CriticalAreaDetermination.pdfCity of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:
Property Owner:
QVAac
�AA tloll
Critical Area File
B Permit Number:
1 f55 S 6
Site Location:
Parcel Number:
*111 (1) Is, 00
14
Project Description:
ko
�A 'Q 6A P,
4 1
E] Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above.
I . There will be no alteration of a -Critical Area or its required buffer,
2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or
23,80.040.
3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230,
❑ Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
®,""Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
I The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40,120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23,40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standard, s.
❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit n 'u�;Wber for specific condition(s).
eviewer S "gnatfture Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
January 3, 2014
File CRA19980036 and BLD204"30930
Kernen Lien Senior Planner
„..,.
American Brewery Wetland Enhancement
The City of Edmonds passed Interim Ordinance 3935 on August 6, 2013 which allowed
development with previously developed footprints (defined as impervious surface area) within
critical area buffers in exchange for enhancement that improves the critical function and value of
the critical area and/or its buffer.
American Brewery is proposing to install an 880 sq. ft. cold storage building, 120 sq. ft. chiller,
and 113 sq. ft. grain silo for the brewing operations for a total area of improvements 1,113 sq. ft.
American Brewery submitted a wetland enhancement plan prepared by Ed Sewall of Sewall
Wetland Consulting, Inc. which proposed enhancement of 1,200 square feet of buffer along the
Edmonds Marsh near the east entrance of the boardwalk (Attachment 1). Upon consultation with
the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department and Keeley O'Connell of Earth Corps, it
was discovered that the City of Edmonds had a wetland plan prepared for this location already
and was planning on planting in January or February 2014 (Attachment 2). Consistent with
ECDC 23.50.050.H.3, it was determined that American Brewery could contribute funds to the
City's enhancement project in lieu of completing the enhancement plan prepared by Sewall
Wetland Consulting.
Groundeffects Landscaping Inc. provided an estimate of $1,007.63 for the installation of the
plants identified in the Sewell enhancement plan (Attachment 3). The Groundeffects estimate
did not include irrigation for the enhancement plantings which would be required to ensure
survival of the plantings. The City's project identified irrigation costs at $500 (Attachment 2).
Therefore, American Brewery's fair' share of City identified enhancement plan is determined
to be $1,500.
To provide enhancement consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.3.e and ECDC 23.50.050.H.3,
American Brewery will provide the City of Edmonds funds in the amount of $1,500 to be used
for the enhancement project in Attachment 2.
December 11, 2013
�c-
27641 Covkom• - 253&99-051
Cbvingu WA n,W Fax 253-ffi2-4732
Neil Fallon
American Brewing Company
180 West Dayton Street, Warehouse 102
Edmonds, Washington 98020
DEC
f)F1JF-L0 lJEffi` Sed
VVC
RE: 3925 151st Avenue SE- Critical Area Enhancement Plan
City of Edmonds, Washington
SWC Job #13-191
Dear Neil,
As required by the City of Edmonds, we have prepared this Critical Area
Enhancement report to compensate for your work within the existing
developed area of the 200' wetland buffer of the wetland known as the
Edmonds Marsh.
The proposed project is the construction of a 880sf cold storage building,
a 120sf chiller, and a 113sf grain silo for the brewing operation (total
area of improvements 1,113s�. All of these improvements will occur in
an existing developed paved and gravel area between the brewery, and
the lifeboat rescue practice facility and Edmonds Marsh boardwalk.
Although this area is already developed, it is technically within the 200'
buffer width of the Edmonds Marsh. City Ordinance No.3935 allows
development within these areas in exchange for improvements or
enhancements of the critical area. As described in Edmonds Municipal
Code 23.40.220.0.3.; v
3. Development Proposals Within Footprint of Development Existing Within
Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Development proposals in the footprint of
development within critical areas and/or buffers may by allowed as long
as the proposed development:
a. Does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally
established footprint;
American Brewing/#13-191
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 11, 2013
Page 2
The proposed improvements are within the existing developed area and
do not expand the legally established footprint.
b. Does not increase the impact to the critical area and/or buffer; or
There is no impact on the critical area, nor for that sake the functioning
buffer. All work is within an area segregated from the wetland and the
buffer by landscaping, fences and a boardwalk. The proposed
improvements will have no impact on the critical areas function.
c. Does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site;
The entire area of the proposed development is a legally established
impervious surface that already exists. No expansion of the impervious
surface is proposed.
d. Does not increase risk to life or property as a result of the development
proposal; and
There is no risk to life or property from the proposed improvements.
e. Includes measures to enhance the critical area and/or buffer in a way
that improves its function and value.
The proposed impact of 1,113sf of the existing developed buffer is
proposed to be mitigated by installing 34 shrubs and 60 groundcover
native plantings along 1,200sf of buffer within the Ports ownership along
the edge of the marsh as depicted on Page 3 of this report. This area is
just east of the boardwalk entrance and is a grass covered slope down to
the edge of the marsh. This area has little functional value in its current
state. This planting will provide additional protection to the wetland as
well as provide some vertical structure, source of organic matter and
habitat to this portion of the buffer with little functional value.
We propose planting 14 nootka rose (Rosa nootkana-1 gallon container),
10 red flowering current (Ribes sanguineum-1 gallon container), and 10
indian plum (Oemlaria cerasiformis — 1 gallon container). In addition, 30
oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) and 30 salal (Gaultheria shallon) will be
installed in this area as a native groundcover.
American Brewing/#13-191
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 11, 2013
Page 3
Above: Aerial photograph showing location of proposed buffer
enhancement plantings.
As detailed in ECDC 23.40.130.B, Performance standards for the project
shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the
goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully
attained and whether or not the requirements of this title have been met.
This buffer enhancement plan is a simple planting plan. We are
proposing a 3 Year monitoring period as allowed by ECDC 23.40.130.D.
The performance standards for the success of the is mitigation shall be
as follows;
Year 1. 100% survival of planted vegetation. Not more than 10%
invasive coverage in the enhancement area.
Year 2. 80% survival of planted vegetation. Not more than 10%
invasive coverage in the enhancement area.
Year 3. 80% survival of planted vegetation. Not more than 10%
invasive coverage in the enhancement area.
American Brewing/#13-191
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 11, 2013
Page 4
Vegetation will be inspected during each monitoring visit to be conducted
in September of each year. A monitoring report to the City will follow
each field monitoring detailing the progress of the project.
If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional
information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at
esewalt@sewallwc.com .
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212
Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project Proposal
DATE 17 January 2012
TO Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
FROM People For Puget Sound Edmonds Marsh Team
People For Puget Sound is a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to
conservation and restoration of natural assets in the Puget Sound region. Edmonds
Marsh is an asset to the City of Edmonds as a primary bird habitat for local and
migrant species, and also as a saltwater marsh providing significant buffer for
inland runoff before it drains into the Puget Sound.
The project area begins immediately east of the western most boardwalk section
and extends east to the first mature willow and from the sidewalk edge at Harbor
Square to the fringe of the marsh waterline (please see associated map). Non-native
invasive species previously occupied most of this region, including blackberry,
horsetail, thistle, and various grasses. While adjacent to the marsh waterline, this is
part of a riparian zone that serves important functions benefitting native wildlife
and facilitating continued human enjoyment. To enhance this region, People For
Puget Sound volunteers worked in coordination with the City of Edmonds Parks
staff in 2010 to remove and dispose of non-native and invasive plants in this area.
This proposal outlines the plan to revegetate this area with native plants and for the
long-term maintenance of the area.
With regard to numerous variables, native plant species have been selected for
restoration at this site. The planting area has been divided into three strata
according to plant height, so that view corridors can be maintained into the marsh
from the walkway. Berry -producing ground cover and shrubs were selected to
provide habitat and nourishment to native wildlife, especially birds. Evergreen
plants were favored in acknowledgement of the significant bird traffic the marsh
receives throughout the year. The inclusion of thicket -forming shrubs and taller
plants at the edges of the site should provide a natural barrier to ward off unwanted
human traffic into the marsh.
Native planting can commence as early as February 2012, to take advantage of the
latter half of the wet season. Except for weeding, maintenance of these plantings
should be minimal for the first two to three years of growing. People For Puget
Sound proposes to replant, maintain and steward this site through the Sound
Stewardship Program at no cost to the City. Signage and temporary fencing will be
necessary until the plants have fully established. Labels could further be added to
identify specimens of native species planted closest to the boardwalk, for visitors to
enjoy. People For Puget Sound is requesting support from the City for materials and
installation of semi-permanent fencing and signage and possibly labels for the
native plants. We have provided estimates for the initial replanting and mulching
effort- these costs are being covered in full by People For Puget Sound with a
Planting Strategy for Zone 2 Rehabilitation at Edmonds Marsh
November 19, 2011
General Planting Strategy 0
Native plants were identified based on specified needs of the site. Plant species were selected for
traits including whether they were berrying, whether they provided habitat for wildlife (esp. birds),
whether they were evergreen, and whether they were aesthetically pleasing
(EdmondsMarsh-PlantRank.xlsx).
At the Zone 2 site, plants were assigned to regions
based on anticipated height. To prevent obstruction
of view corridors to the marsh from the boardwalk,
taller species were planted down the slope and to
the sides of the site. Middle -height species were
assigned regions cresting the slope and overlooking
the marsh, and smaller species were assigned
nearest to the walkway.
Within these three height -based stratifications,
clump -gap mosaic planting was utilized. Clump -gap
planting entails planting multiple specimens of
multiple species in close proximity, with individuals
of said species placed in-between (Fig.1). This
strategy has the two -fold benefit of assorting
specimens of each species across the site's
multitude of microclimates with variable soil,
hydrology, and light exposure, while producing a
more naturalistic aesthetic'.
a
Fig. 1 - The Clump -Gap Mosaic planting
pattern'
Outline of Planting Procedure
Plant quantities were estimated based on the spaces of size -based strata. Sizes for each stratum were
calculated according to different ratios of occupation (Table 1). Area for each stratum was divided by
anticipated space requirements of plants to be in that stratum. The large stratum uses an average of
the spacings for trees and shrubs, the middle stratum uses the normal shrub spacing, and the small
stratum applied an average of the
groundcover/herbaceous and shrub Table 1 - Planting options for varying stratifications (total area
spacings. Average density spacings = 3,337 sq. ft.)
were used in all cases.
Some routine maintenance may be
necessary during the first two -to -three
years of growth, as natives become
established.
*� r
NJ T
Large
Medium
Small
3:2:1
18
a
Fig. 1 - The Clump -Gap Mosaic planting
pattern'
Outline of Planting Procedure
Plant quantities were estimated based on the spaces of size -based strata. Sizes for each stratum were
calculated according to different ratios of occupation (Table 1). Area for each stratum was divided by
anticipated space requirements of plants to be in that stratum. The large stratum uses an average of
the spacings for trees and shrubs, the middle stratum uses the normal shrub spacing, and the small
stratum applied an average of the
groundcover/herbaceous and shrub Table 1 - Planting options for varying stratifications (total area
spacings. Average density spacings = 3,337 sq. ft.)
were used in all cases.
Some routine maintenance may be
necessary during the first two -to -three
years of growth, as natives become
established.
' From the Forest Steward Field Guide (ed. Andrea Mojzak).
Individuals Allowed
Stratification Ratio
Large
Medium
Small
3:2:1
18
30
34
2:2:1
14
37
41
3:3:2
13
34
S2
' From the Forest Steward Field Guide (ed. Andrea Mojzak).
03
G,
a
rrrrnra�%'
/
j
» io1J11r»»
fry
m/nmiiaa lI
1'
�iinf„rrl;
q
w
/
illmm uim
w
��--yy^��
4N
0
pp^^�r�
a,/
...�'
MM
SIJ
mm
\W
ssnn
`D
'
'
,p
�
w
ry17.
rrrrnra�%'
/
j
» io1J11r»»
fry
m/nmiiaa lI
1'
�iinf„rrl;
\ \
§ a
§ /
2 \r
$/
u)\/
/
/$
G
[
C 4
f
2 \
§
S
0 -1
M
=E
�§2@a)$ /6
R
$
G
[
{
&
0
0
L-
) {
} k
{k/
�(
})\
\§
�
g
}){E
®�\\§
»�/§
�
C'4
t o[
3
a t
$\/22
/j
k)/3
\
§
7"
L A N D S G A lo ( f9! f N 6
P.O. Box 207 Auburn, WA 98071
253.333-9477 office 253.333.8140 Fax www.gelinc.com''
Customer
Neil Fall®n
Materials
Cost
Quantity
Unit
Total
Bark Mulch (Bark Rings)
$53.25
3
CY
$159.75
Shrubs (All prices are installed)
size
Cost
Quantity
Unit
Total
Nootka Rose
1 gallon
$9.02
14
Each
$126.28
Red Flowering Current
1 gallon
$9.02
10
Each
$90.20
Indian Plum
1 gallon
$9.02
10
Each
$90.20
Oregon Grape
1 gallon
$9.02
30
Each
$270.60
Salal
1 gallon 1
$9.02
1 30 J
Each 1
$270.60
Total:$1..007.63
All workmanship is guaranteed against defects in workmanship for a period of 90 days from the date of installation. Seller will not be responsible for special,
iot be responsible for damage to its work by other parties or for improper care of material. There shall be
no use of this estimate, reliance upon it, or use in a dishonest manner; such as disclosure of this confidential documentation to a competing third party.
Buyer shall furnish seller with job ready work sites such as final grading, proper drainage, concrete, gutters, downspouts, painting completed, and debris
removed from site. Acceptance of this proposal by the buyer constitutes acceptance of all the provisions contained in this proposal.
REP: Trevor Dance ITTERMS: Net 10th
Signature GEL REP:
Accepted by:
®ate:
Notes:
Price to install shrubs and groundcover per report by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. and dated 12/11/2013
price does not include washington state sales tax
price does not include 3 year monitoring
price does not include irrigation
009 3L S�v3r_u. snxn,�xry t.es 3ZC8a�HAA S{I.Q4''Q3.sx �d ' �. uta b113,.N1' 9t3i � �� m� � � ��
0 086 VM `spuOwP� `BOG esn4yaaeM IS UOIAeG Is -3M 08(
Auedwoo buimaig ueoijewV
iso-wv:�a❑ r 3 - �W
I