011119 HEX GALBREATH PLN50996 RUE VAR
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 1 of 15
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In The Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN-50996
)
)
Jason Galbreath ) Galbreath RUEX and Variances
)
For Approval of a Reasonable Use ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
Exception and Variances ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a reasonable use exception and variances from setbacks and maximum lot
coverage to allow the construction of a single-family residence on a nonconforming lot
containing a stream buffer on property identified as Lot 69 Phelps Road NE is APPROVED.
Conditions are necessary to address specific impacts of the proposal.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on January 10, 2019.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
Annie Hillier, City Planner
Jason Galbreath, Applicant
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Staff Report
2. Letter from Annie Hillier to Jason Galbreath, dated November 27, 2017, with Memo
from Assistant Chief Fire Marshal Luke Carpenter to Annie Hillier, dated October 22,
2017
3. Memorandum from Peter Corelis, P.E., to Annie Hillier, dated March 8, 2018
4. Master Land Use Application, unsigned
5. Owner/Agent Agreement, dated September 5, 2017
6. Memo from Jason Galbreath to COBI, dated April 12, 2018
7. Conceptual Utility Plan (No. C1, Sheet 1 of 2), dated April 12, 2018
8. Email from Ann Hillier to Jason Galbreath, dated May 23, 2018
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 2 of 15
9. Master Land Use Application, received September 20, 2018
10. Memo from Jason Galbreath to The City of Bainbridge Island, dated September 5, 2018
11. Notice of Application, undated
12. Notice material
a. Invoice, #BIR829403, Bainbridge Island Review, dated October 12, 2018
b. Affidavit of Publication, Bainbridge Island Review, dated October 12, 2018
c. Classified Proof, Bainbridge Island Review, published October 12, 2018
d. Mailing list, dated October 12, 2018
e. Certificate of Posting, dated October 12, 2018
13. Email from Haiyan Zhao to PCD, dated October 14, 2018
14. Survey, dated January 19, 2017
15. Letter from Annie Hillier to Jason Galbreath, dated November 11, 2018, with Mitigation
Planting Plan (Figure 8), dated July 17, 2018
16. Conceptual Utility Plan (Nos. C1 and C2, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2), dated September 5, 2018
17. Email from Jason Galbreath to Ann Hillier, dated December 12, 2018
18. Sketches (Sheet No. A10:02); Plans (Sheet No. A20:01), undated; Plans (Sheet A20:02),
undated
19. Critical Areas Report and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan, Ecological Land Services,
dated November 26, 2018
20. Memorandum from Peer Corelis, P.E., to Annie Hiller, dated October 22, 2018
21. Letter of Transmittal, Kitsap Public Health District, dated October 30, 2018
22. Memo from Deputy Chief Fire Marshal Jared Moravec to Annie Hillier, dated April 26,
2018
23. City PowerPoint (7 slides), dated January 10, 2019
The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based on the testimony and
exhibits:
FINDINGS
Application, Notice & Public Comment
1. Jason Galbreath (Applicant) requests approval of a reasonable use exception and
variances from front and side setbacks and maximum lot coverage to allow the
construction of a single-family residence on a vacant, nonconforming lot containing a
stream buffer.1 The property is identified as Lot 69 Phelps Road.2 A reasonable use
exception is needed to allow for development of a single-family house on the property
that is covered with critical area buffers; variances are needed to allow for a building
envelope larger than 653 square feet due to the smaller, non-conforming size of the lot
1 City Planner Annie Hillier speculated that the smaller nonconformity of the lot, at only 6,534 square feet,
may be because it is an abandoned plat right -of-way. Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
2 The property is identified by tax parcel number 03250210692008. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 3 of 15
and the coverage of it by stream buffers. Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC)
16.20.080.F.6. The City of Bainbridge Island (City) staff report estimates that the
proposed project would increase the allowed lot coverage from 653 square feet to 1,020
square feet within the stream buffer. As mitigation for the impacts of the proposed
development, the stream buffer on-site would be enhanced as recommended in the
mitigation plan. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1, 5, 11, 12, and 19; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 9;
Exhibits 16 through 19.
2. The application was complete on September 20, 2018. The City published the Notice of
Application, SEPA exemption notice, and Public Hearing notice in the Bainbridge Island
Review on May 18, 2018. The City published a revised Notice of Application, posted
notice on-site, and mailed notice on October 12, 2018, with a with a comment deadline of
November 2, 2018. The City received several agency responses to this notice. The
Bainbridge Island Fire Department requested that the project comply with the adopted
Fire Code. The City’s Department of Public Works Development Engineer submitted
comments, which have been incorporated into the permit conditions, about access,
underground utilities, low-impact development, and surface water management. Haiyan
Zhao submitted an email with concerns about the SEPA exemption and stormwater
runoff, and stated his opinion that the development does not fit into the City’s general
development plan.
In the staff report, City staff responded to comments. The report notes that the
development of a single-family house at this site is exempt from SEPA review by state
statute and that the Applicant’s Critical Areas Report determined that, with mitigation,
the proposal would result in no net loss of ecological functions and values. City staff also
noted that a reasonable use exception may be granted to balance private property rights to
develop a parcel of land with the public interest in protecting critical areas on that land.
Finally, City staff pointed out that the variances requested would allow for a shorter
driveway with less impervious surface, and therefore have fewer adverse impacts on the
stream buffer. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4, 5, 20, and 21; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 20;
Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22.
State Environmental Policy Act
3. The City determined that the proposal is except from review by the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington (RCW), under WAC
197-11-800(1)(b)(ii).3 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1 and 5.
3 Ms. Hillier testified that the SEPA exemption cited on page 1 of the staff report should have been WAC
197-11-800(1)(b)(i), which provides:
(b) The following types of construction shall be exempt:
(i) The construction or location of four detached single -family residential units.
Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 4 of 15
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Property
4. The property is designated Residential District under the Comprehensive Plan. The
Residential District area is designated for less intensive residential development and a
variety of agricultural and forestry uses. City staff analyzed the proposal for consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and identified goals and policies applicable to the proposal,
including preserving and enhancing the island’s natural systems, natural beauty, and
environmental quality; encouraging sustainable development; and protecting and
enhancing wildlife, fish resources, and ecosystems.4 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3, 5,
and 6.
5. The 6,534 square foot (0.15-acre) lot is within the “R-0.4” zoning district under the City
code. The purpose of the R-0.4 zoning district is to provide low-density housing in an
environment with special Bainbridge Island character consistent with other land uses,
such as agriculture and forestry, and the preservation of natural systems and open space.
The low density of housing allowed in this zone does not require the full range of urban
services and facilities. BIMC 18.06.020.A. Single-family dwellings are a permitted use
in the R-0.4 zone, at one unit per 2.5 acres. BIMC 18.06.010; Table 18.09.020. The R-
0.4 zone minimum lot area is 100,000 square feet, with a minimum lot depth and width of
110 feet. Maximum allowed lot coverage is 10 percent. Setback requirements include
front setbacks of 25 feet, side setbacks of 15 feet, and rear setbacks of 25 feet.5 Table
BIMC 18.12.020-2. The lot is 50 feet wide and 130 feet deep. The lot is nonconforming
in lot area and lot width. The surrounding area is designated and zoned Residential
District and contains 2.5-acre lots with lot coverage maximums over 10 times the
Applicant’s request of 1,020 square feet. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3, 6, 7, and 17;
Exhibit 23.
Critical Areas Regulation
6. The purpose of the City’s Critical Areas, Chapter 16.20 BIMC, is to designate and
classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas in order to protect, maintain, and
restore such areas; achieve no net loss of the functions and values of the areas; and allow
for reasonable use of property. The trapezoid-shaped property is currently undeveloped.
The property slopes up from Phelps Road NE to a relatively level plateau. It contains a
mixed forest canopy and semi-dense understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants. All of
Bainbridge Island is classified as an aquifer recharge area. The City determined that,
4 City staff specifically identified the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan as relevant to the
proposal: Environmental Element Goals EN-1, EN-4, and EN-5; and Land Use Element Policy LU 14.1.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6.
5 Table 18.12.020-2 requires 25-foot rear setbacks in the R-0.4 zone. The staff report states that the rear-
setback requirements are 15 feet. No variance from the rear setback is requested so the difference in
setback requirement is not addressed in this decision. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 5 of 15
because the lot contains less than 12,500 square feet, it is not required to designate an
Aquifer Recharge Protection Area. Stormwater on the site would be dispersed into the
stream buffer.
7. The Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan
(CAR) prepared by Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS), dated November 26, 2018.
ELS biologists conducted a site visit on August 3, 2017, and determined the property is
within a portion of the 200-foot buffer of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
(FWHCA) containing Coho Creek. BIMC 16.20.110. Coho Creek is a Type F water and
flows from east to west approximately 50 feet south of the property. The creek is
confined to a narrow channel and there are no wetlands on-site. Wildlife using the stream
and buffer include deer, coyotes, and some bird species. The CAR noted that Coho
Creek has limited, if any, use by fish because of downstream culverts that partially or
fully block spawning salmon or cutthroat trout. The report states that the creek flows
through a ditch along the east side of Phelps Road NE, which also may present a fish
passage barrier. The on-site stream buffer is undeveloped and functions to protect the
water quality of Coho Creek by removing sediment and nutrients from runoff. The
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has not identified any priority habitat on or
near the property or the presence of any endangered, threatened, or sensitive fish species
occurring within this section of the stream. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13 and 21;
Exhibit 19.
The CAR determined that the entire property is within the 200-foot stream buffer and that
the project cannot avoid buffer impacts.6 The project would minimize adverse impacts to
the buffer by placing the house and drainfield as far from the stream as possible by
requesting variances to the side- and front-yard setbacks. The variances would also help
minimize the number of on-site trees that would need to be removed in order to construct
the house. The CAR includes a Buffer Mitigation Plan (BMP). The project would
impact 3,835 square feet of buffer to construct the proposed residence, driveway, and
septic drainfield. Buffer mitigation would include removal of invasive species,
installation of native plants, and placement of woody mulch or organic compost around
plants after installation. The Applicant would install temporary fencing prior to any
construction activity around areas marked on plans as “retain native vegetation.” The
Applicant would also install a split-rail type fence along the edge of the buffer mitigation
area and erect a minimum of two signs indicating the presence of a protected stream
buffer on the fence. The Applicant would submit a final stream buffer mitigation plan
and a final planting plan with the building permit application. The BMP includes a five-
year maintenance and monitoring plan, as well as a contingency plan. All plantings
would be installed prior to final building permit inspection. BIMC 15.20.160. The
6 City staff also determined that the 200-foot stream buffer covers the majority of the lot. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 17.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 6 of 15
Applicant would file a notice of critical area buffer with the Kitsap County Auditor.
BIMC 16.20.070.G. The CAR determined that the project would not directly affect
federal or state listed endangered plants or animals, would not directly affect the
condition of habitat available within the Coho Creek watershed, would not remove or
reduce habitat features available to local wildlife species, and would not have a negative
effect on the stream system or its use by potential fish species. The City noted that the
CAR did not adequately address stream water temperature, stream bank integrity, or
large-wood requirements. A proposed condition that requires a final stream buffer
mitigation plan be submitted to the City with the building permit application was
recommended by City staff at the hearing. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 19; Exhibit 19.
Reasonable Use Exceptions
8. The City code provides for a reasonable use exception (RUEX) if the proposed use meets
the following criteria: (1) where the City’s critical areas ordinance would deny all
reasonable use of the property; (2) where there are no reasonable alternatives with less
impact to the critical area or its required buffer; (3) where the proposal minimizes the
impact through mitigation sequencing; (4) where the proposed impact is the minimum
necessary; (5) where the inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result
of actions by the Applicant; (6) where the proposed total lot coverage does not exceed
1,200 square feet for residential development; (7) where the proposal does not pose an
unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the property; (8)
where any alterations are mitigated; (9) where the proposal protects the critical area
functions and values consistent with best available science and results in no net loss of
critical area functions and values; (10) when the proposal addresses cumulative impacts
of the action; and (11) when the proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations
and standards.7 BIMC 16.20.080.F. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 through 13.
9. City staff determined that the proposal, with conditions and approval of variances, would
meet the RUEX criteria. City staff also determined that the proposal is consistent with
other applicable BIMC regulations and standards and that the inability to derive
reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the Applicant or a
predecessor after February 20, 1992. The City found no evidence in the record that there
would be an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, or welfare if the proposal is
approved. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 through 13; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 17.
Minor Variances
10. The Applicant requests variances to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to five feet, the
north side setback from 15 feet to five feet, and increase the allowed lot coverage from
7 Any proposal to alter any critical area or required buffer shall require a critical area permit, unless a
reasonable use exception is requested. BIMC 16.20.070.A and B.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 7 of 15
653.4 square feet to 1,020 square feet. The setback variance would allow the proposed
residence to be located as far away from Coho Creek as possible and reduce the driveway
length. The request for an increase in allowed lot coverage is due to the small,
nonconforming lot size in the R-0.4 zone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 16;
Exhibit 17.
Hearing Testimony
11. City Planner Annie Hillier testified about her review of the proposal, referencing a
PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit 23). She noted that a smaller house footprint without
the variance request would require a longer driveway, resulting in more on-site
disturbance: 988.44 square feet to 1,028.4 square feet. She explained that proposed
Conditions 1.d and .e, where “removal of native vegetation shall be minimized to the
extent possible” and “removal of significant trees shall be minimized to the extent
possible,” are shown as “retained native vegetation” on Figure 4 (Mitigation Planting
Plan) of the staff report, page 12, and Exhibit 23, slide 7. Testimony of Ms. Hillier.
12. Applicant Jason Galbreath testified that he has been working on this proposal for over
two years. He has cooperated with the City to find the balance between the public
interest and private rights. He testified that the stream is dry from June through
September. He noted that the stream eventually flows into a ditch and that fish have only
been seen 1,000 feet downstream. He agreed that there is a legitimate concern about
polluted water entering the stream. He agreed that the conditions are reasonable and
acceptable to help prevent pollution of the stream, as long as it is understood that
Condition 9, which would limit pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer use, is not intended to
apply to the house itself, which may require treatment of bug infestations. Testimony of
Mr. Galbreath.
Staff Recommendation
13. City Staff determined that, with conditions, the proposal is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and conforms to all applicable regulations in the
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 17.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has authority to hear and approve, approve with conditions, deny, or
remand a request for a reasonable use exception. BIMC 2.14.030; BIMC 2.16.100; BIMC
16.20.080.E. The department director has authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
a request for a minor variance. BIMC 2.16.060. The reasonable use exception and minor
variance applications have been consolidated for review before the Hearing Examiner. BIMC
2.16.170.; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 8 of 15
Criteria for Review
Reasonable Use Exception
Criteria for review and approval of reasonable use exceptions are as follows:
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the
property;
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal 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);
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property;
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;
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for
residential development;
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare on or off 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;
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
BIMC 16.20.080.F
Minor Variance
1. A minor variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:
a. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
b. The variance is requested because of special circumstances related
to the size, shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or
surroundings of the subject property, or factors necessary for the
successful installation of a solar energy system such as a particular
orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar access;
and
c. The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken
or proposed by the applicant; and
d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 9 of 15
vicinity and zone, but that is denied to the property in question
because of special circumstances on the property in question, and
will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity in which
the property is located; and
e. The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code,
except those provisions that are subject to the variance, and is in
accord with the comprehensive plan.
2. A variance may be approved with conditions. If no reasonable conditions
can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision criteria in
subsection D.1 of this section, then the application shall be denied.
BIMC 2.16.060.D.
The criteria for review adopted by the City of Bainbridge Island City Council are designed to
implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In
particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to
ensure consistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level
of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040.
Conclusions Based on Findings
Reasonable Use Exception
1. The application of the critical areas code would deny all reasonable use of the
property. The applicable ordinances of the City require a 200-foot buffer for Coho
Creek, an off-site stream. The stream buffer covers all or a majority of the property,
making it impossible to build a single-family residence on the property without approval
of a reasonable use exception. Findings 1-7.
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the critical
area or its required buffer. The City’s ordinances governing reasonable use exceptions
state that “proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development.” With the proposed variances, the allowed total lot coverage would be
1,020 square feet, less than the maximum allowed. Although other permitted uses in the
zone, such as a passive recreation park, may have less impact, the small site offers little
in the way of recreational opportunities and provides no unique viewpoints. Findings 1-
13.
3. The proposal would minimize the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030). City staff reviewed the Applicant’s Critical
Areas Report and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan. The City determined that, due to the
stream buffer on-site, avoidance is not possible. With variances, the impact on the stream
buffer would be reduced, and buffer enhancement is proposed to minimize impacts as
part of mitigation sequencing. Findings 7, 13.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 10 of 15
4. The proposed impact to the critical area would be the minimum necessary to allow
reasonable use of the property. The property is proposed for residential use by building
a house. This is a reasonable use of the property, as the property is not suitable for
camping or merely sitting and looking at the view as it might be if located on Hood Canal
or in another unique area that offers unique recreational opportunities. See, Buechel v.
Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). The proposal for a lot coverage total of
1,020 square feet is less than the maximum allowed. Findings 1-13.
5. The inability of the Applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the
result of actions by the Applicant, or by the Applicant’s predecessor, that occurred
after February 20, 1992. There is no evidence in the record that the Applicant or a
predecessor took action after 1992 that would cause the property to become covered with
a stream buffer. Findings 1-13.
6. The proposed total lot coverage would not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development. The proposed site plan depicts a total lot coverage of 1,020 square feet.
Finding 1.
7. The proposal would not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property. There is no evidence in the record that there would be
an unreasonable threat to public health, safety, or welfare if the proposal is approved.
Findings 1-13.
8. With conditions, any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in
accordance with mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered. The
City’s Critical Areas ordinance is intended to protect, maintain, and restore critical areas;
achieve no net loss of the functions and values of such areas; and allow for reasonable
use of property. The Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report and Stream Buffer
Mitigation Plan, which included mitigation sequencing. The project would impact 3,835
square feet of stream buffer. Mitigation would include removal of invasive plants on the
property and replacement with native plants, for a total of 3,835 square feet of mitigation,
including installation of a stream buffer fence and signs. Conditions are necessary,
including those to ensure that the Applicant submits a final stream buffer mitigation plan
and final planting plan with the building permit application, constructs the required fence
and signs, and completes work in compliance with the submitted design and
specifications. Findings 1-13.
9. With conditions, 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 Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report and Stream
Buffer Mitigation Plan, which included mitigation sequencing consistent with current
science. The project would impact 3,835 square feet of stream buffer. The CAR
concluded that the proposed stream buffer mitigation would remove invasive plants on
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 11 of 15
the property and replace them with native plants for a total of 3,835 square feet of
mitigation and result in no net loss of buffer functions and values. Conditions are
necessary, including those to ensure that the Applicant submits a final stream buffer
mitigation plan and final planting plan with the building permit application, constructs
the required fence and signs, and completes work in compliance with the submitted
design and specifications. Findings 7, 13.
10. With conditions, the proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action. The City
considered the impact of the proposed activities and reviewed the cumulative impacts of
granting several reasonable use exceptions in the same area. The City determined that
this lot is the only lot near this section of Coho Creek that would require a REUX for
development. As long as the City insists upon strict compliance with the criteria for a
reasonable use exception and also considers a reduction in footprint as one way to reduce
the impact on a critical area, the cumulative impacts of several reasonable use exceptions
in the area will be addressed as required by the City Council. Conditions are necessary,
including those to ensure that the Applicant submits a final stream buffer mitigation plan
and final planting plan with the building permit application, constructs the required fence
and signs, and completes work in compliance with the submitted design and
specifications. Findings 1-13.
11. With conditions, the proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and
standards. No evidence was presented that would suggest the proposal is not consistent
with other applicable standards and regulations other than the need for variances to allow
for a reduced total lot coverage. A building permit and inspection is required before
construction of the proposed house can begin. Conditions are necessary, including those
to ensure that the Applicant submits a final stream buffer mitigation plan and final
planting plan with the building permit application, constructs the required fence and
signs, and completes work in compliance with the submitted design and specifications.
Finding 13.
Minor Variances
12. With conditions, the granting of the variances would not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. The Applicant requests a reduction of the
front setback from 25 feet to five, the north side setback from 15 feet to five feet, and to
increase the allowed lot coverage from 653.4 square feet to 1,020 square feet. Granting
the variance requests would allow the residence to construct a shorter driveway, reducing
the on-site disturbance. Conditions are necessary, including those to ensure that the
Applicant submits a final stream buffer mitigation plan and final planting plan with the
building permit application, constructs the required fence and signs, and completes work
in compliance with the submitted design and specifications. Findings 1, 7.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 12 of 15
13. The variances are requested because of special circumstances related to the size,
shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or surroundings of the subject
property, or factors necessary for the successful installation of a solar energy system
such as a particular orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar
access. Here, the special circumstances concern Coho Creek, located off-site, with a
200-foot stream buffer covering the property. The lot coverage variance is requested
because of the nonconforming lot size. Finding 1.
14. The need for variances has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by
the Applicant. As noted above in Conclusion 5, there is no evidence in the record that
the Applicant or his predecessor took action that would cause the property to become
almost completely covered with a stream buffer. Findings1-13.
15. The variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but that is
denied to the property in question because of special circumstances on the property
in question, and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity in which the property is
located. Use of property would be denied without a RUEX due to the presence of a
stream buffer. The requested variances would allow the proposed residence to be located
farther away from the stream and would reduce the length of the driveway. The property
is designated Residential District and zoned R-0.4, as are surrounding properties, with
2.5-acre lots and lot coverage maximums over 10 times the Applicant’s request of 1,020
square feet. Single-family residences are a permitted use in the R-0.4 zone. Findings 1-
13.
16. The variances are consistent with all other provisions of this code, except those
provisions that are subject to the variances, and are in accord with the
comprehensive plan. Finding 13.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a reasonable use exception
and variances from front and side setbacks and maximum lot coverage to allow the construction
of a single-family residence on a vacant nonconforming lot containing a stream buffer on
property identified as Lot 69 Phelps Road, is APPROVED, with the following conditions:8
1. Work shall be completed in substantial compliance with the design and specifications
included in the RUEX/VAR file, including:
8 This decision includes conditions designed to mitigate impacts of this proposed project as well as
conditions required by City code.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 13 of 15
a. Total lot coverage shall be limited to 1,020 sq. ft. The building permit application
shall contain lot coverage calculations.
b. The total disturbed area shall not exceed 3,835 sq. ft., including the portion of
driveway located within the ROW.
c. The mitigation area shall total 3,835 sq. ft. and shall be clearly marked on the site
plan.
d. Removal of native vegetation shall be minimized to the extent possible as shown
by Figure 4 of the staff report, page 12. Areas on RUEX/VAR application
materials labeled “retain native vegetation,” to the south of the SFR and to the
east of the primary drainfield, shall be labeled on building permit application
materials.
e. The removal of significant trees shall be minimized to the extent possible as
shown by Figure 4 of the staff report, page 12. Significant trees shall be clearly
marked on the site plan, with those proposed for removal clearly labeled.
2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the Applicant shall have the areas
indicated on plans as “retain native vegetation,” to the south of the proposed SFR and to
the east of the primary drainfield, temporarily fenced. The fence shall be clearly marked
on any construction or clearing plans submitted with the building permit application. 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
No. 3, below).
3. A split-rail type fence shall be installed along the edge of the buffer mitigation area. 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 indicating the presence of a protected stream 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 final stream buffer mitigation plan, including a complete description of the
relationship between and among structures and functions sought (BIMC
16.20.180.G.3.b.v) and the likelihood of the ability of the ability of the created or restored
critical area to provide the functions and values of the original critical area (BIMC
16.20.180.G.3.b.viii), shall be submitted with the building permit application and
approved prior to final building inspection.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 14 of 15
6. A final planting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. The
planting plan shall be approved by the City prior to building permit issuance.
7. All plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection, or an assurance
device shall be provided in accordance BIMC 16.20.160.
8. 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.
9. No pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers may be used in fish and wildlife conservation
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.
10. The Applicant shall record a notice to title to document the presence of the stream buffer
with the Kitsap County auditor. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of
the presence of a critical area buffer and the application of this chapter to the property,
and notice that some limitations on actions in or affecting such areas may exist. The
notice must be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit.
11. 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.
12. No refuse, including but not limited to household trash, yard waste and
commercial/industrial refuse, shall be placed in the buffer.
13. The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer:
a. In order to protect the ground water and the stream 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 BIMC, to assure that stream flora
and fauna functions and values are maintained/enhanced.
b. New access to the COBI ROW shall be improved to the standard paved
residential driveway approach detail DWG. 8-170.
c. All underground utilities such as the KPUD water service line, telecom, and
power shall be routed in the footprint of the driveway improvement to minimize
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Galbreath Reasonable Use Exception and Variance
No. PLN50996 and PLN50996VAR
Page 15 of 15
site disturbances. The water meter box and setter shall be placed at the edge of
the right-of-way and the property line.
d. Use of soil sterilant to construct the driveway shall be strictly prohibited.
e. 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 critical areas. 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.
f. Areas outside the building footprint, driveway, septic components and field and
any necessary construction setbacks shall be protected from soil stripping,
stockpiling, and compaction by construction equipment through installation of
resilient clearing limits fencing to be inspected by the City prior to clearing and
construction.
g. Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide
permeable jointing where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface
filtration of surface stormwater.
h. 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 stream buffer where full-infiltration on-site is not feasible,
including point discharges from any rain garden overflow and underdrain system.
i. Stormwater runoff from driveways shall be controlled with waterbars, trench
drains, and/or berms spaced to disperse flow through neighboring vegetation per
BMP T5.11 or T5.12.
14. This approval does not authorize the removal of any landmark trees (Chapter 16.32
BIMC) without prior approval of a ‘removal of a landmark tree permit’ by the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
Decided this 22nd day of January 2019.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Sound Law Center
EXHIBIT LIST
Galbreath RUE & VAR
PLN51183 RUE & VAR
Staff Contact:
Annie Hillier, Planner
Public Hearing: January 10, 2019
City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Staff Report 01/10/2018
Dated
2 Preapplication Letter-Checklist with memo Bainbridge Island Fire Department 11/27/2017
Dated
3 Preapplication Comments from City Development Engineering 03/08/2018
Dated
4 RUE Application 04/12/2018
Received
5 Owner-agent agreement 10/10/2017
Received
6 Project Narrative for RUE 04/12/2018
Received
7 Original – Site Plan 04/12/2018
Received
8 Email informing applicant of need for zoning variance 05/23/2018
Sent
9 VAR application 09/20/2018
Received
10 Project Narrative for VAR 09/20/2018
Received
11 Notice of Application with hearing date 10/12/2018
Dated
12 Mailing List, Affidavit of Publication, and Certificate of Posting various
13 Public comment 10/14/2018
Dated
14 Survey 10/19/2018
Received
15 Information Request Letter 11/11/2018
Sent
16 Final - Site Plan 11/20/2018
Received
17 Email from applicant providing house footprint 12/12/2018
Dated
18 House Plans 11/20/2018
Received
19 Critical Areas Report and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan 11/26/2018
Dated
20 City Development Engineer Conditions of Approval 10/22/2018
Dated
21 Health District Review Transmittal 10/30/2018
Dated
22 Bainbridge Island Fire District Comments 04/26/2018
Dated
23 Planner Presentation (Powerpoint) 01/11/19
Admitted
EXHIBIT LIST
Galbreath RUE & VAR
PLN51183 RUE & VAR
Staff Contact:
Annie Hillier, Planner
Public Hearing: January 10, 2019
City Hall – Council Chambers
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
1
Department of Planning and Community Development
Staff Report
Project Galbreath RUE & Galbreath VAR
File No. PLN50996 RUE & PLN50996 VAR
Date January 10, 2019
To City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Project Manager Annie Hillier, Planner
Request The request is for a reasonable use exception (RUE) and a minor zoning
variance (VAR) on a lot covered by a buffer for a fish-bearing stream, for the
development of a single-family residence. The proposed VAR would reduce
the front setback from 25 ft. to 5 ft.; the north side setback from 15 ft. to 5
ft.; and increase the allowed lot coverage from 653.4 sq. ft. to 1,020 sq. ft.
Address **no situs address**, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Tax Assessor # 03250210692008
Environmental Review The project is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under
WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(ii).
Hearing Examiner Review
The project is being reviewed under the consolidated project review provisions provided in BIMC
2.16.170, which is available for a single project proposal requiring more than one land use application.
The procedures include consolidation of various land use applications, public notification of an
application and opportunity for public comment prior to a final decision. A consolidated project permit
application shall follow the application and notice procedure listed below that results in the most
extensive review and decision process.
The reasonable use exception (RUE) request requires the most extensive review and decision process,
therefore the hearing examiner shall review the RUE and minor variance (VAR) applications 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
and VAR review criteria in Part VII.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of the RUE and VAR applications, with conditions.
Exhibit 1
2
Part I: SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposal is for a single-family residence (SFR) and associated driveway and septic facilities. The
applicant requests a reasonable use exception (RUE) to develop the property, as the parcel is completely
covered by a buffer for a fish-bearing stream. The variance (VAR) is requested to reduce the front
setback and (north) side setback, in order to locate the development as far away from the stream as
possible. The VAR is also requested to increase lot coverage to 1,020 sq. ft., as the underlying zoning
would only allow for 653.4 sq. ft. of lot coverage. To mitigate for impacts to the stream buffer, the
applicant proposes enhancement in the remaining buffer on-site.
As conditioned, the project meets the eleven decision criteria for RUE review and approval in BIMC
16.20.080.F., as well as the five decision criteria for VAR approval in BIMC 2.16.060.D.1.
Figure 1 – Site Plan
3
Part II: GENERAL INFORMATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Assessor’s Record Information:
Tax lot number 03250210692008
Owner of record Estate of William A. Looney
Lot size 0.15 acres (6,534 sq. ft.)
Terrain:
Glacial till soils; this site is relatively flat with less than 5 feet of grade change.
Site Development:
The site is undeveloped.
Access:
The site is accessed off of Phelps Rd. NE.
Public Services:
Police City of Bainbridge Island Police Department
Fire Bainbridge Island Fire District
Schools Bainbridge Island School District
Water North Bainbridge Kitsap Public Utilities District
Sewer n/a – septic proposed
Surrounding Uses:
Surrounding uses are primarily single-family residential, except for a ball park located directly across
Phelps Rd. NE.
Existing Zoning:
The site is zoned R-0.4, 1 unit per 2.5 acres.
Surrounding Zoning:
The surrounding zoning is R-0.4, 1 units per 2.5 acres.
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:
Part III: APPLICATION BACKGROUND
Date: Action:
November 14, 2017 Preapplication conference
November 27, 2017 Preapplication summary sent to applicant (Exhibit 2)
March 8, 2018 Preapplication comments from Development Engineering sent to applicant
(Exhibit 3)
April 14, 2018 Application for RUE submitted (Exhibit 4)
May 18, 2018 Notice of Application published
May 23, 2018 Email from City informing applicant that a variance is required (Exhibit 8)
September 20, 2018 Variance application submitted (Exhibit 9), containing changes to the original
proposal
October 8, 2018 Revised Notice of Application with hearing date published (Exhibit 11)
October 14, 2018 Public comment received (Exhibit 13)
November 11, 2018 Information request letter sent to the applicant (Exhibit 15)
Multiple, 2018 Information request fulfilled with standalone email (Exhibit 17), house plans
(Exhibit 18) and final critical areas report and mitigation plan (Exhibit 19)
5
Part IV: PUBLIC COMMENTS (1 total) (Exhibit 13)
Questions/concerns raised:
One commenter expressed concern about the environmental review conducted for the proposed
development. The commenter also asked what the purpose of a buffer is and if a variance can destroy
it. The commenter also asked how the parcel is exempt from zoning requirements in this 2.5 acre
zone.
Staff Response: The development of one single-family house is exempt from the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), unless the development is located on lands wholly or partly covered by water or
otherwise meets an exception to the listed exemptions in WAC 197-11-800. The stream buffer is not
“wholly or partly covered by water” and the stream is located on the adjacent property. Therefore,
the proposal is not subject to SEPA review. However, a critical areas report and mitigation plan was
prepared and is provided in Exhibit 19. The critical areas report finds that the proposal will result in no
net loss of ecological functions and values after mitigation activities are complete.
Buffer is defined as, “a designated area contiguous to a wetland or stream intended to protect the
wetland or stream and be an integral part of the wetland or stream ecosystem” (BIMC 16.20.190.17).
The variance (VAR) is not requested for relief from the buffer; rather, the reasonable use exception
(RUE) is requested because the property is encumbered to such an extent by the stream buffer that
application of the critical areas ordinance would otherwise deny all reasonable use of the subject
property. The granting of an RUE balances private property rights with necessary and reasonable
regulation to protect the island’s designated critical areas.
The parcel is not exempt from zoning requirements; rather, the lot is considered an existing, legally
nonconforming lot, as it does not meet the current dimensional standards for lots located in the R-0.4
zoning designation. Without a zoning variance, the applicant would be limited to lot coverage 653.4
sq. ft., which is relatively small for a single-family residence. The applicant requests a zoning variance
to increase the lot coverage to 1,020 sq. ft., which would allow for the development of a modestly-
sized home. Because an increase in lot coverage is requested, the applicant is also requesting to
reduce the front and side setbacks, as a means of limiting impacts to the critical area. Without a
reduction in setbacks, a longer driveway and larger disturbed area would be required.
Part V: AGENCY COMMENT
Agency: Action:
Fire District Approved, no conditions (Exhibit 22)
City Development
Engineering
Approved with conditions (Exhibit 20)
Health District Completed, no comments (Exhibit 21)
City Survey Review A boundary survey is required, with the location of Coho Creek indicated
Staff response: The applicant submitted a survey on October 9, 2018
(Exhibit 14).
Part VI: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies apply to the proposal:
1. Environmental Element
6
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 stream 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
stream 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 stream. 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.
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-0.4 zone is to provide low-density housing 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. The low density of housing does
not require the full range of urban services and facilities.
Staff response: The proposal is for the construction of one home and the preservation of the
stream 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-0.4 zone.
7
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 100,000 square feet, with a minimum lot depth
and width of 110 feet.
Staff response: The lot area is 6,534 sq. ft. The lot width is 50 ft. and the depth is 130 ft. The
lot is nonconforming to minimum lot area and lot width for the R-0.4 zoning designation.
Pursuant to BIMC 18.30.050, any nonconforming single lot, tract or parcel of land that was
lawfully created and recorded with the county auditor’s office may be used for the purposes
permitted by this title notwithstanding the minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth
required.
Maximum Lot Coverage
The maximum allowed lot coverage is 10% is R-0.4 zoning.
Staff response: The maximum lot coverage allowed on the lot is 653.4 sq. ft. However, the
applicant is requesting a zoning variance to increase lot coverage to 1,020 sq. ft., as
described in subsection F, below.
Setbacks
In R-0.4 zoning, the front yard setback is 25 feet. Side setbacks are 15 feet each. The rear
setback is 15 feet.
Staff response: The applicant is proposing to reduce the front setback and the north side
setback to 5 ft. as described in subsection F, below, in order to minimize impacts to the
stream buffer. The south side setback and rear setback are met by the proposal.
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 garage that will be contained within the building
footprint that will accommodate two spaces for parking.
2. BIMC Title 16 Environment
The critical areas report and stream buffer mitigation plan submitted with the application
(Exhibit 19) identifies a stream to the south of the subject property, located on the adjoining lot.
The stream is categorized as fish-bearing, and therefore requires a 200 ft. buffer by BIMC. The
lot is situated approximately 43 ft. from the stream at its closest point, and the buffer extends
across the entire lot, to the north. There are no state or federally listed species within the
project vicinity, and fish usage in this portion of the stream is currently unlikely due the
presence of downstream barriers.
8
Figure 3 – The lot is located completely within the 200 ft. stream buffer and is situated
approximately 43 ft. from the stream at its closest point.
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 critical areas report and stream buffer mitigation plan, the
buffer extends across the entire property. Buffer modification allows the buffer to be
reduced up to 25 percent of its required width. A 25 percent reduction in buffer width does
not reduce the onsite buffer by any amount. 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.
9
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 meets all of the RUE review criteria, 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 any area outside of the
buffer to construct an SFR 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-0.4 zoning
district. Other permitted uses in the same zoning district, such as a passive recreation
park, may have less impact to the critical area buffer. However, given the small lot size
and its location, which offers no unique viewpoints or specific recreational
opportunities, the City has found that such a use would not be a reasonable alternative
to a single-family residence.
A reasonable alternative to a proposal for residential development with less impact to
the critical area buffer might be an SFR with lot coverage limited to that allowed by the
zoning designation, or 653.4 sq. ft. However, such a small footprint would likely make in-
building parking infeasible if the SFR is to provide enough indoor living space for a single
family. Further, the applicant indicated that without a variance for lot coverage, a
variance for a reduction in setbacks would not be requested. Meaning, the 653.4 sq. ft.
SFR would require a driveway that is 25 ft. long and 15 ft. wide, or 375 sq. ft. of onsite
parking area, to accommodate space for two vehicles. The total disturbed onsite buffer
area for the SFR and parking area under this scenario would be approximately 1,028.4
sq. ft.
The current proposal includes a building footprint, including an at-grade entry porch, of
913.44 sq. ft., plus approximately 75 sq. ft. of onsite access driveway, for a total
disturbed area of 988.44 sq. ft. Therefore, limiting the proposal to the lot coverage
allowed by zoning would not have less impact to the critical area buffer, especially
considering the additional impact from pollutants entering the critical area via
stormwater if parking were to occur outside of the SFR. And while the proposed ~913
sq. ft. footprint could perhaps be reduced, for example to 800 sq. ft., and still contain in-
building parking, the City has decided that this would not be a reasonable alternative
due to the impact this would have on living space for a single family.
There does 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
buffer.
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with mitigation
sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
Staff response:
Avoiding impacts
10
The applicant requests a zoning variance to reduce the front setback and one side
setback, in order to avoid additional impacts to the stream buffer. However, the
project cannot completely avoid impacts to the buffer as there is no area on the site
to develop outside of the buffer.
Minimizing impacts
• The proposal includes a garage located within the SFR, which will minimize
pollutant runoff. An in-building garage also minimizes the amount of disturbed
area required for parking onsite.
• The proposal includes minimizing impacts to native vegetation in the buffer by
limiting the amount of clearing and retaining native vegetation to the extent
feasible.
• The applicant reversed the orientation of the primary and reserve drainfield, in
order to minimize the amount of disturbance to the buffer during drainfield
construction.
• The applicant revised the location of the septic tanks to the south side of the SFR,
so that once they are installed, vegetation can grow around them and improve
buffer function.
• The proposal is also conditioned to minimize impacts.
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 represents a permanent impact to the stream buffer
Compensating
• Removal of invasive plant species in stream buffer
• Enhancement with native species (3,835 sq. ft. total)
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 11).
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable
use of the property;
Staff response: As described under decision criteria #2, above, the proposed impact is
the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. Reduction of the
proposed ~913 sq. ft. building footprint would have an unreasonable impact on the
amount of living space available for a single family. The applicant is requesting a zoning
variance to setbacks to reduce the length of driveway necessary to access the SFR, and
is proposing in-building parking to prevent pollutants from entering the critical area via
stormwater. The total area of impact to the critical area buffer is 3,835 sq. ft., which
includes impacts to the buffer within the right-of-way for the access driveway, a modest
area around the perimeter of the SFR for access and maintenance, and the drainfield
which will be replanted with appropriate native vegetation. Staff finds that the
proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use
of the property.
11
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 transferred as a County Treasurer’s
Deed under recording number 200509290026.
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 is 1,020 square
feet.
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property;
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 1-14).
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 stream
buffers, the mitigation plan is required to contain goals and objectives that are related
to the functions and values of the original critical area, in accordance with BIMC
16.20.180.G.3.b. As described in the critical areas report, the existing stream buffer is
comprised of a mixed forest canopy and semi-dense understory of shrubs and
herbaceous plants; its functions include protecting water quality by removing sediment
and nutrients from runoff, and providing habitat to deer, coyotes, and birds.
To compensate for this loss of function in 3,835 sq. ft. of existing buffer, buffer
enhancement is proposed onsite, totaling 3,835 sq. ft. The plantings will mostly be
comprised of evergreen species, which will provide year-round noise and light screening
in addition to water quality protection. The existing native vegetation that will remain
onsite and offsite will continue to buffer impacts to the stream. The project is also
conditioned to minimize stormwater impacts, which will protect water quality
(Conditions 13).
To meet all of the environmental goals and objectives under BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b.,
Staff recommends that the decision include the following conditions:
• A final critical areas report and mitigation plan, and a final planting plan, shall
be approved by the City prior to building permit issuance (Conditions 5, 6).
• The final critical areas report and mitigation plan shall include a complete
description of the relationship between and among structures and functions
sought (BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b(v)); and the likelihood of the ability of the
created or restored critical area to provide the functions and values of the
original critical area (BIMC 16.20.180.G.3.b(viii)) (Condition 5).
12
As conditioned, Staff finds that this RUE decision criteria is met.
Figure 4 – Mitigation proposal
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 critical areas report and mitigation plan states that the removal of
sediment and nutrients from runoff are the main functions of the buffer. However,
current science indicates that stream buffers also play a role in water temperature,
stream bank integrity, and large wood recruitment1. It is not clear from the report how,
if at all, the proposal will impact these functions. However, the protection measures
proposed and conditioned are consistent with best available science. The report finds
that the proposal will result in no net loss of critical area functions and values as a result
of the mitigation activities proposed and the existing native forest that will remain
between the development area and the stream. Mitigation activities include the
removal of invasive species throughout the site, and buffer enhancement with native
1 Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 2018. Amy Windrope, Timothy
Quinn, Keith Folkerts, and Terra Rentz. A Priority Habitat and Species Document of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
13
shrubs and trees. As conditioned, staff agrees that the proposal will result in no net loss
of critical area function and values.
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. The proposal addresses cumulative
impacts by siting and designing the development to have a minimal impact on the
critical area and mitigating for any permanent loss of buffer 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 (Condition 3).
Cumulative impacts can also be interpreted as the combined effects of individual
actions. From an area-wide perspective, the subject lot is the only lot near this section
of stream that requires an RUE for development, although there are several existing,
nonconforming structures located within the stream buffer on nearby properties. 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 the stream buffer.
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, with the exception of the variance request, which is also
recommended for approval. An analysis of these regulations and standards is provided
throughout the staff report.
B. BIMC 16.20.100 Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (ARPA)
Aquifer recharge areas are areas that have a critical recharging effect on groundwater used
for potable water supplies and/or that demonstrate a high level of susceptibility or
vulnerability to groundwater contamination from land use activities. In accordance with
WAC 365-190-100, the entirety of Bainbridge Island is classified as an aquifer recharge area
to preserve the volume of recharge available to the aquifer system and to protect
groundwater from contamination.
Staff response: Pursuant to BIMC 16.20.100.E.2.b, 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 lot contains less than 12,500 square feet and therefore is not required
to designate an ARPA.
C. BIMC 16.20.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Stream Buffers
All designated streams require a buffer pursuant to Table 1 of this section. Buffers shall
remain as undisturbed or enhanced vegetation areas for the purpose of protecting the
integrity, function, and value of stream resources. Any buffer modification proposed shall be
through an approved buffer enhancement plan. No uses or activities shall be allowed within
the buffer unless allowed by this section. If the buffer has previously been disturbed, the
14
director may require the disturbed buffer area be enhanced, including revegetation with
native plant species, pursuant to an approved buffer enhancement plan meeting the
requirements of BIMC 16.20.180. No refuse, including but not limited to household trash,
yard waste and commercial/industrial refuse, shall be placed in the buffer.
Staff response: The stream is classified as fish-bearing, and therefore has a 200-ft. buffer
width. The proposal will impact the buffer with the addition of a single-family residential
development, as permitted through the RUE process (BIMC 16.20.110.E.8.e). The remaining
buffer will be enhanced through invasive species removal and native plant installation to
increase pollution control and to increase light and noise screening. The buffer has not been
previously disturbed and shall not contain household trash, yard waste and
commercial/industrial refuse (Condition 12).
Fencing and Signs
Prior to approval or issuance of permits for land divisions or other new development, the
director may require that the common boundary between a required buffer and the
adjacent lands be identified using fencing or permanent signs.
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). Permanent fencing and signs are required (Conditions 3, 4).
D. 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 7).
E. 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.
15
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 area onsite (Condition 10).
F. BIMC 16.20.160 Minor Variance
Variances are the mechanism by which the city may grant relief from the provisions of the
zoning ordinance where practical difficulty renders compliance with certain provisions of the
code an unnecessary hardship, where the hardship is a result of the physical characteristics
of the subject property and where the purpose of the comprehensive plan is fulfilled.
Staff response: The hardship is the presence of a stream buffer that encumbers the subject
property, and the unusually small lot size (6,534 sq. ft.). A variance from the required 25 ft.
front setback and the 15 ft. (north) side setback is requested, in order to locate the
proposed SFR as far away from the stream as possible. A variance from the maximum
allowed lot coverage (653.4 sq. ft., or 10%) is requested due to the small, nonconforming lot
size in this 2.5 acre zone. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is fulfilled in granting the
variance request.
Applicability
The minor variance process may be used for minor deviations from zoning standards in
BIMC Title 18 as determined by the director. Minor projects should be limited to: (a)
projects that are exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), or
(b) proposals for less than a 25 percent encroachment in required yards, or (c) proposals of
less than a 25 percent increase in lot coverage. All other variances shall be processed using
the procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.120.
Staff response: The proposal is exempt from SEPA and is therefore being processed as a
minor variance, although the request is for more than a 25% encroachment in required
yards and more than a 25% increase in lot coverage.
This procedure is not available to obtain variances from subdivision standards in BIMC Title
17 or to obtain variances from BIMC Title 18 zoning standards cross-referenced in BIMC Title
17 as part of a short subdivision, long subdivision, or large lot subdivision approval or
amendment process.
Staff response: The setback was not imposed due to a subdivision standard. The subdivision
of these lots occurred prior to the regulation of wetlands.
This procedure is not available to allow the siting for an accessory dwelling unit where it
would not otherwise be permitted.
Staff response: The request is for the development of a primary single-family and is
unrelated to an accessory dwelling unit.
A variance shall not be granted solely because of the presence of nonconformities in the
vicinity of the subject site.
Staff response: The request is not due to the presence of nonconformities in the vicinity of
the subject site.
Variances from the city’s noise regulations in Chapter 16.16 BIMC are available through the
noise variance process in Chapter 16.16 BIMC and are not available through the major
variance process in this section.
16
Staff response: A noise variance is not included in the proposal.
Decision Criteria
A minor variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:
The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located; and
Staff response: Denying the variance may increase impacts to the stream buffer, as a longer
driveway would be necessary to serve the SFR, and in-building parking would not be feasible
in an SFR with lot coverage limited to 653.4 sq. ft. This would result in a larger area of
disturbance within the buffer and could potentially introduce pollutants to the critical area
via stormwater runoff. Additionally, the right-of-way (ROW) for Phelps Rd. NE is 100 ft.
wide. The improved edge of the ROW would still be approximately 40 ft. away from the
front of the SFR, even with a front setback reduced to 5 ft.; the existing conditions provide a
physical separation that exceeds the 25 ft. setback requirement. The reduced 15 ft. side
setback, down to 5 ft., would not have an impact on the adjoining parcel to the north, as the
proposed SFR would be shielded by existing offsite vegetation, as well as onsite vegetation
located behind the proposed SFR, and would be located more than 200 ft. away from the
primary residence on that property.
Figure 5 – location of proposed SFR relative to road and adjoining SFR
The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to the size, shape,
topography, trees, groundcover, location or surroundings of the subject property, or factors
necessary for the successful installation of a solar energy system such as a particular
orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar access; and
Staff response: The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to the
subject property. The variance to setbacks is requested because of the presence of a 200 ft.
stream buffer that covers the subject property. The lot coverage variance is requested
17
because of the nonconforming lot size. The subject lot is 6,534 sq. ft. and is located in the
zoning district with the largest minimum lot area (100,000 sq. ft.).
The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by the
applicant; and
Staff response: The variance has not arisen from actions taken or proposed by the applicant.
The lot was transferred as a County Treasurer’s Deed under recording number
200509290026.
The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but that is denied to the
property in question because of special circumstances on the property in question, and will
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of
other properties in the vicinity in which the property is located; and
Staff response: Reasonable use of the property will be denied without an RUE because of
the presence of the stream buffer. The granting of the variance to setbacks will allow less
intrusion into the stream buffer by locating the proposed SFR farther away from the stream.
The granting of the variance to lot coverage is necessary for the SFR to include parking
within the building, and for the applicant to enjoy a home size that is large enough to
accommodate a single family. Other lots in the vicinity have lot coverage maximums that are
over ten times the applicant’s request, which is for 1,020 sq. ft. The applicant would be
denied the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by others in the same
vicinity and R-0.4 zoning district without the granting of the variance to lot coverage. The
granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege that is inconsistent with the
limitations upon uses of other properties nearby.
The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code, except those provisions that
are subject to the variance, and is in accord with the comprehensive plan.
Staff response: The variance is consistent with all other provisions of the BIMC, except those
provisions that are subject to the variance (setbacks and lot coverage), and is in accord with
the comprehensive plan.
Part VIII – CONCLUSIONS
1. Site Characteristics
The property contains a 200 ft. stream buffer that covers the majority of the lot.
2. History
Appropriate notice of the application was published. The application is properly before the
Hearing Examiner.
3. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The proposed reasonable use exemption request and variance request are consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Land Use Code Analysis
With appropriate conditions, the proposal conforms to all applicable regulations in the
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code.
18
APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any decision of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed in accordance with BIMC Chapter
2.16.020.P.2.
19
Conditions:
1. Work shall be completed in substantial compliance with the design and specifications included in
the RUE/VAR file, including:
a. Total lot coverage shall be limited to 1,020 sq. ft. The building permit application shall
contain lot coverage calculations.
b. The total disturbed area shall not exceed 3,835 sq. ft., including the portion of driveway
located within the ROW.
c. The mitigation area shall total 3,835 sq. ft. and shall be clearly marked on the site plan.
d. Removal of native vegetation shall be minimized to the extent possible. Areas on
RUE/VAR application materials labelled “retain native vegetation”, to the south of the
SFR and to the east of the primary drainfield, shall be labelled on building permit
application materials.
e. The removal of significant trees shall be minimized to the extent possible. Significant
trees shall be clearly marked on the site plan, with those proposed for removal clearly
labelled.
2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the applicant shall have the areas indicated on plans
as “retain native vegetation”, to the south of the proposed SFR and to the east of the primary
drainfield, temporarily fenced. The fence shall be clearly marked on any construction or clearing
plans submitted with the building permit application. 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 buffer mitigation area. 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 indicating the presence of a protected stream 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 final stream buffer mitigation plan, including a complete description of the relationship
between and among structures and functions sought (BIMC 16.20.180.G.3b(v)) and the likelihood of
the ability of the ability of the created or restored critical area to provide the functions and values of
the original critical area (BIMC 16.20.180.G.3b(viii)), shall be submitted with the building permit
application and approved prior to final building inspection.
6. A final planting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. The planting plan shall
be approved by the City prior to building permit issuance.
7. All plantings shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection, or an assurance device shall
be provided in accordance BIMC 16.20.160.
8. 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.
20
9. No pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers may be used in fish and wildlife conservation 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.
10. The applicant shall record a notice to title to document the presence of the stream buffer with the
Kitsap County auditor. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a
critical area 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.
11. 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.
12. No refuse, including but not limited to household trash, yard waste and commercial/industrial
refuse, shall be placed in the buffer.
13. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a. In order to protect the ground water and the stream 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 stream flora and fauna functions and values are
maintained/enhanced.
b. New access to the COBI ROW shall be improved to the standard paved residential
driveway approach detail DWG. 8-170.
c. All underground utilities such as the KPUD water service line, telecom, and power shall
be routed in the footprint of the driveway improvement to minimize site disturbances.
The water meter box and setter shall be placed at the edge of the right-of-way and the
property line.
d. Use of soil sterilant to construct the driveway shall be strictly prohibited.
e. 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 critical areas. 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.
f. Areas outside the building footprint, driveway, septic components and field and any
necessary construction setbacks shall be protected from soil stripping, stockpiling, and
compaction by construction equipment through installation of resilient clearing limits
fencing to be inspected by the City prior to clearing and construction.
g. Hardscaping should be constructed of permeable materials or contain wide permeable
jointing where feasible to allow infiltration or shallow subsurface filtration of surface
stormwater.
21
h. 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
stream buffer where full-infiltration on-site is not feasible, including point discharges
from any rain garden overflow and underdrain system.
i. Stormwater runoff from driveways shall be controlled with waterbars, trench drains,
and/or berms spaced to disperse flow through neighboring vegetation per BMP T5.11 or
T5.12.
14. This approval does not authorize the removal of any landmark trees (BIMC Chapter 16.32) without
prior approval of a ‘removal of a landmark tree permit’ by the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
November 27, 2017
Jason Galbreath
PO Box 2913
Silverdale, WA 98383
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for meeting with City staff on November 14, 2017 to discuss your proposal to construct a
single family residence on a property encumbered by a stream 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: Nov. 14, 2017
Project Name and Number: Galbreath SFR PRE - PLN50996
Project Description: Construct SFR on lot encumbered by a fish-bearing stream buffer.
Project Address: Lot 69 Phelps Rd.
Tax Parcel Number(s): 03250210692008
Tax Parcel Size: 0.15 acres
Zoning/Comp Plan Designation: R-0.4
Planning Contact: Annie Hillier
Development Engineer: Peter Corelis
Land Use Review Process
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 stream buffers and the inability to achieve reasonable use of the
property through other means (i.e. buffer averaging, a habitat management plan, or a variance), an
RUE appears to be the only way to develop the property as proposed. Criteria for review and approval
include a maximum total lot coverage of 1,200 square feet, and a mitigation plan developed in
accordance with BIMC 16.20.110.
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. As proposed, reducing the 15 ft. side setback to 5 ft. requires a major variance. It appears
that a variance from the front setback would also be required.
Exhibit 2
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
Note: Development of single family residence requires a building permit application.
Fees
Planning Fees: $5,724 (VAR) + $1,272 (RUE)
Health Fees: $109
Approval Body
Quasi-judicial decision by Hearing Examiner (BIMC Table 2.16.010)
Review and Recommendation
BIMC 2.16.100:
Director (review and recommendation)
Planning Commission (optional)
Public Hearing (report presented to hearing examiner)
Other required reviews and supplemental information:
Critical Area Report, including Mitigation Plan
Kitsap Public Health District review
Bainbridge Island Fire Department review
Planning Division review
Development Engineer review
See the Administrative Manual for additional submittal requirements (http://www.ci.bainbridge-
isl.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/100).
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.
BIMC 16.04 – Environmental Policy
The project is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act, as provided in WAC 197-11-800, as the
stream is not located on the subject property.
BIMC 16.12 – Shoreline Master Program
The subject property is outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
BIMC 16.20 – Critical Areas
The subject property is almost completely encumbered by the water quality buffer of a fish-bearing
stream. An application for an RUE requires a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with BIMC
Section 16.20.110 (Mitigation Plan Requirements). The applicant submitted a Habitat Management
Plan. A primary intent of an HMP is to provide mitigation recommendations; the HMP provided does
not recommend mitigation for impacts to the buffer due to property size constraints. Please note, the
RUE and VAR applications would not be recommended for approval without a mitigation plan,
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
developed in accordance with 16.20.110. Impacts from the drainfield and driveway shall be included
in the mitigation plan.
Please note the RUE criteria for review and approval in BIMC 16.20.080.G, which include no
reasonable alternative to the proposal; minimum impact to the critical area; and total lot coverage
does not exceed 1,200 sq.ft.
Staff also discussed the need for the applicant to demonstrate minimal impact to the critical area; and
particularly locating the house as far away from the stream as possible.
BIMC 18.09 – Use Regulations
Development of single family residences is a permitted use under BIMC 18.09.020, subject to the
development standards as outlined in BIMC 16.20 Critical Areas.
BIMC 18.12 – Dimensional Standards
Lot Coverage: 20%*
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.**
Side Setback: 15 ft. ea.**
Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Max Building Height: 30 ft.
* Lot coverage restricted to 1,200 sq. ft. per RUE criteria for approval.
**As discussed during the preapplication conference, the City recommends reducing the north side
setback to 5 ft., and the front setback to 5 ft., in order to locate the house, driveway, and septic tanks
as far away from the stream as possible (subject to Health District approval).
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.
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:
Peter Corelis will provide comments as soon as possible and can be reached at (206) 780-3759 or
pcorelis@bainbridgewa.gov.
Bainbridge Island Fire District Comment:
Fire Marshal, Luke Carpenter, provided the attached comment and can be reached at (206) 842-7686
or lcarpenter@bifd.org.
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
206.842.7633
The fee for a Reasonable Use Exception and a Variance (major) is $5,724 (VAR) + $1,272 (RUE) per lot,
due at time of submittal. The Health District also requires $109 per lot for review, due at time of
submittal as a separate check. Please review the City’s new Administrative Manual
(http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/100) for all submittal requirements. Once
you are ready to submit an application for the Reasonable Use Exception and the Variance (major),
contact Jay Harris at (206) 780-3770 or jharris@bainbridgewa.gov to schedule an intake appointment. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 780-3773 or ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov.
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 effec t at
the time of complete land use permit application. The comments on this proposal do not represent or guarantee
approval of any project or permit. While we have attempted to cover as many of the Planning, Engineering,
Building and Fire related aspects of your proposal as possible during this preliminary review, subsequent review of
your land use permit application may reveal issues not identified during the is initial review. If the city’s pre -
application review indicates that the City intends to recommend or impose one or more conditions of permit
approval, and if the applicant objects to any of said conditions, the applicant is hereby requested and advised to
provide written notice to the City of which conditions the applicant objects to and the reas ons for the applicant’s
objections.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMO
Date: October 22, 2017
To: Annie Hillier, Planning Department
From: Assistant Chief Luke Carpenter, Fire Marshal
Re: Galbreath PLN50960PRE
The submittal has been reviewed resulting in the following comments:
1.The Fire Marshal’s office has no comment regarding construction within the
stream buffer.
2.The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire
Code.
Exhibit 3
If additional parcels or contacts are required, please attach additional sheets
Parcel # Address Property Owner
Project Contacts (owner, surveyor, engineer, etc)
Property Owner:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Email: Phone:
Name: Agency:
Address: Function:
City: State: Zip:
Email: Phone:
Name: Agency:
Address: Function:
City: State: Zip:
Email: Phone:
Name: Agency:
Address: Function:
City: State: Zip:
Email: Phone:
Authorized Agent (Please attach notarized Owner/Applicant Agreement Form)
Name: Agency:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Email: Phone:
0325-021-069-2008 Lot 69 Phelps Rd.Estate of William Looney
Estate of William Looney
P.O.Box 1453
Tacoma WA 98401
pam@schmidtandyee.com 253-383-5855
Jason Galbreath Land Purchaser
P.O.Box 2913 Silverdale WA 98383
Silverdale WA 98383
jason1969galbreath@gmail.com 360-551-5392
Submittal requirements for each application are described in the Administrative Manual for Planning
Permits: http://www.bainbridgewa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/100.
Supporting information and/or documents may be required to review your application. If you have
questions about specific requirements for your project, please consult with planning staff prior to
submitting your application.
ELECTRONIC FILES AND FOUR (4) PAPER COPIES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL
SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
Applications must be submitted in person, and by appointment only by either the owner or the owner’s
designated agent. Should an agent submit an application, a notarized Owner/Applicant Agreement
must accompany the application. To schedule an appointment, please contact pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
or call (206) 780-3750.
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR WILL DELAY PROCESSING.
I affirm, under penalty of perjury, that all answers, statements, and information submitted with this
application are correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also affirm that I am the owner or
designated agent of the subject site. Further, I grant permission to any and all employees and
representatives of the City of Bainbridge Island and other governmental agencies to enter upon and
inspect said property as reasonably necessary to process this application.
Print Name (Owner) Signature (Owner) Date
Print Name (Owner) Signature (Owner) Date
Print Name (Owner) Signature (Owner) Date
Print Name (Owner) Signature (Owner) Date
Print Name (Agent) Signature (Agent) Date
January 2017
Jason Galbreath
Exhibit 5
To: COBI
From: Jason Galbreath
RE: Lot 69 Phelps Rd. RUE Application
Date: April 12th, 2018
To Whom It May Concern,
Attached are all the documentations required to show that a RUE is the only viable
option for developing Lot 69 Phelps Rd. for one Single Family Residence.
Chapter 16.20 of COBI Code would prohibit any development of this property
without the RUE process and approval. There are no other reasonable solutions to
allow this property to be developed. The area that will be impacted for this Single
Family Residence will be minimal which will create reasonable use of the property.
The current owner and all prior owner’s actions during their respective ownerships,
created no negative affect on this lot, which necessitated the RUE process.
The total lot coverage for the home will not exceed 1,200 square feet. The home
proposed and included for review, will be less than 900 square feet. Our site-plan
will show the same calculations. There will be no threat to public health, safety or
welfare by developing the lot for its allowable use of a single-family residence.
Our net loss calculations provided via our HMP report will be established on-site at
a 1:1 ratio. Our HMP, provided by qualified persons and by using the best available
science, states that currently off site mitigation is not available. The HMP is
provided and created per BIMC 16.20.060.
All of our information and reports contained herein, do show that this project is and
will be consistent with all other applicable regulations and standards.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide all of this information. It will allow the City
of Bainbridge Island to determine that the development of Lot 69 Phelps Rd. is a
good idea and will be managed and developed professionally with the goal of
creating no negative affect to the local environment and aquifers.
Best Regards,
Jason Galbreath – Applicant
360-551-5392
jason1969galbreath@gmail.com
Exhibit 6
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
D
R
A
I
N
F
I
E
L
D
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
D
R
A
I
N
F
I
E
L
D
1
0
'
P
H
E
L
P
S
R
O
A
D
±
1
1
3
'
±50'
±6
1
'
S
S
T
A
N
K
S
2
5
'
1
5
'
2
5
'
SD
1
0
0
'
R
O
W
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
5
0
-
F
T
T
Y
P
E
F
S
T
R
E
A
M
B
U
F
F
E
R
140
1
5
0
1
5
0
138
142
142
1
4
4
14
4
1
4
6
14
6
1
4
8
1
4
8
1
5
2
1
5
2
1
5
4
1
5
4
W
W
P
A
V
E
D
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
K
P
U
D
W
A
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
O
S
S
C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T
S
S
H
O
W
N
P
E
R
A
L
L
I
E
D
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
L
A
N
D
A
T
E
D
6
.
2
7
.
2
0
1
7
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
C
L
O
F
C
O
H
O
C
R
E
E
K
-
T
Y
P
E
F
,
S
H
O
W
N
P
E
R
E
C
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
L
A
N
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
D
A
T
E
D
9
.
1
3
.
2
0
1
7
4
0
'
2
0
'
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
-
B
D
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
1
5
'
3
8
'
3
0
'
S
P
L
A
S
H
B
L
O
C
K
,
T
Y
P
.
MADISON AVENUE
N
E
H
I
D
D
E
N
C
O
V
E
R
O
A
D
P
H
E
L
P
S
R
O
A
D
1
,
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
1
,
0
0
0
'
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
P
U
B
L
I
C
L
Y
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
D
A
T
A
&
S
I
T
E
O
B
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
K
I
T
S
A
P
C
O
U
N
T
Y
P
U
D
A
E
R
I
A
L
L
I
D
A
R
2
-
F
T
C
O
N
T
O
U
R
S
,
N
O
T
A
S
U
R
V
E
Y
.
D
A
T
U
M
:
N
A
V
D
8
8
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
2
0
4
0
1
0
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
A
R
C
E
L
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
T
A
X
I
D
:
0
3
2
5
0
2
-
1
-
0
6
9
-
2
0
0
8
A
R
E
A
:
0
.
1
5
-
A
C
R
E
S
,
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
6
,
5
3
4
-
S
F
Z
O
N
I
N
G
:
R
-
0
.
4
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
:
F
R
O
N
T
:
2
5
-
F
T
-
2
S
T
O
R
Y
O
R
L
E
S
S
H
O
U
S
E
S
I
D
E
S
:
1
5
-
F
T
-
2
S
T
O
R
Y
O
R
L
E
S
S
H
O
U
S
E
R
E
A
R
:
2
5
-
F
T
-
2
S
T
O
R
Y
O
R
L
E
S
S
H
O
U
S
E
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
A
R
E
A
S
:
B
U
F
F
E
R
O
F
T
Y
P
E
F
S
T
R
E
A
M
.
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
O
F
T
O
P
:
8
6
4
-
S
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
:
±
3
1
5
-
S
F
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
I
M
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
:
±
1
,
1
8
0
-
S
F
P
H
E
L
P
S
R
O
A
D
-
G
A
L
B
R
E
A
T
H
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
R
E
A
S
O
N
A
B
L
E
U
S
E
E
X
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
S
E
A
B
O
L
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
L
L
C
P
O
B
o
x
4
4
5
I
n
d
i
a
n
o
l
a
,
W
A
9
8
3
4
2
3
6
0
.
9
3
0
.
4
6
6
8
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
@
S
e
a
b
o
l
d
E
n
g
.
c
o
m
d
a
t
e
:
4
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
:
k
.
l
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
d
r
a
w
n
:
k
.
l
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
:
j
o
b
n
o
.
:
G
A
1
1
.
1
1
4
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
J
A
S
O
N
G
A
L
B
R
E
A
T
H
8
4
0
M
A
D
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H
B
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
I
S
L
A
N
D
,
W
A
9
8
1
1
0
3
6
0
.
5
5
1
.
5
3
9
2
j
a
s
o
n
1
9
6
9
g
a
l
b
r
e
a
t
h
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
C
1
1
O
F
2
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
T
A
X
I
D
:
0
3
2
5
0
2
-
1
-
0
6
9
-
2
0
0
8
S
W
1
4
O
F
N
E
1
4
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
3
T
O
W
N
S
H
I
P
2
5
N
O
R
T
H
R
A
N
G
E
2
E
A
S
T
Exhibit 7
1
Ann Hillier
From:Ann Hillier
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:29 AM
To:'jason galbreath'
Subject:minor variance
Attachments:Variance (Major & Minor).docx
Hi Jason,
I am writing to let you know that the Galbreath RUE project requires a minor zoning variance – I am so sorry that I didn’t catch this during the pre-app stage.
Because the lot is so small (0.15 acres), the lot coverage allowed for the RUE exceeds that allowed by the underlying zoning in R-0.4, which is only 10%. I checked
with the planning manager and to our knowledge this may be the first time we have encountered a situation like this! Usually the 1,200 square feet allowed by
the RUE is less than what the underlying zoning would permit. Please accept my sincerest apology that I overlooked this.
The good news is that the application requirements are minimal, since you’ve already submitted the bulk of everything for the RUE. I am attaching a very short
list of what is still required – in sum, it is just the narrative (see attached) and the master land use application. When you are ready to turn these items in, please
just let me know – I will work with Lara and Jay to make a special intake appointment for you. The fee is 1/3 of the cost of the minor variance, or $1,144.67, since
this will be reviewed concurrently with the RUE. I may need to re-notice the project in the paper and adjust the content on the land use signs, but I will contact
you if any of these changes affect you (which they likely will not).
The following information may be helpful:
The subject lot is 0.15 acres or 6,534 square feet. In R-0.4, the minimum lot area per dwelling is 100,000 square feet, and the maximum allowed lot coverage is
10%. The subject lot is nonconforming to the minimum lot area, and is only allowed 653.4 square feet of lot coverage. In order to achieve the proposed lot
coverage and that allowed through a reasonable use exception (RUE) (1,200 square feet), a minor variance from the allowed lot coverage in R-0.4 zoning is
necessary. The granting of a variance would allow the subject property to achieve a similar level of enjoyment of a property right possessed by other property
owners in the same vicinity, with lots significantly larger and consistent with the dimensional standards in R-0.4 zoning.
Please let me know if you have any questions – I’d be happy to chat on the phone or meet at the counter. Again, I apologize I didn’t catch this earlier on in the
application process.
Sincerely,
Annie Hillier
Exhibit 8
2
City Planner
www.bainbridgewa.gov
facebook.com/citybainbridgeisland/
206.780.3773 (office) 206.780.0955 (fax)
Exhibit 9
To: The City of Bainbridge Island From: Jason Galbreath Date: September 5th, 2018 RE: Lot 069 Phelps Rd. – Variance To Whom It May Concern, The Variance being applied for has become necessary for many varying reasons related to this specific property. The subject property is currently in its natural state. A Type-F stream is located within the neighboring property to the South. The 200 foot buffer associated with this stream, completely encumbers this subject lot 069. In an effort to attain the RUE, it has been suggested by COBI to move the proposed home as far away from the stream as possible. To achieve that goal, this variance application is suggesting the home be within five (5) feet of the North and West boundaries. The variance is also addressing lot coverage calculations. This lot is in a residential zone where conforming lot sizes are 100,000sqft per lot. This particular lot is approximately 6,544 sqft. Within the biologist’s report, it has been suggested that a home that can accommodate enclosed parking would be beneficial. This will minimize any vehicular contaminants from leaving the site. A home that will accommodate 2 covered parking spaces also satisfies COBI’s parking requirements. The proposed home footprint, which is less than the RUE max of 1,200sqft, would allow for such a home design and allow 2 enclosed parking spaces. However, this suggested size of footprint is more than the 10% lot coverage requirement for this zone. The West boundary fronting Phelps Rd. has a large undeveloped right-of-way. This area is in its natural and heavy vegetative state. The subject project will only remove vegetation to allow construction of the driveway. The remaining native vegetation along the road frontage will be remain and act as a visual buffer. The subject property will be used for one single-family residence. This is consistent with the neighboring properties and is the last lot to be developed within this specific area of Bainbridge Island. Thank you for your consideration,
Jason Galbreath - Applicant 360-551-5392
Exhibit 10
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Note that this is a re-noticing of a project that was previously noticed with a missing permit type.
A new site plan has been provided with a revised application. Any comments received during the
previous comment period are being included in the record and will be considered during project
review.
The City of Bainbridge Island has received the following land use application:
Date of Submittal: April 12, 2018 (original) and September 20, 2018 (resubmittal)
Project Name & Number: Galbreath RUE/ PLN50996 RUE & Galbreath Variance/ PLN50996 VAR
Project Type: Reasonable Use Exception & Variance
Applicant: Galbreath, Jason
Owner: ESTATE OF WILLIAM A LOONEY
Project Site & Tax Parcel: Phelps Rd, TA#03250210692008
Project Description: The proposal is for a single-family residence with lot coverage that will not exceed 1,020
square feet. A reasonable use exception is requested because the lot is encumbered by a stream
buffer. A variance is requested to increase the allowed lot coverage from 653.4 square feet to
1,020 square feet; to reduce a side setback from 15 feet to 5 feet; and to re duce the front
setback from 25 feet to 5 feet.
Environmental Review: This proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800.
Public Hearing: A public hearing date is schedule for January 10, 2019 at 1:00pm in the Council Chambers.
This is a tentative date only and is subject to change. Please check the Hearing Examiner page
on the City of Bainbridge Island website for current hearing dates.
Comment Period: Any person may comment on the proposed application, request a copy of any decision or
appeal any decision. The city will not act on the application for 21 days from the date of
this notice. Comments must be submitted by no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 2, 2018.
Send comments with
reference to
project name and number to:
pcd@bainbridgewa.gov
or Planning & Community
Development
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
For questions, contact:
Annie Hillier, Planner
ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov or
(206) 780-3773
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
PLN50996 RUE VAR Galbreath
October 12, 2018
Owner Mailing Address Mailing City State Mailing Zip
CORNING NORMA J PO BOX 11714 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-5714
ESTATE OF WILLIAM A LOONEY PO BOX 1435 TACOMA WA 98401
FOWLER ERIC & ANNA HELENA 13909 ELLINGSEN RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1182
HIDDEN COVE PARK 7666 NE HIGH SCHOOL RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-2621
HIDDENCOVE EST HOMEOWNER ASSOC 2220 132ND AVE SE STE A204 BELLEVUE WA 98005
JUNG JAE BYUNG & SHIN KYUNG JA 13230 NE CAMBRIDGE CREST WAY BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
KRAMER DAWNA J & MONTE M 14061 ELLINGSEN RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
LAVERY ERIC A & HODAPP KRISTIN R 13216 NE CAMBRIDGE CREST WAY BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
MITSCHKE DOUGLAS 13935 ELLINGSEN RD BAINBRIDGE IS WA 98110-1182
PEARRING MICHAEL J & YU YOK TRUSTEES PO BOX 871 PEPEEKEO HI 96783
PECUNIES JOSEPH J & ZHAO HAIYAN 13540 PHELPS RD BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 13545 PHELPS RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
Resident 8844 CONNEMARRA LN NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WILSON TREVOR 13527 PHELPS RD NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110
WOLGAMOTT STEVEN T 13200 NE CAMBRIDGE CREST WAY BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-4521
ZALKE JOSEPH & REBECCA LIV TRUST 13102 TRAIL HEIGHTS CT NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-4522
1
Jane Rasely
From:haiyan zhao <haiyan88@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 14, 2018 8:00 PM
To:PCD
Subject:Galbreath RUE/PLN50996 RUE&Galbreath Variance/PLN50996 VAR
October 14 2018
Dear Bainbridge Island Planning & Community Development Department:
I recently received a letter from your Department regarding a proposal for a single-family residence with lot
coverage of 1020 square feet encumbered by a stream buffer. I am deeply troubled by the above proposal. I
would like to let you know my concerns first, and if needed, I may elevate my concerns to other federal and
state agencies.
The letter states that this proposal is "exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800". WAC 197-11-800 clearly states that "Documentation that the
requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation for impacts to elements of the environment
(listed in WAC 197-11-444) have been adequately addressed for the development exempted." So, where is
documentation of environmental analysis? Even if the project is technically exempt, it seems prudent to perform
some independent analysis in light of the intent on preserving the stream environment when the buffer zones
were created in the first place. Per WAC 197-11-444, environment elements include fish or wildlife migration
routes. The stream runs adjacent the property and nearly completely within the established buffer zones. Flora
and Fauna follow the stream and buffering is required to maintain that habitat. I observe that the stream is
frequented by wildlife and supports a bit of bio-diversity to our otherwise fairly sterile island. I hereby ask, what
is the point of having stream buffers if a variance can destroy it ? Other properties have to respect the buffer
requirements and the neighborhood is established in terms of setbacks, market value, and other regulations so
why would this property qualify for exemption to place a home, driveway, and septic within the stream buffer?
RUE and variance exemptions should be in line with neighborhood characteristics and not impact
market value of other homes. This is a 1020 square feet construction on a 0.15 acre lot in an area zoned for 2.5
acre lots many with natural vegetation buffer zones and reasonable setbacks. Per the variance cited in the
application, the house and driveway will have lot coverage nearly double the allowable amount. On a
relative scale, that is a huge variance. The area is a well water recharge area, but where does the waste water
go? How will the waste water impact the stream and/or fresh water recharge? Again, every single house
around this particular property is zoned at 2.5 acres, so why is this one exempt from the zoning
requirement? Why is it a reasonable variance to have a 5 foot setback when our larger lots are required to have
larger setbacks? This one request alone may likely affect adjacent property values that were established based
on the enforcement of, not variances from,the current land use criteria. The sum total of the requested variances
are greatly at odds with established neighborhood characteristics and the intent of the land use regulations.
How will this new "minor" construction impact the characteristics of the neighborhood and what
precedent your Department would like to establish?
All in all, there are just a lot of unanswered questions. I understand that the City would like to have a
high-density downtown Winslow while keeping the rural area rural. This new development certainly does not fit
into the City's general development plan.
Exhibit 13
2
I appreciate your attention to the matter. Thank you.
Concerned citizen/Long-time Islander
Haiyan Zhao
Exhibit 14
Department of Planning and Community Development
280 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110-1812
www.bainbridgewa.gov
Phone: 206.780.3750 Fax: 206.780-0955
November 11, 2018
Jason Galbreath
PO Box 2913
SILVERDALE WA, 98383
RE: Review Comments for PLN50996 RUE / PLN50996 VAR
Dear Mr. Galbreath,
The City is requesting additional information regarding the Galbreath RUE/VAR, PLN50996 RUE/VAR.
Please review the items below, and let me know if you have any questions.
•Mitigation sequencing (RUE review criteria #3) is a series of 6 steps and requires that an
applicant first document steps taken to avoid and minimize impacts wherever practicable,
before compensatory mitigation is authorized. Staff finds that the following measures should be
considered, in order to further minimize impacts (see attachment):
o Reverse the orientation of the primary drainfield and the reserve drainfield, in order to
reduce construction impacts, unless determined infeasible by the Kitsap Public Health
District.
o Reduce the amount of cleared (lawn?) area around the SFR and the drainfield to the
minimum necessary – these areas are depicted in white on Figure 7 of the mitigation
plan. The City recommends including additional buffer enhancement within these areas
–particularly within the area immediately adjacent the driveway, and the areas east of
the SFR.
•Please provide the approximate square footage of the 2-car garage. The City will use this
information to evaluate the variance request.
•Please consider making the following changes to the critical areas report:
o Adjust the impact area to include all areas that will no longer function as buffer after the
development is complete, including the area north of the SFR, and where any
permanent development is proposed, including the driveway, SFR, and any lawn area
(provided, lawn areas should be eliminated or reduced to the minimum necessary in
areas that have the potential to function as buffer).
o Please clarify the various buffers included on the figures. For example, what is the 75 ft.
buffer? And the 57.5 ft. buffer?
o Please check the links in the References section. Many of them appear to be broken.
o As RUE criteria #9 requires that the project incorporate best available science, please
update the report with WDFW’s recent publications on riparian ecosystems (see below).
There are new findings regarding stream buffers that are relevant to this project. At
minimum, the indirect effects section of the report should be amended with this
information. (For example, impacts to a buffer can reduce shading, which affects
stream temperature.)
Exhibit 15
Page 2 of 2
▪Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science synthesis and management
implications. 2018. Timothy Quinn, George Wilhere and Kirk Krueger, (Managing
Editors). A Priority Habitat and Species Document of the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
▪Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 2018. Amy
Windrope, Timothy Quinn, Keith Folkerts, and Terra Rentz. A Priority Habitat
and Species Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia.
Revised documents may be emailed to ahillier@bainbridgewa.gov, but piecemeal responses will not be
accepted by the City. All revised documents should be emailed as one package for processing.
Thank you again and I look forward to further communication.
Sincerely,
Annie Hillier
Planner
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Exhibit 16
1
Ann Hillier
From:jason galbreath <jason1969galbreath@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:23 AM
To:Ann Hillier
Subject:Phelps Rd. - Footprint Calc
Hi Annie,
I just calculated out the footprint which included the covered entry “porch”.
My calculations come up to 913.44 SQFT.
Hope that helps,
jason
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
GARAGE SQFT
= 683.75
$"&*,) !+)*"+-0
$#$"$
%! &#)
0)'",
)/
%&."+! &"
)&)#% & (!"+.% ",
$'!&"&% & % •"! ' (
•$" %& $
"' $ 6
Exhibit 19
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report i November 26, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................1
PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................................................................1
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ..........................................................................................................1
SITE CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................1
HABITAT AND CRITICAL AREAS MAPPING ...................................................................................2
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREA AND HABITAT MAPPING .....................................................2
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES .............3
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,SALMONSCAPE ..........................................3
LISTED SPECIES AND HABITATS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY.................................................3
FISH ...............................................................................................................................................4
BIRDS ............................................................................................................................................4
PLANTS ..........................................................................................................................................4
CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................................................................4
STREAM IMPACTS ..........................................................................................................................4
STREAM BUFFER IMPACTS .............................................................................................................4
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON LISTED SPECIES AND HABITAT ...................5
DIRECT E FFECTS AND INDIRECT E FFECTS ...................................................................................5
MITIGATION SEQUENCING .................................................................................................................5
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................................................6
SPECIFICATIONS FOR S ITE PREPARATION ....................................................................................6
GOALS,OBJECTIVES,AND PERFORMANCE S TANDARDS .............................................................7
SPECIFICATIONS FOR P LANTING ..................................................................................................7
MAINTENANCE P LAN ...................................................................................................................9
MONITORING P LAN ......................................................................................................................9
CONTINGENCY PLAN ..................................................................................................................10
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................10
LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................11
Table 1: Listed Species in the Project Vicinity...........................................................................3
Figures and Photoplates
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Site Plan
Figure 4 Soil Survey
Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory
Figure 6 Bainbridge Island Critical Areas Map
Figure 7 Mitigation Plan Overview
Figure 8 Mitigation Planting Plan
Photoplates 1 –4
Appendix A Wetland Determination Data Forms
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report ii November 26, 2018
SIGNATURE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision and
direction of the undersigned.
Joanne Bartlett, PWS
Senior Biologist
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 1 November 26, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) has completed this Critical Areas Report (CAR)on behalf
of Fidalgo Bay Homes, for the planned single-family residence and septic system within a
portion of the 200-foot buffer of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA). The
FWHCA to the south of this property is Coho Creek, which is identified as a Type F water. The
subject property consists of Kitsap County Tax Parcel Number 032502-1-069-2008, which totals
0.15 acres. ELS biologists conducted a site visit on August 3, 2017 to inventory site conditions
for preparation of this CAR as required under Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC)
Section 16.20.180.F and G.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located east of Phelps Road NE, across from the Bainbridge Island Little
League Hidden Cove Ballfields, south of the Port Madison area of Bainbridge Island,
Washington, within Section 3, Township 25 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian
(Figure 1).Coho Creek flows from east to west approximately 50 feet south of the property.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
A single-family home and septic drainfield is proposed on the property with a driveway across
the road right-of-way from Phelps Road (Figure 3).The project will require clearing most of the
property to construct the house and install the drainfield.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is located on the east side of Phelps Road NE just north of NE Cambridge Crest
Way in the Hidden Cove area of Bainbridge Island (Figure 1).It is a trapezoid-shaped property
that slopes up from Phelps Road NE to a relatively level plateau.There is a moderate slope down
to the south that ends at Coho Creek,a seasonal stream that was dry during the summer site visit
(Photoplate 1).Coho Creek is confined to a narrow channel and no associated wetlands were
observed.The property is currently undeveloped, with a mixed forest canopy and semi-dense
understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants (Photoplates 2 and 3).The wildlife using the stream
and buffer are typical of common mammals such as deer and coyotes, and some bird species.
Critical Areas
No wetlands are mapped on or near this property and the ELS biologis ts did not observe
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology on the property or adjacent to the
stream.
A mixed forest dominates the property and extends down the slope into Coho Creek. The
dominant vegetation includes bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum,FACU),western red cedar
(Thuja plicata,FAC),Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii,FACU),and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla,FACU)in the canopy. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis,FAC),Oregon grape
(Mahonia nervosa,FACU),red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium,FACU),and beaked
hazelnut (Corylus cornuta,FACU)dominates the shrub strata.The herbaceous layer was
dominated by sword fern (Polystichum munitum,FACU),stinging nettle (Urtica dioica,FAC),
and English ivy (Hedera helix,FACU).
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 2 November 26, 2018
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:
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.
Test plots were conducted along the slope into Coho Creek to verify the absence of wetland
conditions along the stream.The observed soils consisted of very dark greyish brown (10YR
3/3) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) matrix colors and contained no redoximorphic features,
meeting none of the hydric soil indicators.Hydrology was not present during the field visit and
there was no evidence of wetland hydrology in any of the test plots.Data collected at the test
plot are presented on data forms in Appendix A.
Coho Creek,which flows south of the property, meets the requirements of a Type F water
because the stream is wider than 2 feet at bankfull width and it flows on terrain with a gradient of
less than 16 percent. Because the stream is designated a Type F water, the BIMC requires a 200-
foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Coho Creek.Coho Creek itself has
limited, if any, use by fish because of downstream culverts that represent full to partial blockages
to spawning salmon or cutthroat trout.In addition, the stream also flows through a ditched
channel along the east side of Phelps Road on its way to Hidden Cove, which does not appear to
have fish use and may represents a fish passage barrier.
Buffer Functions
This property lies within a residential area south of Hidden Cove that is zoned R-0.4 with larger
parcels to the north and south, where the residences are 50 to 100 feet from the stream.The
outer limits of the buffer extend onto the property offsite to the north, which is composed of
forested pasture that lies along the edge of this property (Photoplate 4).A fence is present along
the north property line, which functions as a pasture fence as well as demarcation of the property
line. The fence and pasture represent a break in the buffer so only the onsit e portion of buffer is
included in the assessment of buffer functions and impact.The onsite buffer is undeveloped and
functions to protect the water quality of Coho Creek by removing sediment and nutrients from
runoff, though minimal runoff is generated by the existing residential land use to the north.
HABITAT AND CRITICAL AREAS MAPPING
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CRITICAL AREA AND HABITAT MAPPING
The Bainbridge Island GIS (BIGIS) viewed through the on-line mapping website was used to
identify the presence of critical areas on and adjacent to the property (Bainbridge Island 2017).
No wetlands are mapped on the property, but the critical areas map identifies Coho Creek
flowing south of the property and wetlands both upstream near the headwaters, and downstream
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 3 November 26, 2018
on the west side of Phelps Road (Figure 3).There is also a wetland mapped upslope of the
stream, northeast of the property, and two to the northwest.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority and Habitat and Species (PHS)
website (WDFW 2017) identifies the potential presence of priority habitat and species areas that
include streams, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.The PHS website mapping indicates no priority
habitat on or near this property. The lower portion of Coho Creek, closest to Hidden Cove, is
mapped as having Coho salmon and Cutthroat trout occurrence, but does not extend into the
section of stream adjacent to this property.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,SALMONSCAPE
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape website (WDFW 2017)does not
map the presence of endangered, threatened,or sensitive fish species as occurring within this
section of stream.
LISTED SPECIES AND HABITATS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
The potential presence of listed species, including fish, bird, and mammals that have a primary
association with the habitat of Coho Creek was evaluated by a site visit, aerial photographs, the
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species website (WDFW 2017), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS 2017) website, the National Marine Fisheries Service website (NMFS 2017), and the
Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage website (WDNR 2017).
Table 1: Listed Species in the Project Vicinity
Species, ESU1 or DPS2 State
Status3
Federal
Status3
Critical Habitat4 in
Project Vicinity
Fish
Puget Sound ESU
Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha)Candidate Threatened No
Puget Sound DPS
Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss)None Threatened No
Birds
Marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus)Threatened Threatened No
Streaked Horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris strigata)Endangered Threatened No
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus)Candidate Threatened No
1) ESU -Evolutionarily Significant Unit. A distinct group of Pacific salmon.
2) DPS –Distinct Population Unit.
3) Endangered -In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated; Threatened -Likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been formally listed as such in the Federal Register under the Federal
Endangered Species Act; Sensitive -Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state; Species of
Concern -An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing.
4) NOAA 2017
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 4 November 26, 2018
FISH
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) website, there are two listed
ESUs/DPSs of salmon and steelhead within Puget Sound in which Bainbridge Island is a part.
The WDFW SalmonScape website indicates there is no use of Coho Creek by endangered,
threatened, or sensitive fish species.
BIRDS
Research conducted for this project shows that the property does not represent habitat for
marbled murrelet, streaked horned lark, and yellow-billed cuckoo (WDFW-PHS 2017). The
forested conditions adjacent to the site are not suitable for the bird species listed in Kitsap
County and it does not appear that any known nesting or breeding sites are mapped on
Bainbridge Island (WDFW 2017).
PLANTS
The Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program website (WANHP
2017) lists seven rare plant species that occur within Kitsap County.None of the listed species
were identified during the field visit.
CRITICAL HABITAT
Hidden Cove is a breeding area for Pacific Herring and the mouth of Coho Creek is part of the
critical habitat for Coho salmon and Cutthroat trout (WDFW-PHS 2017).Coho Creek does not
appear to provide habitat for federally listed Chinook salmon or steelhead.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
STREAM IMPACTS
Coho Creek will not be directly impacted by the proposed onsite activities because the home and
drainfield will be maintained at least 40 feet from the OHWM of the stream.The project
includes no crossing or other impact to the stream and it will remain as it exists with all of the
offsite forested buffer vegetation remaining.Noise generated during home construction, which
will include use of heavy equipment and workers, may temporarily influence use of Coho Creek
by wildlife species. Typical use of the single-family residence after construction will result in a
minor increase in noise and light, which will be blocked by the existing buffer vegetation.
STREAM BUFFER IMPACTS
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 streams 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 buffer is composed of mixed forested and understory vegetation (Photoplates 1 and 2).The
proposed reduction will allow for construction of the house,driveway and septic system on this
small property.The forest offsite to the south will remain and will be sufficient to buffer the
onsite activities from impacting the use of the stream by fish and local wildlife species.This
area of buffer lies on moderate slopes down from the lot to the stream channel and this slope
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 5 November 26, 2018
provides an additional measure of noise and light abatement for the channel. Because the home
will be located where it can maintain at least 50 feet of the interior of the buffer, much of the
buffer function will be maintained (WDFW 2018).The driveway from Phelps Road crosses the
right-of-way and has been designed to minimize removal of vegetation including the large
western red cedar tree near the northwest corner of this property.The location of the driveway
will also maintain the inner portion of the buffer, which provides a higher level of function.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON LISTED SPECIES AND HABITAT
DIRECT EFFECTS AND I NDIRECT EFFECTS
The construction activities are proposed within the 200-foot buffer required from Coho Creek as
measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).The proposed project has been
minimized to the extent possible but cannot completely avoid impacts because of the position
and size of the lot. There will be no direct impacts to the stream because no activities are
proposed in or adjacent to the actual channel, which would be considered the riparian zone
(WDFW 2018).The zone of influence lies outside the riparian zone, which is where the home is
proposed and the planting of native species as proposed will enhance the function of the riparian
zone along the stream channel.
The indirect impacts represent the proposed buffer impacts necessary to construct a home on this
lot, which will occur in outside the riparian zone where most of the buffer function is provided
(WDFW 2018). Coho Creek is a seasonal Type F stream that does not appear to currently have
anadromous fish use due to downstream constraints.Some recent research provides for special
considerations for anadromous fish streams to protect the fish at all stages of life (WDFW 2018).
Since this stream does not have confirmed fish use, there could be less buffer width proposed
that would not have a negative impact on fish use.The buffer that will remain is located entirely
offsite and composed mostly of deciduous trees with dense salmonberry understory and overall
provides a buffer to noise and light penetration in the growin g season. Because the vegetation
closest to the stream will be retained, the buffer function for the most part will be maintained.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
Avoid the Impact:The entire property lies within the required 200-foot buffer;therefore the
project cannot avoid the impacts to the required buffer.
Minimize the Impact:This project will minimize the impacts to the buffer by placing the house
and drainfield as far from the stream as possible and proposes a variance to the side and front
yard setbacks to achieve this goal (Figure 7).In addition, the septic tanks have been moved to the
south side of the house because once they are installed, the planted and existing vegetation can
grow around them and provide additional buffer for the offsite st ream thereby further minimizing
the impacts of onsite development.Moving the home as close as 5 feet from the north property
line allows additional buffer for the offsite stream in addition to placing the less impactful septic
tanks closer to the stream.By implementing these minimization measures, this project will
retain as much forest as possible and will facilitate removal of as few onsite trees as needed to
construct the home.The driveway will cross the Phelps Road right-of-way, which is composed
of forested upland, and will remain undeveloped except to construct the driveway. Maintaining
the forest in the right-of-way will provide a continuous buffer for the stream where it flows
adjacent to this property and into offsite areas.
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 6 November 26, 2018
Rectifying the Impacts.The home and drainfield represent permanent features within this area
of buffer so the impacts cannot be fully rectified.
Reducing or Eliminating the Impacts through Preservation or Maintenance.The project
cannot eliminate the impacts by preservation and maintenance.
Compensate for the Impact:Buffer mitigation is proposed to compensate for the impacts to
the buffer and will include installation of native plants.The mitigation as proposed achieves the
a 1:1 ratio for impact by proposing a small yard around the house and planting native trees,
shrubs, and ferns within the forest and areas disturbed by home construction.In addition to the
planting, as many areas as possible will remain undisturbed forest. To further increase the native
plant cover in the buffer, the drainfield area will also be planted with native vegetation.
Monitor the Affects of the Impact:The mitigation plan will be monitored for a period of 5
years to ensure that the plan meets the goals, objectives, and performance standards of the
mitigation.
BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
The project proposes to impact 3,835 square feet of the buffer in order to build the single-
family house, driveway, and septic drainfield (Figure 7).Options for offsite mitigation were
explored within the watershed to determine if any opportunities are available. The Bainbridge
Island Metro Parks and Recreation District was contacted to determine if there was an
opportunity for mitigation within Hidden Cove Park, which lies at the downstream end of the
Coho Creek watershed. Opportunities were not available because the parks department does
not currently have a program to accept monies or assistance with restoration or enhancement
projects and there are no current opportunities within the park itself.
Mitigation for impacts to the buffer will therefore include removal of invasive plants on the
property,including but not limited to Himalayan blackberry and English ivy, and replacement
with native plants in areas where invasives are removed and beyond, for a total of 3,835 square
feet of mitigation. The plan focuses on maintaining existing areas of native vegetation revealed
during removal of invasives and installation of additional native plants to supplement the
vegetation within the offsite portion of the riparian corridor (Figure 8).The plan proposes to
mostly install evergreen plant species so that the onsite planting area provides year round
screening of noise and light from within Coho Creek.In addition, the drainfield areas will be
planted with suitable native herbaceous plants.Runoff generated on the roof of the single-
family home will not impact the water quality of the stream as the new and existing vegetation
will act to slow down and filter the water.
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.
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 7 November 26, 2018
Buffer Mitigation Area
1.Define extent of mitigation area onsite following construction of the home and
drainfield.
2.Remove invasive species.
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.
GOALS,OBJECTIVES,AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Project Goal:Improve buffer functions to compensate for construction within the stream
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 planting areas 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 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 100 percent survival of plants during
the entire 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
areas 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, 25 to 35 percent cover in Year 4, and at least 45 percent
cover within the planted areas. 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 riparian corridor
that will both screen noise and light from the developed upland and provide shade and wildlife
habitat for Coho Creek. Most of the plants will be potted plants, 1 gallon in size, from local
nurseries stocking native plants.The herbaceous plants installed on the drainfield will be 3.5 inch
potted individuals also obtained from a local nursery. Plant installation shall take place
following construction and installation of the development features.Additional plants may be
transplanted from other onsite locations, and propagated by the landowner.
Plant Materials
1.Plants will be purchased from local nurseries.
2.Potted plants will be 1 gallon in size.
3.Transplanted plants can be used but must be collected in areas outside the
required stream buffer.
4.No damaged or desiccated roots or diseased plants will be accepted.
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 8 November 26, 2018
Planting Specifications
Plants will be installed per the attached buffer mitigation plan around existing trees and native
shrubs. Table 1 provides a list of plants proposed for installation within the stream buffer as well
as around the drainfield. Plantings will be spaced to allow for access around the planted species
for the continual need for removal of invasive plants.
Table 1 summarizes the total plant species, spacing, size, and quantities for the buffer mitigation
area. Small stature trees are proposed for installation to supplement the existing tree cover. The
spacing of plants will allow for healthy mature growth of individual species and range from 3
feet on center for lower stratum plants to 6 feet on center for the high stratum shrub species.
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 SHRUBS STRATUM
Vine maple (Acer circinatum)As shown 10 1 gallon pots
LOW STATURE SHRUB STRATUM
Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana)As shown 20 1 gallon pots
Rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum)As shown 20 1 gallon pots
Evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum)As shown 20 1 gallon pots
Tall Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa)As shown 50 1 gallon pots
Total 120
DRAINFIELD PLANTINGS
Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)As shown 14 1 gallon pots
Sword fern (Polystichum munitum)10”6 1 gallon pots
Deer fern (Blechnum spicant)10”12 3.5” pots
Fringecup (Tellima grandiflora)10”12 3.5” pots
False Solomon’s seal (Smilacina racemosa)10”12 3.5” pots
Total 56
Plant Installation Specifications
1.Plant the specified trees and shrubs at any time during the year following construction of
the home and drainfield as listed in Table 1. Space the plants somewhat irregularly and in
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 9 November 26, 2018
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 stream buffer mitigation area will occur for five years and will involve
removing invasive plant species, irrigating planted species, and reinstalling failed planti ngs, as
necessary. The maintenance may include the following activities:
1.Remove and control invasive vegetation around all newly 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 through 5.
Monitoring reports will be submitted to the Bainbridge Island Depa rtment 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:
▪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.
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 10 November 26, 2018
▪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.
CONCLUSIONS
Coho Creek flows east to west approximately 60 feet south of the property. It is mapped as a
Type F stream that requires a 200-foot buffer.This project involves constructing a single-family
home within the 200-foot stream buffer.The proposed house lies at the northwestern corner of
the property to maximize distance from the stream.Mitigation is proposed to compensate for
the proposed buffer impacts.There will be an increase in function of the remaining buffer
through removal of invasives which will allow the spread of native volunteers and installed
native plants.The drainfield will be planted with suitable native herbaceous and shrub plants to
provide additional native plant cover within the buffer.The project will not directly effect
federal or state listed plants or animals because there are no species or habitat identified within
the vicinity of the property. The project will not directly affect the condition or habitat
available within the Coho Creek watershed and will not remove or reduce habitat features
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 11 November 26, 2018
available to local wildlife species.There will be no negative effect on the stream system or its
use by potential fish species.
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.
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 12 November 26, 2018
REFERENCES
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code,Title 16.20 Critical Areas, 2018.Bainbridge Island, WA.
Bainbridge Island Geographical Information System 2017. Online document
http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/196/GIS-Mapping-Map-Gallery. Accessed August 2017.
Camp, Pamela and John G. Gamon, Editors. 2011.Field Guide to The Rare Plants of
Washington. University of Washington Press for Washington Natural Heritage Program.
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.
Federal Register. 2005.Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for
12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho; Final Rule.Volume 70.Number 170. 50 CFR Part 226. September 2013.
Kitsap County Parcel Search.2018.https://ags.kitsapgov.com/psearch/index.html.
Knutson, L. Lea and Virginia L. Naef.Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority
Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. 181 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). July 2016.NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regions
Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington.
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/salmon_steelhead/criti
cal_habitat/wcr_salmonid_ch_esa_july2016.pdf. Accessed August 2017.
Riparian Ecosystems Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 2018. Amy Windrope,
Timothy Quinn, Keith Folkerts, and Terra Rentz.A Priority Habitats and Species
Document of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
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. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). March 2017. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,
Pacific Region. IPaC Website http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Accessed
August 2017.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013.Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife in Washington: 2012 Annual Report.Listing and Recovery Section, Wildlife
Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 251 pp.
Fidalgo Bay Homes-Phelps Road Property Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Critical Areas Report 13 November 26, 2018
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2018.Priority Habitat and Species
Website.https://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.Accessed August 2017.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2017.Washington Natural Heritage Program
website Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants.https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPfieldguide .
Accessed August 2017.
FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.6899° Latitude
-122.5295° Longitude
SITE
SITE
SCALE IN MILES
30150
SITE
11
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
8
4
:
3
5
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N
S
W E
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
11
/
2
0
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
LOPEZFRIDAY HARBOR ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTONARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND113112
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
LONGBEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTHBEND
KIRKLANDREDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.6899° Latitude
-122.5295° Longitude
SITE
SITE
SCALE IN MILES
30150
SITE
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N
S
W E
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
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
LOPEZFRIDAY HARBOR ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTONARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND113112
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
LONGBEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTHBEND
KIRKLANDREDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
P
h
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
N
E
TP
-
3
TP
-
1
TP
-
2
Co
h
o
C
r
e
e
k
Ty
p
e
F
(2
0
0
'
B
u
f
f
e
r
)
(S
o
i
l
L
o
g
2
-
O
l
d
)
(S
o
i
l
L
o
g
1
-
N
e
w
)
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N S
W
E
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
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
SI
T
E
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
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
LE
G
E
N
D
:
Si
t
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
St
r
e
a
m
w
i
t
h
F
l
o
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
OH
W
M
Te
s
t
P
l
o
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
TP
-
1
NO
T
E
(
S
)
:
1.
Ae
r
i
a
l
f
r
o
m
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
™
2.
Te
s
t
p
l
o
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
h
a
n
d
h
e
l
d
G
P
S
w
i
t
h
s
u
b
m
e
t
e
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.
3.
Su
r
v
e
y
b
y
A
d
a
m
&
G
o
l
d
s
w
o
r
t
h
y
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
e
n
c
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
B
e
r
r
y
D
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
U
p
l
a
n
d
Wi
t
h
H
i
g
h
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
a
n
o
p
y
o
f
Bi
g
l
e
a
f
M
a
p
l
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Mi
x
e
d
P
a
s
t
u
r
e
&
F
o
r
e
s
t
Co
h
o
C
r
e
e
k
Ty
p
e
F
(2
0
0
'
B
u
f
f
e
r
)
4
3
'
6
1
'
In
s
t
a
l
l
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Re
t
a
i
n
N
a
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
6
6
'
7
.
5
'
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N S
W
E
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
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
SI
T
E
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
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
40
LE
G
E
N
D
:
Si
t
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
St
r
e
a
m
w
i
t
h
F
l
o
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
7
.
5
'
OH
W
M
Na
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
NO
T
E
(
S
)
:
1.
Se
p
t
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
T
h
o
m
a
s
E
.
W
e
a
v
e
r
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Ho
m
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Dr
a
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
P
h
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
N
E
5'
1
9
'
5
'
Re
t
a
i
n
Na
t
i
v
e
Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
LEGEND:
14 Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes. Not hydric.
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
SITE
N
S
W E
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
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
15
0
30
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
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N
S
W E
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
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
50
0
10
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
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
SITE
N
S
W E
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
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
50
0
10
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
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
P
h
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
N
E
Co
h
o
C
r
e
e
k
Ty
p
e
F
(2
0
0
'
B
u
f
f
e
r
)
4
3
'
6
1
'
In
s
t
a
l
l
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Re
t
a
i
n
N
a
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
On
l
y
F
o
r
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
Roa
d
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
W
a
y
Li
m
i
t
s
o
f
P
a
s
t
u
r
e
6
6
'
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N S
W
E
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
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
SI
T
E
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
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Ho
m
e
LE
G
E
N
D
:
Si
t
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
St
r
e
a
m
w
i
t
h
F
l
o
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
OH
W
M
Na
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Bu
f
f
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
r
e
a
(3
,
8
3
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
(3
,
8
3
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Re
s
e
r
v
e
d
Dr
a
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
(6
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Dr
a
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
(6
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Re
t
a
i
n
Na
t
i
v
e
Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
In
s
t
a
l
l
F
e
n
c
e
a
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Re
t
a
i
n
N
a
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
8
:
5
8
A
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
5
9
0
-
f
i
d
a
l
g
o
b
a
y
h
o
m
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
p
h
e
l
p
s
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
5
9
0
.
0
1
_
M
T
.
d
w
g
ri
g
h
t
N S
W
E
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
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
SI
T
E
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
8
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
11
/
2
6
/
1
8
25
9
0
.
0
1
Ph
e
l
p
s
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
B
a
y
H
o
m
e
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
25
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
40
LE
G
E
N
D
:
Si
t
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
7
.
5
'
Na
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Bu
f
f
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
r
e
a
(3
,
8
3
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
(3
,
8
3
5
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Re
s
e
r
v
e
d
Dr
a
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
(6
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
NO
T
E
:
P
l
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
t
o
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
a
s
sh
o
w
n
.
A
c
t
u
a
l
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
e
l
d
,
w
i
t
h
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
s
p
a
c
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
na
t
u
r
a
l
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Ho
m
e
Re
t
a
i
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Na
t
i
v
e
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
t
a
i
n
Na
t
i
v
e
Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Dr
a
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
(6
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:8/10/17
DWN:KB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2590.021
Photoplate 2
Project Name:Phelps Road
Property
Client:Fidalgo Bay Homes
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 4 shows the area where
Test Plot 1 was conducted. This
area is located on the slope
between Coho Creek and the
property.
Photo 6 shows the area where
Test Plot 3 was conducted.
This area is close to the
northwest corner of the
property. Old Soil Log 2 was
used to examine the soil colors
and texture.
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.
This area is in the southeast
part of the property, close to
the southern property line and
the existing fence. Soil Log 1
was used to examine the soil
colors and texture.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:8/10/17
DWN:KB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2590.021
Photoplate 3
Project Name:Phelps Road
Property
Client:Fidalgo Bay Homes
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 7 was taken from across
Phelps Road, looking east toward
the northwest corner of the
property.
Photo 9 shows the dry roadside
ditch along Phelps Road,near
where the dry stream channel
enters the ditch.
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,
showing the southwest corner
of the property closest to
Phelps Road. The proposed
driveway would enter the
property here.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:8/10/17
DWN:KB
PRJ. MGR JB
PROJ.#:2590.021
Photoplate 4
Project Name:Phelps Road
Property
Client:Fidalgo Bay Homes
Kitsap County,Washington
Photo 10 was from along the
north property line, which is
represented by the fence on the
right side. This photo looks west
along the north line with the
onsite area to the left and offsite
pasture to the right.
Photo 12 was taken from near
the northwest corner and looks
east along the property line,
which is represented by the
fence on the left.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 11 was taken from the
same location as Photo 10 and
looks south back onto the
property from the fence line.
APPENDIX A
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:30)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:4 (B)4.
50% =, 20% == Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:25 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15)
1.Rubus spectabilis 30 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Corylus cornuta 10 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.OBL species x1 =
4.FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =20, 20% =8 40 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5)UPL species x5 =
1.Polystichum munitum 55 yes FACU Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Tellima grandiflora 5 no FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =30, 20% =12 60 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:15)
1.Hedera helix 10 yes FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =5, 20% =2 10 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is less than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Phelps Road Property City/County:Bainbridge Island/Kitsap Sampling Date:8-3-17
Applicant/Owner:Fidalgo Bay Homes State:WA Sampling Point:TP1
Investigator(s):Joanne Bartlett, Katie Boa Section, Township, Range:S3 T25 R2E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):3
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:47.6898960635794 Long:-122.52958254664 Datum:WA84-SF
Soil Map Unit Name:Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification:None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The property is located on the east side of Phelps Road and is a narrow property with level topography that slopes down to the south into a
seasonal stream.Test Plot 1 is located midway up the slope from the dry streambed, just south of the property.
SOIL Sampling Point:TP1
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
0-16 10YR 3/3 100 gr sa lo no redoximorphic concentrations
gr -gravel
sa -sand
lo -loam
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
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):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:The soil layer does not meet the definition of a depleted matrix so this soil profile is determined to meet none of the hydric soil indicators.
HYDROLOGY
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)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Phelps Road Property
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:30)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Acer macrophyllum 15 yes FACU Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A)2.Tsuga heterophylla 15 yes FACU
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:8 (B)4.
50% =15, 20% =6 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:25 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15)
1.Rubus spectabilis 5 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Mahonia nervosa 5 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Vaccinium parvifolium 5 yes FACU OBL species x1 =
4.FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =7.5, 20% =3 15 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5)UPL species x5 =
1.Polystichum munitum 15 yes FACU Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Urtica dioica 5 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =10, 20% =4 20 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:15)
1.Hedera helix 75 yes FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =37.5, 20% =15 75 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is less than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Phelps Road Property City/County:Bainbridge Island/Kitsap Sampling Date:8-3-17
Applicant/Owner:Fidalgo Bay Homes State:WA Sampling Point:TP2
Investigator(s):Joanne Bartlett, Katie Boa Section, Township, Range:S3 T25 R2E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):0
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:47.6899831664411 Long:-122.52927201608 Datum:WA84-SF
Soil Map Unit Name:Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification:None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The property is located on the east side of Phelps Road and is a narrow property with level topography that slopes down to the south into a
seasonal stream.Test Plot 2 is located near Soil Log 1, which is next to the fence that bisects the property and in a nearly level area near the center of the
property.
SOIL Sampling Point:TP2
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
0-4 duff
4-5 10YR 4/4 100 gr sa lo no redoximorphic concentrations
5-11 10YR 4/6 100 gr sa lo no redoximorphic concentrations
11-16 2.5Y 5/4 100 gr sa lo no redoximorphic concentrations
gr -gravel
sa -sand
lo -loam
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
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):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: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.
HYDROLOGY
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)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Phelps Road Property
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size:30)Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1.Tsuga heterophylla 20 yes FACU Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 (A)2.
3.Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:6 (B)4.
50% =10, 20% =4 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:17 (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15)
1.Rubus spectabilis 20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Mahonia nervosa 10 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
3.Corylus cornuta 10 yes FACU OBL species x1 =
4.FACW species x2 =
5.FAC species x3 =
50% =20, 20% =8 40 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size:5)UPL species x5 =
1.Polystichum munitum 15 yes FACU Column Totals:(A)(B)
2.Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.1 –Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.2 -Dominance Test is >50%
6.3 -Prevalence Index is <3.01
7.4 -Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
9.5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% =10, 20% =4 20 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:15)
1.Hedera helix 35 yes FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No
2.
50% =17.5, 20% =7 35 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 45
Remarks:The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is less than 50% dominance by FAC species.
Project Site:Phelps Road Property City/County:Bainbridge Island/Kitsap Sampling Date:8-3-17
Applicant/Owner:Fidalgo Bay Homes State:WA Sampling Point:TP3
Investigator(s):Joanne Bartlett, Katie Boa Section, Township, Range:S3 T25 R2E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):0
Subregion (LRR):MLRA 2 Lat:47.6900879247207 Long:-122.52958504207 Datum:WA84-SF
Soil Map Unit Name:Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification:NOne
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (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.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes NoHydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:The property is located on the east side of Phelps Road and is a narrow property with level topography that slopes down to the south into a
seasonal stream.Test Plot 3 is located near the old Soil Log 2 near the northwest corner of the property.
SOIL Sampling Point:TP3
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
0-5 10YR 3/2 100 sa lo no redoximorphic concentrations
5-16 10YR 5/4 100 gr sa lo no redoximorphic concentrations
gr -gravel
sa -sand
lo -loam
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
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):
Hydric Soils Present?Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: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.
HYDROLOGY
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)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 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):
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.
Project Site:Phelps Road Property
Page 1 of 2
Department of Public Works - Engineering
Memorandum
Date: October 22, 2018
To: Annie Hillier, Planner, Planning and Comm. Development
From: Peter Corelis, P.E., Development Engineer
Subject: PLN50996 PRE – Galbreath SFR/RUE
Project Description:
The proposal is to construct a single-family residence (SFR) within a Type F (fish bearing) stream buffer.
The subject parcel is identified by tax id 032502-1-069-2008 and is located along Phelps Road NE in the
City of Bainbridge Island.
Comments:
1.New access to the COBI ROW shall be improved to the standard paved residential driveway approach
detail DWG. 8-170.
2.All underground utilities such as the KPUD water service line, telecom, and power shall be routed in
the footprint of the driveway improvement to minimize site disturbances. The water meter box and
setter shall be placed at the edge of the right-of-way and the property line.
3.Use of soil sterilant to construct the driveway shall be strictly prohibited.
4.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 critical areas. 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.
5.Areas outside the building footprint, driveway, septic components and field and any necessary
construction setbacks shall be protected from soil stripping, stockpiling, and compaction by
construction equipment through installation of resilient clearing limits fencing to be inspected by the
City prior to clearing and construction.
Exhibit 20
Page 2 of 2
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. 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 stream buffer where full-
infiltration on-site is not feasible, including point discharges from any rain garden overflow and
underdrain system.
8. Stormwater runoff from driveways shall be controlled with waterbars, trench drains, and/or berms
spaced to disperse flow through neighboring vegetation per BMP T5.11 or T5.12.
Exhibit 21
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMO
Date: April 26, 2018
To: Annie Hillier, Planning Department
From: Deputy Chief Jared Moravec, Fire Marshal
Re: Galbreath PLN50996RUE
The submittal has been reviewed resulting in the following comments:
1.The Fire Marshal’s office has no comment regarding construction within the
stream buffer.
2.The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the adopted Fire
Code.
Exhibit 22
z Project Name:
Galbreath RUE & VAR
January 10, 2019
Proposal:
1 SFR on a lot
containing a stream
buffer
Request:
Reasonable Use
Exception (RUE)
And Zoning Variance
(VAR)
Planner:
Annie Hillier
Development
Engineer:
Peter Corelis
z
Existing Use:
undeveloped
Lot Size:
0.15 acres/6,534 SF
Zoning:
R-0.4 (1 unit per 2.5 acres)
z
200 FT stream buffer
covers entire lot
RUE may be requested
when a property is
encumbered to such an
extent by critical areas
and/or critical area
buffers that application
of the CAO would deny
all reasonable use of the
subject
property
Standard Required Proposed
Side
setback
15 ft.5 ft.
Front
setback
25 ft.5 ft.
Lot
coverage
653.4 sf.
(10%)
1,020 sf.
(15%)
No variance request With variance request
Smaller house footprint (653.4 sf)Larger house footprint (913.44 sf)
Longer driveway (375 sf)Shorter driveway (75 sf)
More disturbance onsite: 1,028.4 sf Less disturbance onsite: 988.44 sf
More pollutants (outdoor parking)Less pollutants (indoor parking)
RUE review criteria #2: There is no reasonable alternative to the
proposal with less impact to the critical area or its required buffer
z
10,454 sf
13,377 sf16,074 sf
11,369 sf
10,977 sf
10,934 sf
11,021 sf
15,202 sf
9,757 sf
9,975 sf
Subject
lot
Recommendation:
•Approval of the RUE, for the development area depicted in below (3,835 sf; Exhibit
19)
Credit: ELS 2018
•Approval of the VAR for a reduction in the front and north side setback down to 5 ft.,
and for an increase in lot coverage to 1,020 sf