HEX OLSEN PLN51183 RUE OFFICIAL RECORD 110818Post Hearing Guidance
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Olsen Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51183 RUE
Page 1 of 2
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In The Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN-51183 RUE
)
Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler )
)
For Approval of a Reasonable Use ) POST HEARING
Exception ) GUIDANCE
TO: Annie Hillier, City Planner
Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler, Applicant
At the conclusion of the open record hearing on this application on November 8, 2018, it was the
determination of the Hearing Examiner that additional information was needed on the application
before a final decision could be made. The information is to be provided by the City Planner in
response to two inquiries of the Hearing Examiner:
1. Does the fact that Exhibit 14, the Wetland Delineation Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan,
Ecological Land Services, references a 40-foot wetland buffer when the City ord inances
require a 60-foot buffer, make a difference in the analysis by the City of what constitutes
appropriate mitigation for buffer intrusion and what results in no net loss of wetlands?
Specifically, do any of the findings, conclusions or recommendation s in that report need
to be modified, and does the City wish to modify any of its analysis once the required
wetland buffer is applied?
2. Acknowledging that the City code allows for a single family residence in this area for “up
to 1200 square feet ,” with a reasonable use exception, and accepting the Applicant’s
conclusion for the moment that the footprint of the proposed house cannot be moved
south or west, to what extent would the size of the house need to be reduced to meet the
City’s concerns about mitigation for buffer intrusion and no net loss?
At the hearing, the Applicant agreed to explore these two questions with the City, with a report
on those discussions to be filed with the Hearing Examiner Clerk by email no later than
November 16 at noon. It is hoped the Applicant and City can agree on a joint report. If not, each
may file a report by that deadline. Once filed, the Hearing Examiner will determine if the
hearing needs to be re-opened to allow members of the public to comment on it. If the imp acts
are reduced, it is unlikely this will be necessary.
Post Hearing Guidance
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Olsen Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51183 RUE
Page 2 of 2
Upon filing by email with the Clerk to the Hearing Examiner, the Clerk shall mark each item
forwarded with a successive Exhibit number, and forward that exhibit to the Hearing Examiner.
The Clerk may wish to upload the document to the online portal as well.
This guidance is issued on this 15th day of November 2018 in response to inquiries from the City
to be distributed to the parties named in this guidance.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Sound Law Center
EXHIBIT LIST
Olsen RUE
PLN51183 RUE
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: November 8, 2018
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Staff Report 11/8/2018
Dated
2 Preapplication Letter-Checklist, with memos from Senior Planner, Development
Engineer, and Bainbridge Island Fire Department
07/24/2018
Dated
3 RUE Application 08/06/2018
Received
4 Environmental (SEPA) Checklist 08/06/2018
Received
5 Project Narrative 08/06/2018
Received
6 Site Plan 08/06/2018
Received
7 Notice of Complete Application 08/27/2018
Dated
8 Notice of Application with SEPA comment period and hearing date 08/31/2018
Dated
9 Mailing List, Affidavit of Publication, and Certificate of Posting various
10 Public comments, received during SEPA comment period various
11 Information Request Letter 09/17/2018
Dated
12 Response to Information Request Letter 09/24/2018
Received
13 Email from City regarding area of impact 10/09/2018
Dated
14 FINAL – Wetland Delineation and Buffer Mitigation Plan 10/12/2018
Received
15 City Development Engineer Conditions of Approval 10/17/2018
Received
16 Notice of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) 10/19/2018
Dated
17 Public Comment, received after SEPA comment period 09/21/2018
Received
18 Power Point presentation by City Planner, Annie Hillier 11/08/2018
Admitted
19 Applicants Personal Statement 11/08/2018
Admitted
20 Site Maps provided used by Applicant 11/08/2018
Admitted
21 Public Comment (4) 11/08/2018
Admitted
22 Ecological Land Services: Memorandum to Staff Report review & responses 11/08/2018
Admitted
23 Additional Public Comment (4) 11/08/2018
Admitted
EXHIBIT LIST
Olsen RUE
PLN51183 RUE
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: November 8, 2018
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
24
Response from Planner to HEX 11/16/18
Admitted
25
Response from Applicant to HEX 11/19/18
Admitted
EXHIBIT LIST
Olsen RUE
PLN51183 RUE
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: November 8, 2018
Annie Hillier, Planner City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Staff Report 11/8/2018
Dated
2 Preapplication Letter-Checklist, with memos from Senior Planner, Development
Engineer, and Bainbridge Island Fire Department
07/24/2018
Dated
3 RUE Application 08/06/2018
Received
4 Environmental (SEPA) Checklist 08/06/2018
Received
5 Project Narrative 08/06/2018
Received
6 Site Plan 08/06/2018
Received
7 Notice of Complete Application 08/27/2018
Dated
8 Notice of Application with SEPA comment period and hearing date 08/31/2018
Dated
9 Mailing List, Affidavit of Publication, and Certificate of Posting various
10 Public comments, received during SEPA comment period various
11 Information Request Letter 09/17/2018
Dated
12 Response to Information Request Letter 09/24/2018
Received
13 Email from City regarding area of impact 10/09/2018
Dated
14 FINAL – Wetland Delineation and Buffer Mitigation Plan 10/12/2018
Received
15 City Development Engineer Conditions of Approval 10/17/2018
Received
16 Notice of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) 10/19/2018
Dated
17 Public Comment, received after SEPA comment period 09/21/2018
Received
1
Department of Planning and Community Development
Staff Report
Project Olsen RUE
File No. PLN51183 RUE
Date November 8, 2018
To City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Project Manager Annie Hillier, Planner
Request The request is for a reasonable use exceptions (RUE) on a lot covered by a
category III wetland and associated 60 ft. buffer. The proposal is for the
development of a single-family residence (SFR) within the wetland buffer.
Address 2222 Belfair Ave. NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Tax Assessor # 41480030100007
Environmental Review A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) WAC 197-11-355, was published on October 19,
2018 with the appeal period ending November 2, 2018. No appeal was filed.
Hearing Examiner Review
The hearing examiner shall review the reasonable use exception (RUE) application and conduct a public
hearing pursuant to the provisions of BIMC 2.16.100. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal’s compliance with all of the RUE review criteria in
subjection E of this section.
Staff Recommendation
As proposed, the project does not meet four of the eleven criteria for RUE review and approval in BIMC
16.20.080.F. The City recommends that specific conditions be imposed by the Hearing Examiner, in
order to address the four criteria that are not met. If such conditions are imposed, either as specified by
staff in Conditions 20-26 or as determined by the Hearing Examiner, staff would recommend conditional
approval of the project.
2
Part I: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposal is for a single-family residence (SFR) and appurtenances, such as porches/boardwalks, a
rain garden, and a forked driveway. The applicant requests a reasonable use exception (RUE) to develop
the property, as the parcel contains a category III wetland and the 60-foot buffer covers the majority of
the site. To mitigate for impacts to the wetland buffer, the applicant proposes enhancement in the
remaining buffer and in a portion of the wetland.
As proposed, the project does not meet four of the eleven criteria for RUE review and approval in BIMC
16.20.080.F. Rather than recommending denial, staff recommends that the project be conditioned to
meet the review criteria for RUEs (Conditions 20-26, or as modified by the Hearing Examiner), as
described in Part VII; without such conditions, staff recommends denial.
Figure 1 – Site Plan
3
Part II: GENERAL INFORMATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Assessor’s Record Information:
Tax lot number 41480030100007
Owner of record Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler
Lot size 0.46 acres (20,038 square feet)
Terrain:
Bedrock soils; site slopes down to the east with approximately 12 feet of grade change.
Site Development:
The site is undeveloped.
Access:
The site is accessed off of Belfair Ave. NE. Currently Belfair Ave. NE is not open for vehicular access.
The applicant has submitted a right-of-way permit to open the west portion of the Belfair Ave. NE to
serve the site.
Public Services:
Police City of Bainbridge Island Police Department
Fire Bainbridge Island Fire District
Schools Bainbridge Island School District
Water South Bainbridge Kitsap Public Utilities District
Sewer Kitsap Sewer District 7
Surrounding Uses:
Adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. There are several undeveloped lots
in the area, five of which received RUEs and zoning variances in recent years for the development of
single-family residences.
Existing Zoning:
The site is zoned R-2, two units per acre.
Surrounding Zoning:
The surrounding zoning is R-2, two units per acre.
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as a Residential District area.
Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designation:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the surrounding area as a Residential District area.
4
Figure 2 – Vicinity Map, Aerial Image, and Zoning:
R-2
R-0.4
5
Part III: APPLICATION BACKGROUND
Date: Action:
June 13, 2018 Preapplication intake appointment
July 10, 2018 Preapplication conference
July 24, 2018 Preapplication summary letter and checklist sent to applicant (Exhibit 2)
August 6, 2018 Application for RUE submitted (Exhibit 3)
August 27, 2018 Application deemed complete (Exhibit 7)
August 31, 2018 Notice of Application with SEPA comment period and hearing date published
(Exhibit 8)
Multiple Four public comments received during SEPA comment period (Exhibit 10)
September 17, 2018 City issued an Information Request letter (Exhibit 11)
September 24, 2018 Information request fulfilled with a standalone response (Exhibit 12) and
revised wetland report and mitigation plan
October 12, 2018 A second (final) revised wetland report and mitigation plan was submitted
(Exhibit 14), in response to an email from the City (Exhibit 13)
October 18, 2018 Staff conducted a site visit
October 19, 2018 Notice of Mitigation Determination of Nonsignificance issued (Exhibit 16)
Part IV: PUBLIC COMMENTS (4 total) (Exhibit 10)
Impact to wetland:
Several commenters expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development on the
wetland. One commenter stated that not enough study had been done, and called for permeable
paving materials, non-toxic building materials, and attention to stormwater runoff.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed development will impact the wetland buffer, but that
the Code allows development to occur through a reasonable use exception with compensatory
mitigation and lot coverage limited to 1,200 square feet. Staff recommends that additional analysis be
provided to support the finding that the proposal will result in no net loss of buffer function (see Part
VII, below). The project is conditioned to use permeable paving materials (Condition 14), and to use
non-toxic construction materials (Condition 1 and 10), while Conditions 13 and 15 address
stormwater runoff.
Intersection safety:
One commenter expressed concern about the misalignment of Soundview Dr. NE, which causes
confusion for drivers on Belfair Ave. The addition of a driveway to Soundview Dr. NE needs to be
carefully considered.
Staff Response: Mitigation for any potential traffic-related impacts was determined by the City’s
Development Engineer to be unnecessary.
Runoff and waterflow:
One commenter expressed concern about a potential increase in water on the subject lot after the
culvert to the southern wetland is repaired as a part of a separate project, as well as runoff generated
from an increase in impervious surfaces as a result of the proposal.
Staff Response: The wetlands biologist is involved in the culvert repair project to the south and
indicated during the preapplication conference that the culvert repair will not impact the wetland
onsite due to existing site conditions and an outlet for water flowing to the north. The project is
conditioned to use permeable hardscaping where feasible (Condition 14).
Support for smaller in-fill development:
6
One commenter, who recently received two RUEs for two lots to the south of the subject parcel,
expressed support for the project, siting affordability and diversity among its benefits.
Staff Response: Comment noted.
Part V: AGENCY COMMENT
Agency: Action:
Fire District Approved (no conditions)
City Development
Engineering
Approved with conditions (Exhibit 15)
Health District n/a – the property is served by sewer
Part VI: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies apply to the proposal:
1. Environmental Element
Goal EN-1: Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island’s natural systems, natural beauty and
environmental quality.
Goal EN-4: Encourage sustainable development that maintains diversity of healthy, functioning
ecosystems that are essential for maintaining our quality of life and economic viability into the
future.
Goal EN-5: Protect and enhance wildlife, fish resources and ecosystems.
Staff response: Guiding Principle #4 of the Comprehensive Plan provides that the City “Respect
private property rights protected by the State and U.S. Constitutions” and “Recognize that
private property rights are not absolute but must be balanced with necessary and reasonable
regulation to protect the public health, safety and welfare”. The property owner would be
denied private property rights protected by the State and U.S. Constitutions without an RUE for
the property. The granting of an RUE balances private property rights with necessary and
reasonable regulation to protect the island’s finite environmental resources.
The applicant is proposing to enhance a wetland and wetland buffer. The project is conditioned
to identify the buffers in the field prior to any construction activities, and to provide fencing,
utilize non-leaching roofing, and restrict herbicide and pesticide use to ensure long term
protection of the wetlands after the introduction of the residential use. The project is also
conditioned to analyze the feasibility of the minimal excavation foundation systems per the
2012 Low Impact Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as a means of minimizing
impacts to the site and adjacent wetlands. As conditioned, the project meets the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan referenced above.
2. Land Use Element
Policy LU 14.1: The Residential District area is designated for less intensive residential
development and a variety of agricultural and forestry uses.
Staff response: The proposal is for a single-family residence with limited lot coverage and is
conditioned to use low-impact development best management practices, meeting the policy
stated above.
7
Part VII: LAND USE CODE ANALYSIS
The following Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) regulations apply to the proposal:
1. BIMC Title 18 Zoning
A. 18.06.020 Purpose
The purpose of the R-2 zone is to provide residential neighborhoods in an environment with
special Island character consistent with other land uses such as agriculture and forestry, and
the preservation of natural systems and open space, at a somewhat higher density than the
R-1 district.
Staff response: The proposal is for the construction of one home and the preservation of the
wetland and buffer outside of the area impacted by the development and as conditioned by
the project.
B. 18.09.020 Permitted Uses
Single-family dwellings, and accessory uses and buildings to single family residences, are
permitted uses in the R-2 zone.
Staff response: The request is for the construction of a single-family residence, a permitted
use in this zone.
C. 18.12.010 Dimensional Standards
Maximum Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions
The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 20,000 square feet, with a minimum lot depth and
width of 80 feet.
Staff response: Although somewhat irregularly shaped, the lot meets the minimum lot area
per dwelling unit and minimum lot dimensions for the R-2 zoning district. The lot is 20,037.6
square feet, and the lot depth and width each exceed 80 feet.
Maximum Lot Coverage
The maximum allowed lot coverage is 20% is R-2 zoning.
Staff response: The maximum lot coverage allowed for an RUE is 1,200 square feet, which is
less than what would be allowed by the zoning designation (4,007.52 square feet).
Setbacks
In R-2 zoning, the front yard setback is 25 feet. Side setbacks are 5 feet minimum, 15 feet
total. The rear setback is 15 feet.
Staff response: The proposed SFR meets the setback requirements for R-2 zoning.
D. BIMC 18.15.020 Parking and Loading
Residential dwelling units are required to provide two spaces for each primary dwelling.
Staff response: The applicant is proposing a forked driveway to accommodate two vehicles
on the site.
E. BIMC 18.18.030 Fort Ward Overlay District
8
The lot is located in the Fort Ward Overlay District. The proposed single-family residence is
subject to the Fort Ward Design Guidelines.
Staff response: The project will be reviewed for compliance with the Fort Ward Design
Guidelines upon building permit application.
2. BIMC Title 16 Environment
The wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan submitted with the application
(Exhibit 14) identifies a wetland on approximately the eastern half of the property. The wetland
was rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington
– 2014 Update (Rating System) (Hruby 2014). The wetland received 16 points on the rating form
and is a Category III, Depressional system, based on function.
Buffer widths are based on wetland category, scores for habitat functions on the rating form,
and the intensity of the proposed land use. The wetland was rated 4 points for habitat function.
Residential development in R-0.4, R-1, and R-2 zoning designations is defined as moderate
impact land use. Under the critical areas ordinance, the wetland requires a 60-foot buffer, with
a 15 ft. impervious surface setback.
Figure 3 – The 60-foot buffer and 15 ft. setback extend westerly across the majority of the lot.
9
A. BIMC 16.20.080 Reasonable Use Exceptions
Applicability and Intent
An applicant may request an RUE pursuant to BIMC 16.20.080.A when a site assessment
review pursuant to BIMC 15.20 or a pre-application conference demonstrates that: 1. The
subject property is encumbered to such an extent by critical areas and/or critical area
buffers that application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the subject
property; 2. Reasonable use of the subject property cannot be achieved through Buffer
Modification (BIMC 16.20.110 and 140) or a Habitat Management Plan (BIMC 16.20.110);
and 3. Alternatives to development through an RUE are not available or acceptable.
Staff response: As shown in the wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan, the
wetland and its buffer extend across the majority of the property. Buffer modification allows
the buffer to be reduced up to 25 percent of its required width. A 25 percent reduction in
buffer width still results in a buffer that encumbers a significant portion of the property and
does not provide enough area to develop a single-family residence (SFR). A Habitat
Management Plan is a report that evaluates measures necessary to maintain, enhance and
improve terrestrial and/or aquatic habitat on a proposed development site, and is not
applicable to the development proposal or site. The only way for the applicant to develop
the site with an SFR is through a reasonable use exception.
Reasonable Use Review Criteria
The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on
the proposal’s compliance with all of the RUE review criteria described below. Staff finds
that the request does not meet RUE review criteria #3, #4, #8, and #9, as described below.
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property;
Staff response: Without an RUE, application of the critical areas ordinance would deny
all reasonable use of the property as the lot does not have area outside of the wetland,
buffer, and impervious surface setback to construct a 1,200 square foot home and
appurtenances.
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical area or
its required buffer;
Staff response: Single-family residential development is permitted in the R-2 zoning
district. Other permitted uses in the same zoning district, such as a passive recreation
park, may have less impact to the critical area or its buffer. However, the City has found
that a use such as a passive recreation park is not a reasonable alternative to a single-
family residence proposed within a residential zoning district. There do not appear to be
any other reasonable alternatives to the proposed use that would achieve the same
purpose for the applicant with less impact to the critical area or its required buffer.
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
Staff response:
Avoiding impacts
The project avoids grading within the buffer by incorporating natural topography into
the site design. However, the proposal cannot completely avoid permanent impacts
10
to the wetland buffer because it encompasses the majority of the site. There is no
practicable alternative to reasonably accomplish the project’s purpose without
impacts to the buffer.
Minimizing impacts
• The SFR is located on the southern portion of the property to minimize the length
of driveway
• Walkways will be made of permeable materials
• Use of a rain garden to manage stormwater
• The proposal is also conditioned to minimize impacts (Conditions 7-10, 13-15, and
20-23)
Staff finds that additional measures should be explored to minimize impacts to the
wetland and wetland buffer. For example, the SFR could be shifted to the west to
increase the amount of buffer between the development and the wetland. Efforts
should also be taken to minimize the amount of hard surfaces and lawn/grass area
surrounding the SFR. Staff recommends that the project be conditioned with
additional measures to minimize impacts to the critical area. As proposed, this step in
the sequence is not met.
Rectifying impacts
There are no opportunities to repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected
environment as the project represents a permanent impact to the buffer
Reducing or eliminating impacts
The project cannot reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and
maintenance, as the project proposes a permanent break in the wetland buffer
Compensating
• Removal of invasive plant species in wetland buffer.
• Enhancement with native species (5,161 square feet total, 735 square feet in
wetland)
Monitoring the impact
The project is conditioned to provide monitoring reports on an annual basis for a
minimum of five years or until the director determines the mitigation project has met
the performance standards (Condition 19).
The Washington State Department of Ecology specifies that, “minimization, the second
step in the mitigation sequence, means reducing the amount of wetland impacts as
much as possible when impacts are unavoidable.”1 Staff finds that the RUE review
criteria, “the proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030)”, is not met because the second step in the
mitigation sequence, minimization, can include additional actions to reduce impacts to
the wetland and buffer. As proposed, this RUE review criteria is not met.
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable
use of the property;
1 Washington State Department of Ecology. “Avoiding & minimizing wetland impacts. “ 29
October 2018. https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Mitigation/Avoidance-
and-minimization.
11
Staff response: During the preapplication conference, staff discussed with the applicant
the need to demonstrate that the impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary
to allow reasonable use of the property – particularly regarding the amount of hard
surface proposed around the SFR, and the location of the SFR relative to the wetland
edge. The site plan submitted with the RUE application showed an increase in hard
surfaces with larger patios proposed, and no change in the location of the SFR. During
project review, staff asked the applicant to demonstrate efforts to minimize the forked
driveway, and to consider shifting the SFR away from the wetland edge or provide
supporting information demonstrating that this is infeasible. Specific efforts to minimize
the driveway were not provided, and shifting the SFR away from the wetland does not
appear infeasible based on the information provided. Staff finds that the proposed
impact to the critical area is not the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the
property, and recommends that the Hearing Examiner consider additional measures to
minimize impacts. As proposed, this RUE review criteria is not met.
Figure 4 – The site plan submitted for the preapplication conference showed slightly
smaller decks:
12
Figure 5 – The site plan submitted with the RUE application shows larger decks but is
otherwise substantially the same as the preapplication version:
5. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of
actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s predecessor, that occurred after February
20, 1992;
Staff response: The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is
not the result of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s predecessor, that
occurred after February 20, 1992. The land was approved for division on June 28, 1962
as a part of the Fort Ward Estates Division 3 Plat, and the wetland was an existing
condition prior to the applicant’s purchase of the subject lot.
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development;
Staff response: Under BIMC 18.12.050, Rules of Measurement, lot coverage means that
portion of the total lot area covered by buildings, excluding up to 24 inches of eaves on
each side of the building, any building or portion of building located below
predevelopment and finished grade. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed
1,200 square feet.
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property;
13
Staff response: As conditioned, the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the property (Conditions 1-26).
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with
mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
Staff response: Although there are no prescriptive mitigation requirements for wetland
buffers, the mitigation plan is required to contain goals and objectives that are related
to the functions and values of the original critical area. As described in the wetland
report, the existing wetland buffer provides relatively low function and value for the
critical area – it lacks species diversity which provides habitat for local species; noise and
light filtration; pollutant filtration; and flood attenuation. However, the dense
blackberry thickets do help to prevent human and pet intrusion into the wetland.
To compensate for this loss of function, a split-rail fence is proposed along the edge of
the development area next to the wetland, as well as Pacific willow and red osier
dogwood, which can form dense thickets within the wetland itself. Staff finds that
additional measures should be considered to adequately prevent future encroachment
into the wetland, such as the installation of shore pines or other higher stature, densely
planted trees or shrubs along the buffer edge. Additional area between the SFR and the
wetland edge may be necessary to achieve this.
The mitigation plan also focuses on:
• Improving habitat, protection, and foraging areas for local wildlife species by
removing blackberry thickets and planting a variety of native species within the
wetland buffer. Cedar trees will provide year-round cover and oak trees will
provide a high deciduous layer to increase habitat availability for local species.
• Improving flood control by adding native plants (“scrub/shrub community”)
within the wetland itself.
As proposed, this RUE review criteria is not met because the proposal does not
adequately compensate for the identified function and value of the original critical
area –preventing human and pet intrusion.
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values;
Staff response: The wetland report and mitigation plan does not reference the most
recent guidance released by the Department of Ecology, “Update on Wetland Buffers:
The State of the Science” (October 2013)2; it references Volume 1 of the 2005 synthesis,
which the most recent version updated based on new information published between
2003 and 2012. Staff recommends that the wetland report and mitigation plan be
updated to reflect the most recent Ecology guidance, which summarizes best available
science for wetlands.
The project proposes to impact a total of 5,967 square feet of wetland buffer; 2,219
square feet of this area will be converted to lawn area and a rain garden, to be planted
2 Hruby, Thomas (2013) “Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science.” Shorelands and
Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of Ecology. Retrieved
from: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Tools-resources/Best-available-
science.
14
with native species, but will not be a part of the proposed mitigation area. The
mitigation area totals 5,161 square feet.
The mitigation plan states that, “typically, buffer mitigation is conducted at a 1:1 ratio
and considered sufficient because the impact and mitigation areas are equal”. Staff is
unable to substantiate this finding with best available science. Further, enhancement
requires the highest replacement ratio for impacts to wetlands – it starts at 6:1.
Although the impact in this case is to the buffer, it is reasonable to assume that a similar
logic of requiring a higher ratio for enhancement would apply to buffers.
Finally, the report states that the proposal results in no net loss of buffer function
“because of the selected plant species”, which will provide functions such as preventing
intrusion and providing wildlife habitat year-round (see “no-net-loss assessment” on
page 14 of the report (Exhibit 14)). However, it is not clear how well the buffer will
function with respect to preventing intrusion, given the narrow depth of buffer
proposed between the SFR and the wetland edge (approximately 5 feet). Additionally, it
is possible that the enhancement area presents an opportunity for a functional lift that
outweighs the loss of function of the existing buffer, but data regarding buffer function
in the enhancement area before and after mitigation activities were not included in the
report. The report should include the supporting data used to draw the conclusion that
the proposal results in no net loss of buffer function. As proposed, this review criteria is
not met.
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action;
Staff response: Cumulative impacts are the combined effects on the environment
caused by past, current, and future activities. If adequately conditioned, the proposal
addresses cumulative impacts by siting and designing the SFR to have a minimal impact
on the critical area and mitigating for any permanent loss of buffer or wetland function.
Future impacts are addressed by ensuring that mitigation areas will be maintained in
perpetuity and monitored for success, and by taking measures to prevent future
encroachment into the critical area by installing fencing along the buffer.
Cumulative impacts can also be interpreted as the combined effects of individual
actions. From an area-wide perspective, the subject lot is the last lot near this section of
wetland to be developed. To the extent that the no net loss standard is achieved, the
proposal will not contribute to any cumulative impacts that may have resulted from the
development of the other lots within this section of wetland. The image below contains
a development summary of the wetland area.
15
Figure 6 – Development history
The neighboring lots were either developed outside of the surveyed wetland buffers or
received a land use permit that required compliance with wetland regulations and
requirements.
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
Staff response: The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and
standards of the BIMC. An analysis of these regulations and standards is provided
throughout the staff report.
Summary of RUE Review Criteria Analysis
Although the proposal does not meet four of the eleven RUE review criteria, staff finds that
the project can be conditioned to meet these criteria. Staff recommends that the Hearing
Examiner consider additional project conditions including but not limited to:
To meet RUE review criteria #3 and #4:
16
• The SFR must be located as far as possible from the wetland edge, with the minimum
side setback (5 feet) established at the west lot line (Condition 20). Approximately 5 feet
of buffer is proposed between the SFR and the wetland edge, which does not allow for
the standard 15-foot structure or hard surface setback from the edge of a wetland
buffer.
• To prevent encroachment and disturbance of the wetland, the mitigation proposal must
include the the installation of shore pines or other higher stature, densely planted trees
or shrubs along the buffer edge. (Condition 21)
• The total development area, including the forked driveway, porches/boardwalks, and
lawn/grass area must be reduced to the minimum necessary. This may be achieved by
adjusting the building footprint; shifting the SFR closer to the ROW; removing the two
larger porches/boardwalks; and including parking within the building footprint.
(Condition 22)
• Any permitted porches/boardwalks must be limited in size (maximum 6 feet wide),
elevated over existing grade, and construction must minimize topsoil stripping and
grading to the maximum extent practicable. Railing must be placed on any permitted
boardwalk edge facing the wetland to prevent intrusion. (Condition 23)
To meet RUE review criteria #8 and #9:
• The wetland report and mitigation plan must be updated with best available science.
The updated plan must also address the chosen mitigation option (enhancement) and
the potential for improvement of functions in the mitigation area compared to functions
lost in the impact area. Supporting data used to draw the conclusion that the proposal
results in no net loss of buffer function must also be provided. (Condition 25)
• If the updated mitigation plan does not result in no net loss of buffer function,
additional measures to compensate for impacts must be included in a revised proposal
(Condition 26). For example, the mitigation proposal could explore opportunities to
improve the habitat rating of the wetland itself by improving interspersion. An analysis
of the change in wetland rating before and after mitigation, an analysis of the change in
buffer functions as a result of the proposal, and a discussion of the results with respect
to no net loss must be provided with any revisions to the mitigation plan.
B. BIMC 16.20.140 Wetlands
Wetland Buffers
Buffers shall remain as undisturbed or enhanced vegetation areas for the purpose of
protecting the integrity, function, and value of wetland resources.
Staff response: The proposal will impact the buffer with the addition of a single-family
residence and associated driveway and walkways. The remaining buffer will be enhanced
through invasive species removal and native plant installation to increase pollution control;
to increase light and noise screening; to increase foraging, protection, and habitat areas for
local species; and to increase flood control. The proposal also includes the installation of low
impact fencing along the east edge of SFR to prevent future encroachment into the
enhanced buffer and wetland.
Buffer widths are based on wetland category, scores for habitat functions on the rating
form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. A 15-foot structure or hard surface
17
setback is also required from the edge of any wetland buffer. Any other buffer modification
resulting in a reduced buffer area, other than noncompensatory enhancement or buffer
modification, requires a Reasonable Use Exception pursuant to BIMC 16.20.080.
Staff response: The wetland is a category III wetland with a low level of function for habitat
and a moderate impact of land use. The required buffer is 60 ft. and extends across the lot
to the east. The applicant is unable to achieve reasonable use of the property through buffer
modification, either buffer width averaging or buffer width reduction, as buffers may not be
reduced by more than 25 percent of the required width; a 25% reduction in buffer width
does not provide a development area large enough to accommodate a single-family
residence. The lot requires an RUE in order to develop within the buffer.
Fencing and Signs
Wetland buffers shall be temporarily fenced or otherwise suitably marked between the area
where the construction activity occurs and the buffer. Fences shall be made of a durable
protective barrier and shall be highly visible. Silt fences and plastic construction fences may
be used to prevent encroachment on wetlands or their buffers by construction. Temporary
fencing shall be removed after the site work has been completed and the site is fully
stabilized per city approval.
Staff response: The project is conditioned to provide temporary fencing prior to
commencing construction and to maintain the fencing until the work is complete and site is
fully stabilized (Condition 2).
The director may require that permanent signs and/or fencing be placed on the common
boundary between a wetland buffer and the adjacent land. Such signs will identify the
wetland buffer. The director may approve an alternate method of wetland and buffer
identification, if it provides adequate protection to the wetland and buffer.
Staff response: Permanent fencing and signs are required (Condition 3, 4).
Wetland Mitigation Requirements
All development, uses and activities proposed to impact wetlands shall be mitigated
according to this section and the mitigation sequencing steps outlined in BIMC 16.20.030.
The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that each step of
mitigation sequencing has been adequately addressed prior to approval of impacts to
wetlands.
Staff response: As described above, the mitigation plan is required to contain goals and
objectives that are related to the functions and values of the original critical area. The
project is conditioned to meet this requirement (Condition 24). The project is also
conditioned to further minimize impacts, as staff finds that steps could be taken to reduce
the extent of impacts to the buffer (Conditions 20-23).
A wetland critical areas report and wetland mitigation plan is required to address impacts to
the wetland and associated buffer. Compensatory mitigation may occur at the site of the
allowed impacts or at an off-site location.
Staff response: Three versions of the wetland delineation report and buffer mitigation plan
were submitted over the course of the application review. Staff requested revisions to the
original version, which was dated August 3, 2018. An updated version was submitted in
response to the request for revisions (Exhibit 11), dated September 24, 2018. The most
18
significant changes included the addition of a 735 square foot enhancement area within the
wetland; no changes to the building footprint or impact area were proposed, and no
additional explanation was provided. A final wetland delineation and buffer mitigation plan
(Exhibit 14), dated October 12, 2018, was submitted in response to an email from the City,
requesting re-calculation of the area of impact (Exhibit 13). The mitigation plan proposes on-
site mitigation in the form of enhancement. Note that only the final wetland delineation and
buffer mitigation plan is included as an exhibit, but all three versions are available in the
project file.
The city shall require monitoring reports on an annual basis for a minimum of five years and
up to 10 years, or until the director determines the mitigation project has met the
performance standards specified in the wetland mitigation plan. The wetland mitigation
plan shall provide specific performance standards for monitoring the mitigation project.
Performance standards shall be project-specific and use best available science to aid the
director in evaluating whether or not the project has achieved success.
Staff response: The monitoring plan proposes a five-year monitoring period, with year four
skipped. Reports will be submitted to the City by December 31st of each monitored year. The
objectives of the mitigation plan are to control invasive species and improve native plant
cover and buffer function. Three performance standards will be used to measure this, which
are project-specific and based on best available science. The project is conditioned to
provide monitoring reports on an annual basis (year four cannot be skipped) for a minimum
of five years or until the director determines the mitigation project has met the
performance standards (Condition 19).
Figure 6 – Mitigation Plan
19
C. BIMC 16.20.160 Performance and Maintenance Surety
The director shall decide when a performance surety is required of an applicant, and the
acceptable form of such surety. The amount and the conditions of the surety shall be
consistent with the purposes of this chapter; provided, that the minimum amount of the
surety, when required, shall be 125% of the estimated cost of performance. A performance
surety shall not be required when the actual cost of performance, as documented in a form
acceptable to the director, is less than $1,000.
Staff response: All plantings that are a part of the mitigation plan shall be installed prior to
final building permit inspection, or an assurance device shall be provided in accordance
BIMC 16.20.160 (Condition 5).
D. BIMC 16.20.070.G Notice on Title
The owner of any property with field-verified presence of critical area or buffer on which a
development proposal is submitted shall file for record with the Kitsap County auditor a
notice approved by the director in a form substantially as set forth in Subsection 2 of BIMC
16.20.070.G. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a
critical area and buffer, the application of this chapter to the property, and that limitations
on actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The applicant shall submit proof that the
notice has been filed for record before the city shall approve any development proposal for
such site. The notice shall run with the land and failure to provide such notice to any
purchaser prior to transferring any interest in the property shall be in violation of this
chapter.
Staff response: The applicant shall submit a recorded notice to title prior to the issuance of
the building permits, documenting the presence of the critical areas onsite (Condition 16).
Part VIII – CONCLUSIONS
1. Site Characteristics
The property contains a category III wetland with a 60 ft. buffer that covers the majority of the
lot.
2. History
Appropriate notice of the application and SEPA environmental review was published. The SEPA
determination was noticed on October 19, 2018, with the appeal period ending on November 2,
2018. The application is properly before the Hearing Examiner.
3. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The proposed Reasonable Use Exception request is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Land Use Code Analysis
With appropriate conditions, the Reasonable Use Exception request conforms to all applicable
regulations in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code.
20
APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any decision of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed in accordance with BIMC Chapter
2.16.020.P.2.
21
SEPA Conditions:
1. In order to protect the ground water and the wetland flora and fauna from the proposed
development, the roofing shall be of a non-leaching material that is not harmful to the environment.
Examples of non-leaching materials are, but not limited to, metal and tile roofs. Any alternative
method proposed requires approval by the City prior to final building permit issuance, and must
address BIMC water quality standards, Chapter 13.24, to assure that wetland flora and fauna
functions and values are maintained/enhanced.
2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the applicant shall have the wetland buffer
temporarily fenced between the areas of construction activity, a maximum of 15 feet from the
proposed residence. The fence shall not be located in the wetland. The fence shall be clearly marked
on any construction or clearing plans. The fence shall be made of durable material and shall be
highly visible. The fence shall be inspected as part of the building permit. The temporary fencing
shall be removed once the construction activity is complete and replaced with permanent fencing
(see condition #3, below).
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the reduced wetland buffer. The rails shall
be high enough to allow small mammals and wildlife to pass through. The fence shall be indicated
on the building permit application and in place prior to final inspection on the building permit.
4. A minimum of two signs per lot indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be
placed on the fence, prior to final inspection on the building permit. Signs shall be made of metal or
a similar durable material and shall be between 64 and 144 square inches in size.
5. The wetland mitigation plan, including mitigation goals and objectives, performance standards,
maintenance and monitoring measures, and contingency actions, shall be submitted with the
building permit application and approved prior to final building inspection. All plantings shall be
installed prior to final building permit inspection, or an assurance device shall be provided in
accordance BIMC 16.20.160.
6. If the performance standards in the mitigation plan are not met, a contingency plan shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for approval. Any additional
permits or approvals necessary for contingency actions shall be obtained prior implementing the
contingency plan.
7. To reduce impacts to the wetland, the applicant shall limit the amount of lighting on the exterior of
the residence to the minimum necessary, shall install motion sensor lights to the rear of the house
facing the wetland, and record a covenant to limit the use of pesticides on the properties.
8. No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers may be used in wetland areas or their buffers except those
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington Department of
Ecology and applied by a licensed applicator in accordance with the safe application practices on the
label.
9. Consideration shall be given to utilizing minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low
Impact Development Guidance Manual For Puget Sound as means of minimizing impacts to the site
and the adjacent wetlands. A bid comparison/analysis shall be submitted demonstrating the
applicant has engaged an appropriate design and construction professional to explore alternative
foundation systems including stilts, helical piers, and pin piles with grade beams. The bid shall be
obtained from a designer or installer with previous experience building with this technology and
shall be reviewed by the City prior to building permit issuance.
22
10. Preparation and construction of the driveway subgrade and base shall be performed without the
use of soil sterilant.
11. Public enjoyment and use of the Belfair right-of-way (ROW) shall remained unobstructed and
unobtrusive. Fencing placed in the ROW to delineate the 10-foot wide vegetated buffer strip shall be
no taller than 48 inches, have a natural finish (no opaque paint), be see-through (i.e. cedar split rail –
solid board fencing shall not be permitted), and shall contain 3-foot breaks in the fencing every 20 to
30 feet. Fencing shall not encroach west of the projected Soundview Drive NE ROW eastern
boundary.
12. Ditch construction between the driveway vegetated dispersion buffer strip and the existing dirt
walking path in the right-of-way shall be undertaken as necessary to prevent the path from
becoming saturated, undermined, eroded, flooded, or washed out.
13. Surface stormwater from driveway and parking surfaces shall receive pre-treatment prior to
discharging to the wetlands or leaving the site by directing stormwater to vegetated dispersion
strips, rain gardens where soils allow, or the use of permeable pavement (outside of the ROW only),
or other alternatives consistent with MR #5, On-Site Stormwater Management of the stormwater
manual.
14. Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable jointing
where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface stormwater.
15. Diffuse flow methods (i.e. BMP C206: Level Spreader, or, BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion
Systems) should be used to discharge roof surface stormwater into the wetland where full-
infiltration on-site is not feasible, including point discharges from a rain garden overflow and
underdrain system.
Project Conditions:
16. The applicant shall record a notice to title to document the presence of the wetland and buffer with
the Kitsap County auditor. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a
critical area and buffer, the application of this chapter to the property, and that limitations on
actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The notice must be recorded prior to the issuance of the
building permit.
17. The proposed single family must meet the Fort Ward Overlay design guidelines and shall be
reviewed for compliance with the guidelines during review of the building permit.
18. A building clearance for Sewered Properties (Sewered BC) is required prior to the issuance of the
building permits.
19. The applicant shall provide monitoring reports on an annual basis for a minimum of five consecutive
years or until the director determines the mitigation project has met the performance standards as
specified in the mitigation plan.
20. The proposed SFR shall be relocated as far as possible from the wetland edge, with the minimum
side setback (5 feet) established at the west lot line.
21. To prevent encroachment and disturbance of the wetland, the mitigation proposal must include the
installation of shore pines or other higher stature, densely planted trees or shrubs along the buffer
edge.
23
22. The total development area, including the forked driveway, porches/boardwalks, and lawn/grass
area must be reduced to the minimum necessary. This may be achieved by adjusting the building
footprint; shifting the SFR closer to the ROW; removing the two larger porches/boardwalks; and
including parking within the building footprint.
23. Any permitted porches/boardwalks must be limited in size (maximum 6 feet wide), elevated over
existing grade, and constructed to minimize topsoil stripping and grading to the maximum extent
practicable. Railing must be placed on any permitted boardwalk edge facing the wetland to prevent
intrusion.
24. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan for City review and approval, to demonstrate that
conditions 20 – 23 are met.
25. The wetland report and mitigation plan must be updated with best available science. The updated
plan must also address the chosen mitigation option (enhancement) and the potential for
improvement of functions in the mitigation area compared to functions lost in the impact area.
Supporting data used to draw the conclusion that the proposal results in no net loss of buffer
function must also be provided.
26. If the updated mitigation plan does not result in no net loss of buffer function, additional measures
to compensate for impacts must be included in a revised proposal. Any revisions to the mitigation
plan must be accompanied by a revised no net loss analysis.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
July 24, 2018
Crosby Olsen
2222 Belfair Ave. NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for meeting with City staff on July 10, 2018 to discuss your proposal to construct a single
family residence on a property encumbered by a wetland and wetland buffer. A summary of the land
use review process, applicable Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) regulations, comments from
reviewers, fees, submittal requirements, and next steps is provided below.
General Information
Pre-Application Conference Date: July 10, 2018
Project Name and Number: Olsen PRE - PLN51183
Project Description: Construct SFR on lot encumbered by wetland and wetland buffer
Project Address: 2222 Belfair Ave. NE
Tax Parcel Number(s): 41480030100007
Tax Parcel Size: 0.46 acres
Zoning/Comp Plan Designation: R-2
Planning Contact: Annie Hillier
Development Engineer: Peter Corelis
Land Use Review Process
Land Use Applications Required
Reasonable Use Exception: BIMC 16.20.080 – A reasonable use exception (RUE) is intended to ensure
reasonable use of a property when reasonable use of that property cannot be achieved through any
other means. Given the extent of the wetland and wetland buffer, and the inability to achieve
reasonable use of the property through other means, an RUE appears to be the only way to develop
the property as proposed. Criteria for review and approval under BIMC 16.20.080.F must be
addressed in the application materials, which includes a maximum total lot coverage of 1,200 square
feet, and a mitigation plan developed in accordance with BIMC 16.20.180.G.
•Include in RUE application: A complete and detailed written statement of the reason(s)
for requesting the RUE and how the proposal will meet the decision criteria (11) for
review and approval under BIMC 16.20.080.F.
Exhibit 2
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
Although not depicted on pre-application materials, the City recommends that the applicant reduce
the 25ft front setback, in order to reduce impacts to the wetland buffer:
Variance (Major): BIMC 2.16.120 – The major variance process may be used for deviations from
zoning standards in BIMC Title 18 that the director determines exceed the threshold for minor
variances under BIMC 2.16.060. A variance is authorized only for lot coverage, size of structure or size
of setbacks. A variance from the front yard setback is recommended for this proposal, in order to
minimize hard surfaces in the wetland buffer area.
•Include in variance application: A complete and detailed written statement of the
reason(s) for requesting the; a detailed description of how the proposal will meet the
decision criteria under BIMC 2.16.120.E.; and visual impacts of proposed structures,
including screening.
See the Administrative Manual for additional submittal requirements for each permit.
Fees
Planning Fees:
•$5,724 (VAR) + $1,272 (RUE), or
•RUE only: $3,816
Approval Body
Quasi-judicial decision by Hearing Examiner (BIMC Table 2.16.010).
City staff will send a tentative hearing date to the applicant prior to the Notice of Application.
Review and Recommendation
BIMC 2.16.100:
Director (review and recommendation)
Planning Commission (optional)
Public Hearing (report presented to hearing examiner)
Other required reviews:
Bainbridge Island Fire Department review
Planning Division review
Development Engineer review
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Requirements – Planning Checklist
BIMC 2.16 – Land Use Review Procedures
Review procedures for a Reasonable Use Exception are outlined in BIMC 2.16.100 and BIMC
16.20.080.
Review procedures for a Variance (major) are outlined in BIMC 2.16.120.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
BIMC 16.04 – Environmental Policy
The project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act, as provided in WAC 197-11-800. Provide
a completed SEPA checklist with application materials.
BIMC 16.12 – Shoreline Master Program
The subject property is outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
BIMC 16.20 – Critical Areas
BIMC 16.20.140 Wetlands
The wetland delineation and categorization provided with the preapplication materials identifies a
category III wetland onsite. The majority of the subject parcel appears to be encumbered by the
wetland and buffer.
The wetland boundary shall be marked in the field and surveyed by a licensed surveyor, unless waived
by the Director. The Director is considering the applicants request to waive the requirement to
survey the wetland boundary by a licensed surveyor. Staff will inform the applicant of the Director’s
decision as soon as possible.
In order to minimize impacts to the wetland/buffer, please consider the following:
• Fencing and signage between the SFR and wetland buffer, and other efforts to prevent future
encroachment;
• Plants between SFR and wetland should be chosen based on ability to provide light and noise
screening, i.e. densely planted trees/high stature shrubs;
• Using permeable, elevated walkways around the SFR, rather than at-grade;
• Direct lights away from wetland;
• Low-impact foundation designs.
Regarding the proposed mitigation plan:
• It is not clear that the proposal results in no net loss of critical areas and functions, or that it
addresses cumulative impacts. In the past, the City has recommended approval for projects
that propose buffer enhancement in addition to offsite mitigation.
• A mitigation proposal that includes only buffer enhancement should provide an in-depth
analysis or quantification of impacts vs. mitigation, in order to demonstrate that no net loss
is achieved.
Additionally, please note that ELS is involved in a proposal to replace the culvert underneath Belfair
Ave. During the preapplication conference ELS indicated that it is unlikely that the culvert
replacement will impact the subject property; staff recommends that ELS include this finding in the
final wetland report.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
BIMC 16.20.100 Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas
Refer to BIMC 16.20.100 for Aquifer Recharge Protection Area requirements. For this project, the
ARPA shall include all existing native vegetation on a site, up to a maximum of 65 percent of the total
site area. A lower percentage is allowed if necessary to achieve a development area of at least 12,500
square feet on a parcel. The ARPA may include the wetland and wetland buffer. Please show the
proposed ARPA on the site plan submitted with RUE application materials. Note that the ARPA shall
be documented on a notice to title prior to building permit issuance; this will be a condition of the
RUE approval.
BIMC 18.09 – Use Regulations
Development of single family residences is a permitted use under BIMC 18.09.020.
BIMC 18.12 – Dimensional Standards
Lot Coverage: 20%*
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.**
Side Setback: 5 ft. min, 15 ft. total***
Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Max Building Height: 30 ft.
*Lot coverage is limited to 1,200 square feet for RUE’s. Lot coverage is defined as: that portion of the
total lot area covered by buildings, excluding up to 24 inches of eaves on each side of the building,
any building or portion of building located below predevelopment and finished grade. Any portion of
a slatted or solid deck located more than five feet above grade shall be counted towards lot coverage.
**The proposed SFR is located over 50 ft. from the front lot line, resulting in potentially excessive
impacts to the wetland buffer. It appears that the SFR could be moved to the south, towards the 25 ft.
front setback, in order to reduce the total area of impact. Additionally, the City would likely support a
reduction in the 25 ft. front setback if impacts would be further minimized.
***The applicant is strongly encouraged to establish the minimum side setback (5 ft.) from the west
lot line.
It appears that the SFR could be re-sited and re-oriented to have less impact on the critical area.
Please be aware that the proposal must make it clear that the proposed impact to the critical area is
the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. The siting of the SFR must be
included in the discussion of mitigation sequencing. Additional mitigation is expected if the SFR is
not located in the least impactful location.
BIMC 18.15 – Development Standards and Guidelines
Development shall comply with the parking standards as set forth in BIMC 18.15.020, which requires
two spaces for each primary dwelling unit.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
BIMC 18.18 – Design Standards and Guidelines
The proposed SFR is subject to the Fort Ward Design Guidelines, which will be evaluated during
review of the building permit.
BIMC 20.04 – City Fire Code
The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code (International Fire
Code, 2015 Edition).
Department/Agency Comments
Development Engineer Comment:
Comments from Peter Corelis are forthcoming and will be sent in a separate email.
Additional comments:
Senior Planner David Greetham provided the attached comments, many of which have been
addressed in this letter.
Bainbridge Island Fire District Comment:
Please see the attached comments, from Jared Moravec, Fire Marshal.
Please review the City’s Administrative Manual (http://www.ci.bainbridge-
isl.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/100) for submittal requirements. Once you are ready to submit an
application, contact Planning and Community Development at PCD@bainbridgewa.gov to schedule an
intake appointment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 780-3773 or
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Annie Hillier
Planner
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 dur ing the is initial review. If the city’s pre-
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
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.
1
Ann Hillier
From:David Greetham
Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2018 5:24 PM
To:Ann Hillier
Subject:Olsen Wetland Report - Belfair Ave lot 10
Annie,
Thanks for the opportunity to review the June 5, 2018 wetland report prepared by Ecological Land Services for Crosby
Olsen. Comments follow in response to your questions:
Mitigation Proposal / No Net Loss
The porch on the proposed SFR extends to within several feet of the wetland, which makes achieving the no net
loss standard more of a challenge
To offset the minimal (generally 5’ or less) buffer proposed between the SFR and wetland, I recommend that the
areas of proposed yard be reduced and area of native vegetation plantings increased to the extent feasible
around the residence.
While it’s unrealistic to plant trees immediately adjacent to the SFR, a higher ratio of trees could be added to the
northerly buffer area in order to reestablish a forested buffer system.
Survey
BIMC 16.20.140.B.3 allows the survey requirement to be waived “…in limited circumstances, such as when there
is no access to the wetland, or when there is no proposed impact to the wetland and wetland buffer…”. In this
case there will definitely be an impact to the wetland buffer so that provision doesn’t support waiving the
survey.
There may be other “limited circumstances”, such as an extremely well defined wetland boundary as mention ed
by the applicant. We can certainly consider waiving the survey, but precedent should be considered as it doesn’t
fit neatly into the examples offered in code.
Of higher importance than the survey, permanent wetland signage and fencing should be required along the
outer buffer edge as authorized under BIMC 16.20.140.I.6. A split rail fence is preferred to prevent future yard
encroachment while still allowing wildlife passage.
In summary, increased plantings and less yard area should be considered to help achieve no net loss. The code allows us
to consider waiving the survey, although the examples provided in code don’t provide necessarily support that
approach. Most importantly, permanent wetland buffer marking in the form of a split rail fence should be required.
Feel free to stop by and discuss!
Dave
David Greetham
Senior City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.780.3765 (office)
Page 1 of 2
Department of Public Works - Engineering
Memorandum
Date: July 27, 2018
To: Annie Hillier, Planner, Planning and Comm. Development
From: Peter Corelis, P.E., Development Engineer
Subject: PLN51183 PRE – Olsen SFR
Project Description:
The proposal seeks a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) to construct a single-family residence within a
wetland buffer lot 10, Block 3 of the Fort Ward Estates Division 3 plat. The subject parcel is identified by
tax ID no. 4148-003-010-0007 and is located at 2222 Belfair Avenue NE in the City of Bainbridge Island.
Comments:
1. Transportation Impact Fees (TIFs) are due at the building permit stage.
2. The site is not located within the City of Bainbridge Island water or sewer service areas.
3. The application for a RUE shall demonstrate the project site complies with BIMC 15.20. The “site”
includes the area of a parcel or parcels subject to new or redevelopment, including the length of an
improvement within the unopened right-of-way.
4. The creation or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of hard surfaces shall require a
Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) be prepared by a licensed civil engineer in the state of Washington and
demonstrate compliance with all applicable Minimum Requirements (MRs) #1 through #9 of the City’s
adopted stormwater manual.
5. The creation or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of pollutant generating hard surface
(PGHS) [i.e. driveway area] shall require compliance with MR #6 – Treatment Control, as it pertains to
water quality. As presented in this application, the driveway extension from Soundview Drive NE to
the property in addition to on-site driveways totals approximately 2,800 square feet. MR# 6 is not
anticipated to be triggered.
6. MR# 5 – On-Site Stormwater Management shall apply to new plus replaced hard surfaces and
disturbed areas. The driveway extension would be required to be treated via a rain
garden/bioretention per List No. 1 of the stormwater manual where the soils are suitable for
infiltration. Application of the RUE should include soil logs and characterization of the soil to
Page 2 of 2
determine: restrictive layers, seasonally-high groundwater depth, and soil infiltration rates. The
assessment of the soils shall be cross-referenced with the infeasibility criteria stated in the
stormwater manual to determine whether a rain garden is required. The applicant may opt to utilize
an underdrained rain garden where all high groundwater or restrictive layers are present.
7. Where a rain garden is not required Sheet Flow Dispersion per BMP T5.12 may be employed. A 10-
foot wide vegetated strip separating the driveway and a pass-through ditch carrying stormwater from
Soundview may be installed at the toe of the vegetated strip.
8. Pass through diversion of flow from Soundview Drive NE drainage to the unopened Belfair Avenue NE
right-of-way shall be discharged in accordance with MR# 4 and result in no impacts to downstream
property owners. Ditch grades in excess of 5% should be rocklined.
9. Roof stormwater shall be treated according to List No. 1 of the stormwater manual. Diffuse flow
methods (i.e. BMP C206: Level Spreader, or, BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion Systems) should be
used to discharge roof surface stormwater into the wetland where full-infiltration on-site is not
feasible.
10. Decision criteria for review of an RUE by the City includes a determination of whether the application
has proven no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical area or its buffer
is possible and whether the impact is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.
Supporting information addressing the possible minimization of impacts and incorporation of the
following recommendations should be provided with the application:
• Preventing further encroachment into the wetland buffer from exterior access points (i.e.
exterior walkways through the wetland buffer should utilize a handrail or barrier;
• Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable
jointing where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface
stormwater prior to discharging to the wetland;
• Reduction of construction and long-term use impacts by installing boardwalk style raised
external walkways on pier foundations in the wetland buffer should be assessed versus at
grade constructed walkways and hardscaping;
• Minimization of other hard surfaces by reduction of the on-site forked driveway to the
minimum necessary;
• Consideration of stilt construction or grade beam on pier foundations versus of traditional
slab on grade or retained earth and spread footing foundation construction and the impacts
of each system should be addressed in the application through an assessment by the wetland
biologist.
11. The driveway extension from Soundview in the unopened ROW is over 150 feet. A fire apparatus
turnaround shall be provided.
12. The project shall record with the County auditor a ‘DECLARATION OF COVENANT ASSOCIATED WITH
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS PERMIT’ whereby the owner agrees to accept all maintenance responsibility
for the driveway constructed within the unopened right-of-way.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMO
Date: July 10, 2018
To: Annie Hillier, Planning Department
From: Deputy Chief Jared Moravec, Fire Marshal
Re: Olsen PLN51183 PRE
The submittal has been reviewed resulting in the following comments:
1.The proposed project shall comply with all provisions of the adopted Fire Code.
2.The installation of residential fire sprinklers is highly recommended.
3.Fire flow is met through existing hydrants.
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Crosby Olsen & Amy Butler
2222 Belfair Ave. NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
RUE Narrative (11 decision criteria)
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property
The Eastern half of this 20,038 sq. ft lot is Category III wetland, the western half is within the
buffer and building setback for this wetland, leaving no unencumbered space for a building
footprint.
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical area
or its required buffer;
The Western portion of this lot has 6,000 sq. ft. buildable area that is accessible from Belfair.
This buildable area is 110’ North to south, less than 50’ wide on the South boundary with Belfair
and 65’ wide on the North Boundary. This area has a hill sloping down to the east into the
wetland with a grade change of approximately 12' over the buildable area. Placement of the
house on the South portion of this buildable area was considered during the initial planning for
this house but was ruled out for these following reasons. The South portion of the buildable
area is less than 50’ wide, leaving no room for building access or a driveway. To maintain
compliance with the 30’ height restrictions in the building code, the first floor of the house will
dug into the hillside. The first floor contains the garage, the second floor has the main entrance
and primary living space. To provide reasonable access to the main entrance and primary living
space of the house a branch of the driveway comes to the West side of the house. This will
allow us to get a vehicle within 10-15' of the main entrance. Placement of the house on the
South area would DENY reasonable access to the house. Additionally, code requires two onsite
parking spots for the house, placement of the house 5’ from Belfair would only allow for one
parking spot. The only feasible building site is the north half of this buildable area. With the
significant limitations imposed by wetland location and shape/size of the buildable are, the
proposed building site is the only location that allows reasonable use of the property and
building setback from the wetland boundary.
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
The house has been located in the only area available for development that allows impacts to
be minimized. The following bullet items describe the minimization process to include
alternatives to the proposed site plan and proposed construction methods that are intended to
minimize the impacts of this project.
•Placing it in the northern upland area would require construction of a driveway, which
would cross close to the wetland boundary due to the corner for the adjoining west
lot.
•Moving the house closer to Belfair Avenue by reducing the 25-foot front yard setback
would place the house and driveway closer to the wetland with even less buffer area
available between the wetland and house.
Exhibit 5
•The walkways around the house will be constructed as boardwalks that allow
rainwater to flow through and minimize the area of full impervious surfaces on the lot.
•Foundation design and construction techniques have been designed to minimize the
impacts to the wetland and buffer while achieving reasonable use of this property
within the 1,200 square foot footprint constraint of the RUE and the 30 foot zoning
code height restriction. The home was designed with the western side of the lower
level set approximately 7 feet below the existing grade line. By taking advantage of
the existing east sloping grade the finish floor elevation at the eastern side of the
lower plan meets with the existing grade line. Because of this design the foundation
walls along the west side act as both retaining walls and supporting structure for the
floors and roof above, while the eastern side requires footings and foundation walls
excavated only to frost depth to support the building structure above. For this
reason, stilt construction or helical piers do not appear to be an appropriate
foundation system. However, if more extensive excavation is required due to
encountering unsuitable soil conditions based on test borings or during excavation,
then alternate solutions such as helical piers or pier foundation with grade beams will
be considered based upon design consultation with a structural engineer.
•The driveways and parking areas are located as far west as possible so that they
enter the west side of the house and provide two parking spots per code
requirements.
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable
use of the property;
See answer to question 2.
5. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result
of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s predecessor, that occurred after
February 20, 1992;
This lot is part of Fort Ward Estates, which was platted in the 1960’s and did not take into
consideration wetlands or buffers during preparation of the plat. Therefore, the inability of the
applicant to derive reasonable use of the property was a result of the original plat and not a
result of activities of the current or previous property owners.
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development;
The proposed lot coverage for this house does not exceed 1,200 sq. ft.
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property;
Construction of a home on this existing platted lot will not pose a threat to public health, safety
or welfare on or off this property because the project involves construction of one home with the
usual development components of a driveway. No onsite septic system is proposed because
the property will connect to public sewer and stormwater will be filtered before it is discharged
into the wetland, both of which will avoid threats to public health, safety, or welfare.
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with
mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
The project proposes to impact 2,900 square feet of the buffer in order to build the single
family house and driveway. Mitigation for impacts to the buffer will include removal of invasive
plants on the north end of the lot, including but not limited to Himalayan blackberry, English
holly, and English ivy, and replacement with native plants in areas where invasives are
removed and beyond, for a total of 4,300 square feet of mitigation, which equates to a 1:1.48
mitigation ratio. In addition, the area between the home and wetland boundary will also be
planted with native vegetation, including evergreen shrubs, to provide a natural screen for the
wetland. The area of wetland immediately adjacent to the building site will also be enhanced
through installation of native cuttings to encourage additional habitat development within the
wetland as well increasing screening for the remainder of the wetland. The mitigation planting
plan will include species that currently are found on or adjacent to the lot and will improve
buffer function.
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values;
The proposed buffer mitigation will improve the function of the buffer by removing Himalayan
blackberry, which has formed a monotypic thicket within most of the buffer, and replacing the
blackberry with native trees, shrubs, and ferns. The plants selected for installation include
evergreen and deciduous trees intended to provide an upper canopy and/or establish conifers
within the buffer while the understory shrubs including deciduous and evergreen species will
provide a lower layer of vegetation. Sword ferns are proposed in the understory and along with
the cedar trees and Oregon grapes will provide year round foliage. The buffer mitigation plan
will provide better screening from the onsite home as well as the home on the adjacent west lot
and will also provide increased wildlife forage and nesting habitat.
In addition to the proposed buffer plantings, a narrow strip of the wetland near the building site
will be enhanced by installing native shrub cuttings. The shrubs selected will provide additional
diversity to the wetland as well as providing additional screening for the remainder of the
wetland. These deciduous plants, along with the plantings proposed between the home and
wetland boundary will increase the screening of noise and light and reduce the impacts to the
wetland.
Fencing and signage will be located along the edge of the buffer planting area adjacent to the
home to demarcate the critical area boundary and limit intrusion into the planting area and
wetland.
Overall, the mitigation plan achieves no net loss of buffer function because of the replacement
of monotypic invasive vegetation in the buffer with high quality native vegetation planted with
species of varying heights. There may also be plants revealed as the blackberry thickets are
removed, which will further increase the function of the buffer. It will include at least 1.5 times
more mitigation than the proposed impact, which is an immediate increase in buffer function.
The addition of the wetland plantings will further increase the area of mitigation while the area of
impact remains the same.
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and
This lot is located within Fort Ward Estates, which is a platted community established in the
1960’s, along Belfair Avenue. Although this lot is not currently developed, the wetland running
through this section of the development is surrounded on all sides by developed lots. Most of
the lots on the west side are located beyond the buffers required at the time they were permitted
but the lots on the east side each were permitted through administrative and reasonable use
exception permits because they were located within the buffer. Robertson Road was platted
along the north edge of this wetland so physically cuts off the wetland from the wetland to the
north but there is drainage of water through the culvert under the road. Therefore, this lot is the
last to be developed along this particular wetland area. Because it is the last lot to be
developed, it will not result in additional impacts to the wetland area because the area of impact
totals 2,900 square feet of this 20,038 square foot lot, which is just over 10 percent of the lot
area. The proposed home will cover less of this lot than the homes on the other developed lots
and there are lower buffer widths on those lots. A total of 4,445 square feet of buffer and 545
square feet of wetland will be enhanced to minimize the impacts and compensate for the
reduced buffer and potential impacts. In addition, this lot proposes to treat onsite stormwater by
routing it into an under-drain rain garden, which is not provided by the developed lots around
this wetland. There do not appear to be any stormwater treatment facilities on those lots so this
lot will minimize the potential water quality impacts on this wetland.
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
This proposal is meeting all other requirements of applicable regulations and standards, which
mainly include the stormwater and road approach permits as outlined by Development
Engineering.
Exhibit 6
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
August 27, 2018
File Name: Olsen RUE
Project Number: PLN51183 RUE
Submitted: August 6, 2018
The application for the above referenced project is complete in accordance with the submittal
requirements located in the Bainbridge Island Administrative Manual. A determination of a complete
application does not preclude the department from requesting additional information or studies; a request for
additional information may be forthcoming. Additionally, please note that the City is currently considering
the extent to which the application minimizes impacts to the critical area, with respect to the following
issues:
•The wetland and buffer mitigation report state that the home is as far from the wetland boundary as
possible (pg.7). This does not appear to be accurate, as the SFR is located only 5 ft. away from the
wetland edge, and over 15 ft. away from the west lot line.
•Additionally, City Development Engineering asked that supporting information addressing the
possible minimization of impacts and incorporation of the following recommendations be provided
with the application:
o Minimization of other hard surfaces by reduction of the on-site forked driveway to the
minimum necessary; and
o Consideration of stilt construction or grade beam on pier foundations versus of traditional
slab on grade or retained earth and spread footing foundation construction and the impacts
of each system should be addressed in the application through an assessment by the wetland
biologist. The justification provided does not address the impacts of each system on the
critical area.
Pursuant to Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 2.16.020(K), the applicant must post a legal
notice of application on the property within five days of the publication of notice. The City will
provide the notice boards and posting instructions, you must provide the stake/post. The City will
contact you when the notice boards are prepared.
Correspondence concerning this application should make reference to both the file number and
file name shown above.
Exhibit 7
Thank you
Annie Hillier, (206) 780-3773, ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov
Project Manager
NOTICE OF APPLICATION/SEPA COMMENT PERIOD
The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use application:
Date of Submittal:
Project Name & Number:
Project Type:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Site & Tax Parcel:
August 6, 2018
Olsen RUE / PLN51183 RUE
Reasonable Use Exception
Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler
Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler
2222 Belfair Ave. NE, TA# 41480030100007
Project Description: Construction of a single family residence on a parcel encumbered by a
wetland and wetland buffer in Fort Ward.
Environmental Review: This proposal is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as
provided in WAC 197-11-800. The City, acting as lead agency expects to issue
a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) threshold determination for this
proposal. Utilizing the optional DNS process provided in WAC 197-11-355,
the comment period specified in this notice may be the only opportunity to
comment on the environmental impact of this proposal. The Proposal may
include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review
process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether
an EIS is prepared. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the
proposal may be obtained upon request.
Public Hearing:
Comment period:
A public hearing date is schedule for November 8, 2018 at 10am in the Council
Chambers. This is a tentative date only and is subject to change. Please check
the City of Bainbridge Island website for any changes to the hearing date.
The City will not take a final action on the proposal nor make a threshold
determination for 14 days from the date of this notice. Any person may
comment on the proposal and/or the SPEA review. Additionally, any person
may participate in a public hearing, if any, and my request a copy of any
decision. For consideration under SEPA environmental review, comments
must be submitted by September 14, 2018.
To submit comments:
Send an email to
pcd@bainbridgewa.gov, or
mail:
Department of Planning &
Community Development
280 Madison Avenue N.
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
For questions, contact:
Annie Hillier, Planner
(206) 780-3773
Exhibit 8
PLN51183 RUE
August 31, 2018
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND METROPOLITAN PARKS & REC DIST 7666 NE HIGH SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2621
BIELMAN MATTHEW & BEKA 2033 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
BROCK JOHN C & VAN HOFF BROCK LISA 2210 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
BURRIS LARRY V & SUSAN M 4650 CRYSTAL SPRINGS DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2042
CARO LUCIEN ANDREW 2444 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CARROLL MARY ELIZABETH 2175 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
CIBULA TIMOTHY SCOTT & SHARON MARIE TRUSTEES 2385 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
COLE THOMAS A II & GAIL L PO BOX 11489 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-5489
COOK GREGORY & WADE ARLENE 9620 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
COWAN MARK S & CAROL S 9625 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
DENNISON JAMES B & ALISON J 2025 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
DOHERTY SEAN T & CHRISTINA 9684 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
DOMBROWSKI MARY V 2412 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
DONLEY SCOTT A & COURTNEY 2407 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ERDMAN STEPHEN EUGENE & HEATHER MARIE 657 AZALEA AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ERICKSON STEPHEN D & SALLY A 2363 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
FARLEY PATRICK M & JOHNSON VANESSA 2130 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
FULLER BARBARA LYNN 2285 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
FULWELL ROBERT & AIMEE 9647 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3077
GATZKE ALAN & FERRIN 2123 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
HEMPHILL TIMOTHY & LAURA 2333 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2352
HENRY RHONDA L 2100 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
INHABIT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 330 MADISON AVE S STE 108 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2544
JANUSZ DIANE 2148 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
KORYTKO PETER & HOLTMEIER CAMI TRUSTEES 9776 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
KRAMER JOSH & WEAVER KATHIE 2215 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MAES ADRIAN ANTHONY 2132 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2301
MARX FLORENCE MARY TRUSTEE 7104 265TH ST NW APT 410 STANWOOD WA 98292-6250
MONDRAGON MICHAEL T & SPICELAND ALLISON R 2463 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MONTA JOAN L TRUST 1736 164TH NE BELLEVUE WA 98008
NORDSTROM CHRISTOPHER JON & AMY WEST 2471 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
OLSEN CROSBY J & BUTLER AMY M 2222 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-5178
OLSEN JAMES & MARY 2412 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Exhibit 9
PLN51183 RUE
August 31, 2018
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip
PADGHAM BRENDA 2465 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PICKLE SCOTT A & MICHELE L 9771 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-3083
POEHNER CAPULET WOODSTONE & QUAINTON SARAH 2267 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-`
PROPERTY BIZNESS 4 LLC 2112 BELFAIR AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PUGLIA CHRISTEN & BARRETT CHRISTOPHER T 2154 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
RAO RAMESH & MASTORS ELENA 2294 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
REPYAK DAVID C 14723 1ST LN NE UNIT 103 DUVALL WA 98019-6450
Resident 2044 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2075 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2101 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2105 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2137 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2145 Belfair Ave NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2156 BELFAIR AVE NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2171 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2178 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2193 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2232 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2250 SOUNDVIEW AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2274 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2324 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2382 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2426 Soundview Dr NE Bainbridge Island WA 98110
Resident 2430 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 2464 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ROAKE JULIE 2431 ROBERTSON AVE NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
ROUS CHAD J & SARAH M 9642 NE RADIO SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
RURAL AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC 21241 VENTURA BLVD STE 276 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364
SAFFORD DUANE CHARLES 2224 SOUNDVIEW DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
SISCOE JOHN P & CAROLYN G 2300A SOUNDVIEW DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
SOLSENG JOE JOHN & JENNIFER 2375 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
STEWART JEFFREY B & HULET CHRISTINA M 2225 FORT WARD HILL DR BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2329
SUBLETT ANDRE C & TRACY E 2350 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
PLN51183 RUE
August 31, 2018
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip
THOMPSON BERNARD F 19050 ANGELINE AVE NE SUQUAMISH WA 98392
WESTERLUND JEFFREY D & WENDY E 2335 DOUGLAS DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WURZER LYNNE D TRUSTEE 2772 MONTECITO DR FALLBROOK CA 92028
C Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Your signs are ready for pick up!
2 messages
Carla Lundgren <clundgren@bainbridgewa.gov>Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM
To: "crosby.olsen@gmail.com" <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Good Morning,
The signs for Proposed Land Use Action and Public Hearing permit number PLN51183 RUE are ready for pick up at City Hall.
Thank you.
Carla Lundgren
Administrative Specialist
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3763
PLN51183 Notice of Application and SEPA Comment Period.pdf
44K
Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
To: Carla Lundgren <clundgren@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
The signs have been posted on the property. Due to depth of vegetation on the right of way I widened the path to the property line and posted both signs facing the right of way. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Aug 29, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Carla Lundgren <clundgren@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Good Morning,
The signs for Proposed Land Use Action and Public Hearing permit number PLN51183 RUE are ready for pick up at City Hall.
Thank you.
<image001.jpg>
Carla Lundgren
Administrative Specialist
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3763
<PLN51183 Notice of Application and SEPA Comment Period.pdf>
Gmail - Your signs are ready for pick up!https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
1 of 1 9/4/18, 8:17 PM
1
Carla Lundgren
From:PCD
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 5:06 PM
To:Carla Lundgren
Subject:FW:
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Upload to SG
Carla Lundgren
Administrative Specialist
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3763
From: Brent Grossman <brgcasa@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:43 PM
To: PCD <pcd@bainbridgewa.gov>
Subject:
To whom it may concern.
Concerning Olsen RUE/PLN51183 RUE Project Site and Tax Parcel:2222
Belair Ave. NE TA# 41480030100007
I have been a resident of Soundview Drive for 27 years. I am concerned about he proposal to build a house on 2222
Belfair Ave. IT'S A WETLAND !
Please do not simply look at a map.......come see this for yourself. The land should have been sold to Mr. Olsen with
the stipulation: "Buyer Beware !"
Maybe you could find a 10 foot square area to build a dog house but not a 1200 sq. foot house.
Have you seen the section of Belfair Ave. that separates the 2 wetlands that are on either side (north and south) ? It's a
DIRT PATH. I have seen someone try walking that path in the wet season and have seen their shoes get sucked off their
feet ! And that's "the road" ! These areas of land are EXTREMELY soggy in the wet season. And you can clearly see the
vegetation in these areas attest to that even in the dry summertime.
The only living things that should live on these properties are frogs and wildlife.......not human beings.
See you at the meeting Nov. 8th.
Brent Grossman
Exhibit 10
comment 1
2
2178 Soundview Dr.
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
206‐842‐3334
1
Carla Lundgren
From:PCD
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 7:39 AM
To:Carla Lundgren
Subject:FW: OlsenRUE/PLN51183RUE
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Upload to SG
Carla Lundgren
Administrative Specialist
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3763
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: globe@zipcon.com <globe@zipcon.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 4:02 PM
To: PCD <pcd@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: globe@zipcon.net
Subject: Re: OlsenRUE/PLN51183RUE
RE: RUE for 2222 Belfair AVE NE, TA# 4140030100007
I do not support the decision to allow the current proposal to build on this critical wetland lot. There is not enough study
which has gone into the proposal to allow this extraordinary measure to build on wetlands. There is nothing mentioned
in this proposal about using non‐toxic building materials nor permeable paving materials for the drive. Also nothing is
mentioned at all building building a drive way plus the building of the road to get to the property. It i is located on a
dusty trail at the very busy pedestrian intersection at B Belfaire Ave and Soundview Ave NE. There is a very busy school
bus stop there a as well as it is the gateway to Fort Ward Park. Plus, the duplex at the corner o of this intersection allows
only parking on Soundview Ave itself so that it is a an overloaded intersection already.
Any wetlands have tons of wildlife depending on it for food and shelter here it in no difference. There are thousands of
frogs who live in this area, (everyone knows that frogs are indicate a healthy eco zone.) Plus, we have birds of prey:
eagles, owls and hawks who help keep down the rodent population they use these wetlands to hunt. We have
songbirds, crows and jays as well as deer and squirrels who all depend on the wetlands for food and protection. This
whole chain will be broken up if the wetland is allowed to be filled and the frogs smothered. We saw that happen
already here in Fort Ward at the three houses built just south of Kitsap when the builder was allowed to spend 2‐3 years
dumping bales of straw on those properties to destroy a natural drain and a large glade. So far almost nothing grows on
the lawns of these properties and one had drainage problems. We don’t want this to happen again.
While admirable the owners have said they want to plant some one gallon pots of s of shrubs however the City has
request they plant good sized trees. Will this be a be addressed in the decision as well as the use of nontoxic building
materials and and permeable paving materials. As well as attention to manage storm runoff of toxi toxic residues to
other properties?
This proposal needs more study so it will not endanger other property owners in in the area as well as endanger
necessary wetlands. I do not support the RUE exc exception to build on this critical area without a lot more study and
care.
comment 2
2
Sincerely,
Carolyn Siscoe
Eileen H. Safford
2224 Soundview Drive NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
September 13, 2018
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue N. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
To Whom it may concern:
I am writing you concerning the Olsen RUE/PLN51183 RUE in Fort Ward. As you are fully aware, this lot is
fully encumbered by wetlands and buffers. The owner was also fully aware of this fact when he purchased
this lot. When Fort Ward Estates was platted in 1960, the lot lines were drawn without regard to wetlands,
streams, or other natural features. This was not a problem in Fort Ward until the 1990s when the upgrade of
the sewer system allowed previously undevelopable land to be developed. Around the same time, the newly
incorporated City of Bainbridge Island established building ordinances that allowed development in
wetlands, under certain circumstances. Fortunately for the health of the wetland, John Neimeyer of
Mainlander Properties donated several wetland lots to the city to protect and preserve the wetlands in Fort
Ward. Unfortunately, many other wetland lots are still held in private ownership.
Lot TA# 41480030100007 is one of the last undeveloped lots in private ownership that is part of the wetland
running from Parkview Dr. north to Blakely Harbor. Much of this wetland northwest of Robertson flows
uninterrupted by development since Mainlander Properties donated those lots to the city in the 90s. Before
development, a lake covered most of Mr. Olsen’s lot and the lot on the south side of Belfair, connected to
Mr. Olsen’s lot by a culvert (see pictures 1, 2, and 3 below). There is talk of an attempt to restore some of
this wetland by replacing the culvert that runs beneath the Belfair trail. Once the culvert is replaced, even
more water will flow across Olsen’s lot than it does now. On top of that, adding a paved driveway, adjacent
to the footpath, to access this lot will increase run-off and thus increase the water in the wetland even more.
Unfortunately for property owners, wetlands do not respect property boundaries.
Another problem is the unsafe condition of the intersection at Belfair and Soundview. Soundview Drive is
misaligned at this intersection (see Google Earth image, picture 4). North of Belfair, the pavement is in the
middle of the road. To the south, the roadway is at least fifteen feet to the west of the middle, so there is a
jog at the intersection. Turning north (left) from Belfair onto Soundview (see Google Earth image, picture
5)can be confusing and dangerous. It is essentially a blind corner due to the fence around the property on
the north west corner. You can’t see any oncoming cars. Also, while the road appears to be a t-intersection,
the misalignment can cause drivers turning north to turn into left side of Soundview into oncoming traffic.
There are often cars parked in the right-of-way here, which cannot be seen from Belfair due to the fence.
Adding to the problem is the pathway along Belfair which crosses the wetland and intersects Soundview
here. This trail is the major pedestrian connection between the upper Fort Ward neighborhood and Fort
Ward Hill Road, and to bus stops the park. It is well traveled by walkers, bicyclists, commuters, and dog-
walkers, but most notably by many, many children, often accompanied by parents and younger siblings
headed to and from the school bus stop. Adding a driveway off of Soundview, right next to trail and off
center from the intersection will only add to the confusion.
Please carefully consider the impact on the wetland, as well as the safety of the intersection, when reviewing
this application. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about my concerns. If it would be
helpful, I would also be happy to show you what my concerns are at the site itself.
Respectfully,
Eileen H. Safford
(206) 842-8181
2224 Soundview Drive NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Picture #1
comment 3
Picture #2
Picture #3 - Belfair before it was closed to traffic.
Picture #4
Picture #5
September 14th, 2018
Julian Prossor
Architect/Principal
Inhabit LLC
330 Madison Ave S
Suite #108
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Ms. Annie Hillier
Planner
City of Bainbridge Island
280 Madison Ave North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
RUE APPLICATION PLN51183RUE
OLSEN/BUTLER
After reviewing the application materials submitted for the RUE, I’m writing in support of the project.
The site is encumbered by wetlands & buffers, therefore necessitating the RUE approach. Inherent in
the RUE process are strict limits on building footprint, lot coverage and impact area.
Throughout the RUE process there is also valuable input from COBI staff and third-party consultants. The
result of this process is typically a much more thoughtfully designed and less impactful home than is
typically being built on Bainbridge.
One only has to look at the new production homes currently being built to see the difference. These
other new homes are larger, impact more land area and require numerous utility/access improvements.
In addition to having less development footprint, the above proposal offers home buyers more choices.
Not everyone needs (or can afford) a new 3200 Sq. Ft home. Smaller homes such as the one proposed
by Mr. Olsen offer new home buyers a refreshing alternative to large production homes. If Bainbridge is
serious about creating a more diverse community then smaller, more affordable, in-fill homes such as
the one proposed should be encouraged.
Communities must never become static but instead must be renewed with new homes, families and
points of view. The charm of the Fort Ward community reflects the eclectic neighborhood that has
developed over a long time. This proposal is part of the natural evolution of the neighborhood, as a
neighbor to the above project, I believe it should be approved.
comment 4
City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning & Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Phone: 206-842-2552 Email: pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
Website: www.bainbridgewa.gov
Portal: https://ci-bainbridgeisland-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/portal
September 17, 2018
Re: Information Request
Olsen RUE
PLN51183 RUE
To facilitate completion of the permit review, please provide the following information within 60 days.
(Until all requested information is received, permit processing time will be tolled.)
•Please amend the wetland mitigation report to include a description of the environmental goals and
objectives to be met by the compensation plan. The goals and objectives shall be related to the
functions and values of the original critical area. While the plantings and invasive species removal
proposed may be appropriate, additional analysis is requested in order for the City to understand the
relationship between the proposed mitigation, the existing buffer functions and values, and the effect
of the proposed development. This understanding is necessary for the City to make a determination
that the proposal results in no net loss of critical area functions and values.
o Specifically, please be sure the analysis includes,
▪Site selection criteria;
▪Identification of compensation goals;
▪Identification of functions and values;
▪A complete description of the relationship between and among structures and
functions sought;
▪Review of available literature and/or known like projects to date in restoring or
creating the type of critical area proposed;
▪Likelihood of success of the proposed compensation project at duplicating the original
critical area. This shall be based on experiences of comparable projects identified in
the literature review or existing projects, if any; and
▪Likelihood of the ability of the created or restored critical area to provide the functions
and values of the original critical area. This shall be based on such factors as surface
water and groundwater supply and flow patterns; dynamics of the ecosystem;
sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc.;
presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and
previous comparable projects, if any.
Exhibit 11
o Please see BIMC 16.20.180.G.3 for all report requirements; the mitigation plan will be
reviewed for consistency with these requirements.
•That being said, there is no minimum ratio for wetland buffer mitigation. Again, this is because any
proposed mitigation should be based on an assessment of the buffer functions that are being impacted
by the development proposal, rather than the square footage. Please remove the 1:1 reference on
page 5.
•Please explain or revise the statement at the top of page 7, stating that the home will be located as far
from the wetland boundary as possible. The SFR is proposed only 5 ft. away from the wetland edge,
and over 15 ft. away from the west lot line.
o Additionally, please explain how the proposed siting of the SFR is the least impactful option, or
the only feasible location for the SFR. If the proposed location is not the least impactful option,
then please explain how the mitigation proposal specifically addresses that loss of additional
buffer function and value.
•Areas of the wetland edge that are closest to the proposed SFR presumably should have a higher level
of protection. However, it appears that less protection is proposed along the edge of the deck, which
nearly abuts the wetland edge. Please explain or revise.
•Additionally, City Development Engineering asked that supporting information addressing the
possible minimization of impacts and incorporation of the following recommendations be provided
with the application:
o Minimization of other hard surfaces by reduction of the on-site forked driveway to the
minimum necessary; and
o Consideration of stilt construction or grade beam on pier foundations versus of traditional
slab on grade or retained earth and spread footing foundation construction and the impacts
of each system should be addressed in the application through an assessment by the
wetland biologist. The justification provided does not address the impacts of each system on
the critical area, but rather uses home design as justification.
Please provide the requested information as one submittal package; piecemeal submittals will not be
accepted. Once complete, the resubmittal may be emailed to ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov.
Please note: Please submit the information requested within 60 days. Failure to do so may result
in cancellation of the application in accordance with the following provision:
BIMC 2.16.020.H Voiding of application due to inactivity. A land use application, whether determined
to be complete or incomplete, for which approval has not yet been granted, may be cancelled for
inactivity if an applicant fails to respond to the department's written request for revisions,
corrections, or additional information within 60 days of the request. The planning director may
extend the response period beyond 60 days if within that time period the applicant provides and
subsequently adheres to an approved schedule with specific target dates for submitting the full
revisions, corrections, or other information needed by the requesting department. (Ord. 2004-12 | 1,
2004)
Exhibit 12
1
Ann Hillier
From:Ann Hillier
Sent:Tuesday, October 9, 2018 12:07 PM
To:'Crosby J. Olsen'
Subject:PLN51183 RUE question - total area of impact?
Hi Crosby, I have a clarification question for you or ELS. The report states that the total area of impact is 2,900 square feet. Does this include the yard/lawn area,
rain garden, boardwalks, etc. (in other words, does the white area depicted below total 2,900 square feet?)? It appears closer in size to the mitigation area,
which is 5,161 square feet…
Please note that any area within the wetland buffer that will be cleared for development activities and is not included in the buffer enhancement area should be
included in the total area of impact. If the total area of impact needs to be updated based on the proposal, please let me know.
Exhibit 13
2
Respectfully,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
AND
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
Lot 10, Belfair
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Prepared for
Crosby Olsen
2222 Belfair Avenue NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
(206) 276-5818
October 12, 2018
Prepared by
Ecological Land Services
1157 3rd Avenue Suite 220A •Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371 •Project Number 2694.01
Exhibit 14
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report i October 11, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................2
VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................2
SOILS ................................................................................................................................................3
HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................3
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY .................................................................................................4
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS MAPS................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................4
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION .....................................................................................................4
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................4
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL .....................................................................................................5
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ...................................................................................................5
MITIGATION SEQUENCING ..............................................................................................................5
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................8
BUFFER FUNCTIONS ...................................................................................................................9
BUFFER MITIGATION JUSTIFICATION ......................................................................................9
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SITE PREPARATION .............................................................................11
GOALS,OBJECTIVES,AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................................................11
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING ............................................................................................11
MAINTENANCE PLAN ...............................................................................................................13
MONITORING PLAN ..................................................................................................................13
CONTINGENCY PLAN ...............................................................................................................14
NO-NET-LOSS ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................................14
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...........................................................................................................15
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................16
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................17
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report ii October 11, 2018
FIGURES & PHOTOPLATES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Site Plan
Figure 4 Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 6 Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Map
Figure 7 Mitigation Plan
Photoplates Site Photos
APPENDIX A
Wetland Determination Data Forms
APPENDIX B
Western Washington Wetland Rating Form
Figure 8 WRF -150’ Offset
Figure 9 WRF –1 KM Offset
Figure 10 Wetland Rating Figure –303(d)/TMDL
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report iii October 11, 2018
SIGNATURE PAGE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision and
direction of the undersigned.
___________________________
Joanne Bartlett, PWS
Senior Biologist
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 1 October 11, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) was contracted by Crosby Olsen to conduct a wetland
boundary delineation and critical areas report for the property located on Belfair Avenue,Kitsap
County Tax Parcel No.4148-003-010-0007,in the Fort Ward area of Bainbridge Island,
Washington.The project site is located within a portion of Section 11,Township 24, Range 2 East
of the Willamette Meridian (Figure 1).This report summarizes the findings of the wetland
delineation according to the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC), Chapter 16.20.160 (2018)
for delineation methodology, wetland categorization, and required buffer widths.The report also
includes buffer mitigation required for the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) to reduce the required
buffer.
METHODOLOGY
The wetland delineation followed the Routine Determination Method according to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers,Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987)and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
2010).
The Routine Determination Method examines three parameters—vegetation, soils, and
hydrology—to determine if wetlands exist in a given area.Hydrology is critical in determining
what is wetland, but is often difficult to assess because hydrologic conditions can change
periodically (hourly, daily, or seasonally).Consequently, it is necessary to determine if
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are present, which would indicate that water is present for
long enough duration to support a wetland plant community.By definition, wetlands are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are regulated as “Waters of the
United States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),as “Waters of the State”by the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and locally by the City of Bainbridge Island.
To delineate the wetland boundary on the property, ELS biologists collected data on vegetation,
hydrology, and soils.A site visit was conducted on March 23, 2018 during which one wetland was
identified and delineated.The wetland boundaries were delineated using consecutively numbered
fluorescent flags labeled “WETLAND DELINEATION.” Wetland boundar y was determined
through breaks in topography, changes in vegetation, and evidence of wetland hydrology.
Vegetation, hydrology, and soil data was collected at three test plots to verify the wetland boundary
(Appendix A). The wetland boundary was mapped using a Trimble handheld Global Positioning
System (GPS) unit to show on the site map (Figure 2).
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 2 October 11, 2018
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 0.46-acre site is situated on Belfair Avenue in the Fort Ward area of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap
County, Washington (Figure 1).The irregularly shaped parcel is located on Belfair Avenue, which
is unimproved and used as a path between Soundview Drive NE and NE Radio School Road.A
culvert under the pathway discharges surface water onto the parcel, but no stream was identified
due to lack of a defined channel. The wetland covers approximately the eastern half of the property
and continues offsite to the northeast, where Tani’s Creek begins and flows north to eventually
discharge into Blakely Harbor. The eastern half of the property is relatively flat, with a moderately
steep slope rising to a plateau on the western end of the property (Photoplates 1 and 3).The
western half of the property is dominated mostly by invasive plant species with scattered native
trees and shrubs (Photoplates 1 and 3).The delineated wetland lies across the east half of the
property and is dominated by emergent vegetation where it crosses the property and composed of a
forested community that lies mostly offsite to the north (Photoplates 1, 2, and 3).Wetland A is a
depressional forested and emergent wetland with a seasonally flooded hydroperiod.It is rated as a
Category III wetland with a low (4) habitat score and requires a 60-foot buffer in areas of moderate
land use intensity.
VEGETATION
The forested area of Wetland A is dominated by common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna,FAC),
Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra,FACW), and red alder (Alnus rubra,FAC) in the tree layer,
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus,FAC)and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis,FAC)in the
shrub layer, and water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa,OBL), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum,
FACU),creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens,FAC),and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense,
FAC) in the herbaceous layer. Additional species include bluegrass (Poa spp.,FAC), trailing
blackberry (Rubus ursinus,FACU), English holly (Ilex aquifolium,FACU), and sword fern
(Polystichum munitum,FACU). The emergent area of Wetland A is dominated by soft rush
(Juncus effusus,FACW) and bluegrass.
The upland area of the property is dominated by common hawthorn in the tree layer,Nootka rose
(Rosa nutkana,FAC) and osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis,FACU)in the shrub layer,and sword
fern in the herbaceous layer. There are also lower percentages of English holly, red flowering
currant (Ribes sanguineum,FACU), and trailing blackberry in the upland areas as well as areas
where English ivy (Hedera helix, FACU) covers the ground. A test plot was not established in the
north end of the property, however, this area was observed to be dominated by Himalayan
blackberry below an understory of common hawthorn and red alder.
The dominant vegetation found onsite is recorded on the attached wetland determination data
forms (Appendix A). The indicator status, following the common and scientific names, indicates
how likely a species is to be found in wetlands. Listed from most likely to least likely to be found
in wetlands, the indicator status categories are:
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 3 October 11, 2018
OBL (obligate wetland)–Almost always occur in wetlands.
FACW (facultative wetland)–Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands.
FAC (facultative)–Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands.
FACU (facultative upland)–Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands.
UPL (obligate upland)–Almost never occur in wetlands.
NI (no indicator)–Status not yet determined.
SOILS
As referenced on the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2017) website,
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes are mapped on the property (Figure 3).Cathcart soils are
not classified as hydric (NRCS 2016).Areas mapped as hydric soils do not necessarily mean that
an area is or is not a wetland—hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils must all be
present to classify an area as a wetland.
The observed Wetland A soil in Test Plot 1 consists of black (10YR 2/1)silt loam with two
percent dark yellow brown (10YR 4/6) redoximorphic concentrations starting within 10 inches of
the soil surface.This meets the criteria for hydric soil indicator F6: Redox Dark Surface. The soil
in Test Plot 2 consists of a layer of black (10YR 2/1) silt loam with two percent strong brown
(7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic concentrations above a dark grey (10YR 4/1) silt loam with five
percent strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) redoximorphic concentrations that starts 8 inches below the soil
surface. This profile meets the criteria for hydric soil indicator F3 Depleted Matrix.
The upland soil profile consists of a layer of very dark brown (10YR 2/2)silt loam with no
redoximorphic features above a brown (10YR 4/3)silt loam with one percent strong brown (7.5YR
4/6) redoximorphic concentrations.This profile does not match any hydric soil indicators due to
high chroma in both soil layers.
HYDROLOGY
Surface water, a high water table,and soil saturation to the surface were found within Wetland A,
which are all primary indicators of wetland hydrology.The primary sources of hydrology to the
wetland include surface water flow from the culvert under the pedestrian trail and groundwater
with additional inputs from surface runoff and precipitation.This wetland is part of a series of
wetlands that are hydrologically separated by existing roadways. It receives water from a wetland
south of Belfair Avenue and outlets to the north under Robertson Road into a wetland that extends
across the north end of Fort Ward Estates. The latter wetland outlets into a culvert under Kitsap
Street and into a stream identified as Tani’s Creek. There are no stream conditions within the
series of wetlands as they are all basically shallow depressions that provide a source of hydrology
to the stream. The stream flows northerly and into Blakely Harbor.No indicators of wetland
hydrology were found at the upland test plots.
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 4 October 11, 2018
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)does not map wetlands on or within 300 feet of the
property (Figure 4).The ELS findings disagree with the mapping as an emergent and forested
depressional wetland was found to exist onsite.The NWI maps should be used with discretion
because they are used to gather general wetland information about a regional area and therefore are
limited in accuracy for smaller areas because of their large scale.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREAS MAPS
The City of Bainbridge Island GIS website (COBI 2018) maps a wetland in the area of Wetland A
(Figure 5). The delineation conducted by ELS for this project verified the presence of the wetland
and concurs with the general mapping of the wetland.Critical area maps should be used with
discretion because they are used to gather general wetland information about a regional area and
therefore are limited in accuracy for smaller areas because of their large scale.
CONCLUSIONS
WETLAND CATEGORIZATION
The wetland was rated according to Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western
Washington-2014 Update (Rating System) (Hruby 2014), and received ratings based on functions
(Appendix B).Wetland A is a depressional wetland with a seasonally flooded hydroperiod.
Wetland A received a total of 16 points on the Rating System, a habitat score of 4,and a rating as a
Category III wetland.
The rating of the onsite wetland for habitat functions differs slightly than the wetland offsite to the
south. The onsite wetland contains two separate communities that includes emergent and forested,
while the offsite wetland has three separate communities that includes emergent, scrub/shrub, and
forested. The onsite wetland rates lower for interspersion of habitats because there are two
Cowardin classes of vegetation rather than three observed in the offsite wetland. Therefore, the
onsite wetland received a low rating for habitat functions (4 points) while the offsite wetland
received a moderate rating for habitat functions (5 points). In July, guidance was released by
Ecology stating that scores of 3 to 5 points for habitat are considered low, scores of 6 to 7 are
considered moderate, and scores of 8 to 9 are considered high.Therefore, both of these wetlands
score low for habitat functions and would receive the same buffer widths.
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
The BIMC Chapter 16.20.140.I specifies buffers based on wetland category, scores for habitat
functions on the rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use in accordance with the
Rating System. Wetland A is a Category III wetland that received a low score for habitat function.
This lot is within the R-2 zone and onsite development is considered a moderate intensity land use
so a 60-foot buffer is required from the onsite wetland area. A 15-foot building and impervious
surface setback is also specified from the edge of the critical area buffers.
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 5 October 11, 2018
Administrative buffer reductions are permitted by the BIMC Section 16.20.140.I.8 through the
buffer averaging process wherein the buffer is reduced in one location and increased in another by
the same square footage to create a buffer that averages the required buffer width. The BIMC also
permits 25 percent reductions of wetland buffers if it can be documented that the reduction will
provide a buffer that provides adequate protection for the wetland. Buffer reductions beyond what
is allowed administratively are required to proceed through the Reasonable Economic Use
Exception (RUE) process. Buffer reductions allowed administratively will not result in a reduced
buffer that allows construction of a home on the lot so the project will proceed through the RUE
process.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This lot is irregularly shaped and is entirely composed of wetland in the east half and the wetland
buffer across the west half. The project proposes construction of a single-family home at the
south end of the lot where it can be easily accessed from Belfair Avenue, which is composed of a
walking path at this time (Figure 3).The north half of the lot will remain undeveloped and is
composed of dense invasive vegetation with some native plants mixed in and will be enhanced to
compensate for construction of the home within the buffer (Figure 9). The home, driveway, and
outdoor boardwalks will permanently impact approximately 3,476 square feet of the buffer, which
is roughly 14 percent of the lot. The buffer impact will be mitigated by enhancing 4,426 square
feet of buffer at the north end of the lot and between the home and wetland boundary. In addition,
a 735 square foot area of the wetland will be enhanced with native plants to further improve
buffer for the remainder of the wetland and to encourage development of an additional vegetation
community within the wetland. The lawn area and proposed under-drain rain garden will be
planted with native species to further compensate for the temporary impacts of home construction.
While a mitigation ratio is no longer spelled out in the BIMC, it is regularly utilized to ensure that
at least the buffer mitigation equals the buffer impact. Typically, the ratio for buffer mitigation is
1:1 because the wetland impact ratios start at 1.5:1. The 1:1 ratio is used for this project to ensure
that the area of mitigation equals the area of impact, which can also be used to evaluate the overall
improvement of function.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
The project proposes building one single-family home at the south end of the lot.The lot is
entirely encompassed by the current wetland buffers and setbacks. Administrative options for
buffer reduction will not allow for enough buildable area to accommodate the proposed home.
Therefore, in order to accommodate the home on this lot,impacts to the buffer are necessary and
must proceed through the RUE process.Buffer mitigation is required to compensate for the buffer
reduction per the BIMC.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
The Category III wetland and required 60-foot covers the entire lot and in some areas, extends
beyond the west property line. This lot is irregularly shaped due to the adjoining lots with the
onsite areas of upland separated by the lot immediately west so that there is limited availability for
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 6 October 11, 2018
homesite construction. The home will be located on the southern portio n of the upland and its
location is in keeping with the Fort Ward Design Guidelines.The lot is further constrained by the
setbacks required from the property lines, which include a 15-foot side yard setback to the north
and a 5-foot setback from the west line. Additionally, there is a 25-foot front yard setback from the
Belfair Avenue, which significantly reduces the area available for home construction on this lot.
As part of the mitigation process, projects proposed within a wetland buffer are required to address
the mitigation sequencing process to assess whether the project can avoid, minimize, rectify,or
reduce impacts before identifying compensation or mitigation measures.
Avoiding Impacts:This undeveloped lot is fully encumbered by the Category III wetland on the
east half and the required 60-foot buffer so impacts to the buffer are unavoidable.The project
avoids all impacts that would have direct affect on the wetland.
Minimizing Impacts:The home has been located in the only area available for development that
allows impacts to be minimized:
Placing it in the northern upland area would require construction of a driveway, which
would cross close to the wetland boundary due to the corner for the adjoining west lot.
Moving the home closer to Belfair Avenue by reducing the 25-foot front yard setback
would place the home and driveway closer to the wetland with even less buffer area
available between the wetland and home.By placing the home in the proposed location,
much more of the property remains actively functioning buffer.
The walkways around the home will be constructed to allow rainwater to flow through
and minimize the area of full impervious surfaces on the lot.
Foundation design and construction techniques have been designed to minimize the
impacts to the wetland and buffer while achieving reasonable use of this property
within the 1,200 square foot footprint constraint of the RUE and the 30-foot zoning
code height restriction.
o The soil on which this home is proposed is Cathcart silt loam, which is a very
dense, nearly impermeable soil type that occurs throughout Fort Ward Estates. The
soils have also been disturbed over a long period of time due to grading activities
when the development was constructed and potential placement of material from
other building sites (not determined but typical within residential developments).
Because the soil is relatively impermeable, there is limited percolation through the
soils and into the groundwater. Rather, it appears that water dropping onto the
property as precipitation is likely flowing across the surface of the sloping terrain
and into the wetland. The development of a home on this property will not change
the flow of water into the wetland either through groundwater or over the surface
because excavation will not extend to the groundwater depth and the surface water
will continue to be generated on impervious area. The runoff generated on the
developed property will discharge into the proposed rain garden, which itself will
drain toward the wetland.
o Overall, it does not appear that there will be any significant change to the
hydroperiod within the wetland as a result of onsite development because of the soil
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 7 October 11, 2018
conditions. Water will be generated on the property and will continue to discharge
into the wetland thereby avoiding impacts to the hydroperiod.
o The home was designed with the western side of the lower level set approximately 7
feet below the existing grade line. By taking advantage of the existing east sloping
grade the finish floor elevation at the eastern side of the lower plan meets with the
existing grade line.Because of this design the foundation walls along the west side
act as both retaining walls and supporting structure for the floors and roof above,
while the eastern side requires footings and foundation walls excavated only to frost
depth to support the building structure above.
o Stilt construction or helical piers are an option that will be explored if soil testing
reveals the inability of the onsite soil to support an excavated foundation.
The driveways and parking areas are located as far west as possible so that they enter
the west side of the home and provide two parking spots per code requirements.
Rectifying the Impacts:The project represents a permanent impact to the buffer so cannot rectify
the impacts to the affected habitats.
Reducing or Eliminating the Impacts:The project cannot reduce or eliminate the impacts by
preservation and maintenance.
Compensating for the Impacts:The project cannot avoid, rectify, or reduce the impact to the
wetland buffer but has minimized the impact to the extent possible by proposing the home and
driveway as far from the wetland boundary as possible. Because the proposal cannot avoid all
impacts to the wetland buffer, mitigation in the form of wetland and buffer enhancement is
proposed.The enhancement plan will include:
o Removal of invasive plant species from the buffer at the north end within 5,161 square feet
of the property (includes wetland and buffer).
o Installation of native trees and shrubs around remaining native vegetation following
removal of invasive plants.Additionally, the rain garden and yard area will be planted with
native species so they can function as part of the overall buffer.
o Buffer enhancement will occur between the home and the wetland boundary to increase the
cover by native species that have the ability to provide screening functions.
o Enhancement of a narrow strip of wetland nearest the homesite is intended to essentially
function as buffer for the remainder of the wetland particularly where the deck is closest to
the wetland.Enhancement of the entire onsite wetland is not proposed in order to maintain
the emergent vegetation community that currently provides diversity within the wetland.
The area of enhancement will develop into a scrub/shrub community that will also increase
the diversity of the wetland.
o Installation of split-rail fence will be installed along the edge of the designated buffer area
to demarcate the critical area and to limit human intrusion.
Offsite mitigation options were explored for projects recently proposed south of Belfair Avenue,
which included contacting the Bainbridge Island Land Trust to determine whether there were
opportunities available for mitigation on properties controlled by the land trust.Bainbridge Island
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 8 October 11, 2018
Metropolitan Parks and Recreation District (BIMPRD) was also consulted to identify potential
mitigation options on park owned property in the area. Both agencies determined that they have no
avenue for accepting funds or assistance with restoration or enhancement on local properties.
Therefore, offsite mitigation options are not proposed for this project.
Monitoring the Impact:This buffer mitigation plan incorporates monitoring for a period of five
years after the plants are installed and is designed to track the development of the vegetation and
the mitigation plan goal of achieving no-net-loss of buffer function.Monitoring will include yearly
visits to the site to determine the survival rate,percent cover by native plants (installed and
volunteer), and the cover by invasive plant species.Monitoring reports will be submitted yearly to
the Bainbridge Island Planning Department.Maintenance is also specified during the monitoring
period to ensure the mitigation areas do not become dominated by invasive plant species. The
cover by invasive species will be monitored yearly as part of the monitoring protocol.
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
The project proposes to permanently impact 3,476 square feet of the buffer in order to build the
single-family home and driveway (Figure 9). Mitigation for impacts to the buffer will include
removal of invasive plants on the north end of the lot, including but not limited to Himalayan
blackberry, English holly,and English ivy. Following removal of invasives,native plants will be
installed in areas where invasives are removed, for a total of 4,426 square feet of mitigation,
which equates to a 1.3:1 mitigation ratio.The area between the home and wetland boundary is
included within the buffer mitigation proposal and will also be planted with native vegetation,
including evergreen shrubs,to provide a natural screen for the wetland.A 735 square foot area of
the wetland immediately adjacent to the homesite will also be enhanced through installation of
native cuttings to encourage additional habitat development within the wetland as well providing
increased screening for the remainder of the wetland.Over and above the mitigation, the lawn
area and rain garden will be restored by planting native species that will increase the function of
the buffer next to the home.The ratio of mitigation to impact increases to 1.48:1 because the
wetland is included in the mitigation plan.The mitigation planting plan will include species that
currently are found on or adjacent to the lot and will improve buffer function.
The configuration of the lot and the location of the wetland create two distinct areas. The
placement of the home was selected for the southern of the two areas because the northern area is
slightly smaller and would require construction of a driveway very close to the wetland boundary.
This would produce even greater buffer and wetland impacts for which onsite mitigation might
not be possible. Therefore, situating the home and driveway at the south end significantly
reduces the overall impact to the wetland and buffer. The home and driveway will permanently
impact approximately 3,476 square feet of this 20,038 square foot lot, which is roughly 17
percent of the lot. This further means that 83 percent of the lot will be retained in critical areas,
which includes the Category III wetland and its enhanced buffer. The homesite location has
minimized the impacts to the extent possible and will utilize environmentally friendly features
wherever possible to further minimize impacts to this urban wetland. The mitigation plan also
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 9 October 11, 2018
proposes to utilize native plants in the landscaping, which includes the sm all area of lawn and
rain garden, so that the home is nestled into the buffer area.
BUFFER FUNCTIONS
The width of buffers necessary to protect a critical area from degradation is related to the
functions of the critical area and the buffer itself (Castelle, et al. 1992). Buffers function to
protect water quality of critical areas including wetlands by removing sediment and nutrients from
runoff. The function depends on the type of soils, vegetation, and characteristics of the runoff.
The function of buffers is also based on width and slope. In some cases, buffers as low as 50 feet
are effective in filtering pollutants when there is dense groundcover, no slope or a gradual slope,
and the runoff sheet flows across the buffer.The existing buffer on this lot lies on sloping terrain
that slopes down from the west. It is currently dominated by a mixture of non-native species,
which primarily includes dense blackberry thickets. While the blackberry thickets create a dense
barrier to human and pet intrusion,the lack of plant species diversity, the value for other
functions, which include foraging for wildlife and filtration of noise and light, is diminished. In
addition, the dominance by blackberry thickets prohibits the creation of an herbaceous vegetation
layer that is often vital to the scouring of pollutants from runoff. Because the buffer is sloping
and there is minimal understory vegetation, the buffer function for runoff filtration and
attenuation of flooding is low.
BUFFER MITIGATION JUSTIFICATION
Site Selection Criteria
o The buffer planting area lies at the north end of the lot where there is sufficient area
to compensate for site construction impacts.The buffer is currently dominated by
invasives so its function is diminished and the enhancement will improve the
function of the onsite buffer.This location will provide increased buffer from the
homes located west of the lot as well as homes further north by providing a
continuous native buffer extending along the entire west and north sides of this
wetland.Other lots in Fort Ward Estates are not afforded onsite areas for mitigation
of buffer impacts so onsite buffer mitigation is proposed.
Compensation Goals
o While blackberry thickets often provide a measure of wildlife habitat as well as
buffer function, the dominance by blackberry in the upland buffer reduces the cover
by native species that can provide habitat, protection, and foraging areas for local
wildlife species. The removal of blackberry thickets and installation of native
plants will therefore,improve the overall function of the buffer.
o The western red cedar trees are added because the existing buffer lacks a coniferous
component and will have an overall increase in buffer function by providing year
round cover. Oak trees are proposed within the buffer to encourage development of
a high deciduous layer as well as to increase foraging habitat for local species.
o A narrow strip of the wetland will be enhanced with native shrub cuttings to
encourage the development of an additional vegetation community within the
wetland while maintaining the existing emergent and forested communities. The
creation of the small scrub/shrub component will increase the overall function of the
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 10 October 11, 2018
wetland for habitat and control of flooding. These plants will be able to withstand
any change to the hydroperiod within this wetland when the culvert under Belfair
Avenue is replaced and water flow is allowed between this and the wetland to the
south.
o The proposed lawn area will be planted with a mixture of native grasses to further
improve the function of the buffer for diversity and retention of native vegetation
areas onsite.
o A small rain garden is proposed south of the home and will provide water quality
treatment while providing an additional native planting area on the lot.
Buffer Mitigation Success
o Typically, likelihood of success is associated with creation or restoration of wetland
as compensation for direct wetland impacts. No direct wetland impacts are
proposed for this project; therefore, no wetland mitigation is required. It is difficult
at this time and place to determine what the original critical area was like because it
is composed of buffer that has been disturbed since Fort Ward Estates was platted.
It can be said however, that the buffer was likely composed of upland forest that
included deciduous and coniferous trees, native shrubs, and native ferns in the
understory. This project proposes to recreate that likely original condition of the
onsite buffer.
o Buffer mitigation, which often includes onsite enhancement of existing disturbed
buffer, is conducted on a regular basis to compensate for necessary buffer
reductions. There is little data on the success of buffer mitigation except
anecdotally from local wetland professionals, including Ecological Land Services,
Inc. (ELS). ELS has conducted many buffer mitigation plans over the years that
have successfully improved buffer functions and diversity through removal of
invasives and installation of native plants.
o The success of a buffer mitigation plan depends on the species selected for
installation include native species that occur in the area, which indicates they are
common and do well.The project biologist with a professional wetland scientist
(PWS) certification and with 28 years of experience in Kitsap County and Fort
Ward Estates has done hundreds of buffer mitigation plans that have proven
successful and provide high quality native buffers.
o The likelihood of the ability of the enhanced buffer to provide improved buffer
functions is high when looking at the condition of the existing buffer, which is
covered in non-native species. The factors associated with the likelihood of success
are species selection, attainable performance standards and compensation goals, and
follow-up maintenance. There are no changes to the water dynamics of the buffer
or the wetland because no direct impacts (filling) of the wetland is proposed. The
slope of the buffer will not change as a result of the buffer mitigation because no
grading is proposed to change elevations or the slope of the upland buffer.
Therefore, there will be no alteration to the surface or groundwater supply and flow
patterns; dynamics of the ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion;
periodic flooding and drought, etc.
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 11 October 11, 2018
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SITE PREPARATION
The tasks listed below will achieve the buffer mitigation goals and objectives. These tasks are
listed in the order they are anticipated to occur; however, some tasks may occur concurrently or
may precede other tasks due to site and procedural constraints.
Buffer Mitigation Area
1.Define extent of the onsite mitigation area in the north half,alongside the home, and
within the wetland.
2.Remove invasive species and retain all existing native vegetation revealed during invasive
removal.
3.Install plantings according to specifications proposed herein.
4.Place woody mulch or organic compost around plants after installation to minimize
regrowth of invasives and to allow soil moisture retention.
5.Install split-rail fence next to the home and planting area (after home construction).
GOALS,OBJECTIVES,AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Project Goal:Improve buffer functions to compensate for the impact to the wetland buffer.
Objective 1:Control invasive species.
Performance Standards 1 (a):During monitoring Years 1 through 5, invasive species will be
removed and suppressed within the wetland buffer as often as necessary to meet a performance
standard of no greater than 10 percent cover by invasive species. Invasive species may include,
but are not limited to, Himalayan blackberry, English holly,and English ivy. Percent cover
will be recorded annually and include in monitoring reports.
Objective 2:Improve native plant cover and buffer function.
Performance Standard 2 (a):The project will maintain at least 90 percent survival of plants
during the first three years of the 5-year monitoring period. Plant species number will be
recorded annually and compared with as-built conditions for inclusion with the monitoring
reports.
Performance Standard 2 (b):Native installed and volunteer species in the buffer mitigation
area will provide a minimum of 10-percent cover in Year 1, 10 to 15-percent cover in Year 2,
15 to 25 percent cover in Year 3,and 25 to 40 percent cover in Year 5. It should be noted that
the planting maxim states that the first year plants sleep, second year they creep, and third year
they leap (Munts 2014) and the yearly percent cover standards reflect this maxim. Plant species
and percent cover will be recorded annually and included in monitoring reports.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING
The plants specified for installation are intended to create a naturally vegetated wetland buffer that
will both screen noise and light from the developed upland and provide shade and wildlife habitat.
Most of the plants will be potted plants, 1 gallon in size, from local nurseries stocking native
plants.Plants will be installed during the dormant season from October to March so that the y are in
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 12 October 11, 2018
the ground when conditions are optimal and can get a good start.Installation should occur after
home construction activities are completed to avoid undo impact to the plants.
Plant Materials
1.Plants will be purchased from local nurseries stocking native species.
2.Potted plants will be 1 gallon in size.
3.No damaged or desiccated roots or diseased plants will be accepted.
Planting Specifications
Plants will be installed per the attached buffer mitigation plan where invasives are removed and
around revealed native trees and shrubs. Table 1 provides a list of plants proposed for installation
within the mitigation areas. Plantings will be spaced to allow for access around the planted species
for the continual need for removal of invasive plants.Plants indicated on the planting plan are
subject to availability from regional native plant nurseries and may be substituted with similarly
performing native plants. The final location of the plants may differ from the planting plan, as site
conditions dictate,and any changes will be documented on the as-built drawing prepared after
completion of plant installation.
Table 1. Plant specifications
Species Spacing (feet)Quantity Size
TREE &HIGH STATURE SHRUB STRATUM
Western red cedar (Thuja plicata)As shown 5 1 gallon
Vine maple (Acer circinatum)10 5 1 gallon
Black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii)10 5 1 gallon
Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)As shown 6 1 gallon
LOW STATURE SHRUB &HERBACEOUS STRATUM
WETLAND PLANTINGS
Pacific willow (Salix lucida lasiandra)5 15 cuttings
Red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea)5 10 cuttings
UPLAND BUFFER PLANTINGS
Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana)5 20 1 gallon
Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis)5 20 1 gallon
Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)5 20 1 gallon
Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa)5 20 1 gallon
Sword fern (Polystichum munitum)5 20 1 gallon
Total 146
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 13 October 11, 2018
Plant Installation Specifications
1.Plant the specified trees and shrubs in the winter months following construction of the
proposed home as listed in Table 1. Space the plants somewhat irregularly and in groups to
create eventual dense heterogeneity in the planting area, leaving enough space between each
group to allow for access for weed removal. Plant the potted stock with a tree shovel or
comparable tool.
2.Place the plants in the planting holes and position the root crowns so that they are at, or
slightly below, the level of the surrounding soil. Planting just below the surrounding soil
will create a shallow depression around each plant for retention of water.
3.Firmly compact the soil around the planted species to eliminate air spaces.
4.Install anti-herbivory devices, such as seedling protection tubes or mesh protection netting,
around the stems of planted species when appropriate, and secure them with stakes.
5.Irrigate all newly installed plants as site and weather conditions warrant.
MAINTENANCE PLAN
Maintenance of the wetland buffer mitigation area will occur for five years and will involve
removing invasive plant species, irrigating planted species, and reinstalling failed plantings, as
necessary. The maintenance may include the following activities:
1.Remove and control invasive vegetation around all installed plants a minimum of two
times during the growing season for the first five years.
2.Irrigate planted species as necessary during the dry season, approximately July 1 through
October 15. ELS recommends that watering occur at least every two weeks during the dry
season for the first three years. The most successful method of watering plants is using a
temporary above-ground irrigation system set to a timer to ensure the plants are regularly
watered.
3.Replace dead or failed plants as described for the original installation to meet the
minimum annual survival rate and percent cover performance standards.
MONITORING PLAN
The buffer mitigation area will be monitored annually for a 5-year period following plant
installation. Monitoring is proposed at the end of the growing season in Years 1, 2, 3,and 5 (Year
4 skipped). Monitoring reports will be submitted to the Bainbridge Island Department of
Community Development (BIDCD) by December 31st of each monitored year. The goal of
monitoring is to determine if the previously stated performance standards are being met. The
mitigation area will be monitored once during the growing season, preferably during the same two-
week period each year to better compare the data. Individual monitoring units may be established
within the mitigation area to track the changes occurring over the monitoring period.
Vegetation
Vegetative monitoring will document the developing shrub and low stature tree layers. The
following information will be collected in the buffer mitigation area:
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 14 October 11, 2018
▪Percent cover and frequency of herbaceous species.
▪Percent cover and frequency of sapling/shrub species.
▪Percent cover and frequency of tree species.
▪Species composition of herbs, shrubs, and trees, including non -native, invasive species.
▪Photo documentation of vegetative changes over time.
Monitoring Report Contents
The annual monitoring reports will contain at least the following:
▪Location map and representational drawing.
▪Historic description of project, including dates of plant installation, current year of monitoring,
and restatement of goals, objectives, and performance standards.
▪Description of monitoring methods.
▪Documentation of plant cover and overall development of plant communities.
▪Assessment of non-native, invasive plant species and recommendations for management.
▪Photographs from permanent photo points.
▪Summary of maintenance and contingency measures proposed for the next season and
completed for the past season.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
If the performance standards are not being met during the 5-year monitoring period, contingency
measures will be implemented to achieve the standard by the next monitoring season. The
contingency measures utilized will depend on the failure of the plants or maintenance activities
and will include but are not limited to replacement of dead plants (with the same or a similar
species) when the survival rate standard is not met, addition of plants when the yearly percent
cover standard is not met, and more intensive maintenance if the invasive plant cover exceeds 10
percent.All contingency actions will be undertaken only after consulting and gaining approval
from the BIDCD. The applicant will be required to complete a contingency plan that describes (1)
the causes of failure, (2) proposed corrective actions, (3) a schedule for completing corrective
actions, and (4) whether additional maintenance and monitoring are necessary.
NO-NET-LOSS ASSESSMENT
The proposed impacts to the wetland buffer will be mitigated by improving the remainder of the
onsite buffer,which covers the entire lot. Typically, buffer mitigation is conducted at a 1:1 ratio
and considered sufficient because the impact and mitigation areas are equal. The mitigation plan
calls for 5,161 square feet of wetland and buffer improvement in compensation for the total impact
area of 3,476 square feet. Based on these figures, there is a ratio of nearly 1.5:1 of mitigation to
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 15 October 11, 2018
buffer impacts, which includes removal of invasive blackberry thickets to allow installation of
native plants.The ratio of impact to compensation indicates that there is a greater area of buffer
available for enhancement that will also increase the function of the buffer.Removal of blackberry
is expected to reveal native species, which will be supplemented by the installed native plants.
The proposed mitigation plan will result in no-net-loss of buffer function because of the selected
plant species.
The plan proposes installation of trees, high and low shrubs that are both deciduous and
evergreen, and herbaceous plants to improve species diversity within the upland buffer on
this lot.
Nootka rose and snowberry were selected because they spread quickly and form dense
thickets that can reduce intrusion by humans and pets.
Oregon white oak, Nootka rose, Indian plum, and Oregon grape were selected because they
have potential to provide food sources for local birds and small mammals.
Evergreen plants are included in the planting plan to provide year round vegetative
coverage.
o Western red cedar is proposed to increase tree species diversity by introducing a
conifer species to the buffer.
o Oregon grape and sword fern are included to increase the low stature, understory
vegetation that provides year round cover.
A narrow section of the wetland that lies in close proximity to the narrow upland buffer
(adjacent to the home) will be enhanced with shrub cuttings to encourage development of a
scrub/shrub community within the onsite wetland area. The cuttings include Pacific willow
and red osier dogwood, which can form dense thickets that will provide additional
protection for the remainder of the wetland.
Because the mitigation plan proposes development of a high quality native wetland buffer, it will
result in no-net-loss of buffer function. The proposed mitigation will increase the function of the
buffer for both on and offsite development and has been designed to reduce intrusion by humans
and pets. A split-rail fence will be constructed along the planted buffer edge adjacent to the
developed portion of the lot to limit onsite access to the wetland and buffer as well as to demarcate
the limits of the onsite critical areas. The buffer planting area on the north end will not be fenced.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This lot is located within Fort Ward Estates, which is a platted community established in the
1960’s, along Belfair Avenue. Although this lot is not currently de veloped, the wetland running
through this section of the development is surrounded on all sides by developed lots. Most of the
lots on the west side are located beyond the buffers required at the time they were permitted but the
lots on the east side each were permitted through administrative and reasonable use exception
permits because they were located within the buffer. Robertson Road was platted along the north
edge of this wetland so physically cuts off the wetland from the wetland to the north but t here is
drainage of water through the culvert under the road. Therefore, this lot is the last to be developed
along this particular wetland area. Because it is the last lot to be developed, it will not result in
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 16 October 11, 2018
additional impacts to the wetland area because the area of permanent impact totals 3,476 square
feet of this 20,038 square foot lot, which is around 17 percent of the lot area. The proposed home
will cover less of this lot than the homes on the other developed lots and there are lower buffer
widths on those lots. A total of 4,426 square feet of buffer and 735 square feet of wetland will be
enhanced to minimize the impacts and compensate for the reduced buffer and potential impacts. In
addition, this lot proposes to treat onsite stormwater by routing it into an under-drain rain garden,
which is not provided by the developed lots around this wetland. There do not appear to be any
stormwater treatment facilities on those lots so this lot will minimize the potential water quality
impacts on this wetland.
LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices.There are no other warranties, express or implied.
The services preformed were consistent with our agreement with our client.This report is prepared
solely for the use of our client and may not be used or relied upon by a third party for any purpose.
Any such use or reliance will be at such party’s risk.
The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed.ELS is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental
standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report.ELS does not warrant the accuracy
of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others.
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 17 October 11, 2018
REFERENCES
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Maurermann, T.
Erickson, S.S. Cooke. 1992.Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness.Adolfson
Associates, Inc., Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
Department of Ecology. Olympia. Pub. No. 92-10.
City of Bainbridge Island. 2018.Bainbridge Island Municipal Code, Title 16.20 Critical Areas,
2018 Bainbridge Island, Washington.
City of Bainbridge Island. 2017. Bainbridge Island Geographical Information System. Online
document http://apps.bainbridgewa.gov:8080/PublicGIS/.Website accessed March 2018.
Cowardin, L.M., C. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-78/31. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987.Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Hruby, T. August 2014.Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington -2014
Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-029. Olympia,
Washington.Effective January 1, 2015.
Sheldon, D. T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.
Stockdale. March 2005.Wetlands in Washington State –Volume 1: A Synthesis of the
Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia,
WA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010.Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual:Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0),
ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory. Online document
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html . Website accessed March 2018.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017.WA635 Kitsap County Area.
Online document http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.Website
accessed March 2018.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017.Washington Hydric Soils List.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/>.
Crosby Olsen-Lot 10 Belfair Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Report 18 October 11, 2018
U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).Agricultural Applied Climate
Information System.<http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=53035 >. Website Accessed March
2018.
FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.5839° Latitude
-122.5210° Longitude
SITE
SITE
SCALE IN MILES
30150
SITE
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
8
2
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
o
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
l
o
t
1
0
b
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
10
/
9
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
0
40
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
CAMAS
QUILCENE
QUEETS
NEAH BAY
CLALLAM BAY
5 542
542
209
LOPEZ
FRIDAY HARBOR
ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTON
ARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND
113 112
SEQUIM
ANGELES
PORT
101
FORKS
MORTON
KELSOLONGVIEW
HOQUIAM
ABERDEEN
MONTESANOOCEAN
SHORES
WESTPORT
RAYMOND
CENTRALIA
CHEHALIS
WINLOCK
CASTLE
ROCK
CATHLAMET
WOODLAND
5
12
12
6
5044
12
101
PACIFIC
BEACH
GRAYS
HARBOR
PACIFIC
LEWIS
COWLITZ
WAHKIAKUM
KALAMA
ELMA
5
BATTLE
GROUND
VANCOUVER NORTH BONNEVILLE
STEVENSON CARSON
MT. ST.
HELENS
MOSSYROCK RANDLE
PACKWOOD
EATONVILLE MT.
RAINIER
ROY
ORTING
BUCKLEY
ENUMCLAWPUYALLUP
DUPONT
TENINO
YELM
OLYMPIA
SHELTON
HOODSPORT
GIG
TACOMA
AUBURN
KENT NORTH BEND
SEATTLE
DUVALL
BOTHELL
SKYKOMISH
14
LA
CENTER
503
5
SKAMANIA
CLARK
MASON
KING
THURSTON
PIERCE
KITSAP
505
127
123
410161
101 3
3
18 90
2
WAY
101
101
ILWACO
OCEAN
PARK
LONG
BEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTH
BEND
KIRKLAND
REDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
TP-3
TP-2
TP-1
1
3
5
7
Wetland A
Category III
Depressional
Forested
Emergent
Seasonally Flooded
60'
25'
Setback
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial from Google Earth™
2.Wetland and test plots located using handheld GPS with submeter accuracy.
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Test Plot Location
Wetland Flag Location
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
8
2
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
o
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
l
o
t
1
0
b
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
SI
T
E
M
A
P
10
/
9
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
40
80
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
TP-1
1
Emergent
Forested
Small Trees
& Blackberry
Thickets
Small Trees
& Blackberry
Thickets
Belfair Avenue Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
8
2
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
o
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
l
o
t
1
0
b
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
10
/
9
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
LEGEND:
7 Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. Not hydric.
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
8
2
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
o
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
l
o
t
1
0
b
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
SO
I
L
S
U
R
V
E
Y
M
A
P
10
/
9
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by US Fish & Wildlife Service at web address: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html
No mapped wetlands indicated onsite by US Fish & Wildlife Service.
SITE
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
8
2
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
o
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
l
o
t
1
0
b
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
NA
T
I
O
N
A
L
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
S
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
M
A
P
10
/
9
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
10
0
20
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
8
2
:
4
1
P
M
s:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
b
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
o
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
l
o
t
1
0
b
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
SITE
N
6
:(
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
BA
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
A
R
E
A
S
M
A
P
10
/
9
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
40
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by the City of Bainbridge Island at web address:
https://cityofbi.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html
Streams
Fish
Non-Fish Seasonal
Non-Fish Perrenial
Shoreline
Other
LEGEND:
Wetlands
Delineated
No Delineation
Not a Wetland
Shoreline
FEMA Flood Hazard
A = Low Flood Risk
AE = High Flood Risk
VE = High Flood Risk
Kitsap County Parcels
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/5/18
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2694.01
Photoplate 1
Project Name:Lot 10 Belfair
Client:Crosby Olsen
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Photo 1 shows the southern
property line and the start of the
wetland boundary near the edge of
the blackberry. The culvert under
the pedestrian pathway is on the
left side of this photo.
Photo 3 was taken at the north
end of the property, looking
south and shows the flooded area
of the wetland that is dominated
by Pacific willow and water
parsley.Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 2 was taken from the same
location as Photo 1, looking
northwest and shows the
transition between the emergent
area of the wetland on the right
and the forested area on the left.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/5/18
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#: 2694.01
Photoplate 2
Project Name:Lot 10 Belfair
Client:Crosby Olsen
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Photo 4 shows the area where Test
Plot 1 was conducted within the
emergent area of Wetland A.
Photo 6 shows the area where
Test Plot 3 was conducted in the
upland to the west of the
wetland.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 5 shows the area where
Test Plot 2 was conducted within
the forested area of Wetland A to
the west of Test Plot 1.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:6/5/18
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#: 2694.01
Photoplate 3
Project Name:Lot 10 Belfair
Client:Crosby Olsen
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Photo 7 was taken near the north
end of the property, looking west at
the slope with high cover by
invasive Himalayan blackberry.
Buffer enhancement is proposed in
this area to improve the function of
the buffer by removing the invasive
species and planting natives.
Photo 9 was taken from the edge
of the wetland near flag A5,
looking west at the slope, which
is dominated by Himalayan
blackberry. This is another area
proposed for buffer enhancement
through invasive species removal
and native species planting.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 8 was taken from the same
location as Photo 7, looking
southwest and shows more of the
sloped buffer area to the west of
the wetland. Himalayan
blackberry and English holly are
two invasives proposed to be
removed here to improve the
function of the buffer.
APPENDIX A
Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope(%):
Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum:
Soil Unit Map Name:NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Yes No
Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.Prevalence Index Worksheet:
2.Total % Cover of:Multiple by:
3.OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.
8.
9.5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1.
2.
Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
This property is lcoated in the Fort Ward Area of Bainbridge Island. Wetland A is a forested and emergent depressional system with seasonally flooding.
The wetland occupies the eastern half of the property and continues offsite to the north. Test Plot 1 is located within the emergent area of the wetland near
the southern end of the property.
S11 T24 R2E
terrace concave 2-8
MLRA 2 WA 84 SF
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes None
X
Remarks:
X
(A)
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:30 feet)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
(B)
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:2
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:15 feet)
= Total Cover
5.
2.Yes FACWJuncus effusus
4 - Morphalogical Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data
in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.140 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:15 feet)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC or FACW species. *assumed FAC
= Total Cover X
Lot 10 Belfair Bainbridge Island/Kitsap
Crosby Olsen
3/23/2018
TP 1
J. Bartlett
No
WA
X
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
X
47.583776 -122.5210311
60
3.
Herb Stratum (Plot Size:5 feet)
1.Poa spp.*80 Yes FAC
X
X
X
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 .......
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type
Depth (inches):Hydric Soils Present?Yes
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
SOIL TP 1
si cl lo
10-16 10YR 2/1 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M
0-10 10YR 2/1 100
X 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
X surface
A high water table was observed at the surface and is a primary indicator for wetland hydrology.
X
X
X
X
X No
No
This soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F6 because because of the single layer profile that has redoximorphic concentrations covering about 2 percent of
the soil matrix.
lo - loam
cl - clay
si - silt
si cl lo
Mucky Mineral
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 .......
Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope(%):
Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum:
Soil Unit Map Name:NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Yes No
Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.Prevalence Index Worksheet:
2.Total % Cover of:Multiple by:
3.OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.
8.
9.5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1.
2.
Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Lot 10 Belfair Bainbridge Island/Kitsap 3/23/2018
Crosby Olsen WA TP 2
J. Bartlett S11 T24 R2E
terrace concave 2-8
MLRA 2 47.583819 -122.521123 WA 84 SF
X
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes None
Yes X No
Remarks:This property is lcoated in the Fort Ward Area of Bainbridge Island. Wetland A is a forested and emergent depressional system with seasonally flooding.
The wetland occupies the eastern half of the property and continues offsite to the north. Test Plot 2 is located within the forested area of the wetland near
the southern end of the property, just to the west of Test Plot 1.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:30 feet)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X
X Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?X X
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Crataegus monogyna 85 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:15 feet)
5 (B)
Rubus armeniacus 50 Yes FAC
Rubus spectabilis 15 Yes FAC
85 = Total Cover
Ilex aquifolium 5 No FACU
70 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot Size:5 feet)
5.
2.Equisetum arvense 20 Yes FAC
1.Athyrium cyclosorum 25 Yes FAC
Polystichum munitum 5 No FACU X
3.Poa spp*5 No FAC
Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4 - Morphalogical Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data
in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
60 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:15 feet)
X No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40
The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species. *assumed FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? = Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 .......
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type
Depth (inches):Hydric Soils Present?Yes
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
SOIL TP 2
0-4 10YR 2/1 100 si lo No Redoximorphic Features
4-8 10YR 2/1 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M si lo
M si lo Depleted Matrix8-16 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C
si - silt
lo - loam
X No
The soil profile most closely matches the description for hydric soil indicator F3, Depleted Matrix because the depleted matrix begins at or within 10 inches
from the soil surface and has distinct redoximorphic features.
X
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
X
X
X
X No
A high water table was observed at a depth of 4 inches and soil saturation at the surface so there are primary indicators present for wetland hydrology.
X 4
X surface
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 .......
Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope(%):
Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long:Datum:
Soil Unit Map Name:NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present?Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Yes No
Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.Prevalence Index Worksheet:
2.Total % Cover of:Multiple by:
3.OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.
8.
9.5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1.
2.
Yes
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Lot 10 Belfair Bainbridge Island/Kitsap 3/23/2018
Crosby Olsen WA TP 3
J. Bartlett S11 T24 R2E
terrace concave 2-8
MLRA 2 47.583855 -122.521232 WA 84 SF
X
Cathcart silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes None
Yes X No
Remarks:This property is lcoated in the Fort Ward Area of Bainbridge Island. Wetland A is a forested and emergent depressional system with seasonally flooding.
The wetland occupies the eastern half of the property and continues offsite to the north. Test Plot 3 is located within the forested upland area near the
western property line, upslope of the wetland and west of Test Plot 2.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:30 feet)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X
X Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?X X
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Crataegus monogyna 60 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:15 feet)
4 (B)
Rosa nutkana 50 Yes FAC
Oemleria cerasiformis 25 Yes FACU
60 = Total Cover
Ribes sanguineum 10 No FACU 0 0
Ilex aquifolium 15 No FACU 0 0
330
100 = Total Cover 95 380
Herb Stratum (Plot Size:5 feet)0 0
5.110
710
2.Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU 3.46
1.Polystichum munitum 40 Yes FACU 205
3.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4 - Morphalogical Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data
in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
45 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:15 feet)
No X
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 55
The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is only 50% dominance by FAC species and the prevalence index is greater than 3.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? = Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 .......
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3:
Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type
Depth (inches):Hydric Soils Present?Yes
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
SOIL TP 3
0-7 10YR 2/2 100 si lo No Redoximorphic Features
7-16 10YR 4/3 99 7.5YR 4/6 1 C M si lo
si - silt
lo - loam
No X
None of the soil layers meet the definition of a depleted matrix so this soil profile is determined to meet none of the hydric soil indicators.
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
X
No X
Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
X
X
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 .......
APPENDIX B
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 1
RATING SUMMARY –Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #):Wetland A Date of site visit:3/23/18
Rated by Katie Boa Trained by Ecology?Yes X No Date of training 11/2016
HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE:Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions X or special characteristics _)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I –Total score =23 –27
Category II –Total score = 20 –22
X Category III –Total score = 16 –19
Category IV –Total score =9 –15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings 5 7 4 16
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
Score for eachfunctionbasedonthreeratings(order of ratingsisnotimportant)
9 =H,H,H
8 =H,H,M
7 =H,H,L
7 =H,M,M
6 =H,M,L
6 =M,M,M
5 =H,L,L
5 =M,M,L
4 =M,L,L
3 =L,L,L
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above X
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 2
Maps and figures required to answ er questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3,H 1.1,H 1.4 2,8
Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2 2,8
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)D 1.1,D 4.1 2,8
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)D 2.2,D 5.2 8
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3,D 5.3 9
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 9
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)D 3.1,D 3.2 10
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)D 3.3 10
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)R 2.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2
Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure)R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)R 3.2,R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1,L 4.1,H 1.1,H 1.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)L 2.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)L 3.1,L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)S 2.1,S 5.1
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)S 3.1,S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)S 3.3
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 3
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated,youprobablyhave a unit with multiple HGM classes.In this case,identify which hydrologic criteria inquestions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8.1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?NO –go to 2 YES –the wetland class is Tidal Fringe –go to 1.11.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO –Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES –Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands.If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored.This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%)of water to it.Groundwaterandsurfacewaterrunoffare NOT sources of water to the unit.NO –go to 3 YES –The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands.3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without anyplants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).NO –go to 4 YES –The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional)and usually comes fromseeps.It may flow subsurface,as sheetflow,or in a swale without distinct banks,The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.NO –go to 5 YES –The wetland class is Slope
NOTE:Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallowdepressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from thatstream or river,The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 4
NO –go to 6 YES –The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE:The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesurface,at some time during the year?This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.NO –go to 7 YES –The wetland class is Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding?The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches.The unit seems to bemaintainedbyhighgroundwater in the area.The wetland may be ditched,but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO –go to 8 YES –The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses.For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a smallstreamwithin a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides.GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICHOFTHEHYDROLOGICREGIMESDESCRIBEDINQUESTIONS1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREASINTHEUNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide).Use the following table to identify theappropriateclass to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored.
NOTE:Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated.If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope +Riverine Riverine
Slope +Depressional Depressional
Slope +Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional +Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional +Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine +Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland,or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 5
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions -Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0.Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points =2
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch.points = 1
2
D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer)is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes =4 No =0 0
D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >95%of area points =5
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants >½of area points =3
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants >1/of area points =110
Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants <1/of area points =010
3
D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is >½total area of wetland points =4
Area seasonally ponded is >¼total area of wetland points =2
Area seasonally ponded is <¼total area of wetland points =0
4
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9
Rating of Site Potential If score is:12-16 =H X 6-11 =M 0-5 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1.Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 2.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3?
Source Yes =1 No =0 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:3 or 4 =H X 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1.Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e.,within 1 mi) to a stream,river,lake,or marine water that is on the
303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 3.2.Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d)list?Yes =1 No =0 0
D 3.3.Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)?Yes =2 No =0 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0
Rating of Value If score is:2-4 =H 1 =M X 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 6
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions -Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0.Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points =2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
2
D 4.2.Depth of storage during wet periods:Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet.For wetlands
with no outlet,measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry,the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points =7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to <3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to <2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points =3
The wetland is a “headwater”wetland points =3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points =0
3
D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points =5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points =3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points =0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points =5
5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10
Rating of Site Potential If score is:12-16 =H X 6-11 =M 0-5 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1.Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.2.Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?Yes =1 No =0 1
D 5.3.Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac,urban,commercial,agriculture,etc.)?Yes =1 No =0 1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:X 3 =H 1 or 2 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems.Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated.Do not add points.Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g.,houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit.points =2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.points =1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin.points =1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood.Explain why points =0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points =0
1
D 6.2.Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes =2 No =0 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is:2-4 =H X 1 =M 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 7
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0.Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class.Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland.Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked .
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more:points =4
X Emergent 3 structures:points =2
Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have >30%cover)2 structures:points =1
X Forested (areas where trees have >30%cover)1 structure:points =0
If the unit has a Forested class,check if:
X The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy,sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous,moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.2.Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods)present within the wetland.The water regime has to cover
more than 10%of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present:points =3
X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present:points =2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present:points =1
Saturated only 1 type present:points =0
Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
0
H 1.3.Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species.Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife,Canadian thistle
If you counted:>19 species points =2
5 -19 species points =1
<5 species points =0
1
H 1.4.Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1),or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)is high,moderate,low,or none.If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water,the rating is always high.
None =0 points Low =1 point Moderate =2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH =3points
1
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 8
H 1.5.Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland.The number of checks is the number of points.
Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh >4 in)within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch)in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree
slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
X At least ¼ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
2
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6
Rating of Site Potential If score is:15-18 =H 7-14 = M X 0-6 =L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1.Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]=%
If total accessible habitat is:
>1/(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points =33
20-33%of 1 km Polygon points =2
10-19%of 1 km Polygon points =1
<10%of 1 km Polygon points =0
0
H 2.2.Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:%undisturbed habitat +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]=%
Undisturbed habitat >50%of Polygon points =3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches points =2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and >3 patches points =1
Undisturbed habitat <10%of 1 km Polygon points =0
1
H 2.3.Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon:If
>50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points =(-2)
≤50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points =0
0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:4-6 =H X 1-3 =M <1 =L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1.Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws,regulations,or policies?Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria:points =2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan,in a
Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page)within 100 m points =1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points =0
Rating of Value If score is:2 =H 1 =M X 0 =L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 9
WDFW Priority HabitatsPriorityhabitatslistedbyWDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they canbefound,in:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008.Priority Habitat and Species List.Olympia,Washington.177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m)of the wetland unit:NOTE:This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors:Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish andwildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests:Old-growth west of Cascade crest –Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha )>32 in (81 cm)dbh or > 200yearsofage.Mature forests –Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be lessthan100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than thatfoundinold-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponentisimportant(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 –see web link above).
Riparian:The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic andterrestrialecosystemswhichmutuallyinfluenceeachother.
Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wetprairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 –see web link above).
Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to providefunctionallifehistoryrequirementsforinstreamfishandwildliferesources.
Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,andPugetSoundNearshore.(full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves:A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs:Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 -6.5 ft (0.15 -2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite,and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics toenablecavityexcavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of >20 in (51 cm)in westernWashingtonandare> 6.5 ft (2 m)in height.Priority logs are >12 in (30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and >20 ft(6 m)long.
Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressedelsewhere.
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 10
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland.Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0.Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated,and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No=Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1.Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge,National Park,National Estuary Reserve,Natural Area
Preserve,State Park or Educational,Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes =Category I No -Go to SC 1.2 Cat.I
SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less
than 10%cover of non-native plant species.(If non-native species are Spartina,see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or
contiguous freshwater wetlands.Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 2.0.Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1.Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value?Yes –Go to SC 2.2 No –Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2.Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes =Category I No =Not a WHCV
SC 2.3.Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes –Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV
SC 2.4.Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website?Yes =Category I No =Not a WHCV
Cat.I
SC 3.0.Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit)meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key
below.If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1.Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?Yes –Go to SC 3.3 No –Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2.Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond?Yes –Go to SC 3.3 No =Is not a bog
SC 3.3.Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4?Yes =Is a Category I bog No –Go to SC 3.4
NOTE:If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory ,you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep.If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4.Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar,
western hemlock,lodgepole p ine,quaking aspen,Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the
species (or combination of species)listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy?
Yes =Is a Category I bog No =Is not a bog
Cat.I
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 11
SC 4.0.Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes =Category I No =Not a forested wetland for this section Cat.I
SC 5.0.Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or,less frequently,rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes –Go to SC 5.1 No =Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1.Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less
than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p.100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/ac (4350 ft2)10 Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
SC 6.0.Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)?If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula:Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport:Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis:Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes –Go to SC 6.1 No =not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)?Yes =Category I No –Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes =Category II No –Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3.Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes =Category III No =Category IV
Cat I
Cat.II
Cat.III
Cat.IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types,enter “Not Applicable”on Summary Form N/A
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 12
Figure 10a-303(d) Map:There are no 303(d) waters mapped within the basin of the rated wetland.
Figure 10b:TMDL List for Kitsap County.There are no TMDLs for the drainage basin of the rated wetland.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
Phone: (360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:5/28/18
DWN:JB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2694.01
Figure 10-Wetland Rating
Figure-303(d)/TMDL
Project Name:Lot 10 Belfair
Client:Crosby Olsen
Kitsap County, Washington
←Project site
Page 1 of 2
Department of Public Works - Engineering
Memorandum
Date: October 17, 2018
To: Annie Hillier, Planner, Planning and Comm. Development
From: Peter Corelis, P.E., Development Engineer
Subject: PLN51183 RUE – Olsen SFR
Project Description:
The proposal seeks a reasonable use exception to construct a single-family residence within a wetland
buffer on lots 10 of Block 3 of the Fort Ward Estates Division 3 plat. The subject parcel is identified by tax
ID no. 4847-003-010-0007 and is located at 2222 Belfair Avenue NE in the City of Bainbridge Island.
Comments:
1.Consideration shall be given to utilizing minimal excavation foundation systems per the 2012 Low
Impact Development Guidance Manual For Puget Sound as means of minimizing impacts to the site
and the adjacent wetlands. A bid comparison/analysis shall be submitted demonstrating the applicant
has engaged an appropriate design and construction professional to explore alternative foundation
systems including stilts, helical piers, and pin piles with grade beams. The bid shall be obtained from
a designer or installer with previous experience building with this technology.
2.Preparation and construction of the driveway subgrade and base shall be performed without the use
of soil sterilant.
3.Public enjoyment and use of the Belfair right-of-way (ROW) shall remained unobstructed and
unobtrusive. Fencing placed in the ROW to delineate the 10-foot wide vegetated buffer strip shall be
no taller than 48 inches, have a natural finish (no opaque paint), be see-through (i.e. cedar split rail –
solid board fencing shall not be permitted), and shall contain 3-foot breaks in the fencing every 20 to
30 feet. Fencing shall not encroach west of the projected Soundview Drive NE ROW eastern boundary.
4.Ditch construction between the driveway vegetated dispersion buffer strip and the existing dirt
walking path shall be undertaken as necessary to prevent the path from becoming saturated,
undermined, eroded, flooded, or washed out.
5.Surface stormwater from driveway and parking surfaces shall receive pre-treatment prior to
discharging to the wetlands or leaving the site by directing stormwater to vegetated dispersion strips,
Exhibit 15
Page 2 of 2
rain gardens where soils allow, or the use of permeable pavement (outside of the ROW only), or other
alternatives consistent with MR #5, On-Site Stormwater Management of the stormwater manual.
6. Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable jointing where
feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface stormwater.
7. Any permitted access from the residence toward the wetland shall prevent further encroachment by
use of an elevated boardwalk over existing grade that minimizes topsoil stripping and grading to the
maximum extent practicable. Railing shall be placed on any permitted boardwalk edge facing the
wetland.
8. Diffuse flow methods (i.e. BMP C206: Level Spreader, or, BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion
Systems) should be used to discharge roof surface stormwater into the wetland where full-infiltration
on-site is not feasible, including point discharges from a rain garden overflow and underdrain system.
Exhibit 16
21 September 2018
To: !Miss Annie Hiller, Planner
!City of Bainbridge Island
!Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Re: OLSEN/BUTLER RUE APPLICATION PLN51183RUE
Dear Ms. Hillier,
I am writing in support of the above-referenced application by Butler and Olsen.
In the years since I have been here (beginning 1975) I have seen phenomenal changes
in the Fort Ward Neighborhood. And change can be scary. The plat which was created
in 1960 is now reaching build-out. When the new sewer plant was completed in 1996
and a rush of building took place, I myself found the rate and scope of the change
difficult to cope with.
However, the reborn Fort Ward has turned out to be a diverse and interesting
community. We have many families with young children. Many of those children and
their parent ferry commuters use enhanced (no mud) Belfair/Soundview drive as a cut-
through to Fort Ward Hill Road and its bus stops. I am impressed with the care with
which Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler have made provision for the safety of pedestrians
passing by his proposed lot/home with their intention to erect a split rail fence
separating vehicle and foot traffic.
Fort Ward is one of the few neighborhoods affordable for young families. Mr. Olsen is a
dedicated professional and a nature-lover. His plans for wetland protection/
enhancement (as aided by biologist Joanne Bartlett) go beyond what is required.
Captain James Olsen and myself, Crosby Olsen's parents, have planted hundreds of
trees on our eight Fort Ward lots. Crosby has been inspired by our example.
Young Mr. Olsen also respects the remaining virgin wetlands and forest in the area,
having enjoyed playing there with neighborhood children for his entire childhood.
Beyond this, when he was a young student he was hired to water the now verdant grass
field on the Fort Ward Parade Ground. Mr. Olsen and Mrs. Butler are well aware of the
difference between invasive plants (Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry, etc) and
native plants (cedar, Indian plum, Oregon grape, etc.) and share a commitment to treat
each of the two categories as required to promote a healthy environment.
Exhibit 17
Now he seeks to house his young family of four on a lot with more than adequate room
for house, wetland, and driveway. The care taken by his hired wetland expert
demonstrates a dedication to wetland preservation, use of pervious surfaces, and an
actual increase in the trees-shrubs-grasses, etc. As a neighborhood, we welcome
newcomers and enjoy being a Bainbridge locale which is reasonably affordable,
especially for a family like Mr. Olsen's, building their own house.
Numerous 1960 plat lots have been granted reasonable use exemption. The Butler-
Olsen proposal is worthy of the same.
Thank you for your attention.
Mary Victoria Dombrowski
2412 Soundview Drive NE
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
z Project Name:
Olsen RUE
November 8, 2018
Proposal:
1 SFR on a lot
containing a wetland
and buffer
Request:
1 reasonable use
exception (RUE)
Planner:
Annie Hillier
Development
Engineer:
Peter Corelis
z
Existing Use:
undeveloped
Lot Size:
0.46 acres/20,037 SF
Zoning:
R-2 (2 units per acre)
R-2
R-0.4
z
Category III wetland
60 ft buffer
z
Total impact area: 5,697 SF
(including grasses and rain
garden)
Total mitigation: 5,161 SF
Reasonable Use Review Criteria
3.The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in
accordance with mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
4.The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum
necessary to allow reasonable use of the property;
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in
accordance with mitigation requirements applicable to the
critical area altered;
9.The proposal protects the critical area functions and values
consistent with the best available science and results in no net
loss of critical area functions and values;
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
Mitigation Sequencing
1.Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by
taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
3.Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment.
4.Reducing or eliminating the impact over time through preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5.Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments.
6.Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
“Minimization,the second step in the mitigation sequence, means reducing the
amount of wetland impacts as much as possible when impacts are
unavoidable.” (Washington State Department of Ecology)
4.The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property;
Preapplication site plan RUE site plan
z
2 lots to the south recently
received RUEs
Total area of impact: 5,308 sf
•Subject lot: 5,697 sf
Subject
lot
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with
mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
Existing buffer function
Human and pet intrusion
Compensation
Split-rail fence
Single row of low-stature plants between SFR & wetland
edge
Locating SFR farther away from wetland edge
High-stature, densely planted trees or shrubs along outer
buffer edge
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the
best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and
values;
Proposed Recommendation
Cites 2005 State of the Science update Incorporate 2013 Update on Wetland Buffers: The
State of the Science
1:1 ratio (impact:mitigation)Substantiate with best available science, with
consideration given to enhancement as the proposed
mitigation option
No net loss achieved “because of
selected plant species”
Provide supporting data used to draw this conclusion
In sum, the project can be conditioned to meet the review
criteria discussed here; conditions 20 -26 in the staff report
are provided as recommendations.
To meet RUE review criteria #3 and #4:
•The SFR must be located as far as possible from the wetland edge, with the minimum side setback (5
feet) established at the west lot line (Condition 20). Approximately 5 feet of buffer is proposed between
the SFR and the wetland edge, which does not allow for the standard 15-foot structure or hard surface
setback from the edge of a wetland buffer.
•To prevent encroachment and disturbance of the wetland, the mitigation proposal must include the
installation of shore pines or other higher stature, densely planted trees or shrubs along the buffer edge.
(Condition 21)
•The total development area, including the forked driveway, porches/boardwalks, and lawn/grass area
must be reduced to the minimum necessary. This may be achieved by adjusting the building footprint;
shifting the SFR closer to the ROW; removing the two larger porches/boardwalks; and including parking
within the building footprint. (Condition 22)
•Any permitted porches/boardwalks must be limited in size (maximum 6 feet wide), elevated over
existing grade, and construction must minimize topsoil stripping and grading to the maximum
extent practicable. Railing must be placed on any permitted boardwalk edge facing the wetland
to prevent intrusion. (Condition 23)
To meet RUE review criteria #8 and #9:
•The wetland report and mitigation plan must be updated with best available science. The
updated plan must also address the chosen mitigation option (enhancement) and the
potential for improvement of functions in the mitigation area compared to functions lost
in the impact area. Supporting data used to draw the conclusion that the proposal results
in no net loss of buffer function must also be provided. (Condition 25)
•If the updated mitigation plan does not result in no net loss of buffer function, additional
measures to compensate for impacts must be included in a revised proposal (Condition
26). For example, the mitigation proposal could explore opportunities to improve the
habitat rating of the wetland itself by improving interspersion. An analysis of the change
in wetland rating before and after mitigation, an analysis of the change in buffer
functions as a result of the proposal, and a discussion of the results with respect to no
net loss must be provided with any revisions to the mitigation plan.
G
r
a
d
e
1
6
4
(
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Gr
a
d
e
1
7
2
(
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
M
a
i
n
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
t
o
G
a
r
a
g
e
Western Branch of Driv
e
w
a
y
Main FloorEntrance
D
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
B
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
a
l
l
Planning and Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
November 16, 2018
To: City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
From: City of Bainbridge Island project planner, Annie Hillier
File No.: PLN51183 RUE
RE: Response to the City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
1.The Hearing Examiner asked the City to provide specific guidance to the applicant with respect
to the amount of reduction in SFR footprint necessary to adequately avoid impacts to the
wetland buffer. City Staff and the applicant met on the morning of November 14, 2018 and
discussed the following:
•The City informed the applicant that it would support a proposal for a total buffer impact
area of approximately 3,320 square feet. This number was derived by averaging the impact
areas of the five lots to the south of the subject property that recently received RUEs. The
City is actively processing one other RUE application on a different part of Bainbridge Island,
and the proposed total impact area on that lot is approximately 3,000 square feet. The
original RUE proposal brought before the Hearing Examiner included 5,697 square feet of
buffer impact.
•The City informed the applicant, per the Hearing Examiner’s suggestion, that a reduction in
building footprint may be pursued in order to reduce the proposed impact to approximately
3,320 square feet, particularly if maintaining the location of the SFR is necessary. The
applicant decided against reducing the building footprint by any amount.
•In lieu of reducing the building footprint, the City and the applicant discussed other
opportunities to avoid impacts, including:
o Shifting the SFR to the west and south, which would significantly reduce the
driveway length and total impact area. The applicant explained that this scenario
would not be feasible primarily because the rain garden, including its required
setbacks and siting, could not be accommodated. Following the meeting, the City’s
Development Engineer met with City Staff and indicated that the rain garden can be
located elsewhere on the site while still complying with the relevant requirements.
The Development Engineer also stated that there are other options for managing
Exhibit 24
stormwater on site that the City would be willing to consider. Staff informed the
applicant of this determination via a follow-up email.
o As an alternative, the City and the applicant agreed to consider a shift in the
location of the SFR by 1-2 feet to the west (away from the wetland edge); the
removal of the boardwalk on the north and east sides of the SFR, to be replaced
with buffer enhancement area; and the removal or reduction of the walkway that
leads from the lower (eastern) driveway to the south entrance of the SFR, to be
replaced with buffer enhancement area – provided these changes reduce the total
impact area as described above.
•As depicted in Attachment A, the applicant has revised the proposal by removing the
boardwalks on the north and east sides of the SFR. Lawn area will remain to the north of the
SFR, and additional buffer enhancement is proposed east of the SFR. The walkway that leads
from the lower (eastern) driveway to the south entrance of the SFR has been reduced by 30
square feet, allowing the addition of another 35 square feet buffer enhancement. The
revised total buffer impact area is 5,012 square feet, which City Staff calculated by
subtracting the gained buffer area depicted in blue on Attachment A (provided as 685
square feet) from the original total buffer impact area (5,697 square feet).
o Attachment A indicates that this gained buffer area totals 685 square feet; this may
be an overestimation, as a portion of this area was already proposed for buffer
enhancement.
o Areas labelled “temporary impact area” are included in the total buffer impact area,
as temporary impacts are those that will be restored after completion of the
construction activities. The “temporary impact area” labeled on Attachment A will
not be restored to functional wetland buffer after construction activities are
complete, and are therefore considered permanent impacts to the wetland buffer.
2.The Hearing Examiner asked the applicant to define the minimum width necessary for the
driveway and decks, and to determine how much they would be willing to reduce the
footprint of the SFR by.
•The applicant indicated that they are not willing to reduce the footprint of the SFR by any
amount, as described above.
•The applicant determined that the minimum parking width is 12 feet, with 30 to 36 inches
on each side of the vehicle necessary for accessibility. No change to driveway widths are
proposed (Attachment B).
•The applicant determined that the minimum width necessary for the eastern boardwalk is 6
feet, and the minimum width necessary for the western boardwalk is 5 feet. However, these
have been struck from the attachment by the applicant, as the eastern boardwalk has been
removed from the revised proposal, and the location of the SFR will remain unchanged
regardless of the presence of the western boardwalk. In other words, this area will remain
as impact area, whether the western boardwalk is reduced or not.
• During the November 14, 2018 meeting, the applicant did propose a permeable driving
surface on the lower (eastern) driveway, to minimize stormwater impacts. Although the
project is conditioned to require permeable materials where feasible (Condition 14), staff
notes that this condition could be made more specific by calling out the lower driveway.
3. The Hearing Examiner asked the City to review the discrepancy in buffer widths between
application materials, and to determine if this discrepancy affects the proposal.
• Staff reviewed the buffer widths in the wetland report and determined that although an
incorrect buffer is depicted on the site plan created by the project architect, the mitigation
plan and proposed impacts were evaluated using the correct 60-foot buffer. Attachment C,
provided by the project biologist, provides additional explanation. This discrepancy does not
affect the proposal or the analyses preapred by the project biologist and City Staff.
Additional Information:
1. A testimony regarding date clarifications from the project biologist is included in Attachment D.
2. Staff reviewed the memo provided by the project biologist during the hearing (Exhibit 22). The
memo indicates that a revised planting plan will include additional plants (Nootka rose or shore
pine) to create a more effective barrier between the edge of the development and the wetland.
The memo also indicates that an updated wetland report and mitigation plan with respect to
best available science and no net loss will be provided. Staff finds that Conditions 25 and 26
included in the staff report still apply, and that these changes shall be reviewed and approved
by the City at the time of building permit application.
ATTACHMENT A
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
-803 sq.ft.
= 1416 sq.ft.
-450 sq.ft.
= 3023 sq.ft.
3023 sq.ft.
Summary of Changes 11.14.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total mitigation area and mitigation measures
will be calculate/addressed in the final report
from Ecological Land Services.
Split rail fence
Buffer 4 ft. from
face of building
Remove eastern
boardwalk
Additional wetland buffer
Additional wetland buffer
Rev1 11.15.2018
Reduce entry
walkway
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
1157 ·3rd Avenue Suite 220A • Longview, Washington 98632 • Tel (360) 578-1371 • Fax (360) 414-9305
MEMO
Date:November 11,2018
To:City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examiner
From:Joanne Bartlett
Re:Olsen RUE (PLN51183 RUE)Hearing Testimony Clarification-Buffer Widths.
During the November 8, 2018 hearing, a discrepancy was noted regarding the required buffer
width for the wetland and that extend onto this lot.I believe the discrepancy occurred because
when the wetland was initially rated, the point total was incorrect and the wetland was
inaccurately determined to be a Category IV with a required 40-foot buffer.Mr. Olsen was then
provided a site map with the incorrect 40-foot buffer, which was used on the architect’s site plan.
Prior to preparation of the first report, which was dated June 5, 2018,the rating form was
reviewed and the incorrect point total and category were revised to the correct Category III and
60-foot required buffer width.The correct 60-foot buffer was included in this version of the
report and the buffer impacts calculated were calculated using this required buffer width.The
correct buffer of 60 feet was also included in each of the report revisions.It should also be noted
that the City of Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community Development
conducts very thorough reviews of wetland reports and I know that they would have caught the
buffer discrepancy if it had been reported incorrectly.
ATTACHMENT D
1157 ·3rd Avenue Suite 220A • Longview, Washington 98632 • Tel (360) 578-1371 • Fax (360) 414-9305
MEMO
Date:November 11, 2018
To:City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examiner
From:Joanne Bartlett
Re:Olsen RUE (PLN51183 RUE)Hearing Testimony Clarification-Date of RUE Memo.
The memo prepared to address the deficiencies reasonable use exception decision criteria was
dated November 1, 2018. The November 1st date reflects the date the draft staff report was
emailed to me by Mr. Olsen and the date that I began drafting my responses. Mr.Olsen and I
worked on the final wording and presentation of the responses several times over the following
week. We completed the final version on November 7, 2018 at about 12:05 pm and this is the
version that Mr. Olsen presented during the November 8,2018 hearing. I now realized that I
should have changed the date to November 7, 2018 and it was my oversight. It was not my
intention nor was it Mr. Olsen’s intention to deceive or otherwise impede the hearing and review
process for this project.
To: City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
From: Crosby Olsen & Amy Butler
RE: Response to the City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner (PLN51183)
18 November, 2018
11.14.2018 Meeting with COBI Staff
Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler met with COBI planners Annie Hillier and Heather Wright
on Tuesday 11.14.2018. Before the meeting the applicants developed the below
measures to reduce and mitigate the impacts of the proposed home.
1.Install permeable pavers for the east branch of the driveway
2.Reduce the east boardwalk by 40 sq.ft.
3.Reduce the west boardwalk by 40 sq.ft.
4.Double the number of trees in the mitigation area
5.Plant nootka rose and/or shore pines in the buffer next to the structure
6.Shifting the structure 1-2 ft west
The applicants presented these measures to the city with a series of drawings and
sketches to illustrate the proposed changes. The city planners stated these were
mitigation measures and what was needed was reductions in the impact area but they
did not have any specific ideas other than what they presented at the hearing. The
applicants came to the meeting prepared to discuss specific changes they would be
willing to make to reduce the impact of the building. The city did not have any concrete
reductions, ideas or changes, other than moving the home to 25 ft. from the right of way
and 5 ft. From the west lot line. Toward the end of the meeting Amy Butler explicitly
stated to the city that the applicants had come with specific reductions but the city had
nothing outside of moving the structure.
Page
The applicants did discuss placing the home at the location recommended by city staff.
The applicants prefaced the conversation by notifying the city they were not proposing
this change, they were discussing the placement to show the city the constraints of
southern building site and how it denied the accessibility requirements of the family.
The location proposed by the city would allow 7.5 ft of wetland buffer on the east side of
the home and would require 800 sq.ft. of impermeable surface of parking. Additionally
the rain gardens cannot fall within 10 ft of foundation, which would require moving the
rain garden to the north of the structure (Attachment 2 - Rain Garden Handbook for
Western Washington).
The applicants and the city planners also discussed reductions in the homes footprint
below the 1200 sq.ft. allowed in the law. The applicants informed the city they did not
want to reduce the home’s footprint and wanted to explore alternatives.
Amy Butler requested the city provide other measures/ideas outside of moving the
home or reducing the building footprint. The planners and applicants discussed
increasing the buffer, including the rain garden in the buffer, moving the home 1-2 ft
west, and removing the eastern boardwalk. After much discussion on placement and
reductions COBI planner Annie Hillier stated “I think we’re talking about one or two
thousand square feet reduction is what we’re looking at to be more consistent with the
other RUE lots” (Page 2 of Attachment 3 - Transcript of 11.14.2018 Meeting with
COBI). During this meeting the planners and applicants marked up a printed copy of the
mitigation plan while discussing reductions in impacts and increases in wetland buffer
(Attachment 4 - 11.14.2018 Meeting Notes on Mitigation Plan). Annie Hillier’s
markings for increases in buffer area and reductions in impacts are in pencil. The
applicants markings/notes are in blue pen and pink highlighter. The meeting concluded
with the planners and applicants agreeing on the below list of potential reductions:
1.Removal of the eastern boardwalk
2.Reduction of the southern entry walkway
3.Including the rain garden in the wetland buffer
4.Adjusting the wetland buffer to the west
5.Shifting the structure 1-2 ft west
Page
6.Use of permeable pavers for a portion of the driveway
7.Adjustments to the plantings based on increases to the wetland buffer.
The applicants were led to believe that if they pursued some or all of the above
measures for reductions in permanent impacts and corresponding increase in wetland
buffer, the city staff was likely support their revised plan.
Proposed Changes
The applicants sent a revised site plan (Attachment 5 - PROPOSED CHANGES
11.14.2018) which included increasing the wetland buffer, including the rain garden in
the wetland buffer, and removing the eastern boardwalk. This was provided to the city
via email at 9:05pm on 11.14.2018 (Page 1 of Attachment 1 - COBI Email Chain).
Heather Wright responded 11.15.2018 at 8:26 AM by acknowledging the agreed upon
changes that had been made (removal of the eastern boardwalk, including the rain
garden in the wetland buffer, and increasing overall wetland buffer) and noted changes
that were missing from the plan (reducing the southern walkway and shifting the
building 1-2 ft. west).(Page 2 of Attachment 1 - COBI Email Chain).
In response to Heather’s email, the applicants modified the site plan to include a
reduction of the southern walkway (Attachment 6- PROPOSED CHANGES 11.14.2018
R1). The applicants returned the revised plan to the city at 11.15.2018 at 11:23 AM
(Page 8 of Attachment 1 - COBI Email Chain).
The applicants received the Hearing Examiner Post Hearing Guidance from City of
Bainbridge Island Staff on 16 November 2018 at 8:27 AM (Page 28 of Attachment 1 -
COBI Email Chain), less 4 hours from the submission deadline. The applicants
requested and were granted an extension from the Hearing Examiner.
RUE Lot Comparison:
The COBI code does not provide a figure for the maximum allowable permanent impact
area for an RUE. Throughout this RUE city staff have used other RUE lots as examples
in an attempt to set a maximum for the applicants’ lot. Since not all lots are the same,
Page
the maximum allowable permanent impact area should be determined on a case by
case basis. City staff continue to use five lots south of the applicants lot that were
recently approved for development under the RUE process. During the 11.14.218
meeting, staff noted that the average permanent impact area for these lots was
approximately 2100 sq.ft. Comparison of these lots to the applicants’ lot is not a fair
comparison. The western side of each of these lots directly borders the already opened
Soundview Drive right-of-way. Four of the lots are 80 ft. wide on the border with the
right-of-way and one is 110 ft. wide (Attachment 7 - RUE Lot Comparison). These
five lots are relatively level and the critical area is on their eastern boundary, directly
opposite to the road access. The lots range is size from .16 to .20 of an acre. In
comparison, the buildable portion of the applicants’ lot is 45 feet wide at the access to
the right-of-way and progressively widens to 65 ft. at the north end of the buildable area.
The applicants lot has critical area at the border with the right of way, which limits the
use of the southern portion of the property. Additionally, in the Hearing Examiner
decision for three RUE lots reference by the city, the Hearing Examiner discussed and is
somewhat critical of the city’s use of a variances with a RUE (Attachment 8 - HEX
Decision Rural American 042717). The city’s highly recommended the use of
variances for all five of RUE lots referenced by the city. The reduction of the setbacks
from 25 ft. to 5 ft. through the variance process skews the permanent impact of these
projects. The applicants did not pressure a variance and their lot is dramatically more
restrictive than the example RUE lots. The city staff are attempting to use these RUE
lots as a standard to establish a maximum impact area for ALL RUE projects, however
the city’s own code does not define a maximum permanent impact area.
Final Proposal 11.17.2018
On review of the Hearing Examiner Post Hearing Guidance dated 11.15.2018 and COBI
Staff Memorandum to the Hearing Examiner dated 11.16.2018, the applicants further
refined their proposed site plan (Attachment 9 - PROPOSED CHANGES 11.17.2018)
to include the following changes.
1.Removal of the eastern boardwalk
2.Reducing the southern walkway
3.Increasing the wetland buffer to include: the rain garden, area of the removed
eastern board walk, as well as additional buffer area
Page
4.Shifting the home 1 ft. to the west (noted on drawing)
These changes netted a 386 sq.ft. reduction in permanent impacts and an increase
in wetland buffer of 1001 sq.ft. Additionally the 1 ft. Shift of the home to west
increased the home’s setback from the wetland boundary to approximately 8 ft.
-Total Impact Area 4699 sq.ft. (Temporary and Permanent)
-Total Permanent Impact Area: 3086 sq.ft.
-Impervious Surfaces: 2484 sq.ft.
In the city staff’s Memorandum to the Hearing Examiner dated 11.16.2018, staff
question the totals provided in the 11.15.2018 changes from the applicants. In a
telephone conversation on 11.16.2018 Crosby Olsen asked Annie Hillier how the city
measured the figures they provided in their memorandum to the Hearing Examiner.
Annie informed Crosby that she was eyeballing the measurements. All measurements
provided by the applicants were calculated using a construction estimating program
called Bluebeam Revu. The applicant has provided measurements showing how each
area was calculated (Attachment 10 - Measurements). Bluebeam Revu is a powerful
tool that allows a user to set the scale on a page to provide accurate measurements.
The report also states the city would like the permanent impact area for this project to
be around 3000 sq.ft., so it would be more consistent with other RUE lots. This is
contrary to Annie Hillier’s statement “one to two thousand square feet reduction is what
we're looking at to be more consistent with the other RUE lots” a great example of city
staff moving the goalposts in their favor. The applicants worked with city staff in good
faith to find a middle ground on what is reasonable for this home/lot/family (Page 10
and 11 of Attachment 3 - Transcript of 11.14.2018 Meeting with COBI).
The applicants request the Hearing Examiner approve the site plan as proposed in
Attachment 9 - PROPOSED CHANGES 11.17.2018.
Page
C Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
12 messages
Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:05 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and Site
Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern face of
the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we proceed
with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing everyone agrees
on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland buffer and
date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing examiner with the
proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
3 attachments
PROPOSED CHANGES 11.14.2018 (flattened).pdf
1720K
2694.01 Olsen memo-buffer widths.pdf
20K
2694.01 olsen memo date memo.pdf
19K
Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:26 AM
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
1 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Olsen Butler
Attachment 1 - COBI Email Chain
To: "Crosby J. Olsen" <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>, Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and reductions to
the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we discussed.
I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a shift in the building
to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the adjustments to the wetland
buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he concurred
that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your concern in regards to
relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be relocated and that there are
options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not sure if you have been able to
discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your revised
proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway reduction
on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and Site
Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern face of
the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
2 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we proceed
with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing everyone agrees
on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland buffer and
date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing examiner with the
proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:37 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the constraints to
the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the placement of the
house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and reductions to
the project impact area.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
3 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we discussed.
I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a shift in the building
to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the adjustments to the wetland
buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he concurred
that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your concern in regards to
relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be relocated and that there are
options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not sure if you have been able to
discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your revised
proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway reduction
on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and Site
Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern face of
the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
4 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we proceed
with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing everyone agrees
on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland buffer and
date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing examiner with the
proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM
To: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have much
of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
5 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the constraints to
the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the placement of the
house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and reductions to
the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we discussed.
I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a shift in the building
to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the adjustments to the wetland
buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he concurred
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
6 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your concern in regards to
relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be relocated and that there are
options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not sure if you have been able to
discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your revised
proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway reduction
on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and Site
Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern face of
the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we proceed
with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing everyone agrees
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
7 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland buffer and
date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing examiner with the
proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
8 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
COBI email
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the constraints
to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the placement of the
house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and reductions
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
9 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a shift
in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the adjustments
to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your concern
in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be relocated
and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not sure if you
have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway reduction
on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and
Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern
face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
10 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland buffer
and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing examiner with
the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
3 attachments
image001.jpg
4K
image001.jpg
4K
PROPOSED CHANGES 11.14.2018 R1 (flattened).pdf
1722K
Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:25 AM
To: "Crosby J. Olsen" <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Thank you. Receipt acknowledged.
Regards,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
11 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:23 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
12 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
COBI email
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
13 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the constraints
to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the placement of the
house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and reductions
to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a shift
in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the adjustments
to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your concern
in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be relocated
and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not sure if you
have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
14 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and
Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern
face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland buffer
and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing examiner with
the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:28 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
15 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Annie,
Please send us your response to the hearing examiner . Amy and I want a chance to review the document(s)
and if necessary prepare a response prior to everything being sent to the examiner. Thank you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com> wrote:
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
COBI email
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
16 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the
constraints to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the
placement of the house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and
reductions to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a
shift in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the
adjustments to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain
garden.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
17 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your
concern in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be
relocated and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not
sure if you have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We were
able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction in
permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan and
Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the eastern
face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
18 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland
buffer and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing
examiner with the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:03 PM
To: "Crosby J. Olsen" <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Hi Crosby,
Heather is reviewing my response, and Carla, the City’s HEX support, is checking with Sound Law Center
about how we should submit additional information. Once I have heard back from them I will follow up with you.
Thanks,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
19 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:28 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
Please send us your response to the hearing examiner . Amy and I want a chance to review the document(s)
and if necessary prepare a response prior to everything being sent to the examiner. Thank you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com> wrote:
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
20 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the
constraints to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the
placement of the house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
21 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and
reductions to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a
shift in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the
adjustments to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain
garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your
concern in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be
relocated and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not
sure if you have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
22 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We
were able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction
in permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan
and Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the
eastern face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland
buffer and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing
examiner with the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:49 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Annie,
As of 4:45pm I have not received the draft response for our review. With a deadline of noon, please send me
the draft first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
23 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Heather is reviewing my response, and Carla, the City’s HEX support, is checking with Sound Law Center
about how we should submit additional information. Once I have heard back from them I will follow up with you.
Thanks,
<image001.jpg>
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:28 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
Please send us your response to the hearing examiner . Amy and I want a chance to review the document(s)
and if necessary prepare a response prior to everything being sent to the examiner. Thank you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
24 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com> wrote:
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
25 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the
constraints to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the
placement of the house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
26 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
reductions to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a
shift in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the
adjustments to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain
garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your
concern in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be
relocated and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not
sure if you have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We
were able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction
in permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan
and Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the
eastern face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
27 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland
buffer and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing
examiner with the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:09 AM
To: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Hi Crosby,
I have only just finished my report to the HEX this morning. Please find it attached.
Additionally, I received the attached information from the Hearing Examiner this morning (see COBI RUEX
Crosby POST HEARING GUIDANCE). As indicated in that attachment, the Hearing Examiner provides that if
the Applicant and City cannot agree on a joint report, then each my file a separate report. I did not make a
recommendation in my report – I just did my best to summarize our meeting and the revised proposal. You may
file a separate report to the Hearing Examiner if you disagree with the information presented. Please email your
report to the City’s HEX support staff, Carla Lundgren. Her email address is clundgren@bainbridgewa.gov.
Thank you,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
28 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
As of 4:45pm I have not received the draft response for our review. With a deadline of noon, please send me
the draft first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Heather is reviewing my response, and Carla, the City’s HEX support, is checking with Sound Law Center
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
29 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
about how we should submit additional information. Once I have heard back from them I will follow up with you.
Thanks,
<image001.jpg>
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:28 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
Please send us your response to the hearing examiner . Amy and I want a chance to review the document(s)
and if necessary prepare a response prior to everything being sent to the examiner. Thank you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com> wrote:
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
30 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
31 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the
constraints to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the
placement of the house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and
reductions to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a
shift in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the
adjustments to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain
garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your
concern in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could be
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
32 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
relocated and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I am not
sure if you have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We
were able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft. reduction
in permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a Mitigation Plan
and Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence 4 feet from the
eastern face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
33 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland
buffer and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing
examiner with the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
2 attachments
Memo to HEX_PLN51183 RUE.pdf
2623K
COBI RUEX Crosby POST HEARING GUIDANCE.pdf
221K
Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:27 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>, Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Annie,
I am preparing a response. Please do not send anything to the hearing examiner until I have my response to
you this morning. Thank you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:10 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
I have only just finished my report to the HEX this morning. Please find it attached.
Additionally, I received the attached information from the Hearing Examiner this morning (see COBI RUEX
Crosby POST HEARING GUIDANCE). As indicated in that attachment, the Hearing Examiner provides that if
the Applicant and City cannot agree on a joint report, then each my file a separate report. I did not make a
recommendation in my report – I just did my best to summarize our meeting and the revised proposal. You
may file a separate report to the Hearing Examiner if you disagree with the information presented. Please
email your report to the City’s HEX support staff, Carla Lundgren. Her email address is
clundgren@bainbridgewa.gov.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
34 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Thank you,
COBI email
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
As of 4:45pm I have not received the draft response for our review. With a deadline of noon, please send me
the draft first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
35 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Hi Crosby,
Heather is reviewing my response, and Carla, the City’s HEX support, is checking with Sound Law Center
about how we should submit additional information. Once I have heard back from them I will follow up with
you.
Thanks,
<image001.jpg>
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:28 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
Please send us your response to the hearing examiner . Amy and I want a chance to review the
document(s) and if necessary prepare a response prior to everything being sent to the examiner. Thank
you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com> wrote:
Annie,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
36 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not have
much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
37 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the
constraints to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the
placement of the house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and
reductions to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a
shift in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the
adjustments to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain
garden.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
38 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your
concern in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could
be relocated and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I
am not sure if you have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s
input.
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of your
revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon deadline
tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We
were able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft.
reduction in permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a
Mitigation Plan and Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence
4 feet from the eastern face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
39 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland
buffer and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing
examiner with the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
2 attachments
image001.jpg
4K
image001.jpg
4K
Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:39 AM
To: "Crosby J. Olsen" <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Thank you. Please be sure to send your response to the email I provided below – the reports will not be sent by
me, but rather by Carla.
Best,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
40 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 8:27 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
I am preparing a response. Please do not send anything to the hearing examiner until I have my response to
you this morning. Thank you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:10 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
I have only just finished my report to the HEX this morning. Please find it attached.
Additionally, I received the attached information from the Hearing Examiner this morning (see COBI RUEX
Crosby POST HEARING GUIDANCE). As indicated in that attachment, the Hearing Examiner provides that if
the Applicant and City cannot agree on a joint report, then each my file a separate report. I did not make a
recommendation in my report – I just did my best to summarize our meeting and the revised proposal. You
may file a separate report to the Hearing Examiner if you disagree with the information presented. Please
email your report to the City’s HEX support staff, Carla Lundgren. Her email address is
clundgren@bainbridgewa.gov.
Thank you,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
41 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
COBI email
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
As of 4:45pm I have not received the draft response for our review. With a deadline of noon, please send
me the draft first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Heather is reviewing my response, and Carla, the City’s HEX support, is checking with Sound Law Center
about how we should submit additional information. Once I have heard back from them I will follow up with
you.
Thanks,
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
42 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
<image001.jpg>
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:28 AM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie,
Please send us your response to the hearing examiner . Amy and I want a chance to review the
document(s) and if necessary prepare a response prior to everything being sent to the examiner. Thank
you.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com> wrote:
Annie,
We moved the walkway north 5 feet which further reduced the permanent impacts 30 sq.ft. and allowed
addition of another 35 sq.ft. of wetland buffer.
Summary of Changes (updated 11.15.2018:
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
43 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total Additional Wetland Buffer: 1,005 sq.ft.
Total Permanent Impact Reduction: 386 sq.ft.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:53 AM Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hi Crosby,
Thank you for the reply. In order to meet the deadline, I do need to request any additional changes be
submitted by noon today. I am wrapping up my response to the hearing examiner now, and will not
have much of an opportunity to continue my review this afternoon. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Annie Hillier
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
44 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
From: Crosby Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Heather,
When I get some time later today I will take a look at changes of at entry walkway. Looking at the
constraints to the west of the home and the additional buffer already added, we will not be moving the
placement of the house. I will send an amended plan with any changes later today.
v/r
Crosby J. Olsen
C: 206-276-5818
On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov> wrote:
Hello Crosby and Amy. Thank you both for your time yesterday to discuss possible revisions and
reductions to the project impact area.
Immediately, I note that the summary of changes appear to include some but not all of the items we
discussed. I do not see that the proposed changes include a reduction to the walkway to the east and a
shift in the building to the west. I do note that the rain garden is included in the calculation as are the
adjustments to the wetland buffer due to the reduction of the eastern boardwalk and addition of the rain
garden.
As a follow up, Annie and I did meet with our development engineer late yesterday afternoon and he
concurred that the rain garden could count towards the mitigation area. We did share with him your
concern in regards to relocating the raingarden. He informed us that he believed the rain garden could
be relocated and that there are options to reduce the setback with filter fabric and other techniques. I
am not sure if you have been able to discuss options with him, but wanted to provide you with Peter’s
input.
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
45 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
As for next steps, Annie will be working on a summary of our meeting yesterday and an analysis of
your revised proposal. Once complete, she will forward this onto you and the Examiner by the noon
deadline tomorrow.
Please feel free to clarify if my observations are incorrect regarding the home location and walkway
reduction on the eastern side.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Heather Wright
From: Crosby J. Olsen <crosby.olsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ann Hillier <ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov>; Heather Wright <hwright@bainbridgewa.gov>
Cc: Amy Butler <amymbutler@gmail.com>
Subject: Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes
Annie and Heather,
Good evening. I want to thank the two of you for taking the time to meet with Amy I this morning. We
were able to find an agreeable solution for everyone involved. The changes netted a 356 sq.ft.
reduction in permanent impacts and a 970 sq.ft. increase in wetland buffer. I have attached a
Mitigation Plan and Site Plan showing the changes we discussed. Please note I held the split rail fence
4 feet from the eastern face of the building, this is to allow access for maintenance.
Summary of Changes:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and walkway
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in wetland buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Let me know if you have any questions on the proposed changes. Did we miss anything? How do we
proceed with capturing the changes and providing the hearing examiner with documentation showing
everyone agrees on the solution?
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
46 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
I have attached two clarification memorandums from Ecological Land Services regarding the wetland
buffer and date of the response memorandum. Please ensure these are forwarded to the hearing
examiner with the proposed changes once we iron out the final details.
Thanks again for the assistance.
Crosby J. Olsen
Cell 206-276-5818
Gmail - Olsen RUE - 11.14.2018 Changes https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=51ffd2559c&view=pt&sear...
47 of 47 11/17/18, 12:07 PM
Ol
s
e
n
B
u
t
l
e
r
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
-
R
a
i
n
G
a
r
d
e
n
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
Transcript of 11/14/2018 meeting between Crosby Olsen and Amy Butler (Applicants) and
Heather Wright and Annie Hillier (City of Bainbridge Island Staff) beginning at 49:04.
Segment: 49:04
CROSBY OLSEN: The 3,000 square feet is just not attainable for the limitations we have given
this case. Not every lot is the same and if you guys, the City, approves this as is, you're not
going to have Julian 2.0 come through and say, well, you guys did this much. Look, every
situation is different. It's one of those things where if my house sits here or whether my house
sits here, the approximate here with the permeable surface or whether it sits here with a regular
asphalt driveway, it's the same surface area. We reduced it to make that impact, to be the same
whether it sits here or here, making the density greater within the buffer here. There's a lot of
things happening and it's an apples to oranges situation to say that we're afraid of making
something over 3,000 square foot requirement, well, how many lots have you had that taper to
the south as they get closer to the right of way with an RUE?
ANNIE HILLIER: I've only had those other two lots but I'm still not seeing it. I’m sorry.
CROSBY OLSEN: Okay.
ANNIE HILLIER: I think part of -- perhaps part of this issue is that this house has already been
designed and so it's kind of set in stone, but I just feel like potentially there could be a different
design that's still meets your needs and our needs. That's kind of what I think we were looking
for but --
CROSBY OLSEN: We've given everything -- so I come to the table with tangible numbers and
quantifiable figures and we still are going back to I guess that if you just put the house here it
would be great.
ANNIE HILLIER: We just felt like you wanted to explore -- you didn't want to reduce the
footprint but I would be more than happy to do that and that is what the Hearing Examiner asked
us to do today
CROSBY OLSEN: We-re not reducing the footprint.
ANNIE HILLIER: -- and so that's something that I will relay to him.
CROSBY OLSEN: He asked to be explored, not for it to be done.
ANNIE HILLIER: No, I know. But he said if you're not willing to -- if you can't move the
house, he understands that you cannot, so he said the next option would be to reduce --
CROSBY OLSEN: We've moved the house 2 feet, 12 to 24 inches that's moving the house. And
that also increases -- you have this space, plus you have an additional 24 inches by 60 feet, so
that's 120 more feet of buffer area. I know it's not the reduction of 5000 square feet that you
were hoping for but it's a reduction. This is to about middle ground and coming to a conclusion
rather than dragging another process out. Again, every lot's different. If every lot was the same,
then this would be easy. I mean those lots you got five of the same thing with the other lots.
Page
(Inaudible)
AMY BUTLER: Just very easy square lots
CROSBY OLSEN: Very straightforward
AMY BUTLER: It seems that the concern on the City's part is the square footage impact, kind
of getting a number down to that but it sounds like we're kind of at no good solution for it.
HEATHER WRIGHT: I feel like we're so far apart, we're looking at like a 3000 somewhere just
to be kind of consistent and I feel like that there might be differences that were not— we will
continue to look at just kind of analyzing what we’ve seen the same footprint house with the
level of impact being much less and that's the struggle that we have and we worked with those
applicants to change design even and reduce scale and move as close as they could and they went
to a five-foot setback onto their front line. We know we're not all the same, we're just asking for
something somewhat closer to reduce potentially -- I mean this drive is kind of like just the
glaring difference. If I were to just kind of separate it from the house is the same size, but the
drive is just kind of that glaring and it's just.
AMY BUTLER: No. On Julian's lot, he has the right-of-way to use as parking.
CROSBY OLSEN: Absolutely. You can't count on paper --
HEATHER WRIGHT: You can't count that toward the paring requirement.
CROSBY OLSEN: I understand.
HEATHER WRIGHT: He had to provide the two spaces, everyone had to provide the two
spaces on their lot.
CROSBY OLSEN: Which --
CITY STAFF: If you use the drive, then people could use the portion in the right-of-way, but we
have to have those spaces on their lot.
CROSBY OLSEN: So, two feet that way. I mean we're sitting about there. So, is there anything
in terms of a shift south? I mean I really don't want to get into redesign, so maybe we keep the
same buffer. We come in two feet, we go down two feet? That still gets us a reduced impact.
ANNIE HILLIER: But I think we're talking about one to two thousand square feet reduction is
what we're looking at to be more consistent with the other RUE lots.
CROSBY OLSEN: As we just discussed, those RUE lots are so different from this one
AMY BUTLER: Has anybody -- the RUE lots you have done are like the more square ones. Is
there anybody who has done something more similar to ours that can speak to a lots that's not the
standard square and talk more about what we need as opposed to being -- it's two different
worlds
Page
HEATHER WRIGHT: We can look more and see if there's -- I mean I agree that shape's
different. I also agree that -- I don't see that the shape of your lot wouldn't accommodate less of
an impact potentially either. I don't -- it's not obvious or glaring to me that that couldn't be
accomplished.
CROSBY OLSEN: That's less of an impact too.
HEATHER WRIGHT: Absolutely. And the five foot line.
CROSBY OLSEN: Or no house.
HEATHER WRIGHT: Your garage would have to accommodate all your space. Agreed.
CROSBY OLSEN: Your concern is with precedents being set up. The code doesn't specify
anything in terms of--
ANNIE HILLIER: I've never expressed precedent. So it's a concern but it's really just first
avoiding and minimizing impacts to the extent that you can and that's kind of where I've been
focussed.
CROSBY OLSEN: But if precedence isn't important, then why do we keep quoting that last
five? You're quoting the precedence that's been established by that as an example.
ANNIE HILLIER: We were looking at that as avoiding and minimizing. That Hearing Examiner
asked us to have something more concrete so that we're not providing kind of vague
accommodations like minimize your footprint or your impact, we wanted to come up with
something more concrete and real.
CROSBY OLSEN: And I know but you're essentially going -- the concrete proposal that you're
coming up with is exactly what you were starting out with and we're not -- this is about meeting
in the middle. And so far we have offered six things that are going to substantially reduce the
footprint of the house, that will somewhat -- I mean, you figure this is 500 square feet, plus this
little triangle here, probably another 250 -- so that's a 700 square foot reduction with there. And
that's not enough? What I'm saying is because we're shifting this here, say two feet over and then
you said you can now, you will now, you're decided --
ANNIE HILLIER: I never said you couldn't. I just want to be clear on that. That was never
suggested or said. It was not included as buffer area.
CROSBY OLSEN: So that will be included now. Let me just run the numbers on it.
ANNIE HILLIER: Why don't given that you are now going to be adding in some additional area
that's kind of going to subtract out from your original impact area and you're willing to make
some changes, do you want to send me kind of your final proposal with those new numbers?
Because I think it will make a difference and that's something that we can submit to the Hearing
Examiner. And I could make my recommendation. It would be helpful to really see everything.
CROSBY OLSEN: That's fine. I just —
Page
AMY BUTLER: Is there anything besides moving the house and shrinking the square footage
that the City has come up with on their part? Because it sounds like the Hearing Examiner really
wanted both of us -- because I think he saw both of our points really with it. The big thing for us
is the disability and meeting the access. Is there anything that you guys have come up with
besides move the house and make it smaller? That could make us come to more of a middle
ground?
ANNIE HILLIER: I don't see what else there would be to do in terms of minimizing your
impact. You're proposing a house and driveway, so it's really focussing in on okay what is that
impact, the ways are to avoid impact are to move the house --
AMY BUTLER: You guys are really focussing on the numbers. The numbers are your the big
thing.
HEATHER WRIGHT: You just said moving the house or reducing the footprint, the only things
you're left with then of course is drive and boardwalks, right?
CROSBY OLSEN: Which we gave you on both.
AMY BUTLER: We're really pretty much happy with taking off the boardwalk.
CROSBY OLSEN: Not on the east. On the east, I need that for access.
HEATHER WRIGHT: Unfortunately on the one to the west, like Annie said, is part of the
broken buffer at that point is more the one to the east which would be good like Annie said to see
the final numbers. You're shifting slightly to the east and reducing the width of that, that's going
to be great. All I have right now is 80 square feet improvement. That's so far from 3,000 it's like
ahh! So having your full numbers would be helpful.
ANNIE HILLIER: I would consider removing that boardwalk and turning it into buffer, I think
that would look really good to the City and our wetlands biologist said that that really shouldn't
even be proposed --you shouldn't be proposing a deck in the area closest to the wetland
CROSBY OLSEN: That's not a deck it's a boardwalk.
ANNIE HILLIER: -- in the area that's closest to the wetland or a boardwalk. That's where
access should be the most limited. So if this could turn in -- I mean maybe you could have access
out this way and if this could turn into wetland buffer with this, I think that would be looking
really good.
CROSBY OLSEN: What's that City policy for -- just thinking down the road, because my other
thing is maintenance. How would I maintain that face of the building without impacting the
buffer?
ANNIE HILLIER: I can't answer that question for you.
Page
CROSBY OLSEN: The only reason I ask is is I am able to work off of this and if we put the
buffer right up against it I'm not and I know that in the future if I'm out there and I'm putting
scaffolding on top of shore pines, that's going to impact the shore pines.
ANNIE HILLIER: I know Julian's buffer, he has his coming right up to his house and he'll be
faced with the same issue but —
CROSBY OLSEN: The planting schedule there showed low shrubs. And what the City is
proposing is tall shore pines and so if a tall shore pine —
ANNIE HILLIER: That's because of the stack is here, but we could do low -- you could
certainly do lower shrubs against the house.
CROSBY OLSEN: With like a 3-foot setback?
ANNIE HILLIER: Yeah. I could see all this all becoming buffer.
CROSBY OLSEN: What I'm saying is a 3-foot setback from my house. I want 3 feet so I can
move down the side of my house to maintain it.
ANNIE HILLIER: I think you could put that on the table. I think that's something we should
consider. Okay, you're moving the house a little bit, you're getting a little bit of room around
your house to maintain it, this is now buffer, I mean that could get you close to that number
where we were looking.
CROSBY OLSEN: And then I can put this back on. You guys don't care about this?
ANNIE HILLIER: We're kind of less concerned about what is happening here. What we'd like
to see is this area, amount of area gained as functional wetland buffers.
CROSBY OLSEN: Of note though: to maintain my north property here because obviously on
my planting schedule I have a lot going on on my north end, presently the property line sits right
here, and so what I would propose is bringing the fence over somewhere in here somewhere and
still leaving a trail because there's an existing trail that kind of just went across the property so I
could get to maintain it. Is that --
ANNIE HILLIER: You should definitely be able to.
CROSBY OLSEN: I have to be able to access it.
ANNIE HILLIER: Of course.
CROSBY OLSEN: And the kids have to be able to get out there too, right?
AMY BUTLER: So what we were saying to take the boardwalk off. And we have three feet
between the shrubs and the house.
Page
CROSBY OLSEN: And we wouldn't have to make it greater a density, we would leave the
planting schedule as is.
ANNIE HILLIER: Continuing with what is, adding —
CROSBY OLSEN: So essentially there, there -- and then probably whatever bring it straight
across to right there.
ANNIE HILLIER: What if you included --this is just kind of rough -- but what if this area all
became buffer, that’s getting you closer to where you need to be.
CROSBY OLSEN: My concern is with small children—
ANNIE HILLIER: It's kind of like mixing this and this and turning this area abutting the house
into functional wetland buffer. I think that would get you closer to that reduction we're looking
for. I don't know the exact number but that's kind of like what we would like to see--
AMY BUTLER: We're going to obviously try to keep them but it's like just giving them a little
bit, we just want a little yard so we don't have to constantly say get out of there, get out of there.
And I know that it’s a difficult lot —
CROSBY OLSEN: That's where I go back to we are minimized but at the same time with each
lot's unique nature it's hard to say 3000 is our goal, well if 3000 is the goal, we should have 3000
in the code.
AMY BUTLER: Is that in the code?
CROSBY OLSEN: There’s nothing in the code.
ANNIE HILLIER: We’re just looking for something — The Hearing Examiner wanted us to give
a concrete number in terms of reducing footprint.
AMY BUTLER: What he needs to see, what we need to work on something to compare these
square lots our very unique lot and let them see that this is not the norm. We are not talking
about a square lot. He's not a construction guy -- but he needs to know.
CROSBY OLSEN: I tried to explain it to him.
AMY BUTLER: But if maybe something where it's in a map that's in front of him so he
understands hey, that these numbers are never going to line up. This is what we've got.
CROSBY OLSEN: That's where I guess instead of if this shifts the house 12 to 24 inches,
whatever, and then we remove this which just put a daylight window down there, then we would
have this come up here, so that buys us another so that's 400 square feet and that's probably
another 400, probably 700-ish feet we would buy. It's not the 2000 the City is looking at but
again it's in the right direction and that's where it's really hard, it's not a fair comparison to go
from the square roadside lots to this because again it would be like comparing a house up on the
Page
northern bluffs of Bainbridge to like my lot in Fort Ward. They're just -- they're completely
different in their major makeup.
AMY BUTLER: We've designed the house so that it accommodates our disability and so the
utmost importance to us is keeping that access so that in the years to come when the disorder gets
worse, we have access to the lot. Unfortunately that's the special nature whereas maybe Julian's
lot did not have that little asterisk of this is something else he has going on. And I know the
Hearing Examiner wants to see numbers lining up but it's not going to really line up in our case
completely. I think we can get closer.
ANNIE HILLIER: I know you want to keep lawn for your kids, but I was just going to say this
all could become -- because right now this is included as impact area because it's like lawn area,
but if you wanted to buy back some of that impact area you could go all the way up to here and
maybe this area stays as a lawn because you were willing to remove that and I know it's not a lot
but —
CROSBY OLSEN: We get into the building maintenance, building access, if we're three feet off
the face of the building here and then we're three feet off here, I am accessing two of the four --
so,
AMY BUTLER: How far do we have from the house to this?
CROSBY OLSEN: It's 15 feet and those are the two tallest faces of the building and in terms of
this is you're dealing with a fall face, it’s a daylight basement underneath and so it's really thats
like that's the most worst place to be doing it, so if I can at least keep a modicum of access down
here, that boardwalk I guess can go and we can — that gets you 800 square feet, if that's not the
right direction, I don't know what is.
ANNIE HILLIER: That is in the right direction.
CROSBY OLSEN: So --
AMY BUTLER: So what I think we can work on is you're going to get them the numbers.
CROSBY OLSEN: I can rerun the numbers with a shift slight shift and then --
AMY BUTLER: And then I want to look at a comparison between just kind of because it hasn't
been done a square lot and our lot and just see if we can break it down.
CROSBY OLSEN: I don't know how to break it down.
AMY BUTLER: I don't know either. Maybe we can make it make more sense for the Hearing
Examiner.
ANNIE HILLIER: I know like accessibility is an issue but I was just curious downs here is there
any potential for this to become like a trail through the buffer or is that just too --
CROSBY OLSEN: This is paver stones to the downstairs entrance and so but I --
Page
ANNIE HILLIER: That's something that is a way to buy back some -- we would love to see
buffer against a driveway.
HEATHER WRIGHT: So there’s a garage entrance — Where is your main entrance to your
home?
CROSBY OLSEN: The main entrance is up here but then you have an entrance here with a
door.
You have a 6 inch gap due to the code in the slab between the floor of your garage and the actual
surface of the slab and so again it's one of those things where for accessibility that's not
necessarily -- the garage is not your prime means of entrance.
HEATHER WRIGHT: Could it come right off here? Could this go and maybe right off of here
you come by here and come right up. Is that able to —
AMY BUTLER: Then we'd have to go up stairs which is the problem
CROSBY OLSEN: No, no. That's fine. These are all the same plane. We could look at that and
look and then you're saying -- and then have the buffer maybe that's another 100 square feet.
With all these buffer modifications, can we leave the house where it's at, that's with all of these
—
ANNIE HILLIER: I'm curious where that gets us to. It looks like -- it looks a lot better.
CROSBY OLSEN: I would rather us go to the Examiner with a begrudging yes we concur—
HEATHER WRIGHT: We would go rather go forward in agreement if we can definitely.
CROSBY OLSEN: Again, and if you look at the impervious surface setback, now because we're
going to use pavers here and pavers here and these are typical pavers with sand and the rain it
goes in and goes down, so really I did the math from wetland to the actual asphalt, we have a 30
foot setback for impervious surfaces which is actually in keeping with the guidelines for buffer.
You want to have a 15 foot setback and we far exceed that now which is very good.
ANNIE HILLIER: Yeah, definitely. It's still kind of two different things, so like can we gain
back any buffer habitat by —
CROSBY OLSEN: We're really pushing towards minimal use at this point in terms of -- right
here I think this is very good, saying if we were 5 feet off the property line and I have to park my
Smart Car in my garage and I don't have any on site parking, that would not be -- that would not
be reasonable at that point, that would be totally minimal use, that's where I'm -- this right here
with the buffer modifications is more than reasonable and it definitely falls within the City's
favor.
ANNIE HILLIER: Yeah. Well is this something you're willing to kind of run the numbers on?
CROSBY OLSEN: Some of it, yeah.
Page
ANNIE HILLIER: Much of that area is between the footprint of the house and maybe you shift
the house a little bit, maybe not, I don't know, if you can, but buying back some of that area that
can serve as functional wetland buffer.
CROSBY OLSEN: We can leave the planting schedule alone and -- because what I don't want
to do too is we're now far exceeding, just trying to keep costs in mind and we're far exceeding
the square footage, we adding another 1,000 square feet, so does that mean that I get to take
1,000 feet off here and spread the plants over here because I don't want to increase my planting
schedule by 20 percent, that's 20 percent cost, 20 percent time, that's 20 percent maintenance, it's
a lot more and so what's in your eyes. It's give give give, more more more without sort of -- I
would rather like a flow in terms of okay we do that, can I pull these plants off here, I mean
because these are just cuttings and then shift some of this over because again it's at 10 bucks a
pop for each plant, and 20 minutes time spent putting them in and then X amount of time every
year, it's sort of -- were achieving it of reducing the impact.
HEATHER WRIGHT: This still would have to be planted but just reducing the area would
negate you need to plant.
CROSBY OLSEN: No no no no no no. I would plant them 100 percent.
HEATHER WRIGHT: Okay.
CROSBY OLSEN: But I wouldn't plant this portion up here, if that makes sense or I would
spread these plants out here, we focus on this area and get a good density and then maybe then I
pull the plants out of here and put them over here. Because what I don't want to do is I don't to
—
ANNIE HILLIER: It's up too Joanne to you know make that determination of no net loss.
CROSBY OLSEN: We're already at no net loss. So —
ANNIE HILLIER: That wasn't decided in your -- in the staff report. I think that it's really comes
down to what Joanne -- her expertise.
CROSBY OLSEN: So, with her amendment to it, that was provided last week, we are at no net
loss. So, that being the case, if we are further adding more, then we were already at no net loss,
so the assumption could be made the reality is looking at it it's a math game, that if we're shifting
this, it's going to be even further into the no net loss territory. It'll be a net gain.
HEATHER WRIGHT: I get what you're saying because you're claiming you're already at no net
loss with those plants and now you're giving more area and there's less impact. I mean
potentially and we're like getting that, we would have to see what Joann provided as to make that
determination and I think she'll--
CROSBY OLSEN: She's in a conference this week.
HEATHER WRIGHT: You don't have to have that now.
Page
ANNIE HILLIER: It'll be something that Joanne's final mitigation plan will come in with you
building permit.
CROSBY OLSEN: Got ya.
ANNIE HILLIER: It'll reflect what’s been approved on your site plan.
CROSBY OLSEN: Now we're hashing out the details for the Examiner in terms of the big
picture and then she'll put the icing on the cake, couple little things here and there to make sure.
AMY BUTLER: So you cross off the rain garden --
ANNIE HILLIER: No, I'm sorry I was just shading like this all could included as buffer instead
of impact area.
AMY BUTLER: So the rain garden would go —
CROSBY OLSEN: The rain garden would still go over there. It would be included with the
buffer and we would maintain it in working order so it would continue to drain. Okay, so do you
have the notes on it? So recapping what we discussed so I’m - we’re all on the same sheet of
music is we like the reduction and the removal of the eastern boardwalk, that's removal of that,
continue with the permeable driveway lower driveway, and then —
AMY BUTLER: But does that do anything for us?
CROSBY OLSEN: Not necessarily.
AMY BUTLER: Because if it does not do anything for us, why don't get what we want
anyways.
CROSBY OLSEN: Are you more concerned with the buffer?
ANNIE HILLIER: It's avoid and minimize, so I see this as a minimization step, I see these as
avoidance steps. Both are required before we will even allow you to mitigate impacts.
Minimizing and avoiding impacts, so if this can be permeable, if that's possible, we want to see
that.
CROSBY OLSEN: Okay. It just concerns me in terms of long term accessibility because I was
walking on them at the mall and they're great. You guys have seen them at the front entrance of
the Kitsap Mall? They look great, but they're kind of -- there is a little bit uneven to them, so
potentially that shifting the building as we potentially to the west and then buffer increasing to
the west.
ANNIE HILLIER: To the east?
CROSBY OLSEN: To the west, the buffer going this way, increasing the buffer to the west.
Okay, well then --
Page
ANNIE HILLIER: Heather, does that sound --
HEATHER WRIGHT: It sounds like we're getting -- Yeah, I think that shifting the house is a
great improvement and that eastern boardwalk is also a big improvement.
CROSBY OLSEN: Yeah.
HEATHER WRIGHT: I'm feeling — and then taking off some of the -- I see that there's some
concessions being made for areas that might potentially be, appear to be above and beyond the
minimum necessary to get to that reasonableness, that's somewhat more consistent with what
we've seen but still providing what your needs. I really appreciate, I know this is a hard
conversation so I really appreciate you all taking the time.
AMY BUTLER: So what did we say about moving the house? It was the --
CROSBY OLSEN: We'll move, we'll look at a foot, foot and a half, but it still something, I mean
it's --
HEATHER WRIGHT: I think so. That will definitely go a long way.
CROSBY OLSEN: Just for your thing, so we'll cross the boardwalks off. I mean, this is we
already discussed the boardwalks ad nauseum but in terms of just so you can see the parking
requirement and it's planned at 12 feet, I should have known that number off the top of my head,
but just talking about like Amy's car is -- she's got a Sorrento, it's like 74 inches wide and that
gives us a 3 foot walk aisle on either side of the car and that's -- I mean if you look at ADA
requirements for like a regular spot, it's pretty consistent with what's a reasonable hard surface to
be provided. And beyond that I just wanted to provide that -- the Examiner wanted as well.
Okay!
AMY BUTLER: The due outs that we're going to do the numbers with the concessions.
CROSBY OLSEN: Like I said, Joanne's out, she's in Issaquah for some training all week, so
what I'll do is I will just mark up this drawing that she's provided and whatever shade it a certain
way and then provide the square footage total of here's what we're positively adding to the
project.
HEATHER WRIGHT: Okay. That sounds great.
ANNIE HILLIER: I think that sounds really good.
HEATHER WRIGHT: You've done a nice job with these two. These are really helpful visuals.
CROSBY OLSEN: I do it all the time unfortunately for work.
End of meeting 1:16:52
Page
O
l
s
e
n
B
u
t
l
e
r
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
1
1
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
8
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
N
o
t
e
s
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
M
a
r
k
u
p
s
i
n
p
i
n
k
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
r
a
n
d
b
l
u
e
p
e
n
b
y
C
r
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
a
t
t
h
e
1
1
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
8
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
C
O
B
I
s
t
a
f
f
M
a
r
k
u
p
s
i
n
p
e
n
c
i
l
b
y
A
n
n
i
e
H
i
l
l
i
e
r
a
t
t
h
e
1
1
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
8
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
C
O
B
I
s
t
a
f
f
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
u
s
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
1
1
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
8
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
T
h
i
s
w
a
s
t
h
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
a
n
d
d
r
a
w
n
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
o
f
1
1
.
1
4
.
2
0
1
8
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
C
O
B
I
.
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
-803 sq.ft.
= 1416 sq.ft.
-425 sq.ft.
= 3053 sq.ft.
3053 sq.ft.
Summary of Changes 11.14.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+650 sq.ft. wetland buffer
Total mitigation area and mitigation measures
will be calculate/addressed in the final report
from Ecological Land Services.
Split rail fence
Buffer 4 ft. from
face of building
Remove eastern
boardwalk
Additional wetland buffer
Additional wetland buffer
Olsen Butler
Attachment 5 - PROPOSED CHANGES 11.14.2018
Remove eastern boardwalk
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
-803 sq.ft.
= 1416 sq.ft.
-450 sq.ft.
= 3023 sq.ft.
3023 sq.ft.
Summary of Changes 11.14.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk
-356 sq.ft permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer
+320 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+685 sq.ft. wetland buffer
4. Adjust south entry walkway
-30 sq.ft. permanent impacts
Total mitigation area and mitigation measures
will be calculate/addressed in the final report
from Ecological Land Services.
Split rail fence
Buffer 4 ft. from
face of building
Remove eastern
boardwalk
Additional wetland buffer
Additional wetland buffer
Rev1 11.15.2018
Reduce entry
walkway
Olsen Butler
Attachment 6- PROPOSED CHANGES 11.14.2018 R1
Remove eastern boardwalk
1
1
0
'
8
0
8
0
8
0
'
80
'
45'
65'
Olsen-Butler Property
.18 Acre
.20 Acre
.20 Acre
.20 Acre
.16 Acre
.46 Acre
Olsen Butler
Attachment 7 - RUE Lot Comparison
Wetland / Critical Area
Wetland / Critical Area
Surveyed Wetland Boundary
Olsen Butler
Attachment 8 - HEX Decision Rural American 042717
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
1613 sq.ft.
3086 sq.ft.
Summary of Changes 11.17.2018:
1. Removal of eastern boardwalk and adjustment of southern walkway
-386 sq.ft. permanent impacts
2. Inclusion of rain garden in buffer and Adjustment of wetland buffer boundary
+1001 sq.ft. wetland buffer
3. Move home 1 ft. west.
West entry porch will be 14.5 ft from the west lot line (it was 15.5 ft.)
Total mitigation area and mitigation measures
will be calculate/addressed in the final report
from Ecological Land Services.
Split rail fence
Buffer 4 ft. from
face of building
Remove eastern
boardwalk
Additional wetland buffer
Additional wetland buffer
14.5'
Move home 1 ft. west
Reduce south walkway
Olsen Butler
Attachment 9 - PROPOSED CHANGES 11.17.2018
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
3,086.58
Permanent Impact Area
Olsen Butler
Attachment 10 - Measurements
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
Wetland Buffer Increase
662.00
339.32
Wetland Buffer Increase
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
4,699.87
Total Impact Area
25'
Setback
10
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
4
0
P
M
S:
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
K
i
t
s
a
p
\
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
\
2
6
9
4
-
O
l
s
e
n
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
L
o
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
9
4
.
0
1
_
D
L
.
d
w
g
cp
a
y
n
e
N
6
:(
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
30
60
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Mitigation Area (5,161 sq.ft.)
5'
10'
NOTE: Plants are not to scale and
locations are approximate as shown.
Actual planting locations will be
determined in the field, with consideration
to the listed spacing and density to
produce the most natural appearance
possible.
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
10
/
1
1
/
1
8
26
9
4
.
0
1
Lo
t
1
0
B
e
l
f
a
i
r
Cr
o
s
b
y
O
l
s
e
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
11
,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
24
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
2E
,
W
.
M
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
,
Ki
t
s
a
p
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
JB
Rain Garden to be
Planted w/ Native
Vegetation
This Area to be Planted
w/ Native Grasses
Total Impact Area 3,478 sq.ft.
Total Mitigation Area 5,161 sq.ft.
(Wetland = 735 sq.ft.)
Split Rail
Fence
Temporary Impact Area
2,219 sq.ft.
Permanent Impact Area
3,478 sq.ft.
2,484.76
Total Imervious Surface