022704 John GreenCITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
HEARING EXAMINER
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
ON REMAND
In the Matter of the Application of
JOHN GREEN DEVELOPMENT
& CONSTRUCTION LLC
SUB 11204
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
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 1 of 12
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, page 10; 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 I IR, 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]
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 2 of 12
11M1u /_\►1C
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 (Le., "...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.
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 3 of 12
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
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 4 of 12
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 1 st 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
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 5 of 12
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, pagel]. 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].
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 6 of 12
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 ".
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 7 of 12
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.
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 8 of 12
• 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)
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 9 of 12
48. Regarding standards to be applied to Critical Areas, BIMC 16.20.06013 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 defmition 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(0)(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.
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 10 of 12
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
SUB 11201 Remand
Page I I of 12
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 , in the vieinity of the road er-ossing sha
r-ester-ed,lenhaneed with native vegetation in aeeer-danee 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 d-ufin - the efitical nesting period, gFad ng
prohibited between April 14 -And 'i ly 15 th—the Osprey on the property
adjacent to the east, the Applicant shall include grand fir /Pacific silver fir
in the Osprey Management Plan [Exhibit 3651 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 s required by the Public
Works Department for safety — purposes.
SUB 11201 Remand
Page 12 of 12