SEATTLE YACHT CLUB - DECISION (2)
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Matter of the Application for
Conditional Use Permits by
SEA TTLE YACHT CLUB
SCUP/CUP13042
and the Appeal of the Director's
Threshold Determination (MDNS) by
MAHLUM/FRANZ et al.
ORDER ON REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND REISSUING DECISION
Status for Filing Request:
On October 4, 2006, the Hearing Examiner received a request for reconsideration submitted by Thomas
H. Robertson and Johanna Vanderlee. Having submitted a letter that was included in the record [Exhibit
120], Mr. Robertson and Ms. Vanderlee are properly considered "parties of record" regarding the hearing
held on the application for use permits [see Hearing Examiner Rules, Chapter I, Section 3].
Mr. Robertson and Ms. Vanderlee are also members of the group that appealed the Director's SEPA
threshold determination; they are not separate "appellants". As noted at the beginning of the hearing,
there is only one appellant in this matter because only one appeal was filed (i. e., the appeal filed by the
group referred to as "Mahlum/Franz et al."). Individuals in the appellant group could participate and have
rights in the SEP A appeal through the appellant group; the appellant group is the "party of record" in the
SEPA appeal. Although both Mr. Robertson and Ms. Vanderlee are included in the appellant group,
neither was designated to represent the appellant and exercise its rights as a party in that appeal [see
Hearing Examiner Rules, Chapter I, Section 4].
Request and Response:
The request for reconsideration states that it is sought due to "inadvertent omissions, clear mistake of
material fact, or error of law" and asks that several conditions (described in the request) be added to the
decision. The additional conditions sought include: restricting or prohibiting some Yacht Club activities,
restricting the Springer dock to sailboats, reducing the size of the proposed parking areas, offsetting the
southern driveway entrance so as to not face the RobertsonlVanderlee driveway across the road,
reconfiguring the easterly end of the main dock to avoid possible encroachment into public tidelands,
expressly prohibiting "unpermitted expansion", and requiring the proposed view corridor. The request
also alleges that requiring paved driveway "approaches" (see Condition 19) would be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
The Director and the Applicant were notified of the request for reconsideration and given opportunity to
respond to it. The responses note that the request for reconsideration fails to provide support for the
assertions of error, omission, and mistake. The Director and the Applicant object to the requested
additional conditions, with one exception. The Director and the Applicant agree with the
RobertsonIVanderlee opposition to the requirement in Condition 19 that driveway approaches be paved.
The Director and the Applicant proposed extensive "revision" of both Condition 19 and Condition 20 to
include changes detailing the actions they believe appropriate for those conditions.
Order
November 13, 2006
Page 1 of 4
Mr. Robertson and Ms. Vanderlee submitted comments on the suggested revisions submitted by the
Applicant and the Director. Their reply suggested revisions for Conditions 7, 19,20,21,26, 32, 33, and
78, and two new conditions (regarding limits to SYC operations, prohibiting construction not specified in
the permit and prohibiting any impairment of the proposed view corridor). The appellant group,
Mahlurn/Franz et aI., indicated support for the RobertsonlVanderlee position.
Hearing Examiner Rules Regarding Reconsideration:
The Hearing Examiner Rules for "Hearings on Permit Applications" (Chapter II, Section 6, Rule 6.4b;
emphasis added) provide that:
1. Any party of Record may file a written request with the Examiner for reconsideration of the
Examiner's recommendation or decision within ten (10) working days of the date of the Examiner's
recommendation or decision. The reauest shall exulicitlv state the alleged errors of orocedure or fact. The
request may also include direction to a specific issue that was inadvertently omitted from the Examiner's
recommendation or decision.
2. The Examiner shall act within five (5) working days after the date of the filing of the request
for reconsideration by either denying the request, approving the request by modifying or amending the
recommendation or decision based on the established record, reauesting written resoonses from other
Parties of Record, or setting the matter for an additional hearing.
3. If an additional hearing is required the notice of said hearing shall be mailed to all Parties of
Record not less than five (5) working days prior to the date of the new hearing.
The Hearing Examiner Rules for "Open Record Appeal Hearing of Administrative Decisions" (Chapter
III, Section 12, Rules 12.1-12.2; emphasis added) provide that:
12.1 Reconsideration shall be granted by the Examiner on a showing of one or more of the
following:
a. Irregularity in the oroceedings by which the moving party was prevented from having a fair
hearing;
b. Newlv discovered evidence of a material nature which could not with reasonable diligence,
have been oroduced at hearing;
c. Clear mistake as to a material fact.
12.2 Motions for reconsideration must be filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
Examiner's decision. Unless otherwise specifically provided by the applicable ordinance(s), the time for
appealing a decision shall begin to run upon the issuance of a decision on a motion for reconsideration
that was filed in a timely manner.
Order and Clarification of Conditions 19 and 20:
The Hearing Examiner Rules provide limited grounds (i. e. a showing of error, procedural irregularity,
material omission or mistake) for granting reconsideration. The option for use of gravel was
inadvertently omitted from Condition 19. Other than that, Mr. Robertson and Ms. Vanderlee have failed
to show a basis cognizable under the Hearing Examiner Rules for reconsideration: no irregularity is
asserted or shown; the new "facts" asserted could have been (but were not) produced at hearing; and,
other omissions and mistakes asserted are based on their preference for different and additional
conditions, not a showing of error.
The parties have all suggested "revisions" of the conditions. Some of the suggested changes are
unnecessary; others would change terms and directions intentionally included to accomplish an intended
outcome. Both Condition 19 and Condition 20 need to be clarified to ensure better understanding of the
intent of those conditions and the specifics necessary to satisfy the intent.
Order
November 13, 2006
Page 2 of 4
Condition 19 and Condition 20 are hereby REVISED to provide the necessary and appropriate clarification,
as follows:
19. *In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85 and to the satisfaction of the Director, a
25-ft. wide "partial screen" landscape buffer shall be established and
maintained on the eastern 25-ft. of the subject property (i.e., west of the SYC
property boundary, as that boundary is established or verified pursuant to Condition
20). This buffer shall be planted with native plants in accordance with the
Landscape Plan [Exhibit 57 revised, see below and Condition 20]. The buffer area
south of the southern driveway entrance that is not slated for landscaping shall be
maintained in its existing condition (except that diseased or hazard trees and invasive
plants may be removed as maintenance).
Revise the Landscape Plan to include the following:
a. Paved OR graveled driveway "approaches" to connect to and match the
grade of the existing roadway pavement of Spargur Loop Road (i. e., to provide
a relatively smooth "transition" surface between the western edge of the Spargur
Loop Road pavement and the driveway entrances shown in Exhibit 57 and
described in "b" and "c" below);
b. A northern entrance (north of the parking area containing parking spaces 1
through 26 - see in Exhibit 57) having a 15-ft. wide "approach" (see "a" above)
AND, to provide for access at the northern end of that parking area, either a 15-
ft. wide driveway OR a 10-ft. wide driveway with 2-ft. wide "shoulders".
c. A southern entrance (south of the parking area containing parking spaces 1
through 26 - see in Exhibit 57) having a 15-ft. wide "approach" (see "a" above)
AND, to provide for access at the southern end of that parking area, either a 15-
ft. wide driveway OR a 10-ft. wide driveway with 2-ft. wide "shoulders".
The rest of the southern driveway (and the parking areas) to be permitted
consistent with Exhibit 57, as determined appropriate by the Director.
20. *The applicant shall do the following to help facilitate safe two-way vehicular travel
on Spargur Loop Road adjacent to the frontage of the subject property:
a. Through a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor, SYC shall, prior to
beginning work on the 25-ft. wide landscape buffer [see Condition 19] and to the
satisfaction of the City, identify and map the location of the following along
the north-south leg of Spargur Loop Road: (1) the eastern boundary of
SYC's property; (2) the western edge of the existing roadway pavement; (3)
any improvements or structures (e.g., fences, utilities poles, etc.) between the
western edge of the existing pavement and the eastern property boundary of
SYC's property. Based upon this survey, SYC shall quitclaim or provide a
right-of-way dedication along the SYC frontage as necessary to establish and/or
clarify, to the satisfaction of the City, the easterly boundary of SYC's property,
relative to the location and extent of a 30-ft. wide public right-of-way for Spargur
Loop Road.
b. Ensure that all existing or proposed SYC improvements (including, but not
limited to the proposed 25-ft. landscape buffer; see Condition 19), are located on
SYC property. That is, all SYC improvements must be west of SYC's easterly
property boundary and outside the Spargur Loop Road public right-of-way, as
Order
November 13,2006
Page 3 of 4
~,"-~-,--",---"~--"--'-'-' ._..._-_...--~._.- ~_._--_._--_. ,.--'
that boundary and right-of-way are established and/or clarified pursuant to "a"
above.
c. To the satisfaction of the Director and in coordination with the Public Works
Department (with a right-of-way permit if/as required), SYC shall clear existing
vegetation from the area west of the existing pavement of the north-south leg of
Spargur Loop Road in order to provide a informal roadway "shoulder" not
less than 3-ft. wide in the public right-of-way contiguous to the western edge
of the existing pavement (see "a" above). This "shoulder" area shall be cleared
along the entire SYC frontage, from the northernmost SYC driveway entrance
(see Exhibit 56 or 57), to the southern boundary of SYC's property. In addition,
as approved by the Public Works Department, SYC shall provide within the
public right-of-way, one turnout (at least 6-ft. wide) located west of the western
edge of the existing pavement and approximately 300 ft. north of Hidden Cove
Road. Except for existing trees that meet the BIMC definition for "significant",
all vegetation shall be cut down and cut back and structures shall be removed
(except utility poles, guide wires, and other public facilities) from the "shoulder"
and turnout areas. These areas shall be leveled/graded and graveled as
necessary (except in wetland or other designated critical areas) in order to
provide a serviceable "shoulder" and turnout.
NOTE: Condition 20 does not require comprehensive "half-street" improvements
matching the City's design standards and specifications for a street of this classification.
Decision Reissued:
To clarify Condition 19 and Condition 20 as noted above, the decision in this matter (originally issued
September 18,2006), shall be REISSUED on November 13,2006.
Entered this 13th day of November 2006.
signed in original
Meredith A. Getches
Hearing Examiner
Order
November 13, 2006
Page 4 of 4
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Matter of the Application for
Conditional Use Permits by
SEA TTLE YACHT CLUB
SCUP/CUPI3042
and the Appeal of the Director's
Threshold Determination (MONS) by
NOTICE REGARDING
REISSUING DECISION
MAHLUM/FRANZ et at.
Dear Interested Citizen:
This notice is being sent to all persons on the mailing list used for distribution of the
decision in this matter (issued on September 18, 2006).
Please be advised that the decision in this matter is being reissued today to clarify the
intent and detailing specific requirements for Condition 19 and Condition 20. The only
change to the decision is this revision of Condition 19 and Condition 20, and date of
issuance (changed to November 13,2006).
Condition 19 and Condition 20 are revised to read:
19. *In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85 and to the satisfaction of the Director, a
25-ft. wide "partial screen" landscape buffer shall be established and
maintained on the eastern 25-ft. of the subject property (i.e., west of the SYC
property boundary, as that boundary is established or verified pursuant to Condition
20). This buffer shall be planted with native plants in accordance with the
Landscape Plan [Exhibit 57 revised, see below and Condition 20]. The buffer area
south of the southern driveway entrance that is not slated for landscaping shall be
maintained in its existing condition (except that diseased or hazard trees and invasive
plants may be removed as maintenance).
Revise the Landscape Plan to include the following:
a. Paved OR graveled driveway "approaches" to connect to and match the
grade of the existing roadway pavement of Spargur Loop Road (i. e., to provide
a relatively smooth "transition" surface between the western edge of the Spargur
Loop Road pavement and the driveway entrances shown in Exhibit 57 and
described in "b" and "c" below);
b. A northern entrance (north of the parking area containing parking spaces 1
through 26 - see in Exhibit 57) having a 15-ft. wide "approach" (see "a" above)
AND, to provide for access at the northern end of that parking area, either a 15-ft.
wide driveway OR a 10-ft. wide driveway with 2-ft. wide "shoulders".
c. A southern entrance (south of the parking area containing parking spaces I
through 26 - see in Exhibit 57) having a 15-ft. wide "approach" (see "a" above)
AND, to provide for access at the southern end of that parking area, either a 15-
ft. wide driveway OR a 10-ft. wide driveway with 2-ft. wide "shoulders".
The rest of the southern driveway (and the parking areas) to be permitted
consistent with Exhibit 57, as determined appropriate by the Director.
Order
November 13, 2006
Page 10f2
Notice: Decision Reissued
November 13, 2006
Page 2 of2
20. *The applicant shall do the following to help facilitate safe two-way vehicular travel
on Spargur Loop Road adjacent to the frontage of the subject property:
a. Through a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor, SYC shall, prior to
beginning work on the 25-ft. wide landscape buffer [see Condition 19] and to the
satisfaction of the City, identify and map the location of the following along
the north-south leg of Spargur Loop Road: (1) the eastern boundary of
SYC's property; (2) the western edge of the existing roadway pavement; (3)
any improvements or structures (e.g., fences, utilities poles, etc.) between the
western edge of the existing pavement and the eastern property boundary of
SYC's property. Based upon this survey, SYC shall quitclaim or provide a
right-of-way dedication along the SYC frontage as necessary to establish and/or
clarify, to the satisfaction of the City, the easterly boundary of SYC's property,
relative to the location and extent of a 30-ft. wide public right-of-way for Spargur
Loop Road.
b. Ensure that all existing or proposed SYC improvements (including, but not
limited to the proposed 25-ft. landscape buffer; see Condition 19), are located on
SYC property. That is, all SYC improvements must be west of SYC's easterly
property boundary and outside the Spargur Loop Road public right-of-way, as
that boundary and right-of-way are established and/or clarified pursuant to "a"
above.
c. To the satisfaction of the Director and in coordination with the Public Works
Department (with a right-of-way permit if/as required), SYC shall clear existing
vegetation from the area west of the existing pavement of the north-south leg of
Spargur Loop Road in order to provide a informal roadway "shoulder" not
less than 3-ft. wide in the public right-of-way contiguous to the western edge
of the existing pavement (see "a" above). This "shoulder" area shall be cleared
along the entire SYC frontage, from the northernmost SYC driveway entrance
(see Exhibit 56 or 57), to the southern boundary of SYC's property. In addition,
as approved by the Public Works Department, SYC shall provide within the
public right-of-way, one turnout (at least 6-ft. wide) located west of the western
edge of the existing pavement and approximately 300 ft. north of Hidden Cove
Road. Except for existing trees that meet the BIMC definition for "significant",
all vegetation shall be cut down and cut back and structures shall be removed
(except utility poles, guide wires, and other public facilities) from the "shoulder"
and turnout areas. These areas shall be leveled/graded and graveled as
necessary (except in wetland or other designated critical areas) in order to
provide a serviceable "shoulder" and turnout.
NOTE: Condition 20 does not require comprehensive "half-street" improvements
matching the City's design standards and specifications for a street of this
classification.
If you would like to have a copy of the entire decision as reissued, you may request that a
copy be sent via email (dsawyer@bainbridge.net). or by regular mail (Hearing
Examiner's Office, Attention: Diane Sawyer, City Hall, 280 Madison Ave. N.,
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1812).
November 13, 2006
Order
November 13, 2006
Page 2 of2
DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Reissued November 13. 2006
Revising and Clarifying Conditions 19 and 20
In the Matter of the Application for
Conditional Use Permits by
SEATTLE YACHT CLUB
SCUP/CUPI3042
and the Appeal of the Director's
Threshold Determination (MDNS) by
MAHLUM/FRANZ, et al.
BACKGROUND
The Seattle Yacht Club seeks a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) for construction of several improvements on its property
within the shoreline. The Director's SEP A threshold determination (MDNS) was
appealed by several neighbors.
The SEP A appeal hearing and the public hearing required for the CUP and SCUP
decisions were consolidated. A prehearing conference was held on May 25, 2006, and
the hearing began on June 1, 2006, continuing on June 2, 2006, June 23, 2006, and July
14,2006. Parties represented at the hearing were the Director, Planning and Community
Development Department (PCD or Department), by Joshua Machen, Senior Planner; the
Applicant, Seattle Yacht Club (SYC), by its attorney Keith Moxon; and, the appellant
group Mallum/Franz, et aI., by attorneys Hillary Franz and Claudia Newman. The record
was closed on August 8, 2006 following receipt of post-hearing submittals.
After due consideration of all the evidence in the record, the following shall constitute the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decisions of the Hearing Examiner on this
application and the Director's SEP A threshold determination. All evidence admitted in
to the record was considered in making this decision. References to exhibits and
testimony that are shown in brackets denote some of the evidence relied upon; these
references are not intended as exclusive or exhaustive. (Note: Exhibit 92 contains over
100 photographs used in a PowerPoint presentation given at the hearing. Each photo has
an individual identification number preceded by "PP".)
FINDINGS
SITE DESCRIPTION
1. The Port Madison Outstation, or FO'C'SLE, is one of the nine private
recreational boating moorages operated in the region by the Seattle Yacht Club (SYC) for
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 1 of 34
its members. Addressed as 8750 Spargur Loop Road NE, the Yacht Club is located at the
northern end of the island, on the southern shore of Port Madison Bay [see Figure 1,
Exhibit 31]. The seven acre site consists of two parcels (each about 31;2 acres): the
original outstation site and the adjacent "Springer" property. The Tax Assessor parcel
numbers are 342602-3-048-2005 and 342602-3-045-2005, 8750 Spargur Loop Road and
Springer property, respectively. See "Site Plan" [Exhibit 104] for location of existing
and built and natural features. [Exhibits 3; 15; 71, pages 1, 7-8; 129; Testimony Machen]
2. The Port Madison Outstation (Yacht Club or Club) has been in operation
at the subject site since 1945. In 1944 SYC members were asked to donate money to
purchase waterfront property that included an old building and dilapidated wharf In
1945 the property was purchased, the building decorated and dock repaired. In 1963,
several parcels (originally purchased from Grace Spargur by a SYC Past Commodore)
were conveyed to SYC. During the early 1960's improvements were made to the
restrooms, bulkhead, and landscaping. Clubhouse construction was completed in 1967.
In the early 1990' s the City and the SYC settled a dispute so that the northern parking
area became officially SYC property. In 1997, SYC purchased the Springer property
immediately to the west and the subject application includes the proposal to operate a
small boat sailing program there. [Exhibit 24, Attachment; Ovens]
3. From the rock bulkhead the subject site slopes fairly steeply [Exhibit 92:
PP 31, Exhibit 149] to gently sloping, well-forested uplands. The existing floating docks
("dock" and "float" are used interchangeably in this decision), which are generally
parallel to the northwesterly-facing shoreline [see Exhibit 92: PP 58-60; Sheet 2, Exhibit
113; in red circle page 19, Exhibit 31], can provide moorage for 26 boats [Exhibit 31,
page 1]. (The Yacht Club owns the tidelands extending waterward approximately 320 ft.
See also tidelands lease, Exhibit 108.) Development on the Springer property [see also
Findings 34 and 35] consists of a single-family house ("Springer house") residence and a
dock ("Springer dock") [see Exhibit 92: PP 12, 15-16,98-100]. [Exhibits 15; 56; Exhibit
71, page 7; 113]
4. There are several existing upland structures on the subject site including
the clubhouse (with meeting/dining area, kitchen and restroom/shower facilities) [Exhibit
92: PP 65-67], restroom facilities at the head of the dock [Exhibit 92: PP 63], pavilion
[PP 45-46, Exhibit 92], caretaker's residence [Exhibit 92: PP 51-52 82], carport and shed
[PP 3-5, Exhibit 92] at the north end of the property, west of Spargur Loop Road. There
is lawn and landscaping between the structures and mature trees throughout the site [see
e.g., PP 1-6, 45, 50-55, 97, Exhibit 92; also see Finding 5]. There is parking area for
eleven cars by the Clubhouse [Exhibit 3, Section 3; Exhibit 92: PP 65-70, 79] and an area
south ofthe Caretaker's residence that is used for overflow parking. [Exhibits 15; 56; 71,
page 7; and 113]
5. The northern part of the site, where the existing structures are located,
slopes down to the water from the southeast to northwest, becoming relatively steep near
the shore [see topography, Exhibit 105; Exhibit 92: PP 31, 55, 56, 98; Exhibit 149]. The
undeveloped southern portion of site includes some steep slopes. A Category III wetland
of approximately one acre has been identified in the southwest portion of the site [see
wetland boundaries, Exhibit 107]. Vegetation includes a thick canopy of red alder and
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 2 of 34
western red cedar, with an understory dominated by salmonberry with red elderberry,
holly, and Indian plum, and a sparse groundcover of skunk cabbage, lady fern and
English ivy. [Exhibits 32; 56; 71, page 7,]
6. The Yacht Club grounds and structures are attractive and well-maintained
[e.g., Exhibit 92: PP 51-52 (Caretaker's house), 73 & 86 (Club on right), 66 & 79
(Clubhouse), 89-92 (parking area), 93 and 95 (either side of Spargur Loop Road), 57
(walkway to gangway/main dock)]. In this respect, the Club is compatible with this
characteristic Island neighborhood of attractive homes and wooded roadsides [see e.g.,
Exhibit 92: PP 75, 81; Exhibits 136F-I, K-L]. The temporary garage and shed structures
[see Exhibit 92: PP 4, 5, and 87] are exceptions and they would be replaced by the
proposed garage. The large, brightly colored play equipment set near the road [Exhibit
92: PP 83, 88] may also be considered an exception as it is located in what otherwise
might be a scenic westerly view across the lawn. [Testimony Otorowski; Haugan
7. The site is zoned residential (R-2), two units per acre. (This designation
would allow for 14 dwelling units on the subject site.) The Director considers the Yacht
Club to be an existing non-conforming use. [PCD Staff Report, Exhibit 71, pages 10 12]
8. The Comprehensive Plan designation is OSR-2, Open Space Residential
and the Shoreline Master Program environment designations are "Semi-Rural" upland
and "Aquatic" over water. [Exhibit 71, Staff Report, page 8,]
Y ACHf CLUB OPERATIONS
Events
9. The Yacht Club's outstations provide transient moorage for visiting SYC
members (most stay overnight, weekend, or several days and there is a two-week
maximum). Most days in October through May, there are only a few (less than 10) boats
moored here, and there are many days in each month with no boats at all. During these
off-season months only Yacht Club "events" (e.g., New Year's holiday in January, Chile
Cook-off in February, Garlic Festival in March, and occasional mini-cruise or holiday
gathering) generate 20 or more boats. In 2004 there were 122 days with 10 or more boats
and/or 20 or more persons and in 2005, there were 124 days like that. At this rate,
indicate there is little or no noticeable activity two-thirds of the year. [Exhibits 126; 130-
132; 134; 166; Testimony Haugen; Otorowski; Woodard]
10. Summer (May through September) non-"event" weekdays see relatively
few visitors with at least several days each month having only a handful of boats visiting.
Summer weekends are popular and it is not unusual for there to be 10 or more boats.
[Exhibits 24, 130-132, 134]
11. During large SYC summer "events", the dock is full and boats raft up [see
e.g., Exhibit 161]. Summer holidays and Yacht Club events (e.g., Memorial Day in May;
Power Boat Rendezvous, Golf Rendezvous, and Potlatch, generally in June; Fourth of
July; Labor Day, Stimson Trophy Race in September; and, Halloween Cruise in October)
can draw several dozen or more boats. The 3-4 major annual events, each lasting for
several days (including a weekend) include the Power Boat Rendezvous, Potlatch, and
Stimson Race. [Exhibits 24, 130-132, 134, 166; Testimony Otorowski]i
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 3 of 34
12. In recent years (2003-2005), the number of boats moored each day during
the Power Boat Rendezvous and Potlatch averaged around 50 boats and visitors over 250
for Potlatch and in the 130-165 range for the Power Boat Rendezvous. The Stimson
Trophy Race is generally a smaller event, with fewer than 50 boats. Most SYC members
arrive by boat and parking on-site for more than a few cars is typically needed only
during some summer weekends and major events. The large annual events have a
notable and atypically large demand for parking. During these events, the number of cars
parked on-site routinely reaches 20 or more; car counts have been in the high 30's with
maximum around 40. Except for those large summer events, it was relatively rare for
there to be 10 or more cars parked on-site on any day during 2003-2005. (Exhibits 130-
132, 134, 166; Testimony Otorowski ]
13. Other than the events noted above, there are few occasions each year
attended by 50-100+ visitors. Attendees have sometimes relied heavily on cars rather
than boats for transportation (e.g., in 2005 "Ladies Lunch", 152 attended, 14 cars, 9
boats; Committee Meeting, 50 attended, 15 cars, 0 boats; 2004 "Ladies Lunch", 139
attended, 5 cars, 9 boats; Yacht Club Employee Picnic, 80 attended, 12 cars, 7 boats;
Fishing Derby, 77 attended, 12 cars, 18 boats. [Exhibits 130, 132, 134]
14. The claim of some neighbors that there has been an increasing amount of
activity at the Yacht Club in recent years is not borne out by the records of usage. The
years 2001 through 2005 had fewer boats and fewer visitors (2564 boats and 9280
visitors) than was the annual average for the 11 year period from 1994 through 2005.
The year 1997-1998 saw the highest number of both boats (3696) and visitors (10,535);
1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were the next highest. (Exhibit 126]
Rules
15. The SYC has general rules for all its outstations and rules specifically for
the Port Madison Outstation [Exhibit 129]. Abuse of facilities or violation of the rules
can result in suspension or loss of outstation privileges. Some of the Spargur Loop
neighbors noted that they have found SYC unresponsive to their complaints. Resident
managers are "required, as a provision oftheir employment, to call members' attention to
these rules as necessary and to report violations to the outstation committee chairmen for
appropriate action." The current resident managers (or "Caretakers") at the Port Madison
Outstation are, by all accounts in this record, capable and competent and have good
relations with both SYC members and neighbors. However, it would not be surprising if
"policing" their vacationing employers could be a difficult and, at least some times, futile
task for the caretakers [see public comments].
16. Both sets of SYC rules stress the importance of being a "good neighbor":
to respect the rights and privacy of others [see also PP 72, Exhibit 92]. Private parties,
fireworks, camping on outstation grounds and sleeping overnight in the clubhouse, and
discharge of marine toilets are prohibited. However, there are no rules limiting hours
(e.g., a curfew on outdoor gatherings, etc.). Generators are not to be operated before 7
a.m. or after 10 p.m. Members are not to use "Loud hailers" except in emergencies, but
they have been used for announcing organized races/games. [Exhibit 129; Testimony
Grant; Woodard].
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 4 of 34
VICINITY
17. The surrounding neighborhood is dominated by single-family residential
use (there are 19 existing residences on Spargur Loop Road [Testimony Franz]), but there
are also recreational uses in addition to the Yacht Club. The undeveloped parcel
immediately adjacent to the northeast is a small (.34 acre), undeveloped City park
(T'Chookwap Park) [see Exhibit 127], and the new six acre Spargur Park is to the
southwest. Spargur Park is not open yet, but the existing dock is expected to have public
use (see dock in lower left in Exhibit 162, Springer dock in the center and boats moored
at the Yacht Club upper center]. Nearby to the south is the Port Madison Yacht Club
with permanent (year-round) moorage for club members, a clubhouse, small boat storage
and launch facilities, and parking areas [see Exhibit 92: left side photo 106,]. To the east
are single-family homes developed on large lots. (Exhibit 71, Staff Report, page 8;
Exhibit 164; Testimony Lande; Testimony Otorowski]
18. In the northeast, south of Port Madison Bay, NE Hidden Cove Road runs
east from the western side of the Island, west of Manzanita Drive, across SR 305, and
terminates at Phelps Road in the vicinity of the subject site. Spargur Loop Road extends
directly north from Hidden Cove Road, then turns east in front of the Yacht Club,
running west to east to Phelps Road NE [see Exhibit 152].
19. Spargur Loop Road [see Exhibit 136], classified as "Residential
Suburban", has an estimated pavement width varying between approximately 1 0 ft. to 15
ft. [Testimony Tilghman; Franz]. The initial segment of Spargur Loop Road, from
Hidden Cove Road north to the Yacht Club, has no curves and is wide enough for safe
two way travel [136A-D]. Between the turn to the east in front of the subject site [136T]
and intersection with Phelps Road, Spargur Loop has two "blind" curves [136M-R] and
some segments are too narrow (with roadside constraints e.g., adjacent to ditch or slope)
to allow two cars to pass [136M]. Other segments of the road have sufficient width
(including unpaved "shoulders") and visibility for two cars to safely pass each [136L;
13 7]. There are no formal traffic counts on Spargur Loop Road, but volumes appear to
be quite low. Appellants' traffic consultant estimated it might be less than 400/day. (At
the ITE standard of 10 trips/day/single-family residence, the 19 existing residences on
Spargur Loop Road would be expected to generate approximately 190 trips/day.)
20. The vicinity is zoned R-2 along the waterfront (OSR-2 Comprehensive
Plan designation) and, further to the south, across Hidden Cove Road, zoning is R-O.4
(OSR-OA Comprehensive Plan designation). [Exhibit 71, Staff Report, page 8]
21. Similar to much (i.e., 82%) of the Island, the shore of Port Madison Bay is
developed. Also similar to the rest of the Bainbridge Island, the development is primarily
single-family residences. The sheltered bay is popular for boating and structures for
accessing boats (piers, docks, buoys, etc.) are numerous; one estimate is 70 docks
[Testimony Cheney]. There are eight marinas (i.e., piers and floats with more than five
moorings) and many single-family residences have docks [see page 3, Exhibit 31] for
personal use [see aerial photos page 19, Exhibit 31 or Exhibit 11 0]. The "density" of
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 5 of 34
such structures (referred to as "modifications") is the highest on the Island with 14
modifications per 1,000 linear feet. [Exhibit 118A, Nearshore Assessment, pages 37-44]
22. The Biological Evaluation prepared as a part of the Corps of Engineers
permitting process [Exhibit 31], describes the Port Madison Bay (or "Hidden Cove") as a
"small shallow inlet" about 1 mile in length and IJ4 mile wide, offering "protected
moorage", with water depths ranging from 6 to 20 feet MLL W. Hidden Cove has
suitable habitat for both migratory and resident marine fish with a variety of adult and
juvenile salmon, trout and char. There are no salmon-bearing streams in the immediate
area, but adult salmon would be expected to be present April through October during
migration to other areas. This area has no commercial shellfish grounds, but is a well-
documented spawning and holding area for Pacific herring. [Exhibits 31, pages 3-8,
Figure 3; 118A, Figures B 17 -B27]
PROPOSAL
23. The major elements of the proposal are to reconfigure the existing dock
and to convert the Springer house and dock for use in a small boat sailing program. The
proposal has been revised since the original submittal, with an appreciable reduction in
the length of both proposed docks [see Findings 25, 26, 36 and 37]. The individual
elements of the proposal are listed here [see locations numbered on site plan, Exhibit
105] and discussed in subsequent Findings. [Exhibit 71, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 3,
Application, Section 1; Exhibit 56 (site plan); Exhibit 57 (landscape plan); Exhibit 66;
Exhibit 106 (Springer house); Exhibits 113 and 66 (moorage/pier renovation); Testimony
of Machen; Layton; Haugan]
(1) Refurbish and convert (Springer) house (2 meeting rooms, bathrooms, support areas,
boat storage and maintenance area) for small boat sailing class use.
(2) Rebuild (Springer) dock (replace old float) for small boat sailing class dock.
(3) Reconfigure and add slips to existing main dock to accommodate wider boats.
(4) Replace the existing septic system.
(5) Formalize parking areas.
(6) Build a deck adjacent to the BBQ pavilion.
(7) Construct garage (for the caretaker).
(8) Relocate playground equipment to create view corridor from the street.
(9) Plant vegetation buffers.
(10) Upgrade outdoor lighting.
(11) Upgrade existing restrooms.
24. As required mitigation [see Findings 24 and 66] 46 creosote piles, a
grounded float, and a tidal grid adjacent to easterly fixed pier, would be removed.
Reconfigure Existing Moorage (#3 on Exhibit 105)
25. Reconfiguration of the existing 12 slip moorage [Exhibit 92: PP 57-60] is
proposed in order to have slips that can accommodate wider boats (i.e., two large boats in
each slip) and two slips would be added. The existing dock was designed in 1967 and, as
boats have gotten "beamier" (wider) since that time, it is not uncommon for two modern
(large) boats to not fit inside the existing (31-34-ft. wide) "U" shaped slips. The modular
docks are to be reorganized: relocating some existing finger floats and reconfiguring the
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 6 of34
slips. A new walkway (7-ft. wide and 91.5 ft. long) would be added, creating two new
slips. The number of slips would still be 12 slips, but the widths would be increased (31-
ft. wide slips increased to 34 ft. and 34-ft. wide slips increased to 40 ft). The overall
length of the moorage would extend westerly beyond the end of the existing dock by an
additional 91.5 ft. The existing 4 ft. X 34 ft. wood gangway [Exhibit 92: PP 57-59;
Exhibit 152, PP 147] would be replaced with a fully grated 4 ft. X 50 ft. aluminum
gangway with a new landing built on steel piles. [Exhibit 113; Testimony Otorowski;
Haugan; Layton]
26. In the original submittal the reconfigured floats were proposed to extend
about 100 ft. farther west than the existing structure, with finger piers 50 ft. long. With
those proposed alterations, and those originally proposed for the Springer dock [see
Finding 37], the ends of the two structures would have been approximately 85 ft. from
one another. The revised ( current) plans have the ends of the structures approximately
155 ft. apart. [Measurements scaled from Exhibit 3, Section 5 and Exhibit 113, Sheet 5]
27. With the moorage "reconfiguration" project, old creosote piles and stubs
would be removed [see e.g., piles and stubs see Exhibit 153, PP 151; Exhibit 152, PP
135]. Approximately 46 creosote piles (including those to be removed from Springer
property) would be removed and disposed of in an approved upland site. No creosote
treated plies would be used in the new construction. The new piles would be steel and
new floats would be concrete with encapsulated foam. [Exhibits 31; 113; Testimony
Cheney]
Convert Springer House & Dock (#1 and #2 on Exhibit 105)
Sailing Program:
28. The overwater location (with the deck and shop on the lower level of the
building) provides unusual and very important direct water access [Exhibit 92: PP 30, 39;
Exhibit 35, page 3]. The Springer house would be renovated and the dock replaced for
use in a small boat sailing program [Exhibit 35, page 3]. The Club would provide
organized small boat sailing classes (possibly in concert with the Parks Department
and/or the Port Madison Yacht Club) with a dedicated sailing program manager. They
are intending to use "420's" (a two-handed sailboat 13-ft. 9 in. long, 5-ft. 5 in. wide and
weighing 230 Ibs.). SYC currently has eight of these boats. It is anticipated that sailing
classes would have two students per boat and one instructor. As the dock would hold as
many as 12 small boats, the maximum class size would be 24. [Exhibits 113; 120;
Testimony ofOtorowski; Testimony Leadbetter; Testimony of Haugan]
29. The SYC's main facility at Portage Bay in Seattle has an extensive small
boat sailing program (including a year-round director, a head coach for the sailing team,
and 12-15 summer instructors). There are over 25 sailing classes for kids 7-18 that are
open to SYC members and non-members on a first-come-first-serve basis (about half the
enrollees are non-members). Classes are of 1-2 week duration with different size boats
and different age groups. The Portage Bay sailing program, with a total of over 360
enrollees, is much larger than that envisioned here. [Exhibits 115; 118F; Testimony of
Otorowski; Leadbetter]
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 7 of 34
30. It is SYC's intention that the Port Madison Outstation program would start
with a two-week, five days per week class held during daylight hours. The Club's
spokesperson credibly testified at hearing that they won't know more about the number
of classes until they get started and can gauge the demand, but would like to begin with a
two-week class similar to that of the Port Madison Yacht Club [see Finding 33]. Class
sessions would be held between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and might be half-day or whole,
[Exhibits 35, page 3; 113, Sheet 6; 115; 118F; 120, page 3; Testimony Otorowski]
31. Classes would not be held when they could conflict with scheduled Yacht
Club events. The classes would be open to non-members (SYC anticipates reserving
50% class space for non-members and the Director recommends a Condition to require
it.) The Club would also like to host or co-host regattas or other small boat sailing events
(e.g., the "John Adams Cup" held by Port Madison Yacht Club, sailing seminars, guest
speakers. [Exhibits 35, page 3; 42; 71, page 5; 116; 118F; Testimony Leadbetter;
Testimony Haugan]
32. Sailing skills are taught with a combination of on-the-water practice and
lessons off the water. The initial description [Exhibit 3, Section 3], indicated a classroom
on the first floor and "a general meeting room" on the upper floor. The tentative floor
plan now shows two "meeting" rooms which could serve as the "classrooms" for
teaching skills and theory (e.g., steering, sail trim, docking, rigging, knot tying, water
safety, etc.) that the students would practice/apply on-the-water. (The on-the-water
lessons could include launching, retrieving, and storing small boats.) [Exhibits 35, page
3; 115; Testimony Otorowski]
33. Small boat sailing classes are offered at many locations throughout Puget
Sound. On Bainbridge Island, the nearby Port Madison Yacht Club (PMYC) has a
popular small boat sailing program for kids. PMYC has two-week, Monday through
Friday "bring your own boat" classes, run by volunteers, involve 60+ kids and are usually
full (with a waiting list). The Park District also offers classes (mid-June to mid-August;
minimum enrollment 3, maximum 8-12; held in 3-4 hour daily sessions, Monday through
Friday). Students enrolled number between 300 and 400 and some classes are fully
subscribed [Exhibits 42; 116; 118D; 167; Testimony Otorowski; Testimony Llewellyn]
Structures:
34. The Springer house is an unusual overwater structure. The original
structure, built in 1955, was a shop with high, open ceilings, with a deck connected to the
pier extending into Port Madison Bay [Exhibit 92: PP 18-22]. The large shop space
(approximately 26 ft. by 40 ft.) would be used to store the boats used in the proposed
small boat sailing program. This large open room has enough space for a dozen small
sailboats, as well as room for a sail 10ft and work area. [Exhibit 3, Section 3; Exhibit
106]
35. Living quarters were added on top of the original shop to create a
residence. This upper level has several bedrooms, a kitchen, bathrooms, and living room.
Plans show the space converted into two "meeting rooms" (approximately 26' by 23'9"
and on the order of 20' by 35'), a large storage room (approximately 20' by 14'),
reconfigured restrooms, and the kitchen retained in its present location. The windows
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 8 of 34
and upper deck, overlooking the dock and water, would provide observation areas.
[Exhibit 3, Section 3; Exhibit 106]
36. The floating dock, which is in extremely deteriorated condition [see
Exhibit 92: PP 25-26, 47; Exhibit 92, PP 131; Exhibit 154; Testimony Machen; Haugan],
would be replaced [Exhibit 3, Section 3]. The pier has relatively new decking [Exhibit
92: PP 21, 30, 34], but the old wood float and gangway are extremely dilapidated [see
Exhibit 154; Exhibit 92: PP 25-26, 47, 131]. The gangway (4 ft. by 34 ft.) and float
(1372 sq. ft., see Exhibit 145; Testimony Grant) are proposed to be replaced with a fully
grated aluminum gangway (6 ft wide by 55 ft long) and a rectangular concrete float (20
ft. wide by 110 ft. long) with steel pile guides [Exhibit 31, page 1; Exhibit 113, Sheets 5-
6]. Half of the floating pier surface would have light-permeable grating at least 60%
open. A hand-operated crane would be fixed on the float to move boats into and out of
the water. The dock would have capacity for twelve "420 Class" sailboats (six on either
side), and one "chase boat" (up to 20-ft. long) at the end of the dock. The project would
include removal of existing creosote piles. Steel or ACZA-treated piles are proposed as
replacement piles. [Exhibit 113; Testimony Cheney; Haugan; Layton; Grant]
37. The original submittal [Exhibit 3, Section 5; Testimony Layton] proposed
an 80 ft. long gangway and a 30 ft. by 130 ft. floating pier with four slips on the west
side, each 31 ft. (extending approximately 50 ft. farther into the Bay than the current
proposal).
Other Components
38. Septic System: A new drainfield is proposed in the southeastern part of
the site, south of the driveway and west of the road [see outline drawn on Exhibit 107;
location shown on Exhibit 15 is the existing drainfield]. The new drainfield would serve
the old Springer house. Although little or no use would occur there in winter, the
drainfield would be sized for daily peak use of20 to 40 persons. The drainfield would be
located outside the wetland, wetland buffer, and 100 ft. well setbacks. [Exhibits 3,
Section 10; 34; 157; Testimony Ostby]
39. The drainfield system design and location must be approved by the Kitsap
County Health District [see Finding 48]. A building site application was filed with the
District in April 2006 [Exhibit 70].
40. Parking (#5 on Exhibit 105): The proposal includes "formal" parking areas
to accommodate parking demand associated with large events [see Finding 12]. Fifty
parking spaces are enumerated in the site plan [Exhibit 107]: eight in existing parking
area adjacent to Clubhouse; 26 spaces east of the Caretaker's residence next to the road;
and 13 "overflow" spaces west of the Caretaker's residence. (A space at the end of the
driveway at the Springer house is designated for handicapped parking, but is not
numbered.) The three spaces noted in the proposed caretaker's garage [see in Exhibit
105] should not be counted as available to meet visitor parking demand. The maximum
number of visitors' vehicles that could be accommodated on-site by the proposed parking
areas would be 47 (48 if the handicapped-designated space at the end of the driveway is
counted).
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 9 of 34
41. The parking area west of the road would be graveled and the "overflow
parking" area west of the Caretaker's residence would be covered with "grasscrete" or
similar, pervious material. The driveway to the Springer house [see e.g., Exhibit 92: PP
39, 4042,43] would be a one-way loop around the overflow parking area, with a wider,
two-way section extending to the house where trailered boats could be launched from the
small boat dock. [Exhibit 57; Testimony Haugan]
42. BBO Deck (#6 on Exhibit 105): A deck would be added immediately
adjacent to the barbecue/pavilion [see PP 46 Exhibit 92] providing an additional location
overlooking the water. [Exhibit 3, Section 3; Testimony Haugan]
43. Garage (#7 on Exhibit 105) The Yacht Club has a fulltime resident
caretaker. The caretaker has for many years used a makeshift, tarp covered structure as a
garage [PP 4 Exhibit 92]. The proposal includes removing this structure and replacing it
with a permanent residential garage (approximately 900 sq. ft), providing covered
parking, workshop space, and lawn equipment storage for the caretaker. [Exhibit 3,
Section 3; Testimony Haugan]
44. Play Equipment (#8 on Exhibit 105): The existing "playground" (play
equipment and sport court; see Exhibit 92: PP 52, 80, 82-84] is located near the
Clubhouse, close to the road just south of where Spargur Loop Road turns east. The
brightly colored play equipment is quite noticeable when traveling west on the road and
making the left turn where the road changes direction in front of the Yacht Club [see e.g.,
Exhibit 136S]. The playground would be relocated and the current location would be
reseeded as lawn. The plans [Exhibit 56] note this as an "Improved View Corridor".
[Exhibit 3, Section 3; Testimony Haugan]
45. Vegetative Buffer (#9 on Exhibit 105): A 25-ft. wide buffer adjacent to the
road would be landscaped to the "Partial Screen" standards of BIMC 18.85.070. The
plans include retaining existing mature trees, the entry garden, and the rock garden [see
e.g., Exhibit 92: 88, 89, 95]. Until the new landscaping matures, the laurel and Photina
currently planted along the street frontage [see behind split-rail fence Exhibit 92: PP 73-
74, 78, 79, 83, 88, 90] would also remain. The roadside buffer and the shrub buffer
between the street side parking lot and the Caretaker's residence, would be landscaped
with native plants (including 41 trees, 138 shrubs, and 1600 ground cover plants).
[Landscape Plans, Exhibit 57; Testimony Haugan]
46. Upgrade Lighting and Restrooms (#11 on Exhibit 105): The restrooms at
the top of the gangway to the main docks would be upgraded (convert to low-flush
toilets, etc.). The outdoor lighting would also be upgraded and there has been City
architectural review to assist with designing it. [Testimony Haugan]
DIRECfOR'S REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
47. PCD received the subject application on March 8, 2005 [Exhibits 3, 7, 8;
Exhibit 71, page 8]. On March 28, 2006, the application was determined to be
technically complete [Exhibit 11], but the Yacht Club was required to provide additional
information. Notice of the application and of the SEP A comment period was published
on April 9, 2005 [Exhibits 15 and 16].
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 10 of 34
48. The Director distributed the application and related documents (including
environmental checklist and other studies) to City departments and other agencies
[Exhibits 4, 12, 37, 46, 47, and 58]. The comments received are summarized below.
[See also PCD summary of comments, Exhibit 71, pages 9-10].
. B. I. Public Works Department [Exhibits 35, 43, 59, 63]: Certificate of
Concurrency regarding adequacy of affected intersections is not required. [See also
Finding 81.] The proposal, as revised, incorporates sufficient low impact
development techniques to make storm filter device not required. (Stormwater
management plans must meet City standards and be approved by Public Works.)
. B. I. Fire Department [Exhibits 20, 39, 48]: Standpipe system must be extended
to the new portion of the main dock; improve driveway to accommodate emergency
vehicles; install fire extinguishers in the Springer building.
. Kitsap County Health District [Exhibits 10, 44, 70] Septic system design
conditionally approved; building site application must be filed and approved [see
Finding 39]; must show all existing facilities and identify all uses and daily flows.
. W A Department Fish & Wildlife [Exhibits 30, 50] WDFW concerned about
impact of over-water structures. Size of floats should be minimized to avoid or
mitigate shading; floats and piers over 6 ft. wide should be grated with 60% open
area; should have in-kind mitigation (or small structure with shading impacts
mitigated) and/or compensatory mitigation [see Finding 67. No work is allowed
waterward of ordinary high water line during fish closures for juvenile salmon and
spawning of surf smelt and Pacific herring [see HPA, Exhibit 74]. Use concrete,
steel, plastic pilings rather than arsenic treated wood. A mitigation plan should be
required.
. W A Department Natural Resources [Exhibit 17] DNR will need survey of new
float configuration and amendment of tideland lease [see Exhibit 108]; questioned
emergency spill preparations [see Exhibit 54] and provision for public access;
referred to Health District concerns [see above]; and, requested measures to protect
eelgrass beds in the vicinity.
· Suquamish Tribe [Exhibit 25] Concerned about development impact on habitat,
stormwater, and cultural resources. Impacts on aquatic resources originating in
uplands should be avoided or minimized; recommends several measures that are
included in the proposal (e.g., retaining native vegetation, using permeable pavers,
minimizing impervious area, and having trees included in vegetative enhancement).
Requests cultural resources survey if native soils are to be disturbed by
construction.
49. During the Director's review of the subject application, several public
comments were received [Whitlow and Clayton, Exhibit 19; Robertson, Exhibit 21;
Mahlum and Franz [Exhibit 22]. These concerned neighbors oppose the proposal
because of anticipated increases in traffic and noise. They consider the small boat sailing
program as representing a change in use from water-based to land-based (because sailing
class attendees would come by car rather than by boat), with associated adverse impacts
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 11 of34
on the immediate neighborhood. Some specific concerns and suggestions in the public
comments include the following. [See also PCD summary of comments, Exhibit 71,
pages 9-10].
. Traffic analysis is not an accurate assessment of impact from daily sailing classes.
There would be more impact than assessment indicates.
. Too many parking spaces are proposed relative to those needed for sailing classes.
. Driveway entrance should be moved (south) closer to Hidden Cove Road to lessen
potential for conflicts with residential traffic.
. With "increased dock space" there will be increased disturbance from more attendees
at noisy boating parties and SYC events.
. Public access should be increased (make parking areas available for those using
T'Chookwap Park; require public participation in sailing classes; provide public boat
launch or viewpoint).
. Club should (re)pave entrance, have limited or no signs, make better effort to enforce
rules, and "compensate" neighbors by granting access to outstation facilities.
. Some support the vegetative buffer, replacing tent-structure with garage, and moving
play equipment (to improve view from the street).
50. The Director evaluated the proposal's compliance with applicable
regulations [Exhibit 71, pages 11-17]. Pertaining to the SCUP these sections of the Code
were considered: BIMC 16.12.050, Archaeological and historic resources; BIMC
16.12.060, Clearing and grading; BIMC 16.12.070, Environmental impacts; BIMC
16.12.080, Environmentally sensitive areas; BIMC 16.12.090, Native Vegetation Zone;
BIMC 16.12.110, Public access; BIMC 16.12.140, Environmental; designations; BIMC
16.12.180, Boating facilities; BIMC 16.12.340, Piers, docks, recreational floats; and,
BIMC 16.12.380, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit decision criteria. Pertaining to the
CUP, consideration included: BIMC 18.30, R-2 zone uses; BIMC 18.81, Parking and
access; BIMC Landscape requirements; and BIMC 18.108, Conditional Use Permits.
Compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, BIMC 16.20.090 Wetlands and streams,
was also reviewed. The Director's analyses are, unless contradicted by specific Findings
in this document, hereby adopted as Findings by reference.
51. The Director determined that the proposal would comply with the
applicable provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the provisions of the R-2
zoning and concluded that, if conditioned as recommended [see pages 3-6, Exhibit 71],
the application would meet the criteria for granting both a CUP and a SCUP. The
Director has recommended approval with conditions [Exhibit 71, page 18].
52. The Director also concluded that the proposal, as conditioned, was not
likely have significant unavoidable adverse environmental impact, and issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance. This determination included 20 conditions that the
Director found necessary to mitigate potential impacts [Exhibit 71, pages 3-6]. Those
conditions include requiring: in-water construction limited to the appropriate "fish
windows" to protect Chinook salmon and Pacific Herring; appropriate erosion and
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 12 of 34
stormwater controls; revegetation; design of septic system to meet all Health District
standards; all exterior lights to be shielded/hooded to prevent off-site glare; protection of
wetland and its buffer; removal and proper disposal of creosote piles and other debris; use
of non-polluting pilings; inclusion of grating on floats; spill prevention and containment
measures; and, other actions to avoid pollution.
53. The Director's revised SEP A threshold determination [Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance, MDNS] was issued on April 3, 2006 [Exhibit 62].
The MDNS was appealed on April 18, 2006 by Edward Mahlum and Hillary Franz, Dan
and Priscilla Lavry, Carol Corbus, Gary Quitsland and Linda Whitehead, William and
Sandra Shopes, Tom Fehsenfeld and Janet Knox, and Thomas Herrick Robertson and
Johanna Vanderlee [Exhibit 72]. PCD Staff Report [Exhibit 71] was issued April 18,
2006.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
54. Notice of the public hearing on the CUP and SCUP applications was
properly given with posting, mailing, and publication completed by April 12, 2006
[Exhibit 67].
55. The SEPA threshold determination appeal and the public hearing on the
conditional use applications were consolidated. The consolidated hearing began on June
1, 2006. During the public comment portions of the proceedings, 20 citizens gave
comment and testimony. The hearing continued on June 2, 2006, June 23, 2006, and
concluded on July 14, 2006. The record, with testimony from 17 witnesses and more
than 170 exhibits, was closed on August 8, 2006 with receipt of post-hearing submittals.
56. At the hearing, the Director's representative provided a summary of the
Staff Report [Exhibit 71] and the Director's recommendation, including conditions. The
Yacht Club's representatives concurred with the Director's recommendation and did not
object to the Director's recommended conditions. [Testimony Machen; Otorowski;
Haugan]
57. Written comments were received from a number of individuals during the
time this matter was pending before the Hearing Examiner and during the public hearing
many individuals also gave oral testimony. All comments, written and oral are included
in the record and were considered in the preparation of the conditional use permit
decisions. Concerns and comments are summarized below.
Positive comments: Several residents on Spargur Loop Road [Dimmick, Exhibit
79; Powel, Exhibit 85; Thompson and Paine, Exhibit 90] wrote that they do not object to
the proposal and advised that they believe the Yacht Club is a good neighbor: "always
been cooperative and responsive... a very good neighbor... plans will benefit our bay
and...the kids who...learn to sail"; "have lived on Spargur Loop Rd since 1957-8 ... a
good neighbor"; "have never had a problem with S.Y.c. ... don't expect any if... permit
is granted". Another neighbor (on Spargur Loop Road since 1972) wrote that".. . while
traffic due to club activities has increased on a limited number of occasions each year it
has not been an inconvenience nor a bother..." [Grant, Exhibit 80] A resident of Port
Madison and member of the Yacht Club [Hammon, Exhibit 158] wrote in favor of the
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 13 of34
proposal and noted about Spargur Loop Road that: "The approach to the YC. is straight
and short from Hidden Cove Rd." Similar comments were made at hearing, including the
observations that use of the bay and open-water moorage has generally increased and
SYC should not be blamed for it. [Testimony Roth; Hammer] Jim Llewellyn,
Commodore of the nearby Port Madison Yacht Club, noted that Port Madison's program
is full and spoke in favor of the proposed sailing program, as did resident and Yacht Club
member 1. B. Gifford.
Negative comments: The majority of written comments came from those who
anticipate adverse impacts and oppose the proposal [Compton, Exhibit 24; Martof,
Exhibit 86; Ciamon, Exhibit 87; Upton, Exhibit 93; Frahm, Exhibit 94; Quitsland, Exhibit
97; S. Shopes, Exhibit 102; W. Shopes, 103; Whitehead, 121; Savett, Exhibit 124]. One
writer from across the Bay [West, Exhibit 100], opposes the proposal because he believes
the SYC intends a "resort type facility", but would not object if expansion were limited to
"active sailing uses". Testimony at hearing included similar concerns [Testimony Jaffe;
Upton; Lavry; LaSof; Quitsland; Gibbons, Carr; West; Patterson; Bremmer; Franz].
Issues raised in comments included:
. Proposal ("commercial expansion") is inconsistent with residential character
of the Spargur Loop neighborhood.
· As it is a "Conditional Use", it shouldn't be allowed to expand.
. Spargur Loop Road is a "one lane country road" unable to safely handle
traffic associated with the proposal. Increased traffic also would disrupt the
quiet neighborhood.
. Yacht Club vehicle traffic around large events affects safety and quality of life
in the immediate neighborhood.
. There is increased traffic congestion on the water; new floats would decrease
open space area and increased dock space means more (and bigger) boats in
the bay.
. Extending floats would partially block public access to dock in the new
Spargur Park.
. Yacht Club boaters have been responsible for fuel and oil spills; more and
larger boats would mean more pollution.
. Yacht Club large events can be very noisy and disrupt the quiet of the
neighborhood.
. Concerned about water quality effects including increased run-off (from
parking areas) and adequacy of water supply and waste water treatment.
. Algae blooms in Bay are increasing in frequency and severity; blames
"transient boats" for water quality problems.
· Current parking is inadequate for many SYC functions.
. Existing exterior lights, with glare reaching 1;4 mile, are inconsistent with
residential neighborhood and should be replaced.
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 14 of34
. Club expansion would lower residential property values.
. Yacht Club will not enforce measures imposed to mitigate impacts.
58. Several written comments focused criticism on the assessment of
environmental impact relative to natural resources. Janet Knox, a geologist, was critical
of the lack of specific design for the proposed new septic system and noted impacts she
thinks could occur if the system is not adequate (Exhibit 88]. Joth Davis focused on the
need for mitigation to address: runoff from parking and landscape areas; debris removal;
cumulative effects (new structures parallel to shoreline and increased shading); and, dock
lighting [Exhibit 98]. Jim Brennan, a professional marine biologist, advocated that the
proposal should be denied because the impacts related to overwater structures have not
been adequately mitigated and cumulative impacts have not been identified [Exhibit 99].
59. One of the representatives of the SEP A appellant group, submitted a
lengthy and detailed written comment, including legal argument, opposed to approval of
the conditional use permits. [Exhibit 118, Franz]
60. Some comments, both written and given in person at the public hearing,
suggest a considerable distrust of the Yacht Club and/or misunderstanding about the size
and/or nature of the current proposal. Comments reflecting distrust and/or
misunderstanding included statements that: SYC "actually has in mind a significant
expansion to create a more resort type facility"; "changing a single family residence into
a resort type recreational facility"; "expand it to be an event center"; "an entertainment
complex on the water to which no sewage system is available",; "conference rooms that
presumably will double as dining rooms" Exhibit 97; proposal includes a "new parking
garage". [See e.g., Exhibits 86; 93; 94; 100; 121; Testimony West; Corbus]
61. Other comments reflected an antipathy apparently sourced in past
unpleasant experiences and/or conflicts with SYC or some of its members: "The club
adds nothing to the neighborhood except traffic, trespassers, and noise... no intrinsic
value of any kind"; "the club has historically been unfriendly"; members are "elite city
folk"; "... use of bull horns, loud music and overall drunken revelry well into the night".
[See e.g., Exhibits 97, 124 Testimony of LaS of; Lavry; Quitsland]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACfS AND MITIGATION
Marine Environment
62. Construction activities in and over the water can adversely affect marine
habitat and wildlife. Overwater structures reduce ambient light conditions (shading)
which can have negative impacts for both vegetation and animals. The proposed dock
changes have the potential for both construction and shading impacts. [Exhibits 50;
118B; 118L]
63. The Biological Evaluation (BE) [Exhibit 31] for this project was prepared
by a qualified and experienced Marine Biologist [Exhibit 147], in conformance with the
Army Corps of Engineers guidelines, to assist the Corps in conjunction with Endangered
Species Act (ESA) review of the proposal. The BE included an underwater survey,
review of appropriate literature, and analyses of existing site conditions and potential
impacts. The surveyed area has homogenous conditions, very low plant density and little
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/1312006
Page 15 of 34
species diversity. No eelgrass was observed within the project site, but some "patchy"
distribution of eelgrass has been reported outside the project area [see also page 39 and
Figure B-24]. There is a "moderate quantity" of typical organisms for shallow waters
and intertidal areas. [Testimony of Cheney] The Corps has deemed the BE complete
except for receipt of copies of the HP A and shoreline permit and information as to the
size of the piles and if they would be coated [Exhibit 150.]
64. The revised BE [Exhibit 31, dated September 2005] identifies "listed
species" and prey of listed species and impacts associated with the construction involved
in the relocation and replacement of piers and floats. The BE has "determination of
effect" for the listed species. The determinations include: Puget Sound Chinook: "may
affect, not likely to adversely affect" and the Puget Sound Chinook habitat: "no
destruction or adverse modification". The BE [pages 13-14] summarizes "net effects" as
follows:
... baseline conditions within the action area should not be altered... There are no
interrelated or interdependent activities associated with this construction. Short-term
and long-term effects on listed species are high unlikely. Construction should have
no adverse effects on listed species. With the minor exception of the area of driven
piles, shallow subtidal habitats will be physically unmodified. There will be a minor
increase (437 sq ft) in overwater coverage. Potential primary production beneath the
proposed floats should not be significantly altered by shading...Removal and
replacement of existing creosote-treated piling and timbers will remove a significant
bio-hazard.. .
65. The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment [Attachment A to the BE,
Exhibit 31] concludes that the project, taking place in shallow subtidal habitat at
elevations of approximately -6 to -14 MLL W, would have: "a minor temporary adverse
effect" on salmon and ground fish habitat and no significant effect on coastal pelagics
(e.g., anchovy, sardine) would be likely. Adverse effects would be limited to
"displacement or removal of non-motile invertebrate fauna beneath the areas of driven
piles. "
66. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has issued a
Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) for the proposed gangway, pier and float construction
projects [Exhibit 74]. The approval includes a number of conditions including restricting
work below the ordinary high water line to avoid juvenile salmon migration and to
protect herring spawning beds (i.e., no in water work allowed between January 15 and
June 14). Other conditions include: erosion control; preservation and protection of fish
and habitat; grating required (60% open) on floating docks (50%) and gangways (100%);
and no storage allowed on the grated areas. The HP A also approves and requires, as
mitigation measures, the proposed removal of the creosote piles, grounded floats, a tidal
grid adjacent to easterly fixed pier, and the existing Springer dock. (The removal of a dry
dock platform from the Spargur Park dock is also required in the HP A, but removal has
already been completed by the Park District.) [See also Conditions 6, 12-17,22-23.]
67. Shallow subtidal habitats are impacted by overwater structures. Potential
impacts include "shading, propeller wash, bioturbation from sea stars... and... changes in
macrofaunal assemblages... sediment composition, and benthic vegetation." Piers and
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 16 of34
floats cause shading and WDFW recommends that impacts be avoided or mitigated by
minimizing the width and length of piers and floats and requiring those over 4-ft. wide to
have grating on at least 50% of the surface area with at least 60% open area. WDFW
noted that shortening of the small boat dock would reduce shading impact and would be
appropriate mitigation. (WDFW also noted that with shading impacts significantly
minimized, compensatory mitigation (e.g., removal of piling) could "mitigate for the loss
of benthic habitat." [Exhibit 50]
68. Potential change in the amount of overwater surface area coverage was
disputed. Original estimates (in the Biological Evaluation and Site Plan drawings)
indicated a net increase in coverage on the order of 437-440 sq. ft. [Exhibits 31, page 2;
113, Sheet 3]. At hearing, the Appellant presented calculations indicating a net increase
in overwater coverage of 2,142 sq. ft. (i.e., 10,819 sq. ft. existing, to 12,961 sq. ft.
proposed) [Exhibit 140; Testimony Michak]. The Applicant's "corrections" to
Appellant's calculations (i.e., correcting for actual size of the existing Springer float, not
counting sailboats as coverage, and grating at 100% "credit") produced an estimate of a
net decrease in coverage of 135 sq. ft. (from 10,819 sq. ft. existing, to 10,684 sq. ft.
proposed) [Exhibit 146; Testimony Cheney].
69. Taking into consideration the information and explanations presented at
hearing [including Exhibits 50; 31; 113, Sheet 3; 118A and B; 140; 142; 144; 145; 146;
Testimony Grant; Michak; Cheney], the calculation of net overwater surface area
coverage should include the following factors:
(a) Existing surface coverage of 10,819 sq. ft. (includes 116 sq. ft. for submerged
float, but not 240 sq. ft. for City dry dock);
(b) 772 sq. ft. adjustment for actual size of the existing Springer dock coverage
(i.e., 1,372 sq. ft.);
(c) Light permeability: new pier calculated at 50% of surface grated and 60% of
that as permeable/open, and fully grated gangway considered 100% open (i.e.,
the gangway total is 443 sq. ft. as per Exhibit 113, Sheet 4);
( e) Area of sailboats tied-off at the moorage (i. e., 1,031 sq. ft.) is not considered
"coverage" ;
70. The proposal represents a net increase in overwater surface coverage
totaling 339 sq. ft. The calculation of this change, based upon the factors noted in
Finding 69, is:
11,930 sq. ft. Proposed ("c" & "d"= 12,961; 1,031 subtracted for "e")
-11.591 sq. ft. Existing coverage "a" above, adjusted for "b"
3 3 9 sq. ft. Increase in overwater coverage
71. As indicated in Exhibit 120, small sailboats are often stored on floats at
right angles. If this was done on the small boat dock, some of the light permeability
provided by the grating would be lost. To ensure the mitigating effects of grating are
maximized, when classes are not in session the boats should be stored inside the building.
It would help minimize shading impact for boats to not be stored on the float during the
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 17of34
off season or during breaks between classes. When they are left on the float, the boats
should be centered on the solid, non-grated sections of the float. [See Condition 31]
72. Removal and proper disposal of 46 creosote piles and stubs, and a tidal
grid by the eastern pier is mitigation required by the lIP A [Exhibit 74] and Condition 12
of this decision. [See also Exhibits 31, page 2; 74, page 2; 113, Sheet 3]
73. Eelgrass beds should not be affected as none are present in the project area
where pilings would be removed and/or replaced, nor would any eelgrass beds be subject
to coverage by the proposed location or replacement of piers or floats. [Testimony
Cheney]
74. The most effective means of avoiding and! or mitigating impacts
associated with overwater coverage is to reduce the amount of that coverage [Exhibit 50;
141]. The length of the proposed docks should be reduced and the structures
properly grated to accomplish a substantial net decrease in overwater coverage
[Finding 70], avoiding adverse impact expected from the docks as proposed and reducing
the outstation's total overwater coverage.
a. To avoid impacts associated with increased (and cumulative)
overwater coverage, the length of the small boat dock should be reduced from
the proposed 110 ft., to 90 ft. [Condition 1]. This reduction would result in this
dock having overwater surface area of360 sq. ft. (i.e., 90 ft. long by 20 ft. wide =
1,800 sq. ft.; @ 50% grated = 900 sq. ft.; @ 40% solid = 360 sq. ft.). This would
be a substantial decrease in net overwater coverage from the existing conditions
(i.e., old Springer dock coverage is 1,372 sq. ft. and reduced dock length would
result in 360 sq. ft. coverage = 1,012 sq. ft. less coverage than existing). The
decrease in dock length would also mitigate the potential for this dock
interfering with access to and from the Spargur Park public dock [see
Finding 86]. At the reduced length of 90 ft., the small boat dock could
accommodate ten boats (five on each side) rather than 12 boats as proposed. This
would mean maximum size of sailing classes reduced from 24 to 20 and
provide a commensurate decrease in the likely number of vehicle trips
[Conditions 1 and 31].
b. Reducing the proposed extension of the main dock from 91.5 ft. to
46 ft. would mitigate (reduce) construction impacts, total overwater surface
area coverage, and operational impacts associated with increased moorage
capacity [Condition 1].
Water Ouality and Wetlands
75. The proposed drainfields (primary and reserve to serve the "sailing school
building"), would be located outside the required wetland and well setbacks. A Building
Site Application for this on-site septic system must obtain approval from the Kitsap
County Health District before building permits would be issued. No significant adverse
impacts have been shown to be likely. [Exhibits 70; 107; Testimony Ostby; Bergan].
There is no evidence that circumstances here require other than the Health District's
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 18 of 34
standard process for review of on-site septic system design [Condition 3] to provide
all necessary provision for avoidance and/or mitigation of potential adverse impacts
76. The wetland is properly designated a Category III wetland. The consultant
made mistakes in completing the requisite rating form [Exhibit 32, Appendix E], but the
cumulative effect of the appropriate corrections made at hearing [Testimony Bergan;
Carr], results in a total score (16), well short of that (22+) needed for classification as
Category II. (Even if the Appellant's view had prevailed regarding the "scrub-shrub
class" question, the resultant additional 3 points would not change the classification.)
77. The 50-ft. wide wetland buffer is proper as proposed. The Critical Areas
Ordinance [BIMC 16.20.090] provides adequate and appropriate protections [see
Conditions 4 and 8].
Traffic and Parking
78. The 47 parking spaces [see Finding 40] proposed would meet the "worst-
case" parking demand situation that occurs during large events. The parking areas
would mitigate or avoid the potential impact from on-street parking along Spargur
Loop Road.
79. The City Engineer determined that a Certificate of Concurrency [BIMC
15.32] was not required for review of the subject application. The function of the
concurrency review is to ensure that affected transportation facilities (generally,
intersections) have sufficient capacity (level of service) to serve the development seeking
permit(s). Projects anticipated to have fewer than 50 trips per day, are exempt from the
certificate requirement. Here, based upon annualized daily trip data indicating about 40
trips per day [Traffic Memo, Exhibit 3, Section 8], the proposal was found to be exempt.
[Exhibit 43; Testimony Hathaway; Bishop]
80. The traffic report prepared for submittal with the application [Exhibit 3,
Section 8] estimated travel demand based upon assumed ITE (Institute of Traffic
Engineers) trip generation rates. The ITE rate manual does not have a trip generation rate
for "sailing class", so the traffic consultant used an "assembly" category (church) and the
size (sq. ft.) of the Springer house to estimate trips to be generated by the sailing classes.
Estimating likely future trips often must rely on less than optimal predictive factors.
Here, however, information about intended classes and reasonable assumptions about
driving practices that were adduced at hearing (i.e., 20-24 students/class; one instructor;
only summer weekdays, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.; no overlap with other scheduled
events; carpooling at an average of two students/vehicle, etc.), provides more credible
bases for estimating trips associated with the sailing class program. The likely number of
trips to and from the subject site generated by the sailing classes (and not adjusted for
students traveling by boat or other alternate mode), would be on the order of 42-48 trips
per day as indicated by expert testimony at hearing. [Testimony Bishop; Leadbetter;
Llewellyn]
81. Vehicle trips dropping off and picking up sailing class students would be
grouped around the start of class and the end of class (anticipated to be around 10 a.m.
and 4 p.m. respectively). Impact would be mitigated by these arrival and departure times
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 19 of 34
not concurring within the normal AM and PM "Peak Hours" for weekday travel. But
comings and goings grouped like this could have an adverse impact at places on Spargur
Loop Road where two-way travel can be risky [see Finding 19].
82. Having the trips associated with the sailing classes occur on Spargur
Loop Road between the Yacht Club and Hidden Cove Road, would reduce the
potential for two-way travel conflicts. Mitigation would be provided by: encouraging
arrival via Hidden Cove Road then north on Spargur Loop Road, and limiting
departures to southbound on Spargur Loop Road (toward Hidden Cove Road)
[Conditions 25 and 30]. Keeping the trips where cars can pass by one another safely
would help mitigate for the new trips associated with the sailing classes. An unpaved,
unobstructed area (an informal "shoulder") alongside the paved travel surface makes an
important contribution toward safe travel where pavement width is narrow. Maintaining
an informal "shoulder" along the SYC frontage (which extends to within 210 ft. of the
Spargur Loop/Hidden Cove intersection [see attachment, Exhibit 55]), would facilitate
safer two-way travel and help mitigate traffic impact [Condition 20].
83. By dictating a smaller class size (i.e., dock for 10 boats maximum = 20
students maximum), the number of trips and associated traffic impact would be
mitigated by reducing the size ofthe small boat dock [Conditions 1, 31, 34].
84. Large events can add noticeably to traffic in the neighborhood. Ensuring
a serviceable "shoulder" on the west side of Spargur Loop Road to provide for safer
two-way travel [Condition 20] and directing travel on Spargur Loop Road
southbound from the Club [Condition 25] would mitigate for some large event traffic
impacts, as would reducing the length of the extension to the main dock [Condition 1]
and prohibiting events and sailing classes from overlapping [Condition 31].
Parks and Public Access
85. In May 2006, after the issuance of the Director's MDNS, the Bainbridge
Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, expressed concerns that SYC's
"proposal to extend its dock" could have a negative impact on the public's use of Spargur
Park and T'Chookway Park. The major concerns were that there would be increased boat
traffic that could: cause congestion and conflict between public and private use; increase
noise levels unacceptably; reduce the "passive use elements expected from both parks";
obscure sight lines and view; and, obstruct local public access to the waterfront. While
the Park District acknowledges potential benefits from "some public/private endeavors",
the District urged that the length of the dock be reduced. [Exhibit 84]
86. At the SEP A hearing, Terry Lande, representing the Park District, testified
that the District has concerns regarding the potential that the length of the proposed small
boat dock could interfere with the public's use of the Spargur Park dock. The planning
for Spargur Park is not complete, but the District is intending that the dock would be used
for launch and retrieval of small boats, kayaks, and canoes. If the public boaters have to
go around, or come too close to the SYC dock, conflicts could arise that could discourage
use of the public dock.
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 20 of 34
87. At the length proposed (110 ft.), the small boat dock would make the
Spargur Park dock difficult to use as boaters traveling a direct route out into the bay or
back, would come very close to the small boat dock and could have to do additional
maneuvering to pass it safely. The impact of making use of the public dock more
difficult could be effectively mitigated by requiring that the length of small boat dock
be reduced to 90 ft. [Condition 1] so as to provide additional distance between the end
of that dock and the likely route between the public dock and the center of the bay.
88. The assertions as to adverse impacts to "visual access" have not been
substantiated. No change in the view from T'Chookwap was established and the view
from Spargur Park would be of boats on the water, docks, and boats moored at docks. No
adverse impact to "visual access" is established in this record.
89. Requiring inclusion of non-members in the sailing classes would
increase the public's access to the water over existing conditions [Condition 31].
Aesthetics and Views
90. The "view corridor" created with the relocation of the play equipment
would be an improvement. The garage would be an improvement over the existing
structures. The upland projects (garage, buffer, moving play equipment) would all
contribute to the Club's residential appearance and neighborhood compatibility.
91. The 25-ft. wide landscape buffer along the eastern property boundary
would effectively screen views of the Club from the road. This buffer of native
vegetation and mature trees would present an outward appearance very similar to that of
the residential neighbors [Condition 19].
92. From the water the views would be of a marina; not shown to be an
adverse impact. The removal of the dilapidated Springer dock would be an aesthetic
improvement, as would the renovation of the exterior of the Springer house (compare
photos of the existing appearance with artist's rendering of future: Exhibits 92, PP 29, 30,
and 98; 106]).
93. No adverse impacts with regard to aesthetics and/or views have been
established; no additional mitigation is warranted.
Noise
94. Noise from Club activities, particularly noise from the large events, is
noticeable and nearby neighbors and (as noise travels particularly well over water) some
residents across the Bay, have been disturbed by this noise. The proposed sailing
classes, required to be kept small and limited to weekdays, would not add to this
impact [Condition 31]. New moorage facilities could result in more attendees at large
events and aggravation of the noise impacts. The extension of the main dock should be
reduced to mitigate for potential noise impact associated with large events. [Condition
1].
SEP A APPEAL
95. The appellant sought to show that the Director's MDNS was issued in
error and asserted that the proposal would probably result in significant unavoidable
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 21 of34
adverse impacts relative to marine animals and habitat, water quality, wetlands, traffic,
parks, view and aesthetics, and noise. Appellant's argument fails as the proposal would
either not have significant effect or the imposition of conditions would provide
satisfactory mitigation.
96. Impacts to the marine environment from in-water construction would be
avoided or mitigated by reducing the size of the proposed overwater structures,
seasonal construction limits, removal of creosote piles, and other requirements
[Conditions 1,2,6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,22, and 23]. The adverse impacts due to shading
caused by over-water structures would be avoided by reducing the size of both the
proposed floats [see Finding 74] and mitigated by inclusion of appropriate grating in
floats and gangways [Condition 17] and the removal of creosote piles and other
debris [Conditions 12 and 13]. The combination of these mitigating conditions is
necessary to reasonably ensure no net loss and no significant adverse impact.
97. Measures required to minimize erosion during construction, to manage
stormwater runoff, and ensure adequate on-site sewage disposal provide mitigation
for potential water quality impacts [Conditions 2, 4, 3, 19, 21, 24]. The on-site
wetland would be protected by compliance with the provisions of the Critical Areas
Ordinance [see Condition 8].
98. Potential traffic impacts due to the operation of the small boat sailing
program would be mitigated by limiting sailing class size and timing, restricting use
of the meeting rooms, and facilitating safe two-way travel on Spargur Loop Road
[Conditions 1, 20, 25, and 31]. Additional mitigation (i.e., further reduction in the
number of vehicle trips associated with sailing class) could be achieved with discounting
class fees for carpooling or alternate modes of transportation (e.g., walking, bicycle,
boat) [Condition 30].
99. Potential interference with public access to/from the Spargur Park dock
would be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated by reducing the length of the small boat
dock [Conditions 1 and 33].
100. No adverse impacts with regard to aesthetics and/or views were
identified. The required 25-ft. wide native plant buffer would screen the site and present
a street-side appearance compatible with the residential neighborhood [Conditions 10 and
19]. No additional mitigation is warranted.
101. With mitigation provided by limiting class size, timing, and duration
[see Condition 31], the small boat sailing program would not be expected to produce
significant noise impacts. Extension of the main dock should be reduced to mitigate
increased noise associated with increasing moorage capacity [Condition 1].
PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP)
102. As required by BIMC 16.12.380.C.l [see Finding 108], the application,
revised application materials, other documents in the record, and presentations at hearing,
including the information and analysis provided by the Director [Exhibit 71; Testimony
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 22 of34
of Machen], demonstrate that the criteria for granting a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
have been met:
a. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the policies of the Shoreline
Management Act and with the City's Shoreline Master Program, including that:
water-dependent recreational opportunities and access to the shoreline would be
increased and impacts to marine habitat and natural resources avoided or mitigated.
b. There would not be interference with the normal public use of the shoreline because
the site is privately owned and, as conditioned, the small boat dock would avoid the
potential interference with use of the public dock at Spargur Park.
c. This area has a mix of residential and recreational uses and Port Madison Bay has
many piers and docks. Boating and marina activities, including the proposal as
conditioned, are compatible with the permitted uses
d. As conditioned, adverse impacts of the proposal that would not be avoided would be
mitigated.
e. There would be no substantial detriment to the public interest. Shortening the length
of the small boat dock would avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the potential for
interference with future public access to or from the Spargur Park dock. Aspects of
the proposal that would benefit the public interest include: the 25-ft. wide native
plant buffer along the Spargur Loop Road frontage; protection of the on-site wetland;
removal of existing creosote piles and use of non-polluting materials in new
construction; and, a net decrease in the surface area of overwater structures.
f. The proposal is consistent with the R-2 zoning which allows "marinas" as a
conditional use. Also, the uses allowed in the Semi-Rural shoreline environment
include "boating facilities" as a conditional use and "water-oriented recreational
development" as a permitted use in the Semi-Rural and Aquatic environments. See
Conditional Use Permit regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
103. The Conditional Use Permit approval criteria ofBIMC 18.108.040.A [see
Finding 109] are met as follows [see also Staff Report, Exhibit 71].
a. Is harmonious and appropriate in design. character and appearance. As
conditioned, the size and design of the new facilities would be compatible with
development in the vicinity: moving the play equipment would provide a view corridor
from the road; renovation of the Springer house would eliminate its current rundown
appearance; retaining mature trees and adding a 25-ft. wide buffer of native plants
(including trees), would be in keeping with roadside character of the neighborhood, as
does keeping the majority the site as a wooded open space. With the proposal, as
conditioned, the appearance of the subject property would be harmonious with the
neighborhood. [See also "c", "f, and "g".]
b. Will be served by adequate public facilities. Potable water is provided by
private wells and the requirements of the Health District [see Finding 75 and Condition
3] would ensure the adequacy of on-site sewage disposal. The Fire Department
requirements [Condition 5] would be met and storm water drainage plans must be
approved by the Public Works Department as meeting City standards [Condition 21].
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 23 of 34
c. Will not be materiallv detrimental. As conditioned, construction and operation
of the proposal should not be "materially detrimental" to uses or property in the
immediate vicinity. Mitigation measures would avoid or reduce potential traffic
impacts and ensure attractive, compatible appearance of grounds and structures
[Conditions 1, 19, 20, 25, 30, and 31]. Reducing the length of the dock replacing the
existing Springer dock [Condition 1] would ensure that there would not be detriment to
the public's use of the Spargur Park dock. [See also "a", "f and "g".]
d. Is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. As conditioned to avoid or mitigate
impacts, the proposal would meet this criterion. Protecting the wetland, reducing
overwater construction and coverage, and the removal of creosote piles and other
debris, are examples of ways that the goals of the Environmental Element would be
met. Preserving mature trees, providing the buffer, removing play equipment, limiting
sailing class size, restricting signs and controlling exterior lights are in accord with
Land Use Element. Water Resources Element goals would be met by meeting City
requirements for stormwater management and upgrading the on-site septic system.
e. Complies with all other provisions of this Code. The proposal, as conditioned,
complies with all applicable provisions of this Code, including zoning standards
regarding lot area and coverage, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. [See also SEP A
and SCUP analyses.]
f. Will not adversely affect the area's residential nature. The Yacht Club has been
in this location for over 60 years and it has grown and changed (as has the
neighborhood). Most of each year, the Club is relatively unobtrusive; not inappropriate
in appearance or activity for a residential area. The appearance of the site is compatible
with the residential nature of the of the area and the required landscape buffer,
regulation of exterior lighting, and limit on signs [Conditions 11, 19, 29] would
maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. As conditioned, the operation
of the proposed small boat sailing classes (limited in size and duration) would be
compatible with this residential setting [Conditions 1 and 31], as is facilitating safe
two-way travel on Spargur Loop Road Conditions 20, 25, 30. [See also "a", "c" and
"f .]
g. All necessary measures have been taken. Operational impacts can that affect
the neighborhood are linked to size: more moorage means more attendees at large
events, which means potentially more noise and traffic conflicts with neighbors.
Reducing the length ofthe docks [Condition 1] is a fundamental and necessary measure
as it reduces size-related impacts. Measures like controlling exterior lighting
[Condition 11], prohibiting camping in RVs [Condition 26], limiting signs visible
outside the grounds [Condition 29], and facilitating safe two-way travel on Spargur
Loop Road are also "necessary measures". Condition 27 is an unusual, but "necessary"
measure requiring SYC to take specific steps to become more a part of the
neighborhood and better manage its "presence" in the neighborhood. This could not be
a SEP A condition, but conditional use criteria are broader. Without this requirement
for SYC to open up communications and improve relations with its neighbors, it could
not be found that all necessary measures have been taken. Two specific actions are
required by Condition 27: to provide contact information for the neighbors to use when
they have complaints or concerns and to hold an annual neighborhood meeting to let
the neighbors know the SYC schedule for large events and to hear the neighbors'
concerns (this could be a mediation if/when conditions warrant formal dispute
resolution). Further, to become a part of the neighborhood, rather than apart from it,
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 24 of 34
Condition 27 encourages (not requires) SYC to invite its Spargur Loop Road neighbors
to Potlatch, the Club's largest event.
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND MUNICIPAL CODE (BIMe)
SEP A Appeal
104. BIMC 16.04. 170 provides that any person may appeal the issuance of a
determination of non significance.
105. The City has adopted SEPA rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, to be used in
conjunction with the environmental policies and procedures found in BIMC 16.04. WAC
provisions pertinent to this decision include: WAC 197-11-055; WAC 197-11-330; WAC
197-11-797: "Threshold determination"; WAC 197-11-784: "Proposal"; WAC 197-11-
734: "Determination of nonsignificance" (DNS); WAC 197-11-782: "Probable"; WAC
197 -11- 794: "Significant". The policy regarding cumulative impacts is defined at BIMC
16.08.200.B.
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP)
106. The Shoreline Master Program, BIMC Chapter 16.12, regulates
development in the shoreline.
107. BIMC 16.12.380.C.1 "applies to all applications for shoreline
...conditional use permits" and provides, in pertinent part, that a SCUP may be granted if
the following are demonstrated:
a. The proposed use would be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 or
its successor and the policies of the master program.
b. The proposed use would not interfere with the normal public use of the
public shorelines.
c. The proposed use of the site and design of the project would be compatible
with other permitted uses within the area.
d. The proposed use would cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the
shoreline environment designation in which it is located.
e. The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
f The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the zoning
ordinance... and the comprehensive plan...
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
108. The decision criteria for Conditional Use Permits, at BIMC 18.108.040,
instruct that:
A. A conditional use may be approved or approved with modifications if
1. The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and
appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the
subject property;
2. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including
roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities;
3. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in
the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 25 of34
4. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan;
5. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of this code;
6. The conditional use will not adversely affect the area or alter the area's
predominantly residential nature; and
7. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate the impacts that the
proposed use may have on the surrounding area.
B. A conditional use may be approved with conditions. Ifno reasonable conditions
can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision criteria of this chapter,
then the application shall be denied.
Permit and Appeal Procedures
109. Under the provisions of BIMC 16.04.170, SEPA appeals are to be heard
by the Hearing Examiner who, after holding a public hearing, is to render decision on the
appeal "giving substantial weight to the decision of the responsible official. "
110. For Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) decisions, BIMC 16.12.350.B.1.a
authorizes the Hearing Examiner to:
Approve, approve with conditions, or deny...shoreline conditional use permit
applications after a public hearing and after considering the findings and
recommendations of the director, which shall be given substantial weight....
111. BIMC 18.108.020.D provides that regular conditional use permits shall be
processed using the procedures of BIMC 2.16.100. The procedures of BIMC 2.16.100
require a decision by the Hearing Examiner, after public hearing. In making such
decisions, the Hearing Examiner "shall consider the applicable decision criteria of this
code, all other applicable laws... and any necessary documents and approvals" and may
"approve, approve with modifications, deny or remand" the application.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide the subject conditional
use permit questions and the SEP A appeal. In making the SCUP decision and deciding
the SEP A appeal, the Examiner is required to give the Director substantial weight.
[BIMC 16.12.350.B.1.a and BIMC 16.04.170]
2. To overcome the substantial weight accorded the Director, it has to be shown that
the Director was clearly erroneous. Under this standard of review, the Hearing Examiner
must be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
3. Appropriate notices were given, the hearing was properly convened, and all
comments, testimony, and other admissible evidence considered.
4. The Yacht Club explains its plans as a proposal to: 1) rearrange the existing
moorage slips so that (more modern) large boats can be accommodated; 2) have a modest
small boat sailing program for kids; and, 3) make several upgrades to the upland portion
of the property (garage for caretaker, increase landscaping along the road, etc.).
However, except for the upgrades to the upland portion of the property, what was
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 26 of34
originally proposed was, not illogically, perceived by some as a substantial expansion
with undesirable effects.
5. The application originally proposed much larger dock projects [main dock, see
Finding 26; small boat dock, see Finding 37]. The original Springer dock replacement
proposal (a float 130 ft. long, 30 ft. wide, with four slips on the west side, each about 30
ft. wide and 40 ft. long) seemed particularly overdone. Given that the maximum length
of a "small boat" is about 24 ft. [Testimony Otorowski], that original size and
configuration looked like a sizeable increase in moorage capacity rather than a dock for
use in a kids' small boat sailing program. The inclusion of undefined "meeting rooms"
and references to speakers and general uses, got neighborhood critics to speculating about
banquets, ballrooms, and a myriad of added activities attended by people traveling to the
Club by car. For some, the proposal produced a vision of a "resort-type" facility with
more events, more people, more traffic and more noise, more of the time; not a home
base for teaching kids how to sail. The current plans, a float 110ft. long by 20 ft. wide
with no slips, has clarified that no "resort" is intended. However, reducing the length of
the dock another 20 feet is an important and necessary mitigation measure. A dock of
this size could still be appropriate for a sailing program and the smaller size would
accomplish a net decrease (instead of an increase) in overwater coverage, decrease or
eliminate the potential for interfering with use of the public dock, and dictate a smaller
class size that, in turn, would help reduce traffic impact.
6. The proposed "reconfiguration" of the main dock would not be just moving
around its existing parts in order to have the slips wide enough for two large boats. The
dock would also be extended over 90 feet and would have substantially increased
moorage capacity for large boats. Although the number of slips would remain the same,
the number of large boats that could be accommodated would double (i.e., today there are
12 slips that can each hold one large boat; with the proposed dock extension, there would
still be 12 slips, but each could hold two large boats, for a total of 24). This increased
moorage capacity is what concerns the neighbors: they anticipate that such new capacity
would also mean increasingly larger, large events. Reducing the length of the proposed
extension by half would provide the SYC what it says it wants (i.e., slips wide enough for
two large boats), while reducing (mitigating for) the potential impacts to the
neighborhood associated with increased moorage capacity.
7. SEPA mitigation measures (e.g., reducing the size of the proposed docks,
restrictions on the use of the Springer house and the use of the replacement dock,
facilitating safe two-travel on Spargur Loop Road, etc.) are necessary for compliance
with the conditional use permit conditions as well as for mitigation of environmental
impacts. However, conditional use approval here requires more than the SEP A
mitigation measures. While the pattern of use, with levels of activity unnoticeable two
thirds of the year [see Finding 9], is not likely to change due to the proposal, the
intensification of use made possible by the proposed facilities could not be permitted
without requiring SYC to take reasonable measures [Condition 27] to manage its
"presence" in the neighborhood. With its policies, rules, elected officials and
organizational structure, SYC has the means to successful implement these "necessary
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 27 of 34
measures" so that the operation of the Port Madison Outstation fits as well in the
neighborhood as does its physical appearance.
8. As conditioned, the proposal would have no significant adverse impacts, an
environmental impact statement is not required, and no additional mitigation is
warranted. The Director's Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance should be
affirmed.
9. As conditioned, the proposal would be consistent with the applicable provisions
of the Shoreline Master Program for granting a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit [see
BIMC 16.12.380.C.l] and the application should be approved.
10. As conditioned, the proposal would be consistent with the applicable provisions
ofBIMC 18.108.040 for granting a Conditional Use Permit and the application should be
approved.
DECISION
SEP A APPEAL
The Director's Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) regarding
application CUP/SCUP13042 is AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED BY CONDITIONS by conditions
in Appendix A.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
The application of the Seattle Yacht Club for a (CUP) and a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit (SCUP) for a new boat ramp and other improvements within the shoreline Semi-
rural environment is hereby APPROVED AS MODIFIED BY CONDITIONS in Appendix A.
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ApPLICATION
The application of the Seattle Yacht Club for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP)
for a new boat ramp and other improvements within the shoreline Semi-rural
environment is hereby APPROVED AS MODIFIED BY CONDITIONS in Appendix A.
Decision Reissued this 13th day of November 2006.
Signed in Original
Meredith A. Getches
Hearing Examiner
Concerning Further Review
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the City's final decision in this matter. Appeal is to
the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board as provided by RCW 90.58.180 (or its
successor) and Chapter 461-08 WAC (or its successor). To be timely, petition for review
must be filed within the 21-day appeal period [see BIMC 16.12.370].
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 28 of 34
Seattle Yacht Club
SCUP/CUP 13042
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Construction pursuant to this permit shall not begin and is not authorized until 21 days from the
date of filing with the Department of Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-
27 -130, or until all review proceedings initiated within 21 days from the date of such filing have
been terminated; except as provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b).
All Hydraulic Project Approval conditions and any Army Corp of Engineers Permit conditions
are also conditions of approval for the SCUP, whether specifically included in the enumerated
conditions or not.
Conditions required for SEP A mitigation are designated with an asterisk (*); some SEP A
conditions are also required as conditional use permit conditions.
1. The plans and cross-section drawings [Exhibit 113, Proposed Moorage Reconfiguration and
Pier/Gangway Renovation; Exhibit 57, Landscape Plans] shall be revised as necessary to be
consistent with the conditions of this decision (including "a" and "b" that follow) and
submitted to the City for approval. All work shall be completed in accordance with the
approved revised plans and cross section drawings and the conditions of this decision.
a. Reduce the length of the westerly extension to the main dock from 91.5 ft. to 46.5 ft.
The existing elements of the main dock (piers, floats, etc.) may remain, be relocated,
reconfigured, replaced, or reused as proposed [see Sheets 4 and 5 and associated cross
sections] or be relocated, reconfigured, replaced, or reused in some different/revised
configuration; the dimensions of those elements are not to be increased and the length of
the westerly extension shall not exceed 46.5 ft.
b. Reduce the length ofthe small boat dock from 110 ft. to 90 ft.
2. *Prior to the issuance of building, clearing or grading permits, a Temporary Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan meeting the requirements in BIMC 15.20 and 15.21 shall be
submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer The approved plan shall indicate the
location and type of erosion control measures and these measures shall be implemented
throughout construction.
3. *Prior to the issuance of any building permits or the use of the Springer house, approval
from the Kitsap County Health District must be obtained for an on-site septic system
design outside of the wetlands and wetland buffers. (The lower portion of the structure may
be used for storage/maintenance prior to the final septic approval, but no use of restrooms or
plumbing shall be permitted until an on-site septic system approved by the Health District is
completed.)
4. * All construction and construction staging areas shall be outside critical areas and their
buffers. Construction fencing or silt fencing shall be installed along critical area buffer
boundaries prior to any adjacent clearing.
5. A City of Bainbridge Island building permit must be approved prior to construction
work on any of the docks or garage. The renovation of the Springer dock shall include a new
standpipe as required by the Fire Department [see Exhibit 20]. Any work in the Spargur
Loop Road right-of-way must have an appropriate permit from the Public Works Department.
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 29 of 34
6. *WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval and Army Corps of Engineers Permit will be
required prior to beginning any overwater work on this project. Copies of approvals must
also be submitted to the City prior to beginning any work on the site. A copy of all public
agency approvals and approved drawings shall be given to contractors performing work at the
site prior to their beginning any construction work.
7. A boundary line adjustment placing all of the Seattle Yacht Club structures and facilities on
one lot shall be approved by the City and recorded prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
8. *The wetland buffers shall be separated from the access road by a two-rail fence and
permanent signs at no less than 100-foot intervals shall be installed on the fence. The signs
shall identify the area as a wetland and wildlife habitat that should be protected. The fencing
and signs shall be installed prior to clearing and grading for the new parking areas.
9. * A Bald Eagle Management Plan may be required. The applicant shall consult with
Shelly Ament, (360) 681-4276, at WDFW, to determine if a bald eagle management plan is
necessary prior to commencement of any work.
10. Performance assurance device(s) for all landscape plantings required for this conditional
use permit must be submitted and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any
building, grading or clearing permits or prior to any construction activities. Maintenance
assurance devices shall be submitted and accepted prior to the release of the performance
assurance device and held for three years following the completion of the planting.
11. * All exterior lights (overwater and upland) shall be hooded or shielded so as not to emit
direct light or glare that is visible from adjacent properties, public rights-of-way, or
Port Madison Bay. All exterior lighting must conform to the City Regulations [BIMC
15.34] and parking lot lighting shall be less than 20 feet high from grade. Lights on floats,
piers, and gangways shall be located to the extent possible over solid, rather than grated,
sections and where this is not possible the light shall be so shielded as to prevent light from
directly shining onto the water.
12. *The following mitigation measures shall be completed prior to final inspection of the docks:
a. Observe fish closures as required by WDFW to avoid impact to juvenile salmon
migration and to protect herring spawning beds, no work allowed below the
ordinary high water line between January 15 and June 14. See also HPA
conditions.
b. Remove and properly dispose of 46 creosote-treated timber piles, tidal grid
located adjacent to the easterly fixed pier, grounded float adjacent to the
Springer building, and ramp and floats that constitute the current Springer
dock.
13. *All construction and demolition debris shall be properly disposed of on land in such a
manner that it cannot enter into the waterway or cause adverse water quality impacts. All
creosote piles must be cut into lengths of 10 feet or less and disposed of at approved upland
site; the applicant shall provide documentation of proper upland disposal.
14. *Extreme care shall be taken to prevent petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or
deleterious materials from entering the water and degrading water quality. If a spill
does occur, or if oil sheen or any distressed or dying fish are observed in the project vicinity,
work shall cease immediately and the Washington Department of Ecology shall be notified of
such conditions. Contact: Northwest Regional Spill Response Section at (206) 649-7000.
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 30 of 34
15. * Steel piles shall be used for new and replacement piles, except that ACZA treated pile may
be used under the Springer house if the piles are wrapped with an impermeable textile and
high density plastic that will prevent the leaching of arsenic and zinc into the waters of Port
Madison Bay. ACZA piles must be sealed and wrapped prior to placement in water.
16. *Floatation for the structures shall be fully enclosed and contained to prevent the breakup
or loss of the floatation material into the water.
17. * All new floats wider than four feet shall contain at least 50% functional grating with
grating 60% open. All new gangways shall be fully grated.
18. *Contractor(s) is required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning
and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation
or construction.
19. *In accordance with BIMC Chapter 18.85 and to the satisfaction of the Director, a 25-ft.
wide "partial screen" landscape buffer shall be established and maintained on the
eastern 25-ft. of the subject property (i.e., west of the SYC property boundary, as that
boundary is established or verified pursuant to Condition 20). This buffer shall be planted
with native plants in accordance with the Landscape Plan [Exhibit 57 revised, see below and
Condition 20]. The buffer area south of the southern driveway entrance that is not slated for
landscaping shall be maintained in its existing condition (except that diseased or hazard trees
and invasive plants may be removed as maintenance).
Revise the Landscape Plan to include the following:
a. Paved OR graveled driveway "approaches" to connect to and match the grade
of the existing roadway pavement of Spargur Loop Road (i. e., to provide a
relatively smooth "transition" surface between the western edge of the Spargur Loop
Road pavement and the driveway entrances shown in Exhibit 57 and described in "b"
and "c" below);
b. A northern entrance (north of the parking area containing parking spaces 1 through
26 - see in Exhibit 57) having a IS-ft. wide "approach" (see "a" above) AND, to
provide for access at the northern end of that parking area, either a IS-ft. wide
driveway OR a 10-ft. wide driveway with 2-ft. wide "shoulders".
c. A southern entrance (south of the parking area containing parking spaces 1 through
26 - see in Exhibit 57) having a 15-ft. wide "approach" (see "a" above) AND, to
provide for access at the southern end of that parking area, either a 15-ft. wide
driveway OR a 10-ft. wide driveway with 2-ft. wide "shoulders". The rest of the
southern driveway (and the parking areas) to be permitted consistent with Exhibit 57,
as determined appropriate by the Director.
20. *The applicant shall do the following to help facilitate safe two-way vehicular travel on
Spargur Loop Road adjacent to the frontage of the subject property:
a. Through a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor, SYC shall, prior to beginning
work on the 25-ft. wide landscape buffer [see Condition 19] and to the satisfaction of
the City, identify and map the location of the following along the north-south leg
of Spargur Loop Road: (1) the eastern boundary of SYC's property; (2) the
western edge of the existing roadway pavement; (3) any improvements or
structures (e.g., fences, utilities poles, etc.) between the western edge of the
existing pavement and the eastern property boundary of SYC's property. Based
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 31 of34
upon this survey, SYC shall quitclaim or provide a right-of-way dedication along
the SYC frontage as necessary to establish and/or clarify, to the satisfaction of the
City, the easterly boundary of SYC's property, relative to the location and extent of a
30-ft. wide public right-of-way for Spargur Loop Road.
b. Ensure that all existing or proposed SYC improvements (including, but not
limited to the proposed 25-ft. landscape buffer; see Condition 19), are located on
SYC property. That is, all SYC improvements must be west of SYC's easterly
property boundary and outside the Spargur Loop Road public right-of-way, as that
boundary and right-of-way are established and/or clarified pursuant to "a" above.
c. To the satisfaction of the Director and in coordination with the Public Works
Department (with a right-of-way permit if/as required), SYC shall clear existing
vegetation from the area west of the existing pavement of the north-south leg of
Spargur Loop Road in order to provide a informal roadway "shoulder" not less
than 3-ft. wide in the public right-of-way contiguous to the western edge of the
existing pavement (see "a" above). This "shoulder" area shall be cleared along the
entire SYC frontage, from the northernmost SYC driveway entrance (see Exhibit 56
or 57), to the southern boundary of SYC's property. In addition, as approved by the
Public Works Department, SYC shall provide within the public right-of-way, one
turnout (at least 6-ft. wide) located west ofthe western edge of the existing pavement
and approximately 300 ft. north of Hidden Cove Road. Except for existing trees that
meet the BIMC definition for "significant", all vegetation shall be cut down and cut
back and structures shall be removed (except utility poles, guide wires, and other
public facilities) from the "shoulder" and turnout areas. These areas shall be
leveled/graded and graveled as necessary (except in wetland or other designated
critical areas) in order to provide a serviceable "shoulder" and turnout.
NOTE: Condition 20 does not require comprehensive "half-street" improvements matching
the City's design standards and specifications for a street of this classification.
21. *The proposed parking areas east and southeast of the Caretaker's residence shall be
grass crete or other similar permeable surface. If any parking area is paved, then the
engineered stormwater management plan submitted with the application (or a revised version
of it, acceptable to the Public Works Department), shall be implemented. The driveway to
the renovated Springer house must be improved as required by the Fire Department to
accommodate emergency fire apparatus.
22. *Prior to final inspection of the docks, the applicant shall post procedures for containment,
recovery, and mitigation of spilled petroleum, sewage and toxic products.
23. *Failure to properly control the discharge of waste or hazardous materials may result in the
revocation of the conditional use permit(s). Prior to final inspection of the docks, the
applicant shall post signs describing regulations on the subject property regarding the
following. (These signs are not to be included in the total sign size limitation of Condition
29.)
. Handling and disposal of waste, wastewater, toxic materials, and recycling;
. Prohibiting the use of marine toilets (i.e., no untreated sewage discharge);
. Prohibiting the disposal of fish and shellfish cleaning wastes; and,
. Best management practices (BMPs) for boat maintenance and repairs on site.
24. *Upon completion of construction, all cleared areas within 200 feet of the shoreline shall
be landscaped within the first planting season.
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 32 of34
25. *The parking spaces shall be properly dimensioned and striped or shall provide wheel stops
to designate parking spaces. Signs shall be posted on SYC property at each driveway
instructing exiting drivers that only travel south on Spargur Loop Road is permitted
(e.g., "right turn only" leaving new parking areas). (These signs are not to be included in the
total sign size limitation of Condition 29.) This direction shall be included in sailing class
brochures and information sheets and in SYC announcements regarding Port Madison
Outstation events.
26. SYC's Port Madison-specific rule prohibiting camping on the grounds [Rule #9; see Exhibit
129] should be amended to extend the camping prohibition to RVs.
27. The SYC shall: 1) provide each household with a Spargur Loop Road address an
annually updated list (names and phone numbers) of SYC contacts, including the Resident
Caretaker, present Commodore, and a representative of the Port Madison Committee; 2)
through the Port Madison Committee or other SYC representative group or individual, host
an neighborhood meeting with Spargur Loop Road residents at the Outstation each year
before June 1st where SYC shall advise neighbors of the dates of SYC-sponsored events and
hear and discuss neighborhood concerns about Outstation operations; and, 3) give serious
consideration to regularly inviting Spargur Loop Road residents to some or all Potlatch
activities.
28. *The proposed development shall comply with the City's noise ordinance; specifically,
BIMC 16.16.020 regarding maximum environmental noise levels and 16.16.025 regarding
the limitations on construction hours and activities.
29. Outstation signs that are visible from adjacent properties, Spargur Loop Road, or the bay,
shall be limited to a cumulative total of 12 sq. ft. (Signs referred to in Conditions 22 and 24
are interior-oriented and are not to be included in this cumulative total.)
30. Sailing class information, registration, and other materials provided to students or prospective
students shall include directions showing/describing approach to the site only from
Hidden Cove Road and advising that departing trips must go south on Spargur Loop
Road to Hidden Cove Road. Students who carpool or use alternate modes oftransportation
(i.e., walk, bike, boat) shall receive a discount on class fees.
31. The small boat sailing classes shall:
a. Be open to the public and, until the class orientation meeting or the first day of class
(which ever comes first), 50% of class space shall be reserved for non-members.
b. Have a maximum limit of 20 students per class.
c. Not have class sessions that start before 9:30 a.m. or an end after 4:00 p.m.
d. Be limited to one class per day.
e. Be held only between June 1 and September 1.
f. Be held only on weekdays, but not on any weekday that is part of a SYC large
event.
g. Store boats inside on weekends and between classes. The boats used for class may be
left on the float overnight, centered on the solid portions (overlapping the grating as
little as possible), during consecutive weekdays of class.
h. The Springer building shall not be used for sleeping accommodations, except by
class participants or instructors in connection with sailing class attendance or
activities.
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 33 of34
32. The small boat dock (modified Springer dock) shall be equipped with adequate lifesaving
equipment such as life rings, hooks and ropes. If used for motor boat moorage, it shall also
be equipped with containment booms for petroleum and other toxic materials.
33. When sailing classes are not in session, the small boat dock may be used for sailboats that
are not longer that 24 ft. The small boat dock may be used for moorage only when no
space is available at the main dock; no rafting shall be permitted from the north end of
the small boat dock.
34. Use of the meeting rooms in the renovated Springer house must be ancillary to the small
sailboat sailing program (e.g., lessons for sailing classes, parents' meeting on first day of
class, speakers/presentations regarding small boat sailing, SYC committee planning sailing
classes, etc.), or for meetings of regular SYC committees. No meetings shall be held in the
meeting rooms while any sailing class is in session or when arrival or departure times could
overlap. The Springer building shall not be rented out, or be available to the general
public, or be used for private or non-SYC activities or general meetings.
35. Failure to satisfactorily implement these conditions could result in revocation of the
conditional use permit(s).
SCUP/CUP13042 Reissued 11/13/2006
Page 34 of 34