Loading...
HighSchoolRd Decision 060903 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL OF THE HIGH SCHOOL ROAD ) LLC. MIXED USE PROJECT ) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF ) NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) AND ) SPR12-12-00-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW. ) FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICANTS: HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LLC. ) AND DECISION APPELLANTS: RESIDENTS OF ) VIRGINIA VILLAS, IHLAND WAY, ) WALLACE WAY., ET AL. ) ____________________________________) FINDIN GS OF FACT 1. A mixed used development consisting of 60 multi-family residential units, a 51-unit extended stay hotel and 2,100 square feet of commercial retail space has been approved for construction on a 3.2 acre parcel located on the north side of High School Road, west of State Route 305 (SR305). The project will be built on a vacant parcel identified by Tax Assessor No. 232502-2-022-2006. The parcel is owned by High School Road, LLC., represented by Franco Mola of 411-108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, Washington. 2. The High School Road Mixed Use Project is located within zoning district High School Road Commercial District 1. 3. The project site is a vacant forested lot with Category II wetlands on the northern portion of the lot. The project will be developed on the southern portion of the property, outside the perimeters of the wetland and its required 100-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback. The project will front on High School Road. City water, sewer and stormwater management lines adjoin this property. 4. This project will be developed with two access points onto High School Road, a secondary arterial. One driveway will be shared with a Texaco gas station located on property immediately to the east of the project site, and the other driveway will be located at midpoint along the project’s High School Road frontage. 5. The applicant submitted the Site Plan Review (SPR) application for this project on December 12, 2000. The City accepted the application as complete on March 5, 2001. The original proposal consisted of 28,000 square feet of retail and office uses and 50 multi-family residential units. The Notice of Application was published on March 14, 2001. In late April, the applicant informed the City that a substantial redesign of the project was underway. The project was held in abeyance until the revisions were submitted by the applicant in December of 2001. On December 14, 2001, the applicant submitted a revised proposal which consisted of 60 multi-family residential units and a 54-room extended stay hotel. On February 23, 2002, a Notice of Revised Application was published. On March 28, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the proposal. After that meeting, the applicant submitted revisions to the site plan which reduced the number of hotel rooms from 54 to 51 and added 550 square feet of commercial space to the project. A second Notice of Revised Application was published on May 11, 2002. The revised project was submitted to the Planning Commission for discussion on June 13, 2002. The Planning Commission requested further revisions to the project. The project was again discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 2002. The applicant presented the following additional revisions to his proposal: an increase in first floor store frontage, a lowering of the garage platform, the down-scaling of the roof forms and an increased modulation of the building frontage. Additional suggestions were made by Planning Commission members. On July 16, 2002, the applicant submitted a complete set of revised plans for Planning Commission consideration. The applicant later submitted an addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis which addressed the High School Road/Hildebrand Lane intersection. On August 22, 2002, the Planning Commission considered the revised proposal and, after public input and discussion, recommended approval of the project subject to conditions. The Director of Planning and Community Development (Director) issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on September 25, 2002. This MDNS was appealed on October 23, 2002. The Director completed her Site Plan Review in December, 2002. On December 20, 2002 the Director issued her decision approving the site plan with conditions for construction of 60 multi-family units, a 51 room extended stay hotel, 2,100 square feet of commercial retail space and a 145-stall garage. An appeal of that Site Plan approval was filed on January 6, 2003. The appeals of the SEPA MDNS and the Site Plan Review approval were consolidated for purposes of public hearing. A pre-hearing conference was held on February 3, 2003. Pre-hearing motions were heard on February 13, 2003. The public hearing began on February 21, 2003 and was continued to March 5, 2003 then further continued to March 10, 2003 and was finally concluded on March 20, 2003. The record remained open to receive additional documents until April 15, 2003. SEPA MDNS APPEAL 6. The Appellants objected to the City’s issuance of the MDNS and requested that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for the project. The appeal challenged the adequacy of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the project and objected to the size and scale of the proposed buildings. 7. The Appellants asserted that the City did not adequately consider the additional truck traffic generated by the removal of soil from the site during construction. Mr. Vince Mattson, Appellant, calculated that approximately 11,500 yards of soil would be excavated and removed off-site. It was his estimate that the removal of this soil would require approximately 1,100 truck trips. No dump site has yet been identified for this excavated soil. Mr. Thomas Herriott of Browne Engineering testified regarding his calculations of the volume of excavated material to be removed from the site. According to his calculation, approximately 10,700 cubic yards of soils will be removed from the site by dump truck. It was his estimation that dump trucks capable of carrying 20 yards per load would be used, requiring approximately 550 truck loads to remove the soil from the site. The MDNS includes mitigation measures which address the truck traffic generated by these earth removal activities. The applicant is required to submit a temporary traffic control plan with the application for a grading permit. This traffic control plan will be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department and Police Department, as well as the City of Bainbridge Island Fire Department. The City Engineer testified that the temporary traffic control plan will include provisions for construction site signage, temporary barriers, flagger locations, detour routes, project schedule, duration of work, the preconstruction condition of the road and limitation on construction hours. Mr. Jeff Schramm, a Traffic Engineer hired by the applicant, also testified that the traffic control plan would include details such as the number of trucks required for the project, the number of truck trips anticipated, the location of access to the site, the location of on-site parking for construction workers, the haul route for soil removal, the length of time anticipated to complete the operation and the limitations on hours of construction activities at the site. The Bainbridge Island Police Department and the Bainbridge Island Fire Department reviews will consider emergency vehicle access to the area. 8. The Appellants assert that the project’s traffic analysis is flawed in part because the City has incorrectly identified the Comprehensive Plan designation for Level of Service (LOS) for roads serving this project. The Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element designates the project area as an LOS-D zone, however, High School Road and areas immediately south of High School Road have been designated as an LOS-E zone. The City Engineer determined that High School Road defines the end of the LOS-E zone, and that the LOS-E zone includes High School Road [EXHIBIT 113]. The Planning Director testified that she relied on the City Engineer’s interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan to determine the LOS designation for High School Road. 9. The Appellants argued that Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC) 16.08.200 requires that consideration be given to the cumulative impacts of the current proposal, and prior and other proposed developments. The Appellants assert that they have identified projects which were not considered in the traffic analysis: Sakai Village, Taurnic Place, The Island Apartments, Woodland Village and Stonecress. The City Engineer testified that these projects were included in the City’s cumulative impacts analysis by using the standard engineering practice to include a three percent growth factor in the analysis. The growth factor is intended to include both known and unknown development, both on and off the island, that may impact roads on the island. The State’s estimation of the annual growth rate for this area is 1.8 percent [see testimony of Jeff Schramm and EXHIBIT 170]. The Entranco traffic analysis used a 3% growth rate to account for projects where no traffic analysis had been done. Mr. Bob Katai, Associate Planner, testified that a vehicle count was done for each of the projects listed by the Appellants, however, a traffic analysis was not required for some of those projects. The City Engineer confirmed that customary engineering practice allows the use of a growth rate percentage in the calculations of cumulative traffic impacts. The Planning Director confirmed that it is a policy of the Planning Department to rely on the traffic studies done for the Comprehensive Plan, to help determine traffic impacts for properties developed within the densities allowed in the zone. The projects listed by the Appellants were all approved prior to the High School Road project and were developed within the range of density allowed in their zoning districts. 10. The Appellants did not introduce testimony or other evidence at the public hearing to support their appeal issue 1.d. 11. The Appellants SEPA appeal issue 2.B is not an environmental impact issue within the scope of environmental review required by SEPA. This issue is a zoning issue and will be considered during the review of the Site Plan Review appeal. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPEAL 12. The Site Plan Review appeal is included in the record of EXHIBIT 123. The Appellants note a discrepancy in the language of SEPA MDNS Condition 1.n. The SEPA MDNS issued on September 25, 2002 contained the following language: 1.n. To mitigate traffic impacts, subject to the approval by the Washington Department of Transportation and the Public Works Department, the applicant shall change the middle eastbound lane on High School Road at its intersection with SR 305 to a lane accommodating both through traffic and left turning traffic. Costs associated with the road revision shall be borne by the applicant. The MDNS was not revised. The Project Report dated December 17, 2002 [EXHIBIT 112] incorrectly states Conditions 1.n. as follows: 1.N. To mitigate traffic impacts, the applicant shall work with the Public Works Department and the Washington Department of Transportation to change the middle eastbound lane on High School Road at its intersection of State Route 305 to a lane accommodating both through traffic and left turning traffic. Costs associated with the road revision shall be bourne by the applicant. After issuing the SEPA MDNS, the City received correspondence from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) notifying the City that the WSDOT had not approved the lane reconfiguration proposed for the intersection of SR 305 and High School Road. [EXHIBITS 106 AND 161]. Considerable hearing time was spent on testimony from traffic engineers from the City of Bainbridge Island, WSDOT and the applicant’s private consultants regarding the best engineering practices for a traffic analysis to determine the LOS for the intersection of SR 305 and High School Road. The City’s engineers and the applicant’s consultants agreed that the intersection is presently operating at LOS-D and will continue to operate at that level even after this project is complete. The City Engineer testified that an island-wide independent traffic analysis is currently being conducted for the City by Johnson, Davies and Lathrop. City Engineer Jensen reported that Johnson, Davies and Lathrop’s report projects that the intersection of SR 305 and High School Road will remain at LOS-D through the year 2008. These conclusions conflict with the results of the traffic analysis performed by WSDOT. The WSDOT analysis uses different statistical input to achieve a different result. Additional review and evaluation of the recommended mitigation is required [EXHIBIT 106]. The mitigation required by Condition 1.n. was agreed to by the applicant to address concerns raised by the Public Works Department about the length of queue in the eastbound left turn lane on High School Road and possible blockage for turning movements at the intersection of Hildebrand Lane and High School Road. A double lefthand turn lane was suggested as a means to shorten that queue length. The City is in the process of making other changes to the intersection of Hildebrand Lane and High School Road to improve the Hildebrand Lane left turn LOS [EXHIBIT 113]. The WSDOT recommendations for additional mitigation on this project were submitted to the City after the publication of the SEPA MDNS. The City did not revise the MDNS conditions. 13. The Appellants assert that the City’s mitigation measures required by MDNS Condition 1.n. would result in a lowering of the LOS for the westbound through lane on High School Road and the southbound through lane on SR 305 to LOS-E. The traffic analysis performed by the City Engineer, and by the applicant’s consultants Entranco and Mr. Jeff Schramm, determined that the intersection of High School Road and SR 305 will continue operating at an LOS-D after this project is complete. Public hearing testimony by Mr. Jensen, Mr. Eber and Mr. Schramm supported this result by further calculation and analysis. 14. The Appellants also assert that inadequate parking spaces have been required. An under building parking garage will provide 145 parking stalls, and 4 on-street parking stalls will be located along the High School Road frontage. The parking requirements for this development have been reviewed by the Planning Department and have been determined to be consistent with the requirements of the BIMC. The underground parking area has been designed to meet the requirements of BIMC 18.81. In addition, bicycle parking spaces will be provided in the parking garage and in a bicycle rack area along the High School Road frontage. Hotel parking requirements require one parking space for each sleeping room. That requirement has been met by this proposal. 15. The Appellants repeat their SEPA appeal position that several other developments in the area should have been included in the traffic analysis and utilized in making the cumulative environmental impact assessment. As discussed in Finding of Fact No.8, the City Engineer and the Planning Director testified that customary traffic engineering practice allows the use of a growth rate factor to determine the cumulative impact expected from new projects. This growth rate factor includes an estimation of both known and unknown projects which might affect traffic volume generated near the site. Projects developed within the density allowed in their zone are taken into consideration. 16. In their SPR appeal, the Appellants also repeated their concerns about the absence of a requirement to prepare and follow an approved plan for removal of soil from the site and a failure to identify the recipient site. This issue was also discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6. A temporary traffic control plan has been required of the applicant. The plan will provide the details requested by the Appellants. 17. The Appellants have asserted that the Category II wetland located on the north portion of the project site will be adversely impacted. The Appellants assert that the hydrology of the wetland will be adversely affected by the stormwater collection system proposed for the site. Mr. Tom Herriott of Browne Engineering was retained by the applicant to make an analysis of the impact of the proposed development on the Sakai pond wetland system. Mr. Herriott’s results are included as EXHIBIT 166. Mr. Herriott’s analysis determined that the increase in water volume draining into the total wetland system will be below .03%. Only 2/10th of an acre of the wetland drainage on the parcel will be developed. The remainder of the developed area does not drain into the wetland. Joanne Bartlett of Wiltermood Associates, a wetland biologist, testified that she does not expect a change in function for this wetland as a result of this project. This wetland will continue to function as storage for excess storm water runoff and as a water quality filter. The wetland will be protected by a 100-foot perimeter buffer and a 15-foot building setback. The only development within the buffer area will be a pervious pedestrian trail as allowed under BIMC 16.20. Mr. Wayne Daley, a wetland expert testifying for the Appellants, testified that he had not done a formal evaluation of the wetland and could not dispute the report of Mr. Herriott. [EXHIBIT 166] Ms. Melva Hill was assigned by the Public Works Department as the project manager for the High School Road Mixed Use Project. Ms. Hill testified that the City had reviewed the preliminary drainage report and the preliminary drainage plan submitted by the applicant’s consultant [EXHIBIT 45 and 166], as well as the Wetland Analysis Report prepared by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. [EXHIBIT 8] A geotechnical engineering investigation was performed by Krazan and Associates, Inc., to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the site and to make geotechnical engineering recommendations for the project [EXHIBIT 4]. Ms. Hill testified that the Public Works Department did not expect any impacts to the wetland from this project. The stormwater management system proposed for the project does not discharge into the wetlands. Mr. Wayne Daley testified on behalf of the Appellants and expressed his concern regarding first flush run-off from High School Road and its possible impact to the wetlands. Ms. Hill testified that the City has responsibility for first flush from the public right-of-way and that the City regularly inspects its stormwater conveyance system and maintenance and testing is done periodically. Mr. Wayne Daley is a certified fisheries professional who has done extensive work as a Fisheries Biologist, performing biological evaluations for shoreline projects, as well as designing habitat management plans for individual landowners. Mr. Daley testified for the Appellants and expressed his concerns about the effects of this project upon the hydrology of the on-site wetland. Mr. Daley stated that he did not do a formal evaluation of the hydrology of the wetland and has done no site specific study regarding possible noise impacts to wetland wildlife, and no study to determine probable impacts from stormwater runoff. Mr. Charles Schmid also testified for the Appellants with regard to possible noise impacts during and after construction of this project. Mr. Schmid’s comments are included in EXHIBIT 181. Mr. Schmid recommended that a noise analysis be done to determine the impact of noises and vibrations from the construction site on wildlife in the wetland. Ms. Joanne Bartlett responded to comments by Mr. Daley and Mr. Schmid, in part, by noting that the wetland on this site is an urban wetland located in a commercial district, so that the species present in the wetland have already adjusted to commercial activities in the area. Noise and vibration levels will be more intense during construction of the project, however, those noises are temporary and should have a temporary impact on species in the wetland. The project has been required to comply with the provisions of BIMC 16.16.025 which limits outside construction activities on the site. The Appellants did not present any site specific study which identified a probable significant adverse impact to the wetland which had not been mitigated by conditions to the MDNS. The Planning Director testified that the City would not conduct a separate SEPA analysis of noise impacts, if the project meets the criteria of the BIMC Noise Ordinance. 15. The Appellants assert that the City has erred in failing to issue a Certificate of Concurrency for this project, prior to Site Plan approval. The applicant received a letter of complete application from the City on March 5, 2001. The project underwent several revisions in the ensuing months, however, the Director did not withdraw the letter of complete application, but instead issued a Notice of Revised Application for the project. Director Warren testified that in December, 2001, substantial changes were made to the application. She did not consider the revised application to be a significant change in the traffic impacts of the project, because the City Engineer’s evaluation of the revised project determined that only one additional vehicle trip would be generated by the new revisions. BIMC 15.32 became effective after the date of complete application issued for this project. Director Warren determined that the Ordinance did not apply to this project. 16. The Appellants object to the design of this project because it is overwhelming, both in scale and magnitude, when compared to other buildings in the vicinity. Mr. David Balas, an architect, testified on behalf of the Appellants, stating that in his opinion the project as proposed is overwhelming in both magnitude and scale. Mr. Balas stated that he had reviewed the project drawings dated December 15, 2001 and determined that the project meets the requirements of the zoning code. In his opinion, the project does not meet the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan goals which state that commercial and mixed use development should “provide attractive conveniently located development that is appropriate in scale, configuration and location.” Mr. Curtis Beattie, the applicant’s architect, testified in response to Mr. Balas. Mr. Beattie participated in the revisions of the project which were done in response to comments received during the Planning Commission hearing process. In response to those comments the project was redesigned to split the buildings to allow a view behind the project. A public pedestrian plaza is designed between the buildings to allow access. The buildings are designed with setbacks on the first floor and under building parking is screened by retail along the High School Road frontage. The project is designed such that a 3-1/2 story building will be viewed from properties to the west, and as many as five levels will be visible from properties on the east side of the site. Mr. Beattie testified that in his professional opinion, the project as designed complies with all Zoning Code and Design Guideline requirements. Mr. Katai, the Planner assigned to this project, testified that in his opinion the project, as revised, meets the intent of the Design Guidelines adopted for the High School Road Commercial District 1, and the project as conditioned will meet all requirements of the Bainbridge Island Zoning Code. Director Warren also testified that the Zoning Code Design Guidelines were followed for this project. 17. The Appellants also commented on the floor area ratios for the project, as a part of their appeal. This issue was not pursued at the public hearing. Questions regarding the definition for an extended stay hotel were also included in the appeal documents, however, no specific errors were described in those comments. 18. One final issue argued by the Appellants during the public hearing, was the question about the adequacy of the City’s analysis of pedestrian safety issues in their review of this project. The City Engineer testified that pedestrian safety issues were considered as a part of the traffic impact analysis. While no numerical analysis was done of anticipated increases in pedestrian traffic resulting from this project, City Engineer Jensen stated that the project is expected to generate additional pedestrian traffic across High School Road. In response to that probable increase, the City has required a modification of crosswalks in High School Road. The existing crosswalk near Safeway is being upgraded and the crosswalk near the Texaco station is being modified (Condition 1.o.) In addition, the applicant is required to install sidewalks of the minimum width of 8-feet along the site’s High School Road frontage (Condition 9). The applicant is also required to construct a pedestrian trail system that provides access from High School Road to the wetland buffer, and provides an east/west traverse across the wetland buffer, for public access across the site (Condition 1.t.) 18. On Friday, February 21, 2003, a Public Hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner to consider the application. The public hearing was continued to March 5, 2003, March 10, 2003 and March 20, 2003 respectively. Prior to the hearing, notice was published in the Bainbridge Review on January 22, 2003, notice of the public hearing was mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed project on January 17, 2003, and notices were posted at the City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Ferry Terminal on January 17, 2003 notice was posted at the subject property on January 24, 2003. [EXHIBIT 119] The Hearing Examiner made a site visit to the property on February 20, 2003. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The appeal of the SEPA MDNS and of the Site Plan approval were timely filed with the City of Bainbridge Island on October 23, 2002 and January 6, 2003, respectively. This matter is properly before the Hearing Examiner pursuant to jurisdiction established in BIMC 16.04.170 and BIMC 18.105.120. A public hearing was held in this matter pursuant to procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.130. Adequate legal notice was given of the public hearings held in this matter on February 21, March 5, March 10 and March 20, 2003. 2. The City Planning Director determined that the issuance of an MDNS was an appropriate environmental review process for this project. An MDNS should be upheld under the clearly erroneous standard if, 1) environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA RCW 43.21(C); 2) if it is based on information sufficient to evaluate the developments probable environmental impacts; and 3) if the mitigation measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished [Anderson vs. Piere County, 86 Wn.App., 290 (1997)] The decision of which process to use to assess environmental impacts for a project, either an EIS or an MDNS, is a decision within the discretion of the Planning Department. This decision by the Planning Director is entitled to substantial weight. The evidence introduced by the Appellants does not support a necessity for an EIS for this project. The Appellants have failed to identify probable significant adverse impacts which have not been addressed in the City’s environmental review and mitigated by conditions attached to the project. The record clearly demonstrates that the City based its SEPA threshold determination on information sufficient to evaluate this development’s probable environmental impacts. Probable environmental impacts anticipated from the project included: traffic impacts and impacts to the Category II wetlands located on the site. A thorough traffic impact analysis was conducted by the applicant’s consultant and by engineers employed by the City’s Public Works Department. [EXHIBITS 22, 43, 95 AND 99 and Testimony of Jeff Schramm, Jeff Jensen and Lorenz Eber at the public hearing.] That traffic analysis provided information sufficient to support the applicant’s and the City’s conclusion that the LOS on High School Road will remain at LOS-D, even after the addition of traffic generated from this project. The traffic impact analysis supports the conclusion that all intersections along High School Road will continue to operate at LOS-D during the evening peak hour and no mitigation was required by the City. The WSDOT traffic analysis only addressed the LOS at the SR 305 and High School Road intersection. WSDOT has jurisdiction and control of SR 305 and must approve any change in regulation of pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic on, entering, or leaving the State highway. In recognition of that jurisdiction the City has submitted a proposal to allow a double left turn lane on the west side of the SR 305 and High School Road intersection. The lane change was recommended to address anticipated increases in queue in the eastbound left turn lane. WSDOT approval is required before that mitigation measure can be accomplished. 3. The Appellants have the burden of proof to show probable significant adverse impacts which were not evaluated by the City in its environmental review. Those impacts must be identified with specificity and cannot be mere speculation. Witnesses for the Appellants testified about possible adverse environmental impacts to the wetlands and wetland systems, however, no studies were done to support those concerns. The applicant presented testimony by Wiltermood Associates and Browne Engineering which supports the City’s determination that the Category II wetland on the site and the wetland system on adjoining properties will not be adversely impacted by this project if constructed in compliance with the conditions of approval required by the City. 4. BIMC 15.32 was enacted after a letter of complete application had been sent to the applicant. This project is not subject to the requirements of BIMC 15.32. A Certificate of Concurrency was issued for this project after the Site Plan approval. 5. A review of the hearing record demonstrates that the Director’s decision to approve the applicant’s Site Plan is based on substantial information and is in compliance with the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan. The City, in its Site Plan review, adequately addressed environmental impacts anticipated from the project. The Planning Department followed BIMC procedures requiring review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, prior to the Director’s decision on the Site Plan. The Director relied on the advice of the City Engineer in evaluating traffic and drainage issues for the project. The City Engineer’s analysis projected an increase in both vehicle and pedestrian traffic on High School Road from this project. Conditions attached to the approval addressed those anticipated impacts. The City’s review was supported by qualified consultants whose expertise was used to make a site specific evaluation of the project. The City’s decision to approve the Site Plan is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 6. The Planning Director, and her planning staff, considered the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines for the High School Road Commercial District when reviewing this project application. The Planning Commission held several public meetings and made numerous suggestions for revisions to the project before recommending the final plan to the Director. The City encouraged public participation, both in the pre-application process and during the extensive review process for the project. The appeal statement was signed by many citizens, however, community displeasure is not an adequate ground for denying a project, requiring an EIS, or overturning a Planning Director’s decision. [See Marantha Mining, Inc. vs. Pierce County, 59 Wn.App. 795 (1990) and Anderson vs. Pierce County, 86 Wa.App. 290(1997)]. The Director has determined that the scale and design of this project complies with the Zoning Ordinance and with the spirit of the Design Guidelines. This project does not exceed allowable lot coverage, height limits, or density in the zone in which it is located. The Director’s decision must be given substantial weight by the Hearing Examiner (BIMC 2.16.130 (F)(2)). 7. The Site Plan complies with the parking requirements of BIMC 18.81. BIMC 18.81.030 (I) requires hotels to provide one parking space for each sleeping room included in the building. Additional parking spaces are not required for hotel staff. Bicycle parking has been provided. The vehicle parking areas have been designed to meet BIMC requirements. 8. This project site contains a Category II wetland. The buildings will be constructed outside the wetland and wetland buffer boundaries. BIMC 16.20 requires a 100-foot wetland buffer to be set aside around the perimeter of the wetland, and in addition, buildings on the site must be setback 15-feet from the outside edge of that wetland buffer. The Site Plan proposed by the applicant complies with those requirements of BIMC 16.20. A pervious trail in the buffer zone will be built by the applicant. The City has required public access to this pervious trail in the wetland buffer area. BIMC 16.20.090(G) allows low intensity, passive recreational activities, such as pervious trails to be built in the buffer zone. No impacts to the wetland have been identified to require mitigation. 9. The temporary traffic control plan, regulating truck traffic at the site, will adequately address traffic and environmental impacts which can be anticipated from the earth removal activities. As a part of that traffic control plan, the haul route for truck travel, as well as the dump site for excavated soils, must be identified. The conditions of approval must be amended to require the identification of this site as a part of the temporary traffic control plan to be submitted by the applicant. 10. SEPA MDNS Condition 1.n. required the applicant to change the middle eastbound lane on High School Road, at its intersection with SR 305, to a lane accommodating both through traffic and left turning traffic. After the issuance of the SEPA MDNS the City received correspondence from WSDOT requesting further information about the proposed change. Testimony at the public hearing, from engineers from WSDOT, questioned the proposal made by the applicant and the City. WSDOT has jurisdiction and control over all traffic control devices, including striping, lane marking, and channelization, for the purpose of regulating both pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic on, entering, or leaving the State highways [RCW 47.24.020]. SEPA mitigation measure 1.n. cannot be accomplished without the approval of WSDOT. The language of this SEPA condition must be amended so it is capable of being accomplished. 11. The project application has been conditioned to require compliance with BIMC 15.20 and BIMC 15.21. The temporary drainage plans and geotechnical analysis provided by the applicant and the conditions attached to the project adequately address stormwater control and drainage issues identified at this preliminary stage of the project, additional information will be required as the project proceeds. 12. Two conditions must be amended to ensure compliance with the requirements of the BIMC and the Comprehensive Plan, SEPA MDNS Condition 1.m. and SEPA MDNS Condition 1.n. should be modified to read as follows: SEPA Conditions1.m. and 1.n. are modified to read as follows: 1.m. To accommodate truck traffic generated by earth removal activities, the applicant shall submit a temporary traffic control plan for review by the City’s Public Works Department and Police Department prior to issuance of a grading permit for this project. The temporary traffic control plan must also be reviewed by the Bainbridge Island Fire Department. Written confirmation of review by these agencies must be submitted with the plan. The temporary traffic control plan submitted by the applicant must include information about the number of trucks and the number of truck trips anticipated for the project, the haul route, the location of the recipient dump site, proof of necessary permits for the deposit of the excavated materials off site, dates of operation, time of day for ingress and egress to the property, flagger locations and detour routes around the site, and all information required by the Department of Public Works, Fire Department, or Police Department, in their review of the plan. 1.n. To mitigate traffic impacts anticipated from this project, the applicant has agreed to work with the Public Works Department and the Washington State Department of Transportation to change the middle eastbound lane on High School Road, at its intersection with State Route 305, to a lane accommodating both through traffic and left turning traffic. The purpose of this lane change is to reduce the length of queue for vehicles turning left onto SR 305. If this lane change is not approved by WSDOT, then the applicant must work with the City’s Department of Public Works to determine if an alternate solution is required to deal with this traffic impact. The applicant is required to obtain approval from the Department of Public Works for any alternative design. This mitigation must be completed, or a waiver of this condition must be approved by the Department of Public Works, prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for buildings in this project. DECISION The SEPA MDNS issued by the City of Bainbridge Island on September 25, 2002, for the High School Road LLC, Mixed Use Project, is affirmed as amended by Conclusion of Law 12 above. The Decision of the Director of Planning and Community Development approving the Site Plan for the High School Road LLC, Mixed Use Project, issued on December 20, 2002, is affirmed as amended by Conclusion of Law 12 above. Dated this 6th day of June, 2003 /S/Robin Thomas Baker Hearing Examiner Pro Tem APPEAL The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final unless, within 21 days after issuance of this decision, a person with standing appeals the decision in accordance with RCW Chapter 36.70. [BIMC 2.16.130(F)(6)].