CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
BEFORE THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
PAUL and JENNIFER CLARK
NO. PLN 50467 VEG
Appellants,
V.
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND'S
PREHEARING BRIEF
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, acting
through its Department of Planning and
Community Development.
Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION - STATEMENT OF FACTS
This matter comes before the Hearing Examiner on the appeal of Paul and Jennifer Clark
from two actions of the City of Bainbridge Island's Department of Planning and Community
Development: (a) the Director's October 6, 2016 decision to revoke the Vegetation Management
Permit issued to the Clarks on July 13, 2016 under City File No. PLN50467 VEG; and (b) the
Director's Review and Decision on Appeal of Warning of Violation and Order to Correct and
Accompanying Stop Work Order dated December 12, 2016. The Director's October 6, 2016
decision revoking the Vegetation Management Permit has been appealed under Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code (`BIMC ") § 2.16.020(P)(1)(a), BIMC 2.16.020(C)(2), and BIMC §2.16.010 (Table
2.16.010 -1). The Director's Review and Decision on Appeal has been appealed under BIMC §
1.26.070(D) and BIMC § 2.16.020(P)(1)(a). The appeals have been consolidated for hearing on
April 26, 2016. For the reasons set forth in this Prehearing Brief and in the testimony to be provided
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - I
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447 - 7000 /Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
at the hearing in this matter, both decisions of the City were correct under the applicable provisions
of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code.
The Clark property is located at 7501 Twins Pond Road in the City of Bainbridge Island. The
property is approximately 2.34 acres in size and is zoned R -0.4, a designation that allows for the
development of single - family homes. Prior to the purchase of the property by the Clarks in January
2016, the property was an undeveloped, forested tract with a seasonal stream running through the
extreme southeastern corner of the land.
Shortly after purchasing the property, the Clarks applied for a clearing and grading permit
from the City on February 23, 2016. The clearing and grading permit application requested approval
"to remove 4 -5 trees to get the property ready for driveway and well." February 23, 2016 Clearing
and Grading Application at p. 3 (Listed as Exhibit 1 on City's Witness and Exhibit List). The
application also indicated that the proposal was to clear less than 7000 square feet and to remove less
than 5000 board feet of timber. Id. A site plan was submitted with the clearing permit application
that showed the location of and the entire area proposed for clearing in yellow cross - hatch. Clearing
and Grading Permit Site Plan (Listed as Exhibit 2 on City's Witness and Exhibit List). According to
the legend on the site plan, which appears to correspond to the 12 criteria for site assessment/harvest
plans set forth in BIMC 16.22.070.J, the driveway and well site are shown in pink cross - hatch, the
entire area proposed for to be cleared for the house, well site and septic drainfield are shown in
yellow cross - hatch, and the area to remain in forest is shown in blue cross - hatch. Id. An aerial
photograph of the property showing its heavily forested state was also submitted with the clearing
and grading application. Aerial Photograph (Listed as Exhibit 2 on City's Witness and Exhibit List).
On March 2, 2016, the City issued the clearing permit for "removing 4 -5 significant trees and
some vegitation [sic] in preparation for future development." Clearing Permit for Clark Property
dated March 2, 2016 (Listed as Exhibit 3 on City's Witness and Exhibit List). Six specific
conditions were imposed in the clearing permit, four of which are relevant to the current appeal:
Amount of timber removed shall not exceed 5000 board feet pursuant
to BIMC 16.18.030.
Total area of disturbance shall not exceed 7000 square feet.
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 2
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206-447-7000/Fax: 206-447-0215
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Only limited grading and stump removal is authorized, associated
specifically with a construction access way between the road and site
shown on the site plan submitted February 23, 2016.
No vegetation removal beyond that described on the application form
provided by the applicant is approved.
Id. The permit thus authorized only the removal of 4 -5 trees (the trees described in the application),
the disturbance of less than 7000 square feet in the yellow cross - hatched area, and the limited
grading and stump removal required to complete the driveway shown on the site plan in pink.
After the issuance of the clearing and grading permit, the Clarks began clearing their
property. When it became apparent from neighbor complaints that the Clarks were clearing beyond
the 4 -5 trees authorized and the limits of the driveway, the City urged the Clarks to apply for a
Vegetation Management Permit that would allow them to remove more than 5000 square feet of
timber and clear more than 7000 square feet. On March 9, 2016, the Clarks submitted a Vegetation
Management Permit Application. After being informed by the City that their application did not
include a required site plan, the Clarks submitted a site plan on April 12, 2016. Site Plan dated April
12, 2016 (Listed as Exhibit 4 on the City's Witness and Exhibit List). The site plan showed two
areas proposed to be cleared in pink cross - hatch: (a) a building envelope labeled "house" located
along the north boundary line of the property and (b) a rectangular area labeled " Garden/Yard" along
the western boundary of the site. Id. The remainder of the site, shown in olive cross - hatch, was to
remain in its forested state. Id. According to a notation in the upper left corner of the site plan, the
total area to be cleared was 17,000 square feet, or roughly 17% of the 2.34 acre site.
On July 12, 2016, the Clarks submitted a revised site plan. Site Plan attached to Vegetation
Management Permit, Hearing Examiner's Exhibit 1(B). Under the revised site plan, the area to be
cleared for the house remained the same and was shown in pink cross - hatch. Id. The area proposed
to be cleared for the garden/yard was substantially reduced and a haul route was added, both of
which were shown in a solid salmon color. Id. The remainder of the site was shown in yellow cross-
hatch as remaining in its forested state. Id. The notation in the upper left corner of the site plan
continued to state that that the total area to be cleared was 17,000 square feet. Id.
{JEHI572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 3
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447- 7000/Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Based on the revised site plan, the City issued a Vegetation Management Permit to the Clarks
on July 13, 2016. Vegetation Management Permit, Hearing Examiner's Exhibit 1. According to the
Notice of Administrative Decision and Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued
on July 13, 2016, the approval was subject to six specific conditions, three of which are significant
with respect to this appeal:
2. This approval extends to the clearing of vegetation within the
"Revised Garden Area," "Haul Route," and homesite area
represented on the revised site plan submitted and date stamped
July 12, 2016 (included as attachment B of staff report).
3. All significant trees in the area of the on -site sewer (OSS)
system drainfield shall be retained.
4. Total of clearing under this approval shall not exceed 20,000
square feet of area.
After receiving the Vegetation Management Permit, the Clarks resumed clearing activities on
their property. In response to numerous citizen complaints, City staff made several site visits to
inspect the clearing activities. During those site visits, Robert Grant, Survey Program Manager with
the City of Bainbridge Island Department of Public Works - Engineering, used a hand held
instrument to survey the areas on the Clark property that had been cleared of vegetation. According
to the testimony that Mr. Grant will give at the hearing, the total area cleared by the Clarks is 33,278
square feet, more than one and one -half times the maximum 20,000 square foot clearing area
approved in the July 13, 2016 Vegetation Management Permit. As shown by two graphics prepared
by Mr. Grant, the cleared area far exceeded the "Revised Garden Area," Haul Route," and homesite
areas shown on the site plan approved with the Vegetation Management Permit on July 13, 2016.
Drawing showing Clearing Areas for Parcel 282502 - 035 -2008 dated October 28, 2016 (Listed as
Exhibit 5 on City's Witness and Exhibit List); Aerial Photograph of Parcel 282502 - 035 -2008 with
Clearing Areas and Parcel Boundaries from Drawing Superimposed, dated October 28, 2016 (Listed
as Exhibit 6 on City's Witness and Exhibit List).
Based on the observations made during the City staff s site visits, the City's Director of
Planning and Community Development, Gary Christensen, revoked the Vegetation Management
Permit on October 6, 2016 and notified the Clarks of his decision to do so and to refer the matter to
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 4
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447 - 7000 /Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the City's Code Compliance Officer, Greg Vause. Hearing Examiner's Exhibit 5. On October 13,
2016, Mr. Vause issued a Warning of Violation and Notice to Correct, ordering the Clarks to stop all
work on their property and to bring the property into compliance with the Vegetation Management
Permit and the BIMC within 10 days.
On October 20, 2016, the Clarks filed an appeal of the revocation decision with the Hearing
Examiner under BIMC § 2.16.020(P)(1)(a), BIMC 2.16.020(C)(2), and BIMC §2.16.010 (Table
2.16.010 -1). The Clarks also sought review of the Code Compliance Officer's Warning of Violation
and Order to Correct by Mr. Christensen under BIMC 1.26.070. After informal review meetings
were held between Mr. Christensen and the Clarks on November 8 and 17, 2016, Mr. Christensen
issued a decision on December 12, 2016 upholding the Warning of Violation and Order to Correct.
On December 23, 2016, the Clarks appealed Mr. Christensen's decision to the Hearing Examiner
pursuant to BIMC § 1.26.070(D) and BIMC § 2.16.020(P)(1)(a).
II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Did the Clarks violate the conditions of the approved Vegetation Management Permit
by clearing an area on their property in excess of 20,000 square feet and by clearing outside of the
areas authorized by the VMP? [YES].
2. Did the Director properly revoke the Vegetation Management Permit for the
violation? [YES]
3. Did the Director properly uphold the Code Compliance Officer's Notice of Warning
of Violation and Stop Work Order? [YES].
4. Are there specific penalties to be imposed upon the Clarks for violation of the
Vegetation Management Permit? [YES].
III. ARGUMENT
A. THE CLARKS VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF THE JULY 13, 2016 VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT PERMIT WHEN THEY CLEARED OVER 33,000 SQUARE FEET OF
THEIR PROPERTY AND CLEARED OUTSIDE OF THE AREAS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED SITE PLAN.
1. The July 13, 2016 . Vegetation Management Permit Explicitly Limited Clearing to the
Areas Designated "House," "Haul Route," and "Revised Garden Area" on the Approved Site Plan
and Provided that Clearing was Not to Exceed 20,000 Square Feet.
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 5
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447- 7000/Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
27
N:
Under the conditions of approval for July 13, 2016 Vegetation Management Permit, the
Clarks were explicitly limited to clearing only certain well- defined areas of their property. Condition
2 expressly limited the authorization provided by the permit "to the clearing of vegetation within the
`Revised Garden Area,' `Haul Route,' and homesite area represented on the revised site plan
submitted and date stamped July 12, 2006 (included as `Attachment B' of staff report)." Notice of
Administrative Decision and Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS at 2. Condition 4
expressly limited the total amount of the clearing, regardless of which area of the site it was in:
"Total of clearing under this approval shall not exceed 20,000 square feet of area." Id. There is no
ambiguity to these conditions and the Vegetation Management Permit was limited by their scope.
2. The Clarks Cleared More than 20.000 Square Feet and in Areas Outside of the Areas
Designated "House," "Haul Route," and "Revised Garden Area" on the Approved Site Plan.
As will be testified to and shown graphically at the hearing, the Clarks cleared outside of the
areas designated "house" "haul route," and "revised garden area" on the approved site plan.
"Clearing" is not defined in Chapter 16.22 BIMC, but the term is defined in Chapter 16.18 BIMC, a
companion chapter.' Under BIMC § 16.18.020, "'[ c]learing' means the destruction or removal of
vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical means." Under both BIMC § 16.18.020 and BIMC §
16.22.020(FF), "'[v]egetation' means plant matter, including trees, shrubs, and ground cover." Thus,
under the BIMC, any "destruction or removal" of any "plant matter, including trees shrubs, and
ground cover," constitutes clearing and requires either a land clearing permit under Chapter 16.18
BIMC or a vegetation management permit under Chapter 16.22 BIMC, unless exempt under those
chapters.
The Clarks' argument that they did not violate the Vegetation Management Permit because
they did not "clear" but merely "disturbed" more than 20,000 square feet of their property is a
distinction without a difference. The BIMC defines "clearing" as any activity that destroys or
removes any vegetation, including ground cover and so the term "clearing" encompasses far more
t Chapter 16.18 BIMC, Land Clearing, deals with clearing of areas less than 7000 square feet and with timber harvest of
less than 500 board feet, while Chapter 16.22, Vegetation Management, deals with clearing of areas totaling more that
7000 square feet and/or involving more than 5000 board feet of timber harvest.
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 6
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447 - 7000 /Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
than the removal of trees or large plants. Moreover, BIMC § 16.18.010(C) expressly states that one
of the purposes of the City's clearing; ordinance is "to promote land development practices that result
in a minimal disturbance to the city's vegetation and native soil structure and protect infiltration
capacity." Thus, the BIMC recognizes that the destruction and removal of any plant matter,
including trees, shrubs, and ground cover, disturbs the native soil and can be accomplished only with
a clearing permit (if less than 5000 board feet are being removed and the clearing area is less than
7000 square feet) or a vegetation management permit (if more than 5000 board feet are being
removed or more than 7000 square feet is being cleared). In this case, the Clarks destroyed or
removed vegetation from over 33,000 square feet of their property and thus "cleared" in excess of the
20,000 square foot authorization granted by the Vegetation Management Permit.
3. The 20,000 Square Feet of Clearing Authorized by the July 13, 2016 Vegetation
Management Permit Included the 7,000 Square Feet Authorized by the February 25, 201 6 Clearing,
Permit Issued and the Amount of Clearing Authorized by the two Permits Cannot be Cumulated.
The Clarks' argument that they did not violate the Vegetation Management Permit because
the 20,000 square feet of clearing authorized by the July 13, 2016 VMP was in addition to the 7000
square feet authorized by the February 25, 2016 Clearing Permit is not consistent with a review of
the permits. First, it is important to recognize that the square foot limits established by the permits
cannot be read in isolation. While 7000 square feet of clearing was authorized by the February 25,
2016 Clearing Permit and 20,000 square feet of clearing was authorized by the July 13, 2016 VMP,
both permits attached site plans showing the specific areas of the site in which the 'clearing was
authorized and outside of which clearing was not to occur. The Clarks' attempt to read the two
permits as cumulatively authorizing 27,000 square feet of clearing focuses on the gross square
footage of clearing while ignoring the fact that the site plans limited that clearing to specific areas.
Second, when the approved VMP site plan is compared with the approved Clearing Permit
site plan, it is readily apparent that the specific locations authorized for clearing are essentially the
same with two exceptions: (1) the "haul route" and "revised garden" areas on the VMP site plan
appear to be a westward, "L- shaped" extension of the clearing area authorized by the Clearing Permit
for the well site; and (2) the septic system drainfield shown as being cleared on the approved
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 7
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206-447-7000/Fax: 206-447-0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Clearing Permit site plan is shown as remaining in a forested state on the approved VMP site plan.2
Because the areas authorized by the two permits are essentially the same or at least substantially if
not completely overlap, there is no reasonable way to construe the two permits as being cumulative,
i.e., as authorizing a total clearing area of 27,000 square feet. The only reasonable construction of
the two site plans is that the approved VMP site plan supersedes the approved Clearing Permit site
plan and that the 20,000 square foot clearing limit in the VMP included the 7000 square feet
previously authorized in the Clearing Permit.
Finally, the legend on the approved VMP site plan indicates that all areas shown as yellow
cross - hatched are "[p]roposed areas to remain in forest," and that none of these areas are to be
"cleared of vegetation" or "thinned of trees. "3 If the Vegetation Management Permit somehow
authorized 20,000 square feet of additional clearing beyond that shown on the Clearing Permit site
plan, the approved VMP site plan would have shown clearing over a far greater area than just the
pink cross - hatched and salmon colored areas on the plan and would not have shown all of the yellow
cross - hatched areas as "areas to remain in forest." The Clarks' argument that the square footage
totals in the two permits was cumulative simply ignores the approved site plans and is an
unreasonable construction of the permits.
4. Even if the Amount of Clearing Authorized by the July 13 Vegetation Management
Permit and February 25, 2016 Clearing Permit Could be Cumulated, the Clearing undertaken by the
Clarks Exceeded the Cumulated Amount.
Even if the Clarks could somehow convince the Hearing Examiner that 27,000 square feet of
clearing was authorized on their property, the Clarks would still be in violation of the VMP. As will
be testified to at the hearing, the Clarks cleared 33,278 square feet of their property, over 5,000
square feet more than even the cumulative 27,000 square foot number would allow. In addition, it
must be remembered that the Vegetation Management Permit was conditioned not only on an
absolute clearing limit of 20,000 square feet, but also on clearing taking place only "within the
2 Condition 3 of the approved VMP site plan requires that "[a]ll significant trees in the area of the on -site sewer (OSS)
system drainfield shall be retained.
3 The legend on the site plan corresponds to the requirements of BIMC § 16.22.070(J) including the requirements to
show, per subsection (4) "Proposed areas to remain in forest," per subsection (5) "Proposed areas to be cleared of
vegetation," and per subsection (6) "Proposed areas to be thinned of trees."
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 8
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206-447-7000/Fax: 206-447-0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
IN
`Revised Garden Area,' `Haul Route,' and homesite area represented on the revised site plan
submitted and date stamped July 12, 2016 (included as `Attachment B' of staff report)." Thus,
regardless of the number of square feet authorized for clearing, the clearing was expressly limited to
the areas shown on the site plan and the clearing done by the Clarks far exceeded those limits.
B. THE DIRECTOR PROPERLY REVOKED THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
PERMIT UNDER BIMC § 16.22.097.
BIMC § 16.22.097(A) provides that
A vegetation management permit may be revoked by the director upon
the finding of any one or more of the following:
2. That the permit granted is being exercised contrary to
the terms or conditions of such approval.
In this case, the Clarks clearly exercised the Vegetation Management Permit contrary to the express
conditions of approval. As the Director determined and as discussed in detail above, the Clarks
violated Conditions 2 and 4 of the Vegetation Management Permit by clearing areas outside of the
areas shown as "Revised Garden Area," "Haul Route," and "House" on the approved site plan
attached to the Vegetation Management Permit as Attachment A and by clearing a total area in
excess of 20,000 square feet. The appropriate remedy for these action is revocation under BIMC §
16.22.097(A)(2) and the Director properly revoked the Vegetation Management Permit under the
authority in that section.
C. THE DIRECTOR PROPERLY UPHELD THE NOTICE OF WARNING OF VIOLATION
AND STOP WORK ORDER ISSUED BY THE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER.
BIMC § 1.26.050 and BIMC § 1.26.065 give the Director of Planning and Community
Development, or his designee, the authority to issue stop work orders specifying violations of the
code and prohibiting any work or other activity at the site. BIMC § 1.26.070 provides that any
person affected by a notice and order may ask the Director to review the same by filing a request for
review within seven days. In this case, Mr. Christensen conducted a review of the October 13, 2016
Warning of Notice of Violation and Stop Work Order issued by the City's Code Compliance Officer
and met with the Clarks and their counsel on November 8 and 17, 2016 to review any additional
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 9
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447 - 7000 /Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence or materials the Clarks wanted to share. Essentially, the Clarks made the same arguments
that they make in this appeal and that have been addressed and responded to above. For the reasons
set forth in this brief, the Clarks' arguments are not well taken and the Director properly chose to
disregard them and to uphold the Notice and Order. The Hearing Examiner should do the same and
uphold the Director's decision.
D. THE CODE REQUIRES THAT A SIX -MONTH DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM BE
PLACED ON THE CLARKS' PROPERTY, THAT THE PROPERTY BE REPLANTED,
AND THAT THE CLARKS PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF $6,000.00.
BIMC § 16.22.097 sets forth the required penalties for violation of vegetation management
permits. Under BIMC 16.22.097(B), when "the owner violates the requirements of an approved
harvest plan, the city shall place a six -year development moratorium on the subject property."
(Emphasis added). Under BIMC § 16.22.097(C), "[a]ny property owner or individual cutting
vegetation or timber in violation of this chapter shall replant the property, and to the extent
biologically practicable, shall return the property to the condition of the property prior to the
violative cutting." (Emphasis added). And under BIMC § 16.22.097(D), "an additional civil penalty
shall be imposed on any property owner or individual cutting vegetation or timber in violation of this
chapter in the amount of $20,000 for each acre of forest cut. (Emphasis added).
In this case, the Clarks violated the requirements of their approved VMP site plan and so the
moratorium must be imposed under BIMC § 16.22.097(B). The Clarks cut vegetation and timber in
quantities and in areas that were not authorized under the Vegetation Management Permit and they
must be required under BIMC § 16.22.097(C) to replant the areas outside of the clearing areas shown
on the site plan and to return those, as nearly as biologically practicable, to the condition they were in
prior to the clearing. Finally, the Clarks cleared 13,328 square feet (approximately 30.6% of an acre)
more than the 20,000 square foot maximum authorized by the Vegetation Management Permit, and
so a civil penalty of $6,120.00 (30.6% of $20,000) is required under BIMC § 16.22.097(D). All of
these penalties must be imposed against the Clarks.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above and as presented at the hearing on April 26, the Hearing
Examiner should uphold the decision of the Planning and Community Development Director to
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 10
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 - 447- 7000/Fax: 206 - 447 -0215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
revoke the July 13, 2016 Vegetation Management Permit and the Director's Review Decision on
Appeal of Notice of Warning of Violation and Stop Work Order. Penalties should be imposed as
required by BIMC § 16.22.097.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19t11 day of April, 2017.
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 11
OGDE MU P Y WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
By:
James E. Haney, SBA 1058
Attorney for Cit o 1 1 ridge Island
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206-447-7000/Fax: 206-447-0215
1
2
3
4
5I
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, Gloria Zak, am an employee of Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, and certify that on the date
below, I provided the original of the City's Prehearing Brief via email and regular mail to
Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner and a copy to:
Attorney for Appellants:
Dennis D. Reynolds — dennis @ddrlaw.com
DENNIS D. REYNOLDS LAW OFFICE
200 Winslow Way West, Suite 380
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Seattle, Washington this 19th day of A ril, 2017.
Gloria J. Zak, L a1 ' .
{JEH1572078.DOC;1/13023.050013/ }
CITY'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 12
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, Washington 98164 -2008
Tel: 206 -447 - 7000 /Fax: 206 - 447 -0215