parcel — forming a headland on the north shore of Little
Manzanita Bay —the 150 -foot prescriptive shoreline buffer encumbers the majority of the property. The
applicant is proposing specific dimensional standards to meet the Vegetation Management goals and
policies as determined through an HMP prescribed in SMP Appendix B -4. The HMP proposes to reduce
the shoreline buffer to 50 feet, an area of no disturbance other than buffer enhancement; and provide a
"forest protection zone," the remaining forested area of the parcel to be conserved; and a "mitigation
zone;' an 8,000 square foot area of invasive species removal and native replanting.
PLN50438 Imeson SSDE Page 9
Staff recommends denial
of the shoreline substantial
development
exemption (SSDE) application based
on the following findings
of facts and conclusions:
• The HMP does not meet the purpose and intent of an HMP pursuant to SMP Appendix B -4;
specifically, that they should preserve, and not reduce, existing high quality habitat buffers and
shall provide habitat functions and values that are greater than would be provided by the
prescribed buffer.
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, as an independent third -party reviewer, and the
Suquamish Tribe both expressed concern regarding the proposal and requested that the
prescriptive buffer be maintained.
• The HMP does not address why the proposed residence cannot be located outside the
prescriptive 150 -foot shoreline buffer in order to avoid impacts.
• The proposed lot coverage is nearly 4.5 times larger than the 1,200 square feet allowed on
encumbered lots. The HMP does not address the potential to minimize impacts by reducing the
footprint of the house.
• The HMP does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed site - specific management area
assures no net loss of the property's specific shoreline ecological functions and associated
ecosystem -wide processes. Specific functions and project impacts are not identified, project
avoidance and minimization measures are inadequate and there is no direct tie between project
impacts, site - specific conditions and functions and proposed mitigation measures. Ecosystem -
wide processes — particularly those associated with forage fish spawning and juvenile salmonid
habitat —are not addressed.
• The HMP fails to provide a link between the site characteristics, the functions to be protected
and the buffer width proposed. The HMP proposes a 50 -foot shoreline buffer but does not
provide any detail as to why this width was chosen, no explanation of the factors relevant to the
effectiveness of this buffer width and no justification for 50 feet when recommended buffer
widths in the scientific and technical information used to develop the City's prescriptive buffer
widths range from 16 to over 300 feet, depending on function.
• Insufficient information was provided by the applicant to verify if the proposed development
meets the shoreline structure setback view requirement, critical areas requirements
(geologically hazardous areas and critical saltwater habitat) and stormwater management
requirements.
• As proposed, the proposal is not consistent with development standards addressing setbacks,
shoreline buffers, lot coverage limitations and protective measures for critical areas and water
quality provided in the Shoreline Residential Conservancy designation policies and regulations.
VI. Appeal Procedures
Any decision of the Director may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner in accordance with the procedures
of BIMC 2.16.020 (P).
Attachments:
A. SSDE Application with site plan
B. Habitat Management Plan
C. WDFW comment letter
D. Pre - application summary letter
E. Development Engineer comment letter
PLN50438 Imeson SSDE Page 10
F. Suquamish Tribe comment letter
PLN504381meson SSDE Page 11
G�TY p'
p Q
a Z
2 v
S
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
PENCIL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
TYPE OF PERMIT:
XShoreline Substantial Development Exemption
❑ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
❑ Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
❑ Shoreline Valiance
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110 -1812
PHONE: (206) 842 -2552 • FAX: (206) 780 -0955 • EMAIL: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
www.bainbridgewa.gov
Janifivy2015 PAGE I WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 2of10
TO BE�FIIL�LEE,D� OUT BY APPLICANT
DATE STAMP
v� �
PROJECT NAME: IM(1 ,�N ' 6OUL.� GL cLLG
FOR CITY USE ONLY
TAXASSESSOR'SNumBER:
O 150Z' Z • 060 • wool
City of Bainbridge Island
PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
ry '/� 40,40
OR ACCESS STREET: tJe W4G'�
FOR CITY USE ONLY
MAY 0 4 2016
Planning and
FILE NUMBER:
(CmmunityDeveiopineM
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
APPLICATION FEE:
TREASURER'S RECEIPT NUMBER:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION
One original —no two-sided or bound documents; must include original signature in bitte ink andfour
caples.
SUBMITTAL
Please see subndtlal requirements. One original (must include original signature where applicable) and four
REQUIREMENTS
copies of each drmvhrg and document required (ifan original is not applicable, five copies nrrtst be provided.
DECISION CRITERIA
Please see attacheddecisior crlterinfor SSDP, SCUP, SSDE and SVAR applications. Your application must provide
sttfieient IgJbrntatiot to demonstrate that your proposal meets these decision criteria.
DRAWINGS
Please include o ty drmvings described in submittal requirements: Five 11'x17 "drmvings and ore
larger (18 "x 24 "or 14 "x 36) drmvhtg are required Drmvings must be folded.
SUBMITTING
Applications musl be submitted in person by either the owner or the owner's designated agent. A notarized
APPLICATION
Owner /Agent Agreement must be included with an application submitted by an agent. Please call
206.780.3762 to schedule an appointment to submit your application.
FEES
Current fees are available at the City's website: htto:/ Avww. bainbrideewa .eov/DocumentCenterNiery /6152
orb calling 206.780.3762.
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
unless these basic requirements are met and the submittal packet is deemed counter complete.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
280 MADISON AVENUE NORTH • BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA • 98110 -1812
PHONE: (206) 842 -2552 • FAX: (206) 780 -0955 • EMAIL: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
www.bainbridgewa.gov
Janifivy2015 PAGE I WILL BE GENERATED BY THE CITY AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL Page 2of10
5 a
.vF—ly ..,. ...' va.y
GIS- Mapping- Map - Gallery.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
Name of rop e r ty owner: IM420,) i 6W-VJ&t CltW LL(,
Owner's Mailing Address: (,G &q 6A -(vjF t/ 6CW NIE;., I6AIPOEA &f 4- (° jeLWa 116110
Phone: ZC>!o 235 (J�(v
Email:
Name of property owner
Address:
Phone:
Email:
2 Applicantl agent: �� e fA CKiJ I AtA CuAbi AkAc) Auu
(jer:�
Address: $5 PAW ( ( VJAq qU/ (6FtJAV&Z IffAtOU A 1611P
Phone: 2o`O U�Z 471d
Email: bWCt,4 e- 60TWE - AWJrbU60 • (ON
3. Provide brief
description of
proposal:
Page 3 of 10
4.
Driving directions
to site:
64AVEL.,, V4klk.
JUG( WCgq, O6r-
s.
Legal description
(or attach):
Kohl w
6. Was the land platted in the past?
If yes, name of plat:
W SCV714 WE or- Nt WO&W 4V
pLTWQV I IUU VZOAV NEI .
❑ yes Ono 9 unknown
7. Please give the following existing parcel information:
Assessor's Parcel Number
Parcel Owner
Lot Area*
ov-Soz - z •040
bawa( 601(w (.Q6
Ito w7 iP
RZ. 12•
UI�t VElot0lEfJ
Use additional sheets if
necessary
Total of all parcels:
1(� �07 QJ
t
*As defined in BIMC 18.12.050
8. Current designations and use of subject parcel(s):
Assessor's Parcel Number
Comp Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Current Use
01 250Z Z 060
OYL•Z 092• l
RZ. 12•
UI�t VElot0lEfJ
Page 4 of 10
9. Current designations and use of adjacent parcel(s):
Parcel
Assessor's Parcel Number
Comp Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Shoreline
Designation
Current Use
North
091-501- Z 096 , ZQ70
091. ' Z
4-4?,
(*
gC9VIEU low
South
{14
East
09LSOL • Z •0$9 •Z002,
0,%& -
12
J
�1/F_tUP
West
VA
10.
Is there any other information which is pertinent to this project?
yes ❑ no ❑ unknown If yes, please explain:
SO6M I-IW f-A61 11Wi MWA6LMOJT
11. Indicate shoreline designation of subject property:
Upland designation: ❑ Natural
❑ Island Conservancy
KShoreline Residential Conservancy
Aquatic designation (if applicable): X Priority Aquatic A
❑ Priority Aquatic B
❑ Shoreline Residential
❑ Urban
Page 5 of 10
12. Using BIMC 16.12.030 -1, check the appropriate type of use for your proposal:
X "P" Permitted Use
❑ "C" Conditional Use
❑ "A" Accessory Use
B. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT
13. Geomorphic shore type present on site (check all that apply):
XLow bank Marsh /lagoon
❑ High bluff Rocky shore
❑ Spit/banier /backshore
14. Geomorphic feature present on site (check all that apply):
❑ Feederbluff ❑ Accretion beach
❑ Littoral drift area h None
15. The shoreline buffer consists of two management areas: Zone I and Zone 2. Zone I is located closest to the
ordinary high water mark (01-IWM); it is a minimum of 30 feet (except in Natural and Island Conservancy
designations) and expands to include existing native vegetation. Zone 2 is the remaining area of the shoreline
buffer. The shoreline buffer is described in:
Using BIMC 16.12.030 -3, Shoreline Buffer Standards Table, complete the following:
Lot type:
Developed
❑ Category A
❑ Category B
Undeveloped
Total shoreline buffer: ❑ feet
Shoreline buffer Zone 1: feet
�--t , --Y)6 / 177 K4%i W
t r�6�+ tGij4 v6ft(
Page 6 of 10
16. Floodplain designation: ❑A ❑AE ❑ VE
17. Do stormwater systems exist on the site? ❑yes �no ❑ unknown
If yes, what type of stormwater system exists on the site? Check all that apply:
❑ Infiltration ❑ Open ditching
❑ Closed conveyance ❑ Other:
❑ Detention
18. Is there an existing outfall on the site?
❑
yes no
❑ unknown
If yes, will the existing outfall be used for the proposed project?
❑
yes no
❑ unknown
If yes, will the existing outfall be modified for the proposed project?
❑
yes no
❑ unknown
19. Does the site have a shoreline critical area *?
❑
yes 0110
❑ unknown
If yes, check as appropriate (check all that apply):
❑ Wetland ❑
❑ Geologically hazardous area ❑
❑ Frequently flooded area ❑
Fish and wildlife conservation area
Critical aquifer recharge area
Critical saltwater habitat area
*See BIMC 16.12.030 for definition and more information about shoreline critical areas. Ifthe site has only a critical area buff el
present, still check the box for corresponding critical area.
C. STRUCTURES AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
20. List all existing structures and immervious surfaces and their fontnrinr inrea that rnnrhes the nrn„nal
`
Location*
Structure TYpe
Footprint (sf)
Impervious Surface
Footprint (at)
1�
Total square feet:
Total square feet:
*Choose one location: in- water, overwater, Zone 1, Zone 2, upland (outside shoreline buffer)
Page 7 of 10
21. List all proposed structures and impervious surfaces and their footprint (area that touches the eround)
Location*
Structure Type
Footprint (sf)
Impervious S rface v
Foo Tint (sf)
too KM�
8lk)" Mmv?
4.07q
N
! 07
IU�c
Dock
Float
Total square feet:
4274
1
Total square feet:
If U7S
*Choose one location: in- water, overwater, Zone 1, Zone 2, upland (outside shoreline buffer)
22. List all ovetwater structures:
Structure
Existing
Pro osed
Number
Area (so
Number
Area s
Pier
IU�c
Dock
Float
D. VEGETATION DISTURBANCE AND LAND MODIFICATION
Vegetation replanting is required for all development, uses or activities within the shoreline jurisdiction that either
alters existing native vegetation or any vegetation in the required shoreline buffer. The information provided below
will help planning staff determine impacts of the proposed project and mitigation requirements, if needed.
Vegetation disturbance greater than 200 square feet requires a planting plan completed by a qualified professional
or you may use the Standard Residential Mitigation Manual, if the proposal is located on a qualifying site. You
must show the location and type of existing native vegetation and location of all significant trees (evergreen trees
greater than 10" diameter and deciduous trees greater than 12" in diameter) — existing and to be removed — on
your site plan.
23. Number of trees removed: Three (3) or fewer
Six (6) or fewer
More than six (6)
None
24. Are any of the trees to be removed located in the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction? 0 yes El no
If yes:
Are any of the trees to be removed located in the shoreline buffer? yes no
Are any of the trees to be removed hazard trees? yes no
(You may be required to submit a report from a certified arborist.)
Are any of the trees to be removed and/or located in a geologically hazardous area? ❑ yes no
(You will be required to submit a geotechnical engineering report.)
Page 8 of 10
25. Area of clearing/vegetation disturbance: F-1 200 square feet or less
n 2,500 square feet or less
f�Ly" Greater than 2,500 square feet
26. Area of grading:
50 cubic yards or less
51 -100 cubic yards
101 -250 cubic yards or more
More than 250 cubic yards
27. If applicable, briefly describe the source and type of fill material, amount in cubic yards you will use and how
and where it will be placed:
FJI L WIU, 16U VJtill/�IA14 f C�iAV�I,
28. For all excavating activities, briefly describe the method for excavation, type and amount of material you will
remove and where the material will be disposed:
Muw�t vA1tGU A(,A cfe.j.
E. SHORELINE MODIFICATION
29. Has the shoreline been modified? E] yes hno Fl unknown
If yes, check as appropriate:
❑ Bulkhead Other
❑ Riprap E] Softshore
30. Indicate proposed shoreline modification:
Shoreline stabilization Fill
Overwater structures E-1 Restoration and Enhancement
Dredging and Dredge Material X None
Page 9 of 10
31. Linear length of shoreline modification /stabilization (bulkheads, revetments, bioenginnering, seawalls, groins,
retaining walls and gabions):
Existing: ❑ feet
Proposed: ❑ feet
F. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
32. What other type of permits and/or approvals are required for the project?
Permit/approval
Required?
Haveapplied
Have per mit
Date of issuance
City of Bainbridge Island
Building permit
Grade and fill permit
Shoreline conditional use permit
Shoreline variance
Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife(WDFW)
Hydraulic Project Approval WA)'
Other (please list):
i. An rirA is guired for stormwater outtaus.
I here y tify I have read this application and know the same to be true and correct.
Date
Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent*
Print Name Mtc-Ek I -1* oe aLkrA3 Ll.0
"If signatory is not the owner of record, the attaches "Owner /Applicvant Agreement" must be signed and notarized
For Office Use Only:
Shoreline exemption citation:
SEPA exemption citation:
Page 10 of 10
092502 -2- 060 -2009
RESULTANT PARCEL C OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED
UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200210100059 AND SURVEY RECORDED IN
VOLUME 58 OR SURVEYS, PAGES 96 THROUGH 99, RECORDS OF KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF
GOVERNMENT 2, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M. IN
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 89 *09'38" WEST
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT 2 A DISTANCE OF 512.25
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE, NORTH 89 *09'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 799.37 FEET TO THE
WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 1 *09'56" EAST ALONG SAID LINE A
DISTANCE OF 190.10 FEET TO THE MEANDER LINE; THENCE SOUTH
28 *52'06" EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 118.93 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 28 *58'54" EAST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 254.76 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 29 *58'06" WEST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 26.06
FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 85 *23'30" EAST (SOUTH 86 *52'36"
EAST) A DISTANCE OF 224.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69 *35'04" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 80.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
FROM WHICH THE CENTER BEARS NORTH 20 *24'56" WEST 150.00 FEET
DISTANT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 54 *50'28" HAVING A LENGTH OF 143.57
FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 *29'06" EAST A DISTANCE OF 89.55 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 16 *34'58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 308.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
59 *01'05" EAST A DISTANCE OF 211.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81 *00'44" EAST
A DISTANCE OF 53.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 *50'22" WEST A DISTANCE OF
46.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH SECOND CLASS
TIDELANDS FRONTING AND SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH ANY AND
ALL EASEMENTS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS.
150' 5HORELINE 5ETBAGK LINE / DRIVEWAY: 5,132.5 5q ft, • \
24 28 DRIVEWAY wl OFFSET: 6,318 5q ft \ .
22 26 32 b \
30'34 36 yep \\-� G \
/ 40 42
44 46 48 50
FENCEP05T
REBAR ILITY'
..50-" /^ POLE'
i
i
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
70P 01 "STEEP
/
/0
44--- / i-
42 F / /
/=
---40 / BUILDING: 4,139.15 5q ft
BUILDING w/ OFF5ET: 5,112.5 5a ft %
ill
38
SURVEY LOW POINT f /
34 I
24 52
26 '28 30 IN IME50N RE5IDENCE
\ / ` 5GALE: 1 40' 3/29/16
� � J
NolumeslMacSemerPro /Projemsllmesonl01 CADD l01_ArchiCADl150806_lmesonl8 pin. 3129116, 5:15 PM
c,OY OF
a
]3
p
� Z
Z v
RIDGE \,;
ATTACHMENT B
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
6967 NE Bergman Road, Bainbridge Island, WA
Prepared on behalf of:
Michael Imeson
Boulder Glen LLC
PO Box 10857
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Prepared by:
T}i E
WATERSHED
COMPANY
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland. WA 98033
P 425.822.5242
425.827.8136
watershedco.com
April 2016
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
160232
The Watershed Company Contact Person:
Sarah Sandstrom
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Background ....................................................................................... ..............................1
2 Project Location ................................................................................. ..............................1
4 Project Description ............................................................................ ..............................6
4.1 General Description ...........................
4.2 Site - Specific Vegetation Management Area ....................... ..............................7
5 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions ................................................ .............................10
6 References ...................................................................................... .............................12
Appendix A Building Site Plan
Appendix B Landscape Mitigation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
Appendix C Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix D Invasive Area Study
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of potential impacts to shoreline ecological functions and proposed
measures to achieve no net loss of functions ........................ .............................10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. Vicinity map ......................................................................... ............................... 2
Figure 2. Parcel outline in green (Kitsap County Assessor Map).......... 4 ............................. 2
Figure 3. Topographic map of subject parcel (Kitsap County Assessor Map) ..................... 4
Figure 4. Parcel view showing areas of existing disturbed and invasive vegetation........... 5
Figure 5. Priority habitats and species map showing herring spawning areas in yellow, and
marine and estuarine wetlands in purple area. Streams shown in purple to the
west of the property support coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and fall chum salmon
(WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Maps)... . ................ 4 ................................ 6
Figure 6. Diagram of Site - Specific Vegetation Management Area. Buffer Zone 1 shown in
dark green, Forest Protection Zone shown in light green, and Mitigation Zone
shownin orange ................................................................... ............................... 8
ii
The Watershed Company
April 2016
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
6967 NE BERGMAN ROAD, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA
1 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to develop a single- family residence on an undeveloped shoreline lot on
Little Manzanita Bay. In order to best maintain existing shoreline functions, including water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetative functions, a Site - Specific Vegetation
Management Area is proposed, consistent with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC)
16.12.030.B.3.c.iii.(A). This Habitat Management Plan, prepared consistent with the
requirements of BIMC 16.12.030.B.2.b and BIMC 16.12.060.11, documents existing site constraints
and opportunities and proposed development, including the proposed Site - Specific Vegetation
Management Area and the application of mitigation sequencing.
2 PROJECT LOCATION
The subject parcel is located on Little Manzanita Bay in the northwestern portion of Bainbridge
Island (Parcel k 092502 -2- 060 -2009) (Section 09, Township 25, Range 2 East) (Figure 1). Total
parcel area is 4.5 acres, the upland area is 2.53 acres, and the remaining area is marine waters.
The parcel shape is irregular, including two headlands: one to the north and one to the south of
the tidal waters of Little Manzanita Bay (See Figure 2).
The upland portion of the parcel is located in the Shoreline Residential Conservancy shoreline
environment designation with R -2 zoning. The adjacent aquatic area is as assigned a Priority
Aquatic A shoreline environment designation.
Figure 1. Vicinity map
O-Ij1
C-969
6967.�
6E5,5
70,71
11711
7076 11709
1180.x
y
6-%3
111-06
Figure 2. Parcel outline in green (Kitsap County Assessor Map)
1�
2Z
The Watershed Company
April 2016
3 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The following description of baseline conditions is based on publicly available information and
observations made during a site visit conducted by Sarah Sandstrom, Fisheries Biologist, on
February 161h at 8 A.M. Tide conditions during the site visit ranged from approximately 9 -10
feet relative to MLLW.
3.1 Geography
The parcel is presently undeveloped. An existing gravel driveway and 30- foot -wide utility
easement bisects the northeastern portion of the parcel. This driveway provides shared access to
the subject lot and the adjacent lots to the northwest and east. An approximately 30- foot -wide
mowed grass area extends from the shared driveway along the northern property line
approximately 180 feet.
The property includes a complex shoreline topography. From the vicinity of the shared
driveway, the topography of the site slopes downward from north to south toward estuarine
waters of Little Manzanita Bay. The total elevation change with the parcel is approximately 35
feet (Figure 3). North of the driveway, the site slopes downward from south to north, with a
total elevation change of approximately 10 feet. Steep slopes, defined as landslide hazard areas
by BIMC 16.12.060.A.28.d, are present along most of the shoreline frontage; however, the site is
located in an area broadly mapped by Ecology's Puget Sound Landslide database as "stable
slopes' (Ecology, electronic reference). Similarly, given the site's relatively protected location
and low shoreline energy potential, the Puget Sound Feeder Bluff Study and the Current and
Historic Coastal Geomorphic/Feeder Bluff Mapping for Bainbridge Island mapped the area as
"no appreciable drift" (Ecology, electronic reference, *oastal Geologic Services, Inc. 2010). On-
site soils are composed of Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, characterized as moderately well
drained (NRCS, electronic reference).
3.2 Vegetation and Habitat
The area north of the shared driveway consists predominantly of mowed lawn with one multi-
stemmed bigleaf maple. Additionally, the landward portion of the headland area on the south
bank has been cleared, and is predominantly mown lawn.
Other areas of the parcel are generally characterized by mature forest conditions. Tree species
include Douglas fir, Western red cedar, Pacific madrone, and bigleaf maple. Shrub understory is
predominated by salal, and includes other understory species common in upland forested areas
such as trailing blackberry, bracken fern, sword fern, evergreen huckleberry, red huckleberry,
nootka rose, and osoberry.
Non - native, invasive species present on the parcel include Himalayan blackberry, scotch broom,
holly, and English ivy. These invasive species are situated in clusters throughout the site, with
specific areas high in coverage noted on Figure 4. Total area of invasive species coverage is
approximately 8,000 square feet, as detailed in Appendix D.
A survey of the subject property and surrounding area from 2001 indicates the presence of two
wetlands, one freshwater and one estuarine, on the adjacent property to the east. The nearest
edge of the freshwater wetland is approximately 200 feet from the eastern edge of the subject
parcel. The nearest edge of the estuarine wetland is over 400 feet from the eastern edge of the
subject parcel. A wetland delineation was not conducted for this report.
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Figure 4. Parcel view showing areas of existing disturbed and invasive vegetation.
3.3 Habitats
Per BIMC 16.12.080, "critical saltwater habitats" include all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning
and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt and sand lance; subsistence,
commercial and recreational shellfish beds; mudflats; intertidal habitats with vascular plants,
and areas with which priority species have a primary association."
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maps the western portion of the marine
aquatic area as supporting herring spawning habitat (Figure 4) (WDFW, electronic reference).
The entirety of the shoreline of Manzanita Bay and Little Manzanita Bay is mapped as estuarine
and marine wetland (Figure 5). Evidence of intertidal and subtidal vegetation was not observed
during the February 161h site visit; however, the site visit was conducted during a relatively high
tide. Based on aerial imagery of the site taken during low tides, the entire shoreline appears to
consist of mudflat. Priority habitats and species maps also map the stream to the east of Little
Manzanita Bay as supporting documented occurrences of coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and fall
chum salmon. Each of these species is valued for its recreational and commercial fishing
significance; however, none of these populations of species are listed as sensitive, threatened, or
endangered by the state or federal governments.
In summary, the entire area waterward from the OHWM qualifies as critical saltwater habitat
because it supports herring spawning, consists of mudflat, and provides primary habitat for
priority salmon species migrating out of the small creek east of Little Manzanita Bay.
Figure 5. Priority habitats and species map showing herring spawning areas in yellow, and
marine and estuarine wetlands in purple area. Streams shown in purple to the west of the property
support coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and fall chum salmon (WDFW Priority Habitats and Species
Maps).
No other priority habitats or species are mapped within or in close proximity to the subject
parcel. The forested condition of the site could provide habitat for birds of prey, such as bald
eagles and osprey, as well as songbirds and small mammals. The shoreline likely provides
habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds.
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4.1 General Description
The proposed single- family residence will be located, designed, and constructed to avoid and
minimize impacts to shoreline functions. Additionally, a native vegetation planting plan will
mitigate for all unavoidable impacts to native vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction.
Proposed development includes a 4,079- square -foot residence built on pile construction, with a
total temporary disturbance footprint (including area needed for construction) of 5,154 square
feet. The residence will be accessed from a new, approximately 100 - foot -long by 10- foot -wide,
The Watershed Company
April 2016
pervious driveway, which connects to an existing shared -use gravel driveway that bisects the
parcel. The development will be screened from all nearby development by existing forest cover.
4.2 Site - Specific Vegetation Management Area
BIMC 16.12.030.A.3.c.iii.(A) allows applicants to propose site - specific vegetation management
areas in lieu of standard buffers. Given the complex shape of the shoreline and presence of
slopes, the proposed development was sited to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality,
native plant communities, and wildlife habitat. The proposed Site - Specific Vegetation
Management Area includes the following:
• Buffer Zone 1: All existing native groundcover, shrubs, and significant trees within 50
feet from shoreline will be conserved. This buffer will protect water quality of the
adjacent shoreline, as well as existing forested shoreline habitat. Sparsely vegetated
areas within this buffer area will be replanted with a mix of native trees, shrubs, and
groundcover.
• Forest Protection Zone: All existing native groundcover, shrubs, and significant trees
will be conserved in forested areas throughout the parcel, excluding the proposed
building and driveway footprint, plus a 15 -foot construction and maintenance setback.
• Mitigation Zone: Areas proposed for vegetation mitigation as a part of this proposal will
be maintained as a native multi- strata vegetation community in perpetuity. This
includes one area within the Buffer Zone 1.
The proposed site - specific vegetation management area detailed above is designed to protect
shoreline buffer functions, including shade, insect and detritus inputs to the nearshore, wave
energy attenuation, overhanging vegetation and large woody debris structure along the
shoreline, forest structure for wildlife, shoreline stabilization by vegetation structure, and
filtration of sediment and non -point organic pollutants (wings and Jamieson 2001). By
establishing a minimum width of 50 feet for Buffer Zone 1, the plan ensures that the vegetation
management area will maintain a minimum standard for protecting vegetation that contributes
most directly to shoreline functions. The Forest Protection Zone protects all existing forested
vegetation outside of the development footprint to conserve those functions, such as wildlife
habitat, sediment filtration, large wood recruitment, shading, and microclimate that extend well
beyond 50 feet from the shoreline edge (summarized in Herrera 2011). Finally, by reestablishing
a native, multi- storied forested buffer in areas that presently have sparse vegetation, the
Mitigation Zone will improve marine buffer functions within the subject parcel.
7
Figure 6. Diagram of Site - Specific Vegetation Management Area. Buffer Zone 1 shown in
dark green, Forest Protection Zone shown in light green, and Mitigation Zone shown in orange.
4.2.1 Mitigation Sequencing
Consistent with BIMC 16.12.030.B.2.d.i., the following section describes the process of
mitigation sequencing followed to develop the project proposal.
Avoid
• All proposed development is limited to the area beyond 50 feet from the OHWM.
• As a part of the proposed development, areas outside of the development footprint will
be designated as "Forest Protection Zone." Vegetation impacts within this zone will be
avoided.
• All structures are located outside of a 30 -foot setback from the top of steep slopes.
• The proposed on -site septic system is located as far from the shoreline as possible on the
parcel (at least 100 feet) to limit any effects to water quality. The proposed septic system
is also located in an area that is presently limited to herbaceous vegetation, so no
clearing will be required to accommodate it.
• The proposed driveway will follow an area where existing vegetation is limited to
mowed grasses.
• Through the use of low- impact development techniques, including an infiltration trench
and pervious pavement, stormwater will be designed for 100 percent infiltration. An
overflow to the infiltration trench will be designed to accommodate extreme events. This
overflow will disperse water through a dispersion tee above the OHWM, where
additional infiltration would be anticipated before reaching marine waters (Appendix
C).
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Minimize
• The house is configured, located, and designed to avoid and minimize impacts to
significant trees (Appendix A). Six significant trees will be removed to accommodate
construction of the house.
• By constructing the house on piles, rather than using a traditional foundation, the
project will significantly limit the area of sediment disturbance, and the root structure of
trees adjacent to the house will be preserved.
• During construction, any heavy equipment within the critical root zone of existing trees
will be operated over an 8- to 10 -inch -thick pile of coarse mulch (and plywood in heavy
traffic areas), to minimize soil compaction that could damage roots. This approach to
construction will retain approximately 10 significant trees that would likely otherwise be
damaged or killed from excavation if the house was built on a slab.
• A stormwater pollution and prevention plan (SWPP) will be developed and
implemented to ensure that temporary construction activities do not adversely affect the
surrounding habitat and shoreline conditions.
• New driveway surfaces will be constructed using pervious technologies to infiltrate all
runoff (Appendix C).
Recti
• Existing invasive vegetation, including Himalayan blackberry, scotch broom, and holly
will be manually removed from the site. Ivy will be removed from any trees on the site to
a distance of 5 feet out from the trunk base. Areas of invasive species removal will be
replanted with native ground cover or shrub vegetation (Appendix B).
• Any temporary disturbance areas associated with construction activities will be
stabilized following completion of construction.
Reduce
• The use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers will be limited over the entire parcel
area consistent with standards in BIMC 16.12.030.B.5.b and c.
Compensate
• All vegetation areas disturbed through construction of the house will be mitigated with
multi- storied native vegetation at a ratio of 2:1 for mitigation plantings occurring within
50 feet from the OHWM and 3:1 for mitigation plantings within 50 -150 feet from the
OHWM (Appendix B).
• Mitigation areas were identified to first ensure that all areas within Buffer Zone 1
achieve a min mum of 65 percent canopy coverage, and second, to promote contiguous
native vegetation and increase canopy coverage closest to the shoreline outside of Buffer
Zone 1.
0
Monitor
• Mitigation areas will be maintained and monitored for five years following installation.
The areas shall be released from monitoring requirements once all areas meet
established performance standards (Appendix B).
5 NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL
FUNCTIONS
In order to summarize the net effect of the proposed development, potential impacts of
residential development, as summarized in Table 6 -1 of the City of Bainbridge Island
Cumulative Impacts Analysis 40e Watershed Company 2012) and described in the Bainbridge
Island Nearshore Assessment Summary of Best Available Science (ptelle 2003) and the
Addendum to the Summary of Science Report (rera 2011), are listed below, along with the
associated measures incorporated in this proposal that address the impact and contribute to no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Table 1. Summary of potential impacts to shoreline ecological functions and proposed
measures to achieve no net loss of functions.
Shoreline Potential Impacts to Shoreline
Ecological Ecological Function Associated with
Function Upland Development
Hydrologic • Increase in stormwater runoff and
discharge in association with more
impervious surfaces
• Disruption of shoreline wetlands
• Hydrologic impacts as a result of
associated shoreline stabilization
measures
Water quality • Increase in contaminants associated with
the creation of new impervious surfaces
(e.g. metals, petroleum hydrocarbons)
• Increase in pesticide and fertilizer use
• Increased erosion and increased turbidity
• Water quality contamination from failed
septic systems
10
Proposed Measures to Avoid,
Minimize, or Mitigate for Impacts
• New driveway to be pervious, stormwater
designed for 100% infiltration
• No shoreline wetlands observed in
vicinity
• All development will be located at least
30 feet from the top of steep slopes,
consistent with standards for geological
hazard areas, and existing native
vegetation will be conserved within this
area
• Uompliance with stormwater manual
• Low - impact development techniques to
be employed to attain full infiltration
• Use of pile construction will minimize
erosion and sedimentation
• SWPP implementation will control any
erosion and sedimentation during
construction
• Pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use to
be avoided per site - specific vegetation
management plan
• Site - specific vegetation management
plan protects all existing forested areas
outside of development footprint and
Shoreline Potential Impacts to Shoreline
Ecological Ecological Function Associated with
Function Upland Development
Shoreline
vegetation
Habitat
• Greater potential for increased erosion,
bank instability, and turbidity associated
with vegetation clearing
• Vegetation clearing can result in reduced
shoreline habitat complexity, increased
temperatures and desiccation in specific
habitats, and less LWD
• Loss of or disturbance to riparian habitat
during upland development
• Lighting effects on both fish and wildlife
in nearshore areas
• Increase in pesticide and fertilizer inputs
- direct toxicity to forage fish and juvenile
salmon
• Vegetation clearing can result in reduced
shoreline habitat complexity, increased
temperatures and desiccation in specific
habitats, and less LWD
5.1.1 Cumulative Impacts
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Proposed Measures to Avoid,
Minimize, or Mitigate for Impacts
expands area of native vegetation
through mitigation planting plan
• Septic system located as far from the
shoreline as possible given lot
dimensions
• Location, configuration, and design of
proposed development minimizes
impacts to native vegetation and
significant trees
• Construction will incorporate best
management practices to minimize root
compaction of trees
• Site - specific vegetation management
plan protects all existing forested areas
outside of development footprint,
addresses existing invasive species, and
expands area of native vegetation
through mitigation planting plan
• Location, configuration, and design of
proposed development minimizes
impacts to native vegetation and
significant trees
• Construction will incorporate best
management practices to minimize root
compaction of trees
• Pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use to
be avoided
• Site - specific vegetation management
plan protects all existing forested areas
outside of development footprint,
addresses existing invasive species, and
expands area of native vegetation
throuah mitication olantino Dian
As noted above, residential development, on both an individual and cumulative basis, has the
potential to impact a variety of shoreline functions and processes. This proposal includes an
aggressive site - specific management plan that conserves buffer functions and improves
vegetation in areas of the parcel where the existing shoreline vegetative functions are limited.
As described in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for City of Bainbridge Island's Shoreline (The
%Vatershed Company 2012), the continued implementation of the City's Shoreline Master
Program provisions, particularly vegetation management provisions, including mitigation,
maintenance, and monitoring requirements, should ensure that despite continued residential
development and redevelopment, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions will be achieved.
11
6 REFERENCES
Batelle. 2003. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Assessment, Summary of Best Available Science.
Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. 2010. Bainbridge Island Current and Historic Coastal
Geomorphic/Feeder Bluff Mapping.
Ecology, electronic reference. Coastal Atlas. htWs: // fortress .wa.goy /ecy /coastalatlas/ [Accessed
March 17, 2016]
Herrera. 2011. City of Bainbridge Island Addendum to the Summary of Science Report.
Levings C and G Jamieson. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in coastal
ecosystems, Pacific Region. Research Document 2001/109. Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat, Ottowa, Canada.
NRCS, electronic reference. Web Soil Survey.
http: / /websoilsurvey.sc.egov usda gov /App/HomePage htm [Accessed March 17, 20161
The Watershed Company. 2012. Cumulative Impacts Analysis for City of Bainbridge Island's
Shoreline: Puget Sound.
WDFW, electronic reference. Priority Habitats and Species.
htW:Happs wdfw wa.gov /phsontheweb/ [Accessed March 17, 2016]
12
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Appendix A BUILDING SITE PLAN
i
i
I
m � i
m i l
a I I
3 / /
W W /
00 /
i I
I -_
1 y \g
4 � \
\ J
W •\ \\
O �
I b \
T
W
N /
W
4
\W /
I ;
I
m\ I I
i
i I
o,
a
o
o� m
m
a�
m
w
v
z
w
a
w
b
z ;
O
w w
N
2 O
J
w
m
F
•• O
N.
N
�
W
W
O
~
J
�
2
W
A
W
N
W
O
K
`
m
r
r
•
W
N
�
�\
t- N
m
�T 3
�
Z �
m m
o,
a
o
o� m
m
a�
m
w
v
z
w
a
w
b
z ;
O
w w
N
2 O
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Appendix B LANDSCAPE MITIGATION,
MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING PLAN
8400 Paulanna Lane NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
206 -842 -7547 voice
206- 842 -1680 fax
bartonbainbridge@gmail.com
www.bartberglandscape.com
April 20, 2016
Imeson -
6967 NE Bergman Road, Bainbridge Island
Mitigation Plan Document
Invasive Removal Procedure
BART BERG LANDSCAPE
II
Invasive species present on site to be removed:
r
• English Ivy Hedera helix — There are three areas of English Ivy totaling 2400 square feet.
These areas are primarily on steeper banks and should not be removed as the removal of
the ivy will cause exposed soils and it will be difficult to replant steep banks effectively.
Achieving a mature stable native plant community would take a decade or more.
English Ivy shall be removed from any trees on the site to a distance of 5' out from the
trunk base and be monitored from then on.
All removed English ivy shall be disposed off site.
• Scotch Broom Cytisus scoparius - Remove all Scotch broom including root systems
from the site.
• Non native blackberry — Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus and Evergreen
blackberry Rubus laciniatus - remove all non native blackberry including root systems
from the site.
Native blackberry Rubus ursinus — is not necessary to be removed
• Bohemian Knotweed ( also referred to as Japanese Knotweed ) Polygonum x bohemicum
is present on the site as noted in the' Mitigation Planting Plan, April 10, 2016'. There
are approximately six small clumps. They are small enough to be dug out including roots.
Dispose in the garbage. Stake each plant site with a pressure treated 2x4 x 2' high x 1.5'
in the ground and note the plant name. These stakes shall be reviewed for three years
minimum for any remaining plants.
• Spurge Daphne laureola -
• English Holly Ilex aquifolium
Monitoring of Invasives
English Ivy — Monitor each year for invasion to tree trunks and remove back to 5' from trunks
Scotch Broom — Monitor whole property each year and remove plants and roots
Non native Blackberry — Monitor whole property each year and remove plants and roots
Bohemian Knotweed — Monitor identified current plant positions each year and the area within
20' of each stake as that is the potential root spread.
April 20, 2016 pg. 2
Imeson — 6967 NE Bergman Road
Spurge — Monitor whole property each year and remove plants and roots
English Holly — Monitor whole property each year and remove plants and roots. Pay particular
attention for many small plants near the originally removed holly.
Planting procedure
Remove invasives from areas to be planted. Ensure root systems of invasives are removed.
Mow grasses tight to the ground cutting through the crowns of the grasses. Rototilling open areas
is also acceptable in the flatter upland areas identified on the Mitigation Planting Plan.
Planting specification- native plants shall be of sound nursery quality, with adequate root
development for the container size, free of disease and invasive weeds. Prepare the planting hole
by excavating twice the size of the root ball.
Mulch all planted areas with organic mulch to a minimum depth of 3 ".
Plant according to the plan and soak the root zone of each plant thoroughly at the time or planting.
Invasive areas to be replanted — Once invaded areas are free of invasives noted on the April 20,
2016 Imeson Invasive Study document salal, sword fern and snowberry shall be planted in any
open area as specified on the `Native Plant Schedule' of the' Mitigation Plan, Imeson 1:10, April
20,2016.
Monitoring and Maintenance of new plantings
Monitoring Report — a report shall be prepared each year for five years by a landscape
professional The owner shall submit the monitoring report to the city by the 31" of December
each year starting with the first December following the completion of the mitigation plan
installation. The monitoring report shall included the following:
1. Line transect monitoring for four transects noted on the `Mitigation Plan' April 19, 2016
recording the percentage of cover. In September of each year for 5 years each transect as
noted on the Mitigation Plan April 19, 2016 shall be measured for percentage of cover.
This shall be measured by recording the diameter of drip ring for each plant crossing the
transect. The percentage of cover shall then be noted in the report.
2. A photo from each of four noted points on the `Mitigation Plan' of sufficient quality to
determine the condition of native plant community being established.
3. A list of dead or weak plants by species, quantity, size and availability that will be
replaced in that year.
Competition — Keep all new plantings free of weeds and other competition for five years. The
plantings will not adequately thrive and thicken unless competition is eliminated.
April 209 2016 pg. 3
Imeson 6967 NE Bergman Road
Watering — At a minimum all new plants must be thoroughly root zone watered every two weeks.
The first year is required. The second and third years of watering will ensure proper growth to a
mature planting.
Mulching — All new plantings will need additional mulch each year for three years. Any
disturbance to the mulch and earth exposure must be covered with mulch each year.
Deer — If deer choose to eat new plantings spray with a deer repellant as directed and after each
rain.
Performance Standards
• Survivability — 100% for the first year quaranteed, and 80% in the second year
• Native Plant Cover — The target for cover shall be 40% by year 3, 60% by year 4 and
80% by year 5. The annual `Monitoring Report' to the city shall give the general proof of
this compliance
• Species diversity — If a planted species is not surviving other natives may be introduced
to achieve the same number of species presented on the plan
• Invasive cover — The whole property except for the south portion across the inlet shall
achieve and maintain no more than a maximum of 10% invasive cover. The 10% will be
primarily the sheets of English Ivy on the steep banks which shall be held back to the
steep portions only. The monitoring period will keep the English ivy in check for only 5
years and it will be incumbent on the owner to monitor and contain the English ivy
beyond the 5 years.
• Contingency Plan — In the event the plan and performance standards cannot be met the
owner may apply to the city for approval of a contingency plan.
Y+ A
17 N
3 � i
A g az 1L F
+ 6 DI r
- t
F �
�10�
y
L`
5
P
O {
I� 3
S
T
n
E
5 o T
a N r -ar
n / �
n
J
n p
o r,
r T
p
1 "d
s R
t
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Appendix C STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
e ® 9
a
w>«rownu �e
a o a a
Q J Z
W
Z V J�
/ / mr,..rnv, G� anrvvm�auv U p w
HE
/ F
i
I
I F-
E0
i
The Watershed Company
April 2016
Appendix D INVASIVE AREA STUDY
8400 Paulanna Lane NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
206 - 842 -7547 voice
206 - 842 -1680 fax
bartonbainbridge@gmail.com
www.bartberglandscape.com
April 20, 2016
Michael Imeson
BART BERG LANDSCAPE
H(
Invasive area study of 6967 Bergman Road, Bainbridge Island
Observations were made on March 18, 2016.
• 60' x 20' sloped, light shade, southern facing, light salal and Oregon grape.
Invaded by daphne ( Daphne laureola), scotch broom and Himalayn blackberry
• 30' x 50' sloped, light shade, southern facing, light sword fern, indian plum, hazelnut.
Invaded by heavy daphne, light Himalayn blackberry, scattered holly (Ilex aquifolium)
• 40' x 40' sloped, light shade, southern facing, light sword fern.
Invaded by Himalayn blackberry, a few daphne, 6 plants of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
japonica)
• 20' x 30' sloped, southern facing, medium shade.
Invaded by English ivy, 6 trunks of 2 -3 diameter Douglas fir (one trunk has ivy 80' high)
and ground ivy, average 40' up trunks
• 30' x 40' steep bank, medium shade, south east facing mixed salal
Invaded by ground ivy mixed into the salal and 8 trunks with ivy — average20' up.
• 15' x 20' steep bank, light shade, south east facing
Invaded by scotch broom
• 20' x 30' steep bank, west facing, medium shade
Invaded by an ivy sheet
• 10' x 20' gentle slope, south west facing, open light, Oregon grape
Invaded by scattered scotch broom and daphne
• 20' x 30' sloped, medium shade, western facing, very light sword fern and oregon grape.
Invaded by holly, Himalayn blackberry and an ivy sheet.
• 10'x 20'gentle slope,medium shade, western facing, medium density salal.
Invaded by scotch broom, Himalayn blackberry and daphne.
Total square footage of invasive area — 8,000 SF
Bart Berg
G%'TY OF
a p
2
2 ti
S
R�ncE�
ATTACHMENT C
l` iii State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Coastal Region • Region 6 • 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563 -9618
Telephone: (360) 249 -4628 • Fax: (360) 249 -1229
August 26, 2016
Christy Carr
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning and Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North,
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 -1812
Dear Ms. Carr:
Subject: 6967 NE Bergman Road.
I am writing to you regarding the request for a Shoreline Development Application for parcel # 092502 -2-
060 -2009, section 09, Township 25, Range 2 East. This parcel is located on Little Manzanita Bay. The
parcel is made up of a point of the shoreline that is currently un- developed with a mature forested buffer.
The applicant is proposing to build a residential home on the property within the shoreline buffer zone.
The size of the property and its proximity on the point displaces almost the entire shoreline buffer zone.
The applicant has put forward a site - specific vegetation management plan in lieu of the standard buffer.
Upon review of the proposed project and the site specific vegetation management plan the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife is has concerns with the proposed project. The location of the
house and the proposed vegetation management plan does not meet the "no net loss" standard and will
result in a significant impact to a key, limited, sensitive, shoreline buffer. The presence of the house in
and of its self, within the buffer zone, will have negative impacts on the environment. The purpose of the
Shoreline Master Program and the Buffer set backs were put in place for a reason and this proposed action
is in direct conflict of the goals and aims of that plan. The proposed project is disruptive to a very limited
and critical shoreline habitat. In addition, there is space available on this parcel where residential
development can occur without encroaching into the shoreline critical area buffers
This is type of habitat is very limited in Washington State due to past developmental practices. It is
important that we protect the few remaining areas with intact forested riparian marine shorelines. In
addition, it is important to keep those precious few shoreline areas in Washington State, that are currently
not developed... free of development. To develop a property within a critical area buffer when that parcel
has sufficient room to accommodate a residential home outside of the buffer appears to be
counterintuitive to the Shoreline Master Program.
Very Kind Regards,
Michael L. Blanton
WDFW Habitat Biologist
Port Orchard, WA 98366
COY OF
a p
a Z
2 v
S
R'nct�
ATTACHMENT D
Z
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND
March 7, 2016
Bruce Anderson, AIA
Cutler Anderson Architects
135 Parfitt Way SW
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
RE: PLN50438 Pre - Application Summary
Dear Applicant:
Thank you meeting with planning staff on February 16, 2016 to discuss the proposal to construct a single -
family residence at tax parcel number 092502 -2- 060 -2009 on NE Bergman Road (subject property). A
summary of applicable sections of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) and Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) along with comments from other reviewers is provided below.
The subject property is located within the R -2 zoning and Shoreline Residential Conservancy shoreline
designations. The subject property tidelands have a Priority Aquatic A designation. Single- family
residential development is a permitted use within this shoreline designation and requires a shoreline
substantial development exemption (SSDE) application. All applicable dimensional standards of BIMC
18.12 also apply.
Shoreline Master Program
Environmental Impacts (SMP 4 1 2)
All shoreline development, use and activities must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a
manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. To assure that
development activities contribute to meeting the no net loss standard, a site - specific analysis is required.
It must include an analysis of potential impacts and a mitigation plan that includes compensatory
mitigation measures when determined necessary as a result of the analysis. As discussed at the pre-
application meeting, the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) required for the site - specific vegetation
management area may be used to document the no net loss standard (see below).
SMP Section 4.1.2.5 provides that vegetation replanting is required for all development, uses or activities
within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction that either alters existing native vegetation or Au vegetation in
the required shoreline buffer. Vegetation replanting will be required for any native vegetation disturbance
outside the shoreline buffer. The SMP does not provide for the removal of significant trees and the City
may require alterations to the proposed site plan in order to retain significant trees.
If mitigation is required, the applicant must provide assurance that the mitigation area will be maintained
in perpetuity through notice on title, conservation easement or similar mechanism. In addition, a periodic
monitoring program must be included as a component of the required mitigation plan. Monitoring must
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 981 10 -181 2
www.baInbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND
occur for a minimum duration of five years from the date of the completed development and may include
periodic maintenance measures.
Vegetation Management (SNIP 4.1.3)
As discussed at the pre - application conference, all development within the shoreline jurisdiction must
meet the vegetation management goals, policies and regulations provided in SMP Section 4.1.3. Two
alternative methods may be used to meet these standards. One is the prescriptive shoreline buffer. The
Shoreline Residential Conservancy shoreline designation on an undeveloped lot has a 150 -foot shoreline
buffer measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). While the site plan submitted with the pre-
application materials does not show the OHWM and is not to scale, it is most likely that the 150 -foot
buffer covers a majority of the parcel. When a shoreline property is significantly encumbered by shoreline
or critical area buffers, single - family development is allowed pursuant to the encumbered lot provisions in
SMP Section 4.2.1.7.
As an alternative to the prescriptive shoreline buffer dimensions and encumbered lot provisions, an
applicant may propose specific dimensional standards establishing a site - specific vegetation management
area through a Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Requirements for the HMP are provided in SMP
Section 4.1.3.5.a and Appendix B, Section B -4. Please note, the City will send the HMP to an appropriate
third -party review agency — likely Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) — at the cost of
the applicant. In addition, the applicant is required to record with the County Auditor a notice on title
specifying the location and dimensions of the site - specific vegetation management area prior to permit
issuance.
Vegetation management regulations found in SMP Section 4.1.3 are applicable to both the prescriptive
shoreline buffer and site - specific vegetation management area. Please refer to the vegetation alteration
standards in SMP Section 4.1.3 for more detail.
Shoreline Structure Setback View Requirement (SMP 4.1.3.11)
In accordance with SMP Section 4.1.3.11. Lb, the shoreline structure setback provisions apply where an
existing primary single - family residential structure is located within 100 feet of the subject property line.
All measurements are to the closest primary residential structure on either side of the subject property as
measured parallel to the shoreline.
The subject property is a headland. The adjoining development is located only on one side, outside the
shoreline buffer. SMP Section 4.1.3.11 does not include this particular scenario; however, SMP Section
4.1.3.11.4.c.i and SW Section 4.1.3.11.5.c both use the distance from the OHWM to the most waterward
portion of the primary residence structure of the adjoining property to determine the shoreline structure
setback line. As such, the shoreline structure setback line for the subject property will be determined by
the distance from the OHWM to the most waterward portion of the primary residence structure of the
adjoining property to the north. The proposed development must meet the shoreline structure setback
view requirement unless a shoreline variance is granted.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 981 10 -181 2
www.bainbridsiewa.gov
206.842.763 3
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND
Critical Areas (SMP 4.1.5)
The site plan submitted with your pre - application shows a steep slope on the subject property. The
Geological Assessment Report submitted with the pre - application materials (Krazan, 2005) will need to
be updated to reflect the proposed development. Please see the Development Engineer's comments
(attached) regarding geologically hazardous areas.
Stormwater Management (SMP 4.1.6)
All shoreline development must minimize any increase in surface runoff through control, treatment, and
release of surface water runoff so that the receiving water quality, shore properties, and features are not
adversely affected, and through compliance with the standards established in the City's adopted
Stormwater Management Manual in BIMC 15.20. On-site utility features serving a principal use, such as
water, sewer or gas line to a residence, are "accessory utilities" and are considered a part of the principal
use. Accessory underground utilities are a prohibited use in the Priority Aquatic A designation,
located on the subject property waterward of the OHWM. The drainage plan for the subject property
cannot include any underground utilities waterward of the OHWM.
Please see the Development Engineer's comments (attached) regarding additional stormwater
requirements.
Other Review
Comments from the City's Development Engineer and Fire Marshal are attached. The Kitsap Health
District had no comments (see attached).
Neat Steps
Your next step is to submit a SSDE application with supporting documents and applicable fees. Please
contact Nan Gladstein at 206.780.3762 or ngladsteingbainbrid ewa gov to schedule a permit submittal
appointment.
If you have any questions, please call me at 780 -3719.
Since y,
a"000000
Christy Carr, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments: Comments from Development Engineer, Fire Marshal and Kitsap Health District
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 -1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
C
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND
cc: Boulder Green LLC
POB 10857
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
Please note that information provided at the pre - application conference and in this letter reflects existing codes and standards, currently available
information about the site and environs, and the level of detail provided in the pre - application conference submittal. Comments provided
Pursuant to pre - application review shall not be construed to relieve the applicant of conformance with all applicable fees, codes, policies, and
standards in effect at the time of complete land use permit application. The comments on this proposal do not represent or guarantee approval of
any project or permit While we have attempted to cover as many of the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire related aspects of your
proposal as possible during this preliminary review, subsequent review of your land use permit application may reveal issues not identified during
the is initial review. If the city's pre - application review indicates that the City intends to recommend or impose one or more conditions of permit
approval, and if the applicant objects to any of said conditions, the applicant is hereby requested and advised to provide written notice to the City
of which conditions the applicant objects to and the reasons for the applicant's objections.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 981 10 -181 2
www.bainbridgewagov
206.842.7633
GOY OF
a � o
a Z
L �
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 28th, 2016
To: Christy Carr, Senior Planner
From: Peter Corelis, P.E., Development Engineer
Subject: PLN50438 SSDE — Imeson /Boulder Glen LLC
Project Description:
The proposal is to construct a single- family residence, with driveway access, and parking within the
shoreline jurisdiction and in the buffer to a geologically hazardous area.
Project Review Comments:
I have completed a review of the above referenced project received by the City of Bainbridge Island
(COBI) on May 41h• 2016. Additional information is required to provide further comment for the
Shoreline Substantial Development Exemption (SSDE) application. Please see the requested items
below:
1. The development is adjacent to one or more geologically hazardous critical areas otherwise identified
as landslide hazard areas. Landslide hazard areas are characterized by 10 vertical feet or more of steep
slopes over 40% in grade, or, slopes between 15% to 40% slope with groundwater seeps or springs
and impermeable soils overlain or interbedded with permeable granular soils. The application for
development shall meet all the submittal requirements required for proposals for work occurring In
all geologically hazardous areas and buffers per the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), Appendix B -9.
2. The critical area geotechnical report shall include a designation of all landslide hazard areas, buffers,
and building setbacks on the site plan.
3. Submit Step Forms 1 & 2 with the geotechnical report signed and stamped by a geotechnical engineer.
4. Any reduction to the prescribed steep slope buffers shall be justified though analytical means
demonstrating the minimum factors of safety per Appendix B -9 are met.
5. A buffer reduction shall undergo a third -party geotechnical review. A $2500 deposit with an
authorization form is collected with the application to initiate and cover the cost of the review.
6. All work within 300 feet of the top of the steep slope lies within the zone of influence of the landslide
hazard area. All surface stormwater systems and alterations within the zone of influence must be
reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer.
7. Provide a detail of the pervious pavement section intended to serve as the driveway surface.
Page 1 of 2
8. Submit detailed soil infiltration rates and soil log information to determine where stormwater
infiltration is feasible.
9. The private access driveway exceeds 150 feet in length. A firetruck turnaround must be incorporated
into the design to serve the lot. It must be reasonably shown that the firetruck turnaround does not
occupy the same physical space as parking areas. Provide a superimposed firetruck turnaround on the
plan that meets the minimum dimensions required. See the Bainbridge Island Fire Department for the
required detail.
P: \Engineering \Project Files \50000.50100 \50400 -50499 \50438 \PLN50438 SSDE DE
Comments.docx Page 2 of 2
G%CY OF
a Z
2 v
S
ATTACHMENT F
Christy Carr
From: Alison Osullivan <aosullivan @suquamish.nsn.us>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Christy Carr
Cc: Brenda Padgham; Blanton, Michael L (DFW)
Subject: RE: 6967 NE Bergman Rd.
The Suquamish Tribe also has concerns regarding the proposed project. Critical Area buffers should be
maintained. Mitigation sequencing is to first avoid, then minimize and mitigate in that order. There does not seem to
be adequate information provided as to why the buffer cannot be fully maintained. The literature indicates that buffers
reduce impacts by moderating the effects of stormwater runoff including stabilizing soil to prevent erosion and filtering
suspended solids. Buffers also provide essential habitat and migration corridors for many species for use in feeding,
roosting, breeding and rearing of young, and cover for safety, mobility, and thermal protection. Buffers reduce the
adverse impacts of human disturbance on habitat including blocking noise and glare, reducing direct human disturbance
from dumped debris and trampling, and provides visual and physical separation (Buffers Use and Effectiveness, EPA,
February 1992).
The Suquamish Tribe is a signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott. 12 Stat. 927, Article 5 of the Point Elliott Treaty
secures the Tribes "right of taking fish at usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations ". The proposed project is
located within the Tribe's adjudicated usual and accustomed grounds and stations ( "U &A "). Suquamish Tribal members
harvest fin fish in Manzanita Bay, primarily coho and chum. Clams were also commonly harvested all along the shores of
Manzanita Bay until the area was deemed Unclassified by the State of Washington Department of Health. Harvest will
resume when clams are safe to eat. Any regulatory decisions that could lead to additional contaminants or impacts in
Manzanita Bay are in direct conflict with the Tribes efforts to have future harvest opportunities.
The Tribe requests that buffers and critical areas be preserved to maintain Tribal Treaty harvest opportunities.
Alison O'Sullivan
Biologist, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department
r
,r
18490 Suquamish Way (street)
P.O. Box 498 (mailing)
Suquamish, WA 98392
phone: (360) 394 -8447
fax: (360) 598 -4666
This email is intended exclusively for the individual(s) or entities to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
information and /or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying or taking of any action in reliance on
the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender electronically, return the email to the above email address and delete it from your files.
Thank you.