The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-03-24 Hearing Examiner Agenda�1 o� NJI Agenda - Edmonds Hearing Examiner "" ,xyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARCH 24, 2016, 3:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLN20150052 Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda March 24, 2016 Page 1 2.A Hearing Examiner Agenda Memo Meeting Date: 03/24/2016 Subject: PLN201SO052 Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Department: Planning Division Staff Lead: Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions Narrative The applicant is requesting a critical area reasonable use variance to allow the construction of a single family residence within the required buffer and setback of Shell Creek. The property located at 742 Daley Street has steep slopes along the west side of the property and Shell Creek runs across the northeast corner of the property. Shell Creek is identified as an anadromous fish bearing stream which has 100 foot stream buffers pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.D. Given the entire property is encompassed by the stream buffer, the applicant is pursuing a critical area reasonable use variance to develop the site. The proposal is to construct a single-family residence with a 336 square foot footprint and a driveway with an approximate footprint of 460 square feet. The proposed residence would comply with all other City of Edmonds development standards. (PLN20150052) Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a 'lye. 189.3 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance File Number: PLN20150052 Date of Report: rch 17, 2016 From: K rnen Lien, Senior Planner Public Hearing: March 24, 2016 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The property located at 742 Daley Street has steep slopes along the west side of the property and Shell Creek runs across the northeast corner of the property. Shell Creek is identified as an anadromous fish bearing stream which has 100 foot stream buffers pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.D. Given the entire property is encompassed by the stream buffer, the applicant is pursuing a critical area reasonable use variance to develop the site. The proposal is to construct a single-family residence with a 336 square foot footprint and a driveway with an approximate footprint of 460 square feet. The proposed residence would comply with all other City of Edmonds development standards. The following is staff s analysis of the project. H. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Request: The applicant is requesting a critical area reasonable use variance to allow the construction of a single family residence within the required buffer and setback of Shell Creek. B. Review Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, requests for variances are reviewed as Type III-B decisions, where the Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final decision, which is then appealable to the City Council. The table in ECDC 20.01.003 does not expressly distinguish critical areas reasonable use variances from other variances. It just addresses "variances," generally. ECDC 23.40.210 identifies PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 1 of 17 Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a critical area variances as a Type I11-A application. Because of the apparent conflict between ECDC 20.01.003 and ECDC 23.40.210, the language in ECDC 23.40.210 has not been given controlling effect. Staff has reached this conclusion, in large part, based on the language from ECDC 20.01.002.A, which states: "The director shall determine the proper procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure." The III-B process is deemed to be a higher numbered process than the III -A process, so that process will be applied until the conflict in the code can be resolved. This code conflict has been flagged for resolution in the updated critical areas ordinance. C. Moor Issues: 1. Compliance with ECDC 16.20 (Single -Family Residential Zones). 2. Compliance with ECDC 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions) 3. Compliance with ECDC 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas) 4. Compliance with ECDC 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) D. Owner: Pelagos Homes LLC (Kent Dietz) E. Applicanf:Kent Dietz F. Tax Parcel Number: 00434208401000 G. Location: 742 Daley Street H. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS-6) (Attachment 24). I. Lot Size: 0.24 acre / 10,454 square feet. J. Access: Access to the site is available directly off Daley Street. K. Existing Use: Vacant property. L. Proposed Use: Single-family residence. III. APPLICATION MATERIALS The applicant submitted a land use application for a critical area reasonable use variance on October 16, 2015 (Attachment 1) along with a cover letter (Attachment 2); initial site plans (Attachment 3); initial proposed house plans (Attachment 4); a Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. dated August 10, 2015 (Attachment 5); a Geotechnical Evaluations prepared by Dennis Bruce dated July 28, 2006 (Attachment 6); a Geotechnical Update Report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 25, 2013 (Attachment 7); Updated Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 21, 2015 (Attachment 8) a SEPA checklist; and an adjacent properties owners list. The City of Edmonds determined the application to be complete for the purposes of RCW 36.7013.070 on November 13, 2015. Although the application was determined to be complete, additionally information was required to evaluate the application. In the City's November 13, 2015 letter of completeness (Attachment 9), the City asked the applicant to respond to several questions and provide additional information. In response to the City's request for additional information the applicant submitted a number of documents including a response letter (Attachment 10); a policy of title insurance (Attachment 11); statutory warranty deed recorded under AFN 2015032706600 (Attachment 12); a buyer's statement PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 2 of 17 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a (Attachment 13); copies of letters to the neighbors offering the property for sale (Attachment 14); email correspondence between Mr. Dietz and Anita Hardy (Attachment 15); email correspondence between Mr. Dietz and Forterra (Attachment 16); updated site plan (Attachment 17); updated house plans (Attachment 18); statutory warranty deed recorded under AFN 8412280183 (Attachment 19), Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. revised January 7, 2016 (Attachment 20); Geotechnical Review prepared by Dennis Bruce dated December 4, 2015 (Attachment 21); and a revised SEPA checklist (Attachment 22). IV. CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION A critical area determination issued under CRA20050162 identified the site as potentially containing landslide hazard areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat (Attachment 26). The critical area determination in Attachment 26 references the August 2, 2005 Critical Area Reconnaissance prepared by Landau Associates included as Attachment 27 of this staff report. The Landau Critical Area Reconnaissance report determined that Shell Creek was a Type F — anadromous fish -bearing stream downstream of Caspers Street and Type F — nonanadromous fish -bearing stream upstream of Caspers Street (including the subject property). The determination that Shell Creek only contains anadromous fish down stream of Caspers Street contradicts other information on Shell Creek. A City of Edmonds' Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layer indicates anadromous fish presence in Shell Creek up to the identified fish barrier in 91h Avenue North (Attachment 28). A City of Edmonds employee photographed salmon in Shell Creek near 7th Avenue and Glen Street (Attachment 29), which is upstream of Caspers and approximately 850 feet down stream of 742 Daley Street. Additionally, a stormwater diversion structure that has been constructed on the subject property included a fish ladder to help fish migrate and screens to prevent trout and salmon fingerlings from entering the diversion lines (Attachment 30). Given the evidence of salmon above Caspers Street, the fish ladder in the diversion structure on the property, and no identified blockage downstream of the property, staff concluded the stream classification of Shell Creek at 742 Daley Street should be Type F — anadromous fish bearing stream. Regarding the potential wetland identified in CRA20050162, the Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. dated August 10, 2015 determined that no wetlands were present on the subject property. Geotechnical reports have been submitted addressing the steep slopes on the site (Attachments 6, 7, 8 and 21). V. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Usually the construction of a single-family residence is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i); however, this exemption does apply if the proposal requires a land use decision that is not exempt under WAC 197-11- 800(6). WAC 197-11-800(6)(e) provides an exemption for the granting of variances based on special circumstances, not including economic hardship, applicable to the subject property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings and not resulting in any change in land use or density. Since a critical area reasonable use variance is based in part on economic hardship (ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.a), SEPA review is required with this application. PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 3 of 17 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a VI. A SEPA checklist was submitted with the application (Attachment 22). Based on information within the SEPA checklist, other supporting materials, the City of Edmonds determined that mitigation required by the applicable development regulations adequately mitigates environmental impacts and issued a Determination of Nonsignficance for the subject proposal on March 3, 2016 with an appeal period ending on March 17, 2015 (Attachment 23). No appeals of the SEPA DNS were received as of the time this staff report was prepared. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Single Family — Urban." The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has a vision for residential development, and has developed a number of goals and policies to achieve this vision. The applicable excerpts are shown below: Residential Development (2015 Comprehensive Plan, pages 66 - 67) A. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing to all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. A.3. Minimize encroachment on views of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. A.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of the slope, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. The proposed single-family residential development is consistent with the "Single Family — Urban" designation for the site. The proposed residence would be a custom-built home designed with the intent to be compatible with the natural constraints of the subject property. The proposed residence's compatibility with the site given the critical area constraints are evaluated in the variance criteria section below (Section VIII). The proposed residence is not likely to impact views of existing homes in the neighborhood given the building site's location which is on the downhill side of a steep slope. The Comprehensive Plan also has stated goals related to the protection of vegetation and wildlife. The applicable excerpts are shown below: Vegetation and Wildlife (2015 Comprehensive Plan, page 77) A. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: A.1. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science (BAS). PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 4 of 17 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a A.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. A.4. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. Critical areas have been determined to be present on the subject property (See Section IV above). The Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan (Attachments 20) as well as the geotechnical reports (Attachments 6, 7, 8 and 21) were prepared by qualified professionals using best available science. Grading associated with the development would be limited to the driveway and the building site and only trees directly impacted by the proposal should be allowed to be removed. The mitigation plan will supplement the existing/remaining trees on the subject property. VII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The subject site is located within a single-family residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The site is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the neighborhood and is completely surrounded by parcels that are currently developed with single-family residences. The site and surrounding properties are located within the RS-6 (Single -Family Residential) zone (Attachment 24). North of the neighborhood is the Holy Rosary Church and School site which is zoned RS-12. West of the neighborhood across 7th Avenue North is property zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -Family) that is developed with a mix of multi -family and single family residences. Attachment 25 contains an aerial photo of the surrounding neighborhood. VIIL CRITICAL AREA REASONABLE USE VARIANCE ANALYSIS Refer to Section IV of this report for a description of the critical areas present on/adjacent to the subject site. The site contains a potential landslide hazard area (slopes greater than 40%) and stream (Shell Creek — Type F anadromous fish stream). These critical areas are regulated within the City's critical areas code requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40, 23.80, and 23.90. The applicant is requesting a critical areas reasonable use variance because he feels that strict application of the City's critical area regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 states that variances from the standards of the critical areas code may be authorized through the process of Hearing Examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85 if the applicant can demonstrate that the strict application of the critical areas code would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property. "Reasonable economic use(s)" is defined pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320 as follows: The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.210.A.2, in order for a variance for a reasonable use exception to be authorized, the applicant must demonstrate the following: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 5 of 17 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ECDC 23.40.210.13 further states that a critical area reasonable use variance may only be granted if it is found that the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. The applicant's Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan (Attachment 5) and subsequent revised Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan (Attachment 20) contain statements addressing how the applicant feels that the proposal complies with the criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 for a Reasonable Use Variance and the Specific Variance Criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.13. Staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance with these criteria follows immediately below in Sections VIII.A and VIII.B. A. Compliance with Reasonable Use Variance criteria of ECDC 23.40.210.A.2: 1. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.a -Deny all reasonable economic use: PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 6 of 17 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Shell Creek, an anadromous fish bearing stream, cuts across the northeast corner of the subject property. Pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.D.1.b, Type F anadromous fish bearing streams adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access require a 100-foot buffer. The 100-foot buffer on Shell Creek encompasses the entire property. Even with the flexibility of reduced stream buffers and/or stream buffer averaging provided for in ECDC 23.90.040.D.2 and D.3, only the southwest corner of the property would be located outside of a reduced stream buffer. But the southwest corner of the property is also the steepest portion of the site with slopes of approximately 40 percent, which qualify as a potential landslide hazard area pursuant to ECDC 23.80. So, no portion of this site exists outside of the critical area or critical area buffer. In the City of Edmonds' November 13, 2015 Letter of Completeness and Request for Additional Information (Attachment 8), the City asked the applicant to provide information in order to evaluate the determination of the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions and investment backed expectations. Among the questions and information requested were a title report, purchase and sale agreement, information regarding the assessed value of the property, and the applicant's knowledge of the recently denied critical area variance on the subject property. The applicant's responses to the City's questions are included in Attachment 10. The applicant purchased the subject property for $20,000 dollars (Attachment 13). The applicant indicates he was aware of all the encumbrances on the property as well as the previous critical area variance denial. The applicant noted the purchase price reflected the assumption that there would be significant limits on the nature of the development compared to that allowed on unencumbered property, thus limiting the potential economic value of the property. In order to determine if there was another economic use available to the property owner, the City also asked if the applicant has considered selling the property to adjacent property owner's or organizations such as Forterra that purchase property to preserve habitat. The applicant sent letters to adjacent property owners (Attachment 14) offering to sell the property for $29,000 and also contacted Forterra. No adjacent property owners made an offer on the property and Forterra declined to purchase the property (Attachment 15). Based on the facts understood by staff to -date and given the apparent inability to sell the property to neighbors or conservation groups and the fact that the entire property is encumbered with either critical areas or critical area buffers, staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated that a strict application of the critical area regulations would likely deny all reasonable economic use of the property. 2. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2. b -No other reasonable economic use: As noted above, the City asked the applicant to demonstrate that there was no other reasonable economic use for the subject property. No neighbors have demonstrated interest in purchasing the property for use as an expanded yard and/or for construction of an accessory structure. As a stand-alone parcel, there does not appear to be other reasonable economic uses of the property, consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 7 of 17 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a plan, which has less impact on the critical area than a single-family residence would have. Due to its size, location, and setting, the options for reasonable economic use of the subject property are limited. The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6) and is surrounded by developed lots and single-family homes (Attachment 25). The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Single-family Urban 1. Permitted primary uses for single-family zoned property are listed in ECDC 16.20.010 and include single-family dwelling units, churches, primary schools, local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, and neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan. The construction of a church or primary school on the subject property is clearly not feasible. Public facilities, neighborhood parks, and natural open spaces are also not feasible since the property is privately owned and small for such uses. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds the applicant has demonstrated that no other reasonable economic use consistent with the underlying zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan would have less impact on the critical area. 3. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2. c -Minimum necessary: In the City's November 13, 2015 letter (Attachment 9), the City also asked a number of questions to demonstrate that the proposal is the minimum necessary to all for reasonable economic use of the property. In response to the City's questions the applicant modified the plan. Overall the house will provide less than 800 square feet of livable area in three stories within the maximum height allowed by the RS-6 zone. The proposed footprint of the residence is 336 square feet and the area of the driveway for the residence is 440 square feet. Additionally, the home site is located as close to Daley Street as possible and still maintain a driveway to provide two off-street parking spaces as required by ECDC 16.20.030. The proposed home design is narrow to maximize the buffer area between the home and Shell Creek. The location of the home is designed to minimize disturbance of the slope in order to maintain slope stability. A minimal house setback will be maintained around the house with a cedar fence to clearly delineate the native growth area. The house setback will also be planted with native planting that will allow maintenance of the home exterior while still providing some benefits to the overall buffer area. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed single family residence is the minimum necessary to all for reasonable economic use of the property. 4. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2. d -Actions by applicant: The subject lots were created in 1890 as part of the original plat of the City of Edmonds. The subject property has existed in its current configuration since at least 1984 (Attachment 19) and has not been in common ownership with an adjacent property since the City of Edmonds first adopted critical area regulations in 1992. Neither the applicant nor previous owners have performed any actions or activates that have resulted in the current state of the property. The inability to derive reasonable use is wholly attributable to the critical areas ordinance, which encumbers PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 8 of 17 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a the entirety of the subject property with the combination of the 100-foot stream buffer applied to Shell Creek and the steep slopes. Staff considered whether the applicant's action of purchasing the property after 1992 (the effective date of the critical areas ordinance) should be considered a disqualifying "action by the applicant," for the purposes of this variance analysis. While one can theorize such an argument, staff is not currently aware of anything in the legislative history that would have so greatly narrowed the ability to qualify for a reasonable use variance. The critical areas ordinance was initially adopted twenty- four years ago. Many properties have changed hands over that twenty-four year period. Hence, it is likely that such an interpretation of this criterion would automatically exclude a large number of the otherwise potentially qualifying properties. Staff is reluctant to read this criterion so restrictively without a more clear statement of legislative intent. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is met. 5. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.e -No unreasonable threat to public: Any request for a critical area variance poses some threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, by the mere fact that it is seeking permission to develop where one is ordinarily not permitted to develop. If there was not some threat, such areas would not be considered critical areas. Hence, this criterion should be interpreted as whether a proposal poses a reasonable threat or an unreasonable threat. Examples of unreasonable threats would be the complete removal of buffer vegetation, discharging runoff directly to the stream, armoring the stream edge, or the construction of a much larger structure, among other things. Although the stream buffer will be impacted by the proposed project and some buffer vegetation will be removed, the majority of the on -site buffer will remain intact. The remaining vegetation will continue to provide shading for the stream, woody debris recruitment for in -stream habitat, and habitat for terrestrial species, among other functions. A mitigation plan is being proposed to enhance the on -site buffer as compensation for buffer impacts. The mitigation plan will include the removal of invasive vegetation and the installation of native trees and shrubs. A split -rail fence will be constructed around the perimeter of the 8-foot setback in order to prevent encroachment into the stream buffer. Furthermore, native ground cover and/ or low -growing native shrubs will be installed within the 8-foot setback in order to provide some additional habitat. Leaving the majority of the stream buffer intact, along with providing buffer enhancement, will maintain the functions of the buffer. Additionally, the geotechnical reports submitted in support of the application verifies the proposed development will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions (Attachments 6, 7, 8 and 21). The proposal will also be required to comply with applicable stormwater requirements which are intended to protect private and public property from flooding or erosion due to development activity (ECDC 18.30.000). Compliance with all pertinent City regulations would be reviewed with a building permit application. PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 9 of 17 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. 6. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.f -Minimize net loss of critical area functions and values: As noted above the applicant has taken measures to reduce the size of the proposed structure and its orientation to minimize impacts to the critical areas. Outside of the building and driveway footprints, the stream buffer will remain intact. The stream itself will not be altered in any way by the proposed project. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a mitigation plan consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.130 (Attachment 20). The buffer mitigation has been developed to compensate for the stream buffer impacts. The mitigation plan was developed in accordance with Best Available Science and utilized guidance documents prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The proposed mitigation plan was prepared by a qualified professional and the report opinions and analysis qualify as Best Available Science as defined in ECDC 23.40.310. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the proposal would minimize net loss of ecological functions and values and is consistent with Best Available Science. 7. ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.9 -Consistency with other regulations: Apart from the critical area regulations, the proposal appears to be consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. The applicant must show full compliance with all applicable regulations and standards that are not part of the subject variance request at the time of building permit application review. Based on the above review and the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2. B. Compliance with Specific Variance Criteria of ECDC 23.40.210.B: 1. ECDC 23.40.210.B.1 -Special conditions/circumstances: Shell Creek, an anadromous fish bearing stream, cuts across the northeast corner of the subject property. Pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.D.1.b, Type F anadromous fish bearing streams adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access require a 100-foot buffer. The 100-foot buffer on Shell Creek encompasses the entire property. Even with the flexibility of reduced stream buffers and/or stream buffer averaging provided for in ECDC 23.90.040.D.2 and D.3, only the southwest corner of the property would be located outside of a reduced stream buffer. The southwest corner of the property is the steepest portion of the site with slopes of approximately 40 percent, which qualify as a potential landslide hazard area pursuant to Chapter 23.80 ECDC. No development on this site could occur outside of a critical area or critical area buffer. Shell Creek runs from Yost Park to Puget Sound along the northern edge of the bowl area. The majority of the parcels along Shell Creek were developed prior to the City's adoption of critical area regulations in 1992. The subject property is further constrained by the steep slopes that are not present for the entire reach of Shell Creek. PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 10 of 17 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that special circumstances exist that are peculiar to this specific property. 2. ECDC 23.40.210.B.2 -Special circumstances not result of applicant actions: The existing critical areas located on the site are naturally occurring and are not the result of any actions taken by the current or prior property owners. The use limitations of the property are all directly attributable to the on -site critical areas and not to any actions by the applicant. The subject property was created via the City of Edmonds plat in 1890, long before the protection of critical areas were considered during development. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the special circumstances related to the critical areas and development limitations are not the result of actions of the applicant. Staff is mindful, of course, that this provision is closely connected to ECDC 23.40.210.A.2.d and that they would likely be decided similarly. 3. ECDC 23.40.210.B.3 - Deny all reasonable economic use and minimum necessary: Refer to the analysis in Sections VIII.A.1 — VIII.A.3 above. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the proposed action is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the subject property. 4. ECDC 23.40.210.B.4 -Not a special privilege: The requested variance is to construct a small single-family residence on a property entirely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers, which is consistent with surrounding land uses. While the City's critical area regulations provide prohibitions against development within a critical area or critical area buffer, the critical area regulations also contain a process by which a variance from the standard regulations may be sought if strict application of the critical area regulations denies all reasonable economic use of a property. If the applicant can demonstrate that they meet the specific variance criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 and ECDC 23.40.210.13, the granting of the variance is not considered a special privilege. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the critical area variance criteria detailed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 and ECDC 23.40.210.B. While each site is unique, other properties completely encumbered by critical areas or critical area buffers would be subject to the same criteria. Granting of this variance would allow the applicant to construct a very small single-family residence as has been allowed on adjacent properties. Under the current code, other properties encumbered by critical areas that could demonstrate compliance with the criteria detailed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2 and ECDC 23.40.210.13 may also be developed in this extremely limited way to achieve a reasonable economic use. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the granting of this specific variance would not confer any special privilege that is denied to other lands under similar circumstances. 5. ECDC 23.40.210.B.5 -Consistent with this title and not detrimental: The proposed development project will have no negative impacts on the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to property or improvements near the subject PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 11 of 17 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a property. The proposed single-family home and associated driveway are small and do not encroach onto any neighboring parcels or public areas. The proposed project is in accord with the surrounding neighborhood and is much smaller than the surrounding single-family homes. Although the project will result in unavoidable impacts to the buffer of Shell Creek, the proposed mitigation plan will compensate for these impacts and will maintain the functions and values of the buffer. Granting the variance is consistent with the general intent of Title 23 ECDC. ECDC 23.40.000 provides among other things: • The purpose of this title is to designate and classes ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing far reasonable use of private property. This title is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site -specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this title to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing development. The applicant has demonstrated the proposal is the minimum necessary to provide for a reasonable economic use of the site and mitigation will be implemented to ensure the development will not further degrade the functions or values of the critical area. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the purposes and intent of the critical area regulations and will not be detrimental to the general public welfare. 6. ECDC 23.40.210.B.6 -Based on best available science and special consideration for anadromous fish: The applicant has applied the mitigation sequencing described ECDC 23.40.120 and provided a justification of the proposed mitigation plan based on Best Available Science. While Shell Creek is an anadromous fish bearing stream, no work is proposed within the ordinary high water mark of the stream. Special considerations for anadromous fish are detailed in ECDC 23.90.040.B. The provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.B largely relate to in -stream work. While no in -stream work is proposed, the Critical Area Report and Mitigation Plan in Attachment 20 specifically addresses the criteria in ECDC 23.90.040.B. Both the proposed development and the mitigation plan have been designed to maintain the functions and values of the stream buffer. The proposed mitigation plan was prepared by a qualified professional and the report opinions and analysis qualify as best available science as defined in ECDC 23.40.310. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, staff finds that the critical area reports submitted in support of the application are based on best available science and the special consideration for anadromous fish consistent with ECDC 23.90.030.B has been met. Based on the facts understood by staff to -date, and based on the above review, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the specific variance criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.B for a critical areas reasonable use variance. PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 12 of 17 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a C. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.40 — Environmental Critical Areas General Provisions In addition to the analysis of the applicable critical areas reasonable use variance review criteria of ECDC 23.40.210 provided in Sections VIII.A. and VIII.B above, the following general critical areas regulations are also applicable to the subject proposal. ECDC 23.40.110 and 23.40.120 — Mitigation requirements and sequencing: The Critical Area Report and Mitigation Plan (Attachment 20) provides a detailed analysis of the mitigation sequencing conducted for the proposal. As discussed above, development of the subject site is significantly impacted by the presence of critical areas and associated buffers throughout the entirety of the site and development outside the existing critical areas and buffers is not possible. However, the proposed mitigation plan will maintain the functions and values of the impacted critical areas and buffers. 2. ECDC 23.40.160 — Review criteria: The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the mitigation requirements and sequencing discussed above. Additionally, the Critical Area Report and Mitigation Plan (Attachments 20) provides for mitigation of the impacted stream buffer. The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with all applicable critical areas requirements. 3. ECDC 23.40.250 — Critical areas markers and signs: This provision allows the director to require the outer edge of a critical area or buffer be delineated with wood fencing and signage. The proposal indicates a split rail fence will be located eight feet from the proposed residence to delineate the setback area from the buffer (Attachment 20). Should the Hearing Examiner approve the critical area variance, a condition of approval should be added requiring signs on this fence the boundary of the critical area buffer consistent with ECDC 23.90.030.17 This will help to ensure protection of the critical areas in the future, particularly if ownership of the subject site changes. 4. ECDC 23.40.280 — Building setbacks: This provision requires that buildings and other structures be set back 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. As previously noted, the entire property is encumbered by critical area buffers. The requested variance would allow development within the proscribed critical area buffer. Although the proposed structure would be located within the buffer of Shell Creek, the applicant has proposed an eight foot setback around the structure which will be delineated with a split rail fence. The setback area will be planted with native vegetation in order to provide some additional habitat (Attachment 20). 5. ECDC 23.40.290 — Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring: Should the Hearing Examiner approve the critical area variance, a condition of approval should be added requiring the applicant to post a bond at the time of final building permit inspection in order to ensure maintenance and monitoring of the required mitigation plantings. The Critical Area Report and Mitigation Plan (Attachment 20) provides for a five-year monitoring program. A separate proposed condition is to require yearly monitoring reports to the City of Edmonds in order to ensure successful completion of the proposed mitigation. PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 13 of 17 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.a D. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.80 — Geologically Hazardous Areas ECDC 23.80.050 — Special study and report requirements — Geologically hazardous areas: Geotechnical reports consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80.050 were submitted in support of the application (Attachment 6, 7, 8 and 21). These reports addressed the specific findings required by ECDC 23.80.060 and ECDC 23.80.070. E. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.90 — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 1. ECDC 23.90.030 — Development standards — General requirements: The on -site stream is a Type F anadromous fish bearing stream. Type F anadromous fish bearing streams require 100-foot buffers, which as has been noted encumbers the entire property. The Critical Area Report and Mitigation Plan (Attachment 20) specifies that wildlife habitat functions would be maintained by the proposed mitigation measures. The applicant is also proposing fencing along the eight foot setback area, which will help to delineate areas of habitat conservation. 2. ECDC 23.90.040.D — Development standards — Streams: Staff has determined the on - site stream to be a Type F anadromous fish bearing stream (See Section IV of this report). ECDC 23.90.040.D.1 establishes a standard buffer width of 100 feet for Type F streams. As noted, the buffer covers the entire property and is the reason for the proposed critical area variance. IX. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 as well as the Building and Engineering Divisions. The reviewers from Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 and Building Division commented that the proposal would not affect their departments (Attachments 31 and 32). The Engineering Division submitted initial comments on the proposal (Attachment 33) noting the presence of a City of Edmonds easement (Exhibit 35), driveway slope requirements, and stormwater requirements. Upon resubmittal, the Engineering Division noted the information provided is consistent with Title 18 ECDC and the City of Edmonds Engineering Standards (Attachment 34). The Engineering Division provided conditions of approval which have been added to staff s recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. X. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS ECDC 20.03 provides the City's regulations for public notice of land use applications A Notice of Application and site plan was posted at the subject site as well as at the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on November 16, 2015. This notice and site plan was also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the subject site using a mailing list provided by the applicant on November 17, 2015 and a legal notice was published in the Herald Newspaper on November 18, 2015 (Attachment 37). A Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination and updated site plan was posted at the subject site as well as the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on March 3, 2016. This notice and site plan was also mailed to residents within 300 feet of the subject site using a mailing list provided by the applicant on PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 14 of 17 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.a and a legal notice was published in the Herald Newspaper on March 3, 2016 (Attachment 38). As of the writing of this staff report, the City of Edmonds has received one public comment on the proposal from Lynnette and Rory Callahan (Attachment 39). The Callahan's are opposed to the application noting the presence of the critical areas and importance of preserving critical areas. Staff Response: The City of Edmonds critical area regulations were developed to protect critical area functions and values. The purpose section of the critical area regulations also notes that is not the intent of the critical area regulations to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property. In order to address situations where the strict applications of the critical area regulations would deny reasonable economic use of a property, the critical area regulations allow for a reasonable economic use variance. If an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria detailed in ECDC 23.40.210, then development on properties completely encumbered by critical areas or critical area buffers may be authorized. XI. CONCLUSIONS A. The underlying zoning is RS-6, which lists single-family dwellings as a permitted primary use. B. The proposed single family residential development is consistent with the "Single Family Urban" Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. C. The subject property has special circumstances and considerable development limitations including slopes and a stream. D. Staff finds that that proposal is consistent with the standards to grant a critical area variance listed in ECDC 23.40.210.A.2. E. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the specific variance criteria listed in ECDC 23.40.210.B. XIL RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis within and attachments to this report, staff recommends ADDroval of the requested critical area reasonable use variance under File No. PLN20150052 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is responsible for seeking and obtaining all other required local, state and federal permits. 2. The mitigation measures detailed in the Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. revised on January 7, 2016 contained in Attachment 20 of this staff report must be implemented prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupation for the residence constructed consistent with this approval. 3. Signs shall be installed on the fence delineating the setback area from the critical area buffer. The signs shall be consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.90.030.F.2.a. 4. At time of building permit application, the applicant shall provide an updated estimate for the cost of plant materials, labor, monitoring, and maintenance. This shall be used as the PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 15 of 17 Packet Pg. 17 2.A.a basis for a maintenance bond which will be 15% of the estimate. The maintenance bond must be secured prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupation. 5. A monitoring report must be submitted to the City of Edmonds for each of the five year monitoring periods. The monitoring report shall document milestones, success, problems, and contingency actions required to ensure success of the mitigation. 6. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. 7. The City of Edmonds has two easements that encumber the subject property. One is for the construction, maintenance and repair of said stream channel and the other is a utility easement for installation, operation and maintenance of a fish ladder and diversion structure. Please refer to recording documents #8207160100 and #9003150306, respectively. Easement areas shall also be shown on any future building permit applications. XIII. EXPIRATION ECDC 20.85.020 describes the time limits for variance approval. An approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). Any person wishing to file an extension should contact the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 for further procedural information. XIV. APPEALS Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.004, a party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type III-13 decision to the Development Services Director within 14 days after the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal shall be made in writing and shall include all required information stated in ECDC 20.07.004(D) as well as the applicable fee. The appeal would be heard at a closed record hearing before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.07. XV. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Lynnette and Rory Callahan 739 Sprague Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Kent Dietz 8006 S Lake Stevens Road Lake Stevens, WA 98258 PLN20150052 — Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 16 of 17 Packet Pg. 18 2.A.a XVI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Cover Letter 3. Initial Site Plans 4. Initial House Plans 5. Initial Critical Areas Study and mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources dated August 10, 2015 6. Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Dennis Bruce dated July 28, 2006 7. Geotechnical Update Report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 25, 2013 8. Updated Geotechnical Report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 21, 2015 9. November 13, 2015 Letter of Completeness and Request for Additional Information 10. Applicant January 25, 2016 Response Letter to the Request for Additional Information 11. Policy of Title Insurance 12. Statutory Warranty Deed recorded under AFN 2015032706600 13. Buyer's Statement 14. Copies of Letters to neighbors offering the property for sale 15. Email correspondence between Mr. Dietz and Anita Hardy 16. Email correspondence between Mr. Dietz and Forterra 17. Proposed Site Plan 18. Proposed House Plans 19. Statutory Warranty Deed recorded under AFN 8412280183 20. Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. revised January 7, 2016 21. Geotechnical Report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated December 4, 2015 22. Revised SEPA Checklist 23. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 24. Zoning and Vicinity Map 25. Aerial Photo of Vicinity 26. Critical Area Determination issued under CRA20050162 27. Critical Area Reconnaissance prepared by Landau Associates dated August 2, 2005 28. Shell Creek Fish Presence Map 29. Photos of salmon in Shell Creek 30. Shell Creek Diversion Structure Information 31. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comments 32. Building Division Comments 33. Engineering Division November 13, 2015 Comments 34. Engineering Division March 17, 2016 Memo of Compliance and Recommended Conditions 35. Easement recorded under AFN 8207160100 36. Easement recorded under AFN 9003150306 37. Notice of Application Public Notice Documentation 38. Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination Public Notice Documentation 39. Lynnette and Rory Callahan November 29, 2015 Comment Letter PLN20150052 - Dietz Critical Area Reasonable Use Page 17 of 17 Packet Pg. 19 2.A.a m c �L U) 0 N� L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 20 0 X CD C4 N City of Edmonds Land Use Application ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT p _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # -ZONE 4S — 6 ,f HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY C (n S FORMAL SUBDIVISION SHORT SUBDIVISION PEES RECEIPT # LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ..O HEARING DATE g PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT r E STAFF PB ADB CC STREET VACATION REZONE RECEIVED eVSHORELENEPEARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION OCT vc 2015 OTHER: M T S • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE PEPL�I�f1W O1v7S'1Il;MLIC RECORD 0 PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION -7y ; �� PROJECT NAME (IF APPPLICABLE) I i PROPERTYOWNER 7�cini- rZ PHONE# 377 E. 1 ADDRESS _eO O 1� S L.,6- S y ?. IeIce 5 �►,� ,`�� a s �� E-MAIL IC ev,-� d , ,e+7. C6 O,+ c C, _ r a ,ti, FAx # TAx ACCOUNT # 0 — y 34, a,3y o i o - ©c; SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT �eAe l T !J E f Z PHONE #'4 Z3 3-77 &C SA ADDRESS 700L St Lc; S+C.Je^.N 2-A ei LAq I` E-MAIL ve �i C r Z LJ O � � Z c: k, CA!nJ FAx # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT CLe r" Cu� V PHONE # ADDRESS I E-MAIL FAx # _ The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applicati n the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE 161161 ZO 157 Property Owner's Authorization I, k(:h � 3� , J Z , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose inspection and posting attendant to this application. Nj SIGNATURE OF OWER DATE—) l_ a I l A, , / 5�- or Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application. doc Page I of I Attachment: PLN20150052 Staff Report with Attachments (1088 : PLN20150052 Dietz Critical Area 2.A.a October 12, 2015 RECEIVED Planning Department OCT 16 2015 City of Edmonds 1215th Avenue North, 2"d Floor DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Variance Application, 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington City of Edmonds Planning Department: This statement has been prepared to support a variance request related to the development of a single family home at 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington. The specific request is to allow a reduction in the buffer width through use of Reasonable Economic Use variance. The project site is approximately 10,450 square feet of undeveloped land and is zoned single- family urban development on minimum of 6,000 square feet lots (RS-6). The site is located in the riparian buffer of Shell Creek. Shell Creek is designated as an anadromous fish -bearing stream, which according to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040 requires a buffer width of 100 feet. The proposed project would construct a single-family home on the western slope of the property. The home will be two story, on an 18 by 36 feet foundation, providing approximately 1300 square feet of living space. Access to the property must come from Daley Street. A parking area and driveway will be built north of the home, providing access to Daley Street. Two gabion walls will be constructed to stabilize the slope on either side of the driveway. A causeway from the driveway to the top of the existing culvert/fish ladder structure is also included in the proposal. The attached document, Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan for Dietz — Daley Street, Wetland Resources, Inc (2015), provides a detailed description of the project site and best -practices buffer enhancement measures that will be deployed. Variance criteria defined by ECDC20.85.210: Variances and ECDC23.40.210.2: Variances are addressed in that document under the heading Variance Criteria (pp. 5-8). Thank you for the opportunity to apply for this variance. Please contact me if any additional information or clarification of this application is required. Sin rely, 0 1164 Kent Dietz Attachml Packet Pg. 22 S .- Lc RC4-,. vt 2.A.a .> v y� 7 rp LLJ LIJ 4 U $ CV CO co Cn 1 3 I 11 I N Z F O O � II Z VI O � N - 3 U R a U }+ 3 o gg! 0 0 1 o ja I� sj I I i 1 I f I 1 r— Attachmj Packet Pg. 23 Ep 2.A.a STREET - - - - - ___ ■A+�%OIZI Vito L _ 1 =� BOARI?. FENCE K+ X X 1(— DEVELOPMEN UTILMES j BRIDGE TO TOP SERVICES .re TO CONNECT `\ ? OF CULVERT 90_96 '"0 5 uz_ TO`'5TREET- HOOK UP `. ` 1 � ' i � . I ,1 fSTO DRAIN ANp i� } �\ NB9�E — SANITA SELLERit I.A 48FI '� I 116r 1� � :,{• I �`�� WATE1Z-TO Pr', •� },' `DRIVEWAY 4 ' ' ION WALL g -1I SF OF ', �$LO TOMATCi-1 I 1L\ MR" IANENT 1:BotW 'SID 17RIvr=pA- , I ! \\ t OF BUFFER AS R.E RED I ` �\ YER.4raE EXISTp DE5 POWER CONNECTION ` 5. `, I 1 T HLDCC f'EF21i IE R At SIDE OF BLDCx i CCi I% 0, 15 AT 110B FT �'•� ',25I ALLOWABLE m AB\v AVERAeE EX11,9T CsRA t r 8 k C'+ sL P%QPOSED sA +` 1 `L PUFFER : `• I \. . �, `. PIA FT BONDARY FRS\EDGE OF CREEK , +5I +5 `\50 DARY 1 I + ',, + R6m E CREEK FND REBAR & CAPI L5.16109 N0.o0, W009 ' I H I / FND REBAR & CAP L Sa16916 .yy1111RF , 11 "i'i ai N0.01, W0.03 I W) 1 \\ SITE ADDRESS ryV 1 142 DALE`I' ST, EDMONDS WA &ITE FL AN V=20' m 10 20 JULY 22, 201D AMERICAN HOME PLANNERS 2812 COLBY AVENUE, EVERETT WA 98201 (425) 258-6400 Packet Pg. 24 2.A.a 1 Attachml Packet Pg. 25 AN -1 I Packet Pg. 26 9 z7:11, Packet Pg. 27 2.A.a WetlalidWwneg., Ac. r Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 CRITICAL AREAS STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR Dietz -- Daley Street Wetland Resources, Inc. Project # 15101 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 For: Kent Dietz 8006 S. Lake Stevens Road Lake Stevens, WA 98258 August 10, 2015 RECEIVED OCT 15 2015 DEVELOPMENT SERV)Mg Attachmj Packet Pg. 28 2.A.a TABLE OF CONTENTS PROPERTY LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION METHODOLOGY Vegetation Criteria Soils Criteria Hydrology Criteria BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS/RESULTS Shell Creek UPLAND/STEEP SLOPE AREAS FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES VARIANCE CRITERIA MITIGATION SEQUENCING BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT GOALS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Planting Notes Monitoring Conlin nc Maintenance COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL GUARANTEE USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP APPENDIX C: SITE PLAN AND MITIGATION MAP APPENDIX D: ENHANCEMENT AREAS PLANT LIST 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 8 9 12 12 13 16 16 16 16 17 18 Packet Pg. 29 2.A.a PROPERTY LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) performed a site investigation on May 18, 2015 to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in proximity to Snohomish County parcel number 00434208401000. The subject property is located at 742 Daley Street in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) locator for the subject property is Section 24, Township 27N, Range 03E, W.M. The study site is situated within the Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. The 0.24-acre subject property is situated in an urban/residential setting approximately one-half mile northeast of downtown Edmonds. It is an undeveloped parcel that contains dense forest and scrub -shrub vegetation. Species observed during the site inspection include, but are not limited to, big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus mbra), Doug fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), vine maple (Acer circinatum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), thimbleberry (Rubus pa7vyi1orw), salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), lady fern (Athyrium fzlix femina), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia). Several invasive/non- native species are also present, including Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus), English ivy (Hedera helix), and Japanese yellow rose (Kerriayjxaponica). The subject property is bordered on the east, west, and south by developed parcels/single-family homes and on the north by Daley Street. The topography of the site is characterized by steep slopes on the western portion of the site and a relatively flat area in the northeast portion. PROJECT DESCRIPTION One stream (Shell Creek) and a landslide hazard area were identified during the May 18 site investigation. Shell Creek is a fish -bearing stream that contains anadromous species. As such, it requires a 100-foot protective buffer per section 23.90.040(D)(1) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The property owner/project applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home and driveway on the subject property. The subject property is completely encumbered by the Shell Creek buffer, making it impossible to avoid buffer impacts and meet the standard mitigation requirements. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the standard requirements contained in Title 23 of the ECDC in order to complete the project. Mitigation for unavoidable buffer impacts will be provided. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION Prior to conducting the site investigation, public resource information was reviewed to gather information on the subject property and the surrounding area in regards to wetlands, streams, and other critical areas. The following information was examined: • United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) does not illustrate any wetland areas on or near the subject property. • USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service RCS Web Soil Sur ve .: The Web Soil Survey indicates that the subject property is underlain by Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. Although this soil is not considered hydric per the NRCS, it does contain small hydric soil inclusions. ■ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDOSalmonSca a Interactive Mapping System: The SalmonScape interactive map illustrates Shell Creek flowing Wetland Resources, Inc. I Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project #15101 Packet Pg. 30 2.A.a through the subject property. SalmonScape indicates that Coho salmon utilize Shell Creek. • WDFW Priori!y Habitat and Species HS Interactive Map- The PHS Interactive Map illustrates Shell Creek flowing through the subject property. The PHS data indicates that both Coho salmon and resident coastal cutthroat utilize Shell Creek. Snohomish County SnoScape Interactive Map: The SnoScape Interactive Map shows Shell Creek on the subject property and indicates that it is a Type F stream. The SnoScape Map also illustrates steep slopes (i.e. >33%) on the western portion of the subject property. METHODOLOGY Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine determination approach described in the CQIps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the CoIl2s of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountians Valle s and Coast Re ion Mrsion 2.0(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Under the routine methodology, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three steps: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percent cover); 2.) Examination of the site for hydric soils; 3.) Determining the presence of wetland hydrology The following criteria must be met in order to make a positive wetland determination: Ve etation Criteria The Corps Manual and 2010 Regional Supplement define hydrophytic vegetation as "the assemblage of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence." Field indicators are used to determine whether the hydrophytic vegetation criteria have been met. Examples of these indicators include, but are not limited to, the rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation, a dominance test result of greater than 50%, and/or a prevalence index score less than or equal to 3.0. Soils Criteria The 2010 Regional Supplement (per the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils) defines hydric soils as soils "that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Field indicators are used to determine whether a given soil meets the definition for hydric soils. Indicators are numerous and include, but are not limited to, presence of a histosol or histic epipedon, a sandy gleyed matrix, depleted matrix, and redoximorphic depressions. H drolo Criteria Wetland hydrology encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of Wetland Resources, Inc. 2 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15101 Packet Pg. 31 2.A.a water has an overriding influence on the characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and chemically reducing conditions, respectively. The strongest indicators include the presence of surface water, a high water table, and/or soil saturation within at least 12 inches of the soil surface. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS/RESULTS One stream — Shell Creek — was identified on the subject property during the May 18 site investigation. No wetlands were observed. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream was identified using the methodology described in the Washington State Department of Ecology document Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washin ton State Second Review Draft (Olson and Stockdale 2010). The stream was classified according to the water typing criteria contained in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), section 222- 16-030. This is consistent with ECDC section 23.90.010. The stream was further classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) document Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979), also known as the Cowardin Classification System. Shell Creek Shell Creek originates slightly over one mile southeast of the subject property, just outside the border of Yost Park. It flows in a northwesterly direction until it reaches Aloha Street, at which point it turns slightly and flows almost directly north to Puget Sound. Shell Creek bisects the northeastern corner of the subject property, flowing through a heavily shaded stream channel that is armored on both banks with rip -rap (the northernmost, on -site portion of the stream is not armored, however). The adjacent, off -site portion of the channel (to the southeast) is also armored, yet shading is minimal. At the north end of the subject property, Shell Creek flows through a large box culvert and continues off -site to the northeast. A fish ladder is located within the box culvert. The stream substrate is comprised primarily of cobble, gravel, and small boulders, but sand and silt are also present. The stream channel is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide and approximately two feet deep. The depth of water during the May 18 site investigation ranged from 4 inches to approximately 11 inches. Several small riffle areas were observed within the stream, as well as one or two small drops. The adjacent streamside/buffer vegetation is comprised of native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species, though some non-native/invasive vegetation is present as well (e.g. English ivy). The dominant plant species immediately adjacent to the stream include western red cedar, red alder, vine maple, salmonberry, sword fern, and giant horsetail. The remainder of the stream buffer (which comprises the entire property) also contains these species, as well as big leaf maple, Doug fir, cherry (Prunus sp.), beaked hazelnut, thimbleberry, lady fern, Himalayan blackberry, and Japanese yellow rose. The Japanese yellow rose shrubs are primarily concentrated in the southern/southeastern portion of the property. Shell Creek meets the criteria for a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. It contains anadromous species and, as such, requires a 100-foot buffer (ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1)). Under the Cowardin classification system, Shell Creek is a Riverine — upper perennial — unconsolidated bottom — cobble/gravel system (R3UB1). In addition, Shell Creek meets the criteria for a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) per ECDC 23.90.010. Type F streams as Wetland Resources, Inc. 3 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 32 2.A.a well as areas associated with state priority species are considered FWHCA's. Coho salmon and resident coastal cutthroat are priority species per WDFW. UPLAND/STEEP SLOPE AREAS The western portion of the subject property is comprised of dense forested vegetation and steep slope areas. The steep slopes constitute a landslide hazard area, which are regulated under chapter 23.80 of the ECDC. Previous geotechnical evaluations of the subject property (as well as the current study) have deemed the on -site landslide hazard areas safe for development/construction. One data point was recorded on the steep slope on the western portion of the subject property. Soils in that vicinity consisted of black (IOYR 2/1) sandy loam to a depth of 8 inches and dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam between 8 and 20 inches in depth. These characteristics are indicative of non-hydric soils. Indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed in this area. The vegetation at this data point is dominated by big -leaf maple, western red cedar, red alder, thimbleberry, Himalayan blackberry, sword fern, and herb Robert (Geranium robertianum). The vegetation is indicative of an upland/non-wetland area. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the on -site stream system, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout western Washington. Streams and their associated buffers in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions including the movement of water and sediment, flood flow alteration, recharge of groundwater, treatment of pollutants, dynamic stability, and habitat diversity. The functional assessment for Shell Creek and its buffer is provided below. The on -site stream serves to collect stormwater from the surrounding areas and convey it to downstream systems. The dense forest and scrub -shrub vegetation aids in flood flow alteration by slowing the velocity of overland flow/runoff. However, this function is hampered by the steep topography of the site and the armored stream channel (lack of overbank flooding). The presence and condition of the buffer vegetation also aids in erosion control and, to a limited extent, with sediment removal. Plant species richness is provided by the stream buffer; the majority of the buffer is comprised of dense native vegetation with scattered areas of invasive/non-native species. Habitat for birds and small mammals is also provided by the buffer. Shell Creek provides limited to moderate fish habitat. The stream channel is well shaded, which aids in temperature regulation, and it provides a direct connection to Puget Sound. However, in - stream habit (e.g. large woody debris, backwater channels, riffles and pools, etc.) is somewhat limited. Despite the setbacks, Shell Creek is still utilized by anadromous species. Along with the preceding functions and values, stream buffers often provide additional functions in western Washington such as physical protection of the stream and aesthetic value. Wetland Resources, Inc. 4 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15101 Packet Pg. 33 2.A.a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home and driveway on the subject property. The house will be located approximately 33 feet south of the north property line and 45 feet north of the southern property line. The northwestern corner of the house will be setback five feet from the western property line (the structure will be constructed at an angle to the western property line; the southwestern corner will sit 15.5 feet from the property line). The driveway will measure approximately 33 feet long and approximately 14.75 feet in width at its widest point, for a total area of 421 square feet (SF). Two gabion walls will also be constructed, one on each side of the driveway, and will match the existing slopes. The walls total 48 SF in area. The house will measure 36 feet by 18 feet for a total area of 648 SF. In addition to these structures, a footbridge will be constructed on the east side of the driveway and will extend eastward to the top of the box culvert. The previous property owners had constructed a gazebo/trellis structure on top of the box culvert. This structure has since been removed. The top of the box culvert is flat and is meant to be utilized by the owner of the property per the City of Edmonds Architecture Design Board Q. McConnell, personal communication, May 19, 2014). Since the subject property is completely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers, permanent impacts are unavoidable. The Shell Creek buffer covers the entire subject property and the landslide hazard area covers almost the entire western portion of the subject property. These encumbrances leave absolutely no room for development that doesn't result in critical area or buffer impacts. Therefore, in order to complete the project, the applicant is requesting a variance from the standard critical area regulations contained in Title 23 of the ECDC. VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 23.40.210(A)(2) of the ECDC lists the specific variance criteria for development proposals not involving a public agency or public utility. A variance from the standards of Title 23 may be authorized only if a project applicant demonstrates that the application of the title would deny all reasonable economic use of a subject property. "Reasonable Economic Use" is defined in ECDC 23.40.320 as "the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state andfederal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process." Section 23.40.210(A)(2) of the ECDC states that the applicant must demonstrate the following (project - specific responses follow each item: a) The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel Enforcing the critical areas regulations contained in Title 23 of the ECDC would result in a parcel that is completely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers. Utilizing the stream buffer width reduction allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(2) still would not allow for enough room for development of the site without impacting a portion of the Shell Creek buffer and landslide hazard area. In addition, the stream buffer width averaging allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3) is not applicable to this project since there is no room on the subject property to replace averaged buffer areas. Complete avoidance of critical area and/or buffer impacts is not possible unless all reasonable uses of the subject property are completely denied. Not allowing development of the property would result in an economic hardship for the project applicant. Wetland Resources, Inc. 5 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 34 2.A.a b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area Due to its size, location, and setting, the options for reasonable economic use of the subject property are limited. The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6) and is surrounded by developed lots and single-family homes. It is located in a residential/urban community. Per section 16.20.010 of the ECDC, permitted primary uses within the RS zone include single-family dwelling units, churches, primary schools, local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, and neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan. The construction of a church or primary school on the subject property is clearly not feasible and is not consistent with the applicant's goals for the property. Public facilities, neighborhood parks, and natural open spaces are also not feasible since the property is privately owned. Permitted secondary uses within the RS zone include the following: foster homes; home occupation; renting of rooms without separate kitchens; accessory buildings (fallout shelters, private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site, private stables, private parking for up to five cars, and private swimming pools/recreational facilities); private residential docks or piers; family day-care; commuter parking lots; bed and breakfasts. These uses are not feasible for the subject property due to its extremely small size and current undeveloped state. With the exception of a small, single-family home, there are no other practical, reasonable uses for the subject property. c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property The proposed single-family residence has been designed to have a very small footprint (648 SF) while still providing a comfortable living space. The proposed home is much smaller than the surrounding single-family residences. It will not contain a garage, deck, or any other basic amenities. Only the home, driveway, gabion walls, and footbridge will be constructed on the subject property. The proposed location of the home is the most reasonable. It is located as far from the stream as possible without the need for a long driveway. Placing the home in the southwest corner of the subject property would provide more room and buffer between it and Shell Creek, yet it would require a much longer driveway, thereby resulting in even greater stream buffer impacts than the current plan. d. The inabiliy of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the propery is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor The applicant has not performed any actions or activities that that have resulted in the current state of the subject property. Shell Creek, the Shell Creek buffer, and the landslide hazard area are all pre-existing features that are well known by both the City of Edmonds and the project applicant. e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public healthy safey, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; The proposed development project will have no impact on the public health, safety, or welfare, Wetland Resources, Inc. 6 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 35 2.A.a either on or off the subject property. The proposed single-family home and associated driveway are small and do not encroach onto any neighboring parcels or public areas. The proposed project is in accord with the surrounding neighborhood and is smaller than the surrounding single-family homes. This is a private property and a private development proposal; it will not involve the public or impact them in any way. f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science The proposed development project has been designed to have a minimum amount of impacts while still meeting the needs of the applicant. Outside of the building and driveway footprints, the stream buffer will remain intact. The stream itself will not be altered in any way by the proposed project. The landslide hazard area has been deemed safe for development by a licensed geotechnical engineer. A buffer mitigation plan has been developed that will compensate for the stream buffer impacts. This mitigation plan was developed in accordance with Best Available Science and utilized guidance documents prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). It is meant to maintain the functions and values of the stream buffer. Furthermore, the methods used to assess the stream and its buffer are consistent with the methods and practices employed by professional ecologists. g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. The proposed project will be in conformance with all applicable City of Edmonds regulations. Specific variance criteria are listed in section 23.40.210(B) of the ECDC. This section of the ECDC states that the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project conforms to the following criteria (project -specific responses follow each item): 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district Special conditions on the subject property include a fish -bearing stream, a 100-foot stream buffer, and a landslide hazard area. These features encumber the entire site. While a few of the other parcels in the vicinity contain streams and/or landslide hazard areas, they were developed prior to the adoption of the City of Edmonds' current critical areas regulations and, therefore, were not required to maintain any protective buffers. 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant The presence of critical areas and buffers on the subject property are not the result of any actions by the project applicant. These features have always been present. 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights. Fully enforcing the regulations contained in Title 23 would result in a parcel that is completely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers. Utilizing the stream buffer width reduction allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(2) still would not allow for enough room for development of the site without impacting a portion of the Shell Creek buffer and landslide Wetland Resources, Inc. 7 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 36 2.A.a hazard area. In addition, the stream buffer width averaging allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3) is not applicable to this project since there is no room on the subject property to replace averaged buffer areas. Not allowing development of the property would result in an economic hardship for the project applicant. All of the surrounding lots in the immediate vicinity are developed. The variance being requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with a reasonable economic use of the property. As previously stated, there are no other practical, reasonable uses for the subject property that would be in conformance with the area's zoning regulations. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances The requested variance would only allow the applicant to construct a single-family home on the subject property, which is consistent with surrounding land uses. It would not grant any privileges to the project applicant that aren't enjoyed by adjacent land owners. 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject properly The proposed development project will have no negative impacts on the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to property or improvements near the subject property. The proposed single- family home and associated driveway are small and do not encroach onto any neighboring parcels or public areas. The proposed project is in accord with the surrounding neighborhood and is smaller than the surrounding single-family homes. Although the project will result in unavoidable impacts to the buffer of Shell Creek, the proposed mitigation plan will compensate for these impacts and will maintain the functions and values of the buffer. Granting the variance is consistent with the general intent of Title 23 of the ECDC. 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. Best available science has been used in the analysis of the on -site conditions, specifically Shell Creek and the adjacent buffer. In addition, the proposed mitigation plan was developed in accordance with Best Available Science; it utilizes guidance documents prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Both the proposed development and the mitigation plan have been designed to maintain the functions and values of the stream buffer while still meeting the project goals. Only the minimum amount of buffer necessary will be altered for the proposed development. Furthermore, the proposed structures are small compared with those located on adjacent, developed parcels. MITIGATION SEQUENCING Section 23.040.120 of the ECDC lists mitigation sequencing requirements for projects that will result in alteration of a critical area. Per the ECDC, alterations to critical areas shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference (project specific responses follow each item): Wetland Resources, Inc. 8 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 37 2.A.a 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Due to the encumbrances on the subject property, complete impact avoidance cannot be achieved. Shell Creek and its buffer encompass the entire subject property, making it impossible to utilize the site without impacting one or both of these areas. 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project re&i relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts. The proposed development has been designed to minimize critical area impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed house and driveway are very small (1,069 SF combined), much smaller than those found on neighboring parcels. The structures will be located on the subject property in such a way as to minimize the overall buffer impacts. 3) Rect�zoing the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. The affected area/ cannot be restored to historical or pre-existing conditions since the impacts will be permanent in nature. The proposed house and driveway will be permanent fixtures on the subject property. 4) Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods. The landslide hazard area has been deemed safe for development by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Standard erosion control best management practices (BMP's) will be employed to avoid and minimize impacts to the on -site steep slopes. 5) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Due to the permanent nature of the impacts, they cannot be reduced or eliminated over time. The remainder of the property and stream buffer, however, will be maintained in its current condition. 6) Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing enhancing or providing substitute resources or environments. A buffer mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for the unavoidable impacts. The mitigation plan is discussed below. 7) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans have been developed concurrently with the mitigation plan. BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT The proposed development project will result in unavoidable buffer impacts. These include the single-family home, driveway, gabion walls, footbridge, and all of the area within the boundary of the proposed split -rail fence. To compensate for these impacts, buffer enhancement will be performed. Approximately 1,617 SF of stream buffer will be enhanced with native trees and Wetland Resources, Inc. 9 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 38 2.A.a shrubs. In addition, a split -rail fence will be installed between the new single-family home and the stream buffer in order to prevent intrusion into and disturbance of the buffer. Section 23.40.280 of the ECDC states that buildings and other structures must maintain a 15-foot setback (BSBL) from the edges of all critical areas and buffers; however, a 10-foot BSBL from the proposed house is being proposed for this project. A larger BSBL would result in the removal of more stream buffer than a smaller setback. The small setback still allows for an open area, or "break," between the proposed house and buffer while keeping more of the buffer intact and unaltered. Per ECDC section 23.40.110(B), mitigation shall be in -kind and on -site, when possible. Since the buffer impacts are occurring on the project site, on -site mitigation makes the most sense. Furthermore, the project site (and the City of Edmonds) is not located within the service area of an approved mitigation bank, and the City of Edmonds does not have an in -lieu fee mitigation option, so on -site mitigation is the only viable option. Although a portion of the on -site stream buffer will be permanently impacted by the proposed project, the proposed mitigation plan and preservation of the remaining stream buffer are expected to maintain stream and buffer functions. The entirety of the subject property outside of the development area/split-rail fence will remain untouched and vegetation will be preserved. The split -rail fence will prevent further intrusion into the buffer by demarcating a clear boundary. While some vegetation will need to be removed in order to construct the proposed project, the proposed buffer enhancement areas will be planted with native trees and shrubs to offset this loss. The remaining buffer vegetation and new trees and shrubs will continue to provide limited flood -flow alteration and erosion control. Plant species richness will be maintained due to the preservation of the remaining stream buffer vegetation and the installation of new vegetation. The proposed project will not impact Shell Creek, so the stream functions shall be preserved. Furthermore, stream shading will remain relatively intact since clearing immediately adjacent to the stream will not occur. Five buffer enhancement areas will be established on the subject property. Three of these areas will receive native trees and shrubs. The remaining two enhancement areas, which will be located along the northern portion of the stream channel, will be planted with willow stakes. These stream bank enhancement areas are not armored and are capable of being planted. The willow stakes are fast growing species and will provide shade for the northern portion of the stream. Prior to planting, invasive/non-native species shall be removed from all enhancement areas. Tables 1 through 5 list the species that will be planted within the buffer enhancement areas. Wetland Resources, Inc. August 10, 2015 10 Dietz — Daley Street WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 39 2.A.a Table 1: Species List for Enhancement Area #1 (984 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Douglas fir* Pseudotsuga menziesii 1gallon_ 8' on -center OC 7 Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 gallon T OC 20 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 gallon T OC 20 Snowberry S horicar os albus 1 allon 3' OC 20 Cascara Fra ula purshiana 1 gallon T OC 20 Sword fern Pol stichum munitum 1 gallon T OC 20 *Doug fir shall only be planted in the northern, open portion of Enhancement Area # 1. Quantity decreased to account for smaller planting area. Table 2: Species List for Enhancement Area #2 (212 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Douglas fir Pseudots a menziesii 1 gallon 8' OC 3 Vine ma le Acer circinatum 1 gallon T OC 4 Thimbleberry Rubus parvifloms 1 gallon T OC 4 Snowber S m horicar os albus 1 gallon T OC 4 Cascara Frangula purshiana 1 gallon T OC 4 Sword fern Pol stichum munitum 1 gallon T OC 4 Table 3: Species List for Enhancement Area #3 (228 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 gallon 8' OC 2 Western red cedar nuja plicata 1 gallon 8' OC 2 Vine ma le Acer circinatum 1 gallon T OC 4 Thimbleberry Rubus arai orus 1 gallon T OC 4 Snowberry S ymphoricarpos albus 1 gallon T OC 4 Cascara Fran,uula urshiana 1 gallon T OC 4 Sword fern Polystichum munitum I 1 gallon T OC 5 Table 4: Species List for Enhancement Area #4 (77 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Pacific willow Salix lucida Stakes —3' long) T OC 5 Sitka willow I Salix sitchensis Stakes —3' lon) T OC 5 Table 5: Species List for Enhancement Area #5 (116 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Pacific willow Salix lucida Stakes (-3' lon) T OC 7 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Stakes (-3'long) T OC 7 Planting Area #3 is currently dominated by a non-native flowering shrub (Japanese yellow rose; Kem'a_7aponica). These plants will be removed from the planting area prior to installation of the native vegetation. Wetland Resources, Inc. 11 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 40 2.A.a The exact location and configuration of the planting areas may need to be adjusted slightly due to existing vegetation. This will be done on -site by the lead ecologist and landscaper (or project applicant if he chooses to install the vegetation) prior to planting. Any changes to the planting areas will be discussed in the as -built report (described below). If possible, plant installation should take place in late fall or early spring (prior to the start of the growing season). Plants shall be obtained from a reputable nursery familiar with native vegetation and that is capable of providing local genetic stock. Limited species substitution may be allowed; however, the City of Edmonds and/or the lead ecologist must approve the substitution. A mulch containing wood chips and some green/vegetative material shall be applied in a 3-foot radius around the base of each installed plant to a depth of 2-4 inches. Mulch will provide nutrients to the new trees and shrubs and will help suppress establishment of weedy species. In order to avoid stem decomposition/rot, the mulch shall not be allowed to touch the plant trunks/stems. Plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Lath staking, brightly colored flagging, or another form of marking shall be placed on or near each installed plant to assist in locating the plants during maintenance and monitoring activities. Irrigation shall be provided during the first two years of the monitoring period and will occur during the summer/dry season (e.g. June through September), any extensive dry periods, and/or as determined by the lead ecologist. Water shall be applied to the new plants at a rate of one (1) inch per week. Irrigation can be provided via hand watering or through a temporary irrigation system. The lead ecologist shall be on -site to inspect plant materials for proper size and quality, inspect the layout and planting locations, and to complete a final walk-through before approving the buffer enhancement actions. GOALS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY Goals Objectives and Performance Standards Project goals are established to identify what the mitigation plan is attempting to accomplish. Objectives identify specific actions that are taken or components that are initiated in order to meet the project goals. Finally, performance standards provide measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives are being achieved (Washington State Department of Ecology et. al., 2006). The goals of this mitigation plan include the following: + Compensate for the loss of stream buffer resulting from the development. • Provide protection for the on -site stream buffer. Wetland Resources, Inc. 12 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 41 2.A.a These goals will be met by performing the following actions (i.e. objectives): • Enhance 1,617 SF of existing stream buffer by installing 14 native trees, 80 native shrubs, 29 native ferns, and 24 willow stakes within the enhancement areas. • Install a permanent, split -rail fence along the edge of the on -site stream buffer. The performance standards for the buffer enhancement areas include the following: • Survival of planted trees, shrubs, ferns, and willow stakes will be 100% following the first year of monitoring; 80% following the third year; and 70% by the fifth year. All dead plants shall be replaced following the first year of monitoring. ■ Tree and shrub areal coverage will be 30% at the end of the third year of monitoring and 60% at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (Note: desirable native volunteer species (e.g. red alder, salmonberry) may contribute up to 20% cover in each enhancement area. If volunteer species exceed 20% cover, control measures shall be initiated in an effort to maintain species diversity). • Invasive and non-native species shall not provide more than 25% areal coverage throughout the enhancement areas at any time. • The split -rail fence shall be installed per the specifications and shall be maintained throughout the five-year monitoring period. Planting notes Inspections The lead ecologist shall be present on site to inspect the plants prior to planting and may periodically inspect the mitigation installation process. Minor adjustments to the original design may be necessary prior to and during construction due to unusual or unknown site conditions. A City of Edmonds representative and/or the lead ecologist will make these decisions during construction. Planting If possible, plant installation will take place in late fall or early spring (prior to the start of the growing season). Plants shall be obtained from a reputable nursery familiar with native vegetation and that is capable of providing local genetic stock. Limited species substitution may be allowed, but must be approved by City of Edmonds personnel and/or the lead ecologist. Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Standard erosion and sediment control measure BMP's shall be employed during construction and during the planting process. These may include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fencing between the construction area and stream buffer; use of high -visibility fencing; spreading hay or using plastic covering on exposed ground or disturbed areas; mulching; preserving natural vegetation. Handling Plants shall be handled to avoid damage, including breaking, bruising, root damage, sunburn, drying, freezing, or other injury. Plants must be covered during transport. Plants shall not be bound with wire or rope in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with Wetland Resources, Inc. 13 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 42 2.A.a shade and wet soil in the period between delivery and installation. Do not lift container stock by trunks, stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready to plant. Water all plants as necessary to keep moisture levels appropriate to the species requirements. Plants shall not be allowed to dry out. All plants shall be watered thoroughly immediately upon installation. Soak all containerized plants thoroughly prior to installation. Storage Plants stored for longer than one month prior to planting shall be planted in nursery rows and treated in a manner suitable to specific species requirements. Plants must be re -inspected by the lead biologist prior to installation. Damaged plants Damaged, dried out, or otherwise mishandled plants will be rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plants shall be immediately removed from the site. Plant Names Plant names shall comply with those generally accepted in the native plant nursery trade. Any question regarding plant species or variety shall be referred to the lead ecologist. All plant materials shall be true to species and variety and legibly tagged. Quality and condition Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth, healthy, well branched, and vigorous, with well - developed root systems, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged, diseased, pest -infested, scraped, bruised, dried out, burned, broken, or defective plants will be rejected. Roots All plants shall be containerized with the exception of the willow stakes. Root bound plants or B&B plants with damaged, cracked, or loose root balls (major damage) will be rejected. Immediately before installation, plants with minor root damage (e.g. broken and/or twisted roots) must be root -pruned. Matted or circling roots of containerized plantings must be pruned or straightened and the sides of the root ball must be roughened. Sizes Plant sizes shall be the size indicated in Tables 1 through 5, above. Larger stock may be acceptable provided that it has not been cut back to the size specified, and that the root ball is proportionate to the size of the plant. Smaller stock may be acceptable, and preferable under some circumstances, based on site -specific conditions. Any changes to the original mitigation design must be approved by the lead ecologist and/or the City of Edmonds. Measurements, caliper, branching, and balling and burlapping shall conform to industry standards. Form Evergreen trees shall have single trunks and symmetrical, well -developed form. Deciduous trees shall be single trunked unless specified as multi -stem in the plant schedule. Shrubs shall have multiple stems and be well branched. Wetland Resources, Inc. 14 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 43 2.A.a Weeding Non-native and invasive vegetation in the mitigation areas will be hand weeded from around all newly installed plants at the time of installation and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period. No chemical control of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the approval of the City of Edmonds. Site conditions The contractor shall immediately notify the lead ecologist of drainage or soil conditions likely to be detrimental to the growth or survival of plants. Planting operations should not be conducted under the following conditions: freezing weather, when the ground is frozen, excessively wet weather, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Planting Pits Planting pits should be circular with vertical sides, and should be at least twice the size of the root ball. In compacted soils, the sides of the planting pits should be scarified/broken up. Set plants upright in pits. Burlap, if used, shall be removed from the planting pits. Backfill shall be worked back into holes such that air pockets are removed without compacting the soils. Water Plants should be watered midway through backfilling, and again upon completion of backfilling. For late spring/early summer plantings (if approved), a rim of earth should be mounded around the base of the tree or shrub no closer than the drip line, or no less than 30" in diameter, except on steep slopes or in hollows. Plants should be watered a second time within 24-48 hours after installation. The earthen rim/dam should be leveled prior to the second growing season. Staking Due to the small size of the proposed plantings, staking should not be necessary. If the plant does need support, then strapping or webbing should be used as low as possible on the trunk to loosely brace the tree with two stakes. Do not brace the tree tightly or too high on the trunk. Do not use wire in a rubber hose for strapping as it exerts too much pressure on the bark. As soon as supporting the plant becomes unnecessary, stakes should be removed. All stakes must be removed within two (2) years of installation. Plant Location Lath staking, brightly colored flagging, or another form of marking shall be placed on or near each installed plant to assist in locating the plants during maintenance and monitoring activities. Arrangement and Spacing The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Mulch A wood chip mulch (containing some green/vegetative material) will be placed around the base of each plant in a 3-foot radius and at a depth of 2 to 4 inches. Mulch shall not be allowed to contact plant stems in order to avoid plant decay and rot. Wetland Resources, Inc. 15 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 44 2.A.a MROU-0 ine A monitoring plan will begin with the preparation of an as -built report following completion of the mitigation plan. This report will address the completed mitigation plan and identify if any changes or revisions have been made. Following submittal of the as -built plan, monitoring visits will occur. Monitoring will begin the first year following mitigation installation. Monitoring visits will occur annually (in the late spring/early summer) for a period of five years. Due to the small sizes of the enhancement areas, monitoring techniques will include visual observations to assess tree and shrub survivability and coverage. Plant counts will also be performed within each enhancement area. Photo points shall be established within each enhancement area in order to provide photo documentation of the mitigation site. Photos will be included in each monitoring report. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Edmonds in the fall of each monitoring year. The reports will summarize the overall conditions of the mitigation areas and discuss whether the performance standards are being met. On year 5, the final monitoring report will be prepared and will discuss whether or not the mitigation plan has been successful per the established goals, objectives, and performance standards. If the mitigation plan is deemed unsuccessful, contingency actions will be utilized and/or the monitoring period may be extended. Contingency If, during any of the monitoring visits, 20% of the plants within any enhancement area, or in any particular stratum within an enhancement area, are severely stressed, or it appears that 20% may not survive, additional plants will be installed. If invasive and non-native species exceed 25% aerial coverage within any of the enhancement areas at any time, control measures will be initiated. Additional contingency actions may include, but will not be limited to, more aggressive weed control, additional mulching, species substitution, soil amendments, and/or additional irrigation. If necessary, a meeting between the lead ecologist and City of Edmonds personnel will be held to develop additional contingency actions. Maintenance Maintenance will be performed within the enhancement areas annually. Maintenance actions may include, but are not limited to, replacement of dead vegetation, removal of invasive and non-native vegetation, trash cleanup, and fence repair. Maintenance needs will be discussed in the annual monitoring reports. Completed maintenance tasks and maintenance that needs to be done will be addressed in each monitoring report. COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL GUARANTEE The following is a cost estimate for plant materials, labor, monitoring, and maintenance. This does not represent an actual bid (please note: plant prices include labor and installation): Plants — $9.50/plant: Estimated cost of monitoring: Estimated cost of maintenance: Total: $1,700.50 $3,200.00 $1,000.00 $5,900.50 Wetland Resources, Inc. 16 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 45 2.A.a Per ECDC section 23.40.130M, a financial guarantee is required to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. The financial guarantee shall be posted in accordance with ECDC section 23.40.290 ("Bonds to Ensure Mitigation, Maintenance, and Monitoring"). The financial guarantee must be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater. Therefore, the financial guarantee for this project will be approximately $7,080.60 (the final guarantee amount should be based on an actual bid for the mitigation project, not the estimate). USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan is supplied to Kent Dietz as a means of determining and protecting on -site critical areas, as required by the City of Edmonds. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. This delineation and report conforms to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Jim Rothwell Senior Ecologist, PWS Wetland Resources, Inc. Wetland Resources, Inc. 17 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 46 2.A.a REFERENCES Brinson, M.M. 1993. A HydrogeomorRhic CIassification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRPDE-4. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Code Publishing Company, Edmonds Cky Code and Communily Development Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/edmonds/. Seattle, WA Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. CoWs. of En ' eers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Corps Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratin _s. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1-241. Published July 17, 2013. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 2012. Munsell Soil Color Book. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, MI. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS). SnoScgpe: Snohomish County Landscape TmagiLig. ht :/I 's.snoco.or /ma. s/snosca e/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Carps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains Valle s and Coast Region ersion 2.0 . U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Publication # ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Invento . Wetlands Mapper. http,//www.fws.gav/wetlands/. USDA-NRCS. Web Soil Survey.(htW.//websoilsurva.nrcs.usda.gov/ap/HomePao.htrn. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Marcy 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Marcy 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species: PHS on the Web.(http://wdfw.wa.l;av/mapping/phs/}. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. SalmonScape. (http.-//wdl:w.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscQe/index.hqyd. Wetland Resources, Inc. 18 Dietz — Daley Street August 10, 2015 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 47 2.A.a Appendix A Site Photos m c �L m U) m ca c 0 0 m 0 m L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 48 � ►�: lip •� • �•. 'f� .. .+1� - Orr � 4 - � y •_ ;�^;� ' Jam; . , r �•� s j� 4 � r mv,. f. r- •` A)Pw. t. µ..ow �•, ; }' •• r •, • �.� � � ' ,1 � r- _ �?al�Vrlr•. .7 2.A.a View from top of landslide hazard area towards Shell Creek. The top of the box culvert is visible in the upper left of the photo. View of off -site portion of Shell Creek and buffer on adjacent, eastern parcel. Packet Pg. 50 2.A.a Appendix B Existing Conditions Map m c �L m U) m ca c 0 0 m 0 m L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 51 2.A.a m c �L U) 0 N� L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 52 2.A.a m c �L U) 0 N� L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 53 I 2.A.a I EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DALEY STREET LDGEOFASPHALT EXISTING eX FENCE x i 90.01 \ �PF �\N 7fIo-FOD'1' - STREAM BUFFER 1 17 \ti\ N\\ \ I d I EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET Scale 1" = 20' Phone: (425) 3373174� Fa. (425)337.3045 Email: mall5mte"e0aneresoemee mm Sheet '• Diet 1 S.&e o�8. WA96P56 Packet Pg. 54 2.A.a Appendix C Site Plan and Mitigation Map m c �L m U) m ca c 0 0 m 0 m L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 55 I 2.A.a I SITE PLAN & MITIGATION MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. I II UTILITIES -----_I I II II 21 i II !I I II GASION I I WALLS II I I !� S POWER CONNECTION. AT SIDE OF BLDG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N TO BE A gV to Q a — • — - SHELL CREEK DALEY STREET OFASPHALT ews*�--vauo�AO FEuce �1 x BOX CULVERT 90.0' FOOT BRIDGE � C? A N SPLIT -RAIL qr FENCE 1 1 I I EXISTING NATIVE I VEGETATION TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT BUFFER f1 1 1 nr 90.0' 100-FOOT -STREAM BUFFER N T ti 'STREAM BUFFER COMPRISES ENTIRETY OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF SPLIT -RAIL FENCE. "EROSION CONTROL BMP'S MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE. 'THE EXACT LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANTING AREAS MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT DUE TO EXISTING VEGETATION. THIS WILL BE DONE ON -SITE BY THE LEAD ECOLOGIST AND LANDSCAPER PRIOR TO PLANTING. ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE AS -BUILT REPORT ---- 100-FOOT STREAM BUFFER ®ENHANCEMENT AREAS ®WILLOW STAKE ENHANCEMENT AREAS x FENCE SITE PLAN & MITIGATION MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET Scale 1" = 20' 6 1b 20 3b 4o -eo n•.425 u 17 �.,-..... w,.-w. Pone: (425)337-337-3174 FaM:(425)337-3045 Epwte [�edWox�.Wte�»b¢aaurew com NT7TJ Dietz WRI Job if ISID11 S.Leke Stevens Rd se��, WA Packet Pg. 56 2.A.a Appendix D Enhancement Areas Plant List m C �L m m ca C 0 0 m 0 m L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d Co Co O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO Co O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 57 � W � W � W � � IN W Q k q 0 q z ƒ / % / 2 � 0 K 0 C) w m LL 0 0 � 0 IL )k )) ! a I / - I— - £ ) I Pack !P$ 5 I Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. COUNIER M.B.A. f Geotechnical/Civil Engineer July28, 2006 RECEIVED AUG 2 12006 Rferc Iy ED PERMIT COUNTER City of Edmonds ACT 16 2015 cto Dennis Walcker P.O. Box 996 Lynnwood, WA 98046 pEVELOPMENT SERVICE Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation and Shoring Recommendations Proposed New Residence at 742 Daley St., Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the Dennis Walcker propertyat 742 Daley St., Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements for steeply - sloped lots. REFERENCES: Property Topographic Survey by Tri-County dated October 2006 Proposed New Residence Plans by Geigle Designs dated May 2006 Structural Engineering Analysis and Designs by Reed and Associates dated May 3, 2006 ® Grading calculations by Donna Breske, P.E. dated June 7, 2006 Buffer mitigation plan by Landau Associates dated May 3, 2006 • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property at 742 Daley St. is rectangular in shape with approximately 90 feet of frontage (along Daley St.) and approximately 118 feet of depth (see Topographic Survey). A stream (year-round flowing) exists at the northeast corner of the property. It is understood that the buffer mitigation study has recommended a setback distance from the centerline of the creek / stream and that this distance is indicated on the project plans. The lot contains a significant slope with a total elevation differential of approximately 30 feet (see Topographic Map). SOILS a FOUNDATIONS + SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL P.o. Box 555o2 - shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-84ATTAGHMENT 6 Attachmen Attachm Packet Pg. 59 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 2 Currently, the lot is undeveloped and contains a few mature trees, shrubbery and grasses. Visual evaluation of the properly reveals no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no soil tension cracks or any evidence of erosional degradation. It is understood that Dennis Walcker proposes to construct a new residence (3 stories — see plans) at the southeast portion of the site, with driveway access from the north (at the western property line zone). See plans. Construction of the proposed house will require excavations of varying depths (see plans). This engineer has provided extensive geotechnical investigations and construction inspections for the 3 new homes (be Eaglewood Homes) immediately to the west. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 4 soil test holes were hand dug by this engineer on July 12, 2006 (see Site Plan for locations). All 4 test holes revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and forest duff 6" to 34" (bottom of test holes) Dense, relatively clean sand No water was encountered in any of the 4 test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the immediate area, the Walcker property at 742 Daley St., Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically approved for the proposed new residence, subject to the following: Temporary shoring required for excavation cuts deeper than 5 feet. See section on "Temporary Shoring". Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 4,000 p.s.f. Packet Pg. 60 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 3 • Equivalent fluid pressure of 30 p.c.f. is recommended for any retraining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.60 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. Geotechnical inspections by this engineer rip �r to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of four thousand (4,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short -terra wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design ValTq Coefficient of Friction 0.60 Packet Pg. 61 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 4 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f, Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Parameter Active Earth Pressure" Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient of Friction Soil Unit Weight Where: Design Value 30 p.c.f. 350 p.c.f. 0.60 125 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). Packet Pg. 62 2.A.a City of Edmonds clo Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 5 The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining wails only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: At the time of this investigation and report, it is understood that the majority of the soil cuts will be approximately 8 to 10 feet below grade. Temporary shoring is req_uire�d for any soil cuts deeper than 5 feet below grade. The dense, stable sub -grade sands allow for temporary Eco-Block shoring to be utilized up to a maximum of 12 feet (a minimum of 6-inch embeddment with 11.5 feet shoring above). See attached typical sketch. Packet Pg. 63 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 6 Some portions of the site may require excavation depths deeper than 11.5 feet. This engineer limits Eco-Block shoring to 6 blocks (each block 2-feet high). The dense, sub -grade sands allow for a temporary "back cut" at 1 H:1 V declination (see attached sketch). In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2HA V. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar Material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. No groundwater was observed in any of the 4 test holes during the fieldwork, nor was any groundwater encountered at the adjacent (westerly) recent home projects. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas Packet Pg. 64 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 7 adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK( AND STRUCTURAL FL L: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, ail organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. NOTE: Specific clearing limits to be established at pre -construction meeting with City of Edmonds building officials. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moistrre content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Piil Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub. -grade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Packet Pg. 65 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 8 Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acre table if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage problems were evident with the Walcker property at 742 Daley St. As stated, the sub -grade sands allow for excellent infiltration. Any surficial runoff would flow down -slope to the northeast into the existing creek. On -site storm water infiltration is geotechnically possible, if desired by owner. Subsequent design criteria and recommendations for submittal to City of Edmonds available upon request. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL DESIGNS: This engineer has reviewed the structural designs by Reed and Associates. These designs utilized a default' soil value of 2,000 p.s.f. in determining retaining wall dimensions and other structural elements. The actual soil conditions are "stronger' than Packet Pg. 66 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 9 the default values utilized. Thus, the structural analysis and design criteria are more than sufficient for the site geotechnical conditions, subject to inspections. As stated, this site contains significant slopes, which will pose a construction and logistic challenge for the driveway access, foundation excavation, temporary shoring and foundation construction. It is essential that a qualified geotechnical engineer provided ongoing inspections to verify site conditions and assure the integrity of the structural elements. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts ■ Temporary shoring installation (Eco-Blocks up to 12 feet maximum) Foundation sub -grade verification Any retaining wall, or rockery placement Any fill placement ■ Subsurface drainage installation ■ Temporary and permanent erosion control measures SUMMARY: The proposed new Walcker residence at 742 Daley St., Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections fK![i[gq construction. STATEMENT OF MINIMAL RISK: The plans and specifications for the Walcker residence at 742 Daley St., Edmonds, Washington have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal. Packet Pg. 67 2.A.a City of Edmonds c/o Dennis Walcker July 28, 2006 Page 10 CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. M. g r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer DMB:abj ��.x�'ass X?,123/ .. cc: Dennis Walcker Packet Pg. 68 2.A.a Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. October 25, 2013 Mr. Jordan Schenk jdschenk@gmail.com Subject: Geotechnical Update Report 742 Daley Street, Edmonds Proposed New Residence Geotechnical / Civil Engineer ��1 r1�v�ACT 2� �Q�3 RECEIVED ta�� ()CT 16 20 ��u►�� Ftv��.e DEVELOPMENT SERVICES This engineering report presents the results of a re-evaluation of the site at 742 Daley Street, in conjunction with the proposed single family house development. This engineer did an extensive geotechnical investigation and report dated July 28, 2006. The City of Edmonds requires an updated geotechnical assessment, as well as declarations consistent with Edmonds Development Code. REFERENCES: July 28, 2006 Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. Proposed project plans with topographic map Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. BACKGROUND: As stated, this engineer performed a geotechnical investigation and prepared a certified report dated July 28, 2006. The findings of the subgrade investigation verified the presence of dense native sands. The recommendations for foundation support included standard reinforced concrete footings. See report. This engineer understands that Mr. Jordan Schenk proposes to construct a home in the southwest portion of the overall site. See site plan. The overall site contains an existing creek, along with associated set back and buffer dimensions. See plans. SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98156 (206) 546-9217 dbrucepe@gmail.com Attachme Attachm Packet Pg. 69 2.A.a Mr. Jordan Schenk Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds October 25, 2013 Page 2 The construction of the proposed house will entail excavation on the westerly sloped portion of the lot. OCTOBER2013 SITE EVALUATION: This engineer performed a re-evaluation of the site (October, 2013). See photographs. No observable changes were evident with the slopes, topography, location of the existing creek, and overall vegetation and slope stability. See October 2013 photo sheet. UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the July 28, 2006 Geotechnical Report are valid, as of October 2013, subject to; Geotechnical inspections during construction by this engineer. Final plan review by this engineer to verify actual depth of soil cuts. At the time of the this investigation and report, it is understood that maximum excavation cuts will be no more than five feet (5.0'); hence, shoring will not be required. However, if actual excavation exceeds 5.0', temporary shoring will be required, subject to this engineer's evaluation, designs, and inspections during construction. EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT CODE RESPONSES: This engineer understands that the City of Edmonds requires a geotechnical evaluation responding to Edmonds Community Development Code 23.80.050 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. ❖ 23.80.050: Special Study and Re art Re uirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas: This engineer has investigated this site and submitted a thorough geotechnical report dated July 28, 2006. As stated in the report, the overall project is not geologically hazardous. The subgrade soils consist of dense native sands. Packet Pg. 70 2.A.a Mr. Jordan Schenk Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds :. October 25, 2013 Page 3 The proposed new residence can be properly and safely constructed on the site, subject to geotechnical inspections. This engineer understands that this site was designated as possibly geologically hazardous due to the slopes in the western and southwestern portions of the site. These slopes are not geotechnically adverse for the new proposed house, subject to City of Edmonds review of plans and this engineer's on -site inspections. The current Site Plan indicates a more than. adequate set -back and buffer zone. •3 23.80.060: Development Standards: Edmonds Development Code allows for alterations of the designated geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions. The proposed new residence at 742 Daley Street will not increase the threat, of any geologic or geotechnical hazard to the adjacent properties beyond existing conditions_ In fact, the proper construction of the new house using reinforced concrete foundations, improved drainage mitigations, erosion control pmet"s and final landscaping will imorove overall slope stability. 2. The development will not adversely impact other critical areas: This engineer is not precisely sure what "other critical areas" refers to. Obviously, the near -by creek is located on the property. The required set -back and buffer zones preclude any adverse impact to the creek, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer and plan review and approval ,by City of Edmonds. 3. Alterations of the area are designed so that the hazard to the project Is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre -development conditions. This engineer declares thAt the potential "hazard" is sufficiently mitigated. 4. Are certified safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist licensed In the State of Washington: I, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., declare that the site is not geotechnically hazardous for the construction of the new residence (subject to inspections by this engineer, nor is the project adversely impacting the adjacent properties or the adjacent creek. Packet Pg. 71 Mr. Jordan Schenk Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds October 25, 2013 Page 4 ❖ 23.80.070: Development Standards Specific Hazards: Design Standards: a. "Proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions, and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties." I, D. Bruce, P.E., declare that the proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions, and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. b. "Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas." See plans. The proposed house is situated with a set -back and buffer from the existing creek. Construction on the sloped portion of the site is not geotechnically significant. Normal standard construction techniques, subject to this engineer's inspections) are geotechnically approved. c. "Structures and Improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography." Agreed. The proposed plans incorporate compliance with the natural contour of the slope. This engineer will provide on -site inspections to verify controlled safe excavation and foundation construction. d. "Structures and improvements shaft be located to preserve the most critical portions of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation." The project is set back from the existing creek. e. "The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties." It does not. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 72 Mr. Jordan Schenk Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds October 25, 2013 Page 5 f. "The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas preferred over graded artificial slopes." No artificially graded slopes are proposed. The proposed footing and foundation stem walls will serve a$functional retaining walls for the existing slope. The construction of this hopse.will improve stability of the overall slope. g. "Development shall be designed to: minimize impervious lot coverage." See site plan for footprint layout of proposed house. IV. Vegetation Retention: This engineer observes that the majority of the lot area is not altered or developed, and existing natural vegetation is maintained. V. Seasonal Restriction: There are no geotechnical conditions that preclude work occurring throughout the year. As stated, the subgrade soils are rela0vely clean sands, and as such are not highly affected by excessive rains. This engineer requires that geotechnical inspections be performed (by this engineer) throughout the project. VI. Point Discharges: i The project plans for specific drainage controls. Gutters, downspouts, and tightline discharge into the existing City of Edmonds storm water system is proposed. VII. Prohibited Development -Septic Systems, etc.: No septic systems are proposed. Packet Pg. 73 2.A.a Mr. Jordan Schenk Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds October 25, 2013 Page 6 SUMMARY: This engineer has reviewed the July 28, 2006 Geotechnical Report, as well as re-evaluating the site (October 2013), The findings and recommendations of the July 28, 2006 report are valid for the proposed new residence at 742 Daley Street, as shown on the attached site plan, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. Prior to permit issuance, this engineer requires a review of final plans to verify actual excavation depths, excavation alignment, and any potential need for temporary shoring. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. fF, 117. Dennis M. Bruce, F.E. Geotechnical I Civil Engineer DMB:vlb Packet Pg. 74 2.A.a RECEIVEr, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. October 21, 2015 City of Edmonds c/o Kent Dietz kent.dietz @ outlook.com Subject: Updated Geotechnical Evaluation 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington OCT 2 3 2015 DEVELOPMENT ,?-RVlCEB C01lNT Geotechnical / Civil Engineer This engineering letter presents the results of a current evaluation of the building lot at 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, Washington. This "updated" evaluation was required due to City of Edmonds concerns regarding the proposed new single family residence to be constructed by Mr. Kent Dietz. Previously, this engineer did an extensive geotechnical investigation summarized in a report dated July 28, 2006. Additionally, a previous potential builder requested an updated evaluation on October 26, 2013. Note: The proposed house under consideration in the October 25, 2013 report was significantly larger and required a more extensive excavation and soil cutting configuration. The currently proposed residence (by Mr. Kent Dietz) is more modest and has less geotechnical impacts to the overall site. REFERENCES: Q Geotechnical report by D. Bruce, P.E., dated July 28, 2006 Site Plan for proposed residence by Kent Dietz • Photos BACKGROUND: The overall lot is rectangular in shape, approximately 90' wide by 117' deep. A creek runs through the northeast portion of the lot. See Site Plan and photos. The remainder of the lot contains slopes that rise to the west. SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 dbrucepe@gmail.com Attachml Packet Pg. 75 2.A.a City of Edmonds, c/o Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds October'21, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Dietz proposes to construct a modest footprint house, as indicated on the site plan. Previous geotechnical investigations have verified dense native sands as subgrade soils._ UPDATED EVALUATION: This engineer re -visited the site on April 3, 2015 and confirmed that the proposed modest footprint layout (for the new home) would have minimal geotechnical disturbance and impact. This engineer anticipates that the maximum excavation depth for the new house is six feet (6.0'). Thus, no temporary shoring is required, subject to geotechnical inspections. Additionally, the proposed residence siting will have no adverse impacts to slope stability. The proposed residence will improve slope stability, due to the nature of the reinforced concrete foundations and proper drainage controls. The site plan depicts some slope stabilization measures consisting of gabion walls. A gabion wall is essentially a wire basket of rocks that allows for water seepage through the wall, and provides erosional stabilization. This engineer has extensive experience with gabion walls and approves of their usage on this site, subject to inspections. VALIDATION OF PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Based on the findings of this current site assessment, this engineer declares that the findings and recommendations of the previous July 28, 2006 report are valid. Mr. Kent Dietz is authorized to utilize the geotechnical criteria and recommendations in the 2006 report for development of the new home, subiect to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. SUMMARY: The findings and conclusions of the July 28, 2006 geotechnical report are valid, and are appropriate to use for the proposed Kent Dietz residence. Packet Pg. 76 2.A.a City of Edmonds, c/o Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds October 21, 2015 Page 3 ■ The dimensions and footprint size, as well as nominal excavation depths for the Kent Dietz new home are geotechnically minimal; hence, this engineer recommends that the City of Edmonds approve Mr. Dietz permit for his new home, subject to inspections by this engineer. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. T.1 � S �,O Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer DMB; Packet Pg. 77 2.A.a 9 Fq NI.N} R:: -99i -UTLFTS& . ■, i I BRIDGE TO- TOP `, ! OF CULVRT ux_- TD RE9T,i-iODI� UP', `. 1 - y} 1•. `11 '9id.0r fe '► _ i —['PTO D�QIN F„P 1 —. xessssx a„� �' Ir 1 i SAIT A S1=1alklR)t na_ ♦■ wS'Talk, O Ir�i�'1 sze l �~■ 1 '1 ■■ t 'D13f1�EWA • ■ ` '1 ■■ '■ i�i `I x C. b*LL y SF OF L,� TtA s"IAITCI4 ` ■ I `■ + RS 1ANEMT . . 1 1 C 1' Th1��D i31a1 ' , ` +■ �''� T■IOF BUFFER, ', AS RE ■� ■; *°C x u ♦ ,�,,y■� ,� . 1 1 ■ 1 ♦ 1 c POWER CoIWEqTl1 `. ■ `, 1 , '■ T G PER !'� `'■ `. c AT SIDE OE3L'i7Cs■%i , `■ ` I ' •• • , 0 F' 1 . 'VAT 1105 .� '■♦ 11 `� `, a� ■■ �r ■ ;y .. AV VEIRACsE EXIIAT G t 1 r 12 OF BuEllg). ■, `� 4 1 ■N, 1 ■ `, s s `♦ i ; i; `■� `I \`1 i ! *47 FT BONDARY `♦ 1 + `, c 1 �`, '��}. • ; `� F EDGE OF CREEK 1� `♦♦ � e - , � � 11 �' //ma�y t ' � '`�• • I '. M `.! 1 ` ' ly , AW E ME1r. 1 , 1 1 k I 1 y . ■ , ■ `� �I f FND R08 R 1c GwI 11 1 y 1' ■, ! I . ` I I C N0.0ma, WM04 I 1 1 1 ♦ I I 1 �.■ I r ■ i FND REBAR & CM ,��♦ 1`, ` 1 ■ 1 I �r 1 - I C Lsfiagla MtM N0.01. 00AR0 u I 11 i i9� r l,s �■■1 j 11 g 8 G I r /r j I 1 I I y ■ ■ 1 1 t r I I l i r ■ . 1 s Is -142 DALEY' ST, EDMONDS WA s N 51TE FL N 1'=20' JULY 22, 2015 m Im sm AMERICAN HOME PLANNERS 2812 COLBY AVENUE, EVERETT WA 98201 (425) 258=8400?; Packet Pg. 78 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION ") C. 1 8k) November 13, 2015 Kent Dietz 8006 South Lake Stevens Road Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Subject: Letter of Completeness/Request for Additional Information Critical Area Variance File Number PLN20150052 Dear Mr. Dietz, On behalf of the City of Edmonds Planning Division, I have reviewed the request for a critical areas reasonable use variance for the property located at 742 Daley Street for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. In accordance with ECDC 20.03.002.13, the notice of application will be issued for the subject application within two weeks. While the application is procedurally complete, additional information and clarifications are needed for continued review of the application. Please provide the following information: 1. In order to evaluate the determination of the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions and investment backed expectations please provide the following: a. Title report and all associated documents. b. Purchase and sale agreement for the subject property. c. How does the purchase price of this property compare to the price of an unencumbered building lot in the same general neighborhood? d. The Snohomish County Assessor's office has the property value assessed at $2,400. Were you aware of the assessed value of the property at the time of purchase? e. A critical area variance was recently denied on this property. Since the submittal of the previous application, the City's definition of reasonable economic use was modified eliminating the specific reference to single family residences as a reasonable economic use. Were you aware of the critical area encumbrances, the previous denial, and change to the critical area definition regarding reasonable economic use at time of purchase? Attachml Packet Pg. 80 2.A.a 2. Please demonstrate that no other reasonable economic use has less impact on the critical area. a. Have you considered selling the property to a neighboring land owner? b. Have you considered selling the property to organizations, such as Forterra, that purchase property to preserve habitat? 3. Please demonstrate that the proposed layout and impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property. Have any of following been considered: a. Have you considered a narrower driveway? b. Have you considered applying for setback to reduce the footprint of development within the critical area buffer? c. Have you considered constructing a smaller home? d. Have there been any other design considerations to minimize the impact on the critical area and critical area buffer? 4. Please demonstrate the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or previous owners? a. If the property was purchased knowing about the critical area encumbrances and the previous critical area variance denial, why is the decision to purchase the property with this knowledge not an action by the applicant? b. Has the subject property been in common ownership with adjacent property owner since 1992? 5. Please demonstrate the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site. a. The analysis in the application materials does not address the impact to the critical area. Why does the impact to the critical area not pose an unreasonable threat? b. If variances such as the current request are granted on all properties encumbered by critical areas, would the cumulative impact of such development pose an unreasonable threat? 6. Please demonstrate why approving a critical area variance would not confer a special privilege. a. The critical area regulations provide prohibitions against developing within a critical area or critical area buffer. Please articulate why granting a variance on the subject property would not be considered the granting of a special privilege. 7. The site plan shows the proposed buffer extending up to the edge of the house. The narrative in the critical area report notes a 10-foot setback from the edge of the buffer as delineated with a split rail fence. Please clarify what portions of the property will remain an intact buffer and what the intended use is on the inside of the split rail fence (i.e. will vegetation on the inside of the fence be replaced with lawn or other landscaped area?) If the vegetation on the inside of the fence is to be replaced, has that been taken into consideration in the critical area report and mitigation plan? Please ensure all site plans for the proposal are consistent. 8. The Growth Management Act and the City's critical area regulations requires that special consideration to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. ECDC 23.90.040.13 contains specific development standards for anadromous fish habitat. Please supplement the critical areas report to address the provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.B. 9. The largest area identified for mitigation is on the opposite side of the stream from the proposed development. Please elaborate on how the mitigation on the east side of the stream will compensate for the impacts of the development on the west side of the stream. Packet Pg. 81 2.A.a 10. A geotechnical report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 21, 2015 was submitted in support of building the proposed residence within the landslide hazard area of the property. This report and the referenced report dated July 28, 2006 are not consistent with the report requirements of ECDC 23.80.050. Neither of these geotechnical reports address the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060.A or ECDC 23.80.070.A.1 — A.4. Please submit a geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80.050 that also addresses ECDC 23.80.060.A and ECDC 23.80.070.A.1 — A.4. 11. Please provide an estimate of the quantities of fill and grade for question B. Le of the SEPA checklist. Please note the Planning Division has not received comments from all of the Departments/Divisions with review responsibility so additional requests for information may be forthcoming. Please note that the application will be placed on hold until a response is received regarding the above items. According to ECDC 20.02.003.1), the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days (or by February 11, 2016) or the application will expire. Finally, the geotechnical report and critical area report and mitigation plan may be subject to peer review at your expense in accordance with ECDC 23.40.090. Once the responses to the above requested information is provided, a determination of whether the reports will be subject to independent review will be made. If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at kernen.lien(a edmondswa.g_ov. Sin rely, C1) ernen Lien enior Planner Packet Pg. 82 2.A.a m c �L U) 0 N� L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 83 2.A.a 9,1. 01 1S INPdOlIAIn January 25, 2016 g`p7, 5 Z Of (33AI9303*1 Kent Dietz 8006 S Lake Stevens Road Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Subject: Response to Request for Additional Information Critical Area Variance File Number PLN20150052 Dear Mr. Lien, This letter and attachments address the issues raised in the "Letter of Completeness/Request for Additional Information" dated November 13, 2015. Thank you for efforts in reviewing my application and providing me the opportunity to address your concerns. Your original letter had eleven (11) points, which will be addressed in this letter, in order, with supporting attachments: 1. In order to evaluate the determination of the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions and investment backed expectations please provide the following: a. Title report and all associated documents. ANSWER: see attachment A b. Purchase and sale agreement for the subject property. ANSWER: see attachment B c. How does the purchase price of this property compare to the price of an unencumbered building lot in the same general neighborhood? ANSWER: The purchase price for this property was at a significantly discount compared to similar unencumbered building lots in the general neighborhood. The purchase price reflected the assumption that there would be significant limits on the nature of the development compared to that allowed on unencumbered property, limiting the potential economic value of the property. The proposed development reflects these assumptions. The extremely limited utilization of the property (13% developed, 87% NGA) and the modest size of the proposed home (<800 sf living space) will result in reasonable and expected reduction in assessed value realized for the property, in relationship to the general neighborhood. The purchase price was consistent with the expected value of the property. d. The Snohomish County Assessor's office has the property value assessed at $2,400. Were you aware of the assessed value of the property at the time ofpurchase? ANSWER: The assessed value change occurred in August, 2015. I purchased the property in March, 2015. 1 was not aware that the value was being re -assessed. Application for assessed value change was made by the previous owner without my knowledge. The reassessment was made primarily on the basis of the failed variance application in 2014, which merely reflects an interpretation of the judgment made by county assessor's office and should have little bearing on the current application's appropriateness. e. A critical area variance was recently denied on this properly. Since the submittal of the previous application, the City's definition of reasonable economic use was modified eliminating the specific reference to single family residences as a reasonable economic use. Were you aware of the Attachme Packet Pg. 84 2.A.a critical area encumbrances, the previous denial, and change to the critical area definition regarding reasonable economic use at time ofpurchase? ANSWER: At the time of purchase, I was aware of all of the factors listed above. The new proposed design addresses those factors by reducing the amount of disturbance to a minimum while still creating a desirable new home to the neighborhood and community. The change to the definition of "reasonable economic use" is an untested provision that cannot yet be evaluated, so it was not possible to factor that into the decision to purchase the property at the time. 2. Please demonstrate that no other reasonable economic use has less impact on the critical area. a. Have you considered selling the property to a neighboring landowner? ANSWER: The property was offered to all adjacent neighbors, via personal letter (see attachment Q. At this time, a single response, asking for more information, was received and a reply was sent (see attachment D). No offer has been made to purchase the property. b. Have you considered selling the property to organizations, such as Forterra, that purchase property to preserve habitat? ANSWER: The property was offered to Forterra. Forterra has assessed the offer and declined to pursue a purchase (see attachment E). 3. Please demonstrate that the proposed layout and impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property. Have any of following been considered: a. Have you considered a narrower driveway? ANSWER: The new proposed design has reduced the footprint of the proposed driveway from roughly 500 sf to 460 sf, which reflects minimal parking area for two cars, as required by city code. b. Have you considered applying for setback to reduce the footprint of development within the critical area buffer? ANSWER: Applying for a setback variance was considered but the configuration of the property and desire to keep foundation and retaining walls to a minimum height reduced the usefulness of reducing the setback. The current proposal makes judicious use of the western setback and provides the least impactful location on the property. c. Have you considered constructing a smaller home? ANSWER: The current proposal reduces the footprint to 336 sf, which is significantly less than any home in the neighborhood. A useable living space will be provided using three floors within the 25 ft height limits provided by code. A smaller footprint could be built but the usability of the living space would be greatly impacted for minimal improvement to setback buffer for Shell Creek. The current plan is a significant reduction in comparison to other homes in the neighborhood and will establish a new floor for square feet of living space. (see attachment F for new site plan and attachment G for sample floorplan and elevations) d. Have there been any other design considerations to minimize the impact on the critical area and critical area buffer? ANSWER: The current plan includes a number of design considerations to minimize the impact. The home site is located as close to Daley Street as possible and still maintain a usable driveway. The proposed design is narrow to maximize buffer between home and creek. The location of the home is designed to minimize disturbance of the slope to maintain slope integrity. The mitigation improvements take advantage of existing native growth and make improvements where native growth is compromised by existing conditions. A minimal house setback will be maintained using a cedar fence, to clearly delineate native growth area. The house setback will be planted with native plantings that will allow maintenance of the home exterior but still provide some benefits of a NGA. Packet Pg. 85 2.A.a 4. Please demonstrate the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or previous owners? a. If the property was purchased knowing about the critical area encumbrances and the previous critical area variance denial, why is the decision to purchase the property with this knowledge not an action by the applicant? ANSWER: Critical areas encumbrances are not absolute. The variance request process exists to allow reasonable relief from the community -centric encumbrances. The previous critical area variance request was denied due to factors that have been addressed in this request: significant reduction in the footprint of the home, removal of request for height variance, development of a new critical areas report based on Shell Creek being designated an anadromous stream. b. Has the subject property been in common ownership with adjacent property owner since 1992? ANSWER: The property has not been in common ownership with adjacent property owner since 1992. The property was purchased, in its current configuration, in 1984 (see attachment H). The property has continued to be in the current configuration since then (and before). Please demonstrate the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site. a. The analysis in the application materials does not address the impact to the critical area. Why does the impact to the critical area not pose an unreasonable threat ANSWER: The latest critical areas report addresses the impact to the critical area (see attachment I, Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan, (January 7, 2016 revision), pg 10, under heading "e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat ... ". b. If variances such as the current request are granted on all properties encumbered by critical areas, would the cumulative impact of such development pose an unreasonable threat? ANSWER: This question is also addressed under the previously mentioned section. 6. Please demonstrate why approving a critical area variance would not confer a special privilege. a. The critical area regulations provide prohibitions against developing within a critical area or critical area buffer. Please articulate why granting a variance on the subject property would not be considered the granting of a special privilege. ANSWER: The latest critical areas report addresses this question about special privilege. (see Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan, (January 7, 2016 revision), pg 9, under heading "4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege ". The site plan shows the proposed buffer extending up to the edge of the house. The narrative in the critical area report notes a 10 foot setback from the edge of the buffer as delineated with a split rail fence. Please clarify, what portions of the property will remain an intact buffer and what the intended use is on the inside of the split rail fence (i. e. will vegetation on the inside of the fence be replaced with lawn or other landscaped area?) If the vegetation on the inside of the fence is to be replaced, has that been taken into consideration in the critical area report and mitigation plan? Please ensure all site plans for the proposal are consistent. ANSWER: The house setback has been explained in the Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan (January 7, 2016 revision), pg 13, second half of first paragraph. In short, a modest buffer will be delineated from the NGA to allow access to the exterior of the home without trespassing on the stream buffer. The house buffer will be planted in low -growing native plantings. It will not have formal landscaping. The house buffer area is not included in stream buffer calculations. 8. The Growth Management Act and the City's critical area regulations requires that special consideration to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. ECDC 23.90.040.B contains specific development standards for anadromous fish habitat. Please supplement the critical areas report to address the provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.B. ANSWER: ECDC 23.90.040.13 is addressed in Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan (January 7, 2016 revision), pg 10, under heading "Protection of Anadromous Fish Habitat". Packet Pg. 86 2.A.a 9. The largest area identified for mitigation is on the opposite side of the stream from the proposed development. Please elaborate on how the mitigation on the east side of the stream will compensate for the impacts of the development on the west side of the stream. ANSWER: The most significant area on the property that can be improved, restoring native growth, is the east side of the stream. Improvement of that area will enhance the stream habitat and also provide habitat for animal life. The entire buffer area will be restored (invasive species removed) and maintained, but actual enhancement will only improve habitat in the areas noted. 10. A geotechnical report prepared by Dennis Bruce dated October 21,2015 was submitted in support of building the proposed residence within the landslide hazard area of the property. This report and the referenced report dated July 28, 2006 are not consistent with the report requirements of ECDC 23.80.050. Neither of these geotechnical reports address the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060.4 or ECDC 23.80.070.4.1 - 4.4. Please submit a geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80.050 that also addresses ECDC 23.80.060.4 and ECDC 23.80.070.4.1 - 4.4. ANSWER: An addendum to the geotechnical review addressing these issues has been submitted with this letter. That addendum is dated December 4, 2015. (see attachment J). 11. Please provide an estimate of the quantities of fill and grade for question B.l. e of the SEPA checklist. ANSWER: The proposed development will not involve any substantial amounts of fill. There will be approximately 28 cubic yards of excavated soils. (see attachment K). Please contact me if there are any additional questions that need to be addressed or if you need clarification on the answers I provided above. Regards, Kent Dietz —f %��, 6 Packet Pg. 87 2.A.a ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OFTITLEINSURANCE FOR A ONE -TO -FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCE _ Policy Number: Issued By: 0 Fidelity National Title 611091898 Insurance Company OWNER'S INFORMATION SHEET Your Title Insurance Policy is a legal contract between You and Us. It applies only to a one -to -four family residence and only if each insured named in Schedule A is a Natural Person. If the Land described in Schedule A of the Policy is not an improved residential lot on which there is located a one -to -four family residence, or if each insured named in Schedule A is not a Natural Person, contact Us immediately. The Policy insures You against actual loss resulting from certain Covered Risks. These Covered Risks are listed on the Policy. The Policy is limited by: • Provisions of Schedule A • Exceptions in Schedule B • Our Duty To Defend Against Legal Actions • Exclusions • Conditions You should keep the Policy even if You transfer Your Title to the Land. It may protect against claims made against You by someone else after You transfer Your Title. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CLAIM, SEE SECTION 3 UNDER CONDITIONS. The premium for this Policy is paid once. No additional premium is owed for the Policy. This sheet is not Your insurance Policy. It is only a brief outline of some of the important Policy features. The Policy explains in detail Your rights and obligations and Our rights and obligations. Since the Policy - and not this sheet - is the legal document, YOU SHOULD READ THE POLICY VERY CAREFULLY. If You have any questions about Your Policy, contact: Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300, Lynnwood, WA 98037 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530 610051 -SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 AM F. RICAN LAND TITLE A OCIATION 5� Attachmel Packet Pg. 88 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS OWNER'S COVERAGE STATEMENT COVERED RISKS OUR DUTY TO DEFEND AGAINST LEGAL ACTIONS EXCLUSIONS CONDITIONS 1. Definitions 2. Continuation of Coverage 3. How to Make a Claim 4. Our Choices When We Learn of a Claim 5. Handling a Claim or Legal Action 6. Limitation of Our Liability 7. Transfer of Your Rights to Us 8. This Policy is the Entire Contract 9. Increased Policy Amount 10. Severability 11. Arbitration 12. Choice of Law POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE A Policy Number, Premium, Date and Time and Amount Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability Street Address of the Land 1. Name of Insured 2. Interest in Land Covered 3. Description of the Land SCHEDULE B - EXCEPTIONS Copyright American Land Tithe Association. All rights reserved.AM RICAN LAND TITLE The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. 4 All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 89 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 As soon as You Know of anything that might be covered by this Policy, You must notify Us promptly in writing at the address shown in Section 3 of the Conditions. OWNER'S COVERAGE STATEMENT This Policy insures You against actual loss, including any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses provided under this Policy. The loss must result from one or more of the Covered Risks set forth below. This Policy covers only Land that is an improved residential lot on which there is located a one -to -four family residence and only when each insured named in Schedule A is a Natural Person. Your insurance is effective on the Policy Date. This Policy covers Your actual loss from any risk described under Covered Risks if the event creating the risk exists on the Policy Date or, to the extent expressly stated in Covered Risks, after the Policy Date. Your insurance is limited by all of the following: • The Policy Amount • For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21, Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A • The Exceptions in Schedule B • Our Duty To Defend Against Legal Actions • The Exclusions • The Conditions COVERED RISKS The Covered Risks are: 1. Someone else owns an interest in Your Title. 2. Someone else has rights affecting Your Title because of leases, contracts, or options. 3. Someone else claims to have rights affecting Your Title because of forgery or impersonation. 4. Someone else has an easement on the Land. 5. Someone else has a right to limit Your use of the Land. 6. Your Title is defective. Some of these defects are: a. Someone else's failure to have authorized a transfer or conveyance of your Title. b. Someone else's failure to create a valid document by electronic means. c. A document upon which Your Title is based is invalid because it was not properly signed, sealed, acknowledged, delivered or recorded. d. A document upon which Your Title is based was signed using a falsified, expired, or otherwise invalid power of attorney. e. A document upon which Your Title is based was not properly filed, recorded, or indexed in the Public Records. f. A defective judicial or administrative proceeding. 7. Any of Covered Risks 1 through 6 occurring after the Policy Date. 8. Someone else has a lien on Your Title, including a: a. lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on Your Title by a governmental authority that are due or payable, but unpaid; b. Mortgage; c. judgment, state or federal tax lien; d. charge by a homeowner's or condominium association; or e. lien, occurring before or after the Policy Date, for labor and material furnished before the Policy Date. Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 nasrnirAn LAND TITLE Packet Pg. 90 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 9. Someone else has an encumbrance on Your Title. 10. Someone else claims to have rights affecting Your Title because of fraud, duress, incompetency or incapacity 11. You do not have actual vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the Land, based upon a legal right. 12. You are forced to correct or remove an existing violation of any covenant, condition or restriction affecting the Land, even if the covenant, condition or restriction is excepted in Schedule B. However, You are not covered for any violation that relates to: a. any obligation to perform maintenance or repair on the Land; or b. environmental protection of any kind, including hazardous or toxic conditions or substances unless there is a notice recorded in the Public Records, describing any part of the Land, claiming a violation exists. Our liability for this Covered Risk is limited to the extent of the violation stated in that notice. 13. Your Title is lost or taken because of a violation of any covenant, condition or restriction, which occurred before You acquired Your Title, even if the covenant, condition or restriction is excepted in Schedule B. 14. The violation or enforcement of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: a. building; b. zoning; c. land use; d. improvements on the Land; e. land division; or f. environmental protection, if there is a notice recorded in the Public Records, describing any part of the Land, claiming a violation exists or declaring the intention to enforce the law or regulation. Our liability for this Covered Risk is limited to the extent of the violation or enforcement stated in that notice. 15. An enforcement action based on the exercise of a governmental police power not covered by Covered Risk 14 if there is a notice recorded in the Public Records, describing any part of the Land, of the enforcement action or intention to bring an enforcement action. Our liability for this Covered Risk is limited to the extent of the enforcement action stated in that notice. 16. Because of an existing violation of a subdivision law or regulation affecting the Land: a. You are unable to obtain a building permit; b. You are required to correct or remove the violation; or c. someone else has a legal right to, and does, refuse to perform a contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage loan on it. The amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. 17. You lose Your Title to any part of the Land because of the right to take the Land by condemning it, if: a. there is a notice of the exercise of the right recorded in the Public Records and the notice describes any part of the Land; or b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 18. You are forced to remove or remedy Your existing structures, or any part of them - other than boundary walls or fences - because any portion was built without obtaining a building permit from the proper government office. The amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. AME0.ICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. AA rights reserved. LAND TITLE ASSOCIAILON The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02I0312010) Printed: 05.30,15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051 -SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 91 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 19. You are forced to remove or remedy Your existing structures, or any part of them, because they violate an existing zoning law or zoning regulation. If You are required to remedy any portion of Your existing structures, the amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. 20. You cannot use the Land because use as a single-family residence violates an existing zoning law or zoning regulation. 21. You are forced to remove Your existing structures because they encroach onto Your neighbor's land. If the encroaching structures are boundary walls or fences, the amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. 22. Someone else has a legal right to, and does, refuse to perform a contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage loan on it because Your neighbor's existing structures encroach onto the Land. 23. You are forced to remove Your existing structures which encroach onto an easement or over a building set -back line, even if the easement or building set -back line is excepted in Schedule B. 24. Your existing structures are damaged because of the exercise of a right to maintain or use any easement affecting the Land, even if the easement is excepted in Schedule B. 25. Your existing improvements (or a replacement or modification made to them after the Policy Date), including lawns, shrubbery or trees, are damaged because of the future exercise of a right to use the surface of the Land for the extraction or development of minerals, water or any other substance, even if those rights are excepted or reserved from the description of the Land or excepted in Schedule B. 26. Someone else tries to enforce a discriminatory covenant, condition or restriction that they claim affects Your Title which is based upon race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 27. A taxing authority assesses supplemental real estate taxes not previously assessed against the Land for any period before the Policy Date because of construction or a change of ownership or use that occurred before the Policy Date. 28. Your neighbor builds any structures after the Policy Date - other than boundary walls or fences - which encroach onto the Land. 29. Your Title is unmarketable, which allows someone else to refuse to perform a contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage loan on it. 30. Someone else owns an interest in Your Title because a court order invalidates a prior transfer of the title under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws. 31. The residence with the address shown in Schedule A is not located on the Land at the Policy Date. 32. The map, if any, attached to this Policy does not show the correct location of the Land according to the Public Records. OUR DUTY TO DEFEND AGAINST LEGAL ACTIONS We will defend Your Title in any legal action only as to that part of the action which is based on a Covered Risk and which is not excepted or excluded from coverage in this Policy. We will pay the costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses We incur in that defense. We will not pay for any part of the legal action which is not based on a Covered Risk or which is excepted or excluded from coverage in this Policy. We can end Our duty to defend Your Title under Section 4 of the Conditions. Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One-To-FourFamdy Residence (021OW2010) Prinled: 05.30.15 @ 08-06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 92 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 2.A.a POLICY NO. 611091898 THIS POLICY IS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT SCHEDULES A AND B. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Countersigned By: --7� Authorized Officer or Agent 11 L SEAL Fidelity National Title Insurance Company By: Attest: President Z—" Secretary 100000" AM Copyright American Land Title Association. AN rights reserved. LAND T "" LAND TITLE The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. = ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:66 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-61109189 8 Packet Pg. 93 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE A Date of Policy Policy Amount Premium March 27, 2015 at 02:30 PM $20,000.00 $500.00 Our name and address is: Bill Fisher / Mike McCarthy / Terry Sarver Fidelity National Title Company of Washington 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21: Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 10,000.00 or $ 2,500.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 25,000.00 or $ 5,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 25,000.00 or $ 5,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 5,000.00 or $ 2,500.00 (whichever is less) Street Address Of The Land: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 1. Name of Insured: Pelagos Homes LLC, a WA Limited Liability Company 2. Your interest in the Land covered by this Policy is: Fee Simple 3. The Land referred to in this Policy is described as: For APN/Parcel ID(s): 00 4342 084 010 00 Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 84 CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page(s) 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington; TOGETHER with a portion of the vacated alley adjacent thereto which attached by process of law Copyright American Land Title Association. A8 rights reserved. AND"TIT E ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05 30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.61 0051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 94 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE A (continued) POLICY NO. 611091898 pursuant to City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2364 and Recording No. 8305190184, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. END OF SCHEDULE A AME0.ICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LAND TITLE A-CINDON The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. jk All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of TiOe I nsurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (0210312010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 95 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS In addition to the Exclusions, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A. Rights or claims of parties in possession, or claiming possession, not shown by the Public Records. B. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. C. Easements, prescriptive rights, rights -of -way, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. D. Any lien, or right to a lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the Public Records. E. Taxes or special assessments which are not yet payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the Public Records. F. Any lien for service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, capacity, or construction or similar charges for sewer, water, electricity, natural gas or other utilities, or for garbage collection and disposal not shown by the Public Records. G. Unpatented mining claims, and all rights relating thereto. H. Reservations and exceptions in United States Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. I. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims or title to water. K. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records, or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AM E0.ICAN Copyright American Land Tide Association. An rights reserved. LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM W A-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15- 611091898 Packet Pg. 96 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS (continued) POLICY NO. 611091898 General and special taxes and charges, payable February 15, delinquent if first half unpaid on May 1, second half delinquent if unpaid on November 1 of the tax year (amounts do not include interest and penalties): Year: Tax Account No.: Levy Code: Assessed Value -Land: Assessed Value -Improvements General and Special Taxes: Billed: Paid: Unpaid: 2015 00 4342 084 010 00 00210 $163,200.00 $0.00 $1,794.15 $0.00 $1,794.15 Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document: In favor of. City of Edmonds Purpose: maintenance easement for stream channel restoration Recording Date: July 16, 1982 Recording No.: 8207160100 Affects: a 20 foot strip of land within said premises, the centerline described in said instrument City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2364 Recording Date: May 19, 1983 Recording No.: 8305190184 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document: In favor of. City of Edmonds Purpose: installation, operation and maintenance of a fish ladder and diversion structure Recording Date: March 15, 1990 Recording No.: 9003150306 Affects: a 30 foot strip of land the centerline being the existing stream within said premises 5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document - Purpose: allowing for building encroachment, and for ingress and egress Recording Date: August 16, 1999 Recording No.: 199908161158 Affects: as described in said instrument 6. Any prohibition or limitation of use, occupancy or improvement of the Land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any portion which is now or was formerly covered by water. Copyright American Land Title Association. AN rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 06:06 PM WA- Fr- FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 AM E0.ICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION Packet Pg. 97 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS (continued) POLICY NO. 611091898 Paramount rights and easements in favor of the United States for commerce, navigation, fisheries and the production of power. END OF SCHEDULE B AMERICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. IAN11 EI.II The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. Y All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02103/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:08 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 98 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are riot insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of arty law or government regulation concerning: a. building; b. zoning; c. land use; d. improvements on the Land; e. land division; and f. environmental protection. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17. 4.- Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but riot to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21. 7. The,transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws. CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS a. Easement - the right of someone else to use the Land for a special purpose. b. Estate Planning Entity - A legal entity or Trust established by a Natural Person for estate planning. c. Known - things about which You have actual knowledge. The words "Know" and "Knowing" have the same meaning as Known. d. Land - the land or condominium unit described in paragraph 3 of Schedule A and any improvements on the Land which are real property. e. Mortgage - a mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed or other security instrument. f. Natural Person - a human being, not a commercial or legal organization or entity. Natural Person includes a trustee of a Trust even if the trustee is not a human being. g. Policy Date - the date and time shown in Schedule A. If the insured named in Schedule A first acquires the interest shown in Schedule A by an instrument recorded in the Public Records later than the date and time shown in Schedule A, the Policy Date is the date and time the instrument is recorded. h. Public Records - records that give constructive notice of matters affecting Your Title, according to the state statutes where the Land is located. i. Title - the ownership of Your interest in the Land, as shown in Schedule A. j. Trust- a living trust established by a Natural Person for estate planning. k. We-Qor/Us - Blank Title Insurance Company. I. YouNour - the insured named in Schedule A and also those identified in Section 2.b. of these Conditions. 2. CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE a. This Policy insures You forever, even after You no longer have Your Title. You cannot assign this Policy to anyone else. b. This Policy also insures: (1) anyone who inherits Your Title because of Your death; (2) Your spouse who receives Your Title because of dissolution of Your marriage; (3) the trustee or successor trustee of a Trust or any Estate Planning Entity to whom You transfer Your Title after the Policy Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or (5) anyone who receives Your Title by a transfer effective on Your death as authorized by law. c. We may assert against the insureds identified in Section 2.b. any rights and defenses that We have against any previous insured under this Policy. wrrrw Copyright American Land Title Association. AN rights reserved. AMUR ^` CAN Il l IT I I A Ai 4".4 The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Tile Insurance for a One To -Four Family Residence (0210312010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051 -SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 99 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 (continued) 3. HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM a. Prompt Notice Of Your Claim (1) As soon as You Know of anything that might be covered by this Policy, You must notify Us promptly in writing. (2) Send Your notice to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, P.O. Box 45023, Jacksonville, FL 32232-5023, Attn: Claims Department. Please include the Policy number shown in Schedule A, and the county and state where the Land is located. Please enclose a copy of Your policy, if available. (3) If You do not give Us prompt notice, Your coverage will be reduced or ended, but only to the extent Your failure affects Our ability to resolve the claim or defend You. b. Proof Of Your Loss (1) We may require You to give Us a written statement signed by You describing Your loss which includes: (a) the basis of Your claim; (b) the Covered Risks which resulted in Your loss; (c) the dollar amount of Your loss; and (d) the method You used to compute the amount of Your loss. (2) We may require You to make available to Us records, checks, letters, contracts, insurance policies and other papers which relate to Your claim. We may make copies of these papers. (3) We may require You to answer questions about Your claim under oath. (4) If you fail or refuse to give Us a statement of loss, answer Our questions under oath, or make available to Us the papers We request, Your coverage will be reduced or ended, but only to the extent Your failure or refusal affects Our ability to resolve the claim or defend You. 4. OUR CHOICES WHEN WE LEARN OF A CLAIM a. After We receive Your notice, or otherwise learn, of a claim that is covered by this Policy, Our choices include one or more of the following: (1) Pay the claim; (2) Negotiate a settlement; (3) Bring or defend a legal action related to the claim; (4) Pay You the amount required by this Policy; (5) End the coverage of this Policy for the claim by paying You Your actual loss resulting from the Covered Risk, and those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to that time which We are obligated to pay; (6) End the coverage described in Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21 by paying You the amount of Your insurance then in force for the particular Covered Risk, and those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to that time which We are obligated to pay; (7) End all coverage of this Policy by paying You the Policy Amount then in force, and those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to that time which We are obligated to pay; (8) Take other appropriate action. b. When We choose the options in Sections 4.a. (5), (6) or (7), all Our obligations for the claim end, including Our obligation to defend, or continue to defend, any legal action. c. Even if We do not think that the Policy covers the claim, We may choose one or more of the options above. By doing so, We do not give up any rights. 5. HANDLING A CLAIM OR LEGAL ACTION a. You must cooperate with Us in handing any claim or legal action and give Us all relevant information. b. If You fail or refuse to cooperate with Us, Your coverage will be reduced or ended, but only to the extent Your failure or refusal affects Our ability to resolve the claim or defend You. c. We are required to repay You only for those settlement costs, attorneys' fees and expenses that We approve in advance. d. We have the right to choose the attorney when We bring or defend a legal action on Your behalf. We can appeal any decision to the highest level. We do not have to pay Your claim until the legal action is finally decided. e. Whether or not We agree there is coverage, We can bring or defend a legal action, or take other appropriate action under this Policy. By doing so, We do not give up any rights. 6. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY a. After subtracting Your Deductible Amount if it applies, We will pay no more than the least of: (1) Your actual loss; (2) Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability then in, force for the particular Covered Risk, for claims covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21; or (3) the Policy Amount then in force. and any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses that We are obligated to pay under this Policy. a� Copyright American Land Title Association. AO rights reserved. LMERIAN AND TITLE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 100 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 (continued) b. If We pursue Our rights under Sections 4.a.(3) and 5.e. of these Conditions and are unsuccessful in establishing the Title, as insured: (1) the Policy Amount then in force will be increased by Ten percent (10%) of the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A, and (2) You shall have the right to have the actual loss determined on either the date the claim was made by You or the date it is settled and paid. c. (1) If We remove the cause of the claim with reasonable diligence after receiving notice of it, all Our obligations for the claim end, including arty obligation for loss You had while We were removing the cause of the claim. (2) Regardless of 6.c.(1) above, if You cannot use the Land because of a claim covered by this Policy: (a) You may rent a reasonably equivalent substitute residence and We will repay You for the actual rent You pay, until the earlier of: (i) the cause of the claim is removed; or (ii) We pay You the amount required by this Policy. If Your claim is covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21, that payment is the amount of Your insurance then in force for the particular Covered Risk (b) We will pay reasonable costs You pay to relocate any personal property You have the right to remove from the Land, including transportation of that personal property for up to twenty-five (25) miles from the Land, and repair of arty damage to that personal property because of the relocation. The amount We will pay You under this paragraph is limited to the value of the personal property before You relocate it. d. All payments We make under this Policy reduce the Policy Amount then in force except for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses. Ali payments We make for claims which are covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21 also reduce Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for the particular Covered Risk, except for costs, attomeys' fees and expenses. e. If We issue, or have issued, a Policy to the owner of a Mortgage that is on Your Title and We have not given You any coverage against the Mortgage, then: (1) We have the right to pay any amount due You under this Policy to the owner of the Mortgage, and any amount paid shall be treated as a payment to You under this Policy, including under Section 4.a. of these Conditions; (2) Any amount paid to the owner of the Mortgage shall be subtracted from the Policy Amount then in force; and (3) If Your claim is covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21, any amount paid to the owner of the Mortgage shall also be subtracted from Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for the particular Covered Risk. f. If You do anything to affect any right of recovery You may have against someone else, We can subtract from Our liability the amount by which You reduced the value of that right. 7. TRANSFER OF YOUR RIGHTS TO US a. When We settle Your claim, We have all the rights and remedies You have against any person or property related to the claim. You must not do anything to affect these rights and remedies. When We ask, You must execute documents to evidence the transfer to Us of these rights and remedies. You must let Us use Your name in enforcing these rights and remedies. b. We will not be liable to You if We do not pursue these rights and remedies or if We do not recover any amount that might be recoverable. c. We will pay any money We collect from enforcing these rights and remedies in the following order: (1) to Us for the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses We paid to enforce these rights and remedies; (2) to You for Your loss that You have not already collected; (3) to Us for any money We paid out under this Policy on account of Your claim; and (4) to You whatever is left. d. If You have rights and remedies under contracts (such as indemnities, guaranties, bonds or other policies of insurance) to recover all or part of Your loss, then We have all of those rights and remedies, even if those contracts provide that those obligated have all of Your rights and remedies under this Policy. 8. THIS POLICY IS THE ENTIRE CONTRACT This Policy, with any endorsements, is the entire contract between You and Us. To determine the meaning of any part of this Policy, You must read the entire Policy and any endorsements. Any changes to this Policy must be agreed to in writing by Us. Any claim You make against Us must be made under this Policy and is subject to its terms. 9. INCREASED POLICY AMOUNT The Policy Amount then in force will increase by Ten percent (10%) of the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A each year for the first five years following the Policy Date shown in Schedule A, up to One Hundred Fifty percent (150%) of the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A. The increase each year will happen on the anniversary of the Policy Date shown in Schedule A. 10. SEVERABILITY If ary part of this Policy is held to be legally unenforceable, both You and We can still enforce the rest of this Policy. 11. ARBITRATION a. If permitted in the state where the Land is located, You or We may demand arbitration. b. The law used in the arbitration is the law of the state where the Land is located. c. The arbitration shall be under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association ("Rules"). You can get a copy of the Rules from Us. wri Co p� yr' ht American Land Title Association. All rig hts reserved. L AAE"""" LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 101 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (continued) POLICY NO. 611091898 d. Except as provided in the Rules, You cannot join or consolidate Your claim or controversy with claims or controversies of other persons. e. The arbitration shall be binding on both You and Us. The arbitration shall decide arty matter in dispute between You and Us. f. The arbitration award may be entered as a judgment in the proper court. 12. CHOICE OF LAW The law of the state where the Land is located shall apply to this policy. AMERIC Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LAND TIT N LE ASSoci� a The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homomnerrs policy of Tine insurance rot a One -To -Four Family Residence (02103/2010) Pr[nled: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 102 2.A.a ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE FOR A ONE -TO -FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCE Policy Number: Issued By: 0 Fidelity National Title 611091898 Insurance Company OWNER'S INFORMATION SHEET Your Title Insurance Policy is a legal contract between You and Us. It applies only to a one -to -four family residence and only if each insured named in Schedule A is a Natural Person. If the Land described in Schedule A of the Policy is not an improved residential lot on which there is located a one -to -four family residence, or if each insured named in Schedule A is not a Natural Person, contact Us immediately. The Policy insures You against actual loss resulting from certain Covered Risks. These Covered Risks are listed on the Policy. The Policy is limited by: • Provisions of Schedule A • Exceptions in Schedule B • Our Duty To Defend Against Legal Actions • Exclusions • Conditions You should keep the Policy even if You transfer Your Title to the Land. It may protect against claims made against You by someone else after You transfer Your Title. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CLAIM, SEE SECTION 3 UNDER CONDITIONS. The premium for this Policy is paid once. No additional premium is owed for the Policy. This sheet is not Your insurance Policy. It is only a brief outline of some of the important Policy features. The Policy explains in detail Your rights and obligations and Our rights and obligations. Since the Policy - and not this sheet - is the legal document, YOU SHOULD READ THE POLICY VERY CAREFULLY. If You have any questions about Your Policy, contact: Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300, Lynnwood, WA 98037 Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. AWRICANLAND TITLE uwcuilw+ The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Poiloydf TiVe Insurancefor a One_To-Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed; 06,30.15 @ 08:05 PM Page 1 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 103 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS OWNER'S COVERAGE STATEMENT COVERED RISKS OUR DUTY TO DEFEND AGAINST LEGAL ACTIONS EXCLUSIONS CONDITIONS 1. Definitions 2. Continuation of Coverage 3. How to Make a Claim 4. Our Choices When We Learn of a Claim 5. Handling a Claim or Legal Action 6. Limitation of Our Liability 7. Transfer of Your Rights to Us 8. This Policy is the Entire Contract 9. Increased Policy Amount 10. Severability 11. Arbitration 12. Choice of Law POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE A Policy Number, Premium, Date and Time and Amount Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability Street Address of the Land 1. Name of Insured 2. Interest in Land Covered 3. Description of the Land SCHEDULE B - EXCEPTIONS Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. MEnI A" The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30 15 @ 08:06 PM Page 2 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 104 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 As soon as You Know of anything that might be covered by this Policy, You must notify Us promptly in writing at the address shown in Section 3 of the Conditions. OWNER'S COVERAGE STATEMENT This Policy insures You against actual loss, including any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses provided under this Policy. The loss must result from one or more of the Covered Risks set forth below. This Policy covers only Land that is an improved residential lot on which there is located a one -to -four family residence and only when each insured named in Schedule A is a Natural Person. Your insurance is effective on the Policy Date. This Policy covers Your actual loss from any risk described under Covered Risks if the event creating the risk exists on the Policy Date or, to the extent expressly stated in Covered Risks, after the Policy Date. Your insurance is limited by all of the following: • The Policy Amount • For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21, Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A • The Exceptions in Schedule B • Our Duty To Defend Against Legal Actions • The Exclusions • The Conditions COVERED RISKS The Covered Risks are: 1. Someone else owns an interest in Your Title. 2. Someone else has rights affecting Your Title because of leases, contracts, or options. 3. Someone else claims to have rights affecting Your Title because of forgery or impersonation. 4. Someone else has an easement on the Land. 5. Someone else has a right to limit Your use of the Land. 6. Your Title is defective. Some of these defects are: a. Someone else's failure to have authorized a transfer or conveyance of your Title. b. Someone else's failure to create a valid document by electronic means. c. A document upon which Your Title is based is invalid because it was not properly signed, sealed, acknowledged, delivered or recorded. d. A document upon which Your Title is based was signed using a falsified, expired, or otherwise invalid power of attorney. e. A document upon which Your Title is based was not properly filed, recorded, or indexed in the Public Records. f A defective judicial or administrative proceeding. 7. Any of Covered Risks 1 through 6 occurring after the Policy Date. 8. Someone else has a lien on Your Title, including a: a. lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on Your Title by a governmental authority that are due or payable, but unpaid; b. Mortgage; c. judgment, state or federal tax lien; d. charge by a homeowner's or condominium association; or e. lien, occurring before or after the Policy Date, for labor and material fumished before the Policy Date. ri AME0.ICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. A[[ rights reserved. LAND TITLE ASSOCIAI ION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 3 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 105 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 9. Someone else has an encumbrance on Your Title. 10. Someone else claims to have rights affecting Your Title because of fraud, duress, incompetency or incapacity 11. You do not have actual vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the Land, based upon a legal right. 12. You are forced to correct or remove an existing violation of any covenant, condition or restriction affecting the Land, even if the covenant, condition or restriction is excepted in Schedule B. However, You are not covered for any violation that relates to: a. any obligation to perform maintenance or repair on the Land; or b. environmental protection of any kind, including hazardous or toxic conditions or substances unless there is a notice recorded in the Public Records, describing any part of the Land, claiming a violation exists. Our liability for this Covered Risk is limited to the extent of the violation stated in that notice. 13. Your Title is lost or taken because of a violation of any covenant, condition or restriction, which occurred before You acquired Your Title, even if the covenant, condition or restriction is excepted in Schedule B. 14. The violation or enforcement of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: a. building; b. zoning; c. land use; d. improvements on the Land; e. land division; or f. environmental protection, if there is a notice recorded in the Public Records, describing any part of the Land, claiming a violation exists or declaring the intention to enforce the law or regulation. Our liability for this Covered Risk is limited to the extent of the violation or enforcement stated in that notice. 15. An enforcement action based on the exercise of a governmental police power not covered by Covered Risk 14 if there is a notice recorded in the Public Records, describing any part of the Land, of the enforcement action or intention to bring an enforcement action. Our liability for this Covered Risk is limited to the extent of the enforcement action stated in that notice. 16. Because of an existing violation of a subdivision law or regulation affecting the Land: a. You are unable to obtain a building permit; b. You are required to correct or remove the violation; or c. someone else has a legal right to, and does, refuse to perform a contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage loan on it. The amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. 17. You lose Your Title to any part of the Land because of the right to take the Land by condemning it, if. a. there is a notice of the exercise of the right recorded in the Public Records and the notice describes any part of the Land; or b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 18. You are forced to remove or remedy Your existing structures, or any part of them - other than boundary walls or fences - because any portion was built without obtaining a building permit from the proper government office. The amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. Copyright American Land Title Association. AA rights reserved. ,ANI H ;", "X .. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of TWe Insurance far a One -To -Four Family Residence (0210312010) Prinled: 05.30.15 @ 08:08 PM Page 4 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051 -SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 106 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 19. You are forced to remove or remedy Your existing structures, or any part of them, because they violate an existing zoning law or zoning regulation. If You are required to remedy any portion of Your existing structures, the amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. 20. You cannot use the Land because use as a single-family residence violates an existing zoning law or zoning regulation. 21. You are forced to remove Your existing structures because they encroach onto Your neighbor's land. If the encroaching structures are boundary walls or fences, the amount of Your insurance for this Covered Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. 22. Someone else has a legal right to, and does, refuse to perform a contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage loan on it because Your neighbor's existing structures encroach onto the Land. 23. You are forced to remove Your existing structures which encroach onto an easement or over a building set -back line, even if the easement or building set -back line is excepted in Schedule B. 24. Your existing structures are damaged because of the exercise of a right to maintain or use any easement affecting the Land, even if the easement is excepted in Schedule B. 25. Your existing improvements (or a replacement or modification made to them after the Policy Date), including lawns, shrubbery or trees, are damaged because of the future exercise of a right to use the surface of the Land for the extraction or development of minerals, water or any other substance, even if those rights are excepted or reserved from the description of the Land or excepted in Schedule B. 26. Someone else tries to enforce a discriminatory covenant, condition or restriction that they claim affects Your Title which is based upon race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 27. A taxing authority assesses supplemental real estate taxes not previously assessed against the Land for any period before the Policy Date because of construction or a change of ownership or use that occurred before the Policy Date. 28. Your neighbor builds any structures after the Policy Date - other than boundary walls or fences - which encroach onto the Land. 29. Your Title is unmarketable, which allows someone else to refuse to perform a contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage loan on it. 30. Someone else owns an interest in Your Title because a court order invalidates a prior transfer of the title under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws. 31. The residence with the address shown in Schedule A is not located on the Land at the Policy Date. 32. The map, if any, attached to this Policy does not show the correct location of the Land according to the Public Records. OUR DUTY TO DEFEND AGAINST LEGAL ACTIONS We will defend Your Title in any legal action only as to that part of the action which is based on a Covered Risk and which is not excepted or excluded from coverage in this Policy. We will pay the costs, attomeys' fees, and expenses We incur in that defense. We will not pay for any part of the legal action which is not based on a Covered Risk or which is excepted or excluded from coverage in this Policy. We can end Our duty to defend Your Title under Section 4 of the Conditions. Copyright American Land Title Association. AR rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in goad standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. AMERICAN - LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 5 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 107 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 THIS POLICY IS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT SCHEDULES A AND B. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Countersigned By: ?SEAL Authorized Officer or Agent Fidelity National Title Insurance Company By: Attest: President Secretary a� AM ERICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license,from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 06:06 PM Page 6 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091696 Packet Pg. 108 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Date of Policy March 27, 2015 at 02:30 PM SCHEDULE A Policy Amount $20, 000.00 Our name and address is: Bill Fisher / Mike McCarthy / Terry Sarver Fidelity National Title Company of Washington 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21: POLICY NO. 611091898 $500.00 Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability Covered Risk 16: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 10,000.00 or $ 2,500.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 18: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 25,000.00 or $ 5,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 19: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 25,000.00 or $ 5,000.00 (whichever is less) Covered Risk 21: 1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A $ 5,000.00 or $ 2,500.00 (whichever is less) Street Address Of The Land: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 1. Name of Insured: Pelagos Homes LLC, a WA Limited Liability Company 2. Your interest in the Land covered by this Policy is: Fee Simple 3. The Land referred to in this Policy is described as: For APN/Parcel ID(s): 00 4342 084 010 00 Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 84 CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page(s) 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington; TOGETHER with a portion of the vacated alley adjacent thereto which attached by process of law AMERICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LANDT,TEE A'- AI ION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. 1;vi— All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. '' ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 7 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 109 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE A (continued) _POLICY NO. 611091898 pursuant to City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2364 and Recording No. 8305190184, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. END OF SCHEDULE A Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. , r,,,, The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 8 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 110 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS In addition to the Exclusions, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A. Rights or claims of parties in possession, or claiming possession, not shown by the Public Records. B. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. C. Easements, prescriptive rights, rights -of -way, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. D. Any lien, or right to a lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the Public Records. E. Taxes or special assessments which are not yet payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the Public Records. F. Any lien for service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, capacity, or construction or similar charges for sewer, water, electricity, natural gas or other utilities, or for garbage collection and disposal not shown by the Public Records. G. Unpatented mining claims, and all rights relating thereto. H. Reservations and exceptions in United States Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. I. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims or title to water. K. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records, or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AMERICAN ftttttttI CA N Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LAND TITLE N The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30A5 Q 08:06 PM Page 9 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051 -SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 111111 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS (continued) 1. General and special taxes and charges, payable February 15, delinquent if first half unpaid on May 1, second half delinquent if unpaid on November 1 of the tax year (amounts do not include interest and penalties): 4 M. Year: Tax Account No.: Levy Code: Assessed Value -Land: Assessed Value -Improvements General and Special Taxes: Billed: Paid: Unpaid: 2015 00 4342 084 010 00 00210 $163,200.00 $0.00 $1,794.15 $0.00 $1,794.15 Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document: In favor of., City of Edmonds Purpose: maintenance easement for stream channel restoration Recording Date: July 16, 1982 Recording No.: 8207160100 Affects: a 20 foot strip of land within said premises, the centerline described in said instrument City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2364 Recording Date: May 19, 1983 Recording No.: 8305190184 Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document: In favor of: City of Edmonds Purpose: installation, operation and maintenance of a fish ladder and diversion structure Recording Date: March 15, 1990 Recording No.: 9003150306 Affects: a 30 foot strip of land the centerline being the existing stream within said premises Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document: Purpose: allowing for building encroachment, and for ingress and egress Recording Date: August 16, 1999 Recording No.: 199908161158 Affects: as described in said instrument Any prohibition or limitation of use, occupancy or improvement of the Land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any portion which is now or was formerly covered by water. r� Copyright American Land Title Association. AN rights reserved. ,Kr �� II The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. Y All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 10 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 112 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS (continued) 7. Paramount rights and easements in favor of the United States for commerce, navigation, fisheries and the production of power. END OF SCHEDULE B AMERICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. EAND TITLE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.` = ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 11 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 113 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXCLUSIONS POLICY NO. 611091898 In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: a. building; b. zoning; c. land use; d. improvements on the Land; e. land division; and f. environmental protection. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15. 3. The right to take the Land by condernning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to arty land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21. 7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a frau dden t transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws. CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS a. Easement - the right of someone else to use the Land for a special purpose. b. Estate Planning Entity - A legal entity or Trust established by a Natural Person for estate planning. c. Known - things about which You have actual knowledge. The words "Know" and "Knowing" have the same meaning as Known. d. Land - the land or condominium unit described in paragraph 3 of Schedule A and arty improvements on the Land which are real property. e. Mort -gage - a mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed or other security instrument. f. Natural Person - a human being, not a commercial or legal organization or entity. Natural'Person includes a trustee of a Trust even if the trustee is not a human being. g. Policy Date - the date and time shown in Schedule A. If the insured named in Schedule A first acquires the interest shown in Schedule A by an instrument recorded in the Public Records later than the date and time shown in Schedule A, the Policy Date is the date and time the instrument is recorded. h. Public Records - records that give constructive notice of matters affecting Your Title, according to the state statutes where the Land is located. i. Title - the ownership of Your interest in the Land, as shown in Schedule A. j. Trust - a living truest established by a Natural Person for estate planning. k. mpurlUS - Blank Title Insurance Company. I. You/Your - the insured named in Schedule A and also those identified in Section 2.b. of these Conditions. 2. CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE a. This Policy insures You forever, even after You no longer have Your Title. You cannot assign this Policy to anyone else. b. This Policy also insures: (1) anyone who inherits Your Title because of Your death; (2) Your spouse who receives Your Title because of dissolution of Your marriage; (3) the trustee or successor trustee of a Trust or any Estate Planning Entity to whom You transfer Your Title after the Policy Date; (4) the beneficiaries of Your Trust upon Your death; or (5) anyone who receives Your Title by a transfer effective on Your death as authorized by law. c. We may assert against the insureds identified in Section 2.b. any rights and defenses that We have against any previous insured under this Policy. AMERICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. Jk All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeownees Policy of Title Insurance for a One-To•Four Famiy Residence (0210312010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 12 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091698 Packet Pg. 114 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 (continued) 3. HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM a. Prompt Notice Of Your Claim (1) As soon as You Know of anything that might be covered by this Policy, You must notify Us promptly in writing. (2) Send Your notice to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, P.O. Box 45023, Jacksonville, FL 32232-5023, Attn: Claims Department. Please include the Policy number shown in Schedule A, and the county and state where the Land is located. Please enclose a copy of Your policy, if available. (3) If You do not give Us prompt notice, Your coverage will be reduced or ended, but only to the extent Your failure affects Our ability to resolve the claim or defend You. b. Proof Of Your Loss (1) We may require You to give Us a written statement signed by You describing Your loss which includes: (a) the basis of Your claim; (b) the Covered Risks which resulted in Your loss; (c) the dollar amount of Your loss; and (d) the method You used to compute the amount of Your loss (2) We may require You to make available to Us records, checks, letters, contracts, insurance policies and other papers which relate to Your claim. We may make copies of these papers. (3) We may require You to answer questions about Your claim under oath. (4) If you fail or refuse to give Us a statement of loss, answer Our questions under oath, or make available to Us the papers We request, Your coverage will be reduced or ended, but only to the extent Your failure or refusal affects Our ability to resolve the claim or defend You. 4. OUR CHOICES WHEN WE LEARN OF A CLAIM a. After We receive Your notice, or otherwise learn, of a claim that is covered by this Policy, Our choices include one or more of the following: (1) Pay the claim; (2) Negotiate a settlement; (3) Bring or defend a legal action related to the claim; (4) Pay You the amount required by this Policy; (5) End the coverage of this Policy for the claim by paying You Your actual loss resulting from the Covered Risk, and those costs, attomeys' fees and expenses incurred up to that time which We are obligated to pay; (6) End the coverage described in Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21 by paying You the amount of Your insurance then in force for the particular Covered Risk, and those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to that time which We are obligated to pay; (7) End all coverage of this Policy by paying You the Policy Amount then in force, and those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to that time which We are obligated to pay; (8) Take other appropriate action. b. When We choose the options in Sections 4.a. (5), (6) or (7), all Our obligations for the claim end, including Our obligation to defend, or continue to defend, any legal action. c. Even if We do not think that the Policy covers the claim, We may choose one or more of the options above. By doing so, We do not give up any rights. 5. HANDLING A CLAIM OR LEGAL ACTION a. You must cooperate with Us in handing any claim or legal action and give Us all relevant information. b. If You fail or refuse to cooperate with Us, Your coverage will be reduced or ended, but only to the extent Your failure or refusal affects Our ability to resolve the claim or defend You. c. We are required to repay You only for those settlement costs, attorneys' fees and expenses that We approve in advance. d. We have the right to choose the attorney when We bring or defend a legal action on Your behalf. We can appeal any decision to the highest level. We do not have to pay Your claim until the legal action is finally decided. e. Whether or not We agree there is coverage, We can bring or defend a legal action, or take other appropriate action under this Policy. By doing so, We do not give up any rights. 6. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY a. After subtracting Your Deductible Amount if it applies, We will pay no more than the least of: (1) Your actual loss; (2) Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability then in force for the particular Covered Risk, for claims covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21; or (3) the Policy Amount then in force. and any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses that We are obligated to pay under this Policy. i Copyright American Land Title Association. AN PLWAR riL ghts reserved. A `D TITLE LANE ASSOCIATION The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 13 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 115 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. 611091898 (continued) b. If We pursue Our rights under Sections 4.a.(3) and 5.e. of these Conditions and are unsuccessful in establishing the Title, as insured: (1) the Policy Amount then in force will be increased by Ten percent (10%) of the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A, and (2) You shall have the right to have the actual loss determined on either the date the claim was made by You or the date it is settled and paid. c. (1) If We remove the cause of the claim with reasonable diligence after receiving notice of it, all Our obligations for the claim end, including arry obligation for loss You had while We were removing the cause of the claim. (2) Regardless of 6.c.(1) above, if You cannot use the Land because of a claim covered by this Policy: (a) You may rent a reasonably equivalent substitute residence and We will repay You for the actual rent You pay, until the earlier of: (i) the cause of the claim is removed; or (ii) We pay You the amount required by this Policy. If Your claim is covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21, that payment is the amount of Your insurance then in force for the particular Covered Risk (b) We will pay reasonable costs You pay to relocate any personal property You have the right to remove from the Land, including transportation of that personal property for up to twenty-five (25) miles from the Land, and repair of any damage to that personal property because of the relocation. The amount We will pay You under this paragraph is limited to the value of the personal property before You relocate it. d. All payments We make under this Policy reduce the Policy Amount then in force except for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses. Ali payments We make for claims which are covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21 also reduce Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for the particular Covered Risk, except for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses. e. If We issue, or have issued, a Policy to the owner of a Mortgage that is on Your Title and We have not given You any coverage against the Mortgage, then: (1) We have the right to pay any amount due You under this Policy to the owner of the Mortgage, and any amount paid shall be treated as a payment to You under this Policy, including under Section 4.a. of these Conditions; (2) Any amount paid to the owner of the Mortgage shall be subtracted from the Policy Amount then in force; and (3) If Your claim is covered only under Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 or 21, any amount paid to the owner of the Mortgage shall also be subtracted from Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for the particular Covered Risk. f. If You do anything to affect arty right of recovery You may have against someone else, We can subtract from Our liability the amount by which You reduced the value of that right. 7. TRANSFER OF YOUR RIGHTS TO US a. When We settle Your claim, We have all the rights and remedies You have against any person or property related to the claim. You must not do anything to affect these rights and remedies. When We ask, You must execute documents to evidence the transfer to Us of these rights and remedies. You must let Us use Your name in enforcing these rights and remedies. b. We will not be liable to You if We do rat pursue these rights and remedies or if We do not recover arty amount that might be recoverable. c. We will pay any money We collect from enforcing these rights and remedies in the following order. (1) to Us for the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses We paid to enforce these rights and remedies; (2) to You for Your loss that You have not already collected; (3) to Us for any money We paid out under this Policy on account of Your claim; and (4) to You whatever is left. d. If You have rights and remedies under contracts (such as indemnities, guaranties, bonds or other policies of insurance) to recover all or part of Your loss, then We have all of those rights and remedies, even if those contracts provide that those obligated have all of Your rights and remedies under this Policy. 8. THIS POLICY IS THE ENTIRE CONTRACT This Policy, with any endorsements, is the entire contract between You and Us. To determine the meaning of any part of this Policy, You must read the entire Policy and any endorsements. Any changes to this Policy must be agreed to in writing by Us. Any claim You make against Us must be made under this Policy and is subject to its terms. 9. INCREASED POLICY AMOUNT The Policy Amount then in force will increase by Ten percent (10%) of the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A each year for the first five years following the Policy Date shown in Schedule A, up to One Hundred Fifty percent (150%) of the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A. The increase each year will happen on the anniversary of the Policy Date shown in Schedule A. 10. SEVERABILITY If ary part of this Policy is held to be legally unenforceable, both You and We can still enforce the rest of this Policy. 11. ARBITRATION a. If permitted in the state where the Land is located, You or We may demand arbitration. b. The law used in the arbitration is the law of the state where the Land is located. c. The arbitration shall be under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association ("Rules"). You can get a copy of the Rules from Us. AMERICAN Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. LAND TITLE The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeowners Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (02/03/2010) Printed: 05.30.15 @ 08:06 PM Page 14 WA-FT-FTMA-01 530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 116 2.A.a FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (continued) POLICY NO. 611091898 d. Except as provided in the Rules, You cannot join or consolidate Your claim or controversy with claims or controversies of other persons. e. The arbitration shall be binding on both You and Us. The arbitration shall decide any matter in dispute between You and Us. f. The arbitration award may be entered as a judgment in the proper court. 12. CHOICE OF LAW The law of the state where the Land is located shall apply to this policy. Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. µ RWMLF uSppAf'!gW The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. ALTA Homeo mees Policy of Title Insurance for a One -To -Four Family Residence (0210312010) Prinxed: o5.30.15 Q 08:06 PM Page 15 WA-FT-FTMA-01530.610051-SPS-27420-1-15-611091898 Packet Pg. 117 A++:-c-1nmeve j /A TV- ratum to; Kerit Metz -PePap4L Homes LLO. a WA Limited Liability Ldke Stevens Road WA 98258 V Fide ity Nsrtioribf.,ntw 35M 188ttrit. aw. Su4ttiga- Lynnwood, WAN*-f Escrow No.: 6111 189 ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED 201503270660 2 03127/2015 02:30 PM 73.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON RECEIVED JAN 2 5 26% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MU7�N TIONALTril.E Y DEIE -76 iTATt!T0tYWAR1RMT THE GRANTOR($) Step@-AxAakf�o and Kathy Anselmo, husband and wife for and in owisIderation 'Tab Aid to/100 Oollars (510.00) and other good and valuable conolderation in hand paid, conveys, and warrants 40'Peli4s .14ornei L LC. a WA Limited L labi I ity Company the f o3owln described real estate, auaft IrOhe County of Snohomish, State of Washington: Lots 10, 11 and 12. Block 84 CITY OF EDMOND,% . COUNTY. WASHINGTON, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2o 1.111 ats.page(s) 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington; TOGETHER with a portion of the vacetad`al ley.9discerit th ereto which a ttadmd by process of law pursuant to City of Edmonds Ordinance No % -23"-and F t.p6ording No. 8305I90184, records of Snohomish County, Washington - Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Was Abbreviated Legal: (Required 4 full legal not lnsertdo. Tax Paroal Number(s): 00 4342 W4 010 00 Subject to: 1. RIGHTS, RESERVATIONS, COVENANTS, COND)TIONS.; *,T'1CFNS, AGREEMENTS, NOTES, DEDICATIONS, ENCROACHMENTS, AND EAS1xM Win, P ENTLY OF RECORD. Sta" Wwrati Good (LP9 I D-M p WADOOM9400 0 Updoledi 07.30,13 Pop I WA-FT4TWAiM8 ti E CL cr) !3 0 0 CY) >- V) —0 0.00 Cp y 0 C: 'Tco Mz 0 W 0 Attachmel Packet Pg. 118 aA Paled March 25, 2015 County of ICW*that lknow qr STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (continued) Ware the.p6radn(s) whb appeared before ro. and said persons) ackroMedged that (hefshelth ey) signed H* 0(.WiVm Me nt and a c-knowNKkjod It to be (Wslherfthei r) free and voluntary ad for the uses and pu*ses merdior* in this instrument. Dated: -S �IXK�l Notary Pul�c in a f r tha of jt�> -AsO din2m, L. . ...... N Vapolnointexpires: NOTARY PUBLIC p— F;O St kfty wommy ow "a 10-06) WA0G00M.dXWd lUp6m, 07.X-53 > Pftm 2 WA-FT--�l &V.6 I wo!�dj I 0*j I Packet Pg. 119 2.A.a Fidelity National Title Company of Washington 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300, Lynnwood, WA 98037 Phone: (425)640-3506 I FAX: (425)771-6909 BUYER'S STATEMENT Settlement Date: March 30, 2015 Escrow Number: TAC-05-611091898 Disbursement Onto: March 30, 2015 Escrow Officer: Kelly Keller Buyer. Pelagos Homes LLC, a WA Limited Liability Company 0006 S. Lake Stevens Road Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Seller: Steve Anselmo and Kathy Anselmo 2053 N. Lochhaven Dr Hayden, ID 83835 Property: 742 Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION Contract sales price r _ l]uirat al >u nan>ast rrsc�r+r Y Pel#94: }{omaa ilG aLLNA Lirni" Liability Company - PRORATIONS/ADJLIBTMENTS County taxes 03/30/15 to 07/01/15 ($897.08 / 181 X 93 days) TITLE & ESCROW CHARGES EDP FEE Fidelity National Title Company of Washington Escrow Fed Fidelity National Title Company of Washington RECORDING EHARGES Government recording charges Fidelity National Title Company of Washington Subtotals Balance Due FROM Buyer JAN 2 5 2W6 DEVELOPMENT SERICES i DEBIT i CREDIT 20,000.00 500.00 460,93 4.00 657.00 80.00 21.201.93 500.00 20,701.93 TOTALS 21,201.93 21,201.93 I have carefully reviewed the Settlement Statement n nd to the best of my knowledge and belief, It Is a true and accurate statement of all receipts and disbursements made on my account or by me In this transaction. 1 further certify that 1 have received a copy of the Settlement Statement. BUYER: I have Caused or will cause the funds to be dlSJ;jrsed In a•cardancs with the S'ateme:ll which I have Veparohl. To the best of my knowledge, fhe Set fe .ant Starernent which I have prepared Is a true and accurate account of the funds which were received and have been or win be disbursed by the undersigned as part of the settlement of this transaction. Fidel'l tional The Company of Washington Settlement Agent Page 1 of t (817091898f27) March 25, 2016 5:23 PM P Attachme Packet Pg. 120 A1 C!c �""'C f s T C. I 2.A.a I 12/10/2015 Kevin Lalli and Dawn Schaefer 75o Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Neighbor: Kent Dietz 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd Lake Stevens, WA 98258 RECEIVED JAN 2 5 20 en DEVELOPMENT SERVICES In mid -November, you should have received a notice from the City of Edmonds regarding my request for Critical Area Variance for the vacant lot at 742 Daley Street, which borders your property to the west (see copy in this letter). The city has asked me to determine whether a neighbor is interested in purchasing the lot as a natural buffer for their current property, which would satisfy my constitutional right to reasonable economic use. Therefore, I am privately offering this property to you and other adjacent property owners, for a limited time, for $29,000. The price covers my investment costs to date. Be forewarned that the city will likely block future development of this property if this purchase is completed. This offer will be available until 5 PM, January 22, 2016. If you are interested, please contact me at the above address, via email at kent.dietz@outlook.com or by phone at (425) 377-8651• It is my belief that the property is not an asset to the neighborhood in its current state. Evidence on the property clearly shows it is an attractive nuisance. Evidence of trespassing is obvious. In my discussions with you, you mentioned that you have called the police a number of times to report vagrancy. The fence on the property is unattractive and in a state of decay. Trash can be found on the property. Invasive plants, already established, will only get worse over time. It is my belief that development of this property can be done responsibly, improving the ecosystem through removal of invasive non-native plants, addition of new native plantings and funded maintenance for five years. The new home, which will be smaller than indicated in the notice and moved closer to the street, will be designed to be ecologically sound with limited impact, adding an asset to the greater community. The vast majority of the property will be maintained as native growth, with a maintenance plan funded for five years. That being said, if a neighbor believes otherwise and wishes to maintain the property in its current state, I am comfortable selling the property as stated above. Thank you for your time. If you are interested please contact me ASAP to discuss this offer Regards, Kent Dietz Packet Pg. 121 1 I 2.A.a I 12/10/2015 Kent Dietz 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Robert Moen and Kristen Hayford 725 Sprague Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Neighbor: In mid -November, you should have received a notice from the City of Edmonds regarding my request for Critical Area Variance for the vacant lot at 742 Daley Street, which borders your property to the north (see copy in this letter). The city has asked me to determine whether a neighbor is interested in purchasing the lot as a natural buffer for their current property, which would satisfy my constitutional right to reasonable economic use. Therefore, I am privately offering this property to you and other adjacent property owners, for a limited time, for $29,000. The price covers my investment costs to date. Be forewarned that the city will likely block future development of this property if this purchase is made. This offer will be available until January 22, 2o16. If you are interested, please contact me at the above address, via email at kent.dietz@outlookcom or by phone at (425) 377-8651. It is my belief that the property is not an asset to the neighborhood in its current state. Evidence on the property clearly shows it is an attractive nuisance. Evidence of trespassing is obvious. Discussions with neighbors indicate that the police have been called to investigate vagrancy on several occasions. The fence on the property is unattractive and in a state of decay. Trash can be found on the property. Invasive plants, already established, will only get worse over time. It is my belief that development of this property can be done responsibly, improving the ecosystem through removal of invasive non-native plants, addition of new native plantings and funded maintenance for five years. The new home, which will be smaller than indicated in the notice and moved closer to the street, will be designed to be ecologically sound with limited impact, adding an asset to the greater community. The vast majority of the property will be maintained as native growth, with a maintenance plan funded for five years. That being said, if a neighbor believes otherwise and wishes to maintain the property in its current state, I am comfortable selling the property as stated above. Thank you for your time. If you are interested please contact me ASAP to discuss this offer. Regards, Kent Dietz Packet Pg. 122 1 I 2.A.a I 12/10/2015 Kent Dietz 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Gregory Olsen 725 Sprague Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Neighbor: In mid -November, you should have received a notice from the City of Edmonds regarding my request for Critical Area Variance for the vacant lot at 742 Daley Street, which borders your property on the northwest corner (see copy in this letter). The city has asked me to determine whether a neighbor is interested in purchasing the lot as a natural buffer for their current property, which would satisfy my constitutional right to reasonable economic use. Therefore, I am privately offering this property to you and other adjacent property owners, for a limited time, for $29,000. The price covers my investment costs to date. Be forewarned that the city will likely block future development of this property if this purchase is made. This offer will be available until January 22, 2016. If you are interested, please contact me at the above address, via email at kent.dietz@outlook.com or by phone at (425) 377-8651. It is my belief that the property is not an asset to the neighborhood in its current state. Evidence on the property clearly shows it is an attractive nuisance. Evidence of trespassing is obvious. Discussions with neighbors indicate that the police have been called to investigate vagrancy on several occasions. The fence on the property is unattractive and in a state of decay. Trash can be found on the property. Invasive plants, already established, will only get worse over time. It is my belief that development of this property can be done responsibly, improving the ecosystem through removal of invasive non-native plants, addition of new native plantings and funded maintenance for five years. The new home, which will be smaller than indicated in the notice and moved closer to the street, will be designed to be ecologically sound with limited impact, adding an asset to the greater community. The vast majority of the property will be maintained as native growth, with a maintenance plan funded for five years. That being said, if a neighbor believes otherwise and wishes to maintain the property in its current state, I am comfortable selling the property as stated above. Thank you for your time. If you are interested please contact me ASAP to discuss this offer. Regards, Kent Dietz Packet Pg. 123 1 I 2.A.a I 12/10/2015 Kent Dietz 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd Lake Stevens, WA 98258 John Hardy 73o Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Neighbor: In mid -November, you should have received a notice from the City of Edmonds regarding my request for Critical Area Variance for the vacant lot at 742 Daley Street, immediately east of your home (see copy in this letter). The city has asked me to determine whether a neighbor is interested in purchasing the lot as a natural buffer for their current property, which would satisfy my constitutional right to reasonable economic use. Therefore, I am privately offering this property to you and other adjacent property owners, for a limited time, for $29,000. The price covers my investment costs to date. Be forewarned that the city will likely block future development of this property if this purchase is made. This offer will be available until January 22, 2o16. If you are interested, please contact me at the above address, via email at kent.dietz@outlook.com or by phone at (425) 377-8651. It is my belief that the property is not an asset to the neighborhood in its current state. Evidence on the property clearly shows it is an attractive nuisance. Evidence of trespassing is obvious. Discussions with neighbors indicate that the police have been called to investigate vagrancy on several occasions. The fence on the property is unattractive and in a state of decay. Trash can be found on the property. Invasive plants, already established, will only get worse over time. It is my belief that development of this property can be done responsibly, improving the ecosystem through removal of invasive non-native plants, addition of new native plantings and funded maintenance for five years. The new home, which will be smaller than indicated in the notice and moved closer to the street, will be designed to be ecologically sound with limited impact, adding an asset to the greater community. The vast majority of the property will be maintained as native growth, with a maintenance plan funded for five years. That being said, if a neighbor believes otherwise and wishes to maintain the property in its current state, I am comfortable selling the property as stated above. Thank you for your time. If you are interested please contact me ASAP to discuss this offer. Regards, Kent Dietz Packet Pg. 124 1 A+-6--. c. I rn evq f b 2.A.a From: Kent Dietz Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:39PM To: Anita Hardv Subject: RE: 742 Daley Status Anita, Thank you for your response. Do you have any particular questions about the property? I tried to explain the rationale for offering the property for sale in my original offer letter. In essence, the city has asked me to investigate whether my right to "reasonable economic use" from the property can be satisfied by selling to an adjacent land owner, who would buy the property for buffer and not for development. Implicit in that sale would be the agreement that the property would never be developed further. You have questioned the taxable value as assigned by the county. That value is not indicative of the market value of the property (for example, I noticed on Redfin.com that your own home has a taxable value that is more that $200,000 less than Redfin's market value. The city is involved because they have requested investigation into selling the property to a neighbor. Also, I will be re -applying for a critical areas variance with new plans and need to update them on any progress regarding purchase interest by neighbors. At this time, I will update my report to include your request for more information. But that you have not ready to make an offer. Again, my offer is good until January 22"d. For now, I am assuming that is sufficient to satisfy the city request. Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have additional interest or questions, please contact me ASAP. Regards, Kent From: Mita Haroy Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:47 PM To: Kent Dietz Subject: Re: 742 Daley Status Hi Mr. Dietz, Attachmel Packet Pg. 125 2.A.a I don't think we are ready to make an offer before we have more information regarding the property. I am a little unclear of the cities involvement as far as that is concerned. Unfortunately with year end we have been extremely busy so getting together will be a challenge for the next week or so. If you need to discuss before that I am free to talk in the phone. Sent from my Whone On Jan 14, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Kent Dietz ckent.dietz anoutlook.coin> wrote: Anita, Are you and John considering making an offer? I ask because I am preparing to resubmit my application and would like to update my reply to the city with that possibility. Also, I continue to invest in engineering for the project. Just in case I was not clear, I do not think that I am compelled to accept less than my offer price. If you want to offer less, please provide me with that amount and I can put that in my report for the hearing examiner to consider. I have no way of knowing how the hearing examiner will rule ... it is possible that he will compel me to sell for less ... the case law for reasonable economic use is somewhat limited. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Kent From: Kent Dietz Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:03 PM To: Anita Hardv Subject: RE: 742 Daley Status Anita, I would be happy to have a conversation with you and John about the property. How would you like to do that? In person? Over the phone? Via email? I could meet you in Edmonds, maybe at the Starbucks? Or name a place. I am legitimately willing to sell the property if I can walkaway without too much loss. I still think that building on the lot is better for the community, assuming the development is done using the best science and modestly. And it certainly would be more fun for me 0 (this is a post -retirement project). However, I understand there might be other interpretations. I am continuing to engage engineers, developing my response to the initial city review, with an expectation of getting a hearing examiner meeting late January/early February. So, if you continue to be interested, let's meet soon. Packet Pg. 126 2.A.a Thanks for contacting me. Kent From: Arita Hardy Sent: Saturday, January 9, 201611:00 AM To: Kent Dietz Subject: Re: 742 Daley Status Hi MT. Dietz, I am sorry, but yes, I was referring to the taxable value, not the market value. I had noticed before that the taxable value was very high but now it is showing $2400. So we were confused and hoped you could clarify. John and I would be interested in having a conversation to get some more information. Sent from my Wad On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Kent Dietz <kent.dietz@outlook.com> wrote: Mrs. Hardy, Thank you for contacting me. At this time the property is still available for purchase by a neighbor such as yourself. I have contacted Forterra, a conservation firm that preserves natural lands, and they have indicated that they are not interested. I have no assessment for current value. I purchased at a fairly reduced rate, the county has reduced the taxable value (which really has no relevance to market value), due primarily to the failed variance application in 2014. At this time, the only value I can provide is the costs that I have invested in the property to this point. The basis of the price is to establish reasonable economic value as guaranteed as a Constitutional right. Packet Pg. 127 2.A.a I have modified my development plan to reduce the effects on the property. I have attached an updated site plan so you can get a rough idea of my latest thinking. I will be submitting this to the city next week. Again, thank you for contacting me and don't hesitate to contact me again if you have further questions Regards, Kent Dietz From: Anita Hardy Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 8:23 PM To: kent.dietz@outlook.com Subject: 742 Daley Status Hello Mr. Dietz, Can you give me the status of the property as of today? Namely, has it sold? Has it been re- assessed to reflect current value? And any other relevant information. Thank you. Anita Hardy 730 Daley Street Sent from my Wad <Kent Dietz Site plan.2.pdf5 Packet Pg. 128 Af4ria pne,, � c 2.A.a PFECEI ED From: Darcey Hughes Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 5:54PM JAN 2 5 20IAn To: Kent Dietz DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Subject: RE: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA Hello Kent, Thank you, again, for contacting Forterra regarding your property, and for your patience as we juggled around the holidays and people's vacations. Our Conservation Transactions team and our Lands Manager have evaluated the details of your property as a potential project for Forterra. While we appreciate your interest in conservation and always entertain potential new projects, we must use our resources as efficiently as possible and this project does not fit into our current scope of work. However, we would like to suggest that you contact the City of Seattle as a next step in your pursuit of options for conserving this property. They could have an interest in working with you to restore your property as it appears the City may own the fish ladder. We appreciate you considering Forterra as an interested party. Best of luck. —Darcey Darcey Hughes, MA Conservation Transactions Project Manager Forterra T 206-204-8055 From: Kent Dietz Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:03 PM To: Darcey Hughes Subject: RE: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA Darcey, I was wondering if you could update me on your organizational thinking about my offer. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Have a happy holidays. Regards, Kent From: Darcey Hughes Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:01 PM To: Kent Dietz Subject: RE: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA Attachmel Packet Pg. 129 2.A.a Great, thanks Kent. I will take a look at this and the information you provided as soon as I'm able, and hopefully get back to you within a week or so. —Darcey Darcey Hughes, MA Conservation Transactions Project Manager i Forterra T 206-204-8055 From: Kent Dietz Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:04 PM To: Darcey Hughes Subject: RE: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA Darcey, Please find attached my response to your questionnaire. Thanks again for helping me in this process, Kent Dietz From: Kent Dietz Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:15 PM To: Darcey Hughes Subject: RE: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA Darcey, Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I will get the questionnaire back to you today. Can you give me an idea of how long the process takes? I am working on a number of parallel tracks on how to utilize this property and would like to understand the your timeline so I can make appropriate decisions on those other tracks. A couple of parameters that might be useful for your organization: ■ 1 have offered the property to adjacent neighbors, as a natural buffer (no future development) • The offer is good until January 22, 2016 C The offer price is $29000 (which covers most of my costs to date). Please use those parameters during your consideration. Packet Pg. 130 2.A.a Also, I would like to share with your organization my reasoning for attempting to develop this property. It is my belief that the property is not an asset to the neighborhood in its current state. Evidence on the property clearly shows it is an attractive nuisance. Signs of trespassing is obvious. Discussions with neighbors indicate that the police have been called to investigate vagrancy on several occasions. The fence on the property is unattractive and in a state of decay. A city maintained stormdrain/fish ladder on the property is surrounded by an ugly chain link fence (a failed attempt to keep people off the structure). Trash and signs of neighbor dumping can be found on the property. Invasive plants, already established, will only get worse overtime. I am confident that development of this property, in accordance with strict city ordinance and oversight, can be done responsibly, improving the ecosystem through removal of invasive non-native plants, addition of new native plantings and funded maintenance for five years. The proposed home will minimize disruption to the native growth area. My current plan is to develop a 14' x 24' footprint with a 20' x 18' driveway, resulting in disruption on 6.6% of the property, leaving the rest in restored and maintained native growth. If your organization believes that a better result can be attained through your stewardship, then I am willing to complete the proposed sale without any complications. Thank you again for your help in this investigation. Regards, Kent Dietz From: Darcey Hughes Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:04 AM To: Kent Dietz Subject: RE: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA Hello Kent, Thank you for contacting Forterra regarding your property. Our first step in this process will be to determine if this would be a viable project for Forterra based on the nature and location of your property, and for that we will need a little more information. I have attached a PDF Property Questionnaire. If you would fill out this form to the best of your knowledge, and email it back to me, that will be very helpful in getting us started. Once I get the questionnaire back from you, I will take that information, along with maps of the property from the County Assessor's office, to our Conservation Director. She will evaluate the property and then get back to you and let you know our decision and next steps. Packet Pg. 131 2.A.a Please let me know if you have any questions about the questionnaire - if you don't know the exact answer, that's ok, just include your best guess. Thank you, again. -Darcey Darcey Hughes, MA Conservation Transactions Project Manager i Forterra For the people. For the land. Forever. 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98164 T 206-204-8055 1 W forterra.or� Connect with us online: Facebook i Twitter Instagram Linkedin i Subscribe to our enews From: Kent Dietz Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 10:56 PM To: Info2 Subject: Potential undeveloped land purchase in Edmonds, WA To whom it may concern: I have recently purchased an undeveloped lot in Edmonds, WA which is crossed by an anadromous stream. The city codes regarding buffers from the stream preclude building anywhere on the lot so I have requested a reasonable use variance to reduce the buffer requirements. I have applied for a reasonable use variance with the city, to allow me to build a small home on the property. The city has asked me to investigate whether selling the property to an organization such as yours might provide me "reasonable economic use". Is purchase of such a property something that might interest your organization? The tax parcel is 00434208401000 and can be viewed on Snohomish County interactive map: littp-://L),is.sjioco.org/mapsl roe /viewer.litm The property has some native growth and some invasive plants. It is surrounded by built houses and is the only vacant lot in the neighborhood. The property has a stormwater diversion/fish ladder which is maintained by the city of Edmonds. Thank you for your timely consideration of this issue. Regards, Kent Dietz Packet Pg. 132 2.A.a m c �L U) 0 N� L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d O O O r N a+ C N E t V fC a+ Q t �3 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C N E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 133 2.A.a DATUM POINT AT STORM DRAIN MAN HOLE R 19C. I V ED ELEVATION 983 SDMH NW-ftm IIF Lttltt • i4416 tr 0 TI C -05 SS FyV Cc SLOW --__ _ i 1 go x �.XS-'- x x y --_I •S x i UTILITIES TO-CONNj=C,.T \VID k i TAP + , n2- TO ET., HOOK UP `\ gQ1.Pi' I _ S,ANITA Y 5EWER,12 $ aeF AND lu w j o 120 \ 20'. WIDE DRIV UJA ` `,I, -. ,, ` "'_, -- ` - �, 1 6ABION WALL `,SL P6 TC MATCI 4 �\ `■ �I �1 x y BQtH S ES DRIVEWAY • . ', `. i.. �� s I. ■ l' �. .AS OUIReD P#@�7�J ED Iv , � �, '. `�, 1, '�, �', \'■ ��, ''\ lac R�Sl`DE. E`. �' X C336 �• FOOTPR]N ) '1� �',I � `� �', �, 11 � '` 1+� I � C Ll POUTER CONNECTIOP! 1 •, � � �4� C■'+ , AT 51DE OF )3LDG `, ;5' TALL 5LE BLDG HT ■ r A 1 E3Y,A1+Ef:AG tX15T GRADE `■ ','i0 5 (108)fl 4 C m9J` Ci15J = 10-B 13lk a j . �. ■'■ ,1■ �'� ! 's �M li' i 5 , 15Y APE- 10 FT 5 \;\ + 1� it � ~, +� 1,1 1'• l4\ 51 �b3 `. �M'r 0A � i i 1 \ •i rcr 1 5 1 � V` ■ 11 1 '` f I j 1 t A 80 FT S NDARY I 1 + s � ■ � FR�"T EIFCSE CREEK � 1 V , , � I 1 5 , \ ■ , I ! Y FND REBAR & CAPI + I I IC + ,, I +,.��151 !A� V LS#16109 + 1 1 I ' 16C ' k L \ • !' C N0.00. W0 04 1 k FND REBAR &CAP 42F\ y L ■ I k I E�'.y�. V LSa16916 RnAm IL!KE , •, N ', I[ sa'�i-E ' 1 ' . C N0. 01, WO 03 ry m o e o SITE ADDRESS p 142 DALEY ST, EDMONDS Wz AMERICAN HOME PLANNERS 20 JANUARY 4, 201( 2812 COLBY AVENUE, EVERETT WA 98201 (425) 258-6400 Attachmel Packet Pg. 134 �y, 2.A.a UP r-- GRooND f::7C.00f-, PECK, JAN 2 5 20ib UEVELOPNIENT SERVICES Attachme Packet Pg. 135 2.A.a ►44 StcoOlb FLo0 2 ASTER BC- )200M 13 x 13" 'rH I D 1:-LLva Z did Packet Pg. 136 LE '6d 10313ed 1Sb t f901 —� t bol fig I Ld 1N31-2 ,1S`d3 e V'Z (aoueiaen ash ajgeuoseab eaad leoilpo z}aia ZGOOMM-ld : 8800 s}uewt4oelIV 4;inn :podaN jje;S Z500960M-ld :}uauayoe;}d �oRTµ LEo ATiod FFI 1 1 Soo-r is F-LEv aTiatl 2.A.a \OE IELIEQ AT'd to?, 9k - A, f r E m 2 a 3 >I r- 0 a m 0 r N LO O O LO O N Z J d a Packet Pg. 139 /4 2.A.a FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST of co JAN 2 5 20'io i' I / 1 G �Lv�'VI -------.....1--1---- \---------------------------------------- DL V ItISIhCC P'if0'0� FOR RECORDER'S USE: l t � O E r'p ppCb 1 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO 1C IV 00 »......M........An—i y at Lew....... «.... -. ..... � +IOtr'Driytuii... 1 Br Waeh. 98020 f City, State, ZIP......:.........................-.........-.-...-.._...-.. -----.-....--...: Statutory Warranty Deed THE GRANTORS, ALLAN S. ENGLER and BARBARA J. ENGLER, his wife, for and inconsideration of the sum of Thirty -Six Thousand and no/100 Dollars, in hand paid, conveys and warrants to PAUL B. BUSHUE and CHARLOTTE M. BUSHUE, his Wife, the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish , State of Washington: Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 84, the CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, Page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. TOGETHER WITH a portion of the vacated alley adjacent thereto which attached by process of law pursuant to City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2364 and Recording No. 8305190184, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Subject to easements, restrictions and conditions of record; ALSO subject to an underlying contract owing to Jacqueline L. McGinness, which Grantors herein agree to continue to pay until said obligation has been paid in full. (The approximate balance is $3, 000.00) I v tingerS 9FfIf �Oir r- ry . moo. f9r r �a .tar REAI. C. i ATE [ fSE T 7I 1984 FhM1Ol1 N7 PAI6 r� .,�2 DEC 2 8 1984 IStO5 ins !Fh'IBu'i '.,."� -��'-M _ .f r.7�• 4 �NCKIMUNICintl fM al U-401ei Ill ll4uffiwnu"i innRGA arm J WRE S0=0 Laginy Ileasluw BY ,4p Deputy Dated.......... .. _.«.... v5 .... ....19..�..-. A61ay..".9aLer Rrhara J.'Engl. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON } COUNTY OR.... SNOHOMISH ss COUNTY OF ............................ - It On this dnonally nppeaved before, me All S.ng_ler and On this ...................dny of.................«..._......................................., 19.....-...... before me, the undenignad, a Notary Public in and for the State of Weah T...��..tilET ington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ... _........................... ..., ............. ..«... ............ S aOb'� the individual described in and ' to A �Ffii, jtthin and foregoing instrument, r, ,,.„,-W................ ..«.--.... « •••"""""""'•_.,•••,...,_,._., .. . +a sj� ' • bdlisd'l of .,,they.... signed the same r And. to me known to be the ............................President and .......................... Secretary, ,t �r��;a`%'•. �x:.{� .•. ;f� and voluntary act and deed, 'andpuipmes therein tcalwetivnly, of..........................._.........._..................�.-......................._._....._............. the ratporation that the loregging ineltnsment, and ncknowiedgod iQ�`[lyr mentioned. • • h r><acutod thg a, instrument to be the free And voluntary act and deed of mfd mrpor. �` r ci ;::• • Augn, far Lisa uses and purposes therein mentionud, and on oath listed that •-'. _ ,• '+• n ' ................................ authorized to execute the mid instrument and that the seal - � 83;1 ' et my hand a official seal this - p • � ••' 9.�h. affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. official I h affixed h Witness my hand and o cte see hereto xe the day and year first .. _. - y.....t� �'- -. -.«.. above written. ....... .. m.�' �..�,...�.•g' ... .. �- .. .- Notary Public in end far Ihdso LO, of Wash- ....._..».........................._.._..... ............. «...«....�..'. .»...............»..�..-_.......�_.........»...... Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, n ington, residing nl..Edmo...._..---_._._..-......._.....-........ residing at......................................................................... L5 8 41228ui 83 VOL 1877PAGE 1984 10i Packet Pg. 140 At+ock w►eki+ T 2.A.a Wetlalfd Wowco e°g Ar - ----I Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2016 r)EVELUP ENT SERVICES Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 CRITICAL AREAS STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR Dietz —Daley Street Wetland Resources, Inc. Project # 15 10 1 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave SE, Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 For: Kent Dietz 8006 S. Lake Stevens Road Lake Stevens, WA 98258 August 10, 2015 Revised: January 7, 2016 Attachmel Packet Pg. 141 2.A.a TABLE OF CONTENTS PROPERTY LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................1 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION..................................................................._................1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................2 VegetationCriteria....................................................................................................2 SoilsCriteria....................... ....................................................................................... 2 HydrologyCriteria....................................................................................................2 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS/RESULTS..............................................................3 ShellCreek................................................................................................................3 UPLAND/STEEP SLOPE AREAS...............................................................................................4 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES................................................................................5 VARIANCECRITERIA.............................................................................................................5 PROTECTION OF ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT.................................................................10 MITIGATIONSEQUENCING..................................................................................................11 BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT......................................................12 GOALS, MONI'TORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY.............................................15 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards......................................................15 PlantingNotes..............................................................................................16 Monitorin...............................................................................................................19 ContiLign!...........................................................................................................19 Maintenance...........................................................................................................19 COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL GUARANTEE...................................................................19 USEOF THIS REPORT..........................................................................................................20 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................21 I Packet Pg. 142 2.A.a APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP APPENDIX C: SITE PLAN AND MITIGATION MAP APPENDIX D: ENHANCEMENT AREAS PLANT LIST Ii Packet Pg. 143 2.A.a PROPERTY LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) performed a site investigation on May 18, 2015 to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in proximity to Snohomish County parcel number 00434208401000. The subject property is located at 742 Daley Street in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) locator for the subject property is Section 24, Township 27N, Range 03E, W.M. The study site is situated within the Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. The 0.24-acre subject property is situated in an urban/residential setting approximately one-half mile northeast of downtown Edmonds. It is an undeveloped parcel that contains dense forest and scrub -shrub vegetation. Species observed during the site inspection include, but are not limited to, big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), western red cedar (nuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), Doug fir (Pseudotsuga menziesia), vine maple (Ater circinatum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), thimbleberry (Rubus paruforus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia). Several invasive/non- native species are also present, including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), English ivy (Hedera helix), and Japanese yellow rose (Yerria yaponica). The subject property is bordered on the east, west, and south by developed parcels/single-family homes and on the north by Daley Street. The topography of the site is characterized by steep slopes on the western portion of the site and a relatively flat area in the northeast portion. PROJECT DESCRIPTION One stream (Shell Creek) and a landslide hazard area were identified during the May 18 site investigation. Shell Creek is a fish -bearing stream that contains anadromous species. As such, it requires a 100-foot protective buffer per section 23.90.040(D)(1) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The property owner/project applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home and driveway on the subject property. The subject property is completely encumbered by the Shell Creek buffer, making it impossible to avoid buffer impacts and meet the standard mitigation requirements. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the standard requirements contained in Title 23 of the ECDC in order to complete the project. Mitigation for unavoidable buffer impacts will be provided. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION Prior to conducting the site investigation, public resource information was reviewed to gather information on the subject property and the surrounding area in regards to wetlands, streams, and other critical areas. The following information was examined: • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory: The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) does not illustrate any wetland areas on or near the subject property. • USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Surve L. The Web Soil Survey indicates that the subject property is underlain by Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. Although this soil is not considered hydric per the NRCS, it does contain small hydric soil inclusions. • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife OnEM SalmonSgQc Interactive: Mailing System: The SalmonScape interactive map illustrates Shell Creek flowing Wetland Resources, Inc. January 7, 2016 Dietz — Daley Street WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 144 2.A.a through the subject property. SalmonScape indicates that Coho salmon utilize Shell Creek. WDF"vV Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Interactive Map: The PHS Interactive Map illustrates Shell Creek flowing through the subject property. The PHS data indicates that both Coho salmon and resident coastal cutthroat utilize Shell Creek. Snohomish County SnoScape Interactive Maw The SnoScape Interactive Map shows Shell Creek on the subject property and indicates that it is a Type F stream. The SnoScape Map also illustrates steep slopes (i.e. >33%) on the western portion of the subject property. METHODOLOGY Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine determination approach described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountians, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Under the routine methodology, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three steps: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percent cover); 2.) Examination of the site for hydric soils; 3.) Determining the presence of wetland hydrology The following criteria must be met in order to make a positive wetland determination: Vegetation Criteria The Corps Manual and 2010 Regional Supplement define hydrophytic vegetation as "the assemblage of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence." Field indicators are used to determine whether the hydrophytic vegetation criteria have been met. Examples of these indicators include, but are not limited to, the rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation, a dominance test result of greater than 50%, and/or a prevalence index score less than or equal to 3.0. Soils Criteria The 2010 Regional Supplement (per the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils) defines hydric soils as soils "that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. " Field indicators are used to determine whether a given soil meets the definition for hydric soils. Indicators are numerous and include, but are not limited to, presence of a histosol or histic epipedon, a sandy gleyed matrix, depleted matrix, and redoximorphic depressions. Hydrology Criteria Wetland hydrology encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of Wetland Resources, Inc. 2 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 145 2.A.a water has an overriding influence on the characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and chemically reducing conditions, respectively. The strongest indicators include the presence of surface water, a high water table, and/or soil saturation within at least 12 inches of the soil surface. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS/RESULTS One stream — Shell Creek — was identified on the subject property during the May 18 site investigation. No wetlands were observed. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream was identified using the methodology described in the Washington State Department of Ecology document Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Second Review Drafty (Olson and Stockdale 2010). The stream was classified according to the water typing criteria contained in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), section 222- 16-030. This is consistent with ECDC section 23.90.010. The stream was further classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) document Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979), also known as the Cowardin Classification System. Shell Creek Shell Creek originates slightly over one mile southeast of the subject property, just outside the border of Yost Park. It flows in a northwesterly direction until it reaches Aloha Street, at which point it turns slightly and flows almost directly north to Puget Sound. Shell Creek bisects the northeastern corner of the subject property, flowing through a heavily shaded stream channel that is armored on both banks with rip -rap (the northernmost, on -site portion of the stream is not armored, however). The adjacent, off -site portion of the channel (to the southeast) is also armored, yet shading is minimal. At the north end of the subject property, Shell Creek flows through a large box culvert and continues off -site to the northeast. A fish ladder is located within the box culvert. The stream substrate is comprised primarily of cobble, gravel, and small boulders, but sand and silt are also present. The stream channel is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide and approximately two feet deep. The depth of water during the May 18 site investigation ranged from 4 inches to approximately 11 inches. Several small riffle areas were observed within the stream, as well as one or two small drops. The adjacent streamside/buffer vegetation is comprised of native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species, though some non-native/invasive vegetation is present as well (e.g. English ivy). The dominant plant species immediately adjacent to the stream include western red cedar, red alder, vine maple, salmonberry, sword fern, and giant horsetail. The remainder of the stream buffer (which comprises the entire property) also contains these species, as well as big leaf maple, Doug fir, cherry (Prunus sp.), beaked hazelnut, thimblebeixy, lady fern, Himalayan blackberry, and Japanese yellow rose. The Japanese yellow rose shrubs are primarily concentrated in the southern/southeastern portion of the property. Shell Creek meets the criteria for a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. It contains anadromous species and, as such, requires a 100-foot buffer (ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1)). Under the Cowardin classification system, Shell Creek is a Riverine — upper perennial — unconsolidated bottom — cobble/gravel system (R3UB1). In addition, Shell Creek meets the criteria for a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) per ECDC 23.90.010. Type F streams as Wetland Resources, Inc. 3 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 146 2.A.a well as areas associated with state priority species are considered FWHCA's. Coho salmon and resident coastal cutthroat are priority species per WDFW. UPLAND/STEEP SLOPE AREAS The western portion of the subject property is comprised of dense forested vegetation and steep slope areas. The steep slopes constitute a landslide hazard area, which are regulated under chapter 23.80 of the ECDC. Previous geotechnical evaluations of the subject property (as well as the current study) have deemed the on -site landslide hazard areas safe for development/construction. One data point was recorded on the steep slope on the western portion of the subject property. Soils in that vicinity consisted of black (1 OYR 2 / 1) sandy loam to a depth of 8 inches and dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam between 8 and 20 inches in depth. These characteristics are indicative of non-hydric soils. Indicators of wetland hydrology were not observed in this area. The vegetation at this data point is dominated by big -leaf maple, western red cedar, red alder, thimbleberry, Himalayan blackberry, sword fern, and herb Robert (Geranium robertianum). The vegetation is indicative of an upland/non-wetland area. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the on -site stream system, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout western Washington. Streams and their associated buffers in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions including the movement of water and sediment, flood flow alteration, recharge of groundwater, treatment of pollutants, dynamic stability, and habitat diversity. The functional assessment for Shell Creek and its buffer is provided below. The on -site stream serves to collect stormwater from the surrounding areas and convey it to downstream systems. The dense forest and scrub -shrub vegetation aids in flood flow alteration by slowing the velocity of overland flow/runoff. However, this function is hampered by the steep topography of the site and the armored stream channel (lack of overbank flooding). The presence and condition of the buffer vegetation also aids in erosion control and, to a limited extent, with sediment removal. Plant species richness is provided by the stream buffer, the majority of the buffer is comprised of dense native vegetation with scattered areas of invasive/non-native species. Habitat for birds and small mammals is also provided by the buffer. Shell Creek provides limited to moderate fish habitat. The stream channel is well shaded, which aids in temperature regulation, and it provides a direct connection to Puget Sound. However, in - stream habit (e.g. large woody debris, backwater channels, riffles and pools, etc.) is somewhat limited. Despite the setbacks, Shell Creek is still utilized by anadromous species. Along with the preceding functions and values, stream buffers often provide additional functions in western Washington such as physical protection of the stream and aesthetic value. Wetland Resources, Inc. 4 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 147 2.A.a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home and driveway on the subject property. The structure will be located 20 feet south of the northern property line and 5 feet east of the western property line. It will measure 24 feet by 14 feet for a total footprint of 336 square feet (SF). The driveway will measure 22 feet by 20 feet (440 SF) — which includes gabion walls on either side — and will have a 14 percent grade from the roadway up to the house. In addition, an 8-foot setback will be maintained between the house and the stream buffer. According to section 23.40.280 of the ECDC, buildings and other structures must maintain a 15-foot setback (BSBL) from the edges of all critical areas and buffers. However, an 8-foot setback is being proposed in order to reduce the amount of buffer impact. The reduced setback will still allow for an open area between the house and buffer while keeping more of the buffer intact. The total impact area (house, driveway, and setback) will total 1,391 SF. Since the subject property is completely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers, permanent impacts are unavoidable. The Shell Creek buffer covers the entire subject property and the landslide hazard area covers nearly the entire western portion of the subject property. Therefore, in order to complete the project, the applicant is requesting a variance from the standard critical area regulations contained in Title 23 of the ECDC. VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 23.40.210(A)(2) of the ECDC lists the specific variance criteria for development proposals not involving a public agency or public utility. A variance from the standards of Title 23 may be authorized only if a project applicant demonstrates that the application of the title would deny all reasonable economic use of a subject property. "Reasonable Economic Use" is defined in ECDC 23.40.320 as "the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process." Section 23.40.210(A)(2) of the ECDC states that the applicant must demonstrate the following (project - specific responses follow each item): a) The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel Enforcing the critical areas regulations contained in Title 23 of the ECDC would result in a parcel that is completely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers. Utilizing the stream buffer width reduction allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(2) still would not allow for enough room for development of the site without impacting a portion of the Shell Creek buffer and landslide hazard area. In addition, the stream buffer width averaging allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3) is not applicable to this project since there is no room on the subject property to replace averaged buffer areas. Complete avoidance of critical area and/or buffer impacts is not possible unless all reasonable uses of the subject property are denied. Not allowing development of the property would result in an economic hardship for the project applicant. The applicant has offered to sell the parcel to several adjacent landowners, but has received no responses. In addition, the applicant has also offered the property to Forterra, a non-profit organization that focuses on land stewardship and sustainable communities, yet has not received a response. Wetland Resources, Inc. 5 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15101 Packet Pg. 148 2.A.a b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area Due to its size, location, and setting, the options for reasonable economic use of the subject property are limited. The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6) and is surrounded by developed lots and single-family homes. It is located in a residential/urban community. Per section 16.20.010 of the ECDC, permitted primary uses within the RS zone include single-family dwelling units, churches, primary schools, local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, and neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan. The construction of a church or primary school on the subject property is clearly not feasible and is not consistent with the applicant's goals for the property. Public facilities, neighborhood parks, and natural open spaces are also not feasible since the property is privately owned and extremely small. Permitted secondary uses within the RS zone include the following: foster homes; home occupation; renting of rooms without separate kitchens; accessory buildings (fallout shelters, private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site, private stables, private parking for up to five cars, and private swimming pools/recreational facilities); private residential docks or piers; family day-care; commuter parking lots; bed and breakfasts. These uses are not feasible for the subject property due to its extremely small size and current undeveloped state. With the exception of a small, single-family home, there are no other reasonable economic uses for the subject property that would have less impact on the stream buffer. c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic, use of the property The proposed single-family residence will have a very small footprint and is significantly smaller than the surrounding single-family residences. It will not contain a garage, deck, outbuildings, or any other amenities. Only the home and driveway will be constructed on the subject property. Furthermore, the home will be located as far in the northwest corner of the parcel as possible in order to minimize buffer impacts. The proposed house and driveway have been reduced in size from the original design that was submitted to the City in the fall of 2015. The footprint of the house has been reduced by 312 SF, from 648 SF to 336 SF. The driveway has been reduced in size by 29 SF, from 469 SF to 440 SF. In addition, a proposed footbridge leading from the driveway to the top of the box culvert has been removed, and the building setback has been reduced from 10 to 8 feet. Overall, the impact area has been reduced by 1,268 SF from the original design/submittal. d The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor The applicant has not performed any actions or activities that that have resulted in the current state of the subject property. Shell Creek, the Shell Creek buffer, and the landslide hazard area are all pre-existing features that are well known by both the City of Edmonds and the project applicant. The inability to derive reasonable economic use is the result of the existing critical areas regulations within the City of Edmonds and the encumbrances found on the subject property (i.e. stream, stream buffer, and landslide hazard area). The applicant has not attempted to adjust the boundary lines, grant/sell easements, or do anything else to gain an advantage. The Wetland Resources, Inc. 6 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 149 2.A.a applicant has offered to sell the property to neighboring landowners as well as a non-profit organization, yet these offers have been denied. The applicant is aware of the previous critical area reasonable use variance request that was denied by the City (file number PLN20130044) as well as the change to the definition of reasonable economic use in the City's code. The applicant was aware of these conditions prior to purchasing the subject property. However, this does not represent an action by the applicant that would result in the inability to derive reasonable economic use. Purchasing the property with this knowledge does not change the condition of the property. It is still encumbered by critical areas and buffers. The City's critical areas regulations are such that the property cannot be developed without impacting some portion of a critical area or buffer. It should be noted that the previous hearing examiner's decision, dated June 27th, 2014, includes a similar analysis (see item # 13 on page 25). The previous application that was denied was for a much larger structure (approx. 720 SF, not including the driveway). The current applicant is proposing to build a single-family residence that is much smaller. The applicant has designed the project to result in as small of an impact area as possible. The current project also addresses several of the issues that caused the denial of the previous submittal. The applicant is aware of the problems with the previous variance request and has attempted to design a much smaller, more reasonable project for the subject property. e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; The proposed project will have no impact on the public health, safety, or welfare, either on or off the subject property. The proposed single-family home and associated driveway are very small and do not encroach onto any neighboring parcels or public areas. The proposed project is in accord with the surrounding neighborhood and is significantly smaller than the surrounding single-family homes. This is a private property and a private development proposal; it will not involve the public or impact them in any way. Examples of unreasonable threats would be the complete removal of buffer vegetation, discharging runoff directly to the stream, armoring the stream edge, or the construction of a much larger structure, among other things. What is being proposed is not unreasonable due to the small footprint the project will have, particularly when compared to neighboring properties and structures. Although the stream buffer will be impacted by the proposed project and some buffer vegetation will be removed, the majority of the on -site buffer will remain intact. The remaining vegetation will continue to provide shading for the stream, woody debris recruitment for in -stream habitat, and habitat for terrestrial species, among other functions. A mitigation plan is being proposed to enhance the on -site buffer as compensation for buffer impacts. The mitigation plan will include the removal of invasive vegetation and the installation of native trees and shrubs. A split -rail fence will be constructed around the perimeter of the 8-foot setback in order to prevent encroachment into the stream buffer. Furthermore, native ground cover and/or low -growing native shrubs will be installed within the 8-foot setback in order to provide some additional habitat. Leaving the majority of the stream buffer intact, along with providing buffer enhancement, will maintain the functions of the buffer. Further impact assessment is contained Wetland Resources, Inc. 7 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15101 Packet Pg. 150 2.A.a in the "Buffer Mitigation Plan and Impact Assessment" section, below. In the November 13, 2015 Letter of Completeness/Request for Additional Information prepared by the City of Edmonds, the following question was posed: "If variances such as the current request are granted on all properties encumbered by critical areas, would the cumulative impact of such development pose an unreasonable threat?" It is impossible to determine the result of granting all future variances similar to this one. It depends heavily on what each project entails, the sizes of the impact areas, what types of critical areas are being impacted, and what type of mitigation plans are being proposed, among other things. The applicant has no way of knowing if the future cumulative impacts resulting from similar projects will pose an "unreasonable threat." If other projects requiring a variance such as this one are designed to avoid and/or minimize critical area impacts as much as possible and provide adequate mitigation, then they shouldn't be viewed as unreasonable threats. f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science The proposed project has been designed to minimize critical area impacts while still meeting the needs of the applicant. Outside of the building and driveway footprints, the stream buffer will remain intact. The stream itself will not be altered in any way by the proposed project. The landslide hazard area has been deemed safe for development by a licensed geotechnical engineer. A buffer mitigation plan has been developed that will compensate for the stream buffer impacts. This mitigation plan was developed in accordance with Best Available Science and utilized guidance documents prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). It is meant to maintain the functions and values of the stream buffer. Furthermore, the methods used to assess the stream and its buffer are consistent with the methods and practices employed by professional ecologists. g The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. The proposed project will be in conformance with all applicable City of Edmonds regulations Specific variance criteria are listed in section 23.40.210(B) of the ECDC. This section of the ECDC states that the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project conforms to the following criteria (project -specific responses follow each item): 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district Special conditions on the subject property include a fish -bearing stream, a 100-foot stream buffer, and a landslide hazard area. These features encumber the entire site. While a few of the other parcels in the vicinity contain streams and/or landslide hazard areas, they were developed prior to the adoption of the City of Edmonds' current critical areas regulations and, therefore, were not necessarily required to maintain protective buffers. Critical areas and buffers are not found on all lands within the City of Edmonds. Wetland Resources, Inc. 8 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 151 2.A.a 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant The presence of critical areas and buffers on the subject property are not the result of any actions by the project applicant. These features have always been present. 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights. Fully enforcing the regulations contained in Title 23 of the ECDC would result in a parcel that is completely encumbered by critical areas and critical area buffers. Utilizing the stream buffer width reduction allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(2) still would not allow for enough room for development of the site without impacting a portion of the Shell Creek buffer and landslide hazard area. In addition, the stream buffer width averaging allowance described in ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3) is not applicable to this project since there is no room on the subject property to replace averaged buffer areas. Not allowing development of the property would result in an economic hardship for the project applicant. All of the surrounding lots in the immediate vicinity are developed. As previously stated, the applicant has attempted to sell the property, but has been unsuccessful, leaving no other alternatives for use of the property. The variance being requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with a reasonable economic use of the property. There are no other practical, reasonable uses for the subject property that would be in conformance with the City's zoning regulations. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances The requested variance would only allow the applicant to construct a small, single-family home on the subject property, which is consistent with surrounding land uses. It would not grant any special privileges to the project applicant that aren't enjoyed by adjacent landowners. The City of Edmonds has developed critical area regulations in order to protect critical areas and buffers within the City and ensure the maintenance or improvement of their functions and values, The November 13, 2015 Letter of Completeness/Request for Additional Information states that the critical area regulations "provide prohibitions against developing within a critical area or critical area buffer." However, the critical area regulations also contain a process by which a variance from the standard regulations can be applied for. While the final decision must be made via a hearings examiner review, the variance process is part of the City's critical area regulations. A variance allows an applicant to seek relief from the strict application of the critical area regulations, thereby allowing for the reasonable economic use of a subject property. If an applicant can meet the specific criteria, then the variance is typically granted. The burden of proof is on the applicant and he/she must prepare the required documents, seek assistance from experts, etc. The applicant in this case has done everything necessary to prove that a variance is required for the reasonable economic use of his property. Granting the variance should not be considered a special privilege since the applicant must still meet specific criteria. He is still bound to a set of rules/requirements. Wetland Resources, Inc. 9 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 152 2.A.a 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject propery The proposed development project will have no negative impacts on the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to property or improvements near the subject property. The proposed single- family home and associated driveway are small and do not encroach onto any neighboring parcels or public areas. The proposed project is in accord with the surrounding neighborhood and is much smaller than the surrounding single-family homes. Although the project will result in unavoidable impacts to the buffer of Shell Creek, the proposed mitigation plan will compensate for these impacts and will maintain the functions and values of the buffer. Granting the variance is consistent with the general intent of Title 23 of the ECDC. Section 23.40.000 of Title 23 states the following (among other things): The purpose of this title is to designate and classify ecologically .sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private propery. • This title is to be administered with flexibiliy and attention to site -specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this title to make a parcel of propery unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing development. The City has a responsibility to protect critical areas while still allowing for reasonable use of a private parcel. Since the applicant has been unable to sell the property, he is left with constructing a reasonable, livable structure on -site. 6 The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. Best available science has been used in the analysis of the on -site conditions, specifically Shell Creek and the adjacent buffer. In addition, the proposed mitigation plan was developed in accordance with Best Available Science; it utilizes guidance documents prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Both the proposed development and the mitigation plan have been designed to maintain the functions and values of the stream buffer while still meeting the project goals. Only the minimum amount of buffer necessary will be altered for the proposed development. Furthermore, the proposed structures are small compared with those located on adjacent, developed parcels. PROTECTION OF ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT Section 23.90.040(B) of the ECDC contains specific development standards for activities occurring within anadromous fish habitat. It states the following (project -specific responses follow each item): Wetland Resources, Inc. 10 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project #15101 Packet Pg. 153 2.A.a 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a) Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species The proposed project does not involve any in -water work, so construction can occur at any time. That being said, the applicant or lead ecologist will contact WDFW to ensure that there are no limitations to the timing of the project. b) An alternative alignment or locationfor the activiy is notfeasible; The current location of the proposed development will result in the least amount of buffer impact. While the structures could be moved closer to the southwest corner of the site and further away from the stream, doing so would result in a larger buffer impact area. c) The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; The proposed development has been designed to reduce the impacts to the stream buffer as much as possible. Shrinking the footprint of the development and providing buffer enhancement will maintain the functions and values of the buffer. d) Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and Shoreline erosion control measures are not being proposed as part of this project. e) Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. A mitigation plan is being proposed as part of this project. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. No in -water work will occur as part of this project. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. Filling of aquatic areas shall not occur as part of this project. MITIGATION SEQUENCING Section 23.040.120 of the ECDC lists mitigation sequencing requirements for projects that will result in alteration of a critical area. Per the ECDC, alterations to critical areas shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference (project specific responses follow each item): Wetland Resources, Inc. 11 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 154 2.A.a 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Due to the encumbrances on the subject property, complete impact avoidance cannot be achieved. Shell Creek and its buffer encompass the entire subject property, making it impossible to utilize the site without impacting one or both of these areas. 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts. The proposed development has been designed to minimize critical area impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed project footprint is very small (1,391 Sl�, much smaller than those found on neighboring parcels. The structures will be located on the subject property in such a way as to minimize the overall buffer impacts. 3) Rectf ing the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. The affected area/ cannot be restored to historical or pre-existing conditions since the impacts will be permanent in nature. The proposed house and driveway will be permanent fixtures on the subject property. 4) Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods. The landslide hazard area has been deemed safe for development by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Standard erosion control best management practices (BMP's) will be employed to avoid and minimize impacts to the on -site steep slopes. 5) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Due to the permanent nature of the impacts, they cannot be reduced or eliminated over time. The remainder of the property and stream buffer, however, will be maintained in its current condition. 6) Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing enhancing or providing substitute resources or environments. A buffer mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for the unavoidable impacts. The mitigation plan is discussed below. 7) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans have been developed concurrently with the mitigation plan. BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT The proposed development project will result in unavoidable buffer impacts. These include the single-family home, driveway, and all of the area within the boundary demarcated by the split - rail fence. To compensate for these impacts, buffer enhancement will be performed. Wetland Resources, Inc. 12 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15101 Packet Pg. 155 2.A.a Approximately 1,689 SF of stream buffer will be enhanced with native trees and shrubs and through the removal of invasive vegetation. A split -rail fence will be installed between the new single-family home and the stream buffer in order to prevent intrusion into and disturbance of the buffer. Section 23.40.280 of the ECDC states that buildings and other structures must maintain a 15-foot setback (BSBL) from the edges of all critical areas and buffers; however, an 8- foot BSBL is being proposed for this project. A larger BSBL would result in the removal of more stream buffer than a smaller setback. The small setback still allows for an open area, or "break," between the proposed house and buffer while keeping more of the buffer intact and unaltered. Vegetation on the inside of the split -rail fence will consist of low -growing native shrubs and/or groundcovers. Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salal (Gualtheria shallon), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and/or kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uaa-urst) shall be planted between the split -rail fence and house. Plant spacing will be such that access to the outside of the house (e.g. for maintenance) is not obstructed. Specific quantities and plant layout will be addressed in an as - built plan. Per ECDC section 23.40.110(B), mitigation shall be in -kind and on -site, when possible. Since the buffer impacts are occurring on the project site, on -site mitigation makes the most sense. Furthermore, the project site (and the City of Edmonds) is not located within the service area of an approved mitigation bank, and the City of Edmonds does not have an in -lieu fee mitigation option, so on -site mitigation is the only viable option. Although a portion of the on -site stream buffer will be permanently impacted by the proposed project, the proposed mitigation plan and preservation of the remaining stream buffer will maintain stream and buffer functions. The entirety of the subject property outside of the development area/split-rail fence will remain untouched and vegetation will be preserved. The split -rail fence will prevent further intrusion into the buffer by demarcating a clear boundary. While some vegetation will need to be removed in order to construct the single-family home, the proposed buffer enhancement areas will be planted with native trees and shrubs to offset this loss. The remaining buffer vegetation and new trees and shrubs will continue to provide limited flood - flow alteration and erosion control. Plant species richness will be maintained due to the preservation of the remaining stream buffer vegetation and the installation of new vegetation. The proposed project will not impact Shell Creek, so stream functions shall be preserved. Stream shading will remain intact since clearing immediately adjacent to the stream will not occur. Existing snags and logs/large woody debris located throughout the buffer will remain in place to maintain habitat for terrestrial species. Five buffer enhancement areas will be established on the subject property. Three of these areas will receive native trees and shrubs. The remaining two enhancement areas, which win be located along the northern portion of the stream channel, will be planted with willow stakes. These stream bank enhancement areas are not armored and are capable of being planted. The willow stakes are fast growing species and will provide shade for the northern portion of the stream. Prior to planting, invasive/non-native species shall be removed from all enhancement areas. Tables 1 through 5 list the species that will be planted within the buffer enhancement areas. Wetland Resources, Inc. 13 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 156 2.A.a Table 1: Species List for Enhancement Area #1 (984 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Douglas fir* Pseudotsu a menziesh 1 gallon 8' on -center OC 7 Vine ma le Acer circinatum 1 gallon T OC 20 Thimbleberry Rubus arvi ores 1 gallon T OC 20 Snowberry S m horicar)os albus 1 gallon T OC 20 Cascara Fran ula purshiana 1 gallon T OC 20 Sword fern Polystichum munitum 1 gallon T OC 20 *Doug fir shall only be planted in the northern, open portion of Enhancement Area #1. Quantity decreased to account for smaller planting area. Table 2: Species List for Enhancement Area #2 (284 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Douglas fir Pseudotsu,aa menziesii 1 gallon 8' OC 4 Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 gallon T OC 6 Thimbleberry Rubus tarvLorus 1 gallon T OC 6 Snowberry Sym horicar os albus 1 gallon T OC 6 Cascara Fran ula purshiana 1 gallon T OC 6 Sword fern Pol stichum munitum 1 gallon T OC 6 Table 3: Species List for Enhancement Area #3 (228 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity -Douglas fir Pseudotsu a menziesii 1 gallon 8' OC 2 Western red cedar 77auja plicata 1 gallon 8' OC 2 Vine ma le Acer circinatum 1 gallon T OC 4 Thimbleberry Rubus arai Torus 1 gallon T OC 4 Snowberry m horicar os albus 1 gallon T OC 4 Cascara Fran ula purshiana 1 gallon T OC 4 Sword fern Pol stichum munitum 1 gallon T OC 5 Table 4: Species List for Enhancement Area #4 (77 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Pacific willow Salix lucida Stakes (-3' long) T OC 10 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Stakes � Ton T OC 10 Table 5: Species List for Enhancement Area #5 (116 SF) Species Scientific Name Size Spacing Quantity Pacific willow Salix lucida Stakes (-3' long) T OC 14 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Stakes —T lon - T OC 14 Planting Area #3 is currently dominated by a non-native flowering shrub (Japanese yellow rose; Kem'a faponica). These plants will be removed from the planting area prior to installation of the native vegetation. Wetland Resources, Inc. January 7, 2016 14 Dietz — Daley Street WRI Project #15101 Packet Pg. 157 2.A.a The exact location and configuration of the planting areas may need to be adjusted slightly due to existing vegetation. This will be done on -site by the lead ecologist and landscaper (or project applicant if he chooses to install the vegetation) prior to planting. Any changes to the planting areas will be discussed in the as -built report. In addition to the specific planting areas, the remainder of the on -site stream buffer will be inspected for areas of non-native/invasive species. Should any significantly sized areas be located, they will be removed and re -planted with native vegetation. This will be addressed in the as -built report. It should be noted that Enhancement Area # 1 is located on the opposite side of Shell Creek from the proposed development. Although removed from the impact area, enhancement of this area will still improve overall stream buffer conditions. Looking at the buffer as a whole and not as separate sides, improvement of any portion of the buffer will still benefit the stream. Mitigation should occur wherever possible. Enhancement opportunities on the subject property are limited, as the majority of the buffer is comprised of dense, native vegetation. An enhancement area similar in size to Enhancement Area # 1 does not exist on the west side of Shell Creek. If possible, plant installation should take place in late fall or early spring (prior to the start of the growing season). Plants shall be obtained from a reputable nursery familiar with native vegetation and that is capable of providing local genetic stock. Limited species substitution may be allowed; however, the City of Edmonds and/or the lead ecologist must approve the substitution. A mulch containing wood chips and some green/vegetative material shall be applied in a 2-foot radius around the base of each installed plant to a depth of 2-4 inches. Mulch will provide nutrients to the new trees and shrubs and will help suppress establishment of weedy species. In order to avoid stem decomposition/rot, the mulch shall not be allowed to touch the plant trunks/stems. Plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Lath staking, brightly colored flagging, or another form of marking shall be placed on or near each installed plant to assist in locating the plants during maintenance and monitoring activities. Irrigation shall be provided during the first two years of the monitoring period and will occur during the summer/dry season (e.g. June through September), any extensive dry periods, and/or as determined by the lead ecologist. Water shall be applied to the new plants at a rate of one (1) inch per week. Irrigation can be provided via hand watering or through a temporary irrigation system. The lead ecologist shall be on -site to inspect plant materials for proper size and quality, inspect the layout and planting locations, and to complete a final walk-through before approving the buffer enhancement actions. GOALS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Project goals are established to identify what the mitigation plan is attempting to accomplish. Objectives identify specific actions that are taken or components that are initiated in order to meet the project goals. Finally, performance standards provide measurable criteria for Wetland Resources, Inc. 15 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project #15I01 Packet Pg. 158 2.A.a determining if the goals and objectives are being achieved (Washington State Department of Ecology et. al., 2006). The goals of this mitigation plan include the following: • Compensate for the loss of stream buffer resulting from the development. • Provide protection for the on -site stream buffer. These goals will be met by performing the following actions (i.e. objectives): Enhance 1,689 SF of existing stream buffer by installing 15 native trees, 120 native shrubs, 31 native ferns, and 48 willow stakes within the enhancement areas. • Install a permanent, split -rail fence along the edge of the on -site stream buffer. The performance standards for the buffer enhancement areas include the following: • Survival of planted trees, shrubs, ferns, and willow stakes will be 100% following the first year of monitoring; 80% following the third year; and 70% by the fifth year. All dead plants shall be replaced following the first year of monitoring. • Tree and shrub areal coverage will be 30% at the end of the third year of monitoring and 60% at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (Note: desirable native volunteer species (e.g. red alder, salmonberry) may contribute up to 20% cover in each enhancement area. If volunteer species exceed 20% cover, control measures shall be initiated in an effort to maintain species diversity). • Invasive and non-native species shall not provide more than 25% areal coverage throughout the enhancement areas at any time. • The split -rail fence shall be installed per the specifications and shall be maintained throughout the five-year monitoring period. Planting notes Inspections The lead ecologist shall be present on site to inspect the plants prior to planting and may periodically inspect the mitigation installation process. Minor adjustments to the original design may be necessary prior to and during construction due to unusual or unknown site conditions. A City of Edmonds representative and/or the lead ecologist will make these decisions during construction. Planting If possible, plant installation will take place in late fall or early spring (prior to the start of the growing season). Plants shall be obtained from a reputable nursery familiar with native vegetation and that is capable of providing local genetic stock. Limited species substitution may be allowed, but must be approved by City of Edmonds personnel and/or the lead ecologist. Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Standard erosion and sediment control measure BMP's shall be employed during construction and during the planting process. These may include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fencing between the construction area and stream buffer; use of high -visibility fencing; spreading Wetland Resources, Inc. 16 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 159 2.A.a hay or using plastic covering on exposed ground or disturbed areas; mulching; preserving natural vegetation. Handling Plants shall be handled to avoid damage, including breaking, bruising, root damage, sunburn, drying, freezing, or other injury. Plants must be covered during transport. Plants shall not be bound with wire or rope in a manner that could damage branches. Protect plant roots with shade and wet soil in the period between delivery and installation. Do not lift container stock by trunks, stems, or tops. Do not remove from containers until ready to plant. Water all plants as necessary to keep moisture levels appropriate to the species requirements. Plants shall not be allowed to dry out. All plants shall be watered thoroughly immediately upon installation. Soak all containerized plants thoroughly prior to installation. Storage Plants stored for longer than one month prior to planting shall be planted in nursery rows and treated in a manner suitable to specific species requirements. Plants must be re -inspected by the lead biologist prior to installation. Damaged plants Damaged, dried out, or otherwise mishandled plants will be rejected at installation inspection. All rejected plants shall be immediately removed from the site. Plant Names Plant names shall comply with those generally accepted in the native plant nursery trade. Any question regarding plant species or variety shall be referred to the lead ecologist. All plant materials shall be true to species and variety and legibly tagged. Quality and condition Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth, healthy, well branched, and vigorous, with well - developed root systems, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged, diseased, pest -infested, scraped, bruised, dried out, burned, broken, or defective plants will be rejected. Roots All plants shall be containerized with the exception of the willow stakes. Root bound plants or B&B plants with damaged, cracked, or loose root balls (major damage) will be rejected. Immediately before installation, plants with minor root damage (e.g. broken and/or twisted roots) must be root -pruned. Matted or circling roots of containerized plantings must be pruned or straightened and the sides of the root ball must be roughened. Sizes Plant sizes are indicated in Tables 1 through 5, above. Larger stock may be acceptable provided that it has not been cut back to the size specified, and that the root ball is proportionate to the size of the plant. Smaller stock may be acceptable, and preferable under some circumstances, based on site -specific conditions. Any changes to the original mitigation design must be approved by the lead ecologist and/or the City of Edmonds. Measurements, caliper, branching, and balling and burlapping shall conform to industry standards. Wetland Resources, Inc. 17 Dietz — Daley Street January7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 160 2.A.a Form Evergreen trees shall have single trunks and symmetrical, well -developed form. Deciduous trees shall be single trunked unless specified as multi -stem in the plant schedule. Shrubs shall have multiple stems and be well branched. Weeding Non-native and invasive vegetation in the mitigation areas will be hand weeded from around all newly installed plants at the time of installation and on a routine basis throughout the monitoring period. No chemical control of vegetation on any portion of the site is allowed without the approval of the City of Edmonds. Site conditions The contractor shall immediately notify the lead ecologist of drainage or soil conditions likely to be detrimental to the growth or survival of plants. Planting operations should not be conducted under the following conditions: freezing weather, when the ground is frozen, excessively wet weather, excessively windy weather, or in excessive heat. Planting Pits Planting pits should be circular with vertical sides, and should be at least twice the size of the root ball. In compacted soils, the sides of the planting pits should be scarified/broken up. Set plants upright in pits. Burlap, if used, shall be removed from the planting pits. Backfill shall be worked back into holes such that air pockets are removed without compacting the soils. Water Plants should be watered midway through backfilling, and again upon completion of backfilling. For late spring/early summer plantings (if approved), a rim of earth should be mounded around the base of the tree or shrub no closer than the drip line, or no less than 30" in diameter, except on steep slopes or in hollows. Plants should be watered a second time within 24-48 hours after installation. The earthen rim/dam should be leveled prior to the second growing season. Staking Due to the small size of the proposed plantings, staking should not be necessary. If the plant does need support, then strapping or webbing should be used as low as possible on the trunk to loosely brace the tree with two stakes. Do not brace the tree tightly or too high on the trunk. Do not use wire in a rubber hose for strapping as it exerts too much pressure on the bark. As soon as supporting the plant becomes unnecessary, stakes should be removed. All stakes must be removed within two (2) years of installation. Plant Location Lath staking, brightly colored flagging, or another form of marking shall be placed on or near each installed plant to assist in locating the plants during maintenance and monitoring activities. Arrangement and Spacing The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Wetland Resources, Inc. 18 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 10 1 Packet Pg. 161 2.A.a Mulch A wood chip mulch (containing some green/vegetative material) will be placed around the base of each plant in a 2-foot radius and at a depth of 2 to 4 inches. Mulch shall not be allowed to contact plant stems in order to avoid plant decay and rot. Monitoring A monitoring plan will begin with the preparation of an as -built report following completion of the mitigation plan. This report will address the completed mitigation plan and identify if any changes or revisions have been made. Following submittal of the as -built plan, monitoring visits will occur. Monitoring will begin the first year following mitigation installation. Per section 23.40.130(D), monitoring must be performed for at least three years. Monitoring visits for this project will occur annually (in the late spring/early summer) for a period of five years. Due to the small sizes of the enhancement areas, monitoring techniques will include visual observations to assess tree and shrub survivability and coverage. Plant counts will also be performed within each enhancement area. Photo points shall be established within each enhancement area in order to provide photo documentation of the mitigation site. Photos will be included in each monitoring report. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Edmonds in the fall of each monitoring year. The reports will summarize the overall conditions of the mitigation areas and discuss whether the performance standards are being met. On year 5, the final monitoring report will be prepared and will discuss whether or not the mitigation plan has been successful per the established goals, objectives, and performance standards. If the mitigation plan is deemed unsuccessful, contingency actions will be utilized and/or the monitoring period may be extended. Contingency If, during any of the monitoring visits, 20% of the plants within any enhancement area, or in any particular stratum within an enhancement area, are severely stressed, or it appears that 20% may not survive, additional plants will be installed. If invasive and non-native species exceed 25% aerial coverage within any of the enhancement areas at any time, control measures will be initiated. Additional contingency actions may include, but will not be limited to, more aggressive weed control, additional mulching, species substitution, soil amendments, and/or additional irrigation. If necessary, a meeting between the lead ecologist and City of Edmonds personnel will be held to develop additional contingency actions. Maintenance Maintenance will be performed within the enhancement areas annually. Maintenance actions may include, but are not limited to, replacement of dead vegetation, removal of invasive and non-native vegetation, trash cleanup, and fence repair. Maintenance needs will be discussed in the annual monitoring reports. Completed maintenance tasks and maintenance that needs to be done will be addressed in each monitoring report. COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL GUARANTEE The following is a cost estimate for plant materials, labor, monitoring, and maintenance. This does not represent an actual bid (please note: plant prices include labor and installation): Wetland Resources, Inc. 19 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project # 15 101 Packet Pg. 162 2.A.a Plants (potted) — $13.00/plant: $2,158.00 Willow whips — $4.00/plant: $192.00 Estimated cost of monitoring: $4,500.00 Estimated cost of maintenance: $1,000.00 Total: $7,850.00 Per ECDC section 23.40.130(1' , a financial guarantee is required to ensure that the mitigation Plan is fully implemented. The financial guarantee shall be posted in accordance with ECDC section 23.40.290 ("Bonds to Ensure Mitigation, Maintenance, and Monitoring"). The financial guarantee must be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater. Therefore, the financial guarantee for this project will be approximately $9,420.00 (the final guarantee amount should be based on an actual bid for the mitigation project, not the estimate). USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan is supplied to Kent Dietz as a means of determining and protecting on -site critical areas, as required by the City of Edmonds. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. This delineation and report conforms to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Jim Rothwell Senior Ecologist, PWS Wetland Resources, Inc. Wetland Resources, Inc. 20 Dietz — Daley Street Packet Pg. 163 2.A.a REFERENCES Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogcomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRPDE-4. US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Code Publishing Company. Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/edmonds/. Seattle, WA Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engneers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Corps Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1-241. Published July 17, 2013. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 2012. Munsell Soil Color Book. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, MI. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS). SnoScape: Snohomish County Landscape Imaging. littp://&.snoco.orz/maps/snosc4pe/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engincers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2A). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Publication # ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory (i M. Wetlands M4pper- htip://www.fvvs.gov/wetlands/. USDA-NRCS. Web Soil Surve�. OiLq2://websoRsunLey.nrcs.tisda.gov/apl?/HomePage.hLm. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Marcy 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01Ia. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Marcy 2006, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species: PHS on the Web. (http://wdf'w.wa.gov/mapping/phs/). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. SalmonScape, OiLgp://wdfNv.wa.gov/mgpRing/salmonscape/index.htino. Wetland Resources, Inc. 21 Dietz — Daley Street January 7, 2016 WRI Project #15101 Packet Pg. 164 2.A.a Appendix A Site Photos NU."'Otnr��htl ��c� PJ-P I - Cct+ b .1 Packet Pg. 165 2.A.a Appendix B Existing Conditions Map m c �L m U) m c� c 0 N d d L Q V �L U N 0 N O O LO r O N Z J d CO O O N a+ C N E t V f0 a+ Q L �3 0 a m 0 r Cn N to O O LO O N Z J d C CD E t V cC Q Packet Pg. 166 I 2.A.a I EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DALEY STREET EASIWGBOARD FENCE X—X—X 9D.01 ip N 46 1MFQO'T STREAM BUFFER EDGE OF ASPHALT EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET Scale I" = 20' 1 j 4-2 5)1331 7-3 1-7 4— F- (425) 337-3045 FILZZPMME=Z=ZZ� Ems& mftxVmftd,—.— Sheel 1A D1.1z I I Packet Pg. 167 2.A.a Appendix C Site Plan and Mitigation Map O O O N a+ C CD E t V f0 a+ Q L 3 0 a m 0 r CO N LO O O LO O N Z J d C E t V R r� Q Packet Pg. 168 I 2.A.a I SITE PLAN & MITIGATION MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DALEY STREET m UTILITIES-� I' GABION WALL SLOPE TO MATCH BOTH SIDES OF DRIVEWAY AS REQUIRED I 20'BSBL I PROPOSED IL. SFR Scale 11" = 20' 0 10 20 30 40 e>awrcaewlmFrxcr BOX CULVERT r SPLIT -RAIL — SHELL CREEK ---- 1 DO -FOOT STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREAS 1�1--7_t1 WILLOW STAKE ENHANCEMENT IL�I AREAS x---x SPLIT -RAIL FENCE OF ASPHALT NOTE& "STREAM BUFFER COMPRISES ENTIRETY OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF SPLIT -RAIL FENCE. *EROSION CONTROL BMP'S MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE 'THE EXACT LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANTING AREAS MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT DUE TO EXISTING VEGETATION. THIS WILL BE DONE ON -SITE BY THE LEAD ECOLOGIST AND LANDSCAPER PRIOR TO PLANTING. ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE AS -BUILT REPORT. AREAS OF DENSE/SIGNIFICANT INVASIVE VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THE STREAM BUFFER WILL BE REMOVED AND RE -PLANTED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE AS -BUILT REPORT. SITE PLAN & MITIGATION MAP )OW5 ASS AC DIETZ - DALEY STREET Phon ^l<iB /w �4Mitt lr.arop.ri.. MYN : (425) 3373174 Sheet 1/1 Fax: (425) 3373045 Kent Dietz WRI Job #15101 Email : meilbocRaeUsndresources.00m 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd. Lake Stevens. WA 9e2s6 Packet Pg. 169 2.A.a Appendix D Enhancement Areas Plant List a� c .I- Cu c 0 w Cu a� Cu a� L a •L U N d N LO O O LO T" O N Z J d Co Co O r Ln a� C E t V R r a� Q L r L 0 Q d Cu N LO O O LO r O N Z J d C t V R a Packet Pg. 170 2.A.a MITIGATION PLANT LIST AND PLANTING DETAILS DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. j Tabw lrspe ie T3 ttn�Le6ancem�tkea i-W8t Imo- - �1�1'J�li�*s'7�LsJ^' IYIL�� YIII.'�67i•La-' 'L :'7►e'1fi'lrfr..iGC�lYt:'® L�e�I�7�4.. st•17n�1^t•�® INNer+aoa«Nr•rrwMNlb.+rArrn p•s l..r.., •lrs,.,.a�., A... �, lj..�.nr.f..��..J ,. 7sbte 2e Sneer 1"t ror- •: .A... art t414 SN YIIRtllrll7: Ai4 '�� I iabte 3: Seeeiea tier for IGI.e..ce...eor Area *.1 1-11 Sh f+!r!,1if74f•F.3!�4"7R:*1�QF1. T' � ETS }L( �.r-n—T! � 'MTe 4: Species Liu/ for 6neaecemenr Area iH (77 SF) a Sueotl6c Name Sine S PaelfK Np4n. Yd., rw.:. 1aL,,,,;-I I 7C�f 10� W U YiGv9iiijre�..Yjrfi Yiir.wnrn—e�::ab'fill€�Pj Kelerrtflle Memo liirr 31 (btaa i 's<�fic Midm. FrA. iwJ+ (-1'"Ti 7, cK: 14 dr ru4 f Prune d,seaaed and y broken banches Lath stake (tor location purp driven securely in to the grw Planting P4 man. Flagging tape may also be u ice size or root ball location purposes _ Scanty planting Pit surface 6'm -112 topsoil, 112 natMe Sall, water Ihomughly, fertilize ai TREE PLANTING DETAIL Not to S-le Compacted toped Prune dneaeed and water ttwrwpidy, Woken branches fertilize as rep'd Scanty planting pit au Planting hole min gYice size of root ball SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL Not to Swle PLANT UST AND DETA DiET2.0ALEY AI Ef 1-14 1♦•�s)aarefT< Frt Hssl aer-3sas rr 0rrr Karl J< Ema! madeo.awsWn3eeumres wm e. Leas $w . Rd Pa Llevrm. WAS" R Packet Pg. 171 2.A.a Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer December 4, 2015 City of Edmonds c/o Kent Dietz kent.dietz@outlook.com JAN 2 5 201106 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Subject: Geotechnical Review — City of Edmonds Codes — Critical Areas Proposed Dietz Residence 742 Daley Street Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of additional review of the building site at 742 Daley Street, in conjunction with the proposed single family house development by Kent Dietz. This engineer did an extensive geotechnical investigation and report dated July 28, 2006. The City of Edmonds requires an updated geotechnical assessment, as well as declarations consistent with Edmonds Development Code. REFERENCES: • July 28, 2006 Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. • Proposed modest house footprint plans with topographic information for Kent Dietz ■ October 21, 2015 updated Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. ■ Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. BACKGROUND: As stated, this engineer performed a geotechnical investigation and prepared a certified report dated July 28, 2006. The findings of the subgrade investigation verified the presence of dense native sands. The recommendations for foundation support included standard reinforced concrete footings. See report. This engineer understands that Mr. Kent Deitz proposes to construct a modest sized home in the southwest portion of the overall site. See site plan. SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline. Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 dbrucepe@gmail.com Attachme Packet Pg. 172 2.A.a Mr. Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds December 4, 2015 Page 2 The overall site contains an existing creek, along with associated set back and buffer dimensions. See plans. The construction of the proposed house will entail excavation on the westerly sloped portion of the lot. OCTOBER 2013 SITE EVALUATION: This engineer performed a reevaluation of the site (October, 2013). See photographs. No observable changes were evident with the slopes, topography, location of the existing creek, and overall vegetation and slope stability. See October 2013 photo sheet. UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 2013 The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the July 28, 2006 Geotechnical Report are valid, as of October 2013, subiect to: • Geotechnical inspections during construction by this engineer. ■ Final plan review by this engineer to verify actual depth of soil cuts. • At the time of the this investigation and report, it is understood that maximum excavation cuts will be no more than five feet (5.0'); hence, shoring will not be required. However, if actual excavation exceeds 5.0', temporary shoring will be required, subject to this engineer's evaluation, designs, and inspections during construction. 2015 UPDATE AND GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW: See October 21, 2015 geotechnical report regarding the proposed home by Mr. Kent Dietz. It is important to note that the modest footprint dimensions for the Kent Dietz proposed home poses even less of an impact site than the previous site proposals. It is essential to declare that construction of the proposed Kent Dietz home with required geotechnical engineering and inspections will improve overall site stability and "clean up" undeveloped lot. Packet Pg. 173 2.A.a Mr. Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds December 4, 2015 Page 3 EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT CODE RESPONSES: This engineer understands that the City of Edmonds requires a geotechnical evaluation responding to Edmonds Community Development Code 23.80.050 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. 43 23.80.050: Special Study and Report Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas: This engineer has investigated this site and submitted a thorough geotechnical report dated July 28, 2006. As stated in the report, the overall project is not geologically hazardous. The subgrade soils consist of dense native sands. The proposed new residence can be properly and safely constructed on the site, subject to geotechnical inspections. This engineer understands that this site was designated as possibly geologically hazardous due to the slopes in the western and southwestern portions of the site. These slopes are not geotechnically adverse for the new proposed house, subject to City of Edmonds review of plans and this engineer's on -site inspections. The current Site Plan indicates a more than adequate set -back and buffer zone. ❖ 23.80.060: Development Standards: Edmonds Development Code allows for alterations of the designated geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions: The proposed new residence at 742 Daley Street will not increase the threat of any geologic or geotechnical hazard to the adjacent properties beyond existing conditions. In fact, the proper construction of the new house using reinforced concrete foundations, improved drainage mitigations, erosion control practices and final landscaping will improve overall slope stability. 2. The development will not adversely impact other critical areas: This engineer is not precisely sure what other critical areas refers to. Obviously, the nearby creek is located on the property. The required set -back and buffer zones preclude any adverse impact to the creek, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer and plan review and approval by City of Edmonds. Packet Pg. 174 2.A.a Mr. Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds December 4, 2015 Page 4 3. Alterations of the area are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre -development conditions. This engineer declares that the potential "hazard" is sufficiently mitigated. 4. Are certified safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist licensed in the State of Washington: I, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., declare that the site is not geotechnically hazardous for the construction of the new residence (subject to inspections by this engineer, nor is the project adversely impacting the adjacent properties or the adjacent creek. ❖ 23.80.070: Development Standards, Specific Hazards: Design Standards: a. "Proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions, and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties." I, D. Bruce, P.E., declare that the proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions, and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. b. "Structures and Improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas." See plans. The proposed house is situated with a set -back and buffer from the existing creek. Construction on the sloped portion of the site is not geotechnically significant. Normal standard construction techniques, subject to this engineer's inspections) are geotechnically approved. c. "Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography." Agreed. The proposed plans incorporate compliance with the natural contour of the slope. This engineer will provide on -site inspections to verify controlled safe excavation and foundation construction. Packet Pg. 175 2.A.a Mr. Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds December 4, 2015 Page 5 d. "Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portions of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation." The project is set back from the existing creek. e. "The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties." It does not. f. "The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas preferred over graded artificial slopes." No artificially graded slopes are proposed. The proposed footing and foundation stem walls will serve as functional retaining walls for the existing slope. The construction of this house will improve stability of the overall slope. g. "Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage." See site plan for footprint layout of proposed house. IV. Vegetation Retention: This engineer observes that the majority of the lot area is not altered or developed, and existing natural vegetation is maintained. V. Seasonal Restriction: There are no geotechnical conditions that preclude work occurring throughout the year. As stated, the subgrade soils are relatively clean sands, and as such are not highly affected by excessive rains. This engineer requires that geotechnical inspections be performed (by this engineer) throughout the project. VI. Point Discharges: The project plans for specific drainage controls. Packet Pg. 176 2.A.a Mr. Kent Dietz Re: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds December 4, 2015 Page 6 Gutters, downspouts, and tightline discharge into the existing City of Edmonds storm water system is proposed. VII. Prohibited Development -Septic Systems, etc.: No septic systems are proposed. SUMMARY: • This engineer has reviewed the July 28, 2006 Geotechnical Report, as well as re-evaluating the site in October of 2013 and this previous Spring and Fall of 2015. The findings and recommendations of the July 28, 2006 report are valid for the proposed new residence by Kent Dietz at 742 Daley Street, as shown on the attached site plan, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. Prior to permit issuance, this engineer requires a review of final plans to verify actual excavation depths, excavation alignment, and any potential need for temporary shoring. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. r P'e-' Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer DMB Packet Pg. 177 A+-6c Lme, ,, 4 K 2.A.a SEPA Environmental Checklist 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 742 Daley Street 2. Name of applicant: Kent Dietz dba Pelagos Homes LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd Lake Stevens, WA 98258 425-246-4139 4. Date checklist prepared: January 15, 2016 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction: 2016 rEli"'r17" , JAN 2 5 20i6 DEVELUPMENT SERVICES 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No future additions are planned. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Critical Areas Study and Mitigation Plan, Wetlands Resources, Inc, Revised January 7, 2016 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No other applications pending 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. * Reasonable Economic Use Variance Request, City of Edmonds Attachmel Packet Pg. 178 2.A.a b� J � � a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, c 10Qf fo r �v�° ■ a mountainous, other...... v � Steep slope b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? >40% * Building Permits, City of Edmonds 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Construction of a single-family home. Site is 10,454 sq ft. Home will be three-story, approximately 800 sf on a footprint of approximately 336 sf (14 ft by 24ft). Driveway access will be from Daley Street which will require grading and construction of retaining walls. Parking will be provided in the driveway. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, WA Township: 27 Range: 03 Section: 24 Quarter: SW Tax Parcel: 00434208401000 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth Q N LO c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, c LO muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note anycm o agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results Z in removing any of these soils. From Geotechnical Evaluation conducted in 2006 and updated in 2013: Top 6": Organic material, roots and forest duff 6" to 30": Dense, relatively clean sand NRCS soil type: Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes J a c a� E �a a Packet Pg. 179 2.A.a d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No indications of instability, current or historically. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading: 336 sf house footprint to be graded to approximately 106 ft above sea level. Driveway will have a footprint of 440 sf. Driveway will be graded from street level (-99 ft above sea level) to edge of house foundation, a distance of 20 feet, with a grade of 14%, rising to approximately 101.8 ft above sea level. Excavation: Excavation will be required to create level building footprint and to develop the driveway. No excavation will be done outside of the building site and driveway. Approximately 28 cubic yards of soil will be displaced. Fill: There will be no substantial fill used. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. U r The excavation site is on a slope so erosion is possible during construction. Q g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after 3 project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 0 as , -7.5% � h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, J� CO if any: 5 �� c o Ln Site engineer will be employed to design and implement a Best Management Practices plan for Xa N erosion control during construction. �lr , J % �d a 2. Air �[] r a� E a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. a Packet Pg. 180 2.A.a No emissions are expected. b. Are there any offsite sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No offsite sources of emissions are expected. m c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if D any: �a Not applicable N 3. Water m a. Surface: a 1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site L (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If N yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it 0 flows into.CD N 0 Yes. LO CN O Shell Creek crosses the lower northeast corner of the lot. The stream is a Type F stream that z contains anadromous fish species. a. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the e7so c described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Reasonable economic use of the property requires development that is adjacent to the stream Detailed plans will be submitted with a variance request that will include this SEPAL questionnaire. See Variance Request documentation for details. t { U 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or X 3 removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. a as The stream will not be disturbed by development. r 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general LO description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. o No withdrawal or diversion will be required for this proposal. coi z J 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the V� a site plan. �a �C E Site does not fall within 100-year flood plain. Packet Pg. 181 2.A.a 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. as No discharge of waste materials to surface waters will be required. b. Ground: as 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other D purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well? Will water be discharged to c groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. as No groundwater will be withdrawn for this proposal. No water will be discharged to a groundwater. 2 L 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic N tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, as containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if o applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to c N serve. z J a. No waste material will be discharged by this proposal. Existing sewer lines will be used to 00 remove waste material. 00 c. Water runoff (including storm water): a 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection j E and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will -,ree� this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. V' Y Due to the small surface area of this proposal, no special handling of storm water will be „4\11 3 required. Runoff from roof will be distributed naturally around the home foundation. a 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. �� b� �c No waste materials will enter ground or surface water. CO LO 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of �� Q the site? If so, describe. '� o Z f Drainage from the roof will be distributed naturally around the foundation and should not a adversely affect drainage of the site. a� d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: a Runoff from the roof and driveway will be redistributed, on -site, using natural processes. Packet Pg. 182 2.A.a 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, maple, aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, cedar, pine, other X Shrubs — Grass — Pasture — Crop or grain — Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. — Wet soil plants: Cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other — Water plants: Water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Several trees will be removed for the building site and driveway. A large maple may be removed or trimmed. Various shrubs and small plants will be removed. Roots and forest duff (6 to 12 inches) will be removed from within the proposed construction site. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: c a� r L�'V A detailed mitigation plan developed by a Professional Wetland Scientist will be implemented. 1r 1. ' � a Five stream buffer enhancement areas will be planted with native vegetation. Invasive/non- w' qjq native speices will be removed from these areas prior to plant installation. Trees will be Cn replaced per city requirements. A five year maintenance plan will be implemented and funded �� 04 via bond. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, Japanese yellow rose. 5. Animals LO r 0 N Z J a r c a� E a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. a Packet Pg. 183 2.A.a Birds: heron, songbirds Mammals: unknown Fish: Coho salmon and residential coastal cutthroat trout (in Shell Creek) b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. none c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The property is located within the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The proposed mitigation plan includes installation of native vegetation and removal of invasive species. This will maintain bird and small mammal habitat. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Unknown 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas and electrical, possible solar. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The project will not affect any potential solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will use best practices for heating and insulation. Natural gas will used as primary heating source. Solar energy may be used to augment heating and potentially to provide electricity. Energy efficient appliances will be included in the project. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Packet Pg. 184 2.A.a 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. There are no known contaminates on the site. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no known existing hazardous conditions on the site. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. There are no known toxic or hazardous chemicals that will be stored, used or produced on the site. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services should be required for this project. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no expectations of environmental health hazards for this project. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the c as E M U r Q project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, 3 t= operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. ° a � R During construction there will be some raised noise levels due to construction activities. Given the size of the proposed home, the noise should be short-term and during normal working CO hours. The working hours will conform to the building districts requirements. N oCD � 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: C� '' L �' Ln o N Sub -contractors will be told to limit noise sources during construction. No other measures to Z r . reduce noise are expected to be required. a c 8. Land and shoreline use E a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Q Packet Pg. 185 2.A.a The site is currently vacant land. The proposal will not affect current land uses or nearby or 1 adjacent properties. ~ b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If - so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest D land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? 72, The property has not been used as farmland or working forest. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: The proposal will not affect any surrounding farmland or forest. c. Describe any structures on the site. A city owned and maintained stormwater control/fish ladder is partially on the proposed site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures will be demolished e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned RS-6 (Residential, single-family home on property that is 6000 sq ft or more). N f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? M Single Family — Urban 1 U r 1AP Q g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?- r t a Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. CO N LO O Shell Creek, a Type F stream, bisects the northeastern corner of the site. The stream buffer e LO (100' wide) encompasses the entire site. Steep slopes/landslide hazard areas are located across N the western portion of the site. Z J a - Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Single family. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Packet Pg. 186 2.A.a None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: as Not applicable L I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and > a) projected land uses and plans, if any: D The proposed house will meet local land use requirements. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any Not applicable. 9. Housing as ca c QT �� 1 Q, •,Ylj i Y% Y�rr Q A ci a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether a high, middle, or low-income housing. c N 1 unit of middle income housing o LO r b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether N high, middle, or low-income housing. � None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Height: 25 ft Siding: Bevel Cement siding b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? o� No views will be affected }` c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: "�- None necessary 11. Light and glare a 00 0 0 c a� E z U r r Q 0 7- 1`l N L o ` 0 ' N z J a- c a� E ca a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it a mainly occur? Packet Pg. 187 2.A.a No light or glare issues are expected. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere as with views? No light or glare issues are expected. m c. What existing offsite sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? D as No light or glare issues are expected. c 0 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: M as o: Not applicable. 0 m L Q 12. Recreation �a a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? � a None. Area Is residential. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, 1 CD describe. c N Z No. a. p L A co c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including � twail 000 I recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: r fplr66 N 5. Not applicable. 13. Historic and cultural preservation �.`� U a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are r . over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe.. L a- No. If" U r COb. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or`7 CN occupation. This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any � � c material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? o Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such CN Z resources. ii No. a E c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and a historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with a Packet Pg. 188 2.A.a tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. f_ 42"� The area is a long established residential neighborhood. •L d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that n 1 may be required. ` °'`S r Not applicable. �'��J `�� o "1 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, a and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. :L U Access will be from Daley Street. N as 0 b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit o LO stop? c N Z Nearest public transit stop is 8t'' and Main, approx. 0.4 miles walking distance away. J a. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject CO proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? Two private parking spaces will be added. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new or improved facilities required. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Unknown. Single family residence. Packet Pg. 189 2.A.a g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? if so, generally describe. M c No. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any![f"` to N' D� not applicable 15. Public services `�` o a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: Fire protection, police protection, public transit health care, schools, other)? If so, a generally describe. U Standard increase caused by one single -residence home. v N b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if c any. N 0 None. LO o r O N 16. Utilities Z J d a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: 00 00 CD Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer U) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate M vicinity which might be needed. a Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer c. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature:q.d44, Date Submitted: .11 .�j 1 ?-' A Packet Pg. 190 CITY OF EDMONDS A. 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The applicant is requesting a critical area reasonable use variance to allow the construction of a new single family residence. Shell Creek, a Type F anadromous fish -bearing stream, runs through the property. The required critical area stream buffers encumber all of the property, so in order to develop the property a critical area reasonable use variance is required. (PLN20150052) Proponent: Kent Dietz Location of proposal, including street address if any: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 00434208401000 Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by _. Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: March 3. 2016 Signature: W XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than March 17, 2016 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on March 3, 2016, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunitg)ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.EdmondsWa.gov through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20150052. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Q Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION. DOC 3I1/16 SEPA Attachmel Packet Pg. 191 2.A.a Mailed to the following: XX COMCAST XX Puget Sound Energy Outside rlant Engineer, North Region Attn: David Matulich 1525 75` St. SW Ste 200 PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Everett, WA 98203 Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich o@pse.com XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard XX Kent Dietz Mill Creek, WA 98012 8006 S Lake Stevens Rd. Lake Stevens, WA 98258 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road XX M.L. Wicklund Marysville, WA 98270 Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Everett, WA 98206-1107 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services XX Donna J. Bunten 12310 Meridian Avenue South Department of Ecology Everett, WA 98208-5764 Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 XX Anne Sharar Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 47001 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Olympia, WA 98504-7001 Preservation P.O. Box 48343 XX National Marine Fisheries Service Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Northwest Regional Office senaQdahp.wa.gov 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115-0070 pc: File No. SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION DOC 3/1/16 SEPA Packet Pg. 192 2.A.a Fr,.q. PARKING N N I 1 S P RAG U E ST Ff ti N M M co 315 ti ti Ln ti M Q � ti ti � ti EDMONDS Z7;T-,,tj 'T Zoning and Vicintiy Map Dietz Critical Area Variance PLN20150052 <ac. 1 g9l Ql M co CO a Scale 1 inch = 150 feet Attachmel Packet Pg. 193 2.A.a CTM I i .... U rduk R-;p- MI, Aerial Photo Dietz Critical Area Variance PLN20150052 'nc. t g91 J F-aw-M a Scale 1 inch = 150 feet Attachme Packet Pg. 194 eOJV le311PO z;alp Z9009WN-ld : 8800 s4u9wLloe11V 41lM;aodaN 11e;S Z5009WN-ld :;uauayaeUV �a Q N CRITICAL CITY OF EDMONDS I Site Location: 742 Daley Street Tax Acct. Number: 004342 084 010 00 Determination: Study Required Determination : CA-05-162 Applicant: Dennis Walcker Owner: Paul Bushue During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain critical areas, including a Landslide Hazard Area, Wetlands, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. A survey by Tri-County Surveying Company, dated October 2005, was submitted that confirmed that the site contains a Landslide Hazard Area. ® A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). ® Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B. ® In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. ® Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. LO a m M a Attachment 26 2.A.a • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3. REPORT REQUIREMENTS — STREAMS Shell Creek or its tributary is on or near the subject property. • Streams are areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water. Streams need not contain water year-round. • Streams are regulated as types of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. • Streams are classified according to whether or not they run year round and whether or not they support fish populations according to the classification system listed in ECDC 23.90.010.A.1. • The minimum buffer widths for streams vary depending on the type of stream and are listed in ECDC 23.90.040.D.1. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Areas report requirements for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas are provided in ECDC 23.90.020.A to C and additional technical information requirements for streams are listed in ECDC 23.90.020.D. The applicant has provided a copy of Landau Associates Critical Areas Site Reconnaissance report dated August 2, 2005, which classifies the creek at this site as Type F — nonanadromous fishbearing stream with a required 75-foot buffer. This is sufficient to classify the stream. The survey does not clearly show the ordinary high water mark of the creek and the required stream buffer, which must be shown per ECDC 23.90.020.D.1. Development proposals that encroach into streams or their buffers or building setbacks may be allowed through the approval of certain processes. • The width of a stream buffer may be reduced through buffer enhancement through the review of a Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan that meets the specific requirements referenced in ECDC 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that a buffer can be reduced through buffer enhancement is 50%. • A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to buffer averaging are listed in 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that the buffer width can be reduced at any single location through buffer averaging is 50%. • Development proposals that propose encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed through the above methods require a Critical Areas Variance or a Reasonable Use Exception. If you think that you have a proposal that may require one of these processes, please contact a Planner for more information. In response to the question on the Critical Areas Checklist "Obvious wetland is present on site" the applicant stated "next to creek." Staff found some spongy areas next to the creek, and an area on the adjacent property that was low-lying and may be a wetland, but staff was unable to determine with certainty whether the site did or did not contain a wetland. The hydrology of the site must be researched to determine if any wetlands or their buffers are on or adjacent to the site. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by ground or surface water that support, under normal circumstances, vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil. 2 Packet Pg. 196 2.A.a • Wetlands are generally rated according to their size, condition, function, and vegetation types into four (4) different categories described in ECDC 23.50.010 and by use of the "City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form" by the critical areas consultant. • Buffer widths for wetlands vary depending on the category of the wetland as listed in ECDC 23.50.040.F. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, there are specific Critical Areas report requirements for wetlands that are provided in ECDC 23.50.030. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH WETLANDS Development proposals that encroach into wetlands or their buffers or building setbacks may be allowed through the approval of certain processes. • The width of a wetland buffer may be reduced through buffer enhancement if the criteria described in ECDC 23.50.040.F.3 can be met. The maximum amount that a buffer can be reduced through buffer enhancement is 50%. • A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to buffer averaging are listed in ECDC 23.50.040.F.4. The maximum amount that the buffer width can be reduced at any single location through buffer averaging is 50%. Development proposals that proposed encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed through the above methods require a Critical Areas Variance, or a Reasonable Use Exception. If you think that you have a proposal that may require one of these processes, please contact a Planner for more information. Any time a development proposal requires an alteration to a wetland, a mitigation plan is required as part of the Critical Areas report. In addition to the General Mitigation requirements referenced above, mitigation requirements specific to wetlands are provided in ECDC 23.50.050. NOTE: There are specific performance standards for the subdivision of lands in wetlands and wetland buffers. These are listed in ECDC 23.50.060. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Meg G Name re Date NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. Packet Pg. 197 #P20 2.A.a City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 -C. 187 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date Received: 01l S9/ 05; City Receipt #: 27 Critical Areas File #: Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the informni�sa, at� and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized plication on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENTi' 1�c�G�~ DATE D D S Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and postipg attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER --` W�F�W DATE Owner/Applicant: EAM L GIA&G vl L Name w. Street Address i1wPGr-n� 92ZI City State Zip Telephone: ? 0. Zq Z 3 2-?- Email address (optional): Applicant Representative: De117f)IS A r-/GkLev Name 0 �9d Street Address / r L ` /1,4 City State Zip Telephone: �U %�' S60 S 0/ 3 `%�S �y3 3 Email Address (optional): C6 Packet Pg. 198 2.A.a Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: _1 aZ 4)G7, ley 2. Property Tax Account Number: 00 L/ 3" :Z DAY 0/0 00 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): /0 L/SQL, 4. Is this site currently developed? _ yes; f/ no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. CA File No: d 5 -1 0 "J Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: 'vim ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: _ What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain l/ of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? U PC S?/( C'�2e Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). T' 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed „rban lanJscsp,- (lawn., shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Al e� 7" to GMJ= /< ------- — ----For City Staff Use Only 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. Site is Zoned? R 5 - 6 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? (o 6terwa,.,A - Ur6eA Ikon 6--eu 15 '% a'(,X j. 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Ctitical Area on site? Y4S _ `�� eA •, ��„ z,, H �b ,,�, Ate; rn 5 5 . 14 t' y- 1" ix f"t ti 0- W .16 1"(- f -/-', }-ar ;-'-mod 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? N•� . DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED Reviewed by: �I�i•� Date: 41(7/- ;, WAIVER Packet Pg. 199 1 eaabr 18314 3 z}aid Z5009WZN1d : 9900 s;u9wt1oe}}d 4}inn :podaa }}e;S Z5009WZN1d :}u8ua43e}4d ca o Q N N a1 a LANDAU1 M AASSOCIATES a August 2, 2005 Paul and Charlotte Bushue 6338 West Shore Road Anacortes, Washington 98221 RE: CRITICAL AREAS SITE RECONNAISSANCE 742 DALEY STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON n: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bushue: Landau Associates completed a critical areas site reconnaissance for the property located at 742 Daley Street in the City of Edmonds, Washington (City). Shell Creek, which is designated as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area by the City, flows through this undeveloped property. This letter report summarizes our findings of the site reconnaissance and provides technical information required by the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) for critical areas, adopted February 2005. Before the site reconnaissance, Landau Associates biologists reviewed information from readily available public domain resources, This information was used to gain a general understanding of potential critical areas issues on and near the project site. These resources included the Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Puget Sound (Williams et al. 1975), the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Digital Coastal Atlas (Ecology website 2005), the City Draft Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec 2002), the City watershed map ("Where in the World is Your Watershed?"; City of Edmonds Undated), and appropriate ECDC sections pertaining to streams and critical areas (ECDC 2005). After completion of the data gathering task, a biologist from Landau Associates conducted a site reconnaissance on July 15, 2005 to document the existing site conditions. RESULTS OF INFORMATION REVIEW AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE According to the City Watershed Map, the property is located in the Shell Creek Watershed. Shell Creek flows from east of Yost Park to Puget Sound. Information on Shell Creek is presented in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment prepared by Pentec Environmental in March 2002 (Pentec 2002). The Pentec study described conditions in Shell Creek and described a culvert and flow control structures with baffles at Daley Street that were installed in 1993. In that study, Pentec rated Shell Creek as a Category 2 stream. While no fish sampling was conducted by Pentec, six salmon carcasses were observed in Shell Creek in late November 2002, indicating spawning activity in lower Shell Creek. ENVIRONMENTAL 1 GEOTECHNICAL ( NATURAL RESOURCES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND Attachment 27 eaabr 18314 3 z}aid Z900GWZN-1d : 8800 s;u9wt1oe}}d 4}inn podeN }}e;S Z500GWZN1d .1u8ua43e44d ca o Q N N a1 a m Pentec reported that, in 2002, it appeared upstream movement of adult salmon was limited to the a Strickland property in the lower reach of Shell Creek. Pentec reported that access to potential areas farther upstream (above Caspers Street) is restricted because of other in -stream barriers (mainly culverts). However, the Pentec report went on to say that resident species (e.g., cutthroat trout) are likely distributed throughout many sections of Shell Creek (Pentec 2002). The Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Puget Sound (Williams et al. 1975) does not mention Shell Creek. The Washington State Department of Ecology's Digital Coastal Atlas (Ecology website 2005) shows Shell Creek and indicates it is not a shoreline of the state. Our site reconnaissance confirmed what was reported by Pentec. We observed the flow control structure just upstream of Daley Street. Noel Miller, City Director of Public Works, confirmed that the structure was constructed in 1993 and he provided a site plan for the fish ladder and diversion structure. The structure is located partially on the Bushue property and partially on City right-of-way. The flow control structure diverts high flows to a bypass to reduce erosion farther downstream during high flow events. Noel Miller also stated that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife sampled numerous fish upstream of Daley Street when stream restoration work west of 91h Street was completed in 1990 (Noel Miller, 19 July 2005, personal communication). From Pentec's discussion of fish use in Shell Creek (Pentec 2002) and our experience with similar systems, we assume that the fish upstream of Daley Street mentioned by Noel Miller were resident cutthroat trout and not anadromous fish. Shell Creek on the Bushue property is as described in the Pentec 2002 report. Pentec described this reach as a residential ravine with a thick understory, with steep banks and homes set back from the top of the ravine (Pentec 2002). We found the understory had been cleared on both banks approximately 100 ft south of Daley Street. The blackberries have been replaced by flowers and other landscaping on the eastern bank and mowed grass on the western bank. The overstory is mature alder, big -leaf maple, and at least two mature western red cedar trees. New homes are being constructed on the top of the ravine on the western bank EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Section 23.90.010 of the ECDC, adopted February 2005, defines four types of streams in Edmonds, as follows: "Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (YPAC 222-16-030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: a. Type S: streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCR - b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat; c. Type Np: perennial nonfrsh habitat streams; and d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfrsh habitat streams. 08/02/05 S:\PROJECTS\909\001\FileRm\R\742 Daley Recon_ltrrpt.doc 2 LANDAu AssoclATES eaabr 18314 O z}aid Z5009MNld : 9900 s;u9wtjoe}}d 4}inn podeN }}e;S Z900MMId .}u8ua4OB44V Q N "All streams included on the inventory that are known to exist within the City of Edmonds do not meet criteria for "shorelines of the state" but contain fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type F waters pursuant to PAC 222-16-030. Hotivever, not all Edmonds streams support anadromous fish populations or have the potential for anadromrous fish occurrence because of obstructions, blockages or access restrictions resulting from existing conditions. Therefore, in order to provide special consideration of and increased protection for anadromous fish in the application of development standards, Edmonds streams shall be further classified as follows: "Anadromous frshbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the City of Edmonds in which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds frshbearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek; and "Nonanadromous frshbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the City of Edmonds which do not support fish populations and do not have the potential for fish occurrence because of barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat. "Streams ivith anadromous fish occurrence were identified in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, a 2002 report of Pentec Environmental which is incorporated by this reference as if herein set forth. " Section 23.90.040 of the ECDC describes standard stream buffer widths as follows: "The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the City of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous frshbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 106 feet; 75 feet; c. Type F anadromous frshbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: d. Type F nonanadrornous fishbear•ing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; ' f. Type Ns: 25 feet. " Therefore, based upon the information we were able to obtain and our background review and site reconnaissance, we concluded that the lower reach of Shell Creek, downstream of Caspers Street, would be classified Type F — anadromous frshbearing stream. However, the reach of Shell Creek on the Bushue property upstream of Daley Street would be a Type F nonanadromous frshbearing stream, per the ECDC. We concluded that a 75-ft buffer from ordinary high water of Shell Creek would be required on the Bushue property upstream of Daley Street. The ECDC allows for a reduction of the buffer of up to 50 percent, provided that a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the stream buffer will not degrade the value of the buffer area in terms of fish, stream, and wildlife protection. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120, 23.40.130, and 23.90.040 D 2 a-d. The ECDC also allows for stream buffer averaging, pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040 D 3. 08/02/05 S:\PROJECTS\909\001\FileRm\R\742 Daley Recon_ltrrpt.doc 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES N O N 6 a m M a eaabr 18314 3 z}aid Z900GWZN1d : 9900 s;u9wt1oe}}d 4}inn :pod9N }}e;S Z500GWZN1d .}u8ua43e}4d Q N The property may also have steep slopes, which are also subject to regulation by the ECDC. Landau Associates did not assess other critical areas that may exist on the property. USE OF THIS REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Paul and Charlotte Bushue for specific application to this project. The use by others, or for purposes other than intended, is at the user's sole risk. The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the 742 Daley Street site, the City of Edmonds Critical Areas regulations, and site conditions observed during the July 15, 2005 site reconnaissance. This study included investigation of Shell Creek, as requested in the City Municipal Code, passed May 17, 2005. This study did not address other critical areas, such as geologically hazardous areas. However, the topography of the site may warrant investigation for steep slope setbacks. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time this letter report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Stream ratings and buffer widths recommended by Landau Associates are considered preliminary until verified by City personnel. Landau Associates appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you decide to develop the property, we can prepare the required buffer enhancement plan and assist you with other aspects of the project as well. We look forward to providing natural resources services for this project. If any questions arise regarding this letter report, please call us at 425-778-0907. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. f Samuel R. C a s n e Associate Scientist Diane Brewster Senior Wetlands Ecologist SRC/DLB/ccy 08/02/05 S:\PROJECTS\909\001\FileRm\R\742 Daley Recon_Itrrpt.doc 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES M O N 6 a m M a eaabr 18314 a3 z}aid Z9OOGWZN1d 9900 s;uauayoe}}d 4}inn :podaa }}e;S Z500560ZN1d .}u8ua4Oe}4d ca o Q N N a1 a m REFERENCES U R a ECDC. 2005. City of Edmonds, Washington Allunicipal Code. Available at http://search.mrsc.org/nxt/ ag_teway.dil/edmdmc?f=templates&fn=edmdpage.litm$vid=municodes:Edmond s. Edmonds Community Development Code. Accessed on July 27. Ecology website. 2005. Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas. Available at http://www. ecy.wa.gov./programs/sea/sma/atlas_home.html. Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed on July 27. Edmonds, City of. Undated. Map: Where in the World is Your Watershed? A Guide to Edmonds' Watershed Protection. City of Edmonds Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and Engineering Division. Miller, N. 19 July 2005. Personal communication (telephone conversation with Sam Casne, Landau Associates, Edmonds, Washington). Noel Miller, Director of Public Works, City of Edmonds. Re: Culvert Replacement on 9"' Avenue. Pentec. 2002. Draft: Edmonds Stream Inventor}/ and Assessment, Edmonds, Washington. Pentec Environmental. Prepared for City of Edmonds. March 21. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Sahnon Utilization — Volume 1: Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. November. 08/02/05 S:\PROJECTS\909\001\FileRm\R\742 Daley Recon_Itrrpt.doc 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 714 >37 �47 a c m pa/FTW 1417 141E 691 695 �38 m ' 820 m OptN 1402 ^ 001304 40 N 1414 13021306 693 735 1399 811 821 831 oMo SUNDSTONE a 1233 Pe ek T DR 929 727 733 745 743 800 817 829 341 R49 859 OAS 9,o 912 Z � 723 731 739 741 803 g14 PUGET WAY oo PLAYFIELD 816 828 840 848 858 W m 916 m L NE > 9 o p 742 so z 1212 PUGET WAY ED 720 817 g2g 1331 1333 Q ELE 911 912 > 1228 121 710 725 1205 < 1329 1327 2 B 903 842 8 96 : n n n ST. PETERS 838 836 83 690 751 °D 0D 843 LUTHERN CH RCH H IN DLEV LANE 1212 827 830 828 705 722 o O o v 709 w w allo 840 9p2 907 Og 915 g2� 100 8 731 741 751 806 BROOKMERE DR 801 821 841 1117 904 906 910 925 741 BROOKMERE DR 915 92d 710 $p6 1111 Z 911 m 110 rc 20 730 740 750 8 731 730 0 w 1030 1035 x 800 820 gqo 4S 1025 w BROOKMERE DR 723 n n 723 1 f 1020 c ^ Q o 910 920 940 c 715 2 0 1033 1036 1015 1017 1019 N O O 2O9 n M N K O O N n N M =' 1 101 r ^ M ro M M °� r n n 801 811 821 831 841 1.- 932 936 1008 941 rn GASPERS ST IEWMOOR PL 624 � m o tO 651 300 314 324 g 706 930 N N O N M 926 N N O Z 620 652 654 656 9 y 912 A n r m m m 616 633 632 621 625 908 615 6 5 830 724 860 914 N 931 n LU > 8p8 623 614 611 626 628 630 63 5 824 726 738 METHODEDMONDI 910 m 9Y7 m Q SOS 613 ,�/ 608 61 1 730 4OO 601 607 O O v N 626 815 825 N N N 940 95O 861 I- 3gS n n �'66 eo m m O 3�'90 S73 ry20 534 547 Q 602 `� ^ N 6 801 F- 802 r rn n 813 811 928 851 CAS �+�°S SOS' S22 541 ty� 548 e c e 8 n 728 ^ n 731 741 745 GAT m o s S° Al A wnv 729 818 721 810 `7Sq 4g5,7 510 535 536 Z 720 622 721 725 719 724 oMo 835 831 � w 3qB S'O A7j 508 50929 524 709 712 715 A ^j L WAY 05 o u� ^• 715 Z 760 Rrl q, '74S bry� 4�s 43' 520 705 w 702 " N 667 z OFFICE 77 �, 0 C ^,� 4?2 4� 510 61 > 1p " 7 O LOHA STD w 1 340 ^p 47q 47,, 504 502 615 Q SOUNDVIEW CHURCH 802 816 18 657 Q 702 920 930 950 g60 630 °D 647 3 33S p^ 47q 47g 426 601 614 � 804 814 615 HOLY ROSAR 600 808J = 612 4° 40S 41, Q tp 629 603 SCHOOL 810 645 643 604 923 925 939 941 943 615 31j� 4° 4p) 432 EDMONDS GLEN ST 602 PARKI 520 528 ARTS 524 529 CENTER o 0 0D H r M N„ Q DRY w 510 530 511 h� o? 3�3 �� 51 509 503 930 934 938 �'�eNQ o 315 323 410 0 0 � N � 655 ~ � ,� m 522 505 N 657 n n r n in in � n M m �Q- 317 a Ip ID lD ID ID r r r n n � v v N O � N N M v v Yf N Z o �34 EY ST DALEDAL Y ST " ° T 3 ory 30S o fO N M Z 2 610 N N N - v m m o ro EY �8 ?3 F 17 3p3 e e e e 1 610 io io io 636 o e w n aoo 818 IJJ o0 00 00 00 0o v m m m m m m m m m AOp ONTO = �3� A0 ADA.OS 304 v v v e Q n � � � n n � r 8 5 ro oNo ro ro ro ro io 412 m m m m m m o ??z �a� rvrvY SPRAGUE ST 406 2 eor'sac;;s 310 skate Park o o N o v o PR GUvE ST SPRAGUE ST EFoO <p CI.b M r r r r r n 315 M N (° N M v v v00i r o 0 m M rn N ro ro M m m m m m 945 ww 34 1 = �o ' DMONDS ST PUBLIC 30o ND EDMONDS ST SAFETY Grandstand N n n n n 221 zzo `� $ M 221 Z voi m o COMPLEX m m m a m m 250 Z N N M v V N N Z O O ? O M M V V i �(1 205 Z M N 01 N M S J° A. r r r r 20 O N N R O F- N p , W W W OD O O N O O „ p Q, w BELL S ST w BELL N F- � 1z ryBELL T 4p�° Orv� 514 h a b b b b b M v fiq N fOD a 7O4 712 N n M M n 742 758 Q v N ro v ST O O N n 120 h1p M `% b�ry0ry rvh C m m � 527 '�' "' io M io e N 633 e 655 703 711 n c 923 O1 °1 749 757 529 r. r r ^ 0p 110 N N M M O a v x- V Shell Creek Anadromous Fish Presence Salmonid Stock Inventory - Shell Anadromous Fish Presence - Shell Resident Fish - Shell a Scale 1 inch = 500 feet Attachme Packet Pg. 205 9003d 4a)1Oed e'd'z IAttachment 29 g i T � OPP � 4 F i i r A i•'ti 4 } -_ `Jv� - r 2.A.a United States Environmental Protection Agency €.EPA Office of Water (4504F) EPA 842-F-95-001E September 1995 Demonstrating Practical Tools For Watershed Management Through The National Estuary Program Evergft Puget Sound a c 0 2 Q. Tacoma Characteristics: ■ The Puget Sound drainage basin covers about 16,000 square miles, of which 80 percent is land surface. ■ Approximately 3.4 million people live in the Sound area. ■ Land use in the Puget Sound area is 9 percent intense urban development, 9 percent agricultural and rural, and 82 percent forest. ■ The Shell Creek watershed, which discharges into Puget Sound, is an 80 percent developed urban watershed. The Problem: Stormwater runoff and other nonpoint sources from the Shell Creek watershed have deposited sediment and pollutants into Puget Sound, decreasing water quality and impacting marine life. ■ Over half of Puget Sound's original wetlands have been lost. ■ Over 22 square miles of commercial shellfishing beds are under harvesting restrictions largely due to nonpoint source pollution. ■ Nonpoint source pollution will likely worsen, as urban development is expected to advance by 62 percent over the next 15 years in the Sound area. The Project: The Shell Creek Stormwater Diversion Demonstration Project involved constructing a bypass system in two creeks and providing stream bank restoration upstream of the bypass system. cutting the amount of sediment and pollutants from runoff. Estuaries and other coastal and marine waters are national resources that are increasingly threatened by pollution, habitat loss, coastal development, and resource conflicts. Congress established the National Estuary Program (NEP) in 1987 to provide a greater focus for coastal protection and to demon- strate practical, innovative approaches for protecting estuaries and their living resources. As part of this demonstration role, the NEP offers funding for member estuaries to design and implement Action Plan Demonstration Projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to address priority problem areas, show improvements that can be achieved on a small scale, and help determine the time and resources needed to apply similar approaches basinwide. The NEP is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It currently includes 28 estuaries: Albemarle - Pamlico Sounds, NC; Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex, LA; Barnegat Bay, NJ; Buzzards Bay, MA; Casco Bay, ME; Charlotte Harbor, FL; Columbia River, OR and WA; Corpus Christi Bay, TX; Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ, and PA; Delaware Inland Bays, DE; Galveston Bay, TX; Indian River Lagoon, FL; Long Island Sound, CT and NY; Maryland Coastal Bays, MD; Massachusetts Bays, MA; Mobile Bay, AL; Morro Bay, CA; Narragansett Bay, RI, -New Hampshire Estuaries, NH, New York - New Jersey Harbor, NY and NJ, Peconic Bay, NY, • Puget Sound, WA; San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary, CA; San Juan Bay, PR; Santa Monica Bay, CA; Sarasota Bay, FL; Tampa Bay, FL; and Tillamook Bay, OR. ttachme� Packet Pg. 208 2.A.a Puget Sound is located in northwest Washington State. Over 900 feet at its deepest point, the Sound is a highly produc- tive waterway, supporting numerous plant and animal species, including salmon, crab, shellfish, and shrimp. Wetland ecosys- tems, teeming with grasses, also thrive in the Sound area. In recent times, however, Puget Sound and its resources have been threatened by nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution has contributed to declines in the Sound's water quality and has resulted in numerous shellfishing area closings. Additionally, large amounts of fine sediment deposited into the Sound from Shell Creek could cause problems in the Sound if left unchecked. Part of the potential sediment problem lies in the geology of the Sound itself. Puget Sound is shaped much like a bathtub, with shallow ridges separating the four deep basins. Sediment deposited into the Sound by surrounding watersheds could be kept in motion by strong tidal currents which cause the water -suspended sediments to slosh back and forth. Although large particles settle out, excessive fine sedi- ments that stay in solution could cloud the water, blocking out the sunlight needed by seagrasses for growth. In addition, a lack of penetrating sunlight in the Sound could result in a lower amount of phytoplankton, a necessary food source for marine life. Shell Creek is located in southwest Snohomish County in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The creek, which discharges into Puget Sound, receives stormwater runoff from 2 square miles of suburban neighborhoods. The neighborhoods, much like other watersheds in the Sound area, were almost completely developed before on -site stormwater quality control was required starting in the late 1970s. Because rapid development occurred without regard for stormwater control, the Shell Creek ecosys- tem, and consequently the water quality and resources of Puget Sound, have been steadily degrading over the years. Lack of stormwater control in a highly developed watershed can set into play a devastating chain of events. In the Shell Creek watershed, additional development added to runoff flowing into the creek, causing stream bed erosion and loss of the vegetation that was essential to filter pollutants and stabilize sediments. Without vegetation and stable stream beds to help control water flow, the water velocity and volume increased, which led to area flooding. In addition, the rapid water flow swept up the loose sediment and bottom gravel of Shell Creek and discharged the load, along with other pollutants from nonpoint sources, into Puget Sound. The result of this continuous process was damaging to both Shell Creek and Puget Sound. The increased volume and velocity of water flow in the creek cut away at the stream bed until only clay remained at the bottom of the bed. Clay bottoms are slick and provide no resistance to water flow, increasing the water flow velocity. As a result, there was no pooling in the creek, which made it impossible for the creek's fish, such as cutthroat trout and coho and chum salmon, to successfully spawn in the channel. Populations of trout and salmon in the creek dwindled. In effect, without stormwater management techniques in place, the habitat viability of Shell Creek was diminished, while huge volumes of sediments and pollutants were discharged into Puget Sound. Realizing the crisis facing Shell Creek and the Sound, the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County prepared the Shell Creek Basin Plan in 1987. This plan recommended comprehen- sive approaches to slow the resource degradation that was occurring in Shell Creek and impacting Puget Sound. The plan addressed problems such as flooding, severe erosion of the stream bed, very heavy sedimentation, and increased pollutant loading. Secondary problems included reduced capacity in culverts and loss of fish habitats. Based on the recommendations in the 1987 Basin Plan, the Shell Creek Stormwater Diversion Demonstration Project was initiated in 1988 by the City of Edmonds with support from the Puget Sound Estuary Program. Shell Creek was chosen as a demonstration project because many communities in Puget Sound share the same topology as the Shell Creek area, making the problems of Shell Creek common to many regions in the Sound. EPA joined forces with the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, and two volunteer groups, Quest Northwest and a Citizen's Surface Water Advisory Committee, to plan and implement the demonstration project. Packet Pg. 209 1 2.A.a The primary objectives of the Shell Creek project were to manage stormwater flows and reduce sediment and pollutant loadings into Puget Sound. This would be achieved by stream bed restoration and construction of a stormwater diversion and sediment entrapment system in Shell Creek and its tributary, Hindley Creek. Predesign analysis began in June 1988 and included review of six alternative routes for a diversion system. Construction of a system, which would divert peak flows from Shell Creek and Hindley Creek to a new storm sewer system and outfall, was recommended by the Shell Creek Basin Plan. The Edmonds City Council approved a recommended route which was de- signed to divert approximately 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Shell Creek and 50 cfs from Hindley Creek. Nearly 90 percent of the runoff from the drainage basin could drain through this diversion system. Almost a mile of pipeline was installed during the project. The Shell Creek diversion structure has a vertical slot entrance that restricts flow and causes water to crest over two weirs. This entrance includes a fish ladder to help fish migrate. Screens to prevent trout and salmon fingerlings from entering the diversion lines were installed along with trash racks to stop floating debris. The diversion at Wes• _ Hindley Creek is a man- a hole which was added to the existing culvert. The goo €� -- _ manhole has a 12-inch "E "` outlet pipe which carries Pi i Lthe stream's base flow _p._ and a 36-inch outlet pipe -._ which carries the diver- __ sion flow. Manholes �..�_ throughout the system are ' typically designed to cap- -heture large amounts of • • • sediment and debris be- • " • to divert stormwaterfore they get to Puget • both Shell Creek and Sound. Construction of lindley Creek. the diversion system was completed in fall 1990. Tore -establish trout and salmon populations and to restore stream bed and bank stability, the demonstration project included a restoration component focusing on a mile of Shell Creek upstream from the diversion structure. To encourage salmon and trout populations to return to the stream channel, water flow had to be slowed down and desirable stream bed conditions had to be created. The clay bottom was replaced with gravel, which helped pool the water, enabling fish to enter the channel. The gravel also created an adequate spawning ground for salmon by providing protective niches for the eggs. Prior to the demonstration project, Shell Creek was very poorly vegetated. Brush, which does not stabilize soil adequately, was the main plant life along the stream banks. Revegetation to provide bank and sediment stabilization was essential to the long-term success of the demonstration project. With the help of a local Boy Scout Troop, the stream banks were planted with willows, snowberry, and serviceberry plants. In addition, bank log armoring and log check dams were constructed to protect the re-established vegetation and reduce erosion. t'Ptll•��• � The project reduced sediment entering Puget Sound by 5.7 tons in the first year and is estimated to have reduced stream bed erosion by 65 percent. As a result of the diversion system and stream bank restoration, citizens report that clear water now runs through the creek where muddy water used to be prevalent. There is evidence that the stream bed and banks are stabilizing most of the sediment and that the reduced water flow now allows for the settling of loose particles. In addition, the restoration of the stream bed and the employment of the diversion system have eliminated flooding and erosion, which in turn has reduced pollutant loadings downstream. Restoration has also re-established the fish spawning habitat. According to area biologists, both trout and salmon have returned to Shell Creek. In addition, the reduction in stream bed erosion has helped the willow, snowberry, and serviceberry plants to flourish on the stream banks, which has further reduced erosion and created more opportunities for trapping pollutants. The project was successful in its public involvement efforts as well. The public participated in the decision making process through the Citizen's Surface Water Advisory Committee. The Committee provided input to the Shell Creek Basin Plan and helped the Edmonds City Council choose among the diversion route alternatives. Citizen groups are also involved in the ongoing monitoring of the conditions of the stream bed and vegetation. Several groups have been involved in monitoring the project. The City of Edmonds Public Works Division monitors and estimates amounts of sediment collected and attends to needed maintenance, such as system repairs and sediment trap cleaning. Packet Pg. 210 1 2.A.a The advanced biology class of a local ■ Stream bed restoration and erosion control were accom- high school has surveyed the stream's plished upstream of the diversion at a much lower cost than biological community, while a volun- the diversion system. However, methods that worked teer group has monitored the stream's above the diversion were not practical as a long-term water quality using El'A's stream walk solution in the lower reaches of Shell Creek because the guidelines. Although local monitoring lower portion of the creek is located in residential back - has shown a marked improvement in yards. Shell Creek's stream conditions, plant and fish vitality, and water flow, such ■ The diversion system operates infrequently by design. improvements in Puget Sound are Because it operates during periods when water flow difficult to attain through one water- exceeds channel capacities, the system came on-line only snowberry jb, with white, shed improvement effort. Because of six times in the first 18 months after it was completed. fruit, the Sound's vastness, sediment and This infrequency of operation makes formal evaluation wildlifehy our_ 'nonpoint source pollution controls will difficult. 4tation along thehave to be widespread read to ensure the ■ Sedimentation downstream of the diversion was reduced _ d stream long-term preservation of Puget because of the reduced erosion upstream. Reducing Sound's resources. velocity of flow by diversion and revegetating stream beds are efficient ways to control stormwater runoff. The Shell Creek Stormwater Diversion Demonstration Project was successful in reducing erosion and sedimentation from storm flows that exceeded Shell Creek's channel capacities. Prior to the implementation of the project, sediment transport was estimated at about 10 tons per year. In the first year, 5.7 tons of sediment were trapped, indicating that the structure can trap about half the sediment transported in the creek, as estimated prior to the project. Among the other lessons learned: Printed on recycled paper F"rEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (4504F) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Packet Pg. 211 CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20150052 Applicant's Name: KENT DIETZ Property Location: 742 DALEY ST Date of Application: 10.16.15 Date Form Routed: 10.20.15 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) Project Description: CRITICAL AREA REASONABLE USE VARIANCE FOR REDUCTION IN BUFFER "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext, 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments:� Title: N m— Ai have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Dale: 1 D • 0> Signature: Phone/E-mail: Attachmel Packet Pg. 212 CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. aBuiidi ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20150052 Applicant's Name: KENT DIETZ Property Location: 742 DA1EY ST Date of Application: 10.16.15 Date Form Routed: 10.20.15 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) Project Description: CRITICAL AREA REASONABLE USE VARIANCE FOR REDUCTION IN BUFFER "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 11/06/2015 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments:) (1~ b I 'k726L- Titl �C Ahave reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Attachmel Packet Pg. 213 2.A.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM November 13, 2015 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20150052 - Variance Dietz — 742 Daley Street The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents submitted for the variance at 742 Daley Street. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following. The City of Edmonds has an easement across the subject property for "construction, maintenance and repair of said stream channel". A copy of the easement can be found HERE. Please revise plans to show the easement area on the plans. 2. Please confirm the slope of the proposed driveway and note the slope on the plans. The driveway slope shall not exceed 14% in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.060.D 3. Please confirm proposed impervious surface area for the subject proposal. Construction of impervious surface areas of 2000sf or more will require stormwater management in compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachmell Packet Pg. 214 2.A.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM March 17, 2016 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20150052 - Variance Dietz — 742 Daley Street Engineering has reviewed the design review application for the Dietz variance related to property at 742 Daley Street. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Please place the following conditions of approval on the permit: Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. The City of Edmonds has two easements that encumber the subject property. One is for the construction, maintenance and repair of said stream channel and the other is a utility easement for installation, operation and maintenance of a fish ladder and diversion structure. Please refer to recording documents #8207160100 and #9003150306, respectively. Easement areas shall also be shown on any future building permit applications. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachmell Packet Pg. 215 2.A.a 0 r�! Ut Li 55�� CET'! CLERK 1f8Z JUL 16 AM 11: L 7 <;t oll 's!lE E!•. — — CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT In consideration of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, Jacqueline L and Alan S. Engler and Barbara J. Engler hereby grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, a tempo- rary construction easement and a permanent maintenance easement for stream channel restoration over, across, and through the following described property, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction and maintenance of said stream channel. The easement hereby granted is located in Section 24, Town- ship 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M., Snohomish County, Washington, and is more particularly described as follows: That portion of a 20.00 foot strip of land, that is 10.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline, that lies within Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 84, Plat of the City of Edmonds as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, Page 39, Records of Snohomish County, Washington. 207160100 NO SALES TAX REQ UIRID JU-. Ifs 1982 �i f.�S Snohamis� ��tt�,Jr�ss�rer �1at 1�53 Frcti`75� Attachmel Packet Pg. 216 2.A.a The City agrees to restore to condition such improvements as are struction, maintenance, and repair vided the grantors, their heirs, ox any permanent structure over, upon, ment. In addition, the City agrees property over any driveway that is, easement. substantially the original disturbed during the con - of said stream channel; pro - assigns shall not construct or within the permanent ease - not to obstruct access to said or may be located within this DATED THIS DAY OF 1982 STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me Jac ueline L. McGinneSs , and Alan S. Engler , and Barbara J. Engler , to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and ac- knowledged that signed the same as �J free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. iven under oe 0 6! j my hand and official seal this v2 day of 1982. OT RY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RES DING -AT voL1753 P�cF754 8207160100 Packet Pg. 217 M�P 2.A.a CITY � CLErZie, arvtc CENTER NO EXCISE TA ifD OND5, WA 08026 [�E4�''-11:=ED MAR 15 1990 �.1??5aL= UV ENGINEERMC � UTILITY EASEMENT O IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the Uo� undersigned, Paul B. & Charlotte M. Bushue, hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the d installation, operation and maintenance of a fish ladder and diversion Z structure over, across, through and below the following described c property; and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction and maintenance of said utility, together with the right of access to the QS easement at any time for the stated purposes. L a The easement hereby granted is located in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more particularly described as follows: •L U A strip of land thirty (30.00) feet wide, fifteen (15.00) feet on N each side of the existing stream on the Northerly fifteen (15.00) c feet of the following described property. N 0 Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 84, City of Edmonds, according to the LO plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of plats, page 39, in Snohomish N County, Washington. J a. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance o and repair of said utility or utilities; provided the grantors, their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, U) upon, or within the permanent easement. In addition, the City promises to hold harmless and indemnify the Grantors from claims of personal injury or property damage arising from or out of the design, installation, operation and maintenance of the aforementioned fish ladder and diversion structure, including the reasonable costs of legal defense by counsel of the Grantors' choosing provided, however, that this promise to hold harmless and indemnify shall be limited in the following respects: 1. Claims by the Grantors, their guests and invitees shall be limited to the percentage of liability determined to be that of the City, its officers, agents and employees in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington; 2. This promise to hold harmless and indemnify shall not relate to any claim or loss for personal injury or. property damage caused or occasioned by an intentional t.ortious act of the Grantors, their successors, in interest., -guests or. invitees. 9003150806 VOL. 231 SPAGE1390 Attachmel Packet Pg. 218 . 2.A.a C1'r NOS, DATED this day of 19. a� Hus an v `L �/f� / Wife ''' N STATE OF WASHINGTON) O COUNTY OF S On this day personally ersonall appeared before me �+ and me known to bete individual(s) described in a d who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and a acknowledged that signed the same as f° free and voluntary act eed, for the uses and purposes therein L mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF _ 19. NOTARY PUBLIU 3n ae for the State of Washington, residing at BUSHUE/TXTFORMS x ,W 08150306 VOL. 2118Qa6E139i Packet Pg. 219 2.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20150052 Applicant: Dietz DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 17th day of November, 2015, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 17th day of November, 2015, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: W re'.11 {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachmell Packet Pg. 220 2.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20150052 Applicant: Dietz DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 16th day of November, 2015, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this l6th day of November, 2015, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ 1 Packet Pg. 221 2.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH669221 PLN20150052 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 11/18/2015 and ending on 11/18/2015 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $79.12. Subscribed and sworn before me on this may ofx-- /�I ( DEDRA ANN GRIGG U L Notary Public state of Washington My Commission Expires �A October 31, 2017 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Packet Pg. 222 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS 4Ak8 Konl Dietz G9Ilgfy ❑olober 16, 2016 OW,' November 13, 2016 November 18, 2015 742 Dsfay Suess, Edmonds WA Tax Parcel Number00434208401000 PROJECT DEBLRLEJtON:The applicant Is requesling a crI11cel area variance to allow the construction o1 a new single family residence. Shell Cfeok, a Type F anadromous fish -Marl ng tream, runs through the property.YYha required crilical area streamsbuffaea dncumbar oil of the property, so in order to devalop the property a critical area reasonable use variance is required, Critical Area Study and Mitigation Pl}�L}G COISAI+ December 2, 2018 Anyy pperson has l a dphl to comment on this appllcalfoo during the ppuhllc comment period, receive notice and partltipale In any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept publlc comments at any Ilme prior to the closing 01 the retard o an open record pfedocielon hearing, if any, or. if no open record prodeclsion hearing Is provided, prior 10 the decision on the project permit. On! parlfea of retard as defined In ECOG 20.07.003 have atandmo to mitiale an administrative oppppeat. Information art this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Divislon between the hours of 0:00 a.m. end a:80 p.m. Monday,, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday or between online through the city's wabsite at www.edmondswa.gov through Online Permlls fink. Search for permit PLN20150 52. Information on the height vorlance is consolidated with the critical area variance application on the wobsile. City of Edmonds Project Planner: Kdmdn Llen Development Sarvlcos Department Senior Planner Plenni"Division kernen.11onOndmondswa.gov 121 51h Avenue North 426.771.0220 x1223 Edmonds, WA 98020 www.admondswa.gov ubllshed:November 18,2015. EDH66922t— C, Packet Pg. 223 2.A.a NAME OF APPLICANT: DATE OF APPLICATION: DATE OF COMPLETENESS: DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: PROJECT LOCATION: Notice of Application -File No. PLN20150052 Kent Dietz October 16, 2015 November 13, 2015 November 18, 2015 742 Daley Street, Edmonds WA Tax Parcel Number 00434208401000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a critical area variance to allow the construction of a new sin- gle family residence. Shell Creek, a Type F anadromous fish -bearing stream, runs through the property. The required critical area stream buffers encumber all of the property, so in order to develop the property a critical area reasonable use variance is required. REQUESTED PERMITS: Critical Area Variance OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Building Permit EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist, Critical Area Study and Mitigation Plan, Geotechnical Report REQUIRED STUDIES: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS DUE: December 2, 2015 Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administra- tive appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday or between online through the city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20150052. Information on the height variance is con- solidated with the critical area variance application on the website. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner will be scheduled and noticed at a future date. t City of Edmonds Development Services Department Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Planning Division kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 1 425.771.0220 x1223 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov WARNING: The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of posted notices before the removal date is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. This notice was mailed to owners within 300 feet of the site, posted on site, posted at the Public Safety Complex, Library, and at City Hall. It was also Published in the Everett Herald. Packet Pg. 224 2.A.a SITE PLAN & MITIGATION MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. POWER (;(*NLCTK)N AT 90E OF 8LO0 r It Ik 1 r r r TO Scale 7" = 20' 7 30 40 DALEY STREET 1>-4pGE0FA%0KALT � mel.ronMAOIYNGE � EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO REMAI THROUGHOUT BUFFER — . — - SHELL CREEK ---- 700f001 STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREAS WILLOW STAKE ENHANCEMENT ®I AREAS FENCE NOTES, *STREAM BUFFER COMPRISES ENTIRETY OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF SPLIT -RAIL FENCE. "EROSION CONTROL BMP'S MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE. 'THE EXACT LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANTING AREAS MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT DUE TO EXISTING VEGETATION. THIS WILL BE DONE ON -SITE BY THE LEAD ECOLOGIST AND LANDSCAPER PRIOR TO PLANTING. ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE AS -BUILT REPORT w x•c.r-.-�........r Pnone: (425) 337-3174 F.: (425) 337.3045 Flea erfxWl.ndvepcat.. cam DIETZ - DALEY STREET Sheet III It hiet, WRI don e15101 415 L.ke Steven. RA. VIW- t-V A ra Shavone WA8B25e Onlp. B51Q1IB1S Packet Pg. 225 2.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20150052 Applicant: Dietz DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 3rd day of March, 2016, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 3rd day of March, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachmell Packet Pg. 226 2.A.a FILE NO.: PLN20150052 Applicant: Dietz DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 3rd day of March, 2016, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and c&rect this 3rd day of March, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. f Signed:.' {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 227 2.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington) County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH686274 PLN20150052 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 03/03/2016 and ending on 03/03/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $84.28. Subscribed and sworn day of ZDJ4&1—� I before me on this If I n Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 1 14[01416 KERNEN LIEN RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2016 EDMONDS CITY CLERK DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires October 31, 2017 Packet Pg. 228 2.A.a CITYOFEDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesling a critical area reasonable use variance to aticw the construction of a now "Ingle family residence. Shall Creak, aType F anadrortlous fish - bearing stream, runs Ihrouggh the propperty, The requl+ad critical area dream buffers ancumbor all of the property, so In order to develop the property a critical area reasonable use variance is PFre ukad. ECT LOCATION: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds WA. Tax Parcel Numbor 004,M208401000 NAME OF APPLICANT: Kent Oletit FILE NO.- PLN20150052 REQUESTED PERMIT: Crlitcal Area Reasonable Use Variance [Type I1I.6 Parmlt) COMME NTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: March 24, 2016 Anyy pporacn has the right to comment on ihis application during ppuillt0 comment period. receive notice and parllclpate In any h0aring", and request a copy of the declsion on the application. The Cfty may accopl publ Ic comments at any llm0 prl or tc the closing of the record at an opon eacofd predocislon hearing, II any, or, if no open record prodecision hearing is pravlded, prior to the decision pn the prajacl permit. Only Qarttes al record as dallnad In ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to inliiate an administrative appeal. Infprmallan on this development apppllcation can be viewed or obtained at the Clfy of Edmonda Development Services Departmont, $21 Sth Ave North, Edmonds, WA 86020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4;30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 0:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's webslte at and"wa aov through the On[ina Parml(s Ilnk. Search for permit P N20150052.T PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A put)lic hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner an March 24. 2016 at a p.m. in the Councll Chambers located at 250 - 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, SEPA DETEFIMINATION:Ntlllce Ie Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has issued a ��lerminallan of Nons�q�m0G9_ under WAC 187.11_40 for Iha al ova pro]acL DATE OF ISSUANCE, Match 3, 2016 SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA datorminatiort may be appealed by Illing a wrllien appeal citing the specllic roasona for appeat Witft the required appeal fee no later than March 17, 2016 by 4:00 p m. CITY CONTACT: Kornon Uan, SsnlorPlanner wrion.lion n edm ondswaQov 425-771-0220 IPubllshed: March 3, 2016. EON6882741 Packet Pg. 229 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a critical area reasonable use variance to allow the construction of a new single family residence. Shell Creek, a Type F anadromous fish - bearing stream, runs through the property. The required critical area stream buffers encumber all of the property, so in order to develop the property a critical area reasonable use variance is required. PROJECT LOCATION: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 00434208401000 NAME OF APPLICANT: Kent Dietz FILE NO.: PLN20150052 REQUESTED PERMIT: Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance (Type III-B Permit) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: March 24, 2016 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.eov through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20150052. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on March 24, 2016 at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. DATE OF ISSUANCE: March 3, 2016 SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than March 17, 2016 by 4:00 p.m. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Packet Pg. 230 2.A.a SITE PLAN & MITIGATION MAP DIETZ - DALEY STREET PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 03E, W.M. DALEY STREET EOF ASPHALT m. .4D Y kloolwawvin�erpa urlunEB• -I� i ` eao[cutveer GABION WALL SLOPE TO MATCH BOTH SIDES OF DRIVEWAY AS REQUIRED } _1 PROPDSt A= ,'� SFR w� SPLIT-RAIL POWERCONII[4ilON % FENCE \ AT SIDE OF BLOC ti Ix ALL AREAS OUTSIDE OF SPLIT -RAIL FENCE WILL ii REMAIN AS BUFFER. EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO I REMAIN. 1 ` 1 "u' ,9...� Scale 11" = 20' D 10 2U 3B 40 IMFOOT ST12em BUFFER SHELL CREEK q-�—�/—y- 1 nD-FOOT STREAM BUFFER �E F�//!� ENHANCEMENT D��AREAS 11..1 -1-II WILLOW STAKE ENHANCEMENT AREAS Ir x SPLIT -RAIL FENCE NOTES: "STREAM BUFFER COMPRISES ENTIRETY OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF SPLIT -RAIL FENCE. 'EROSION CONTROL BMP'S MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND AREA OF DISTURBANCE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE `THE EXACT LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PLANTING AREAS MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT DUE TO EXISTING VEGETATION. THIS WALL BE DONE ON -SITE BY THE LEAD ECOLOGIST AND LANDSCAPER PRIOR TO PLANTING. ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANTING AREAS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE AS -BUILT REPORT. 'AREAS OF DENSE/SIGNIFICANT INVASIVE VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THE STREAM BUFFER WILL BE REMOVED AND RE -PLANTED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. THIS WALL BE DISCUSSED IN THE AS -BUILT REPORT. Packet Pg. 231 November 291h, 2015 2.A.a City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division RECEIVED Attn: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner NOV 2 0 2015 Re: Your File No. PLN20150052 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Property Location: 742 Daley Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 COUNTER This letter is in response to the Notice of Application for File No. PLN20150052, an application for variance in a protected wetland. I write to you to oppose the requested critical area variance. Mr. Dietz' application is in direct violation of Edmonds City Code of Fish and Wildlife conservation areas, ECDC 23.90.040, pertaining to Type F Anadromous fishbearing streams. The owner of the subject parcel has applied for a critical area variance multiple times. The entire area was encumbered when this property was purchased. Mr. Dietz was aware of this at the time of purchase, and the purchase price reflected it. Shell Creek is a critical area because it is both a wildlife habitat and a green belt that runs throughout the city. This is unique because these areas have been disappearing for the past one hundred years, encroached on by development just like Mr. Dietz has proposed. As a wildlife habitat Shell Creek was recently featured by local news organizations for having mature salmon. These salmon were located only a block away from Mr. Dietz' proposed development. We, the adjacent property owners have been put into the position of overseeing the City in upholding codes written to protect our precious area. For the sake of preserving the community greenbelt and protecting critical wildlife habitat as well as existing home owners Mr. Dietz' critical area variance should be denied. Any change in the zoning now would expose the city to unnecessary legal action. Please deny this application for a variance and tell Mr. Dietz that no means no. We should not be forced to revisit this issue every two years. Sincerely, T"t I c0i«�d�--� Lynnette and Rory Callahan Attachmel Packet Pg. 232