022604 SummitDecisionCITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
HEARING EXAMINER
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
ON REMAND
In the Matter of the Application of
JOHN GREEN DEVELOPMENT SUB11201
&
CONSTRUCTION LLC
for preliminary plat approval to subdivide
property known as Summit at Blakely Harbor
Introduction
The City Council remanded this matter to the Hearing Examiner
for further proceedings. The hearing was reconvened and the record reopened for the receipt of additional information and analysis. Parties represented at the remand hearing were the
Director, Planning and Community Development Department (Department), by Joshua Machen, Associate Planner, and the Applicant, John Green of John Green Development and Construction LLC,
by Charles E. Maduell, attorney-at-law. Exhibits were added to the record [see Finding 9], as was the testimony of witnesses called by the Director and the Applicant and the comments
made by several members of the public [see Finding 42]. The record was closed with the close of the hearing.
For the purposes of this recommendation, all section numbers refer to the
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code (BIMC or Code), as amended, unless otherwise indicated.
After due consideration of all the information presented at the remand hearing and previously
in the record, the following shall constitute the supplemental findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner in response to the Council's remand.
Findings
background
1. The
Applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 62-acre parcel into 25 single-family residential lots (known as "Summit at Blakely Harbor"). The property is zoned R-0.4,
allowing one unit per 2.5 acres. The original application was filed with the City of Bainbridge Island (City) on June 6, 2001 [Exhibit 5] and has been revised several times. Using
a flexible lot design, 25 lots would be clustered in four nodes to be developed in "phases": Phase I, 6 lots; Phase II, 8 lots; Phase III, 7 lots; and, Phase IV, 4 lots. The lots would
range in size from slightly larger than 20,000 square feet, to over 34,000 square feet. [Exhibit 145A] The clustered lots would occupy 20% of the site, leaving 80% in open space [Exhibit
272, page 13].
2. The site is forested and consists of varied terrain, including steeply sloping hillsides and ravines. There are three wetlands that, in total, occupy approximately
10% of the property and there are also three regulated streams. [Exhibit 272, pages 9 and 10].
3. The subject property is undeveloped except for a water main extension and accompanying
maintenance road that was constructed several years ago by Island Utility across the southern end of the property (extending west from Fort Ward Hill Road, east to Toe Jam Hill Road.
Island Utility sought and received a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE 06-30-99-1) for this construction. The construction included filling of 760 square feet of wetland and 300 square
feet of wetland buffer. [Exhibit 272, page10; Exhibit 321; Exhibit 351].
4. This applicant was also required to apply for a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE 03-10-99-1) in order to
improve (grade and pave) the existing waterline maintenance road for use as an access road within the subdivision. The RUE also was required to place a stormwater transmission line
and energy dissipater within a Class IV stream buffer. [Exhibits 11R, 12R, and 321. ]
5. The Director issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on May 7, 2003
[Exhibit 247] and the Staff Report and recommendation regarding the subdivision and RUE applications on June 17, 2003. The Director recommended that the RUE and the subdivision be approved
with conditions. [Exhibit 272]
6. The South Ridge Homeowners Association and the Fort Ward Neighborhood Association appealed the SEPA threshold determination [Exhibits 262 and 264].
Those appeals were considered by Hearing Examiner pro tem Robin Baker at the public hearing held for the subdivision application and the RUE. That hearing began on June 30, 2003 and
continued on July 18, 2003.
7. The Examiner's Decision (on the SEPA appeal and RUE application) and Recommendation (on the subdivision application) was issued on October 14, 2003.
The Examiner affirmed the MDNS, approved the RUE with conditions, and recommended that the City Council approve the subdivision with conditions [see Examiner's Decision and Recommendation].
8. The
City Council considered the recommendation regarding the subdivision at its meetings on November 12, November 21, December 4, and December 11, 2003. The Council determined that the
matter should be referred back to the Hearing Examiner for further proceedings as is authorized by BIMC 2.16.110. [Exhibit 357]
remand
9. On January 24, 2004, notice of the remand
hearing and opening of the record was properly given [Exhibit 359]. At the hearing on February 12, 2004, Exhibits 321 through 371 were added to the record. The testimony given by witnesses
called by the Director and the Applicant [Machen, Green, Dueker] was also added to the record, as were the comments made by members of the public [see Finding 42].
10. The remand hearing
dealt exclusively with the questions and concerns included in the City Council's letter of remand. Six subjects were identified in the remand letter: density credit for wetlands; Osprey
nest; minimizing impacts; wetland mitigation; septic systems; and, road width, retaining walls and guard rails. [Exhibit 357] ("Significant Trees" had been mentioned in a draft version
of the remand, but was not included in the final version and consequently was not a subject considered at the remand hearing.)
Density Credit for Wetlands [see Remand, Exhibit 357,
pages 1 &2]
11. Exhibit 321 is a duplicate of the RUE 06-30-99-1 file. A complete copy of the Department's Staff Report (as requested by the Council remand) is now included in the
record as Exhibit 345. The Council remand asked if this Staff Report contained language consistent with that used in RUE 03-10-99-1 (i.e., "…This RUE and the subsequent waterline and
roadway will facilitate future development of the area in a manner that is consistent with its R-0.4 designation." ) In the discussion of RUE decision criteria, the Staff Report for
RUE 06-30-99-1 [Exhibit 345, page 9, Item viii] includes the following similar language:
This RUE and the subsequent waterline will facilitate future development of the area in a manner
consistent with its R-0.4 designation. However, if in the future, the maintenance road is replaced with a more substantial road and the crossings have to be expanded to accommodate
the expansion, a new RUE will be required to review the associated impacts.
12. The Staff Report for RUE 06-30-99-1 [Exhibit 345, page 7], in the section pertaining to policies regarding
expansion of existing water systems, includes the following language regarding the purpose of the waterline extension.
The proposed waterline and related extensions will serve a substantial
portion of the Port Blakely Tree Farm…In addition, the waterline will serve the existing residences located on the Restoration Point Country Club property. With this waterline extension,
the residences, both existing and future, will be served by a water system instead of individual wells.
13. The Director used the "density credit" allowed by BIMC 16.20.090 to calculate
that the maximum density for the proposed subdivision is 25 lots [Exhibit 272, page 24]. There was no question raised in the remand about the accuracy of the calculation. However,
the correctness of including the density credit was questioned because BIMC 16.20.090(C)(1) [see Finding #47] has a proviso that the density credit may be used only if there are "no
direct impacts to the wetlands or the required buffers." If there are direct impacts to the wetlands or the required buffers, then the density calculation should not include the density
credit.
14. The drainage plans for the subdivision [see Exhibit 364] show that no stormwater would be discharged directly into the wetlands or the required wetland buffer. All stormwater
runoff from impervious surfaces would be collected in a drainage system (tightline roof drains, catch basins, etc.) outside of the wetlands and the required wetland buffer and conveyed
to detention facilities with controlled discharge. The stormwater from the four lots in Phase IV would be discharged on the north side of Stormy Weather Road; this discharge (via spreader
in shallow bed of pea gravel) would not be located in the wetland or the required buffer. [Exhibits 364, 367; Testimony of Machen]
15. The Director's January response to the remand
[Exhibit 367, page 1] includes the statement that, "the Director has determined that the new proposed road, within the same construction prism as the waterline and waterline maintenance
road does not have direct impacts to the wetland." As clarified by the Director at the remand hearing [Testimony of Machen], direct impacts are those that produce a physical change.
The filling, alteration, or other physical disturbance of the wetland and wetland buffer that occurred during the construction of the waterline and maintenance road were direct impacts.
The impacts from that construction [see Exhibit 321], undertaken by a different applicant, have already occurred [see Finding 3]. The proposed improvements, occurring on top of the
existing roadway, would not have direct impacts to the wetland or the wetland buffer.
16. The Examiner's Decision and Recommendation, includes a Finding [#18] that the proposed roadway
improvements "will not create any new direct impacts to the wetland or its buffer."
17. The grass-covered maintenance road currently has very little traffic. Further, the pervious
nature of the roadway allows for whatever small amount of vehicle-related pollutants from that traffic to be filtered out before the runoff reaches the wetland. Once paved and used
for residential access, the roadway would have substantially greater amounts of vehicle-related pollutants. This could result in a direct impact if stormwater from the paved surface
went directly into the wetland or the wetland buffer. The filter strips included along the roadway would filter out the pollutants from the runoff before it enters the wetland buffer,
thus avoiding that direct impact.
Osprey Nest [see Remand, Exhibit 357, pages 2 &3]
18. An Osprey nest has been identified on the adjoining property to the east of the subject property
[Exhibits 250, 261, 321].
19. The Critical Areas portion of the Code, at BIMC 16.20.060(D), directs that "activities" allowed in "habitat areas" must be "consistent with the Department
of Wildlife primary and secondary priority habitat and species (PHS) management recommendations…" BIMC 16.20.020(14) defines “Fish and wildlife habitat” as including "habitats of limited
availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, streams and wetlands."
20. Exhibit 261 includes an excerpt from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
publication "Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species", May 1991. This publication contains management guidelines for areas around Osprey nests from
April 1 to October 1 (i.e., the critical nesting period). The guidelines also include restricting "all human activities" within 660 ft. of an active nest. Correspondence from the WDFW
[Exhibit 250] repeats this guideline.
21. WDFW's publication "Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian", December 1997, includes a recommendation to "minimize
human activities" within 660 ft. of active Osprey nests and "retain all trees within a…200 ft. radius of a nest." [Exhibit 367, Attachment B, page 1693]
22. Non-SEPA Condition 33 of
the Examiner's Decision and Recommendation would prohibit "grading and exterior construction activities within 660 feet of the nest tree…between April 1st and July 15th".
23. At the
remand hearing, the Applicant submitted a proposed "Osprey Management Plan" [Exhibit 365] for the subject proposal. Prepared by a certified wildlife biologist in February 2004, this
plan provides for two habitat protection zones to be established. A "Primary Protection Zone" would be the area within 200 ft. of the nest. In this zone no trees could be damaged or
removed. In the "Secondary Protection Zone", the area from the 200 ft. radius to the 600 ft. radius of the nest, clearing and construction activities would be limited to between September
1st and April 1st. (Due to the BIMC requirement to have stormwater ponds in place prior to construction of any residence, this Plan includes an exception for two stormwater ponds and
the access roadways which serve them.) The Applicant has agreed to the site management conditions in the Osprey Management Plan and the Director recommends consistency with the Osprey
Management Plan in lieu of Non-SEPA Condition 33 in the Examiner's Decision and Recommendation. [Testimony of Dueker, Green, Machen]
24. WDFW reviewed the Osprey Management Plan and
provided a comment letter dated February 10, 2004 [Exhibit 370]. This correspondence notes that the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species recommendations are "meant only to provide guidance
to local jurisdictions and/or landowners when attempting to protect these habitats and species…" and that protection plans "for the most part, require less buffer distance…" than those
included in the recommendations. Specific to the Osprey Management Plan proposed for this property, the WDFW states: "We believe that this plan provides adequate protection to the existing
Osprey nest" and that the timing restrictions on construction should "significantly reduce any potential disturbance to breeding osprey." WDFW considers the retention of mature trees
between the development and the nest ("to provide a visual and noise barrier from the future development") to be imperative and recommends including grand fir/Pacific silver fir within
the proposed planting plan.
25. The Osprey is not included in the WDFW's latest list of Priority Habitats and Species. [Exhibit 369; Testimony of Machen and Dueker]
Minimizing Impacts
[see Remand, Exhibit 357, page 3]
26. According to the wildlife biologist who prepared the "Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan" for the RUE, the road paving and future use "will not directly
disturb the wetland or it's buffer and will not increase the area previously disturbed" by the construction of the waterline and maintenance road [Exhibit 128, page1]. Direct impact
on the wetland and the wetland buffer would be avoided by restricting roadway improvements to within the same "prism" as the existing road. Impacts to the wetland and the wetland buffer
from the added impervious surface and the increased use of the roadway would be avoided by filtering out pollutants from the stormwater runoff. [Exhibit 367, page 2; Testimony of Machen]
27. The Director notes that the following measures would minimize the "negative impacts" of the road improvement and use and that no additional measures are necessary to minimize the
impacts [Exhibit 367, page 2 and Attachments E and F; Testimony of Machen].
· SEPA Condition 5: Requires compliance with City-approved erosion and sedimentation control plan to prevent
degradation of surface water quality.
· SEPA Condition 9: Requires construction staging areas to be located outside critical areas and their buffers and requires construction fencing
or silt fencing adjacent to critical area buffers prior to any clearing in the vicinity of critical areas.
· SEPA Condition 12: Requires a Water Quality Monitoring Program to ensure
that degradation of water quality would be detected and subject to appropriate corrective action as directed by the City Engineer.
· SEPA Condition 16: Requires that the wetland buffer
mitigation be completed with the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan dated October 2001 [Exhibit 128].
· SEPA Condition 17: Requires monitoring of the wetland buffer restoration, with annual
reports to the City.
· Reduction of the pavement width: The width of Stormy Weather Road and Yankee Girl Road will be decreased from 18 ft. to 12 ft.
Wetland Mitigation [see Remand,
Exhibit 357, page 4]
28. In 2000, Island Utility received conditional approval for a Reasonable Use Exception [Exhibit 347] to permit construction of the "Toe Jam Hill Water Main Extension"
and associated maintenance road through the subject property [see also Finding 3]. Mitigation measures were included to compensate for the anticipated impacts on the wetland and buffer
due to construction activities. [Exhibit 345, pages 2 and 3].
29. In the "Wetland and Stream Crossing Mitigation Plan" [Exhibit 351] for RUE 06-30-99-01, Island Utility proposed,
due to the "significant lack of appropriate areas for construction of new wetland or enhancement of the existing one", that it provide mitigation by donating landscape services. Specifically,
the Utility suggested that it provide those services to remove English Ivy from the "Head of the Bay Park" in an amount equivalent to the costs associated with wetland replacement mitigation
[Exhibit 351, page 4].
30. Island Utility has not completed the mitigation measures required by the approval of RUE 06-30-99-01 allowing for construction of the waterline and maintenance
road. The creation of replacement wetland and wetland buffer and the replanting along the roadway have not been accomplished. [Exhibit 19A and Exhibit 367, Item 4; Testimony of Machen]
31. The
City has not initiated enforcement action against Island Utility to require it to complete the mitigation measures attached to approval of RUE 06-30-99-01.
32. Conditions 16 and 17
of the Examiner's Decision and Recommendation require replanting in accordance with the "Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan" [Exhibit 128] prepared by the Applicant. Rather than to disrupt
the currently "thriving" vegetation of the buffer, the Plan calls for upland shrub plants to be planted adjacent to the roadbed to create an additional vegetative layer. This would
accomplish the roadside replanting mitigation required with the approval of Island Utility's RUE 06-30-99-01. [Exhibit 367, Item 4; Testimony of Machen]
33. Noting that the existing
Category II wetland is "relatively pristine", the Area Habitat Biologist for WDFW has recommended that the required wetland mitigation not occur on site in order to avoid disturbance
to that existing wetland and its forested buffer. [Exhibit 19A]
34. At the remand hearing the Director identified an area on the subject property that would be a potential location
for replacement mitigation. This area, southeast of Yankee Girl road, between the designated buffer and the road, is proposed as open space and could be the location of replacement
mitigation without necessitating any alteration of Phase III or IV lots. The Applicant indicated that he would allow this part of the part of the property to be used in this manner.
[Testimony of Machen and Green]
35. According to the Examiner's Decision and Recommendation [Finding 18 and Conclusion 28], the Applicant for the subject subdivision has agreed to
complete the mitigation measures "required under RUE 06-30-99-1".
Septic Systems [see Remand, Exhibit 357, page 4]
36. In response to a request by the Director, the Bremerton-Kitsap
County Health District has clarified its requirements for the subject subdivision. The Health District states [Exhibit 362] that: 1) lot size "must be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. with
soil type 5"; and, 2) an approved Building Site Application (BSA) for on-site sewage disposal is required for each lot prior to final plat approval. The Health District cautions that
"high groundwater table issues" may result in some lots not being approved (i.e., fewer than the proposed 25 lots could be developed).
37. SEPA Condition 21 requires that an approved
BSA be obtained for each lot in a phase prior to plat approval for that phase. This duplicates the Health Department's requirement noted in Finding 36.
Road Width, Retaining Walls
and Guard Rails [see Remand, Exhibit 357, pages 4 & 5]
38. The Applicant recently requested approval to reduce the width of internal roads within the subdivision from 18 feet to 12
feet. Twelve feet is the City's minimum standard for a road serving fewer than 20 lots. The City Public Works has approved the request for 12 ft. paved widths (except for Stormy Weather
Road from Fort Ward Hill Road to Yankee Girl Road, where it would be serving more than 20 lots). [Exhibit 367, Attachments A, E, and F]
39. The narrower road widths referred to in
Finding 38 is expected to also reduce the size of cut slopes and the height of some retaining walls [Exhibit 367 Item 6; Testimony of Machen]. The Applicant testified at the remand
hearing that the height of the retaining walls would be about half that originally proposed and decorative blocks with planter space in the top row would be used to achieve a more natural,
less stark, appearance. [Testimony of Green]
40. The Applicant does not intend to install any guard rails. Guard rails would only be used where required by the Public Works Department
for safety reasons. [Exhibit 367 Item 6; Testimony of Machen]
41. In light of the narrower road widths noted above, the additional condition included in the Council's remand does not
appear to be necessary.
public comments
42. The following members of the public gave testimony about the proposed subdivision at the remand hearing
· Gary Tripp: Spoke in favor of
the proposal; expressed concern over the septic system lot size requirements relative the large amount of open space to be provided.
· Ron Luke: Spoke about Sunny Hill Creek (also called
Pettersson Creek) which he believes it flows onto the subject property. He believes that the flow is restricted by a partially blocked or crushed culvert located upstream from the subject
property. He specifically requested that this proponent be made to ensure that the culvert that is located under the military fence near the property boundary is clear and unobstructed.
(Mr. Luke also submitted a letter - see Exhibit 361.)
· Christopher Snow: Spoke in support of mitigation plans and expressed concern about "RUE creep" (i.e., exception granted on top
of previous exception – see his letter, Exhibit 277). Mr. Snow also submitted a letter [Exhibit 371] from Julie Kriegh.
· Portia Nalder: Spoke regarding on-going wetlands violations
on "connected properties" and her belief that City Council should investigate and correct personnel problems associated with the wetlands violations situation.
code sections
43. Preliminary
subdivision applications are reviewed by the City Council in accordance with the decision procedures described in BIMC Chapter 2.16, using the decision criteria of BIMC 17.04.094.
44. BIMC
2.16.110(E)(1) directs that when taking an action on a land use application, the City Council shall consider the following:
a. The contents of the application;
b. The minutes of
any public hearing on the application and any written material submitted as part of the public hearing process;
c. The recommendation of the applicable department director;
d. The
recommendation of the hearing examiner; and
e. The decision criteria listed in each section.
45. The Council's procedures, at BIMC 2.16.110(E)(2)(d), provide that the Council may
refer a matter "back to the hearing examiner for further proceedings."
46. The decision criteria for subdivision approval, BIMC 17.04.094, are considered in detail in the Conclusions
section of the Examiner's Decision and Recommendation.
47. BIMC 16.20.090(C)(1) provides that when calculating permitted density:
The director shall not allow credit for density for
the portion of the site occupied by regulated wetlands except in the R-0.4 zone, where complete density credit is allowed for regulated wetlands occupying up to 20 percent of the total
site; provided, that there are no direct impacts to the wetlands or required buffers…(emphasis added)
48. Regarding standards to be applied to Critical Areas, BIMC 16.20.060B provides
that:
…Activities allowed in fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be consistent with the Department of Wildlife primary and secondary priority habitat and species (PHS) management
recommendations, for species located there…
49. BIMC 16.20.020(14) includes "habitats of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, streams and wetlands"
in the definition of “Fish and wildlife habitat”.
Conclusions
1. The Hearing Examiner has the jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings upon remand from the City Council. The
hearing in this matter was properly reconvened and the record reopened.
Density Credit for Wetlands
2. The facts in the record support the conclusion that no direct impacts to the
wetland or wetland buffer would occur as a result of the proposed road improvements and use. The direct impacts that occurred with the construction of the waterline and the maintenance
road are not impacts of this proposal.
3. The density credit has been correctly applied here as the criteria in BIMC 16.20.090(C)(1) are met (i.e., in an R-0.4 zone and no direct
impacts to the wetland or wetland buffer).
Osprey Nest
4. As the WDFW no long includes the Osprey as a "priority species", the issue of consistency with the guidelines for habitat
management required by BIMC 16.20.060(D) is likely moot. In any event, the term "consistent" is not a requirement that the exact guidelines be observed in every case. (If verbatim
duplication was intended, a mandatory term would be used.) It is "consistent" with the recommended guidelines to create a buffer for the Osprey nest by restricting potentially disruptive
activities through requiring both distance and timing limitations.
5. As evidenced by WDFW's endorsement, the proposed "Osprey Management Plan" [Exhibit 365] would create effective
protections consistent with the guidelines. Establishing and implementing the "Osprey Management Plan" is an appropriate means of protecting the neighboring Osprey and should be included
as a condition of approval.
Minimizing Impacts
6. The numerous conditions recommended in the Examiner's Decision and Recommendation [see Finding 27] contribute to minimizing potential
"negative impacts" of the improvement and use of existing road. Also, with the reduction of the width of the internal roads there would a concomitant reduction in the size cuts to adjacent
slopes, the amount of impervious surface, the height retaining walls, etc. As conditioned, the proposal would minimize the potential "negative impacts" of the improvement and use of
existing road; no additional mitigation plan needs to be required.
Wetland Mitigation
7. Island Utility, not this Applicant, is responsible for completing the mitigation measures included
as conditions with the approval of RUE 06-30-99-01. This Applicant cannot be required to undertake the mitigations required for RUE 06-30-99-01. However, some of the intended mitigation
would be achieved by this Applicant implementing the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan [Exhibit 13R] and that should be a condition of approval.
Septic Systems
8. There is no need to
add condition(s) regarding Kitsap County Health District's required minimum lot size relative to use of on-site septic systems. All the proposed lots meet the standard minimum required
lot size and each lot will be considered individually when the permits are sought. Concern that lot reconfiguration could result in more lots can be addressed by adding language to
SEPA Condition 21 to prohibit that possibility.
Road Width, Retaining Walls and Guard Rails
9. The concerns evident in the Council's remand regarding minimizing road size have been
addressed by reducing the width of the internal roads. A condition making the reduction in road width a requirement should ensure the results sought.
Recommendation
The Hearing Examiner
recommends that the application of John Green Development and Construction LLC for preliminary plat approval for the subdivision known as "Summit at Blakely Harbor", be approved with
conditions recommended in the Hearing Examiner's Decision and Recommendation of October 14, 2003, as modified below.
Entered this 26th day of February, 2004.
____________________________
__
Meredith A. Getches
Hearing Examiner pro tem
SEPA Conditions
* * *
16A. Between October 15 and March 31 following completion of the roadway improvements, the
area along the road shall be planted in accord with the The wetland buffer, in the vicinity of the road crossing shall be restored/enhanced with native vegetation in accordance with
the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan [Exhibit 13R], to the satisfaction of the Director. The plantings shall be monitored as described in the Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan and the monitoring
results reported to the Director.
* * *
21. Prior to final plat approval of any phase, approval from the Kitsap County Health District must be obtained for individual on-site septic
system designs for each lot in that phase. If any lot(s) must be reconfigured to obtain such approval, the reconfiguration shall occur within the boundaries of the applicable phase
and no resulting lot shall be less than 20,000 square feet in size. Reconfiguration may result in fewer, but not more lots in each phase than the number noted in Remand Finding 1.
*
* *
Non- SEPA Conditions
* * *
33. In order to protect Osprey during the critical nesting period, grading and exterior construction activities within 660 feet of the nest tree shall
be prohibited between April 1st and July 15th the Osprey on the property adjacent to the east, the Applicant shall include grand fir/Pacific silver fir in the Osprey Management Plan
[Exhibit 365] as recommended by WDFW and shall implement the Osprey Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director.
* * *
52. The Applicant shall reduce the widths of internal
road to 12 ft. as approved by the Public Works Department. Use of retaining walls is to be minimized and guard rails shall be used only as required by the Public Works Department for
safety purposes.