HEX Visconsi Decision 032714March 27, 2014
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
REPORT AND DECISION
Project: Visconsi Master Plan
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal
File number: SPR/CUP 17734
Appellant: Islanders for Responsible Development
represented by Ryan Vancil, Attorney
266 Ericksen Avenue NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Applicant: Visconsi Companies LTD
360 Corporate Circle
Pepper Pike OH 44124-57042420
represented by Dennis D. Reynolds, Attorney
200 Winslow Way W, #380
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Owners: Deschamps Partnership LP
16213 Agatewood Road NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Suzanne Kelly
16213 Agatewood Road NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Location of Subject Property: 10048 High School Road (NE Corner of High School
Road and SR 305)
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - I
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
Designations: Mixed -Use Town Center, High School Road Districts
I & 11 (MUTC HSR -I and HSR -II)
Environmental Review: A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non -significance was
issued November 22, 2013, and an appeal filed on
December 6, 2013.
Request:
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit applications
were submitted for approval of a commercial complex
comprising seven buildings with a 61,890 square foot
combined floor area and 248 parking spaces, on five
parcels totaling 8.16 acres. Proposed uses include retail
sales and services, restaurants, professional services and
health care facilities .
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Site and Proposal Characteristics
1. Assessor's Record Information:
232502-3-026-2002
Suzanne Kelly 0.92 acres
232502-3-027-2001
Deschamps Partnership 1.16 acres,
232502-3-030-2006
Suzanne Kelly 0.49 acres,
232502-3-036-2000
Suzanne Kelly 2.83 acres
232502-3-043-2001
Suzanne Kelly 2.76 acres
Total: 8.16 acres
I . The property is relatively flat with a knoll towards the center, then gently slopes in all
directions. Part of the buffer for a wetland lying off-site to the northeast is on the applicant parcel. The
northern half of the property, except for the access road to the Pro Build lumber yard, is mostly covered
with second or third -growth evergreen trees with an understory dominated by invasive ivy, scotch
broom and holly. The site presently contains an approximately 4,600 square foot commercial building
on the corner of High School Road and Highway 305 that will be removed. There is also an older
small cabin near High School Road that the applicant is offering to donate to an interested resident or
group.
2. A private access road to the Pro Build commercial development currently bisects the property
and is proposed to be relocated further east as part of this proposal. Vehicular access to the site will be
from High School Road, and non -motorized access will be from improved sidewalks along High
School Road and a non -motorized trail to be constructed parallel to Highway SR 305.
3. The applicant site contains HSR -I and HSR -11 (High School Road I and 11 overlay districts)
zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. Surrounding uses and zoning include a commercial
business, Pro Build Development (HSR -II) to the north, the Stonecress Multi -family Development (R-
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 2
8/UMF) and Woodland Village Subdivision (R-2.9/SUR) to the east, retail commercial (McDonalds,
Ace Hardware) across High School Road to the south (HSR -1), and a wooded undeveloped area (HSR -
1, R-8/UMF) west across SR 305.
4. The parcel is currently owned by the Kelly/Deschamps family, with the Visconsi Companies
holding an option to purchase it once required permits have been secured. Thus tenant commitments
have yet to be legally formalized. But it is generally anticipated that the Key Bank facility currently
located south of High School Road will relocate to the 3300 square -foot building #1 proposed at the
corner of SR 305 and High School Road in the HSR -I zone, and a Bartell's Drugstore will occupy the
14,475 square -foot building #2 to its north that straddles the HSR -I and II zone boundary. The 20,000
two-storey building #5 proposed to be located in the site's northeast corner next to the wetland buffer is
being viewed as a future medical office facility, while four other single -storey retail buildings ranging
in size between 4800 and 7200 square feet have yet to be publicly identified as to their expected
tenancies. All buildings except the bank and the southern half of the pharmacy are proposed for the
HSR -II zoned portion of the property.
5. The site circulation design for the proposed Visconsi project that has generated so much
controversy has been driven by neighborhood limitations largely of human rather than natural origin.
The site's access problems are ultimately the consequence of the Washington Department of
Transportation's (WSDOT) policy restricting the creation of further road or driveway cuts to SR 305 in
order to maximize flow capacity for vehicles approaching and departing its ferry terminal. This policy
historically required the ProBuild lumber yard to obtain access south to High School Road through the
applicant's site, thus resulting in the future vehicle and pedestrian conflicts that potentially impact
proposed retail development. Access options are further constrained by an offsite wetland near the site's
northeast corner, plus existing development for Kitsap Bank and the adjacent narrow Polly's Lane
roadway, which together occupy the eastern half of the original High School Road property frontage,
provide no suitable opportunities for a commercial second access.
Procedural History
6. An initial pre -application conference was held June 1, 2012, and a public participation meeting
on June 18, 2012. On May 20, 2013 the applicant first presented the project concept to the Design
Review Board (DRB). Slightly less than a year later, on April 24, 2013, formal applications for the site
plan and design review approval and for a conditional use permit (CUP) were submitted. The need for a
conditional use permit was triggered by the proposed construction of four retail buildings in the HSR -I1
zone with footprints exceeding 5000 square feet. On May 22, 2013 the application was deemed
complete by the project planner. The application was circulated for agency and departmental comments
to, among others, the Health District, Fire Department, Kitsap Transit and the City Development
Engineer.
7. A Notice of Application and SEPA comment period was published and mailed on June 7, 2013.
After the applicant presented a modified proposal to the Design Review Board on June 17, 2013, a
revised Notice of Application/SEPA comment period was issued July 5, 2013. Multiple public
comments were received. A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non -significance containing nine
conditions was issued November 22, 2013, and timely appealed by the Islanders for Responsible
Development (IRD).
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION -3)
8. A pre -hearing conference was held by the City Hearing Examiner on December 20, 2013, and a
pre -hearing order issued on December 29, 2013, for a consolidated public hearing on the applications
and SEPA appeal. Although the legal standards for each decision differ, the underlying factual issues
substantially overlap and a single consolidated hearing record has been created. The pre -hearing order
undertook to clarify the issues within the SEPA appeal and supplied a process for furthering that
purpose. A supplement to the pre -hearing order was issued on January 6, 2014. In addition, a motion
from the applicant's attorney seeking dismissal of the SEPA appeal was denied by the Examiner
pursuant to an order dated January 9, 2014.
9. As specified in the pre -hearing order, the public hearing opened at Bainbridge Island City Hall
on the evening of January 16, 2014. Due to the widespread community interest in this proceeding,
public testimony was taken at the opening of hearing, followed by testimony on the two applications
and finally from the witnesses for the SEPA appeal. Hearing testimony was received on January 16,
17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 and 28, 2014. In addition, the record was held open for submission of additional
specified documents and for legal briefing from the parties. The final deadline for briefing was
February 18, 2014, at which time the record closed.
10. As noted above, a single consolidated hearing record was established for all the applications and
SEPA appeal issues. After engaging the public participation process, substantive factual topics will be
taken up within related groupings and specific factual determinations made for each. Discussion of the
legal consequences of such determinations will be deferred to the Conclusions section, where the
differences in the specific standards applicable respectively to the conditional use permit, site plan
review and SEPA appeal will be elaborated. Within the Findings issues related to the natural
environment have been grouped with drainage questions that are of interest primarily in relation to their
potential for imposing effects on the nearby wetland. Most of the impacts of importance from the
Visconsi proposal fall within the realm of the human or built environment, including traffic and
circulation issues and potential impacts to Stonecress.
Public Participation
11. Bainbridge Island values public participation in its civic decision-making, and the City's land
use procedures provide multiple opportunities for such participation to occur. Before a project such as
the Visconsi proposal arrives at the Hearing Examiner level, it will have already undergone public
informational meetings as well as review by the City's advisory Design Review Board and Planning
Commission (PC). These procedures offered occasions for public participation and resulted for the
Visconsi applications in both more detailed project studies and important revisions to the proposal.
12. The DRB's first involvement with the project was at a conceptual stage on March 26, 2012.
Over the course of more than a year it devoted five meetings to discussion of the Visconsi proposal,
voting at its final meeting on June 17, 2013, in favor of a "recommendation of approval with
comments." As recorded in its minutes, at its first meeting with Visconsi representatives the DRB
encouraged the applicant in its design to "consider the special character of the island" but also noted
that the "current context of High School road corridor is lacking in this respect." It also identified the
design of the spine road serving ProBuild as "critical to the success of the project" and suggested
approaching its development as "a central pedestrian open space as a'retail destination'."
13. These initial DRB observations were of importance in shaping the conceptual site design. In
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 4
the context of planning a medium -scale retail and office development, a driveway used primarily by
large and small trucks to access a lumber yard is an anomalous feature. To succeed the site design
either needs to tame and embrace this feature or turn away and avoid it. Turning away from the spine
road would likely either require creating a much longer loop road design with the bulk of commercial
development clustered in a central complex facing inward or, alternatively, two separate commercial
pods both facing away from the spine road with minimal structural interconnectivity. In the latter
instance, overcoming the resultant sense of separation would probably require installation of a dramatic
linkage element such as a pedestrian overpass joining multiple -storey buildings located on either side
of the road. While either conceptual alternative could end up trading one set of problems for another,
both of these approaches would more explicitly eliminate conflicts between trucks and pedestrians
from the site design.
14. With DRB encouragement, Visconsi's design team chose the path of subduing the negative
qualities of the ProBuild spine road and converting it from a truck route into a "Main Street" setting.
One might wonder whether at the time of this design decision either Visconsi or the DRB fully
appreciated the challenges that such a choice might present. The City contracted with the Transpo
Group for a rather narrowly defined traffic study that was not published until late April, 2013, which
study initially dismissed the importance of truck traffic to and from ProBuild. These potential vehicle
and pedestrian conflict issues did not really garner serious attention in the review process until later
brought before the Planning Commission by community activists. Thus the split between DRB and the
PC over whether to recommend approval for the Visconsi project could ultimately reflect thein
respective evaluations of (and perhaps knowledge about) the project plan's capacity to deal successfully
with traffic and circulation issues that only fully came to light relatively late in the process.
15. Other elements of the DRB review worthy of special mention were its consistent attention to the
need for the project to modulate and vary the shapes and surfaces of buildings to create visual interest
and its particular attention to visual impacts at the High School Road/SR 305 intersection and along the
SR 305 corridor. The property's location and elevated topography serve to minimize impacts to offsite
views. To the north is the ProBuild lumber yard, and a wooded wetland lies to the northeast between
the site and a single-family neighborhood. Directly east there are potential visual impacts to the
adjacent Stonecress residential development, a matter to be discussed later in this report. Retention of a
tree buffer along the SR 305 corridor can largely mitigate view impacts to the west. Indeed, probably
the most serious project view impacts will occur immediately south across High School Road from the
proposed bank and be suffered by customers of the McDonald's drive-in restaurant — a constituency
(perhaps the only one) whose cause has yet to be championed.
16. Based on the project checklists the DRB ultimately graded the Visconsi site design as
acceptable in all guideline categories. It gave it particularly high marks to the Visconsi design for its
modulation of building facades to avoid a massive appearance and limit offsite visual impacts. The
DRB specifically agreed with the applicant that "it is better that the corner bank building be low key
[pun likely not intended] and smaller in scale," foregoing the creation of a landmark presence. But
aware of the limitations of its advisory role, the DRB also expressed concern that the harmoniously
integrated building profiles featured in the Visconsi design package might not actually get built, that
eventual site retail tenants might express preference for more conventional commercial designs
different from those in the Visconsi presentation drawings. Accordingly, the DRB suggested that further
design review be incorporated into the construction permit review process.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 5
17. The City's Planning Commission reviewed the Visconsi project proposal at meetings held in
October and November, 2013. According to the meeting minutes topics of primary concern were
traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, economic impacts, and proposed building size, design and use and
their relationship to the City's Design Guidelines. The discussion consensus was that the proposal's
impacts could not be adequately mitigated. Based on proposed findings drafted by Commissioner
Maradel Gale, the Planning Commission voted unanimously on November 14, 2013, to recommend
denial of the Visconsi site plan and conditional use permit applications. But also, in the event its
recommendation for project denial was not adopted, the PC proposed four further project conditions
relating to utility equipment visibility, wetland mitigation timing, a crosswalk on High School Road
and truck traffic use of Polly's Lane.
18. Commissioner Gale's written findings regarding the deficiencies of the Visconsi proposal were
accepted by the Planning Commission as the basis for its recommendation of denial. Her analysis
acknowledged the challenges presented by the site's location and the existing neighborhood
development pattern ("the architect has faced an impossible task") and concluded that the critical
problems had not been satisfactorily addressed by either the proponent or City staff. Her main emphasis
was on safety issues — conflicts between ProBuild truck traffic and pedestrians both internally on the
site and on the surrounding road system, vehicle circulation and movement issues, and sight distance
problems. She was particularly sensitive to the questions of how vehicle circulation obstacles onsite,
and through the site to and from ProBuild, could push frustrated drivers east onto narrow Stonecress
streets that were not designed for expanded levels of non-residential usage and attendant increases in
adverse impacts.
19. In addition, Commissioner Gale's analysis discussed the Visconsi proposal at some length in the
context of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Plan's relationship to the conditional use permit
review standards. This discussion served to inform much of the public testimony received at the
recently completed permit and appeal hearing and anticipated many of the critical legal issues to be
reviewed below in the Conclusions section of this report.
20. At each stage of review — DRB, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner— the Visconsi
site design proposal has undergone modification in response to concerns expressed by the advisory
groups and the public. The initial April, 2013, design assumed that ProBuild traffic would only
comprise a relatively minor pedestrian complication, with the north/south spine road meandering
peacefully through a central plaza located along both sides featuring angle parking and four convenient
pedestrian crosswalks.
21. The September, 2013, site plan iteration presented to the Planning Commission undertook to
respond to emerging ProBuild truck traffic concerns by adding a divider along a now more straightened
spine road's east side to create a separate through -lane and a buffer protecting the proposal's three
easterly buildings. The plaza area on the west side was reduced and most of its parking spaces
converted from angle to parallel configuration, with deleted spaces east of the pharmacy relocated west
adjacent to the SR 305 buffer. The September version also featured an enlarged buffer in the site's
northeast corner in response to a consensus reclassification of the offsite wetland to Category I;
increased tree retention within the western boundary buffer along SR 305; and installation of a full
planting screen in the buffer section adjacent to Stonecress residences. Finally, the January, 2014,
version recently submitted to the permit hearing record added a multi -modal trail next to the SR 305
corridor, reconfigured the crosswalks east of the pharmacy and added a crosswalk across Polly's Lane
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 6
into Stonecress.
22. Large numbers of Bainbridge Island residents participated in the multiple phases of the review
process for the Visconsi applications — before the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and
Hearing Examiner. Most expressed opposition to the proposal. Some submitted written comments,
others offered oral testimony, and many did both. Many comments were short and concerned mostly
with the bottom-line outcome, while others were lengthy, detailed and specifically targeted on
particular problems. The more site-specific comments were clustered around topics such as traffic
congestion, pedestrian safety and circulation, wetland protection, tree removal and the various
potential impacts of commercial development on the nearby Stonecress neighborhood.
23. The broader and more programmatic comments were often anchored by references to different
goals and policies within the City's Comprehensive Plan. There may be no other place on the planet
where a Comprehensive Plan seems as much a living document as on Bainbridge Island. The
conceptual critiques included broad assertions of the project's failure to complement the Island's unique
character, the lack of an economic need for another shopping center, the absence of a residential
component in the project's mix of uses, a shortage of environmentally friendly sustainable features,
claims of atavistic adherence to an outmoded auto -centric commercial paradigm and related
accusations of strip mall development practices imposing unwanted urban sprawl. There were frequent
references to Kitsap County's earlier approval of the Safeway shopping center located further west on
High School Road, a community trauma that was a seminal event in the decision to incorporate the
entire island as a city and which remains fresh in the collective memory. Since the Bainbridge Safeway
development is ugly even by Safeway standards, the widespread community desire to avoid repeating
this experience is understandable.
The Offsite Wetland
24. The character of the Visconsi site and its attendant development constraints have largely been
determined by the glacial till layer that underlies the property at depths ranging from two to five feet.
Water perched above the till layer has created the wetland offsite to the northeast, and the till's low
permeability precludes significant infiltration of runoff generated by the proposed development.
Beneath the forest duff layer on the property's east side also lies a thin layer of fill generally identified
as the remnant of earlier farming activity. Test holes excavated for the applicant by Aspect Consulting
did not encounter significant ground water. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the onsite till
soils would provide suitable materials for building foundations and structural fill.
25. An approximately three -acre depressional wetland within the Woodland Village subdivision lies
close enough to the Visconsi property that its regulatory buffer extends onto the site's northeast
quadrant. A disagreement over the exact classification of the wetland was resolved on August 5, 2013,
when City's wetland planner and a wetland specialist representing the subdivision's homeowners'
association jointly investigated the wetland and agreed that it merited a Category I rating requiring a
100 foot buffer plus a 15 foot building setback. Because the understory for the onsite forested portion
of the buffer is impacted by invasive plants such as holly and ivy, wetland enhancement will be
required in the form of invasives removal and replanting with native vegetation.
26. Although lacking in special characteristics and already subject to impacts from existing nearby
residential development and its untreated runoff releases, the wetland was deemed basically healthy
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 7
with good plant diversity, snags and large woody debris. Beyond implementation of the enhancement
plan, development activities potentially having direct impacts to the onsite wetland buffer include
installation of drainage lines connecting to a dispersal trench and clearing within the adjacent building
setback. It also appears that a new drainage pipe will be installed to transport offsite flows entering
from the ProBuild site and discharge them into the buffer.
27. As described by the preliminary drainage report performed by Browne Wheeler Engineers dated
April 24, 2013, the Visconsi project is proposed to be constructed in phases, with the first phase
comprising "the construction of the road and the utility mains, mass grading of the entire project, and
construction of the buildings and parking lots on lots 1 and 2." Although there is hope that onsite cuts
and fills will balance out overall, no detailed grading plan for the entire site has yet been created.
According to the April 17, 2013, Aspect Consulting report, the earthwork anticipated for lot 2 (the
pharmacy) near the southwest site corner -appears to range from 3 feet of cut to 4 feet of fill for the
general lot."
28. There was concern expressed at the public hearing, primarily by neighborhood residents
Christina Doherty and Chuck Depew, that a proposed project condition tying implementation of the
wetland enhancement plan to construction of nearby proposed building 5 might allow early phase
construction impacts to go unremedied for an unacceptable length of time and result in buffer
degradation. The applicant did not object to rescheduling the mitigation to an earlier point. In view of
the plan for initial mass grading of the entire site and uncertainty about when building 5 actually will be
constructed, identifying an earlier trigger for replanting the buffer understory appears to be prudent.
Stormwater ManaLiement
29. In the current state, stormwater runoff from the Visconsi site is divided among three basins — a
southwest basin of about four acres, a northeast basin of about three acres and a northwest basin at
about one and a half acres. Both west side basins discharge to the roadside ditch along SR 305, with
the northwest basin flows culverted under SR 305 to the Sakai Pond on its west side. Flows from the
two western basins rejoin just southwest of the SR 305/High School Road intersection and then travel
south toward the Winslow Ravine. There are reports of existing minor erosion in the upper reaches of
the Ravine system, and the SEPA appeal suggested the possibility of potential harm to fish habitat. But
the record contains no documentation of fish resources in the Winslow Ravine.
30. After site grading, the three basins would remain about the same size but their boundaries
would be slightly adjusted. Most notably, the design shifts part of the existing northeast basin that
normally would have contained the northern end of the spine road to the northwest basin, compensating
for this loss with additional area from lot 7. Each basin will have its own separate detention and
treatment system, consisting typically of detention facilities (vaults, tanks or pond), a flow control
structure, a StormFilter cartridge water treatment system to remove total suspended solids (TSS), and a
discharge pipe to the roadside ditch (western basins) or a dispersion trench (northeast basin). In
addition, the access road runoff will receive enhanced water quality treatment by passing it through a
rain garden.
31. Most of the hearing testimony focused on the northeast site basin, which discharges to a much
larger neighborhood basin that also contains Woodland Village, its Category I wetland, the eastern half
of ProBuild and the Stonecress Townhomes. The Visconsi northeast basin appears to comprise about
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 8
15% of this total neighborhood basin. Releases from the Visconsi northeast basin stormwater system
will pass through the wetland buffer to the wetland, skirt the Stonecress detention pond, continue east
into a second wetland located adjacent to FerncliffAvenue north of its High School Road intersection,
then pass under Ferncliff in an l 8 -inch culvert. From there flows continue east through a third wetland
to a drainage swale over another 1200 foot span before turning south and traversing a series of
channels, ponds and wetlands to Eagle Harbor.
32. Potential impacts to the Woodland Village wetland from northeast basin flows are to be
mitigated by the flow control and water quality treatment requirements and natural filtration through
the wetland buffer. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has accepted the Stormfilter cartridge
technology as capable of meeting its 80% TSS removal target under specified conditions. Further,
Visconsi's design decision to eliminate the entire spine road from the northeast site basin will have the
beneficial water quality effect of removing ProBuild truck traffic pollution from flows discharging to
the wetland buffer.
33. Before 1990 most municipalities simply authorized direct stormwater discharges to ditches and
streams without either detention or treatment. In urban basins these practices resulted in erosion,
flooding and the scouring of stream beds — in other words, the total obliteration of any remaining fish
habitat. Now computerized continuous flow models that mimic Western Washington's maritime
weather, which is characterized less by isolated storm events than by a series of storms over an
extended period of time, are employed to calculate the capacities of required stormwater detention
facilities. A primary consequence of a series of storms is that later in the storm cycle a new event will
encounter soils that are already saturated and a detention pond that is no longer empty. Thus a small
event encountered late in the cycle can have impacts more typical of a larger storm. While earlier
single -event models assumed an empty pond and unsaturated soils, the continuous flow model takes
cumulative storm effects into account in the design of facility capacities. The result has been new
detention facility capacities that are many times larger than those required in the 1990s.
34. Continuous flow modeling underpins detention pond capacity and release requirements
throughout the Puget Sound area as specified by the minimum standards stated in DOE's 2005
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, which has been adopted (with some
modifications) by the City as its regulatory framework. There is also now a 2012 update of the Manual
that offers some technical refinements but not does not alter the essential analytical approach. Under
the 2005 standards Visconsi would be required to release detained stormwater at durations'.that do not
exceed 50% of the 2 -year storm.
35. The applicable 2005 release rates are calculated to maintain storm flow durations at the
predevelopment level. In so doing they also automatically reduce flow peaks below the levels naturally
occurring. Because elevated flow durations and peaks are the primary causes of flooding and erosion
within a drainage system downstream, release of development flows at the maximums authorized
should not increase downstream damage and may in some instances actually diminish it. This means in
most cases that detailed evaluation of the conveyance capacity of distant downstream channels,
streams, ponds and wetlands is no longer required. And one further beneficial effect of requiring flow
durations to mimic the natural condition is that base flows to wetlands and streams will be better
maintained.
36. An issue raised by residents in the immediate vicinity of the Woodland Village wetland was that
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 9
increased flows from the Visconsi northeast basin might cause flooding damage while passing through
an allegedly malfunctioning stormwater pond complex on the Stonecress site. And Stonecress residents
expressed a fear that increased flows from Visconsi would erode an already stressed pond berm, a
concern mostly based on an assumption that the eight -inch pipe through the berm designed to by-pass
wetland flows is undersized and will flood during major storm events. A resident who lives near the
pond in the Hamlet subdivision, Philip O'Hartigan, speculated that Stonecress pond overflow might
cause flooding damage to his property. As a remedy Mr. O'Hartigan suggested that northeast basin
flows from Visconsi be rerouted west to the SR 305 roadside ditch.
37. One of the cardinal principles of stormwater system design is that post -development drainage
basins should generally replicate in size the pre -development condition and effect releases offsite at the
pre -development locations. The basic insight is that a substantial reallocation of runoff between
drainage basins usually just shifts problems from one place to another. Responding -to Mr. O'Hartigan's
concerns in a May 28, 2013, letter, Visconsi's engineer Adam Wheeler made this fundamental point in
rejecting the suggested westerly reassignment of flows from the northeast basin. In addition, after
noting that "our firm provided the drainage designs for the Hamlet and Stonecress communities," Mr.
Wheeler went on to make the following observations about the Stonecress pond:
"The drainage system for the Stonecress community was designed to collect water leaving the
wetland before it entered the detention pond and route it around the pond and discharge the
water to the east. The detention pond was designed to accommodate the runoff from the
Stonecress community only. If this is not the case, the City should investigate the issue to
determine if the drainage system needs to be repaired or maintained."
38. At this point we have learned two things. First, we know that the Visconsi drainage system is
required to be designed so that, when functioning properly, its flow durations will not exceed the pre-
existing rate and thus not increase impacts to the downstream conveyance system. Second, from the
Stonecress experience we also know that even a well-designed system may not always be built, or may
not forever perform, according to plan. So the question becomes whether these facts combine to give
rise to any responsibility on the part of Visconsi to fix what may either be an improper routing of flows
in the existing downstream system from the Woodland Village wetland through the Stonecress pond or
an under -capacity bypass line.
39. Section 2.5.4 of the state Manual containing "Minimum Requirement 44: Preservation of
Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls," states that "[n]atural drainage patterns shall be maintained... to
the maximum extent practicable"and the "manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site
must not cause a significant adverse impact to ... downgradient properties." Since, strictly speaking,
natural drainage patterns in an urban area (even a low density one) will have been to a major extent
long ago altered, the term probably needs to be understood as mandating the preservation of the
drainage patterns in existence immediately before site development.
40. Some context for understanding the terminology quoted above is also supplied by the approval
standards stated at BIMC 15.20.060.H, which state that "[d]evelopment projects that discharge
stormwater off-site shall submit an off-site analysis report that assesses the potential off-site water
quality, erosion, slope stability, and drainage impacts associated with the project and that proposes
appropriate mitigation of those impacts" Also, "[p]rojects shall be required to initially submit, with the
permit application, a qualitative analysis of each downstream system leaving a site" which should
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 10
include as Task 4 a description of "the drainage system, and its existing and predicted problems" and
for each potential issue "[w]hether the project is likely to aggravate the problem or create a new one."
41. In view of the foregoing, one should expect that, over a reasonable time span and after full
development, discharges from the northeast basin of the Visconsi site (despite engineering calculations)
could at times exceed pre -development rates and volumes, thereby placing additional pressure on an
already distressed Stonecress stormwater system which appears now to be receiving flows that either
the pond or a bypass pipe were not designed to handle. One also notes that the Stonecress pond
receives runoff from Polly's Lane, which roadway will produce a higher runoff pollutant load if it
carries future traffic generated by Visconsi commercial development.
42. The Stonecress pond and bypass system lie in the immediate downstream conveyance path for
the Visconsi commercial development, so any potential aggravation of an existing malfunction cannot
be simply be dismissed as someone else's problem. The intent of the drainage regulations is for new
development to responsibly manage its additional contribution to stormwater impacts, including being
served by an at least minimally functional conveyance system. For Visconsi to meet this standard
would require determining whether flows from the Woodland Village wetland are either exceeding the
capacity of the Browne -Wheeler engineered bypass line or otherwise improperly entering the
Stonecress pond. If one or both of these conditions are found to exist, corrective measures should be
taken, most probably involving installation of a larger flow bypass pipe.
Tree Retention
43. Somewhat more than half of the Visconsi site is currently covered with second or third growth
tree stands, beginning on the north end contiguous to ProBuild and the Woodland Village wetland and
extending south. Douglas fir appears to be the most numerous species, followed by hemlock and cedar.
Deciduous trees consist mainly of bigleaf maple, red alder and madrona. Even though the understory is
dominated by invasives, the tree stand overall appears healthy. No unique species or critical habitats
have been identified.
44. All trees in the central portion of the site are planned to be removed to accommodate the seven
proposed commercial buildings plus nearby driveways and parking areas. Trees slated for retention lie
at the site perimeters -- within the western buffer adjacent to SR 305, the wetland buffer in the
northeast corner and the eastern buffer separating homes within Stonecress from a site parking lot. No
tree removal is proposed within the wetland buffer. The applicant's tree survey designates the 15 -foot
building setback next to the wetland buffer as an area to be cleared, but the landscape architect thought
it possible that some setback trees could also be retained.
45. The Visconsi proposal is falls under the City's interim tree ordinance, now codified within
BIMC 18.15.010. The ordinance regulates development on the basis of "tree units," the award of
which increases with tree size. Existing trees are assigned units based on their diameter at breast height
(DBH). Thus a tree under 5 inches DBH only receives one tree unit while a tree over 30 inches DBH
counts for 8.2 units. Units awarded for replacement trees are discounted compared to those for existing
trees. A replacement tree receives one tree unit if will attain a height at maturity of more than 40 feet
and only half a unit if it won't. Units for retained trees occurring within a tree stand or grove are also
eligible for a 1.2 multiplier bonus.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 11
46. The Visconsi project is subject to an ordinance requirement to provide 40 tree units per acre, or
326.4 tree units for the entire site. According to the applicant's tree retention analysis, the unit value for
the trees proposed to be retained onsite is 508.9 tree units, which number increases to 608.4 after
application of the tree stand bonus factor. To this number are added 136 tree units for the replacement
trees to be planted, for a grand site total 744.4 tree units. This sum is more than twice the 326.4
required by BIMC 18.15.010.
47. While at the hearing many Island residents rued the quantity of tree removal proposed, the
accuracy of the applicant's tree survey or the unit totals calculated under the analysis mandated by the
ordinance were not credibly challenged. Olaf Ribiero, a plant pathologist and arborist who specializes
in tropical vegetation, testified at the hearing on tree issues on behalf of appellant IRD. Like many
other residents Dr. Ribiero mostly spoke in general terms about the ecological benefits of trees, how
they contribute to health through ozone and particulate removal and carbon dioxide sequestration, and
their value in maintaining soil structure and infiltration capacity. Dr. Ribiero's site-specific comments
were mostly directed toward the importance of creating an effective tree screen between the Visconsi
project and the Stonecress residences to the east.
48. Beneath the somewhat artificial tree ordinance methodology, the raw numbers look something
like this. According to the tree survey, there are 1132 trees (of all kinds and sizes) presently on the
Visconsi site. Of these 917 are slated for removal and 215 will remain. Plus 313 new replacement
trees will be planted, resulting in a total after development of 528 trees, or 46.6% of the number present
now. Focusing strictly on the biggest trees, there are currently onsite 30 trees measuring 30 inches
DBH or greater, and after development 12 will remain and 18 will have been removed.
Traffic and Circulation
49. The Visconsi traffic issues come in two varieties, level of service (LOS) impacts and questions
of safety. They are fundamentally different in character. Safety issues focus on whether a development
will contribute to conditions that create an unacceptable risk of personal harm. These issues focus on
matters such as conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian uses, vehicle sight and stopping distances,
dangerous road conditions and risks to pedestrians. In other words, the emphasis is on tangible real-
world situations.
50. Level of service issues, on the other hand, are entirely comprised of social constructs. The
focus here is on analyzing how much time a driver will have to wait at an intersection to perform a
specified vehicle maneuver and assessing whether such level of delay is acceptable. The determination
of what is or is not an acceptable delay is obviously a social decision that can vary from location to
location and community to community. In North America communities mostly make these decisions
by referencing nationally promulgated standards contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
Almost all communities have concluded that an LOS F as defined by the HCM is an unacceptable level
of intersection delay. But as provided in the Comprehensive Plan and BIMC 15.32.020, Bainbridge
Island has adopted a more stringent HCM standard, LOS D, at the SR 305/High School Road
intersection. This standard tolerates for signalized intersections an average vehicle delay not to exceed
55 seconds.
51. LOS impacts at the SR 305/High School Road intersection were alleged to be significant by
IRD in its SEPA appeal and raised by citizen testimony both at the public hearing and on the Planning
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 12
Commission level. The LOS argument was not further pursued by iRD in its closing brief, suggesting
either that it has been abandoned or, at the very least, accorded diminished weight. But the sheer
quantity of public attention paid to these issues requires that they be understood. There are two basic
reasons why the LOS issues ultimately failed to gain traction in this review. First, the contrarian
analyses offered were not adequately grounded in HCM methodology. Second, despite a rather narrow
and formulaic initial scope of work provided by the City to its transportation engineering firm, Transpo,
the LOS cushion at the SR 305/High School Road intersection was found to be sufficiently great that
relatively minor assumption modifications were unlikely to alter the ultimate result.
52. Everyone understands that traffic on Bainbridge Island along the SR 305 corridor is subject to
some unusual circumstances. First and foremost, high traffic volume pulses of 10 to 15 minutes
duration each occur throughout the day when the Seattle ferry come and goes. These pulses become
longer during the summer tourist season, especially on weekends: Endemic ferry traffic problems
along the SR 305 corridor as it currently exists were acknowledged in 2004 in the introduction to the
Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element: "While the existing configuration of two lanes is
adequate during off-peak hours, peak hour traffic coupled with surges from exiting ferry activities have
resulted in high levels of congestion at multiple locations."
53. These fery-induced traffic surges often result in avoidance behaviors, most notably (for our
review purposes) that many walk-on commuters who park east of SR 305 in the lot next to the terminal
will exit north via FerncliffAvenue rather than going directly over to SR 305. Then further north they
will cut back to SR 305 via High School Road, creating lengthy queues on the east side of the SR
305/High School Road intersection that can back up past the newly planned Visconsi access driveway.
Indeed, the hearing record contains multiple reports from area residents of having observed even longer
backups, sometimes all the way east to Polly's Lane in Stonecress.
54. An analytical problem arises for project opponents because the factors just described above are
deemed anomalies under the HCM methodology, which instead seeks to review what it considers to be
more normal patterns. As described in a November 8, 2013, Transpo memo, "summer periods of high
volumes are not considered to be representative of typical traffic," and "[t]raffic counts are typically
taken mid -week, non -holiday, and not during the school summer break." Plus the late afternoon
commuter rush hour period is now almost universally assumed by traffic engineers to provide the
optimal peak volume measurement. The essential principle underlying the HCM approach is that it
seeks to avoid overbuilding traffic infrastructure in response to exceptional conditions. But this is not
to suggest that the City could not decide to adopt regulations deviating from the HCM and tailor its
traffic LOS computations to the Island's special circumstances. The essential point is that the City
deliberately has chosen not to do so. As stated at BIMC 15.32.020, the City's LOS "[d]escriptions and
measuring methodology... are in accordance with" the HCM.
55. Turning from the general framework to specific issues, the Transpo traffic study issued in April,
2013, and relied upon by the City for issuance of a transportation concurrency certificate has been
criticized by numerous island residents, including IRD's consultant Ross Tilghman. These criticisms
suggest in various ways that the study underestimates the number of total vehicle trips traveling
through the critical SR 305/High School Road intersection, as well as the new vehicle trips that will be
generated by construction of the Visconsi development in the project's 2015 horizon year. The
estimation of traffic demand at any location will need to consider four major components: baseline
traffic volumes, background growth rates, project trip generation and project trip distribution.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 13
56. One issue raised early in the review by Mr. Tilghman and others was that the March 12, 2013,
traffic counts that provided the baseline data for the Transpo study were unreliably low as shown by
comparing them to a June 19, 2013, count done by IRD. The IRD count, measured between 4 and 5
PM, enumerated a total of 2087 vehicles passing through the SR 305/High School Road intersection,
while the earlier Transpo count, done between 4:15 and 5:15 PM, only registered 1870 vehicles.
Transpo and the City staff declined to regard the IRD June count as more reliable for the reasons
suggested above: it was adjudged atypical based on summer seasonal factors. It is also worth noting
that Mr. Tilghman later commissioned a followup traffic count on September 17, 2013 — in other
words, after the summer season had ended. The vehicle total generated by this later count was less than
one percent greater than the March number. In a September 20, 2013, letter to Ron Peltier of IRD, Mr.
Tilghman concluded that "[t]he September count shows that the March volume was not an aberration."
57. A related assertion that also emphasized exceptional circumstances over routine conditions was
that the LOS calculation should not be driven by the figures for the entire PM peak hour but by the
highest 15 -minute segment within the peak hour. Except in congested urban areas, traffic volumes will
generally fluctuate within the PM peak hour, and the relationship between highest quartile and the
average for the entire hour is known as the "peak hour factor" (PHF). Where there is no deviation
between the quartile and the peak hour average, the PHF equals 1.0. As the deviation increases, the
PHF becomes smaller. Being a suburban system subject to ferry traffic surges, Bainbridge Island roads
typically will experience PHFs in the lower coefficient range.
58. Mr. Tilghman argued that, being predictably recurrent, the higher ferry surge 15 -minute segment
of the PM peak hour should have been used as the basis for LOS calculations. He produced a
worksheet projecting an intersection LOS E at the SR 305/High School Road intersection during a PM
ferry surge peak quartile. Both Scott Lee of Transpo and Janelle Hitch from City staff defended the
traffic study's peak hour methodology as actually including the worst fent' surge 15 -minute segment
but generating a more representative overall picture. Mr Lee pointed out that the reliability of any
specific peak quartile assessment on SR 305 will be compromised by the fact that individual movement
peaks will vary depending on whether a the ferry included in the quartile is arriving or departing.
While the PHF is a concept referenced in the HCM literature, Mr. Tilghman cited no authority for the
proposition that the HCM mandates its use for an LOS calculation under the circumstances encountered
here.
59. While Mr. Tilghman did not dispute that the SR 305/High School Road intersection in 2015 will
function at LOS D when the intersection as a whole is analyzed under standard HCM procedures, he
pointed out that individual turning movements now operate at LOS F and will become even worse in
the project's horizon year. He argued that these failing individual movements should be viewed as
providing the basis for evaluating the project's LOS impacts. The individual movements of major
concern are the north and southbound left turns from SR 305 to High School Road. As shown by the
Transpo LOS work sheets, the SR 305 northbound left turn currently operates at LOS F with an 88.4
second delay per vehicle and will go to a deeper F at a 134.1 second delay in 2015 when Visconsi
project traffic is added to the mix. For the SR 305 southbound left turn movement the comparable
figures are 94.4 seconds delay now and 167.4 seconds in 2015 with the project. By comparison, the
overall vehicle delay average for the intersection as a whole was calculated by the Transpo study to be
35.7 seconds now and 45.8 seconds in 2015 with the project, both figures falling comfortably within
the LOS D range.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 14
60. The HCM is explicit that for signalized intersections the average control delay per vehicle for
the intersection as a whole is the correct figure to use in determining the level of service. The reasons
for this are easy to discern. Signal timing for each movement is adjusted ("optimized") to create the
best overall operational result for the entire intersection. By giving signal preference to those
movements that carry the largest traffic volumes, the average delay per vehicle can be reduced. Since
the biggest volumes are encountered in the through -movements, the optimization program will
necessarily assign them the lion's share of green -light time, a process which concurrently reduces signal
time for low volume movements and forces them to wait longer. In other words, at a signalized
intersection such as SR 305/High School Road, individual movement delays (and their resultant LOS
descriptors) are purely an artifact of the signal optimization procedure. These delays do not directly
reflect project impacts.
61. The SR 305/High School Road intersection work sheet numbers perfectly demonstrate this
process. For the SR 305 northbound left turn movement Transpo's optimized delay figures show an
88.4 second wait under current conditions, rising to 104.8 seconds in 2015 without the project, then
increasing further to 134.1 seconds when project traffic is added. An uninformed interpretation of these
figures would lead one to expect that the Visconsi project will be contributing significant numbers of
vehicles to the SR 305 northbound left turn delay, resulting in the rather substantial 30 -second increase
in wait time over the 2015 baseline condition. But is that actually true? How many vehicles headed for
the Visconsi site will be in the SR 305 northbound left turn movement? The answer is zero. These
northbound vehicles are all turning west on High School Road away from the project site. Does this
mean that Visconsi traffic has no impact on individual intersection movement delays? No. It simply
means that the correct measure of project traffic impact is the increase in average vehicle delay for the
intersection as a whole. Individual movement delays are solely a product of the signal optimization
procedure and do not accurately describe project impacts.
62. Another variable in calculating the new vehicle trips that a proposal will generate derives from
the recognition that different kinds of businesses and facilities will typically attract different levels of
traffic. Here also national data are most often used as the basis for making these volume assumptions,
in this case the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
which provides trip ratios either per unit or based on square footage. Trip generation rates can vary
significantly according to the type of enterprise. Based on Visconsi's current plans, the PM peak hour
trip generation rates employed by the traffic study ranged from a high of 24.31 trips per 1000 square
feet for the proposed bank with a drive-through window to a low of 3.57 trips per 1000 square feet for a
medical office building. As project critics correctly pointed out, if at a proposed 20,000 square feet of
floor area building 5 became a medical clinic rather than medical offices, the trip generation rate for the
structure would increase. For this and other reasons, a proposed change of use for building 5 should
require additional review. But based on current information and assumptions, the trip generation rates
used in the traffic study appear reasonable.
63. Mr Tilghman also criticized the Transpo study<on the basis that its estimation of project traffic
volumes failed to correctly apply a pass -by trip reduction process. Some trips to a retail facility will be
made by drivers who are going to be on the road anyway heading for other destinations and who make
a shopping stop en route. Consequently they will not contribute new vehicle trips on the road system
as a whole. There are two procedures that deal with the process of adjusting the new trip total to reflect
this reality. In our context the conventional method would be to describe vehicles already on High
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 15
School Road that stop at the Visconsi retail site as pass -by trips, while vehicles turning off SR 305 to
High School Road to access the site would be termed diverted link trips. To make a long story short,
due to the site's proximity to SR 305 corridor and its far greater traffic volumes, Transpo opted to
aggregate all detoured vehicle movements as pass -by trips, eliminating a separate diverted link
adjustment altogether. But the effect of this decision was to overestimate the number of net new trips
generated by the Visconsi project, not underestimate them as Mr. Tilghman suggested.
64. Finally, brief mention should be made of two remaining elements of the traffic impact analysis
that were not challenged by project opponents but are nonetheless capable of skewing the outcome if
improperly done. After the number of new project -generated trips are calculated, they must be
allocated to the road network — east, west, north and south. As described by the City's Development
Engineer in a memo summarizing the scope of work for the Transpo study, the consultant was
commissioned to create a project trip distribution and assignment that would '`distribute and assign PM
peak hour project traffic onto the surrounding roadway network based on the City's travel demand
model, turning movement counts, and local travel patterns adjacent to the site." The Transpo study
itself cited turning movement counts and "observed travel patterns within the project vicinity" as the
basis for its trip distribution. Since no further reference has been made anywhere to a City travel
demand model, one assumes that it only presently exists as a future task on someone's "to do" list.
65. Transpo's PM peak hour trip distribution chart for the Visconsi project shows 25% of the
vehicles distributed north of the site on SR 305, 45% west of SR 305 on High School Road, and 15%
each south on SR 305 and east on High School Road. The two 15% distributions are generally
consistent with the March 12, 2013, baseline traffic counts done for the traffic study, and a higher north
side than south side flow on SR 305 likely reflects the afternoon commuter pattern. But the trip
distribution departs from the traffic counts in distributing 45% of project traffic on High School Road
west of SR 305 (24% in the traffic count) and 25% north on SR 305 (41% in the count).
66. A consequence of distributing 45% of project traffic on High School Road west of SR 305 is
that the predicted level of services for the two Madison Avenue intersections included in the traffic
study are not likely to have been understated. But since these intersections are of minimal interest
under any scenario, providing a safeguard there should have been deemed a low priority concern. The
essential rationale, no doubt, for the 45% westward distribution was that traffic would shuttle between
the two neighboring shopping centers. While that may prove to be a reasonable assumption, it would
have been helpful if the Transpo report had spelled out just how it reached the 45% figure. If it turns
out to be an overestimate, the most likely result would be higher project traffic volumes on SR 305
north of High School Road.
67. A final level of service item of concern is the background growth rate. Performing LOS
calculations for the 2015 horizon year requires not only assigning a correct amount of project traffic to
affected intersection movements but also adding in background growth from other sources. The
Transpo study factored in a I% annual growth rate above the 2012 baseline figures plus one
development project in the City's permitting pipeline, Madrona Townhomes. Since the Madison
Avenue/Wyatt Way intersection was a traffic study location, the City Development Engineer was asked
at the hearing why the 45 -unit Grow Community currently under construction (which can be seen fi-om
the Madison/Wyatt intersection) was not included as a pipeline project. A satisfactory explanation was
not received, which leads one to wonder if other projects under construction were improperly excluded
from the pipeline count. Another imponderable is of course whether the I% background growth rate
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 16
will prove to be an accurate assumption. Since 2008 the national economy has limped along at an
anemic growth rate just above the recessionary level, and the traffic study appears to assume an
indefinite continuance of this low rate of growth. So if a sudden spurt of affluence is unexpectedly
experienced, the traffic study's assumption of a I% growth rate could prove to be understated.
68. In summary, traffic level of service projections are mostly about predicting human behavior,
always a perilous task. Added to this are inevitable uncertainties about economic trends. Thus traffic
demand engineering can never be an exact science, and the best studies will be hedged by conservative
assumptions. The Transpo study for the Visconsi project followed accepted industry practices and was
performed using current modeling technology. Its weakest points appear to be a potentially understated
pipeline analysis and background growth rate, plus a lack of clarity as to trip distribution methodology.
The City's traffic review regulations adopt national standards and methodologies, which means that
they do not accord special weight either to periodic traffic surges generated by ferry traffic or to off-
peak or seasonal events.
69. The maximum average vehicle delay permitted in the PM peak hour at the SR 305/1-Jigh School
Road signalized intersection under the applicable LOS D standard is 55 seconds. According to the
Transpo study, the existing average vehicle delay at the intersection is currently 35.7 seconds, will go to
36.6 seconds in 2015 without the project, and to 45.8 seconds with the Visconsi development. While
there are surely places in the traffic study where the Transpo data assumptions might be questioned, no
basis appears in the record for concluding that the corrections potentially indicated could push the
average vehicle delay calculation up to, or even near, the 55 second LOS D upper boundary.
70. Unlike the theoretical constructs that dominate the traffic demand analysis, questions about
onsite access and circulation, pedestrian safety, and impacts to offsite neighborhoods are experiential
and practical. They focus on matters as they exist on the ground. And as nearly everyone who is
neither on the Visconsi nor City payrolls has commented, the Transpo study initially failed to
adequately identify and address these types of issues. The City neglected to highlight these questions in
its traffic study scope of work, and the Transpo engineers sitting in their offices across the water in
Redmond had no independent knowledge of them. So an important determination to be made here is —
when in the middle of the review process these circulation and safety questions finally received their
due, were adequate answers provided? The City's Planning Commission, before whom these issues
were first seriously engaged, found the answers to be wanting.
71. At the outset we alluded to the fact that the circulation issues confronting the Visconsi site are
created by the pattern of existing development and its attendant constraints. SR 305 adjacent to the
west is a state highway mainly oriented toward moving vehicles to and from the state ferry terminal in
the most efficient manner possible. To that end WSDOT views unfavorably proposals to add new
intersection or driveway cuts to SR 305. So it is unlikely that either Visconsi or its existing neighbor to
the north, ProBuild, will ever be permitted to develop a direct access west. Properties immediately to
the east are a mixture of residential developments and unbuildable wetlands. Kitsap Bank, which
occupies the southeast corner of what at some earlier point was undoubtedly a portion of the current
Visconsi parcel, possesses its own separate access driveway system. While the Deschamps interests
retained a right for commercial use of Polly's Lane lying between Kitsap Bank and Stonecress, they
lacked the foresight to create a right-of-way with sufficient width to both handle commercial traffic
volumes and buffer residential development further east.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 17
72. So the access opportunities available to Visconsi consist of about 300 feet of relatively
unconstrained frontage along High School Road between the SR 305 intersection and Kitsap Bank plus
a legal right of dubious practical value for commercial use of Polly's Lane east of the bank. In addition,
as everyone understands, ProBuild must use an easement driveway through the Visconsi site for access
to its lumberyard, and the traffic on this driveway contains a significant percentage of both large and
small trucks. The large trucks deliver construction inventory in bulk to ProBuild, and smaller trucks
are driven by the contractors and home repair enthusiasts who purchase portions of this inventory and
cart it away. Since Visconsi's initial "Main Street" site plan concept envisioned customers strolling
across the ProBuild access driveway from one shop to another, concerns inevitably arose about
potential conflicts between pedestrians and trucks.
73. Visconsi proposes to outlet the ProBuild access further east on High School Road and
reconfigure it into a gentle arc. This relocation will have circulation benefits that appear not to have
been widely appreciated. An exit further east would allow storage lanes for both right and left turn
movements from High School Road to SR 305 to become longer, and the current offset between the
ProBuild and Ace Hardware driveways on either side of High School Road can be eliminated. While
some project opponents have argued that eliminating the driveway offset will result in turning
movements becoming more dangerous, such contention finds no support in the accepted engineering
lore. Directly opposing streets and driveways are universally regarded as creating intersection
operations that are safer and more efficient than offsets. Finally, the relocated access road will be
curved west into High School Road so that 4 or more -axle trucks should be able to make a right -turn
exit without having to cross over into the oncoming eastbound lane of traffic (as they often do now). In
short, the revised geometry of the access road connection to High School Road should represent a
substantial upgrade in maneuverability over the existing situation.
74. Whether or not the Transpo study should have anticipated potential truck and pedestrian
conflicts along the spine road, it is beyond dispute that current ProBuild vehicle volumes are not
substantial. The traffic counts performed on November 4"' and 5", 2013, both generated totals of less
than 700 vehicles per day. The greatest numbers were bunched in the mid-day span between 9 AM and
4 PM, with lower volumes in the PM peak hour. The percentage of trucks in the mix exceeded 50% for
both days. A total of 12 double unit truck trips were counted, with 10 occurring on Monday, November
4"'. During the eight hours experiencing the heaviest volumes, the average count was 73 vehicles per
hour, or an average of one vehicle trip every 50 seconds.
75. Project opponents suggested that ProBuild traffic volumes are likely to be lower when they
were counted in November than they will be in the late spring and summer construction season, which
seems a reasonable observation. The traffic count data also suggests that Monday is probably a busier
than average inventory delivery day. A further basic question would be whether ProBuild traffic can be
expected to increase significantly in the future, and whether such increase would create more serious
conflicts for Visconsi pedestrians. The early signals appear to be that ProBuild is not unhappy about
the prospect of the Visconsi project coming on line next door. It no doubt expects a percentage of
Visconsi customers to drift into its yard and spend money. If so, an eventual expansion of ProBuild's
general hardware offerings could result. Major lumber purchases are typically neither very elastic as
to demand nor do they constitute pass -by phenomena, especially in this location since ProBuild has no
nearby lumberyard competition. But hand tools and paintbrushes are a different matter. For our
purposes an expansion of the ProBuild hardware business would most likely result in an increase in
smaller vehicle traffic into the lumberyard, with much of it consisting of spillover trips from the
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 18
Visconsi site. That would mean increased traffic volumes at the north end of the spine road but not
necessarily more large truck conflict issues for onsite pedestrians.
76. Perhaps the most comprehensive description of the circulation and conflict issues inhering in
the Visconsi site plan is contained in Ross Tilghman's November 12, 2013, letter to the Planning
Commission. In his letter Mr. Tilghman identifies location and spacing problems within the crosswalk
system proposed for the ProBuild spine road, spots where protective buffering for pedestrians should
be added, and flaws in entering driveway configurations, including driveway offsets that exacerbate
vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. He also made a case for placing a pedestrian crosswalk across High
School Road somewhere within the 1200 -foot gap between SR 305 and FerncliffAvenue, observing
that the "Winslow Master Plan envisions a pedestrian crossing network with minimum spacing of 330
feet on streets more than 2,500 average daily vehicles."
77. In general, Visconsi's architect, Charlie Wenzlau, was receptive to altering the site plan proposal
to respond to the various criticisms directed at it concerning the function of the spine road. Exhibit 42
presented to the January, 2014, public hearing represented his most recent site plan iteration.
Comparing it to earlier versions one observes that a divider has been added on the north side of the
spine road to separate through -vehicle traffic to ProBuild from the building 5, 6 and 7 cluster. The
divider not only insulates pedestrians from the traffic flow but for the northern crosswalks creates a
refuge island midway. Adding the divider meant eliminating a western tier of angle parking spaces.
The latest site plan further attempts to remedy conflicts in the vicinity of the driveway adjacent to the
north side of the Kitsap Bank property by consolidating the crosswalks earlier depicted at the two east
side corners of the building 2 pharmacy into a single crossing at the pharmacy midpoint. This would
allow pedestrians to effect a protected crossing of the spine road from building 7 in two short, less
conflicted operations, first south to the Kitsap Bank side of the driveway, then west across the access
spine road to the pharmacy.
78. Overall, the site plan revision succeeds in improving safety for pedestrians traversing the spine
road and creates a more sheltered, pedestrian -friendly environment for the eastern cluster of buildings.
West of the spine road buildings 4 and 5 will lose a slight amount of roadside plaza space and adjacent
angle parking. For buildings 2, 3 and 4 most parking is now proposed further west next to SR 305.
Relocating parking to the west will result in some loss of "Main Street" ambience for the western
cluster of buildings. Consolidating the crosswalks serving the pharmacy will reduce conflicts at the
driveway located south of building 7. The current site plan retains a slight offset between this driveway
and the one between buildings 2 and 3 across the spine road, but conflicts should be minimized by
limiting the latter to one-way movements in (west) toward the pharmacy drive-through window.
79. Regarding the revised spine road layout, the biggest problems now appear to exist at its
northern end near crosswalk A as shown on the exhibit 42 plan. As presently conceived, this proposed
crosswalk cuts through the divider to link the northwest corner of building 5 with the northeast corner
of building 4 to its west. Among the unresolved issues remaining in this area are the following: the
two-way driveways planned both east and west of the spine road are significantly offset, creating
movement conflicts; the northern bulb end of the divider prevents vehicles exiting the angle parking
next to buildings 5, 6 and 7 fi-orn easily making a U-turn to depart the site via the spine road,
encouraging them instead to circle east to exit via Polly's Lane; and on busy days large trucks
delivering inventory to ProBuild will occasionally be forced to queue south of crosswalk A next to the
divider, creating visibility problems for both pedestrians and other vehicles entering the spine road
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 19
from the sides.
80. The logical solution here would seem to be to eliminate crosswalk A and shorten the divider so
that it does not extend further north than the northeast corner of building 4. The need for crosswalk A
at the outer extremity of the retail area appears to be minimal; certainly, pedestrians heading from the
medical building to the pharmacy would find crosswalk B to be more convenient. Reducing the
northern extension of the divider (and eliminating the bulb) would increase the U-turn radius and create
more maneuverability overall at this driveway intersection, as well as encouraging ProBuild overflow
delivery trucks to queue a little further south.
81. Providing two conspicuous and well -protected crosswalks traversing the spine road about 300
feet apart seems to be a better concept than the four crossings originally envisioned. If each crosswalk
is elevated 6 inches above grade, constructed out of material that contrasts with the roadway and
protected on both sides by speed humps or tables, the crossings and the pedestrians will become more
visible, the pedestrians themselves will have a better view of traffic, and the humps or tables (plus
appropriate signage) will moderate vehicle speeds. Finally, while early versions of the site plan
showed a walkway from the Visconsi site to the ProBuild yard running along the eastern side of the
spine road next to the rain garden, later editions appear to have dropped it; this offsite pedestrian
connection should be restored. In summary, even with a modest increase in ProBuild activity, the spine
access will never serve more than a handful of businesses and is not likely to ever become a busy road.
Rather, it will be a low-volume road with a higher than normal percentage of larger vehicles. Creating
safe pedestrian facilities in this environment is not an insurmountable hurdle.
82. One of the real challenges facing the Visconsi project is to avoid imposing unreasonable
commercial impacts on the Stonecress neighborhood to the east. The most serious aspect of this task
results from the risk that, due to access constraints, commercial traffic will spill over into the
neighborhood. The key variable in addressing this issue is the function of Polly's Lane on the eastern
project boundary. Polly's Lane is a 30 -foot two-lane private roadway within a 50 -foot shared access
easement and currently provides one of two accesses to High School Road for the Stonecress
Townhomes development. One Stonecress residence fronts directly onto and obtains sole access from
Polly's Lane, while for the 16 homes on narrow Daylily Lane it provides the only vehicle exit route
from the neighborhood. Lots within Stonecress are small, and the three residences closest to Polly's
Lane are only set back about 25 feet from the pavement edge. At present no properties outside of
Stonecress actively utilize Polly's Lane or the other roads within the development for access.
83. So even though, Polly's Lane was originally created out of property owned by the Deschamps
interests, who have retained its legal ownership as well as a right to use it for commercial purposes,
unlimited employment of Polly's Lane for access to and from a new retail shopping center could
impose a rude and perhaps devastating intrusion into the lives of many Stonecress residents. And
Visconsi itself agrees that this possibility is an outcome to be avoided. The question is, given site
access constraints, can commercial traffic impacts to Stonecress be held to an acceptable level?
84. Visconsi's stance going into the public hearing was to preserve Polly's Lane as a back door to
the commercial site but to exclude delivery vehicles by imposing lease restrictions on site tenants,
provide screening to Stonecress where possible, and blanket the neighborhood with signs discouraging
retail customer use. The biggest concern regarding this strategy centers on the possibility that, despite
good intentions, congestion encountered at the main spine road entry onto High School Road will impel
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 20
customers in large numbers to seek out a backdoor route further east through Stonecress.
85. Transpo's modeling projections notwithstanding, it is clear that during ferry traffic surges
vehicles heading west on High School Road now often back up from SR 305 past the proposed new
access entry and on occasion even reach Polly's Lane. It is feared that if queues begin to regularly
achieve such lengths, more traffic will use Polly's Lane to access the Visconsi site, and perhaps even
Stonecress Lane further east. In the worst-case scenario traffic approaching from FerncliffAvenue to
the east might simply develop a habit of cutting through the neighborhood via Stonecress Lane to and
from the Visconsi site. This would not only greatly expand the area of the neighborhood exposed to
commercial traffic but place at risk children using the playground located close to the northeast bend of
Stonecress Lane.
86. One response to this problem discussed at the public hearing was to limit Polly's Lane to one-
way out movements and configure the site exit at the Polly's Lane/Stonecress Lane intersection so that
traffic from Stonecress Lane could not enter the Visconsi site. Thus Visconsi customers would be able
to exit via Polly's Lane and turn either left or right at High School Road, but they could not enter the
retail complex from either Polly's or Stonecress Lanes. This would operate to prevent neighborhood
cut -through maneuvers entirely. It obviously would also inconvenience Stonecress residents to the
extent that their entry into the neighborhood would then become restricted to Stonecress Lane. But
most Stonecress residents who commented on this potential solution at the hearing seemed to feel the
tradeoff on balance would be advantageous to the neighborhood.
87. Restricting Polly's Lane to outbound traffic would assign a small amount of further traffic to the
spine entry road volumes. Using the Transpo study figures, the total PM peak hour volumes turning
into and out of the main site entry on High School Road would rise by 16 vehicles if the inbound trips
to Polly's Lane were reallocated. According to the study's trip generation numbers, Transpo estimated
429 Visconsi trips would use the site entry in the PM peak hour. Adding to this figure the 16 trips
reassigned from Polly's Lane plus 30 trips to ProBuild would bring the total PM peak hour volume at
the spine road entry to 475 vehicles. Should this total be a cause for concern?
88. Comparing the Visconsi site to the Safeway shopping center west of SR 305 with its four access
driveways to serve about 84,000 square feet of retail floor area, former City Council member Debbie
Vann suggested that the number of accesses to Visconsi might be inadequate. But there are two
variables that need to be considered in making this comparison. First, a supermarket at 9.48 trips per
1000 square feet -has a relatively high vehicle trip generation rate. The approximately 47,000 square -
foot Safeway is calculated by itself to generate 446 PM peak hour- trips. Second, the efficiency of a
parking lot driveway is heavily affected by its relationship to the lot's parking maneuvers. When angle -
parked cars are allowed to back into the driveway itself, congestion is usually the consequence of
parking maneuvers rather than a function of driveway capacity. While the City has opted to classify the
Visconsi spine road as a driveway for regulatory purposes, its width and a minimal amount of proposed
roadside parking will enlarge its effective flow capacity and allow it to function more like a street. This
fact argues against comparing the Visconsi access to the Safeway driveways. The critical blockage
problem here derives from queue formation along High School Road.
89. In this context a further matter to be considered is the sufficiency of lane configurations on High
School Road. Viewing the site mapping and aerial photographs, High School Road immediately east of
the SR 305 intersection has four lanes extending to the existing ProBuild driveway — consisting of east
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 21
and westbound through lanes plus westbound right and left turn lanes. But east of the existing
ProBuild driveway the right turn lane begins to taper out. This means that any queue extending past the
current ProBuild driveway will contain both through vehicles plus some waiting to make a right turn on
SR 305 but as yet unable to access the dedicated right turn lane. This is a queueing problem that can be
reduced. If the right turn lane is extended east to the new driveway cut for the Visconsi site, vehicles
exiting the spine road will be able to make unimpeded right turns, and other vehicles already on High
School Road can more efficiently queue up. This may require dedication of additional right-of-way
from the applicant. While further removed from the SR 305 intersection, the proposed new spine road
exit still will occupy a constrained location and all reasonable efforts, particularly those that decrease
the likelihood that retail traffic will divert to Polly's Lane, need to be pursued to maximize its
operational efficiency.
90. The City has adopted strong policies supporting the creation of a pedestrian -friendly
environment in its downtown retail area. But it is fair to say that currently not much exists in the High
School Road area that qualifies for a friendliness label. There are signalized crosswalks at the SR
305/High School Road intersection that facilitate safe pedestrian crossings, but due to its heavy traffic
volumes and multiple travel lanes, a crosswalk at this intersection will never be deemed an appealing
amenity. Along High School Road over the 1200 foot stretch between SR 305 and FerncliffAvenue
there are presently no crosswalks. Jaywalking now occurs mid -block at the entry driveway to Ace
Hardware and McDonalds, and with Visconsi proposing a second retail destination across the street the
temptation to jaywalk could increase. Most project critics have argued that a mid -block crosswalk
should be installed, and Visconsi is willing to provide one if the City supports it. But the City's
Development Engineer expressed skepticism that pedestrian volumes in the near term would be
sufficient to justify a crosswalk.
91. No City -adopted crosswalk siting standards currently exist. As identified by the Development
Engineer, factors to be considered in determining need and safety include roadway geometry, speed and
volumes, projected pedestrian use, nearby crossings, driver expectancy, lighting and crossing type.
Taking a longer range view, WSDOT's 1997 Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook includes as factors
consideration of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, land use patterns and a potential need to identify an
optimal crossing location. Before a final approval is conferred, these elements would need to be
reviewed by the City in the framework of establishing an acceptable design.
92. It is generally agreed that the section of High School Road directly adjacent to the opposing Ace
Hardware -and new Visconsi driveways would not be a good crosswalk location because of potential
conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles and a poor sight distance to the east due to
topography. From these standpoints a crosswalk further east at the Polly's Lane intersection would be a
safer location. But the concern here is whether a Polly's Lane crossing would actually attract
pedestrians owing to the fact that there is now neither a walkway downslope to the northeast corner of
the Ace hardware store parking lot nor as yet any development on the commercially zoned property
lying immediately to its east.
93. If creating a pedestrian -friendly neighborhood environment in this portion of the High School
Road district is an important community goal, this opportunity to establish a mid -block crosswalk at
Polly's Lane should be accepted. It is evident that no better location for a mid -block crossing of High
School Road exists. While it may prove true that initially the crosswalk will be underutilized, in the
longer term the now undeveloped HSR -1 property will likely get built and Ace could decide that
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 22
providing a pathway from the crosswalk into its lot makes good business sense. At some future date the
crosswalk will provide a useful link in an emerging network of public pedestrian amenities.
94. By way of context, City staff seems happy enough at the prospect that Visconsi will construct a
multi -use trail segment along the edge of the SR 305 right-of-way where it adjoins the site. In fact
construction of this trail has been imposed as a SEPA requirement "[i]n order to be consistent with the
adopted codes and Comprehensive Plan policies and to provide non -motorized connections to the
proposed development." It will connect to the crosswalk at the High School Road intersection as well
as to the Visconsi project via an easterly spur between buildings 4 and 5, and at some future date this
multi -modal segment will likely become a link in the Sound to Olympics regional trail network. But at
the moment of its construction this trail facility will have little actual function, with no immediate
connections to other major trail segments either north or south. So, like the mid -block crosswalk
traversing High School Road under discussion above, the multi -modal trail is to be valued for its future
contribution to a non -motorized transportation network being assembled piece by piece as opportunities
arise.
Noise
95. The IRD SEPA appeal alleged that the Visconsi project would have unmitigated adverse noise
impacts to residential neighborhoods lying east of the site, principally in Stonecress. SEPA Condition
No. 7 was imposed by the City in order to protect adjacent properties from noise from site construction
and later operational activities , as provided by B1MC Chapter 16.16. Since the City has adopted by
reference the applicable state standards, the requirement is that noise produced by the development
comply with the maximum environmental noise levels established by WAC 173-60-040(2). Under this
Code section, noise generated by commercial properties may not lawfully exceed 57 dBA when
measured at the boundary of adjacent residential properties during the daytime and 47 dbA when
measured between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
96. iRD presented the testimony of Dr. Charles Schmid, a fellow of the Acoustical Society of
America with a Ph.D. in engineering. Dr. Schmid did not prepare a site noise study nor specify typical
noise levels to be expected from sources of concern but rather generally identified several noise
generators likely associated with the Visconsi project. These included traffic, HVAC equipment,
garbage and recycling operations, and street sweepers. The thrust of Dr. Schmid's testimony was that a
computerized noise study should be performed before Visconsi project approval.
97. In response to Dr. Schmid, Visconsi presented the testimony of Errol Nelson, P.E., an engineer
with a specialty in acoustics. At the time of the hearing Mr. Nelson had not yet visited the site, but he
presented estimates of existing noise levels deemed representative in view of the location's
characteristics. Mr. Nelson testified from his experience that the baseline pre -development noise levels
at the project site were likely to be about 58 dBA at the site entry on High School Road and 63 dBA
along the western site boundary with SR 305. In Mr. Nelson's view the baseline noise levels along the
eastern boundary of the site adjacent to Stonecress were likely to be 50 dBA or less. He also predicted
that these baseline levels would likely not be exceeded after noise generated by the completed Visconsi
project was factored in, or at most exceeded by a single decibel. Mr. Nelson testified that with today's
technology noise from HVAC systems and other rooftop equipment was easily controlled.
98. As agreed to by the parties, after the hearing Mr. Nelson visited the Visconsi project site and
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 23
took actual baseline noise readings to be submitted to the record, the results of which were generally
consistent with his earlier testimony and predictions. The measured baseline noise levels were 56 dBA
at the site entry on High School Road, 67 dBA along the western boundary of the ProBuild site
adjacent to SR 305, and just above 46 dBA at the northern end of Polly's Lane. After considering this
additional data, Mr. Nelson concluded that noise levels at the residences along the eastern boundary are
currently well below the 57 dBA regulatory maximum and should not rise appreciably after
development. He predicted that the project should easily comply with City of Bainbridge Island noise
regulations. In addition, as voluntary mitigation Visconsi has agreed to perform followup noise
measurements during the first year of full retail operations to assure that acceptable levels are actually
being achieved.
99. Traffic noise, which is exempt fi-om direct regulation by the City, is the potential impact source
of greatest worry to Stonecress residents. Stonecress is already bounded on its western edge by a
commercial property, Kitsap Bank, that has a drive-through lane near its eastern line. If business traffic
use of Polly's Lane can be limited, and traffic cutting through the Stonecress neighborhood avoided,
traffic noise impacts should not noticeably exceed current levels. Restricting Polly's Lane to one-way
outbound traffic should provide the requisite mitigation for all project traffic impacts of concern,
including traffic noise. In addition, Visconsi has agreed to a condition excluding project commercial
truck traffic from using Polly's Lane, and a 15 mph speed limit can be imposed as well. In
combination these measures should operate acceptably to minimize traffic noise impacts to Stonecress.
Light and Glare
100. In support of its contention that the Visconsi Project will have a probable significant adverse
impact as the result of light and glare, iRD presented the testimony of Barry Andrews, a resident of the
Stonecress neighborhood. Mr. Andrews showed night-time photos of the illuminated Safeway
commercial development located west of SR 305 on the south side of High School Road and expressed
concern that the light and glare generated by the project would have similar impacts on residents living
in Stonecress. SEPA condition 3 provides that to protect adjacent properties fi-om light and glare, all
exterior lighting is to be hooded and shielded, all landscape lighting downcast, and lighting within
parking lots no higher than 14 feet above grade. in addition, all exterior lighting is generally required
to comply with BIMC Chapter 15.34 (now BIMC 18.15.040).
101. Joshua Machen, the City's Planning Manager, testified that compliance with this condition will
result in the Visconsi Project being "nothing like" the Safeway development as far as light and glare are
concerned. The Safeway development was vested and built under the Kitsap County regulations in
effect prior to the 1991 incorporation of Bainbridge Island. Current Bainbridge Island lighting
regulations provide significant protection for adjacent properties. The applicable standards are found in
BIMC 18.15.040(D), which in addition to limiting heights and requiring shielding, prohibit "light
trespass." This means that the indirect light visible at the Visconsi property line can be no more bright
or intense than a 60 -watt bulb viewed at a distance of 25 feet.
102. Mr. Andrews also expressed concern about the impacts from the headlights of vehicles using
parking lots near Stonecress and exiting to Polly's Lane. While the City code exempts headlights from
regulation, Visconsi's proposed voluntary mitigations undertake to address this question. The voluntary
conditions exclude installation of streetlights on Polly's Lane if the City approves and require posting a
"no trucks" sign at the site exit to Polly's Lane plus a board fence and landscaping buffer opposite the
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 24
easternmost Visconsi parking lot. This buffer section adjacent to the northern end of Polly's Lane now
contains mature trees that will be retained. As for night-time traffic on Polly's Lane itself, the logic of
the situation suggests that headlight impacts should not cause a major impact. After 6 PM the proposed
medical offices and many retail shops will likely be closed and any general traffic congestion
dissipated. Relatively few customers will remain, and those that do will have no obvious incentive to
avoid using the main access driveway. Certainly, if the pharmacy remains open late, its customers can
be expected to exit directly south to High School Road rather than loop around Kitsap Bank to Polly's
Lane.
Aesthetics
103. Aesthetics is an element of the environment to be analyzed during SEPA review, but the term
"aesthetics" is not defined as to its regulatory application. The IRD appeal made a general allegation
that the Visconsi project would have adverse aesthetic impacts, and this assertion was partially refined
in the pre -hearing order to specifically include view impacts from SR 305, High School Road and
nearby residential properties. In addition, at the public hearing IRD witness Ron Peltier contended that
the realm of aesthetic impacts should be extended to cover a much broader range of issues. Mr. Peltier
characterized all of the following as impacts to "aesthetic and scenic values":
l) The scale and intensity of the Visconsi project;
2) Loss of aesthetic values from tree removal;
3) Lack of harmony between the Visconsi project and adjacent uses;
4) Failure of the project to create a pedestrian friendly environment;
5) Lack of sustainability;
6) Failure to preserve the island's special character; and
7) Failure of the project to complement downtown Winslow.
104. The brief submitted by the City Attorney undertook to relate this rather open-ended set of
allegations to some sort of workable review framework. Starting with a dictionary definition of
"aesthetics" as meaning "of or relating to artistic expression," the brief moved on to consider the
aesthetics -related environmental checklist questions specified at WAC 197-11-960. These questions
target structural heights and exterior building materials plus the alteration or obstruction of "views in
the immediate vicinity." Based on these sources the City's brief argued that under SEPA "aesthetics
involves consideration of the negative visual impacts of the proposal" and "cannot and should not go
beyond the visual." By comparison, an inclusive definitional statement of the concepts underlying Mr.
Peltier's list might be that an aesthetic impact is one that adversely affects a community's pleasurable
and healthy sense of harmony.
105. Applying its definition to Mr. Peltier's list, the City's brief rejected intensity, tree removal,
disharmonious sprawl, pedestrian orientation, sustainability, and failure to preserve the Island's special
character or complement downtown Winslow as allegations not raising aesthetic impact issues under
SEPA because they are divorced from visual effects. Employing the City briefs standard, the Examiner
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 25
would agree to all the exclusions except for the blanket rejection of tree removal. Tree removal, per se,
is not a potential aesthetic impact. But tree removal in the context of a valuable view might be. For
example, if someone's prized view is of Mt. Rainier fi•amed by mature conifers, a proposal involving
removal of those viewscape trees could result in an aesthetic impact. The City's tree ordinance is not
oriented toward preserving trees for view protection, so it cannot be logically cited as providing
effective mitigation for the potential view impacts of tree removal.
106. Before proceeding further, it is perhaps important to emphasize the boundaries of this
discussion. Some items on Mr. Peltier's list are factors that may be considered apart from SEPA within
the site plan and conditional use permit review processes. The question here is limited to whether they
also comprise elements of the environment within the meaning of SEPA. In general, the City's analysis
that an aesthetic impact under SEPA must have a visual component is persuasive. See, Cingular
Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.App. 756, 770 (Wash.App. Div. 2) (2006). But the basic
principle needs to be fleshed out. A visual impact implies a viewer who will be affected. Something
ugly does not create an aesthetic impact if no one sees it. Also, the degree of impact must be assessed.
In our Mt. Rainier view example above, the adverse visual impact of tree -cutting might be quite
substantial if the viewscape at issue is observed from a dozen homes through the bay windows of their
living rooms. On the other hand, the impact will be far less significant if the viewscape can only be
observed fi-om a small third -floor bathroom window on the backside of a single residence.
107. Turning to the visual impacts of the Visconsi proposal itself, its site plan depicts a relatively
compact development with substantial screening buffers along both its western boundary with SR 305
and its eastern boundary with adjacent residential properties. Visual impacts to the east are blocked by
the forested offsite wetland and its buffer located at the site's northeast corner plus the intervening
Kitsap Bank occupying the southeast quadrant of the development rectangle. In between, a forested
buffer will also be provided to mask the adjacent parking lot and the eastern tier of project buildings.
To the north lies the ProBuild lumberyard, and to the south across High School Road are located Ace
Hardware and a McDonald's drive-in.
108. The larger buildings are proposed to be clustered at the center of the site away from
neighborhood streets and will be screened by other buildings. The most visible structure will be the
building 1 bank located near the main SR 305/High School Road intersection. At 3300 square feet it
will also be the smallest. The largest footprint belongs to the building 2 pharmacy at 14,475 square
feet. It will be set back 200 feet from High School Road and about 150 feet from SR 305, where it will
also be screened by a 50 -foot vegetated buffer. The 20,000 square -foot two-story building 5 medical
center will be tucked away in the site's northeast quadrant, visually buffered on all sides except the
north by trees and other buildings; its only offsite visibility will be from the ProBuild yard.
109. It is perhaps possible to fault Mr. Wenzlau's site plan fi-om the perspective of its failure to
successfully address, certainly initially, some circulation issues relating to potential vehicle and
pedestrian conflicts. But from the standpoint of avoiding adverse offsite visual effects, his design
comes about as close to zero -impact as it is possible to get. The only open visual exposure to the
project will be from the High School Road fi-ontage, and in this portion of the project the smallest
proposed structure will be placed. No other project buildings will have more than minor offsite
visibility. No views of consequence will be affected. IRD and its supporters have made generalized
allegations of project aesthetic harm but have been unable to identify any unmitigated project visual
impacts to substantiate their claims. Mr. Peltier's idealized vision of what the essence of Bainbridge
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 26
Island life embraces may be compelling but, in the SEPA context at least, it is not compulsory. Some
of the questions he raises will be revisited, however, in the discussion of the regulatory role of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Economic Factors
1 l 0. The allegation of an "urban blight" environmental impact within the IRD SEPA appeal has been
a controversial topic from the beginning. Visconsi's attorney moved to dismiss the issue from the
appeal at the pre -hearing level, arguing it was simply a subterfuge for improperly inserting economic
competition as a SEPA issue. It is well understood that the effect of economic competition is not in
itself a SEPA issue and can only give rise to an environmental impact in the extreme situation where it
causes identifiable degradation to the physical environment — hence the common use of the term "urban
blight." In a supplement to the pre -hearing order dated January 6, 2014, the Examiner ruled that as a
matter of pleading the blight allegation qualified as an appeal issue and declined to speculate whether
IRD later would be capable of producing credible evidence to support it.
111. At the public hearing many residents commented to the effect that the Island has no need for
more banks, medical offices or drugstores. Many pointed out that three drugstores already exist and
worried that a landmark downtown independent business, Vern's Winslow Drugs, might be driven
under by the arrival of another major chain outlet. Similar sentiments were also expressed concerning
the economic viability of small independent businesses generally in the downtown retail core. A
somewhat contrarian viewpoint was offered by the City's Planning Director who opined that, due to its
proximity to the waterfront and the ferry, the downtown Winslow district attracts more of a tourist
clientele than would Visconsi further up SR 305 at High School Road.
l l 2. IRD's primary witness on economic impacts was Hilde Chichester, who has a background in
marketing. Ms. Chichester researched the availability of empty retail spaces on the Island both through
real estate listings and her own investigations. She composed a list of retail and office spaces currently
for lease totaling approximately 70,440 square feet. The list contains one large retail and office facility
at 34,500 square feet, plus about 33,000 square feet of empty space in the Safeway/Hildebrand area that
includes four units in the Safeway Shopping Center. While her presentation was well -organized and
informational, Ms. Chichester made no attempt to evaluate the significance of her numbers for the
Bainbridge economy overall or for its downtown commercial district, forthrightly admitting that such
analysis was beyond her expertise.
113. A number of IRD witnesses commented about the sustainability of the proposal, but it is unclear -
where in this report a discussion of such a subject properly belongs. The Examiner, somewhat
arbitrarily, has opted to include it under the economic heading based on a sense that it refers most
fundamentally to the ability of an enterprise to survive over the long term, in the context of both wise
resource use and its fitness to serve the needs of the community. As Mr. Peltier has pointed out, in the
resource conservation realm BIMC 18. 18.020 suggests that "site designs of all developments and
redevelopments are encouraged to accommodate solar panels, small wind energy generators, and rain
gardens/swales where practical."
114. While Visconsi seems to have taken awhile to respond to (or even comprehend) the prodding
and encouragement it has received from the Island's pervasively green culture, it eventually has
managed to climb on board. Its project proposal now proudly incorporates electric car charging
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 27
stations, bicycle racks and rain gardens. In addition, during the hearing Visconsi further offered to
incorporate into its design "green roofs," high efficiency windows, recycled products and other
sustainability measures as voluntary mitigations.
115. The economic heading might also be an appropriate place to ponder a few factors that could be
important to the success of the project but normally escape attention because they bear no direct
relationship to regulatory review standards. One factor is the posture of the developer, more
particularly, whether it appears to be a solid firm that is going to remain involved with the development
over the long term. Some developers specialize in securing options on commercial real estate,
obtaining the necessary development permits, then flipping the project to a new owner that will actually
build and operate (or resell) the new facilities. In that situation, problems of reliability can arise
because the smiling guy at the hearing making all the big promises won't be sticking around long
enough to be held accountable.
116. Visconsi does not seem to fall into this category, appearing to be a reasonably stable and
financially sound company with a long track record of building and operating shopping centers. One
surmises that it expects to be involved over the long term and answerable for its behavior. The
company should have the financial strength necessary to deliver on its promises to the community.
Ohio-based Visconsi is also in the early stages of expanding into West Coast markets. The potential
benefit to Bainbridge from this fact is that the performance of Visconsi's early projects in this part of
the world will largely define its regional reputation. From a public relations standpoint, the company
should be motivated to avoid having an early project turn into a conspicuous disaster that could
reverberate throughout the area. The Examiner is well aware that in the public perception all
developers are often tarred with the same uncomplimentary brush. But in reality some are better than
others — and on a challenging site such as this one, such differences can prove critical.
117. A second hidden beneficial factor is that the long-time Bainbridge Island property owners,
whose option issued to Visconsi will convert to a sale only if the necessary City permits are granted,
have been firm in their insistence that the entire eight -acre parcel should be developed as a single
project. While this has made review of the Visconsi proposal into a controversial, high-profile public
event, a benefit lies in the possibility of creating an integrated site design that deals in some intelligent
way with the property's locational constraints.
118. Visconsi's interest in Bainbridge Island seems to have been triggered by its relationship to Key
Bank, which requested the developer to find it a new facility site. Absent the Kellys' insistence that the
parcel under review be purchased in its entirety, Visconsi likely would have been satisfied to simply
secure for the bank a small corner lot at or near the SR 305/High School Road intersection. Pursuing
that strategy to its logical conclusion, the eight acres of the site over the years would have been
developed piecemeal into separate businesses on a number of smaller parcels, each new site having
minimal design continuity with the others and no project being large enough by itself to register on the
public review radar. If anyone is unsure how that scenario plays out, just take a look at Kitsap Bank
next door and multiply by six.
Stonecress
119. if the Visconsi retail project ends up generating direct and tangible adverse consequences to the
surrounding community, the 45 -unit Stonecress residential neighborhood to its east would probably
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 28
bear the brunt of these impacts. Most of these matters have been explored above under other headings,
but it is also useful to revisit them collectively. While many Stonecress residents testified at the public
hearing and submitted written comments to the record on particular issues, Barry and Linda Andrews
on Daylily Lane within Stonecress undertook to monitor the process as it developed and provided a
valuable overview picture. In her capacity as president of the Home Owners Association, Linda
Andrews spoke at the opening night hearing, emphasizing traffic and drainage issues. She expressed
concern that "commercial center traffic will interfere with our access, particularly during times when
traffic backs up on High School Road and shoppers take the Polly's Lane access road in preference to
the main entrance to the commercial center," positing as a worst-case scenario the emergence of
Stonecress Lane further east as an additional cut-through route. Regarding runoff, Ms. Andrews
described the wetland overflow problems that appear to threaten the stability of the Stonecress
stormwater pond berm.
120. Later in the hearing Barry Andrews offered an updated summary of Stonecress concerns that to
some degree reflected the neighborhood's response to the discussion that had been taking place over the
prior few days. His list of issues included the need for effective privacy and lighting screening on
Polly's Lane, night-time light pollution effects generally, traffic and HVAC noise levels, runoff impacts
to the Stonecress detention pond, and the need for a pedestrian crosswalk across High School Road.
Mr. Andrews supported proposed limitations designed to decrease commercial use of Polly's Lane, at
one point stating that "making Polly's Lane one-way would address many of these concerns."
121. Reviewing these comments, it seems clear that restricting commercial truck traffic usage of
Polly's Lane and making both it and the connecting Visconsi parking lot exit one-way outbound are the
mechanisms that would offer the greatest mitigation value to Stonecress. In addition to the traffic
volumes themselves, many of the other impacts under discussion — noise and lights in particular —
would mostly be the secondary effects of increased vehicle use of Polly's Lane. If the commercial
vehicle flow can be held to an acceptable level, these secondary effects become far more manageable.
Regarding noise, baseline levels have been established and followup measurements will be required
once the site is fully operational.
122. A buffer that retains existing mature trees and is augmented by a solid wooden fence will be
installed adjacent to the Stonecress homes north of Polly's Lane. It is reasonable to also require that
this buffering be created early in the site development process. No one has argued that these measures
cannot be effective. As for Mr. Andrews's general concern about night-time light pollution, BIMC
18.15.040(D) as noted above limits light leaving the site to an impact equivalent to a 60-watt bulb. Mr.
Andrews contended that "what's at issue is not simply whether or not street lights conform to city
codes," but his assertion is not entirely correct. Regulatory mitigations are deemed legally adequate for
their intended purposes until someone proves that they in fact are not. No such proof has been offered
here. Commercial zoning on the Visconsi site has been in existence since well before Stonecress was
built. While Stonecress residents are surely entitled to a permit review outcome that reasonably
insulates them from the inevitable arrival of retail development next door, they cannot expect that such
review will perpetually guarantee them a wilderness experience.
123. If permits are granted, a crosswalk will be required across High School Road at Polly's Lane as
suggested by Stonecress residents as well as numerous others. The Examiner's evaluation is that when
the main site access to High School Road is functioning efficiently and unimpaired by congestion, few
vehicles exiting the Visconsi site should be motivated go out of their way to use Polly's Lane. So in
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 29
addition to restrictions directly limiting the use of Polly's Lane, any decision should also undertake to
reduce congestion on High School Road by optimizing vehicle movements at the main site entrance.
To that end the right -turn exit lane from the site needs both to be configured to accommodate the large
trucks serving ProBuild and extended from the site west to the SR 305 intersection. Finally, as
discussed earlier, the outlet from the Woodland Village wetland through Stonecress forms part of the
nearby downstream conveyance system for Visconsi runoff flows, and assuring its proper functioning
should be a Visconsi responsibility.
CONCLUSIONS
The Review Framework
1. The public hearing and the resultant Hearing Examiner report cover three decisional
components — a SEPA threshold determination appeal and applications for a conditional use permit and
for site plan review. These procedures have been consolidated into a single review process pursuant to
BIMC 2.16.170. The review pecking order stated at BIMC 2.16.170.0 places responsibility for
conducting the consolidated review on the Hearing Examiner based primarily on having jurisdiction
over the conditional use permit element of the process. The procedures stated in BIMC 2.16.040.D also
contemplate that a consolidated review might accommodate a prior administrative site plan review
decision by the Planning Director. But the parties stipulated at the pre -hearing conference as a more
efficient process that the initial site plan review decision also would be deferred to the Hearing
Examiner as part of the consolidated review. Thus for both applications the Community Development
Department's role is to make a staff recommendation to the Examiner.
2. Prior to arriving at the public hearing stage each application in the consolidated process was
subject to its own detailed review procedures. For both applications a review and recommendation
from the Design Review Board was required, and for the conditional use permit application the
additional step of a Planning Commission review was mandated. So the CUP arrived before the
Examiner with three separate recommendations — from the DRB for approval, from the Planning
Commission for denial and lastly from the Planning staff for approval. While none of these
recommendations cavy any formal legal weight under City code, Visconsi has argued that the two
project approval recommendations are to be accorded some level of deference.
3. The reasons offered by Visconsi for mandatory deference are not persuasive. First, the appellate
cases cited are inapposite; they arise out of situations where a court was reviewing a decision of an
administrative agency. Here the agency of concern is the City of Bainbridge Island. The Design
Review Board, Planning Commission, Planning and Community Development Department and
Hearing Examiner are all sub -parts of LOBI, not separate agencies in themselves. For purposes of
judicial review the final agency action will be the Hearing Examiner decision. Visconsi's related
contention, that code interpretations made by the Planning Director are deemed conclusive by BIMC
18.03.090, also misses the mark. The code interpretations authorized by this section are provided as a
service in response to formal public requests for prospective permitting guidance. These interpretations
also may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, who is authorized to overturn them. Nothing in this
section suggests that routine staff report analyses or hearing testimony containing code interpretations
are entitled to automatic deference.
4. But even though not mandatory, deference may at times be appropriate based on the expertise of
VISCONSI REPORTAND DECISION -30
knowledgeable persons operating within the realm of their competence. This is especially true when
the standards to be applied rely on value judgments or discretionary elements. On this basis, some
deference is surely due the DRB evaluation and recommendation as to overall project compliance with
applicable Design Guidelines. This would recognize the expertise of the DRB members, as well the
rather discretionary nature of the review process as elaborated in the Guidelines introduction:
Design guidelines are not intended to be like quantitative, fixed zoning standards. They are to
be applied with an attitude of flexibility. Each development site and project will have particular
characteristics that may suggest that some guidelines be emphasized and others de-emphasized.
5. The Visconsi brief also argues for a categorical preference to be accorded expert testimony over
that of neighborhood residents. The City's rules governing hearings supply no process for qualifying
individuals as experts. Thus the term "expert" cannot be assigned definitive legal content in this
proceeding because the qualifications of the various candidates are never meaningfully tested or
determined. All witnesses are subject to evaluation individually based on their actual knowledge and
credibility. The outcome of such evaluation often varies with the topic, its complexity and the specific
context. For example, the traffic level of service calculations of an engineer conversant with the
Highway Capacity Manual and Synchro 8.0 software are inevitably going to carry more weight than the
observations of a lay witness familiar with neither. On the other hand, someone who has lived in the
project vicinity and observed actual traffic movement patterns for years will know elements of
neighborhood history that an out-of-town engineer who has only visited the site a few times has no way
to access. There is no one -size -fits -all rule for evaluating administrative hearing testimony. Each
witness presents a unique circumstance.
6. Finally, one fundamental principle of general applicability needs to be acknowledged. The
High School Road district is an area of the City that is challenged by less than optimal historic
development patterns. The temptation therefore exists to try to make proponents of new development
bear the entire burden of correcting conditions, including past mistakes, created at various times by the
City, Kitsap County, WSDOT and earlier developers. Both the federal and state constitutions, as
interpreted by their respective appellate court systems, tell us that this is a temptation to be resisted.
New development can only be tasked with mitigating its own impacts, which may include a
proportionate share of the cost of addressing larger impacts to which it may contribute. A development
proposal cannot be denied on the basis of pre-existing problems that it did not create and indeed may
have only limited power to influence.
The Role of the Comprehensive Plan in Permit Review
7. In Washington state the conventional relationship between a comprehensive plan and a zoning
code is that the plan provides a general policy matrix upon which the zoning regulations are based.
Thus the rule of thumb for development applications is that the code is regulatory but the plan is not.
The pristine simplicity and clarity of this arrangement has been compromised, however, by zoning
codes that undertake to give concurrent regulatory effect to comprehensive and community plans. This
is the situation on Bainbridge Island regarding the decisional criteria governing both conditional uses
and site plan review. For issuance of a major conditional use permit BIMC 2.16.110.D(1)(d) requires a
finding that the "conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted
community plans, including the nonmotorized transportation plan," while BIMC 2.16.040.E(7)
specifies a determination that the "site plan and design is in conformance with the comprehensive plan
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 31
and other applicable adopted community plans."
8. The state's appellate courts recently have undertaken to assess the actual regulatory effect of this
type of incorporating reference. The outcomes appear to vary with the specific circumstances. The
courts generally agree that such incorporating references are effective on some level:
To the extent a comprehensive plan prohibits a use that the zoning code permits, the use is
permitted. Lakeside Indus. v Thurston County, 119 Wash.App. 886, 895, 83 P.3d 433, review
denied, 152 Wash.2d 1015, 101 P.3d 107 (2004). But where, as here, the zoning code itself
expressly requires that a proposed use comply with a comprehensive plan, the proposed use
must satisfy both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan (citations omitted). Cingular
Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.App. 756, 770 (Wash.App. Div. 2) (2006).
9. The Division 2 Court of Appeals decided both Lakeside and Cingular based on its interpretation
of the Thurston County comprehensive and sub -area plans and zoning regulations — and in the two
cases came to opposite conclusions regarding their regulatory effects. So the Cingular opinion goes to
great length to harmonize the two different outcomes. Based on Cingular and a handful of earlier
appellate opinions (and leavened with a drop of common sense), the following general principles
applicable to defining the interplay between the Bainbridge Island's zoning regulations and its
Comprehensive and Winslow Master Plans can be derived:
A comprehensive or community plan provision should not be given regulatory effect if it
is primarily intended to operate in the planning context. Comprehensive plans area
mixture of directives for further future planning and policy statements about specific
desirable outcomes that can reasonably be given immediate regulatory effect. Some
plans separate these different types of expressions. In the Bainbridge plans they tend to
be mixed together. Directives for future planning should not be assigned a present
regulatory function.
• Plan policies should be interpreted within the context that they appear Planning is all
about linking elements together in a coherent pattern to form a larger picture. It is
therefore nonsensical and self-defeating to read plan policies (let alone particular words
and phrases) in isolation from related concepts. This is especially true when the purpose
of the policy under consideration is to elaborate or explain a larger goal.
• To have a regulatory effect in evaluating a development proposal a plan policy must be
capable of being applied to a factual situation in a way that perrnits objective
discrimination between what is required and what is not. Generic value statements of a
visionary character usually lack the specificity necessary for objective and predictable
practical application.
• To have regulatory effect within a decision-making proceeding the application of a plan
policy must be supported by site-specific factual findings. A permit application cannot
be denied based on abstractions unrelated to any unique facts pertaining to the proposal.
• A plan policy cannot be given regulatory effect if it conflicts with, or operates to null
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 32
a more specific code provision or plan policy. The legal process consistently holds that
an action or use listed as specifically permitted is to be deemed a more clearly intended
outcome than an implication derived from a general principle.
Plan -based Regulatory Issues Affecting the Visconsi Proposal
10. The employment of comprehensive and community plan policies in the permit review process
typically involves treating them as development standards that supplement or clarify zoning code
requirements. Opponents of the Visconsi project have undertaken to elevate plan compliance
requirements to include the more fundamental inquiry into whether the proposed uses can be permitted
at all. On the level of greatest generality, project opponents have proposed that approval of the
Visconsi project should be rejected because of its alleged violation of the "Five Overriding Principles
that Guide the Plan" stated in the COBI Comprehensive Plan introductory chapter:
1. Preserve the special character of the Island which includes forested areas, meadows, farms,
marine views, and winding roads bordered by dense vegetation.
2. Protect the water resources of the Island.
3. Foster diversity of the residents of the Island, its most precious resource.
4. The costs and benefits to property owners should be considered in making land use decisions.
5. Development should be based on the principle that the Island's environmental resources are
finite and must be maintained at a ,sustainable level.
1 l . Of these Principles 2 and 3 would not appear to be, on their face, directly applicable to the
Visconsi proposal under any interpretation, and Principle 4 suggests (if anything) some modest need to
take the applicant's interests into consideration. This leaves for discussion Principles 1 and 5. Principle
1 speaks to the "special character of the Island "in the context of "forested areas, meadows, farms,
marine views, and winding roads bordered by dense vegetation." Project opponents focused on the fact
that the application property has a large stand of mature trees that will be reduced by site development.
The contention put forward is that the tree cutting necessary for retail center development requires
project denial because it is not in harmony with the first Plan Overriding Principle. In Principle 5 the
opposition emphasis has been placed on the word "sustainable" and its connotations for green
development.
12. Taken as a group the "Five Overriding Principles" are intended to inform the future planning
process. Though repeated elsewhere in the various topical elements, they are first articulated and
explained in the Comprehensive Plan's introduction. Their purpose is identified as guidance, not
regulation. None of the five lends itself to creating an intelligible standard for the development review
process nor for discriminating application to a factual situation. Not much raw land could ever be
commercially developed if applicants were forbidden to cut any trees, an outcome that would negate
commercial zoning generally. The basic planning sense of Principle l is that the overall rural ambience
of the Island is best preserved by concentrating urban development within discrete smaller areas, an
objective that is perhaps most clearly expressed at General Land Use Policy LU 1.6. The "Five
Overriding Principles that Guide the Plan" are plainly intended to function only as broad directives for
future planning, not as development standards to be applied to individual proposals in the permit
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 33
review process.
13. A second broadside attack on Visconsi project approval launched by opponents based on
Comprehensive Plan language is premised on the potential regulatory application of General Land Use
Policy LU 1.4: "New commercial centers should be considered only after detailed analysis of the
economic impact of the new development shows there will be no significant, adverse impact on the
existing commercial centers, including Winslow. " The debate here involves whether the Visconsi
project constitutes a "new commercial center" that only can be approved after an economic analysis is
performed regarding its potential impacts on existing Winslow businesses. Much of the party briefing
has focused somewhat inconclusively on the meaning of the word "center," both its use generally and
within other parts of the Plan.
14. As the Visconsi brief suggests, a rational interpretation of Policy LU 1.4 necessitates relating it
to its Plan context. It is one of nine policies set forth in elaboration of General Land Use Goal 1:
"Ensure a development pattern that is true to the vision for Bainbridge Island by reducing the
inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling development. " In support of Goal 1,
Policy LU 1.1 states that "land use designations" should preserve the predominant Island residential
character, "with nonresidential development outside of the Winslow area concentrated in the service
centers and at the designated light manufacturing areas." Policies LU 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 then provide
more specific planning guidance regarding Winslow, the Neighborhood Service Centers and the Day
and Sportmans Club Road light manufacturing areas respectively. Policies LU 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9 lay
out the procedures to followed if the creation of new areas for non-residential uses is to be entertained.
15. Viewed in their entirety, General Land Use Goal 1 and its supporting nine policies are focused
almost exclusively on the process of authorizing new non-residential zoning designations. None of the
discussion is oriented toward specific development proposals except LU 1.8, and the spotlight there is
on appropriate application procedures and not on development standards. In such context it seems
unlikely that the intent of Policy LU 1.4 was to impose an economic study as a project development
requirement. A reading more consistent with the thrust overall of of the Goal 1 discussion is that no
new areas should be zoned for commercial uses unless a study demonstrates enough market demand
that existing commercial areas will not be harmed. The use of the word "center" likely reflects the
consistent Plan emphasis on restricting non-residential development to compact areas. Also, the notion
that the High School Road District in its entirety is deemed by the Plan an existing rather than a
potential new commercial center is suggested by Winslow Goal 5, which explicitly refers to the area as
the "Commercial High School Road District."
16. Moreover, there is a second line of reasoning that compels rejecting the contention that Policy
LU 1.4 should be deemed a development requirement. What would be the practical consequences of
performing the economic study that project opponents are requesting? If it concluded that no harm
would befall downtown Winslow if the Visconsi project were built, the study likely would have no real
effect at all. Time and money might have been expended, but the project would go forward as
proposed. But if, on the other hand, the economic study concluded that the Bainbridge Island economy:
can in fact support no further retail development, the practical effect of that determination would be to
nullify existing retail zoning on all currently undeveloped parcels on the Island. No doubt this would
seem an attractive prospect to project opponents. But one of the few certainties found in the
Washington appellate case law dealing with the plan and zoning relationship is that a plan policy
cannot validly prohibit a use which the zoning specifically allows. All the proposed Visconsi retail uses
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION -34
are specifically permitted by code in the High School Road zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan
can confer no power to categorically invalidate such a legislative use authorization within an
administrative permit review proceeding, either directly or by implication.
17. Winslow Goal 5 within the Comprehensive Plan states that "[1]he Commercial High School
Road District is intended to provide for commercial uses that complement downtown Winslow and
benefit froin automobile access near the highway, while creating a pedestrian friendly retail area. "
Obviously there is a tension between recognizing the suitability of properties adjacent to the SR 305
corridor for automobile -dependent uses and access while at the same time requiring them to maximize
pedestrian -friendly development. A balance needs to be established. In numerous ways the
Comprehensive and Winslow Master Plans encourage developments on the Island to accommodate and
facilitate pedestrian access, movement and safety. But it is also a fact that, among the various Winslow
Overlay Districts, High School Road is the sole zoning designation receptive on a regulatory level to
automobile -based commercial development. Any attempt to assess within a permitting review the
regulatory balance between auto -centric and pedestrian -friendly claims must necessarily take this -fact
into consideration.
18. The tables provided at BIMC 18.09.020 list the permitted and conditional uses for each City
zone. The following are the auto -centric uses allowed to be sited in the High School Road District but
prohibited in all five designations that comprise the Winslow Mixed Use Town Center classification:
auto repair services, car washes, gasoline service stations, vehicle sales, park and ride lots, small engine
repair service, transport and delivery service, and a catch-all category of unlisted non -retail "motor
vehicle -related services." Any realistic imposition of pedestrian -friendly development requirements
must necessarily accommodate the fact that the High School Road District is to a substantial degree one
of the few zones on the Island that is tolerant of automobile uses. And looking at the range of uses
allowed in the district, the Visconsi project with two of seven buildings having accessory drive -up
windows is far less auto -centric than many other use configurations arguably permitted under the
zoning regulations.
19. As IRD's attorney has noted, there is an apparent regulatory conflict regarding the allowability
of drive-through facilities in the High School Road District. Among the uses listed above, it seems
indisputable that some, such as an automatic car wash, could not exist other than as a drive-through
facility. Plus the purpose statement set forth at BIMC 18.06.040.A specifically provides that for the
High School Road zones a "variety of commercial uses are allowed that offer goods and services•for
the convenience of Island residents and that may have an auto orientation and a drive-through facility."
Yet further along in the chapter devoted to use regulations one encounters the following statement at
BIMC 18.09.030.D(8)(d) limiting retail uses: "In the Madison Avenue, Ericksen Avenue, Gateway,
High School Road I and 11, and central core districts, drive-through businesses are not permitted."
20. Both the applicant and City staff contend that any resolution of the purported conflict between
BIMC 18.09.030.D(8)(d) and the use tables and purpose statement for the High School Road zones
must give effect to the overall regulatory scheme and not simply focus on one provision to the total
exclusion of all others. An outcome that the Planning staff has embraced is to distinguish between a
business based squarely on a drive-in model and a more general retail enterprise that has a secondary or
incidental drive -up window component. Since this is a fact -sensitive approach where multiple design
interpretations appear possible, deference to Planning staff practice appears to be a defensible option.
Certainly the site's location immediately adjacent to the SR 305 intersection supports a flexible
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION -35
interpretation, as does the fact that for some medical center patients with mobility issues having to park
and exit an automobile to pick up a pharmacy prescription could impose a hardship. But for such a
compromise to be acceptable, strict limitations on the size and scope of drive -up facilities should be
imposed.
21. The High School Road District in the vicinity of the Visconsi project cannot presently be
described as a pedestrian -friendly neighborhood. The proposal is conditioned to improve the existing
circumstance by upgrading a transit facility along SR 305 adjacent to the site, constructing a section of
a regional multi -modal trail in the adjacent SR 305 right-of-way, connecting the multi -modal trail
section to the site interior by a pathway, providing walkways and crosswalks linking the site to
Stonecress, and pursuant to this review installing a mid -block crosswalk on High School Road. Will
these facilities result in an immediate and total transformation of the High School Road neighborhood
east of SR 305? Hardly. The full effectiveness of many of these improvements will only be realized
later when other players contribute necessary connecting links.
22. Upgrading the pedestrian functionality of the High School Road area must be viewed as a long
term community goal. The improvements required of Visconsi will be a reasonable first step in this
direction and satisfy Plan pedestrian and circulation policies applicable to development review,
including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Winslow Goal 5 and Policies W 5.4 and W 5.5;
Transportation Element Policy TR 1.3, Goal 3 and Policy TR 3.3, Goal 4 and Policy TR 4.1, and Goal 9
and Policy TR 9.1; Non -Motorized Transportation Policies NM 5.2 and 5.6; and Winslow Master Plan
Goals WMP 2-1, 2-2, 6-1, 6-2, 6-8 and 6-10 and Policies WMP 2-2.3, 2-11.1, 6-2.2, 6-2.5, 6-2.8, 6-2.9,
6-8.2 and 6-10-2.
23. In addition, regarding pedestrian circulation through the site interior, a large quantity of review
effort has gone into the question of how best to provide safe crossings of the internal spine road used
by ProBuild truck traffic. This ProBuild traffic, it must be remembered, is a pre-existing condition, not
an impact caused by the proposed Visconsi development. The review discussion has generated
multiple adjustments of the site plan layout that will collectively result in safe pedestrian crossings of
the spine road, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies W 5.4 and TR 1.3.
Site Plan Review
24, BIMC 2.16.040.E contains the standards for approval of a site plan review applicati6n:
The director and planning commission shall base their respective recommendations or
decisions on site plan and design review; applications on the follon)ing criteria:
1. The site plan and design is in conformance with applicable code provisions and development
standards of the applicable zoning district, unless a standard has been modified as a housing
design demonstration project pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.0;
2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, landscaping, pedestrian, bicycle
and vehicular circulation systems are adequate, safe, efficient and in conformance with the
nonmotorized transportation plan;
3. The Kitsap County health district has determined that the site plan and design meets the
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION -316
following decision criteria:
a. The proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic eater supply and
sewage disposal; or if'the proposal is not to be served by public sewers, then the lot has
sufficient area and soil, topographic and drainage characteristics to permit an on-site
sewage disposal system.
b. If'the health district recommends approval of the application with respect to those
items in subsection E. 3.a of'this section, the health district shall so advise the director.
c. If'the health district recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a
written explanation to the director
4. The city engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision
criteria:
a. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters
15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and
b. The site plan and design will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or
water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of
properties downstream; and
c. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise
coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and
d. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate
anticipated traffic; and
e. If the site will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or
sewer system (as applicable) to serve the site, and the applicable service(s) can be made
available at the site; and
f. The site plan and design conforms to the "City of Bainbridge Island Engineering
Design and Development Standards Manual, " unless the city engineer has approved a
variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination that
the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 18.
5. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18
unless strict adherence to a guideline has been modified as a housing design demonstration
project pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020. Q;
6. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result f om the proposed site plan;
7. The site plan and design is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other applicable
adopted community plans;
8. Any property subject to site plan and design review that contains a critical area or buffer; as
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 37
defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter
9. Any property subject to site plan and design review that is within shoreline jurisdiction, as
defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC conforms to all requirements of that chapter;
10. If the applicant is providing privately owned open space and is requesting credit against
dedications for park and recreation facilities required by BIMC 17.20.020.0 the requirements
ofBIMC 17.20.020.D have been met;
11. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose of the site design
review process and open space goals;
12. For applications in the B/1 zoning district, the site plan and development proposal include
means to integrate and re -use on-site storm water as site amenities.
25. Subsections 3, 4 (e) and (f), 8, 9, 10 and 12 state technical requirements that either are not in
serious dispute or are inapplicable to this proposal. No allegations of "harmful or unhealthful
conditions" have been made apart fi-om the conventional development impacts more properly addressed
elsewhere. BIMC 2.16.040.17 provides that "[c]onditions may be imposed to enable the proposal to
meet the standards of the decision criteria."
26. The analysis of "applicable code provisions and development standards" (subsection 1) and
"conformance with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans"
(subsection 7) was combined to a substantial degree in the previous section because the controversy
about their interaction is central to this proceeding and affects all its components. As discussed therein,
the Visconsi site plan complies with general Comprehensive and Winslow Master Plan goals and
policies to the extent that they are applicable to individual project review.
27. The previous section also described and documented the proposal's compliance with Plan goals
and policies for pedestrian -friendly development, which has been a primary project review emphasis
and an area where the Plan offers specific standards capable of being applied to the development
review process. Comprehensive Plan policies also support the imposition of conditions to mitigate
project traffic and safety impacts, as follows: reconfiguration of the spine access road and its pedestrian
amenities is authorized by Policies W 5.4 and TR 1.3; requiring the construction of a full right -turn lane
on High School Road between the site access driveway and SR 305 is authorized by Policies TR 4.1
and TR 4.7 plus Winslow Master Plan Policy WMP 2-2.3; limiting Polly's Lane to one-way out traffic
and imposing street lighting restrictions are authorized by Policies TR 1.4, TR 3.1, TR 33 and TR 5.2;
and requiring a mid -block crosswalk to be installed on High School Road is authorized by Policies W
5.4, TR 1.3 and TR 9.1.
28. As discussed above in the findings, runoff discharged fi-om the Visconsii site's northeast drainage
basin will pass though Stonecress after exiting the Woodland Village wetland, plus Visconsi traffic will
add to the pollutant load for Polly's Lane runoff entering into the Stonecress stormwater system. As
part of the nearby downstream conveyance system for the Visconsi site, project approval necessitates
that this conveyence function properly. Placing on Visconsi the responsibility for assuring satisfactory
downstream conveyance of flows through Stonecress is authorized by Comprehensive Plan Policies AQ
1.4, SD 1.3 and TR 2. 1, section 2.5.4 of DOE's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 38
Washington, and BIMC 15.20.060.H.
29. Both Plan Policies W 5.5 and TR 1.5 require a vegetated buffer along the site's SR 305
boundary and Winslow Master Plan Policy WMP 2-2.4 specifies that it should be "full -screen." The
IRD brief raises a design issue with respect to this buffer, noting that the site plans depict it terminating
nearly 100 feet short of the SR 305/High School Road intersection, creating not coincidentally a
commercially desirable roadway exposure for the proposed corner bank building. IRD argues that the
SR 305 buffer needs to be extended to the intersection, relying primarily on the code definition for
"full -screen." While this definition deals with buffer composition and not length, the specification
within the BIMC 18.15.010-5 note that the "buffer will provide as much screening of site activities
from Highway 305 as practicable in light of site topography and conditions" discloses the relevant
regulatory intent. The major variable here is the need to guarantee safety at a busy intersection. The
buffer should be extended toward the intersection as far as feasible consistent with the requirements for
safety and efficient circulation, as determined by Staff review.
30. Decision criteria 5 and I I within BIMC 2.1 6.040.E require that the Visconsi site plan
demonstrate consistency with the site design review process and applicable design guidelines. As
noted previously, the City's process before the Design Review Board both relies upon the expertise of
the Board members and confers discretion to de-emphasize certain guidelines to achieve an overall
design suitable to the site and its constraints. In this regard, the Visconsi site design explicitly eschewed
seeking compliance with High School Road guideline 7 encouraging building facades to be located
close to the right-of-way and guideline 10 promoting "'visually prominent architecture" near the SR
305 intersection. Instead, the site design with DRB approval opted for a layout focused on converting
the internal spine road into a "Main Street" environment. Guidelines 7 and 10 were thus not ignored but
rather waived by the DRB in favor of alternative concept deemed a better fit for this particular site.
31. Unless the record demonstrates that the DRB has egregiously neglected an adverse impact
created by a site design choice, it is not the Hearing Examiner's role to second-guess the design review
process. The Planning Commission, of course, came to the conclusion that pedestrian safety along the
spine road constituted precisely the kind of deal -breaking issue that demands exceptional intervention —
that these adverse pedestrian impact issues simply could not be resolved. While the spine road safety
issues are of genuine concern, and they surely generated a need to reconfigure the original site design,
the record does not support a conclusion that the obstacles are insurmountable. Large trucks to and
from ProBuild will continue to use the spine road, but their numbers are small and unlikely to become
much larger. Crossing the spine road will not be like trying to walk across I-5 as it passes through
downtown Tacoma. In their zeal project opponents exaggerated the spine road safety problems.
32. The Visconsi design team fiilly participated in the design review process and amended the site
design in response to DRB suggestions and public comments. Within the guideline checklist
completed at the end of the design review, the DRB comments were favorable overall and most
remaining concerns were oriented toward details. Whether or not one believes the ultimate Visconsi
site design has achieved the perfect approach, the evidence supports conclusions that Visconsi
submitted in good faith in the DRB process and that the resultant design is feasible overall and duly
responsive to the challenges of the site. As such, it meets the requirements of site plan review decision
criteria 5 and 11.
33. Decision criteria 2, 3b and 3c mostly relate to the responsiveness of the site design to the
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION -39
pedestrian and traffic circulation issues that have dominated the discussion presented in the findings
above, and whether the proposed facilities and their locations will be suitable to the demands of the
project. For the reasons cited previously, and as conditioned to mitigate project impacts, these decision
criteria are also met by the Visconsi site plan. In like manner, criterion 4b requires a determination that
the site design will not unduly burden the affected drainage basin nor unreasonably interfere with the
enjoyment of downstream properties; mandating that Visconsi assure the function of the downstream
flow bypass line through Stonecress will satisfy this requirement.
34. Overall, the decision criteria specified in BIMC 2.16.040.E will be met by the Visconsi site plan
if it is revised to meet the conditions stated below. The internal spine road features, the alterations to
access to and movements on Polly's Lane, the improvements to High School Road and the stormwater
conveyance system upgrades required by the conditions below all are necessary to make the application
compliant with the site plan review decision criteria.
Conditional Use Permit
35. Various participants this proceeding have raised issues concerning the proper scope of
conditional use permit review. Visconsi points out that its project could be built without a conditional
use permit if it simply revised its site plan slightly to reduce some building footprints and shift the
location of the proposed pharmacy. It argues that review should therefore be limited to evaluating the
quantity of impacts that will result from exceeding the development level allowed without a CUP. The
Planning staff notes that, as related in the Comprehensive Plan, the stated purpose for requiring a CUP
for larger buildings in the High School Road 11 zone is to protect nearby single-family zoned
properties. Since the Stonecress Townhomes project lies within a zoning district designated by the City
for multi -family development, staff has taken the position that potential Visconsi impacts to Stonecress
need not be considered within the CUP review. Finally, some citizens opposed to the Visconsi proposal
have opined that since a CUP approval confers some sort of discretionary "exception" or "variance,"
the City has the option to deny the project for any reason it likes — or indeed, for no reason at all.
36. A conditional use is not an exception or privilege that the City may grant or deny based on
whim or caprice. It is a use permitted in a zone where the City has determined a process of special
review and adjustment is required to assure that it will be a proper fit for its location. The normal
expectation and practice is that a CUP will be granted subject to appropriate conditions designed
mitigate its neighborhood impacts. The City can deny a CUP only if it determines no practical and
feasible way exists to condition the proposal to reduce its impacts to an acceptable level. BIMC
2.16.110.A states that "[i]f imposition of conditions will not make a specific proposal compatible the
proposal shall be denied." The converse proposition is that if reasonable conditions can in fact make
the proposal compatible with other uses in the vicinity, the CUP is to be granted. See BIMC
2.16.110.1)(2). As specified by the state Supreme Court, "[a] building or use permit must issue as a
matter of right upon compliance with the ordinance." Mission Springs, Jnc. v. City of Spokane, 134
Wn.2d 947, 960-61 (1998).
37. The Staff's perspective that Visconsi's impacts on the Stonecress neighborhood do not need to
be considered within the City's CUP review is derived from a discussion note appended to
Comprehensive Plan Policy W 5.3, which provides that within the High School Road District 1I retail
uses between 5,000 and 14,400 square feet require a conditional use permit. The note observes that the
High School Road District lI "is immediately adjacent to a semi -urban, residential area of 2.9 to 3.5
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 40
units per acre and should have less intense uses than the remainder of the High School Road district."
Based on this comment, staff concluded that the intent of the policy was limited to providing CUP
protection to single-family neighborhoods.
38. The staff interpretation conflates the rationale for the policy with the policy itself. Neither
Policy W 5.3 nor any later regulatory iteration of it limits the CUP analysis to effects on single-family
residential zones. The discussion note itself has no independent regulatory status. Thus if a limitation
of review to single-family zone impacts were actually to be imposed, the policy itself would need to
articulate it, which it does not do. The policy rationale may inform the review process as to concerns of
particular importance, but it does not comprise a legal constraint on CUP review. Once the CUP
process is invoked, all impacts caused by the proposal within the CUP scope of review are subject to
consideration and mitigation.
39. Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wash.App. 133, (1996), cited by the Visconsi brief, stands for the
proposition that a conditional use permit cannot be denied in -the absence of evidence the CUP proposal
would have greater impacts than uses otherwise permitted outright. The regulatory trigger for CUP
review of the Visconsi project was the proposal within the High School Road II portion of the site to
construct retail buildings in excess of a 5000 square foot threshold. The argument is that the City's
CUP analysis therefore encompasses only the impacts attributable to the parts of the project that lie in
the High School Road 11 zone and then only to the extent that the retail buildings under review will be
larger than 5000 square feet.
40. In evaluating this contention, the critical issue to be determined is which elements of the
Visconsi proposal qualify for treatment as "permitted outright." At the point of consolidated project
review the answer is that there are as yet no buildings or uses permitted outright. Pursuant to BIMC
2.16.040.13(l)(a), all proposals for new construction of nonresidential buildings are required to obtain
site plan review approval before issuance of any construction permits. While the BIMC 2.16.040.E site
plan review decision criteria discussed above contain some routine elements, there are also clearly
discretionary standards as well, including especially those requiring conformance with the City's design
guidelines and comprehensive and community plans. Imposition of this type of approval standard
necessitates that a site plan review be classified as a discretionary permit. This means that until site
plan review approval is obtained, no commercial uses or structures can be deemed permitted outright.
At this stage the CUP review encompasses the entire Visconsi project — all proposed structures and uses
in both zones.
41. The following decision criteria for approval of a conditional permit application are stated at
BIMC 2.16.110.D:
1. A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if•
a. The conditional use is harmonious and compatible in design, character and appearance
with the intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject
property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; provided, that in the
case of a housing design demonstration project any differences in design, character or
appearance that are in furtherance of the purpose and decision criteria of BIMC
2.16.020. Q shall not result in denial of a conditional use permit for the project; and
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 41
b. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, water,
fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; and
c. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity
of the subject property; and
d The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable
adopted community plans, including the nonmotorized transportation plan; and
e. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC, unless a provision
has been modified as a housing design demonstration project pursuant to BIMC
2.16.020.Q; and
f. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent
possible the impacts that the proposed use may have on the immediate vicinity of'the
subject property; and
g. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and
h. The vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation meets all applicable city standards,
unless the city engineer has modified the requirements of BIMC 18.15.020.8.4 and B.S,
allows alternate driveway and parking area surfaces, and confirmed that those surfaces
meet city requirements for handling surface water and pollutants in accordance with
Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and
i. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision
criteria:
i. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20
and 15.21 BIMC; and
ii. The conditional use will not cause on undue burden on the drainage basin or water
quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment ofproperties
downstream; and
iii. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed align with and are otherwise
coordinated with streets serving adjacent properties; and
iv. The streets and pedestrian ways as proposed are adequate to accommodate
anticipated traffic; and
u If the conditional use will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in
the water or server system (as applicable) to serve the conditional use, and the
applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and
vi. The conditional use conforms to the "City of Bainbridge Island Engineering
Design and Development Standards Manual, " unless the city engineer has approved a
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 42
variation to the road standards in that document based on his or her determination
that the variation meets the purposes of BIMC Title 17.
j. If'a major conditional use is processed as a housing design demonstration project
pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020. Q, the above criteria will be considered in conjunction with the
purpose, goals, policies, and decision criteria of BIMC 2.16.020. Q.
2. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision
criteria of this chapter, then the application shall be denied.
42. The criteria stated at BIMC 2.16.110.D(1)(b), (d), (e), (g) and (h) overlap or replicate standards
required above for site review approval, and the determinations of compliance stated for BIMC
2.16.040.E in the preceding section are also applicable to the above CUP criteria and are therefore
incorporated by reference. No regulatory distinction exists between a conclusion that the proposal is in
"conformance" with the Comprehensive Plan and one that it is in "accord" with the Plan. The City
Engineer has determined that the Visconsi proposal will meet the infrastructure requirements specified
in BIMC 2.16.110.D(l)(i), which requirements have also been reviewed in this proceeding where
specific impacts have been alleged and will be augmented, as needed, by additional conditions of
mitigation; on that basis, they can be found compliant with all relevant regulatory standards. The
conditional use review criteria remaining to be discussed are thus BIMC 2,16.110.D(1)(a), (c) and (i).
43. The requirement that the proposed Visconsi project be "harmonious and compatible in design,
character and appearance" imposes a primarily visual standard, particularly with respect to impacts on
offsite properties. The evaluation is to be made from two standpoints — that of the "intended character
and quality of development in the vicinity" and of the "physical characteristics of the subject property."
The word "intended" indicates that attention should be focused on the nature of the surrounding zoning
as well as on existing development patterns, a context that might, for example, diminish the
consideration due a neighboring non -conforming use no longer permitted by the zoning.
44. As discussed above in the findings, the offsite visibility of the proposed Visconsi site buildings
and parking lots will be relatively minimal. The site's entire boundary along SR 305 will be screened by
existing trees to be supplemented with new plantings. Both ProBuild to the north and Kitsap Bank to
the southeast have some onsite vegetative screening lying between their commercial facilities and the
proposed Visconsi buildings and parking areas. The visual impact to the McDonald's drive-in to the
south and the motoring public on High School Road will consist of the view of the proposed single -
story 3300 square -foot building 1 bank structure along the frontage just east of SR 305. No one has
argued that these visual impacts will be significant or inappropriate, or even greater than the impacts
currently generated by the building now at the corner of the site slated for removal.
45. Residentially -zoned properties lie along the Visconsi site's eastern property line, but the
northern half of the boundary is occupied by a large wetland and its buffer that will render commercial
facilities invisible from houses located east of the wetland. The residences in Stonecress lying north of
Stonecress Lane will be screened from from the adjacent Visconsi parking lot by a sight -obscuring
vegetated buffer. The narrow width of Polly's Lane precludes placing additional screening there, but
most views from that location will be across the Kitsap Bank property, with night-time glare impacts
mitigated by lighting restrictions and traffic diversion strategies.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 43
46. To the extent that CUP review is focused specifically on the offsite impacts of buildings larger
than 5000 square feet, the site plan responded to this concern by placing the two largest project
structures at locations well removed from all offsite views. But IRD has also argued that, from a purely
regulatory standpoint, the building 2 pharmacy, proposed at 14,750 square feet in floor area and
straddling the line between the High School Road I and II zones, cannot be permitted to exceed 14,400
square feet. This contention is based on language limiting retail uses in the High School Road 11 zone
found in both Comprehensive Plan Policy W 5.3 and Winslow Master Plan Policy WMP 2-11.1 ("retail
uses shall be limited to 14,400 sq. ft."). The regulatory expression of these policies is stated at BIMC
18.09.030.D(8)(b): "In the HSR II district: i. Retail buildings are a permitted ("P") use up to 5,000
square feet. ii. Retail buildings with a footprint between 5,000 square feet and 14,400 square feet are
permitted through a conditional use permit."
47. The use standards enacted at BIMC 18.09.030.D(8)(b) can be viewed as expanding the scope of
retail uses allowed in the High School Road II zone beyond the level initially contemplated by the
Comprehensive Plan. The introductory sentence of Policy W 5.3 reads as follows: "The properties
designated on the Land Use Map as High School Road District I1 shall be limited to no more than
14,400 square feet of retail use." By stating that the "properties ... shalI be limited," Policy W 5.3 can be
read as saying that the totality of retail use should not exceed 14,400 square feet for the entire High
School Road II zone. By way of context, the Visconsi project proposes over 24,000 square feet of retail
space in High School Road II without counting any part of the pharmacy, and over 30,000 square feet
of retail if half the pharmacy is included. And since the High School Road 11 zone also includes
ProBuild which has an existing retail store attached to the lumberyard, presumably the 14,400 square
feet district total otherwise available to Visconsi would have to be reduced by ProBuild's current retail
space.
48. But BIMC 18.09.030.D(8)(b) clearly shifts the regulatory emphasis from retail uses on
properties generally to such uses in "retail buildings" as measured by building footprints. If one were
to conclude that a conflict exists between the zoning code use standard and the earlier Comprehensive
Plan policy, the use standard would be deemed controlling because it is more specific and later in time.
So the current operative regulatory formula for the High School Road II zone is that each building size
is addressed individually, and any upper retail limit for either the zone or the site overall is imposed by
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation, not a 14,400 square foot cap.
49. The question of whether an individual building can be permitted to exceed the 14,400 square -
foot High School Road 11 zone upper limit by straddling the district line is a different (and less
consequential) issue. The IRD brief offers in support of its position the following language from BIMC
18.06.100.G, which addresses sites that contain more than one zoning designation: "[E]ach portion of
the site shall contain only those uses, structures, and density permitted within that zoning designation."
But the brief fails to explain why this phrase should be read as precluding the allocation of floor space
between the two zones when a building straddles the district line. An unadorned reference to the term
"permitted within that zoning designation" simply begs the ultimate question: is a straddling strategy
allowed in the zone?
50. The Examiner's view is that, in the absence of either a more explicit regulatory instruction or an
obvious adverse consequence to be avoided, questions of zone -straddling impacts can be adequately
assessed within the CUP review framework on an ad hoc basis. Placing a building on the district line
shared with a less restrictive zone in order to garner more lenient development standard treatment is
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 44
usually also going to mean that the impacts of the proposed building are well removed from the more
sensitive offsite amenities of critical review concern, which certainly would be the case here with
Stonecress and the pharmacy. Allowing the proposed pharmacy to slightly exceed a 14,400 square foot
limit by straddling a zone line would appear to entail no adverse impacts.
51. Providing compatibility with the physical characteristics of the Visconsi site itself mostly
involved dealing with limitations imposed by existing development patterns and critical areas —
resulting in the inability to create a new site access route anywhere but to the south and having to share
that access with ProBuild. Vast quantities of review time have been expended in exploring the best
ways to deal with this fundamental limitation; as conditioned the resulting approach will reduce traffic
impacts and conflicts to a manageable level and adequately protect pedestrian safety. The new spine
road configuration will better accommodate large truck movements to and from ProBuild and will
constitute an improvement over the current situation. As conditioned, the Visconsi proposal will meet
the design, character and appearance compatibility criteria ofBIMC 2.16.110.D(1)(a).
52. BIMC 2.16.110.D(1)(c) requires that the proposed conditional use "not be materially
detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property." If any compelling basis were to
exist in the record sufficient to deny outright the Visconsi conditional use application in its entirety (as
opposed to imposing mitigating conditions), it would need to be premised on a conclusion that there is
simply no satisfactory way for the project to avoid creating impacts materially detrimental to
Stonecress. As elaborated in the findings above, a number of conditions have been identified over the
course of the City's review process to deal with various Stonecress issues. Surely the most devastating
potential threats to the Stonecress residential neighborhood arise from the risk that unacceptable levels
of Visconsi traffic would use Stonecress's narrow streets to circumvent congestion at the site's main
access driveway. Visconsi vehicles diverted through Stonecress in significant numbers could cause
noise and light pollution and endanger pedestrians and neighborhood children. If they were to reach
extreme levels, these impacts could compromise the livability of the neighborhood.
53. Conditions have been devised to discourage inappropriate use of Stonecress streets by Visconsi
traffic. Visconsi will require its tenants to prohibit delivery trucks from using Polly's Lane. The site's
exit to Polly's Lane and the road itself will be restricted to outbound vehicles, with the exit configured
to dissuade site entry from Stonecress Lane. A full right-turn lane with a tapered approach for large
trucks exiting the spine road will be constructed along High School Road westbound between the main
access and SR 305. The new exit configuration will prevent large trucks from having to cross into
adjoining lanes to make right-turns from the spine road and under normal conditions should offer an
unimpeded route from the site to SR,305. In addition, the longer dedicated right turn lane should
operate to reduce abnormal queue lengths west of the SR 305/High School Road intersection by
allowing right-turning vehicles to depart the queue at an earlier point.
54. As described in the findings above, noise and light impacts from within the Visconsi site itself
will be regulated and monitored, with a screening buffer installed along the eastern site boundary
adjacent to the nearest Stonecress residences. Before stormwater flows from the project can be released
offsite to the northeast, the downstream conveyance system through Stonecress will be evaluated and
upgraded, as needed, to assure that flows from the wetland do in fact bypass the Stonecress detention
pond and that the conveyance system has adequate capacity. Overall, these mitigations will assure that
the offsite impacts from the Visconsi project will not be materially detrimental to the Stonecress
neighborhood.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 45
55. BIMC 2.16.110.D(1)(f) mandates that all necessary measures be taken '*toe I Iminate or reduce
to the greatest extent possible" project impacts on the immediate vicinity. This requirement overlaps the
discussion just concluded regarding the mitigation measures to be imposed on the Visconsi project to
protect the Stonecress neighborhood. The analysis supports a conclusion that the requirements to be
imposed as conditions of project approval include all measures that can realistically be deemed as
feasible within the constraints of the site and the neighborhood. As such, they will reduce project
impacts to the greatest extent possible and operate to effect overall project compliance with the full
range of requirements for conditional use permit approval set forth in the BIMC 2.16.110.13 decision
criteria. More specifically, the internal spine road features, the alterations to access to and movements
on Polly's Lane, the improvements to High School Road and the stormwater conveyance system
upgrades required by the conditions below all are necessary to make the application compliant with the
conditional use permit decision criteria.
SEPA Threshold Determination Anneal
56. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued by the City on November 22,
2013, for the Visconsi proposal was appealed by the Islanders for Responsible Development. The rather
generic allegations of adverse environmental impacts contained in the December 6, 2013, IRD SEPA
appeal were clarified during the pre -hearing process and, as further specified in the pre -hearing orders,
provided the basis for review within this appeal proceeding.
57. An MDNS is a determination by the SEPA responsible official that a proposal will not have a
significant adverse environmental impact if certain mitigating conditions are imposed. WAC 197-11-
350; see, e.g., Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 303, 936 P.2d 432 (1997). Under BIMC
§ 16.04.040.A, the SEPA responsible official for the City is the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
58. The responsible official's decision to issue an MDNS and not require an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is to be accorded substantial weight in any administrative appeal. RCW
43.21 C.075(3)(d); WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iii); BIMC 16.04.170.E. The substantial weight requirement
mandates review of the responsible official's decision under the "clearly erroneous" standard. See, e.g.,
Wenatchee Sportsmen Assn. v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). A decision is
deemed clearly erroneous only when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body is
"left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Norway Hill
Preservation & Protection Ass'. v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)).
Consistent with the foregoing, in a SEPA appeal the appellant carries the burden of proof.
59. The IRD appeal alleged that the Visconsi project would cause unmitigated significant adverse
impacts to traffic, which issue was refined in the pre -hearing order to include LOS impacts at the
SR305/High School Road intersection and pedestrian safety impacts both on and offsite. The project
traffic study concluded that during the proposal's horizon year the SR305/High School Road
intersection would operate at a LOS deemed acceptable under the City's regulations and policies, and
IRD failed to introduce persuasive evidence to the contrary. Pedestrian safety issues will be addressed
by the applicant through the installation of both onsite and offsite crosswalks, supplemented by traffic
calming measures along the internal spine road. No evidence was adduced that these measures would
be inadequate to mitigate potential pedestrian safety impacts.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 46
60. The IRD appeal further alleged that the Visconsi project would cause unmitigated significant
adverse impacts to the environment resulting from the "plan to remove large amounts of trees." In the
pre -hearing order these allegations were identified as involving potential impacts to aesthetics, ail-
quality
irquality and increased stormwater runoff. No evidence of view impacts from tree removal was
introduced, nor does any seem likely given that substantial tree buffers will be retained on the west side
of the site next to SR 305 and on the east next to Stonecress. Air quality issues were only addressed by
IRD in terms of the ecological role of trees generally, with nothing offered about impacts from this site
specifically. The drainage conditions explicitly require the project to release flows offsite at or below
pre -development rates, with or without tree removal, and to assure the functionality of the flow
conveyance system immediately downstream. The record demonstrated that Visconsi site tree removal
will comply with the City's tree retention requirements. No site-specific unmitigated adverse impacts
from tree removal were -demonstrated.
61. IRD's allegation -of drainage impacts was refined to focus on the possibility that Winslow
Ravine downstream from the site contains a fish -bearing habitat. No evidence was introduced in
support of this contention. Concerns about wetland mitigation timing will be resolved by requiring the
mitigation plan to be executed at an early project stage.
62. No evidence of specific project noise and lighting impacts exceeding the City's regulatory limits
was introduced by IRD, nor was any attempt made to establish that these regulatory limits will be
incapable of keeping such impacts at a nonsignificant level. A baseline noise study was conducted by
the applicant, and followup measurements will be made after the project is occupied. An IRD allegation
of adverse impact to the utility infrastructure serving the City was abandoned.
63. IRD allegations of aesthetic harm to views from nearby residential properties, High School
Road and SR 305 were not supported by site-specific testimony about visual impacts. The level of
perimeter screening required of the project plus the site plan's relationship to surrounding development
suggest that specific adverse aesthetic impacts will be minimal or nonexistent.
64. IRD allegations that the Visconsi project will create urban blight were supported by testimony
and graphics showing that vacant commercial properties presently exist on Bainbridge Island. No
attempt was made to calculate an overall vacancy rate or to demonstrate that such rate should be
considered sufficiently elevated to indicate a threat to the community's economic health.
65. Overall, with a few exceptions mostly involving traffic and circulation questions, IRD's
evidence in support of its SEPA appeal consisted primarily of statements of general concern that were
never quantified in terms of, nor always even concretely related to, the Visconsi proposal and its likely
effects. As such, the IRD appeal failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the Visconsi
proposal, as mitigated, would cause probable significant adverse environmental impacts or that the
City's MDNS should be:deemed clearly erroneous based on the record as a whole. The IRD appeal of
the City's SEPA threshold determination issued for the Visconsi proposal thus must be denied.
Project Conditions
66. The conditions attached to this decision are a combination of SEPA mitigation requirements,
project conditions recommended by City staff, voluntary mitigations offered by the applicant at the
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 47
hearing, and new and modified conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner determined necessary to
make the proposal compliant with site plan review and conditional use permit decisional criteria.
While the SEPA conditions remain as promulgated by the City's Responsible Official, the various new
conditions mostly have been integrated into the staff conditions format in those places where they
expand on matters already under consideration.
67. All the voluntary mitigations have been included as project conditions except Visconsi
condition number one, which contemplates a payment from the developer to the Stonecress Home
Owners Association. This has been excluded for two reasons. First, the relationship of the payment
amount to any actual mitigation costs is unclear, so the City's regulatory connection to the transaction is
tenuous. Second, the payment is partly focused on stormwater system issues, which is the subject of a
new Examiner -imposed condition. In view of its now increased stormwater mitigation obligation,
Visconsi may conclude that its voluntary payment to Stonecress needs to be adjusted. The City has no
legitimate role to play in any such negotiation.
68. The Examiner's new conditions and efforts at integrating the Visconsi voluntary mitigations into
the overall permit format may inspire the parties to suggest some adjustments regarding procedures,
timing and staff responsibilities. The voluntary mitigations contain a number of generic references to
"the City of Bainbridge Island's approval" where it is not clear exactly what process is being
contemplated. In addition, implementation of a one-way regime for Polly's Lane involves obtaining the
agreement of entities that are not formal parties to this proceeding, plus thinking about how to proceed
if a key player balks. Condition no. 44 below undertakes to address this circumstance.
69. The new conditions contain details that parties may believe are less than optimal in their
consequences and thus in need of revision. The mechanism for seeking such revisions is a request for
reconsideration filed before the expiration of the LUPA appeal period. If specific language
amendments can be suggested for the conditions at issue, such will likely make the process more
efficient. A request for reconsideration will not automatically stay the filing deadline for judicial
appeals. No such stay will likely be granted unless all parties stipulate to it.
Final Observations
70. An observer cannot avoid being impressed with the depth of dedication and enthusiasm
Bainbridge Island residents bring to the public participation process. But there are areas of concern as
well. In particular, there is a widespread misconception about what role a comprehensive plan can play
in the site-specific development review process. To oversimplify slightly, once the zoning code
identifies the uses permitted in a zoning district, the comprehensive plan can be employed to supply
certain refinements that operate as development standards for regulating the establishment of such uses,
But if the zoning code clearly permits a use, it cannot simply be denied outright based on alleged
conflict with comprehensive plan policies.
71. By Bainbridge Island standards, the High School Road zoning districts are relatively tolerant of
and friendly toward a broad range of commercial development. So if there really is a popular
consensus that the Island already has (for example) more than enough drugstores, the easy and effective
way to address this issue is to amend the zoning code permitted use chapter to delete drugstores from
the list. But if the code allows a drugstore as a use in a zone, an applicant is entitled to receive a permit
based on a successful running of the regulatory maze — regardless of whether it's a popular idea or not.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 48
72. Turning to the Visconsi experience specifically, a long and involved process will not necessarily
be a successful one if its key elements are out of sequence. While the Design Review Board and
Planning Commission review procedures worked remarkably well overall in ferreting out issues of
primary importance, there was one big conceptual glitch. On this highly constrained development
parcel access limitations and traffic impacts were obviously going to drive the site design process, but
these problems were not fully identified and fleshed out until midway through the review chain. The
project's transportation impact analysis didn't appear until the DRB process was already well under
way, and even then its initial iteration failed to come to terms with all ramifications of the site access
and circulation issues. By the time a clearer picture had emerged, both the applicant and DRB were
committed to the "Main Street" concept and didn't want to rethink it. A better process would have
produced a complete and adequate traffic study at the very beginning of the review so that it could have
informed the conceptual site design discussion before a preferred design option had become
entrenched.
73. In closing, a reference to an old query may be in order — whether, in this particular instance,
one should regard the development review glass as being half full or half empty. Project opponents
may be expected to continue to make the case for half -empty. Here is the case for half -full: the current
zoning would support approval of a much more intense and aggressive commercial project than
Visconsi is proposing. Except for the small bank on the corner, the project buildings will be nearly
invisible from neighboring roads. The largest retail building will be the pharmacy at just under 15,000
square feet — less than one-third of Safeway. Whatever else it may be, this is not a replay of Safeway. In
fact if one compares this proposal with what currently exists in the greater High School Road district,
the Visconsi project would deserve to be adjudged superior in almost every way to the the jumble of
retail and office facilities now gracing the neighborhood. So while it may fall short of some ultimate
vision of perfection, the facts on the ground strongly suggest that this project comprises praiseworthy
movement in the right direction.
17 xy GY[�hl
The SEPA Threshold Determination appeal of the Islanders for Responsible Development is DENIED,
and the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit applications of the Visconsi Companies LTD (file
no. SPR/CUP 17734) for commercial development at 10048 High School Road are GRANTED, subject
to the following conditions of permit approval:
SEPA Conditions
All graded materials removed from the subject property shall be hauled to and deposited at City
approved locations (Note: local regulations require that a grade/fill permit is obtained for any
grading or filling of 50 cubic yards of material or more if the grading or filling occurs on sites that
have not been previously approved for such activities. A SEPA Threshold Determination is
required for any fill over 100 cubic yards on sites that have not been previously received a SEPA
determination).
Contractor is 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.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 49
3. To mitigate the possible impact on adjacent properties from light and glare, all exterior lighting
shall be hooded and shielded so that the bulb is not visible from adjacent properties. All
landscape lighting shall be downcast and lighting within surface parking lots shall be no higher
than 14 feet above grade. All exterior lighting shall comply with BIMC Chapter 15.34 (Note:
BIMC 15.34 was repealed now BIMC 18.15.040).
4. In order to mitigate the impacts from light, glare, noise and human presence on the off-site
wetland, the prescribed wetland buffer understory shall be enhanced by the removal of all
invasive species (primarily English ivy and Holly) and the replanting of native shrubs, plants and
trees. A wetland buffer enhancement mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Department prior to construction of building #5 adjacent to the wetland buffer. All
invasive species removal and restoration shall occur or an assurance device shall be provided
prior to final inspection of building #5.
5. Prior to any clearing or grading on the site, chain-link construction fencing shall be installed and
.inspected by the City at the edge of the tree's dripline for trees being preserved as part of the
.development and along the 100 foot wetland buffer. Signs shall be affixed to the fence every 50
feet indicating the protected area.
6. No disturbance of the wetland buffer shall occur, except for buffer enhancement activities and the
installation of a utility stormwater dispersal line to return treated stormwater to the wetland. Prior
to installation, the applicant shall apply and receive approval of a Special Use Review. Proper
buffer restoration/enhancement shall be proposed and implemented as part of the Special Use
review.
7. All construction activities shall comply with the construction operating hours limitations
contained in BIMC Chapter 16.16. Noise produced by this development must comply with the
maximum environmental noise levels established by the Washington Administrative Code 173-60
or its successor.
No use in this development shall produce emissions of smoke, dust and/or odors beyond the
property boundary that may unreasonably interfere with any other property owners' use and
enjoyment of his/her property. In addition, all sources and emission units are required to meet the
emission and the ambient air quality standards specified in Chapter 173-400 WAC, and
administered by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA), and shall apply to
all air contaminants listed in that regulation.
In order to be consistent with the adopted codes and Comprehensive Plan policies and to provide
non -motorized connections to the proposed development, the applicant is required to construct a
multi -use trail from the High School Road intersection/crosswalk to the extent of the northern
property line of the development. The trail shall be located within the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way and shall meet the minimum standards for
a shared -use path contained in the WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1515 (minimum of 10 feet
wide) (Attachment NN). The trail design shall tie into the cross walk at High School Road and
.shall to the maximum extent feasible be located away from the highway driving lane, but then
returning to the highway at the northern extent, allowing users to return to the paved roadside
shoulder.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 50
Project Conditions:
10. Except as modified by the conditions below, the site shall be developed in substantial
conformance with the site plans and building elevations date stamped received April 25, 2013, as
modified by sheet A 17 submitted June 11, 2013, revising sheet A3.0; and further modified by the
following later revised sheets submitted September 9, 2013 (A0.2, A1.0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L10,
L12 and Cl -05) and hearing exhibits 41 and 42 dated January 21, 2014.
11. (a) The full landscape screen ranging in width from 20-30 feet and the 50 -foot averaged full
landscape screen along Highway SR305, as shown on the submitted plans, shall be planted and
maintained between the proposed development and the Stonecress development to the east and
the development and Highway SR 305 to the west. All existing trees within the required buffers
shall be retained and protected during construction.
(b) A 120 LF 6' high board on board fence starting just north of the Applicant's Development
connection to Polly's Lane and running north along the west property line of Stonecress shall be
installed adjacent to the 30' buffer to provide additional screening for the Stonecress homes. The
fence will be placed on Stonecress's west property line prior to final inspection of the first
building in this development.
12. The applicant shall obtain an approved building and/or grading permit from the Department of
Planning and Community Development, prior to any construction activities on the site.
13. The demolition of structures that required a permit to construct will require a demolition permit
from the City. All debris shall be properly disposed of at approved locations. The applicant's
construction contracts shall provide that a minimum of 75% of construction waste will be
recycled, composted, reused or diverted from land fill.
14. An approved Boundary Line Adjustment shall be recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor prior
to the issuance of any building permits where buildings are proposed over property lines or
existing lines preclude meeting lot coverage, FAR or other zoning regulations.
15. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall satisfy the concerns listed in Bainbridge
Island Fire Department Memo of May 8, 2013. Specifically the following comments shall be
addressed to the Fire Marshal's satisfaction:
a. Project shall comply with the applicable provisions of the adopted Fire Code.
b. Fire sprinkler and fire alarms as required for new structure(s).
c. No Parking Fire Lane signage will be required.
d. Proposed hydrant locations and access appear acceptable.
16. Sign permits for each sign shall be required under the City of Bainbridge Island Municipal Code
Section 15.08.
17. No signs are permitted to be placed within the 50 -foot full screen buffer adjacent to Highway
SR305.
18. Signs having internal illumination and standard metal can or plastic panel signs are not allowed,
and any new signs shall comply with the Mixed Use Town Center Design Guidelines.
19. After roadway designs required by condition 23 are approved by the City and consistent
therewith, the proposed bank building on the corner of High School Road and SR305 shall either
be relocated to meet the maximum 10 -foot front yard setback from the sidewalk or the existing
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 51
sidewalk shall be relocated to provide a planting strip between the side walk and High School
Road so that the side walk is within 10 feet of the building. The sidewalk along High School
Road shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide. If any portion of the sidewalk is on private property an
easement to the City for public access shall be granted.
20. The site and buildings shall meet all accessibility standards of the Building Code.
21. The only drive-through lanes authorized are for the building 1 bank and the building 2 pharmacy.
The drive-through window associated with the pharmacy may only be used for delivery of
prescription medications from a licensed pharmacist. No building may be served by more than
one drive-through lane.
22. No outdoor storage related to retail businesses is permitted.
23. Except as modified herein, all the conditions and recommendations of Engineering Development
Review shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of any construction permits (Attachment Z). Civil
construction plans for all roads, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and water facilities, and
appurtenances shall be prepared by a civil engineer licensed in the state of Washington and shall
be submitted to the City for review and approval. No building permits shall be issued and no
construction shall be started prior to plan approval by the Development Engineer.
Specifically the following conditions shall apply:_
Stormwater Manan ement:
The following shall be provided with the building permit application or prior to final inspection
of the first building as indicated:
A. The site plan indicates that greater than one acre will be disturbed during
construction. To comply with Phase lI Department of Ecology requirements, a General
Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES) will be required prior to construction plan
approval. The permit is required prior to any clearing, grading or other land -disturbing
activities.
B. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be needed with the
building permit application. The plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer licensed in
the state of Washington.
C. Civil plan design and supporting drainage report for all proposed storm water
facilities shall be provided. The design must successfully demonstrate that the project
meets the design requirements per BIMC Chapters 15.20 and 15.21. Underground
detention tanks for stormwater control and storage shall be used to the maximum extent
feasible.
D. All on-site stormwater facilities shall remain privately owned and maintained.
The owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage facilities for this
development following construction. Annual inspection and maintenance reports shall be
provided to the City. A Declaration of Covenant for stormwater system operation and
maintenance will be required to be recorded before issuance of occupancy permits. The
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 52
approved language for the Declaration of Covenant is found in BIMC Chapter 15.2 1,
Exhibit A.
E. An easement and agreement with WSDOT will be needed for drainage pipes
within WSDOT right of way (ROW) and for accepting stormwater runoff from the
pipes, respectively.
F. With the prior consent of the Stonecress Home Owners Association, the northeast
site basin downstream conveyance system shall be inspected and evaluated between the
Woodland Village wetland outlet to Stonecress and FerncliffAvenue. Adequate flow
capacity shall be provided at all locations and existing conveyance structures replaced as
needed. No site flows shall be allowed to enter the Stonecress detention pond.
Traffic and Roads:
G. The Certificate of Concurrency issued for this project is valid for the uses
described in the traffic impact analysis by the Transpo Group, Inc., dated April 2013
(Attachments L & AA).
H. All internal roadways will be privately owned.
I. Internal roadway plan and sections to be submitted with the initial Building
Permit to match the Preliminary Utility Plan, which may be modified to provide
consistency with these conditions.
J. For the Primary Access Road ("the spine road"), submit a final design which
includes the addition of a planter strip between the Primary Access Road and sidewalk to
the east of the drugstore building and proposed relocation of crosswalks by the drugstore
as set out in Hearing Exhibit No. 53. As approved by the City Development Engineer,
the layout depicted in exhibit 42 shall be modified to eliminate crosswalk A; shorten the
divider strip so that its northern tip does not extend north of the northeast corner of
building 4 and the bulb is removed; reduce the intersection offset for the driveways north
of buildings 4 and 5; and provide a pedestrian walkway along the western edge of the
rain garden north to the ProBuild entry. Crosswalks B and D shall be elevated 6 inches
above adjacent grade where they cross the spine road, be constructed from materials that
contrast with the driving surface, and be flanked on both approaches by speed humps or
tables. The spine road will be posted with a 15 mph speed limit, but the speed limit will
not be enforced by the City of Bainbridge Island.
K. A safety study and facility design shall be submitted by the applicant for
construction of a crosswalk on High School Road at the Polly's Lane intersection. Study
and design parameters will be established by the City's Development Engineer.
L. A full right -turn lane shall be constructed by the applicant on High School Road
between the spine road exit and SR 305, as approved by the City Development Engineer.
This may require the dedication of additional right-of-way and relocation of sidewalks
and curbs.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 53
M. A turning radius analysis and design shall be submitted for construction of the
right -turn exit fi-om the spine road to High School Road that will allow 5 -axle semi-
trailer trucks to depart the site westward without crossing out of the right -turn lane on
High School Road.
N. The facilities required by subsections K, L and M above shall be installed prior to
occupancy of the first site building. The facilities required by subsection J shall be
installed before occupancy of the first building located east of the spine road.
O. The applicant is responsible for all regulatory and street names signs in
accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and City
requirements.
P. Show the location of mailboxes for all buildings within the site plan.
Q. A design for limiting Polly's Lane to one-way southbound traffic use, with left
and right turn movements provided to High School Road and a 20 mph speed limit, shall
be submitted to the City Development Engineer for approval. The applicant will install
"One Way" and "Do Not Enter" signs. The design shall also prohibit placement of street
lights along Polly's Lane. The design features listed above will also require Fire
Marshal review and approval. A "Local Traffic Only" sign shall be placed on the corner
of the intersection of Stonecress Drive and High School Road, and a "No Trucks" sign
shall be placed at the Applicant's Development exit to Polly's Lane. The site
development exit design shall include features for preventing or discouraging entry fi-om
Stonecress Lane. A crosswalk shall be placed just south of Stonecress Drive across
Polly's Lane. Once the conceptual approvals required by condition 44 below have been
obtained, the facilities required by this condition all shall be installed prior to the
connection of the Applicant's Development to Polly's Lane.
Water and Sewer Improvements:
R. On-site water and sanitary sewer main extensions shall be publicly owned and
maintained.
S. Consistent with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 13.18.010, the
water main shall be extended from High School Road the full length of the property. A
gate valve shall be installed on the water main on the northern property line as to not
limit future main extensions.
T. Consistent with Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Section 13.18.010, the
sewer main shall be extended from High School Road the full length of the property. A
manhole shall be installed on the end of the sewer main on the northern property line to
facilitate future expansion. The sewer main from the manhole on High School Road
shall be placed at minimum slope requirements as listed for 8 -inch pipe within the
Washington State Department of Ecology, Orange Manual as to not limit future gravity
sewer extensions.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 54
U. Water and sewer main extension shall be located in 15 -foot wide easements.
All mains shall be accessible by maintenance vehicles to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
V. A water and sewer availability application, binding commitment limited
reservation shall be completed for Site Plan Review and a binding commitment
unlimited reservation completed prior to building permit issuance.
Permits Required:
X. As stated above, a NPDES permit from the Department of Ecology will be
required prior to ground disturbing activities.
Y. A ROW permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
ROW permit will be subject to separate conditions and bonding requirements.
24. Parking shall be improved in substantial conformance with the approved site plan. Parking area
shall be paved, all stalls shall be striped to their full dimensions and appropriate signage shall be
placed at each handicap stall(s). Each parking stall is to meet the dimensional standards of BIMC
Table 18.15.020-3 outside of required driving aisles or minimum sidewalk width of five feet.
25. The site shall provide parking spaces and charging stations for at least one electric car per
building as well as five (5) parking spaces for motorcycles.
26. No more than 30 percent of the required parking spaces may be designated as compact spaces.
All compact spaces shall be property identified as "compact".
27. The primary walkways throughout the development shall meet accessibility requirements and
shall be surfaced with nonskid hard surfaces and provide a minimum of five feet of unobstructed
width.
28. As shown on the site plan, where pedestrian walkways cross driving aisles, contrasting
construction material, such as stamped concrete or pavers shall be used for the cross walk.
29. A minimum of 53 bicycle spaces are required for this development; a proportional number of
spaces are to be installed in conjunction with the completion of each building. The racks or wall
hangers need to provide the ability to lock wheel and frame of bicycle. At a minimum there
should be bicycle racks associated with each building within the development. The site will
provide a commuter bike shelter accommodating 8 bicycles prior to the last building receiving a
certificate of occupancy.
30. A bus shelter shall be constructed within close proximity of the existing bus stop along Highway
SR305. The shelter shall be of similar quality and architectural style as the rest of the Visconsi
Master Plan or shall meet the Kitsap Transit standard and shall be constructed prior to final
occupancy of any building within the development. Appropriate permits from Washington
Department of Transportation shall be obtained prior to construction.
31. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a final landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved
for any buildings and landscaping work within that phase.
32. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a final landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved
for both the full landscaping screen along the east edge of the property adjacent to the Stonecress
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 55
development and the averaged 50 -foot full -screen landscaping buffer along Highway SR 305. The
SR 305 full -screen buffer shall project south toward the High School Road intersection to the
maximum extent feasible consistent with traffic and pedestrian safety, as determined by the City's
Development Engineer.
33. All landscaping plans shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary landscaping plan
(Sheet L4) date stamped received September 9, 2013, except that street trees shall be provided
along High School Road on 30 -foot centers.
34. All landscaping shall be installed per the approved landscaping plans for each phase or a
performance assurance device shall be submitted and approved, prior to final inspection of any
building. The installation of landscaping shall be verified by the Landscape Professional and the
landscaping declaration shall be signed.
35. Prior to the final inspection of the first building within this development the full landscaping
screen along the east edge of the property adjacent to the Stonecress development and the 50
averaged foot full screen along Highway SR305 shall be installed or a performance assurance
device shall be submitted and approved.
36. Prior to temporary occupancy of any building, a landscaping maintenance assurance device for
the required landscaping shall be provided to the City for a period of three years. All landscaping
and buffers shall be maintained for the life of the project.
37. In order to define the circulation system and pedestrian separation, raised curbs shall be used to
separate landscaping and raised walkways from parking stalls and drive aisles..
38. Exterior trash receptacles/recycling facilities shall be fully screened with solid walls and gates.
The screening enclosures shall be architecturally consistent with the adjacent structures. All
enclosures serving associated buildings shall be constructed and inspected prior to final
inspection of the associated building.
39. At the time of building permit submittal, detailed lighting plans demonstrating compliance with
the lighting standards shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
40. All mechanical equipment shall either be located underground, incorporated into landscaping or
integrated within the building or roof form of the building. Parapet walls may be used to screen
rooftop mechanical equipment as long as equipment is completely obscured from view and the
parapet does not substantially detract from the building architecture.
41. A minimum of 40 tree units per acre shall be maintained across the Visconsi Master Plan
Development either through preservation of existing trees or planting of new trees (326.4 tree
units as defined by BIMC Chapter 18.15).
42. The wetland buffer enhancement mitigation plan shall be approved and all invasive species
removal and wetland restoration completed prior to occupancy of the first building on the site.
This deadline requirement implements (but does not contradict) SEPA condition no. 4.
43. The applicant shall verify compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance by conducting two (2) site
visits by a certified noise expert during first year of full project occupancy, taking readings dining
a Friday P.M. peak traffic hour. If noise readings show the site is not in compliance, the applicant
will be required to bring the site into compliance via noise softening measures.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 56
44. In addition to Fire Marshal approval as specified by condition 23(Q) above, conversion of Polly's
Lane to a one-way outbound roadway is deemed to require the consent of the Stonecress Home
Owners Association (SHOA) and Kitsap Bank. If all consents and approvals necessary for this
conversion have not been secured within one year of the date of this decision (which will be
considered final for such purposes when all reconsideration procedures and judicial appeals have
been concluded), the following procedures shall apply:
A. If SHOA consent has been withheld, this shall constitute implied SHOA acceptance
of the impacts of the Visconsi development under Stonecress road conditions as they
presently exist, compliance with condition 23(Q) above shall be deleted as a
development requirement for the Visconsi project, and construction may proceed under
the remaining terms of this approval; provided that, the following requirements of
condition 23(Q) shall continue to apply: the 20 mph speed limit and crosswalk for
Polly's Lane and the "No Trucks" and "Local Traffic Only" signage.
B. If either Kitsap Bank consent or Fire Marshal approval is withheld, the hearing will
be reopened to explore alternative options for limiting site traffic impacts to Stonecress.
Due to its limited interest in Polly's Lane, consent by Kitsap Bank may be determined
unnecessary, and other access solutions may exist that satisfy the Fire Marshal's
concerns.
C. Hearing Examiner jurisdiction over this proceeding is retained for the limited
purpose of entertaining alternative access options if required consents to convert Polly's
Lane to one-way use and implement the other related requirements of condition 23(Q)
cannot be secured. During retention of this jurisdiction any party may request the
hearing to be reopened for the purposes specified, which may include requests that
conditions be modified because other parties are failing to act in good faith. Condition
23(Q) may be revised and new conditions added pertaining to Polly's Lane access, if
required.
D. Hearing Examiner jurisdiction will terminate automatically upon receipt of all
necessary consents and approvals as described above, or otherwise upon the Examiner's
order.
45. The applicant will establish and staff a 24-hour complaint hot line, to be commenced at a time
mutually agreed to with the Planning Director.
46. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure, the applicant shall demonstrate that as
installed any proposed HVAC units will comply with the City of Bainbridge Island Noise
Ordinance.
47. Applicant shall state within an appropriate legal document that any vehicle larger than a single
unit — three -axle truck will be prohibited on Polly's Lane and that service and delivery vehicles
will be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
48. Applicant will state within an appropriate legal document its commitment that any tenant shall
utilize the latest in Green Building techniques to the extent feasible. Pursuant to such document,
the tenant will be encouraged to use proven techniques such as high -efficiency windows, recycled
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 57
building products, and occupancy lighting controls in order to reduce energy consumption.
49. A. A change of use approval from City is required before any building use is converted.
Conversion of the proposed medical center (building 5) to a retail use is prohibited, and its
conversion to a permitted use with an ITE trip generation rate higher than 5.0 trips per 1000
square feet shall require a new conditional use permit.
B. Site plan review approval is predicated upon the visual integrity of the site design and its
success in establishing a harmonious relationship among the component structures, as elaborated
in the City's Design Guidelines and generally represented in exhibits 28-1 through 28-18. For
each building permit application the Planning Staff shall determine whether the proposed
development's design is consistent with the design concepts illustrated in exhibits 28-1 through
28-18 and, based on an affirmative determination, may issue the permit. Staff may consult with
the Design Review Board in making this determination. If Staff concludes the requisite design
harmony and integrity are lacking and a determination of inconsistency is indicated, the
application shall be returned to the applicant with suggestions describing the changes necessary to
create design consistency. Alternatively, the applicant may request an adjustment to an approved
site plan pursuant to BIMC 2.16.040.G.
50. Within 60 days from the Hearing Examiner project approval date, the Applicant will consent to
having an interested citizen remove for his or her own re -use the existing green structure located
near the current ProBuild entrance on High School Road. The Applicant will not dismantle the
structure. After consent is obtained, the interested citizen will have 15 days to remove the
structure from the property.
ORDERED March 27, 2014
City of Bainbridge Island
The Hearing Examiner is authorized to make the City of Bainbridge Island's final decisions regarding
the Visconsi site plan review and conditional use permit applications and SEPA threshold determination
appeal. A party with standing may seek judicial review of these decisions by filing a timely suit in
Kitsap County Superior Court under the Land Use Petition Act.
The exhibit list prepared by the Clerk of the Hearing Examiner's Office is attached.
VISCONSI REPORT AND DECISION - 58
EXHIBIT LIST
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
EXHIBIT
NO.
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION ` DATE
Staff Report 10/3/2013
Attachments: (Dated)
A. Public Participation Meeting Summary and Comment Matrix
B. Site Plan and Design Review Application, Submitted April 24, 2013
C. Conditional Use Permit Application, Submitted April 24, 2013
D. Owner/Agent Agreement and Legal Descriptions
E, Site Plans and Perspectives A0.0 — A0.5
F. Building Elevation and Perspective Plan A1.0 -A17.0
G. Landscape Plans L1 -L12
H. Preliminary Civil Plans C1-05
I. Project Description/Zoning Summary Prepared by
Wenzlau Architects
J. Planting Plan Supplemental Information Appendix
K. Tree Retention Analysis
L. Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared by Transpo Group April 2013
M. Wetland Analysis Prepared by Christy Carr
N. Wetland Analysis and Rating Form Prepared by Ryan Erickson and
Sara Cooke
O. Water/Sewer Availability Request
P. Utility Report Prepared by Browne Wheeler Engineers, Inc,
April 24, 2013
0. Civil Plan Revision 1 Memo from Browne Wheeler, Sep. 5, 2013
R. Environmental Checklist
S. Geotechnical Evaluation, Prepared by Aspect Consulting,
April 17, 2013
T. Notice of Application, Published June 7, 2013
U. Revised Notice of Application, Published July 5, 2013
V. Public Comment (1-130)
W. Response to Public Comment, Prepared by Wenzlau Architects
X. Response to O'Hartigan's Comment Letter, Prepared by
Browne Wheeler Inc.
Y. Overview of Traffic Report and Response to Comments,
Prepared by City's Development Engineer
Z. Development Engineer Project Review Memo
AA. Certificate of Concurrency
BB. Public Works Operations and Maintenance Comments
CC, Non -Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee Chair
Comments
DD, Kitsap Public Health District Comments
EE. Bainbridge Island Fire Department Comments
FF. Building Division Comments
GG, Design Review Board Minu[es, March 26, 2012
03/06/14
EXHIBIT LIST
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
EXHIBIT
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
HH. Design Review Board Minutes, April 23, 2012
Il. Design Review Board Minutes, June 18, 2012, with attached
annotated checklists
JJ. Design Review Board Minutes, May 20, 2013
KK. Response to DRB Design Comments, prepared by Wenzlau
Architects, June 2013
LL. Design Review Board Minutes, June 17, 2013
MM. Design Review Board Guideline Checklist with DRB and
Staff Responses
NN WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1515
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
Vehicular, Pedestrian and Utilities Easement
Memo from Planning Manager to Planning Commission re SEPA Conditions
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Notice of SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
8 SEPA MDNS Appeal
9 Notice of Appearance (Dennis D. Reynolds)
10 Motion to Dismiss Claim and for More Definitive Statement as to Allegations
(A) -(I) in IRD's Appeal
11 Certification of Distribution and Posting
12 1 Hearing Examiner Pre -Hearing Order
13 Letter from Applicant's Attorney Stating Intent to Pursue CUP
2
DATE
10/10/2013
(Dated)
10/15/2013
(Received)
10/16/2013
(Dated)
10/24/2013
(Dated)
11/14/2013
(Dated)
11/22/2013
(Dated)
12/06/2013
(Received)
12/10/2013
(Received)
12/18/2013
(Received)
12/27/2013
(Published)
12/29/2013
(Dated)
12/30/2013
(Dated)
03/06/14
EXHIBIT LIST
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
EXHIBIT
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Petitioner Witness List/Issue Clarification
DATE
14
12/31/2013
(Dated)
15
City Attorney Haney's Emailed Expert Witness List
12/21/2013
Applicant's Expert Witness List
(Dated)
16
12/31/2013
(Dated)
17
City's Response to Appellant's Issue Clarification (Appeal Issue No. 1)
01/02/2014
(Dated)
18
Applicant's Response to Appellant's Issue Clarification (Appeal Issue No. 1)
01/02/2014
(Dated)
19
Hearing Examiner's Supplement to Pre -Hearing Order
01/6/2014
(Dated)
20
Applicant's Motion to Dismiss SEPA Appeal
01/07/2014
City of Bainbridge Island's SEPA Appeal Exhibit List
(Dated)
21
01/07/2014
(Dated)
22
Applicant's Revised Exhibits Disclosure SEPA Appeal
01/07/2014
(Dated)
23
Hearing Examiner's Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
01/08/2014
(Dated)
24
Petitioner Exhibit List/Additional Issue and Witness Clarification
01/08/2014
Letter from Applicant's Attorney re Hearing Examiners Order Denying Motion
(Dated)
25
01/09/2014
Project Report
(Dated)
26
Attachments:
00. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation
PP Planning Commission's Second Motion
QQ, Transpo Group Memo Dated November 8, 2013, Supplemental
Information
RR. Memo from City's Development Engineer regarding Pedestrian
Crosswalk Placement on City Streets
SS SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, Dated
November 22, 2013
TT, SEPA Appeal by Islanders for Responsible Development
03/06/14
EXHIBIT LIST
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
EXHIBIT
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
DATE
UU, Memo from Development Engineer regarding Traffic Safety,
Dated November 8, 2013
Public Comments (Including Comments Submitted at 1/16/14 Hearing)
27
10/2013 to
01/2014
28
Applicant Visconsi Exhibits — Volume 1
01/17/14
(Received)
29
Applicant Visconsi Exhibits — Volume II
01/17/14
(Received)
30
Thorpe Analysis
01/17/14
(Received)
31
Revised Declaration of Georg Syvertsen (dated January 10, 2014)
01/17/14
(Received)
32
Chichester Submittal
01/22/14
(Renumbered and filed as Exhibit 60)
(Received)
33
Stonecress Photos Submitted by B. Andrews
`01/22/14
(Renumbered and filed as Exhibit 54)
Resume of Ross Tilghman
(Received)
01/22/14
34
(Renumbered and filed as Exhibit 44)
Resume of Olaf Ribeiro
(Received)
35
01/27/14
(Renumbered and filed as Exhibit 63)
Planning Commissioners' Bios
(Received)
36
01/22/14
(Received)
37
Code Citations
01/22/14
(Received)
38
Drainage Plans
01/22/14
Cooke Scientific Letter dated January 20, 2014, and Resume
(Received)
39
01/22/14
Woodland Distances Diagram
(Received)
40
01/22/14
(Received)
41
Proposed Lot Lines
01/22/14
(Received)
4
03/06/14
EXHIBIT LIST
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
EXHIBIT
NO.
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Pedestrian Circulation
DATE
42
01/22/14
Stonecress Traffic Calming
(Received)
43
01/22/14
(Received)
44
Resume of Ross Tilghman
01/22/14
(Received)
45
Tilghman —Traffic Generation Table
01/22/14
Tilghman — LOS and Queues
(Received)
46
01/22/14
(Received)
47
Tilghman — Queuing and Blocking Report
01/22/14
(Received)
48
Tilghman — HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
01/22/14
Transpogroup Memo
(Received)
49
01/22/14
Second Revised Declaration of Georg Syvertsen
(Received)
50
01/20/14
(Dated)
01/28/14
51
Visconsi Comments on Project Report Conditions
(Replaced)
52
Islanders for Responsible Development Conditions Testimony
01/26/14
Wenzlau Memo in Response to Traffic Safety Concerns
(Dated)
53
01/21/14
Stonecress Photos Submitted by B. Andrews
(Dated)
54
01/22/14
( Received)
55
Hand Drawn Diagram of Polly Lane
01/22/14
(Received)
56
Charles Schmid Presentation Regarding Noise Impacts
01/22/14
(Received)
57
Sound Analysis for Penny Creek Retail Center
02/27/06
(Dated)
03/06/14
EXHIBIT LIST
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
EXHIBIT -�
NO. I DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Port Orchard Wal-Mart Sound Analysis (2005)
Declaration of Errol Nelson
Chichester Submittal
Ron Peltier Aerial Photos
Ron Peltier Presentation
Olaf Ribeiro Resume
Guidelines for Predicting Noise Impacts
Nelson — Noise Evaluation
Aerial Photo Showing Tree Stands
Diagram of Access Road Design
Resume of Bruce MacCoy
Excerpts From Winslow Master Plan, May 21, 1998
Visconsi Supplemental Noise Evaluation
72 1 Visconsi Noise Measurement Charts
01/22/14
(Received)
01/22/14
(Received)
01/22/14
(Received)
01/27/14
(Received)
01/27/14
(Received)
01 /27114
(Received)
01/27/14
(Received)
01/26/14
(Dated)
01/28/14
(Received)
01/28/14
( Received)
01/28/14
(Received)
01/30/14
(Received)
02/03/14
(Received)
02/03/14
(Received)
02/18/14
(Revised)
02/03/14
(Received)
6
03/06/14
SEPA MDNS Appeal
and
Permit Application
Visconsi Master Plan
Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
SPR/CUP 17734
Staff Contact: Public Hearing- January 16, 17, 21, 22 and 28, 2014
Josh Machen, Planning Manager Location: City Hall
Hearing Examiner: Stafford Smith
EXHIBIT
NO. DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
73 Legislative History Materials
74 1 Schmid Response to Nelson Noise Evaluation
75 Applicant Visconsi's Voluntary Mitigation - Revised
7
DATE
02/07/14
(Received)
02/14/14
(Received)
02/18/14
(Received)
03/06/14