040607bristleridgehexdecisionDECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Appeal of Director's Approval of
BRISTLE RIDGE SHORT PLAT
by the "Bainbridge Island Keepers"
and Stephanie Ross
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
APR 0 6 2007 SPT13737
DEPT OF PLANNING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
The Director approved an application for a preliminary short subdivision (two parcels
into nine lots) and that decision was appealed. The Hearing Examiner conducted an open
record appeal hearing beginning on January 18, 2007, continuing on January 19, 2007,
February 1, 2007, February 8, 2007, and concluding on February 13, 2007. Parties were
represented at the hearing as follows: the Director, Planning and Community
Development Department (PCD or Department), by Rod Kaseguma, attorney for the City
of Bainbridge Island; the Applicant, Kelly Samson, by Ryan Vancil, attorney at law; and,
the Appellants, "Bainbridge Island Keepers" and Stephanie Ross, by Stephanie Ross and
Sally Adams, pro se. The record was closed on March 9, 2007, after receipt of written
closing statements.
After due consideration of all the evidence in the record, the following shall constitute the
findings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this appeal. All evidence
admitted in to the record was considered in making this decision. References to exhibits
and testimony that are shown in brackets denote some of the evidence relied upon; these
references are not intended as exclusive or exhaustive.
FINDINGS
DESCRIPTION
Site
1. The 16.57 -acre site, north of Blakely Harbor in the Port Blakely neighborhood,
consists of two adjacent parcels created through a 1999 Large Lot Subdivision [see
Exhibit 51] and subsequent Lot Boundary Adjustment. The Samson Family Land
Company owns one parcel containing 14.28 acres (Assessor's account number 022402 -4-
071- 2000); Richard and Carolyn Swanson and Zwicker Construction own the other, a
2.29 -acre parcel (Assessor's account number 022402 -4- 070 - 2001). Located northeast of
the intersection of Blakely Hill Road NE and NE Halls Hill Road, the site is bounded on
the west by Blakely Hill Road and on the south by Halls Hill Road. [Exhibit 1, pages 1, 6
and Attachment A; Exhibit 18, Sheet 1/7; Exhibit 51; Testimony ofMachen]
SPT13737
Page 1 of 22
APR G pm12 26
2. The preliminary short plat map [Exhibit 18, Sheet 2/7] gives the legal description
as: "Resultant Parcels C and D of the Halls Hill III Boundary Line Adjustment recorded
under Kitsap County Auditor's File No. 20040060287" and notes that it is:
SE %4, NW 1/4, SW 1/4., NE %4
Government Lot 2, and Government Lot 3
SE.2, - 124N., R.2E., W.M.
City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington
`;i
3. The site has residential zoning (R -0.4). The R -0.4 zone has the City's largest
minimum lot size: 2.5 acres (100,00.0 sq. ft.). The Comprehensive Plan designation is
OSR -0.4 (Open Space Residential). [Staff Report, Exhibit 1, pages 6 -8; Exhibit 18, Sheet
2/7; Testimony ofMachen] -The, purpose of this zone [see BIMC 18.36.010 ] is:
... to provide low densily housing in a rural environment consistent with other
land uses, such as agriculture and forestry, and the preservation ofnatural
systems and open space. The low density ofhousing does not require the full
range of urban services and facilities.
4. Site slopes are gentle to moderate in the northern and central portions, but are
steep in the southern and western portions; steepening significantly along the cut slopes
of Blakely Hill Road and Halls Hill Road [see Exhibit 18, Sheet 3]. There are two former
logging roads: one runs east /west across the center of the site, is in the approximate
location of the proposed new road [see Finding 121, and the other splits off from the
east /west road between Wetland 9 and Wetland 10, and extends into properties to the
north [see Exhibit 18, Sheet 3/7]. [Exhibit 1, page I and Attachment O; Exhibit 2,
Attachment D; Exhibit 18, Exhibit 35; Sheet 3/7; Exhibits Testimony ofMachen]
5. Three Category III wetlands are located in the northern half of site [see Finding
29]. There are two south - flowing stream systems in the vicinity that drain to the north
shore of Blakely Harbor (one is west /southwest of the subject site and the other is
east /southeast of the subject site [see illustrated in Exhibit 60].
6 _ The subject site,_ once part_ of the extensive _ holdings of the Port Blakely _Mill
Company, was logged many years ago and more recently in the 1980's. As with other
areas on the Island, after having been logged, the site was subsequently covered by
second - growth forest. This extensive and dense forest cover has been drastically reduced
in recent years. The north - central part of the site has been subject to tree thinning and
removal (under a Forest Practices Application permit) and to extensive clearing of
primarily invasive non - native plants (under a Vegetation Management permit)
[Testimony Samson]. Even allowing for seasonal differences (i.e., loss of leaves from
deciduous trees in winter), it is evident from aerial photographs and witness testimony
that at least until 1992, the area was fully forested [see 1992 aerial, Exhibit 43]. Aerial
photographs taken between 2001 and 2006 show the tree "canopy" increasingly and
noticeably reduced in areal extent and tree density. By 2006, most of central part of the
site (including between Wetland 9 and Wetland 10) and a large area north of the site, had
been totally cleared of vegetation to Halls Hill Road (see also Finding 50). [Exhibit 1,
Attachment Q -14, and Document F, Soames letter; Exhibit 2, Document A; Exhibit 18,
Sheet 7/7; Exhibits 35 and 431
SPT13737
Page 2 of 22
7. The area around the subject site is comprised of undeveloped and developed
residential property; there are single - family residences on properties adjacent to the north
and east. Zoning designations are R -0.4 on the north, east, and west, and R -2 on the
south. The Comprehensive Plan designations (Open Space Residential: OSR -0.4 and
OSR -2) correspond to the zoning designations. [Exhibit 2, Staff Report, , page 7]
8. Across Halls Hill Roads (downslope) to the south, aligned generally parallel to
Halls Hill Road, is Seaborn Road. The area between Halls Hill Road (on the north) and
Seaborn Road (on the south) has very steep slopes [see e.g., topography shown in Exhibit
61 and Attachment D, Exhibit 1]. Along the south side of Seaborn Road, a dozen
residences line the shore of Blakely Harbor. Some of the residents of this Seaborn Road
neighborhood are appellants here. [Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 7; Exhibit 18, Sheet 1/7;
Testimony of Machen]
PROPOSAL
Lots
9. With a 'gross land area of 721,707 sq. ft., this R -0.4 zoned site would
accommodate seven 100,000 sq. ft. lots. The Applicant proposes to include two
"affordable" lots to take advantage of the "density bonus" provisions of BIMC
18.90.030C. If a subdivision includes "affordable housing" opportunities, these
provisions allow for additional lots over the base density of the zone. The reservation of
lots `for purchase" by households whose incomes are "at or below moderate - income"
allows for an increase of up to 40% more than the base density. Here the "bonus density"
allows two additional lots over the base, for a total of nine lots. [Testimony of Machen;
Samson]
10. The `Bristle Ridge" subdivision application proposes nine lots (Lots R through Z)
and two open space tracts. The lots would be sold for subsequent residential
development by the individual lot owners. [Exhibit 18, Sheet 4/7; Exhibit 1, Attachments
A; Exhibit Testimony of Machen; Testimony of Samson] The proposed lots range in size
from 38,297 sq. ft. to 48,817 sq. ft. (see below). The proposed lots are allowed at sizes
less than the 1000,000 -sq. ft. minimum because the flexible lot standards of BIMC
17.12.090 apply (including minimum lot size), rather than the R -0.4 zone standards. The
lots, flanking a slightly curving access road, would have somewhat irregular shapes
(rather than laid out in a rectangular, grid -like pattern). [Exhibit 18, Sheet 41
SPT13737
Page 3 of 22
Size
Lot
R
44,065
Lot
S
48,817
Lot
T
39,163
Lot
U
465161
Lot
V
41,847
Lot
W
40,685
Lot
X
38,297
Lot
Y
48,334
Lot
Z
46,531
Total
393,900 sq. ft.
SPT13737
Page 3 of 22
11. The application [Exhibit 1, Attachment A] shows setbacks and lot dimensions as
follows:
Building to building separation
Building to subdivision boundary
Building to right -of -way: Halls Hill
Building to right -of -way: Blakely Hill
Building to trail, open space
Lot size (with on -site septic)
Lot coverage
Infrastructure/Utilities
Proposed
Required
10
ft.
Minimum
10
ft.
25
ft.
Minimum
15
ft.
50
ft.
Minimum
50
ft.
50
ft.
Minimum
50
ft.
10
ft.
Minimum
10
ft.
32,200 sq.
ft.
Minimum
12,500
sq. ft.
85020 sq.
ft.
Maximum
10%
12. One new street is proposed. (Halls Hill Road and Blakely Hill Road are existing
public streets, not part of this proposal.) The proposed new internal street, "Bristle Ridge
Road ", would be developed to the City's "suburban residential" standards (12 -ft. wide
asphalt roadway, 3 -ft. wide shoulders, turn -outs every 300 ft., and a cul -de -sac).
Approximately 850 -ft. long, the road would be in a dedicated right -of -way providing
access to Halls Hill Road through property adjacent to the east. [Exhibit 18, Sheets 3/7,
4/7 and 6/7; Exhibit 1, Attachments A, D, L; Testimony of Browne]
13. In addition to the Bristle Ridge Road right -of -way dedication within the short
plat, the Applicant would provide right -of -way dedication along Blakely Hill Road and
plans indicate "proposed right -of -way dedication" for the access easement through the
adjacent property [Exhibit 18, Sheet 6/7]. The Applicant gave permission for the Halls
Hill Road cut slope repairs [see Finding 50] and has indicated [Exhibit 1, Attachment L;
Testimony of Samson] that he will dedicate right -of -way larger than what is standard.
Director's Condition 29 would require 30 ft. wide easements along the Hall Hill Road
and Blakely Hill Road frontages for the City to address road cut slope issues (see also the
Public Works Department comment, Exhibit 1, Attachment R]).
14. The Island Utility has committed to serve water the proposed lots. An 8 -inch
water main is proposed along the new roadway from existing Island Utility main nearby.
New fire hydrants, spaced 600 ft. apart, would be installed consistent with City
requirements. [Exhibit 18; Exhibit 1, Attachments A, D, J, O, P; Testimony ofMachen]
15. On -site septic systems are proposed for six of the lots. Due to the presence of
shallow groundwater, drainfields for Lots W, X, and Y are proposed to be located in
Open Space Tract 2, north of the internal access road. The Kitsap Health District has
given preliminary approval, but separate Building Site Application review and approval
would be required prior to issuance of individual building permits. [Exhibit 18; Exhibit
1, Attachments A. D, M O; Testimony of Myers, Machen]
16. The preliminary utility plan indicates that stormwater runoff would be collected
from new impervious surfaces (road and future residential development), collected and
conveyed by swales, drainage ditches and pipes, and ultimately discharged to Blakely
Harbor. [Exhibit 1, Attachments D, E; Exhibit 18; Exhibit 29 or 61; Testimony of
Browne] See also Findings 58 -61.
SPT13737
Page 4 of 22
DIRECTOR'S REVIEW AND DECISION
17. The original application was submitted in 2005, with a revision having been
submitted on November 23, 2005. That revised application was deemed "complete" on
November 29, 2005 [Exhibit 19]. In January 2006, PCD required the Applicant to
provide additional information on a number of issues [Exhibit 1, page 7]. The Applicant
submitted a revised application [Exhibit 1, Attachment A] and completed environmental
checklist [Exhibit 1, Attachment C] on June 12, 2006. On June 13, 2006, PCD indicated
this application to be "technically complete" [Attachment H. Exhibit 1]. Notice of the
submittal of the revised application and SEPA comment period was reissued on June 24,
2006. This record does not include the original or revised applications submitted in 2005,
nor does it inform as to how those submittals differed from the 2006 version.
18. Public comments were received during the Director's review [Ross, Exhibit 1,
Attachment Q; Penn, Brackett, Exhibit 2]. The PCD Staff Report summarizes and
responds to the concerns expressed in those comments [Exhibit 1, pages 8 -9]. As noted
in the Staff Report, major concerns were: clearing, drainage /erosion, traffic, and critical
areas.
Director's Conditions of Approval
19. BIMC 17.12.106 provides (emphasis added) that the Director "may approve,
approve with modification or disapprove an application for preliminary short subdivision
based on the criteria in BIMC 17.12.107. " On October 24, 2006 the Director gave notice
of administrative decision for conditional approval of the short plat and a SEPA
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) [Exhibit 24]. That Notice includes
the Director's conditions of approval [pages 2 -61 and references the Staff Report [Exhibit
1] as the basis for the Director's decision.
20. The Director approval is conditioned upon meeting numerous conditions [see
Conditions 1 -33, Exhibit 24, pages 2 -61. These conditions would effectively modify the
proposal by requiring additional actions, submittals, and mitigating measures. Conditions
of the preliminary short plat approval must be met in order for the application for a final
plat to be approved.
21. Conditions 1 through 10 [see Exhibit 24] are "SEPA Conditions ", imposed by the
Director to mitigate potential environmental impacts so as to allow for the issuance of the
MDNS [see Findings 19 and 22]. The MDNS states the Director had determined that the
proposal would "not have a probable significant impact on the environment" and
consequently, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
22. The Director's SEPA conditions to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts would require that:
• To prevent and/or minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction, a
Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), approved by the
City as meeting applicable standards, must be adhered to during any
construction. [Condition 2]
• To increase slope stability and provide protective buffer, the recommendations of
the geotechnical engineer shall be implemented: residences shall not be permitted
SPT13737
Page 5 of 22
closer than 60 feet from the top of the existing cut slope adjacent to Halls Hill
Road; a curtain drain shall be installed no closer than 50 feet from the existing
cut slope; and, the existing vegetation shall be maintained and augmented with an
approved replanting plan. [Condition 3]
• To mitigate for potential adverse impacts from geologic hazards, a geotechnical
report addressing individual residence construction on lots adjacent to the Halls
Hill Road cut must be submitted prior to building permit issuance. [Condition 4]
• All geologically hazardous areas and their 50 foot buffers shall be designated as
open space and maintained as no cut/no build areas to mitigate potential
geologically hazards. [Condition 5]
• Temporary construction fencing shall be placed between the lots and designated
open space areas prior to any clearing or grading to mitigate potential adverse
impacts to critical areas. [Condition 6]
• School impact fees shall be paid. [Condition 7]
• To mitigate potential traffic safety issues associated with children waiting for the
school bus and for those using public transit, a bus shelter shall be constructed in
a safe location. [Condition 81
• To ensure adherence with applicable protective regulations, non - exempt tree
harvesting must have the appropriate Forest Practices Permit from the
Department of Natural Resources. [Condition 9]
• To mitigate potential adverse impacts to historical or archaeological resources,
construction activities will stop immediately and appropriate agencies notified if
any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during excavation or
construction. [Condition 10]
23. "Non -SEPA Conditions" [Conditions 11 -33; see Exhibit 24] include requirements
based on other -than SEPA substantial authority, but many of them could provide
mitigation of potential environmental impacts. These conditions include:
• The final plat maps shall show the increased buffer on the east wetland in Open
Space Tract 1, in accordance with the wetland mitigation/restoration plan.
[Condition 11]
• The final plat shall be submitted in substantial compliance with preliminary plat
drawings date stamped as received June 12, 2006, except as modified by
conditions of approval. [Condition 121
• Required public and private improvements, facilities, and infrastructure shall be
completed, have final inspection and approval prior to final plat approval.
[Condition 13]
• The building setbacks and lot coverage requirements shall be shown on the final
plat maps. [Condition 161
• Plans submitted with the final plat application shall show a 15 foot setback from
the wetland buffer on lots R and S. [Condition 17]
• A final Open Space Management Plan shall be submitted with the final plat
application and then recorded with the final plat. The final plan shall include:
identification of allowed uses, designation of a management entity, frequency
SPT13737
Page 6 of 22
and scope of maintenance activities, a plan for protecting the open space during
and after construction, and provisions for the removal of invasive species and for
the general enhancement of wildlife habitat. [Condition 18]
The open space shall be placed in an easement or shall be protected through
restrictive covenants or similar legal means. [Condition 19]
• Appropriate pedestrian trails shall be provided within the plat and connecting to
adjacent neighborhoods. The plat utilities permit application shall include civil
drawings show trail locations (alongside Bristle Ridge Road, connecting with
Halls Hill Road between lots U and V, and connecting with Blakely Hill Road at
the northeast comer of the subdivision). [Conditions 20 and 21]
• The applicant shall designate the "affordable housing" lots in the final plat and
those lots shall be provided for purchase by qualified "moderate" income
households in accordance with the affordable housing requirements of BIMC
Chapter 18.90. [Condition 22]
• Civil engineering plans shall be provided prior to final short plat approval.
[Condition 26]
• The City's standard geotechnical submittal forms must be completed and
approved before final inspection of any construction. [Condition 271
• Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, an indemnification agreement
consistent with BIMC 16.20 shall be provided to the City. [Condition 281
• A 30 foot slope easement along Halls Hill Road and Blakely all Road shall be
dedicated for the City to address the slope stability problems. [Condition 291
• The new access road within the subdivision shall be constructed to the City's
"suburban residential" standards. [Condition 30]
• An individual Building Site Application must be approved by the Kitsap Health
District for each drainfield and a certified installer is required for any clearing of
the drainfield areas. [Conditions 31 and 32]
APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION
24. BIMC 2.16.130F:1 authorizes the Hearing Examiner, after holding an open record
public hearing on the appeal of the Director's decision, to: "affirm the decision; reverse
the decision; affirm the decision with modifications; or remand to the decision to the
department director for further consideration." BIMC 2.16.13 OF. I prescribes that the
Hearing Examiner render decision on the appeal "giving substantial weight to the
decision of the department director." To overcome the substantial weight accorded the
Director, it must be shown that the Director's decision was clearly erroneous.
25. On November 6, 2006, the appeal of the Director's decision was timely filed
[Exhibit 2]. As "grounds" for appeal it is asserted in the appeal statement [page 3], that
the Director's decision is in violation of a lengthy list of sections of the Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code (BIMC), many Comprehensive Plan goals, the Federal Clean Water Act,
the Washington State Growth Management Act, and both the State and Federal
Constitutions. As clarified in preheating submittals, at hearing, and in the Appellants'
closing statement, the appeal challenges the Director's approval of the short plat as
erroneous because certain materials and documentation were not submitted with the
SPT13737
Page 7 of 22
application. Further, Appellants assert that plat approval would not be in the public
interest due to what they see as the increased risks of harm to the downslope Seaborn
Road neighbors from more stormwater runoff, slope failure, and traffic associated with
development of the subject site. Neither the adequacy of the SEPA threshold
determination (MDNS) nor individual SEPA conditions were expressly challenged.
26. Notice of the appeal hearing was properly made with posting, mailing, and
publication completed by January 3, 2007 [Exhibit 3]. The hearing began on January 18,
2007, continued on January 19, February 1, February 8, and concluded on February 13,
2007.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
27. This appeal is part of the City's administrative process. The Hearing Examiner
reviews the Director's decision in light of the City's criteria for approval. A number of
the "issues" raised by the Appellants, including constitutional claims (e.g., deprivation of
the right "to life and freedom from injury ", violation of the "common good ", etc.), are not
within the Hearing Examiner's purview. The direct application of State and Federal
permit requirements is also outside the City Hearing Examiner's authority.
28. A primary assertion by the Appellants is that the Director erred in making this
decision because the application does not include (or did not include at time of its
submittal) all items noted as "required" in an application for a short subdivision. BIMC
17.12.102B (emphasis added) provides that for a preliminary short plat application:
Appendix B(2) of this title establishes and lists the various submittal
requirements... The director may specify type, detail, and number of copies of
submittal requirements listed in Appendix B(2) for an application to be complete.
The director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be
unnecessary for review of an application.
The Director has, in effect, exercised this authority; it is not error to do what the Code
expressly anticipates and authorizes. Appellants arguments founded on this "issue"
should be; and are, rejected.
Wetlands
29. Three wetlands on the subject site (Wetland 9, Wetland 10, and Wetland 11) were
among the 46 wetlands identified in a 1990 evaluation of the 1200 -acre Port Blakely Mill
Company property conducted by Jones & Stokes [Exhibit 32]. The 46 wetlands,
covering a combined total of 69.9 acres, varied from small, isolated pockets, to areas
larger than 8 acres. Five wetlands were found to be "Category I ", the highest rating in
rating system. The three wetlands within the subject site were given the Category III
rating:
Wetland
Size
Rating
Wetland
Type
Required
Buffer
9
0.25
III
Palustrine scrub -shrub
50 ft. wide
10
0.67
III
Palustrine scrub- shrub/Palustrine emergent marsh
50 ft. wide
11
0.45
III
Palustrine emergent marsh/Palustrine scrub -shrub
50 ft. wide
SPT13737
Page 8 of 22
30. A review of the Jones & Stokes report conducted in 1997 by a consulting
biologist [Exhibit 33], affirmed the descriptions, sizes, and ratings for Wetlands 9, 10 and
11.
31. In December 2005, some of the 25,000 cubic yards of imported fill that the
Applicant had placed on his adjacent property to the north (to create some sort of
recreational area or "ball field "), slumped onto the subject site. This slide event resulted
in fill coming into the buffer wetland to the edge of Wetland 10, in violation of the City's
wetland protection ordinance. [Exhibit 36; Testimony of Carr]
32. Measures were taken to stabilize the slumping fill to keep it from intruding further
into the buffer and /or the wetland (see e.g., straw bales, plastic sheeting, hydroseeding in
Exhibit 35]. The City's Code enforcement action required that the Applicant prepare and
implement a plan to mitigate for the effects of the fill. This "Wetland Buffer Mitigation
Plan" [Exhibit 36], prepared by Applicant's wetland consultants, called for several
mitigating measures, including:
• Overall expansion of Wetland 10
• Relocation of the buffer relative to expansion of Wetland 10
• Planting native plants on the southeastern edge of the wetland
33. In October 2006, City staff did an inspection and found that planting had been
done "in accordance with the mitigation plan" [Exhibit.2, Comment 21. This compliance
review apparently evaluated only implementation the Planting Plan [i.e., plantings shown
in Figure 2 and Table 1 in Exhibit 36]. Other mitigation measures (e.g., stormwater
conveyance and "turf maintenance" on Samson's adjacent property and other "long -term
monitoring and maintenance "), will presumably be evaluated in the City's review of
required "yearly" monitoring reports [see page 7, Exhibit 36].
34. The preliminary plat maps [Sheets 1 -7, Exhibit 18] do not show the expansion of
Wetland 10 and relocation of the wetland buffer required by the Mitigation Plan [see
Figure 2, Exhibit 36 and Exhibit 34]. During the hearing (January 2007), the boundaries
of Wetland 10 (with the expansion required by the Mitigation Plan), were "flagged" by
Applicant's wetland consultant. (This work was apparently in conjunction with a new
delineation of the wetlands done in December 2006.) The flags were surveyed and
wetland boundaries and buffers redrawn; Exhibit 52 is the result. [Testimony of Carr].
No written report regarding the new delineation was submitted into this record.
35. The revised mapping [Exhibit 521 shows "original" and revised boundaries for all
three wetlands. The areas of Wetland 9 and Wetland 11 are similar to "original ", but the
shapes are somewhat different. Wetland 11 is larger and its buffer relocated to comply
with the Mitigation Plan. The southern boundaries of the buffer for Wetland 10 and
Wetland 11 now are shown encroaching into proposed lots R and S. [Testimony Carr]
36. Plat maps submitted with the final plat application would have to show the
redrawn boundaries of the wetlands and the wetland buffers. The boundaries of proposed
Lots R and S and proposed Open Space Tract 2 would need to be revised to comport to
the enlarged /changed wetland and buffer areas.
SPT13737
Page 9 of 22
37. BIMC 16.20.090H requires 50 -ft. wide buffers for Category III wetlands. The
three Category III wetlands on the subject site are required to have 50 -ft. wide buffers.
Appellants disagree with the Category III rating for Wetlands 10 and 11 and contend that
the proper rating is Category II, which would require a 100 -ft. wide buffer. Appropriate
"Wetland Rating Forms" for Wetland 10 and Wetland 11 were completed by the
Appellants' expert [Brewster, Exhibit 381 and by the Applicant's expert [Carr, Exhibit
541. The Category III classification requires a rating score in the range of 30 -50 points;
Category II requires a score in the range of 51 -69 points. The ratings' scores were as
follow:
Applicant Appellant
Wetland 10: 37 points = Category III 56 points = Category II
Wetland 11: 38 points = Category III 52 points = Category II
38. The experts who completed and reviewed the ratings [Brewster, Carr, and
Christensen] gave credible testimony and have the education, experience and training
qualifying them to perform wetland ratings. The decisive factor that gave rise to the
different category scores was the experts' judgments with regard to use of a "multiplier"
for water quality and /or hydrologic functions. That is, where the Appellants' expert
[Brewster] found use of (a doubling) multiplier to be justified; the Applicant's expert
[Carr] did not. This is, as revealed by the considerable testimony and cross examination
of the experts, a matter professional judgment, not mistake. The explanations given by
the Applicant's expert as to why the D.2 and DA multipliers are appropriately "1" rather
than "2 ", well- reasoned and based on sound observations of conditions both on and off
site, were more persuasive. The Category III rating for the subject wetlands was not
shown to be incorrect.
Open Space Management Plan (OSMP)
39. Open space tracts, wetlands and wetland buffers must "be clearly marked as an
easement on the plat' and the restrictions on the use of open space tracts, wetlands and
wetland buffers must be "...included in the open space management plan... " [BIMC
16.20.090D].
40. The BIMC 17.12.092H standards for the contents of an OSMP for short
subdivisions include: a list of approved uses and a plan for maintenance indicating the
frequency and scope of maintenance activities (with provisions for: replacement of
significant trees, identification of who is responsible for maintenance, protection during
construction, and removal of invasive species).
41. Appellants criticize the draft Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) [Exhibit 1,
Attachment F] as failing to satisfy the basic standards for such a plan. The draft plan is
incomplete as it does not clearly or adequately address the elements required to be
included in the OSMP. Director's Condition 18 requires that a final OSMP be included
in the final plat application. The Director's decision was not in error in this regard as
BIMC 17.12.082H (emphasis added) specifically provides for a "draft' to be submitted
for review in the preliminary plat application and that "...approval of the OSMP occur at
the time o1 final plat approval. "
SPT13737
Page 10 of 22
42. The draft OSMP would allow "formal... recreation ", "pasture and related
agricultural buildings ", and "wildlife viewing stands" [Exhibit 1, Attachment F]. As
revealed by evidence in this record, open space within the subject site is comprised nearly
entirely of wetlands, wetland buffers, building setbacks, retained tree canopy, and steep
slopes. Given that, it would be inconsistent with preservation of valued open space
features and protection of critical areas [see BIMC 17.12.092] to allow those uses.
43. Open space areas are to be "permanently maintained" [BIMC 17.12.082H]. The
draft OSMP (emphasis added) indicates only that: "Open spaces areas shall be
maintained by the Open Space Owner." This is unacceptably vague. The final plat
application must address and resolve questions of owner and responsibility for long -term
maintenance. If open space is to be owned communally, appropriate legal provisions
must be made in the final plat to establish a homeowners association or other mechanism
that facilitates implementation of the OSMP and puts subsequent purchasers on notice as
to their responsibilities and limitations.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
44. "Geologically hazardous areas" are defined in BIMC 16.20.020 (17) as areas:
...susceptible to erosion, sliding or other geological events. They pose a
threat to the health and safety of citizens when used as sites for
incompatible commercial, residential or industrial development.
Geologically hazardous areas include erosion hazard areas, landslide
hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas.
45. Due to their potential for landslide [see "Landslide hazard areas" defined at
BIMC 16.20.020(24)(d)], the slopes along Halls Hill Road and along Blakely Hill Road
that are in excess of 40 %, have been correctly identified by the Director as "geologically
hazardous areas ". [Staff Report, Exhibit 1, page 11; Testimony ofMachen]
46. Slopes of 15 -40% can also be considered landslide hazard areas when springs or
groundwater are present and clay -type soils are overlain with sandy soils. Much of the
southern half of the site has slopes of 15% or greater, but the other landslide hazard
indicators [see BIMC 16.20.020(24)(b) -(f)] are not present. [Exhibit 1, Attachment O;
Exhibit 2D; Exhibit 85; Testimony of Myers]
47. The subject site does not contain areas properly considered "high erosion hazard
areas" [see BIMC 16.20.020(24); Testimony of Myers]. Similarly, although there are
two strands of the Seattle Fault Zone nearby (Macs Pond Fault to the north and Toe Jam
Hill Fault to the south) and the site is subject to "seismic induced ground shaking" (as is
the rest of the region), the soil conditions noted in BIMC 16.20.020(34) as indicative of
likely "severe risk of damage" (emphasis added), are not. [Exhibit 1, Attachment O;
Exhibits 26 -27; Testimony of Myers, Pride]
48. A highly qualified geotechnical engineer /engineering geologist with extensive
experience, including evaluations and projects on Bainbridge Island, prepared a slope
evaluation for the proposed short plat [Exhibit 1, Attachment O]. This report notes that
the northern part of the site is capped by glacial till with Blakely Formation bedrock
comprising the majority of the site and extending under the glacial till. The Blakely
SPT13737
Page 11 of 22
Formation is underlain with marine sandstone, mudstone, and conglomerate bedrock.
[Exhibit 1, Attachment O; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 30; Testimony Myers, Perrone]
49. The geotechnical evaluation [Exhibit 1, Attachment O] and testimony of the
engineer at hearing [Exhibits 75 and 76; Testimony of Myers] credibly established that
the rock layers ( "beds ") angle away from (are opposite to) the angle of the cut slope; the
layers of harder rock are angled so as to impede, not increase landslides. This subsurface
configuration indicates that run -out from deep ( "block ") failure extending down to
Seaborn Road would be unlikely (not a "high risk" as maintained by Appellants). The
geotechnical reports prepared for the City regarding Halls Hill Road [Exhibit 23: Report
1, Figure 3; Report 2, pages 1 and 3; Report 3, pages 3 -51 contain similar evaluation and
conclusions regarding subsurface configuration and potential for bedrock slope failure.
50. In the past, the Halls Hill Road cut slopes bordering the south side of the subject
site were much steeper. A geotechnical assessment conducted in 2001 [Exhibit 23,
Report 1, page 2 -3 and see Figure 31 estimated that the road cut slopes at that time
"varied from about 75 degrees from horizontal on the west, to 35 -50 degrees on the east ".
In 2001, the City expanded the road cut, moving the top of the road cut slope north into
the subject site, removing the very steep grades and overhanging vegetation. The
resultant slopes [see in Exhibit 21 and photos: Exhibits 10, 11, 24 -281 are "steep" (30 -35
degrees; 58 -70 %), but are noticeably less steep than the former road cut slopes. [Exhibit
1, Attachment O]
51. Water (runoff and groundwater) and steepness of slope are two major factors
contributing to slope failure; slides are less likely on drier and "flatter" slopes. While the
steepness of the Halls Hill Road cut slopes were reduced considerably in 2001,
groundwater seepage is problematic and localized slumps have continued to occur and
have required corrective measures [see e.g., Exhibits 28C and D, 73, and 74].
52. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer recommends installation of a "curtain
drain cast /west across the subject site. This subsurface drain, with an upslope swale (see
cross sections, Exhibit 63], would be installed 50 feet north of the crest of the slope to
intercept groundwater and runoff. While the curtain drain would not keep the road cut
slope "dry ", it would intercept runoff and near surface groundwater, thus reducing the
amount of water in and on the cut slope to create greater resistance to sliding. The
geotechnical engineer also recommends that future residences on lots adjacent to the road
cut slopes be setback a minimum of 60 ft. [Exhibit 1, Attachment O; Exhibit 23, Report
3; Testimony of Myers
53. There have been slope failures in the past on the steep slope between Halls Hill
Road and Seaborn Road [see Exhibit 61 and Finding 81. Soil creep and slumping
continues to occur. Run off crossing Halls Hill Road from upslope is a contributing
factor (e.g., in 2006 the southern edge of Halls Hill Road was sandbagged in an attempt
to keep runoff from reaching this slope). To the extent that drainage improvements on
the subject site would reduce the amount of runoff reaching this slope, risk of slides
would be decreased. [Exhibit 2, Comment 2, Appendix 6; Exhibit 23, Report 1; Exhibit
28C & D]
SPT13737
Page 12 of 22
54. Appellants' geotechnical engineer testified and reported that, in his opinion
[Exhibit 2, Comment 2, Appendix 6; Testimony of Perrone], the factors contributing to
the road cut slope failures had not been sufficiently investigated and that "large block
failures" are a risk for the Seaborn Road residents. The Applicant's geotechnical
engineer rebutted these criticisms by reporting that soil borings and soil lab test results
have been considered and explaining subsurface conditions. [Exhibits 75, 76 and 78;
Testimony of Myers].
55. Appellants assert that geologically hazardous conditions affecting the subject site,
and affected by it, present unavoidable and unacceptable risks that would be aggravated
by the proposed short plat. This claim has not been sustained. Credible evidence
indicates that risk of slope failure would be decreased, not unavoidably increased.
[Testimony of Myers, Browne]
Stormwater Drainage
56. As in many parts of the Island, storm water runoff in this area has been
problematic [see e.g., Exhibits 42, 44 -48, and 50] and existing drainage facilities have
overflowed onto public roadways. In recent years, there have been increased amounts of
runoff and more sedimentation where stream discharges enter Blakely Harbor.
Neighbors credibly testified that these increases are likely linked to removal of forest
cover upstream. [Testimony of Winston, Brennan; Penn].
57. As described in the preliminary utility plan [Exhibit 1; Attachment D], the subject
site has three drainage basins: Basin A, that drains the northwest part of the site,
including Wetland 10 and Wetland 11; Basin B, that drains most of the site where the
new road and future residences would be located; and, in the easternmost part of the site,
Basin C that drains southeast off the site, to a small stream and into Blakely Harbor.
58. Development of the subject site would add impervious surfaces (new roadway,
residences, etc.). Precipitation falling on these impervious surfaces, rather than running
off or sinking into site soils, would be collected and conveyed offsite by subsurface
drains, biofiltration swales, catchbasins, and pipes. These drainage facilities would be
connected by tightline to the existing drainage collection system downstream at 3T Road,
with discharge to Blakely Harbor through an existing culvert and outfall. [Exhibit 1,
Attachment D; Exhibits 61, 62 and 63; Testimony of Browne]
59. The engineer's analyses for the proposed drainage improvements included flow
calculations both for `before' and `after' development. The engineer concluded that that
the downstream drainage system has sufficient calculated capacity to convey the peak
flow from the fully developed subdivision. In conducting this analysis, the engineer also
found that the existing T -3 Road culvert was in poor condition and should be replaced.
(This culvert had been replaced by the time of the appeal hearing.) [Exhibit 1,
Attachment D; Exhibits 61, 62 and 63; Testimony of Browne]
60. The preliminary drainage plan is not a design for construction of improvements.
BIMC Chapter 15.20 provides that Director of the Public Works Department administer
the City's Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance. Public Works Department
recommended approval of the preliminary plat application subject to conditions. Those
SPT13737
Page 13 of 22
conditions include that the final plat and construction permit phases include engineer -
prepared plans for storm water facilities that demonstrate compliance with the City's
stormwater and erosion control ordinance [see BIMC 15.20.060] to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
61. Drainage improvements within Basin B would include a "curtain drain" behind
the existing top of slope along the Halls Hill Road cut as recommended by the
geotechnical engineer [see Finding 52]. [Exhibit 1, Attachment D; Exhibits 61, 62 and
63; Testimony of Browne]
62. There is an existing stormwater detention pond located downslope on adjacent
property to the east that collects runoff from within Basin C [see map, Exhibit 1,
Attachment D]. Because he did not expect any impervious surfaces to discharge into the
Basin C drainage, the civil engineer did not include in the preliminary utilities plan
analyses of the capacity of the pond or receiving stream to the southeast. As a section of
the new road may drain to the southeast, appropriate downstream capacity assessment(s)
and particulars for stormwater facilities should be included in plans for site improvements
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. [Exhibit 1, Attachments D; Exhibit
63, Sheet 2 of 3; Testimony of Browne,,Machen]
63. Appellants claim that the Director has erred in not requiring additional and more
detailed analyses in the preliminary drainage plan and in not requiring compliance with
Best Management Practices (BMPs) regulations. BIMC Title 17, Appendix B(2), states
(at B.5, emphasis added): "A conceptual storm water plan illustrating the proposed
means of storm water runoff disposal' is to be submitted for the City's review of a
preliminary short subdivision application. The analysis and information provided in this
application regarding the proposed drainage improvements were prepared by a qualified
civil engineer and have flow capacity calculations and analyses, maps, and cross - section
drawings of proposed facilities. This level of detail is sufficient for the City's review as a
"conceptual' storm water plan. Best Management Practices are obligatory by Code and
would be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plans as required by
Condition 2.
64. Appellants believe and assert that development of the proposed lots would result
in dangerous increases in stormwater runoff that would aggravate existing conditions
and /or cause "excessive sedimentation, streambank erosion, discharges to ground water,
water quality violations, spills and discharges of priority pollutants, and impacts to public
rights of way ". [See Appellants' Closing Brief, page 28 et seq.] As noted above, these
claims are not sustained by the evidence in the record [see Findings 51, 52; 58 and 59].
Comprehensive Plan Goals
65. The PCD Staff Report [Exhibit 1] includes an analysis of the proposal's
consistency with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. That analysis
[Section D, pages 9 and 10] is adopted by reference as Findings of this Hearing Examiner
decision.
66. The proposed short subdivision is consistent with goals of the Comprehensive
Plan:
SPT13737
Page 14 of 22
• Residential Open Space
Goals for protecting the environment and island character would be met
by: having all proposed lots outside prescribed wetland buffers; requiring
steep slope buffer; preserving critical areas and their buffers; providing
designated open space; and, complying with the flexible lot design
subdivision process and regulations.
• Environment
The goals for the protection of natural systems and critical areas would be
met by locating proposed lots outside critical areas and providing long-
term protection for critical areas with buffers, building setbacks, and open
space restrictions.
• Fish and Wildlife
This site is not designated as priority habitat for protected species, but the
preservation and protection of trees and critical areas in open space and
buffers would be consistent with these goals.
Aquatic Resources (Wetlands)
Consistent with goals for aquatic resources, the three wetlands on -site
(considered aquatic resources under the Comprehensive Plan) would be
protected by disallowing development within the wetlands and wetland
buffers, required building setbacks, and placing the wetlands in Open
Space Tracts.
■ Geolo ig cally.Hazardous Areas
Consistent with these goals, geologically hazardous areas have been
reviewed by a geotechnical engineer and the engineer's recommendations
shall be implemented with the installation of a curtain drain to increase
slope stability and the requirement for individual geotechnical evaluations
to specify conditions for construction of residences.
• Non- motorized Transportation Plan
This site is not designated for non - motorized transportation facilities, but
the inclusion of pedestrian trials is consistent with the goals of the Non -
motorized Transportation Plan.
• Housine
The inclusion of two lots for purchase by moderate income households
pursuant to BIMC Chapter 18.90 would be consistent with and further the
goals of increasing and diversifying affordable housing opportunities.
67. The Director was not in error in finding consistency with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
SPT13737
Page 15 of 22
Other Concerns
68. Appellants assert in their appeal statement that there may be insufficient water
supply to serve the proposed lots. No evidence in, support of this contention was
presented at hearing and the commitment for water service [Exhibit 1, Attachment P]
refutes it.
69. The appeal also asserts "Traffic" is an issue and that the increased traffic
associated with the development of the short plat would be contrary to the public interest.
This claim is negated by the "Certificate of Concurrency" [Exhibit 1, Attachment S]
issued by the City Engineer. Required by BIMC 15.32.040, this certification documents
the Public Works Department's finding that there is sufficient capacity in affected
transportation facilities to serve the vehicle trips generated by the development of the
subject site.
70. Appellants also assert that approval of the subdivision would not be in the public
interest because future residents, when traveling on the adjacent roads, would be exposed
to unacceptable risks of landslides. It is undisputed that landslides and "road failures"
have occurred in this vicinity [see e.g.; in photos, Exhibits 22, 29, 30]). However, site
improvements, decreasing the amount of water on and in the Halls Hill Road cut slope,
would reduce the potential for slides [see Findings 52 and 531.
71. The Director's finding that the proposed subdivision is in the public interest
[Exhibit 1, page 15, Item F.3.b.] is not in error. As established in the record here, the
proposed plat would be in the public interest in that it would provide: drainage facilities
to control and convey stormwater flows; reduction in the risk of slope failure and
roadway damage by intercepting runoff and groundwater and conveying away from the
road cut slope; two affordable "for- purchase" housing opportunities; dedication and
maintenance of open space; preservation and protection for three Category III wetlands;
adequate water service and sewage disposal; dedication of public rights -of -way for Halls
Hill Road and Blakely Hill Road; residential density and building setbacks consistent
with the R -0.4 zoning; protective buffers for critical areas; and, an access road built to
City design standards in a dedicated right -of -way
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal and, in
making that decision, must give substantial weight to the decision of the Director. To
overcome the deference accorded the Director, it must be shown that the Director's
decision was clearly erroneous.
2. The subject application does not encompass the Applicant's cutting of trees and
clearing of vegetation on this site or the placing of fill that intruded into the buffer of
Wetland 10. Temporary and /or other corrective actions taken by the City relative to road
cut slopes within or along adjacent public roadways are also not component parts of the
application.
3. Wetlands 9, 10 and 11 are properly designated "Category III ". The final plat
application. should be conditioned to accurately and clearly identify the expanded wetland
SPT13737
Page 16 of 22
and wetland buffer boundaries consistent with Findings 34, 35, and 36 above. To ensure
effective protection for these critical areas, no wetland or wetland buffer should be within
any proposed lot; Lots R and S should be redrawn to accomplish this.
4. It was not an error for the Director to review a draft of the Open Space
Management Plan and to require that final Open Space Management Plan, containing all
the elements and specificity required by the Code, be included in the final plat
application. This approach is expressly contemplated by the Code. Consistent with
Findings 42 and 43 above, the final OSMP should only allows uses and have provisions
that are compatible with the preservation and protection of the natural and critical areas
within the open space.
S. The Director has not been shown to be in error regarding the identification and
consideration of geologically hazardous conditions. The steep slopes along Halls Hill
Road and Blakely Hill Road are properly designated and should be protected as "no
cut /no build open space. The proposed curtain drain and future residences should be
setback consistent with the setbacks recommended by the Applicant's geotechnical
engineer [see Finding 52].
6. The Director's reliance on the analyses and recommendations of the Applicant's
geotechnical engineer has not been shown to be a mistake. The recommended drainage
improvements are reasonably anticipated to increase resistance to sliding so as to
decrease the risk of slope failures in the Halls Hill Road cut [see Findings 52 and 53].
7. For the submittal of the final short subdivision application, the proposed plat must
be revised in compliance with the Director's conditions of approval as those conditions
are modified in accord with this decision. Consistent with BIMC 17.12.080C, the final
plat application shall include a composite site map that accurately shows and clearly
labels the following features:
topography of the entire site (2 ft. contours; field measured);
wetland and wetland buffer boundaries for Wetlands 9, 10, and 11 (including expanded
wetland areas and relocated buffers as shown in Exhibit 52);
areas of designated open space;
existing and retained tree canopy;
all setbacks, required and proposed (including building setbacks from buffers, road cut
slopes, etc.);
all easements, existing and proposed;
dedicated public rights -of -way, existing and proposed;
existing "top of slope" of Halls Hill Road cut;
approximate location of curtain drain behind the top of slope of the Halls Hill Road cut;
pavement edge and center line of Halls Hill Road and Blakely Hill Road;
slopes over 15% and slopes over 40 %; and
proposed lots and open space tracts
8. Significant adverse environmental impacts have not been established. The SEPA
threshold determination is not erroneous and the Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance (MDNS) should be affirmed.
SPT13737
Page 17 of 22
9. The Director has not been shown to have erred. Approval of preliminary short
plat SPT13737 should be affirmed with the Director's conditions modified as necessary
to be consistent with this decision.
DECISION
The Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance and the conditional approval issued by
the Director regarding the Short Plat application of Kelly Samson [SPT137371 and is
hereby AFFIRMED As MODIFIED with Conditions I through 33 which follow on pages 19
through 22.
Entered this 6th day of April 2007.
(signed in original)
Meredith A. Getches
Hearing Examiner
CONCERNING FURTHER REVIEW
NOTE: _ It is the responsibility of a person seeking review of a Hearing Examiner
decision to consult applicable Code sections and other appropriate sources, including
State law, to determine his/her rights and responsibilities relative to appeal.
Request for judicial review of this decision by a person with standing can be made by filing a
land use petition in superior court within 21 days in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act,
Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 36.70C (see also BIMC 2.16.130F.6).
SPT13737
Page 18 of 22
SPT13737
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SEPA Conditions
1. The following note shall be placed on the final plat: "Prior to any clearing, or grading
on individual lots, a clearing, grading and /or building permit shall be obtained from
the City."
2. Prior to issuance of any permit for construction (including clearing, grading, excavating,
or other earthwork, building, etc.) a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan
(TESCP) must be submitted and approved by the City. Prior to any construction
occurring between October 1 and April 31, a TESCP specifically addressing wet weather
conditions must be reviewed and approved by the city engineer.
3. In accordance with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, residences shall not be
permitted closer than 60 feet from the top of the cut slope adjacent to Halls Hill Road. A
curtain drain shall be installed no closer than 50 feet from the top of the road cut slope.
Existing vegetation must be maintained and augmented, pursuant to an approved planting
plan, provided that invasive species shall be removed consistent with that plan as
accepted by the geotechnical engineer.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any lot adjacent to the Halls Hill Road cut
slopes, a geotechnical report addressing the construction of each residence shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval (such reports shall address and include as
recommended by the geotechnical engineer, but not be limited to, the inclusion of curtain
and/or other drains and an approved vegetation augmentation plan).
5. All geologically hazardous areas and their 50 foot buffers shall be designated and
maintained as "no cut/no build" (except for alterations made pursuant to a City approved
slope /road stabilization project). A planting plan (including the removal of non- native
invasive plants) approved by the City and the geotechnical engineer, shall be
implemented in these buffer areas. Trees in the buffers may be limbed and trimmed to
maintain view corridors. Trees deemed by a certified arborist to be a hazard to a
residential structure consistent with BIMC Chapter 18.85.
6. Prior to any clearing, grading, excavating or other earthwork, temporary construction
fencing shall be placed between that work and designated open space and critical areas.
Prior to final plat approval, either a low impact fence or signs delineating the boundary of
the open space and critical areas shall be installed. If signs are used, the signs shall be
placed at no more than 50 foot intervals.
7. School impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the following provisions: prior to
final plat approval, the applicant shall pay one half of the school impact fee in effect at
the time of final plat approval. Subsequent to plat recordation and prior to building
permit issuance, an applicant constructing a new residence on any of the created lots shall
pay one half of the school impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
8. In order to provide a safe location for children waiting for the school bus and for those
using public transit, a bus shelter shall be constructed at a location approved by the City
that is: near the bus stop at the intersection of Halls Hill Road and Blakely Hill Road, or
at the intersection of the new access road and Halls Hill Road, or at or the intersection of
Rockaway Bluff and Halls Hill Road. The bus shelter shall either have been constructed
or an assurance device provided, prior to final plat approval.
SPT13737
Page 19 of 22
9. Any non - exempt tree harvesting shall require the appropriate Forest Practices Permit(s)
from the Department of Natural Resources. The conditions of the Bristle Ridge Short
Plat SPT 13737 shall become conditions of the Forest Practices Permit.
10. Contractors are required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of Planning
and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered during
excavation or construction.
Non -SEPA Conditions
11. A. The final plat application (and the final plat Mylars) shall include the expanded
wetland boundaries of Wetlands 9, 10, and 11, and the associated relocated wetland
buffers, shown Exhibit 52; wetland areas and wetland buffers shall be within the Open
Space Tracts.
B. In the application for the plat utility, the drainage plan shall be revised if and as
necessary to address runoff within drainage Basin C from the new road; appropriate
conveyance and/or other facilities shall be included as approved by the City Engineer.
C. Consistent with BIMC 17.12.080C, the final plat application shall include a
composite site map that accurately shows and clearly labels the following features:
• topography of the entire site (2 ft. contours; field measured);
• wetland and wetland buffer boundaries for Wetlands 9, 10, and 11 (including
expanded wetland areas and relocated buffers as shown in Exhibit 52);
• areas of designated open space;
• existing and retained tree canopy;
• all setbacks, required and proposed (including building setbacks from buffers, road
cut slopes, etc.);
• all easements existing and proposed;
• dedicated public rights -of -way; existing and proposed;
• existing "top of slope" of Halls Hill Road cut;
• approximate location of curtain drain behind the top of slope of the Halls Hill Road
cut;
• pavement edge and center line of Halls Hill Road and Blakely Hill Road;
• slopes over 15% and slopes over 40 %; and
• proposed lots and open space tracts
12. The final plat shall be submitted in substantial compliance with preliminary plat drawings
date stamped as received June 12, 2006, AS MODIFIED BY THESE CONDITIONS.
13. Public and private improvements, facilities, and infrastructure on and off the site that are
required for this subdivision, shall be completed, have final inspection and approval prior
to final plat approval. Approval of public facilities will be shown by a formal letter of
acceptance from the city engineer. An assurance device acceptable to the City may be
used in lieu of physical completion to secure and provide for the completion of necessary
facilities which are not considered by the City engineering department to be life, health,
or safety related items. Any such assurance device shall be in place prior to final plat
approval, shall enumerate in detail the items being assured and shall require that all such
items will be completed and approved by the City within one year of the date of final plat
approval. While lots created by the recording of the final plat may be sold, no occupancy
of any structure will be allowed until the required improvements are formally accepted by
the City. Additionally, a prominent note on the face of the final plat drawing shall state:
SPT13737
Page 20 of 22
"The lots created by this plat are subject to conditions of an assurance device held
by the City for the completion of certain necessary facilities. Building permits may
not be issued and /or occupancy may not be allowed until such necessary facilities
are completed and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island. All purchasers shall
satisfy themselves as to the status of completion of the necessary facilities."
14. All lot corners shall be staked with three - quarter -inch, galvanized -iron pipe and locator
stakes along with all other applicable survey provisions of the Washington
Administrative Code.
15. A plat certificate shall be provided with the final plat application.
16. The following building setback and lot coverage requirements must be shown on the final
plat:
Setback
orC4YCr;} QRe
ulrements
R¢ "wired
Measurement
Building-to-building
Minimum 10 feet
Building to short plat boundary
Minimum 25 feet
Building to open space
Minimum 10 feet
Building to wetland buffer
Minimum 15 feet
Building to access road (NE Bristle Ridge Road)
Minimum 15 feet
Building to Blakely Hill Road NE
Minimum 50 feet
Building to NF Halls Hill Road
Minimum 50 feet
Maximum lot coverage per lot.
8,018 square feet
17. The final plat application (and the final plat Mylars) shall show and label the setbacks
noted in Condition 16, including a 15 foot setback from the relocated wetland buffers; see
Condition 11A above.
18. A final Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) shall be submitted with the final plat
application for the Director's review and approval. The approved final OSMP shall be
recorded with the final plat. At the level of detail consistent with the Findings of this
decision, the final OSMP shall include and identify: allowed and prohibited uses,
designation of a management entity, frequency and scope of maintenance activities, a
plan for protecting the open space during and after construction, and provisions for the
removal of invasive species and for the general enhancement of wildlife habitat. Uses
allowed and other OSMP provisions shall only be those that are compatible with the
preservation and protection of the natural and critical areas within the. open space.
19. All designated open space must be placed in an easement, and/or protected through
restrictive covenants or by other legal means.
20. With the plat utilities permit application, the applicant shall submit civil drawings showing
the approximate location of three pedestrian trails (i.e., alongside the proposed access road
connecting the access road with Halls Hill Road; centered on the common property line
between lots U and V; and, through the open space connecting with Blakely Hill Road at the
northeast corner of the subdivision). The trails shall be installed or appropriate assurance
device provided prior to final plat approval and shall be inspected by the city engineer.
Maintenance of these trails shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association unless
the trail is dedicated to the City or the Parks District. In the event that a trail is not
maintained, the City shall have the right to provide the maintenance thereof and bill the
owner for the cost of the maintenance.
21. All pedestrian trails within the subdivision (see Condition 20) shall be 4 to 6 foot wide,
constructed with a four inch layer of crushed' /a inch gravel over a geotextile mat barrier.
SPT13737
Page 21 of 22
Removal of vegetation for the trail construction shall be strictly limited to a maximum six
foot swath (no soil disturbance shall occur outside of the six foot trail construction
corridor). All the pedestrian trails shall be "field -fit" between or around existing trees, to
avoid the removal of significant trees. To provide for safe use, limbs and branches up to
9 feet over the trail and within 1 foot of the trail edges are to be removed.
22. At the time of submittal of the final plat application, the applicant shall designate
affordable housing lots as necessary and appropriate to qualify for the affordable housing
density bonus. These affordable housing lots shall be for purchase only by households of
moderate income or less, in accordance with the requirements of BIMC Chapter 18.90.
23. If the final plat is split into phases, each phase must be able to stand on its own at the
time of final plat.
24. Fire hydrants are to be provided every 600 feet. All hydrants shall be fitted with a 4 inch
Storz coupling attached to the steamer connection.
25. Approved street names, traffic regulatory signs, and accessible mailbox locations that do
not restrict pedestrian access must be shown on the construction drawings which shall be
submitted prior to final plat. Mailboxes or their support systems shall not extend over or
within one ft. of any traveled way including sidewalks, paths, bike lanes, shoulders or
auto lanes.
26. The applicant shall provide and have City approval of the civil engineering plans prior to
final short plat approval. A photocopy of the City's requirements for approval must be
included on the face of the construction plans. (These shall be at the original font size or
larger and shall include space for inspection/review /approval of each separate
requirement.) The applicant is required to retain their engineer of record to complete
some of the inspections as special inspections.
27. The geotechnical report, along with the City's standard geotechnical submittal forms
Parts I and 2, must be submitted and approved; Part 3 of the form must be approved
before final inspection of any construction.
28. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits within the plat an indemnification
agreement consistent with BIMC 16.20 shall be provided to the City for recording.
29. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 30 foot wide slope easement along Halls Hill
Road and Blakely Hill Road to facilitate corrective actions relative to slope stability
problems on those roads.
30. The roadways within the subdivision shall be "suburban residential" per city standards
(DWG7 -065, 066 and 067), 12 feet wide with turn-outs every 300 feet in a 30 foot
dedicated public right -of -way, with a cul -de -sac per city standards DWG 8 -010.
31. A Kitsap county certified installer shall do all clearing of the drainfield areas in order to
prevent removal of soils.
32. A main extension and binding water commitment must be in place with Island Utility
prior to final plat approval and approval of any BSA's.
33. Conditions 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 31 shall be listed on the final plat Mylar.
SPT13737
Page 22 of 22