Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/00 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 8, 2000 1. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. A. General Council Business 2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - March 1,2000 #AB00-062 4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT 8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Ailene Mueller to the Public Access Citizens #AB00-063 Advisory Committee B. Emergency Purchase of Gate Valves and Flow Measurement #AB00-064 System for Wastewater Pump Station CE-1 C. Purchase & Sale Agreement between City of Bremerton and #AB00-065 McCormick Land Company, Inc. 10. RESOLUTIONS A. IAC-YAF Grant Agreement for Pendergast Regional Park #AB00-066 Lighting Project; Resolution No. 2743, Authorizing Inter-Fund Loan; and Approval of Budget Adjustment Request No. 00-4 B. Resolution No. 2744, Establishing One-Way Street on a Portion #AB00-067 Of Chester Avenue and the Alley Adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) C. Resolution No. 2745, Restricting Access to Mead Avenue, #AB00-068 ~2~ North of Kitsap Way, and Reconfiguring Mead Avenue to a Two-Way Street from Kitsap Way to 9th Street (CONTINUED ON BA CK.,.) ~~T~O~4L F~rZON OF PROFESSIONAL and TECHNICAL ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 12 ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ WA February 28, 2000 IFPTE 00-061 OPEN LETTER TO OUR MEMBERS, COMMUNITY, SHIPYARD AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON. ATTENTION: AH those who have been affected by the new crosswalk signs installed on BurweH at State Street. We would like to offer our thanks to all those who participated in the process that made getting the new signs installed. This was a very positive step forward in better relations with the City and Employees of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Special thanks to Captain Bryant, Captain Holden and Mayor Horton for getting this achieved. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Unions are very concerned for employee safety both inside and outside the shipyard. Thank you pecffull~ A Robert Dollar IFPTE, OSIt Representative 360-~07-2444 Cc: Steinmetz, C/lO0, Holden, Bremerton Sun, City Council and Mayor, Navy News, fc AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FORAGENDA OF: HARCH 8, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY C0UNCl L MINUTES OF MEETING -- HAP, CH 1, 2000 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRES I DENT DATE SUBMITTED: HARCH 3, 2000 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMI-I-t-AL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: 8. RECOMMENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (continued): 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS1 FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: TAPES #1690 & #1691 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING & MONTHLY STUDY SESSION MINUTES March 1,2000 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 1, 2000, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Conrad Esser, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member David Farr was absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca, Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Arends, followed by the invocation given by Pastor Rick Bodrie of Calvary Chapel. President Arend$ made the following announcements: (1) City Council held a Pre-Council Session to discuss general Council business in the Council Conference Room; (2) The Monthly Study Session will be held immediately following the Council meeting, in the Council Chambers; (3) Item 9E has been added to the Council Agenda tonight "Authorizing Emergency Repair to the 11th Street Sewer"; and (4) City Council will hold a Study Session on Monday, March 6, 2000, in the Council Conference Room, from 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. to discuss the "City Budget. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - February 16, 2000 #AB00-055 B. Minutes of Meeting - February 23, 2000 #AB00-056 #0035 M/S/C (McConnell/Olsen) Motion to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Vote on motion: In favor: Olsen, McConnell, Law, Rollman, Shepherd, Esser, Arends Abstain: Reed CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0065 M/S/C/U (Law/McConnell) On March 1, 2000, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 238831 through 239184 in the amount of $510,229.81; and Retiree Payroll for the period ending February 29, 2000 in the amount of $121,184.44. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS John Law recognized the opening of Dimensions & Designs at Pitt Avenue & Harkins Street, which will feature such items as garden art, and 40's & 50's vintage jewelry. He also announced the next District 3 meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, beginning at 7:00 P.M. at the Senior Center. Ed Rollman reported that an informative presentation on the proposed recreation center was provided by the Mayor and Cris Gears at the District 4 meeting held February 18, 2000, and downtown parking problems were also discussed. He provided a number for the Council office (478- 5280) for anyone interested in volunteering his or her assistance in the painting of the downtown library. Lastly, he complimented the City's Police Department and City staff for their efforts during the recent visit to Bremerton by Senator John McCain, GOP Presidential Candidate. 3 TAPE #1690 & #1691 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 1, 2000 Page 2 of 6 Mike She.~herd announced the next District 5 meeting on Thursday, March 23, 2000 would include presentations on the "Expansion of Evergreen Park", and "Parking in Residential Areas". He also encouraged the public to attend the First Friday Art Walk. ~ encouraged the public to attend games, and show their support for the women's basketball team from King's West, who has made it to the State Tournament; and for the men's basketball team from Olympic College. He offered his best wishes to both teams. President Carol Arends also invited the public to attend the First Friday Art Walk, as well as some of the local shops on Callow Avenue. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton reported the following: · A Public Meeting was held last night in the Council Chambers to discuss on-street parking. As a result, a Committee to represent the downtown business community was proposed to act as a downtown parking advisory for the City. Anyone interested in participating on this Committee may contact the Mayor's office at 478-5266; · The Bremerton Chapter of the NAACP would be hosting a "Mini Health & Wellness Fair" this Friday through Sunday, from 5:45 to 9:45 P.M. at the Silverdale Hotel; and · A "Certificate of Excellence" was presented to City Engineer Randy Witt to recognize his diligence, as well as that of his staff, in securing $17 million in grants and loans this year for various Combined Sewer Overflow, Stormwater, and Transportation Improvement Projects. Mr. Witt accepted the award, and recognized the assistance received from his staff, particularly Tom Knuckey, Utilities Sr. Engineer and Jeff Shea, Public Works Sr. Engineer. LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - There were no reports or comments this evening. 9A - YEAR 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ClTIT~=NS ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS. #AB00-057 Debbie Peavler-Stewart, Administrative Analyst, stated that 1) The City of Bremerton has received notification from the Department of Housing and Urban Development that the actual Year-2000 CDBG allocation is $570,000. The City previously selected recipients to receive $550,000. Recommendations concerning the additional $20,000 in CDBG funds are $3,000 to Parks Department for Playground Express for organized recreation activities, $13,000 to Public Works Department for ADA sidewalk ramps, and $4,000 to the Economic Development Department for planning activities. (2) The YWCA was selected to receive $3,650 in CDBG funds to help with installation of an elevator in the YWCA Community Center. They have requested that the City reallocate the funds to Phase TT of the project, which is rehabilitation of the lower area of the facility at 905 Pacific. (3) Anderson Cove is a high crime area of the City that has been targeted for revitalization. It is recommended that $1,000 be reallocated from the City's Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Program to a grant program to purchase and install security devices for owner-occupied units in the Anderson Cove Area. There were no comments from the public. #0590 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Reed) Motion to (1) approve the recommendation for the additional CDBG funds; (2) approve the reallocation of the funds previously provided to the YWCA to Phase T! of the project; and (3) approve reallocation of $1,000 from the Revolving Loan Program to a grant program to purchase and install security devices in Anderson Cove. TAPE #1690 & #1691 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 1, 2000 Page 3 of 6 9B - BID AWARD FOR BUILDING REMOVAL AND SITE PREPARATION FOR EVERGREEN PARK PHASE I:[. #AB00-058 Jodi Wroblewski, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director, stated that bids were opened on Wednesday, February 9, 2000 for Building Removal and Site Preparation for Evergreen Park Phase 11. A total of sixteen (16) bids were received for this initial phase of the project. The Iow bidder was Ace Paving Company, Inc. of Bremerton, Washington for the lump sum of $60,000. With 8.2% Washington State sales tax, the total contract amount, is $64,920. The estimated cost was between $170,000 & $200,000 based on the non-salvage value of the buildings. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Shepherd explained that this contractor's bid was particularly Iow because they planned to recycle the buildings. Mr, McConnell asked if the buildings would need to be removed by a specific date. Peter Battuello, Professional Geologist with Parametrix, Inc. responded that to accommodate the removal of the buildings, rather than a straight demolition process, a 70 calendar-day window was allowed. Mr. Esser asked if there was a site location for the buildings to go. Mr. Battuello stated it was his understanding that Ace Paving Company would be moving the buildings to some of their existing facilities in the County. #0740 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Reed) Motion to approve the Iow bid from Ace Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $64,920, including Washington State sales tax, and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for the Building Removal and Site Preparation subject to City Administrative Policies & Procedures. 9(; - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MYRVANG ARCHITECTS FOR NEW CLUBHOUSE AT GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX, #AB00-059 Pat WesthQff, Recreation Coordinator, stated that Requests for Statement of Qualification from interested architectural firms went out in September of 1997 to design a new clubhouse. Twenty- three firms responded, and The Bumgardner Architects were selected. In October of 1999, the lead Bumgardner architect resigned from the firm. The Committee is recommending that the existing contract be terminated and the City award the Clubhouse Design Contract to Myrvang Architects of Silverdale, who were the ones to develop the original site plans for the Gold Mountain Clubhouse. Myrvang Architects were among the firms that responded to the original Statement of Qualifications. The Myrvang firm has solid references, and will be able to take over where the Bumgardner Firm left off, saving the City both time and money. The cost of Design Services is estimated to be approximately $200,000. This number is based on the estimates reached during the pre-design phase for total construction cost. The Architect's fee is derived from Exhibit A, the AIA Document B141 Standard form of Agreement, Page 8, Article 11.2 Basis of Compensation, which is computed as follows: Ten Percent (10%) of Construction Cost plus the cost of reimbursable expenses, not to exceed $200,000. John Becker questioned the spending of this amount of money, for this type of project, considering the financial condition of the City. Paul Drnjevic agreed, and further questioned an expenditure not backed-up by a bond. Mayor HQrton clarified that funds for this project were coming from proceeds of golf fees, and not general tax dollars, therefore, taxpayers would not be affected. She reminded the public that golfers had been told that once the courses were expanded, the City would then look at replacing the clubhouse. She further explained that the current clubhouse was in extremely poor condition, and in dire need of repairs. The building is now almost 30 years old, and it would not be cost-effective to repair the existing structure. TAPE #1690 & #1691 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 1, 2000 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Esser asked if the architect's fee was coming out of golf course revenue. Mr. Westhoff explained the money has been set aside from the golf course budget for this year. Mr, McConnell reiterated the clubhouse was in "horrible shape", with wood rot throughout the building, and it was important for the public to understand that not one penny will come out of "non-golfer" pockets. Mr, Reed commented that the golf course was the one City facility to generate revenue, which is used to support other Park's programs, and believes the new clubhouse will even add financial improvement. Mr, She_Dherd has hopes that the excellent business practices implemented at the golf course will be applicable in other City operations. Mr. Olsen discussed the original construction of the current building, and areas where "corners were cut" to save money. He stated that if the City had been able to build a quality building to begin with, it would not be costing so much now. ~ described this as a "win-win" situation, since this project will enhance the potential for golf tournaments, which will generate an increase in the City's income through hotel & motel tax income. #1272 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Reed) Motion to authorize and direct the Mayor to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Myrvang Architects to provide design services for the Gold Mountain Clubhouse as described in Exhibit A of the Professional Services Agreement for a not-to- exceed amount of $200,000. 9D - LEASE AGREEMENT FOR GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX CLUBHOUSE AND CONCESSION. #AB00-060 Pat Westhoff, Recreation Coordinator, stated that the attached Clubhouse/Concessions Lease Agreement with Scott Alexander for Gold Mountain Golf Complex is the same as the agreement that was approved in 1993 with few changes. Change 1: The lease will terminate if a new clubhouse is constructed before the agreement has expired; Change 2: The tenant will pay a minimum $200.00 per month; Change 3: The tenant agrees to pay $12,000 for electricity; and Change 4: Either party may terminate the lease without cause with six months written notice. In closing, it was noted that Scott Alexander and his staff were doing an outstanding job, and project an image that the City would be proud to have as a partner. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Esser asked if the $12,000 fee for electricity was an annual or one-time fee. Mr. Westhoff responded it was an annual fee. #1458 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Reed) Motion to authorize and direct the Mayor to sign the Lease Agreement for Gold Mountain Golf Complex Clubhouse with Scott Alexander. Mr. McConnell complimented Scoff Alexander for the excellent job he has done running this golf course. 9E - AUTHORIZATION FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS ON 11TM STREET SEWER. #AB00-061 Gene Sam_~ley, Public Works & Utilities Director, confirmed that a deteriorated 30-inch diameter sewer in 11th Street between Elizabeth and Park Avenue is causing repeated subsidence and collapse of street paving on 11th Street. Two incidents of paving collapse have occurred since late December 1999, resulting in damage to three vehicles. Immediate repairs, including replacement of this sewer are required to prevent material loss or damage to property, bodily injury, or loss of life, and to allow continuation of wastewater collection in this area. At minimum, this will require reconstruction of approximately 350 lineal feet of sewer pipe, reconstruction or modification of three manholes, and re-paving of the portions of 11~h Street and Park Avenue affected by sewer repairs. TAPE #1690 & #1691 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 1, 2000 Page 5 of 6 There were no comments from the public. #1710 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Motion to 1) declare this an emergency; and 2) authorize emergency repairs on 11th Street Sewer. With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton P J/CA/Is C: Normal Distribution File MONTHLY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: (1) CSO UPDATES-GENE SAMPLEY. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES: JOHH POPPE. WASTEWA TER OPERATIONS MANAGER: AND TOM KNUCKEY. UTILITIES SR. A presentation was provided with handouts, visuals, and a summary on the following topics: · Background of the CSO Program · Legal Issues · A Map with Bremerton's CSO Locations · Bremerton's CSO Program · CSO Reduction Progress To-Date · Future CSO Reduction Efforts · Status of CSO Grants & Loans · CSO Reduction Plan Update · Specifics on Anderson Cove Projects (2) CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UPDATES- RANDY WITT. CITY ENGINEEI~ A copy of the Public Works & Utilities. Engineering Division Monthly Status Report was handed out to City Council members, with highlights of the following topics: · Bremerton Transportation Center Pro_iect The terminal area was opened to the public on February 14, 2000, piles were placed for the south transit deck, and a preliminary paving of the holding area was completed. In addition, significant upcoming work items and upcoming milestones were also listed. 7 TAPE #1690 & #1691 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 1, 2000 Page 6 of 6 · Public Works Projects Werner Road Corridor & West Hills Commercial Improvements, with Right-of-Way Acquisitions; Callow CSO, Priority 3 & 5; Burwell Hill Climb (project now complete); Pine Road CSO Facility Plan; and 1999 Traffic Calming Program (a proposed listing of streets for Year-2000 CDBG funding is currently being drafted). · Engineering Division Utility Pro_iecf*~: W650 Zone Improvements; Anderson Cove CSO; Pump Station CW-2 Upgrade; Snyder and Ohio Avenue Sewers; CSO Reduction Plan Update; Reservoir No. 4 Outlet Pipe & Cover Replacement; and 11th Street & Park Avenue Emergency Repairs. · SR304 Transportation Improvement Project: Funding; Right-of-Way Acquisition; Structure Disposal; Public Outreach; Environmental Cleanup; Landscape Committee; Gateway Improvements (Porter Street to Montgomery Avenue); and the Navy Yard Phase. · Public Works & Utilities Projects: Evergreen Park Phase TI Remediation; Manette Ballfield Improvements (overall project has been completed within budget); and Warren Avenue "Carpenter Field" Improvements (3) KITSAP COUNTY/BREMERTON CDBG HOME CONSOLIDATED PLAN: AND AGAPF SHELTER PLUS CARE APPLICATION - DE_RBIE PEA VLER-STEWART, DCn ADMINISTRATIVE ANAL YST Highlights of the "2001-2006 Consolidated Plan Proposed Ob_iectives" were presented, followed by a discussion on the "AGAPE Shelter Plus Care Program", including a brief history and summary of its objectives. The following members from AGAPE were in attendance to provide additional, detailed information: Barbara Day Miller, AGAPE Executive Director; Shivon Kadrmas, AGAPE Administrative Coordinator; and Harry_ Gowenlock, an AGAPE Counselor, who also relayed his personal experience to convey the importance of such a program. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 Appointment of Ailene Mueller to the Public Access ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive Citizens Advisory Committee ORIGINATOR: Mayor Horton DATE SUBMITTED: March 2, 2000 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS Application for Appointment ENDORSEM~ J~lT ?'~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRF~IDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR ~ ?. Z~ ;~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~ ~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQIJIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: There is a vacancy on the Public Access Citizens. It is recommended Ailene Mueller be appointed to that vacancy. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to confirm the appointment of Ailene Mueller to the Public Access Citizens Advisory committee. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED OAM~ED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~~~I~$ CITY OF BREMERTON APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE NOTE: As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before any action is taken on your appointment. ,P,eas, typ,~or print cle~/~y) // DATE:CA, A/' ~/ · ~ ~ ~~ , - OCCUP~ION: ,~r/~- EOOCATION:~ ~~ ~~~~~/~,~ ~~~ PROFESSIONAL~OMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: ~'~=G '~, ~ ~'~ > ~ LOlL REFER~ (name & phone number): I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or more): ( ) Disability Action Committee ( ) Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older) ( ) Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older) ( ) Parks & Recreation Commission ( ) Urban Forest Committee ( ) Ethics Commission ~ Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee ( ) Parking Advisory Board ( ) Community Development Block Grant ( ) Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee ( ) Bremerton Housing Authority ( ) Youth Council ( ) Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes ( ) Safe Streets Steering Committee ( ) Mayor's Select Committee on Law ( ) Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries Enforcement Is this an application for reappointment? /~ If yes, how many years have you served on this commission/committee? /" I PLEASE RETURN TO: Mayor s Office Bremerton, WA 98337 Applications be reviewed periodically to determine continued availability. Additional pertinent information may be put on back. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 Emergency Purchase - Gate Valves and ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities Flow Measurement System for Pump Station ORIGINATOR: John Poppe, W/W Manager_ CE-1 DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2000 (.~)--- Director PW&U - [,~t ~/-) City Attorney f~ ?f/~~ . ,~~_,t.~¢~, City Treasurer ~ ~ ~ ~ - Purchasing Manager ~~ ~ Operations Committee ~~ // Fiscal & Budget Comm. ~-(_~e~rt~ ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITI'AL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: This agenda bill is to request authorization for the emergency purchase of two (2) gate valves and a flow measurement system for wastewater pump-station CE-1. The gate valves that control the cross-channel wastewater flow fi.om East Bremerton to Pump Station CE- 1 were not functional and had to be removed. Currently flow is restricted by debris in the cross-channel siphons and it is necessary to replace these gates prior to completing cleaning operations of this piping. Flow measurement equipment is also necessary to be able to regulate the flow by these gate valves. The necessary gate valves and measurement system are available fi'om Plastic Fabrication, Inc. in the amount of $30,078.00 plus applicable taxes. It is recommended that the City Council approve the emergency purchase of this equipment. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the emergency purchase of two (2) gate valves and a flow measurement system for wastewater pump-station CE-1 from Plastic Fabrication, Inc. in the amount of $30,078.00 e~, 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Wa~tewaterManager ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: WWTP Manager EXPIRATION DATE: NA REVIEW DATE: NA 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED ~ TABLED__ APPROVED~ DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:~ 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: W'ah the cleaning of the cross-channel siphons, wastewater flow from East Bremerton to Pump Station CE- 1 will increase. W'rthout the requested gate control, this flow will be unregulated resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs) at OF-13 and the City will be in violation of the PSA Consent Decree. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: There are no adverse impacts. Purchase amount is included in the 2000 budget. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: { ~970122_1 .ab} AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Purchase & Sale Agreement FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 Bet~veenMeCormickLand Co.,andthe ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works& Utilities City of Bremerton ORIGINATOR: B. McKinney,Forestry Manager DATE SUBMITTED: February 22, 2000 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on b~'ek if~ry) 3. EXtHBITS: Director PW&U .,~'~ ,9 · (1) Purchase & Sale Agreement City Attorney (J/)~~ ,, (2) Map of Property City Treasurer _27--~ ,,'-.- ~ Purchasing Manager ,~,~]~~o ~._ Operations Committee U,_~~ r ' udge Comm. ENDORSEMENT X INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The purpose of this Agenda Bill is to obtain Ci~y Council autho~tion for the Water Utility to purchase 11.8 acres of property adjacent to the Rodeo Drive-In Theater, currently owned by the McCorraick Land Co., Inc. A portion of this property has been encroached upon by the City's Gold Mountain Golf Course for over 30 years. Negotiations with McCormick Land Co., Inc. have resulted in an agreed upon purchase price of $300,000.00 for thc property in question. The property is contiguous to the City's Water Utility Property. It is recommended that Council approve the purchase of this property by the Water Utility in the amount of $300,000. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase by the Water Utility Fund (401) of 11.8 acres of property identified in exhibits (1) and (2) in the amount of $300,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Purchase & Sale Agreement as writter~ 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director, Public Works & Utilities ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Forestry Manager EXPIRATION DATE: NA REVIEW DATE: NA 10. NOTICE oF ACTION ~E PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~ D ~ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: At& oo- 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City w~l continue to encroach upon McCormick Land Co., property and po~'bly lead to civil action with Mditional costs to the City. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: This has been included in the 2000 budget. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: I~70'~22_'~.ab} McCORMICK LAND CO., INCORPORATED 4978 S.W. Lk. Flora Rd.. Port Orchard, WA 98367 (360) 876-3395 · Fax (360) 876-35 'RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" March 7, 2000 Carol Arends, President Bremerton City Council C/o Glenna Malanca, City Attorney 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 VIA FAX 478-5161 RE: Bremerton/McCormick Transaction Dear Carol Arends: The purpose of this letter is to support the City of Bremerton's approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of Bremerton and McCormick Land Company, for property on SR3. Execution of this Agreement will conclude a very long process of research, discussion, strategizing and negotiation. We believe this is a win/win for both the City and McCormick, are are pleased to have the process concluded. We are sorry to be unable to attend this evening's Council meeting, and hope that this letter will convey our support and appreciation. Yours truly, Linda Niebanck Cc: Mayor Lynn Horton REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT THIS REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the day of , 2000, by and between McCORMICK LAND CO., Incorporated, ("Grantor")and the Grantee CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation ("City'). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Kitsap County, Washington, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. B. The property which is the subject of this Agreement shall include and is together with all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to all contracts, agreements, warranties, commitments, privileges, tangible and intangible interests, appurtenances, easements, licenses, applications, permits and governmental approvals and consents relating to or serving said property (collectively the "Property"). C. The City desires to acquire the Property for recreational purposes, and other potential uses. AGREEMENT 1. Grant. Subject to the t.erms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, Grantor hereby agrees to grant to the City all right, title and interest of the Grantor in the Property, including all timber rights. 2. Considemtion. 2.1 The consideration to be paid to Grantor is Three Hundred Thousand ($300,000.00) Dollars. Exhibit Il) 2.2 The parties acknowledge that the total purchase price is significantly below the fair market value of the Property, which is agreed to be $475,000. The parties' understand that the difference between the fair market value and the purchase price of the property represents an income tax deductible gift to Purchaser by Seller. 3. TiSe. 3.1 Condition of Title. Grantor shall deliver to the City good and marketable title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except the exceptions referred to in Section 3.3 (the "Permitted Exceptions"). 3.2 Title Commitment. Within fifteen (15) days after the date hereof, Grantor shall cause to be furnished to the City a con%mitment for an ALTA Owner's Standard Policy of Title Insurance (the "Title Commitment") and such other endorsements as the City may require, issued by Land Title Company of Kitsap County (the "Title Company"), describing the Property, listing the City as the prospective named insured and showing as the policy amount to be mutually agreeable. Grantor shall cause the Title Coraraitment to be furnished to the City along with legible true copies of any and all instruments referred to in the Title Commitment as conditions or exceptions to title to the Property. 3.3 Review of Title Commitment and Su~ey. The City shall have ten days from the date of delivery of the conunitment for title insurance identified above, (the "Title Review Period") to notify Grantor in writing of any matters disclosed in the Survey to which the City objects or of exceptions shown in the Title Commitment that are in addition to those to which the City consents and which may remain of record (the "Permitted Exceptions"). If Grantor is unable in spite of its best efforts to cure such objections by Closing, the City may at the City's option waive the objection not cured, or terminate this Agreement by notice to Grantor. 4. Closing. The Closing and conveyance of title shall occur within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement, but in no event later than February 29, 2000, unless otherwise agreed to between the parties. 4.1 Documen~ to be Delivered by Grantor. At or prior to the Closing, Grantor shall execute and deliver or cause to be delivered to Escrow the following documents: A. Statutory warranty Deed duly executed and acknowledged, conveying to the City the Property in indefeasible fee simple, free and clear of any lien, encumbrance or exception other than the Permitted Exceptions (the "Deed"); B. If applicable, an Assignment in a form satisfactory to the City assigning to the City Grantor's interest in all permits, approvals, leases, contracts or warranties comprising the Property Ithe "Assignment"); C. An Owner's ALTA StandardPolicy of Title Insurance issued by the Title Company conforming to the requirements of Section 5.2 herein; D. A FIRPTA certificate certifying the non-foreign status of Grantor; and 4.2 Consideration ~ be Delivered by The Ci~. At or prior to Closing, the City shall deliver to Escrow funds necessary to close this transaction. 4.3 Prorations. Real property taxes, utility charges constituting a lien on the Property, and assessments shall be prorated as of Closing. Grantor shall furnish to the City and the Title Company all information reasonably necessary to compute the prorations. 17 5. NoUces. Ail notices, requests, demands and other communications in connection with this agreement shall be in writing and furnished to the other party at its address listed below (or at such other address as may be specified from time to time by notice) and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, send via facsimile transmission or sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, to the following respective addresses: If to Grantor: Doug Skrobut McCormick Land Co, Inc. 4978 S.W. Lk. Flora Rd. Port Orchard, WA 98367 If to the City: City Clerk AND City Attorney 239 4th Street 239 4th Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 Bremerton,Wa. 98337 (360)478-5290 6. Inteqration. This Agreement and all documents and instruments executed pursuant hereto merge and integrate all prior agreements and representations respecting this transaction, whether written or oral, and constitute the sole and entire agreement of the parties in connection herewith. 7. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by Grantor and the City. 8. Bindinq Nature. Ail rights and obligations arising out of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors, heirs, assigns, tenants, administrators, executors and marital communities, if any, of the parties hereto. 9. Time. Time is of the essence in each and every covenant and condition of this Agreement. 10. Tax Considerations. The City agrees to cooperate to the extent legally permissible to maximize the lawfully available tax benefits to Grantor. The obligation of cooperation extends to the execution of documents and other papers prepared by Grantor's tax advisors. The City acknowledges that the purchase price is below market value and that Grantor intends the difference between the purchase price and market value to be an income tax deductible gift to the City. 11. ThreatofCondemnation. The Property, in part, is currently encroached upon by the City's Municipal Golf Course. The City communicated to Grantor during the course of negotiations that condemnation by the City would commence if agreement could not be reached. Grantors: Dated: McCORMICK LAND CO. Incorporated By: Its: The City: Dated: THE CITY OF BREMERTON, a Municipal Corporation Approved as to Legality: By Its City Attorney I (,or ~) SURVEY LEGEN~ P6BflDN ~F SE'l, 5W'A SBTION 1,TOW~S~IF2~N, EAN&E IW, WM ~ 5ET 'R~*. NAIL IN L.LSHIHER IX PAVED PATH AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. S~CT:Pendergast Regional Park FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 Lighting Project: Standard ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation IAC Grant Agreement, Inter-fund ORIGINATOR: JoAnne Wroblewski, Ass't Director Loan and Budget Adjustment DATE SUBMITTED: March 1, 2000 2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS: (Comment on back if necessary)/~ ~,_ j / Parks & Recreation Director: . /.~/~?~/~r/ IAC-YAF Agreement City Attomey:'~7/-~a~itr~ Resolution authorizing Inter-fund loan I~] :O ~ 7 ~'{ ~-~ City Treasurer: ~:~.._ Budget Adjustment 00-4 Fiscal & Budget Committee: ~ ~LLrvx~~X-~ Kitsap County Resolution 105-1999 ENDORSEMENT X INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMEI~ AND REQUIREMEI~ FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City has berm awarded a $150,000 grant fi.om the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Youth Athletic Facilities) to fund the Pendergast Regional Park Athletic Lighting Project. The project includes installing athletic lighting on the five existing fields (three softball fields and two all-we~ther soccer fields) and safety lighting for the parking lot. In order to receive the funding the City must enter into a standard Project Agreement with the IAC. The budget for the project has a revised estimate of $550,000, which is $100,000 less than the original estimate. The $150.000 lAC grant is being matched by $200,000 fi'om Kitsap County and $160,000 from the City of Bremerton; plus cash contributions from FC Kitsap Soccer Club, Women's State Soccer Association, Bremerton Athletic Roundtable and the Pendergast Committee. The project is also receiving in-kind contributions (labor and equipment) fi.om the Department &Navy and Ace Paving. Construction of this long-awaited project is expected to get underway this fall. The City's contribution is to be provided fi.om an inter-fund loan that will be paid back at the rate of $15,000 annually through the year 2020. The Council is being asked to approve the grant Agreement with IAC; authorize the inter-fund loan; and adjust the current budget to fund the project. 8. RECOMMENDATION: (1)' Motion to authorize Mayor to sign the IAC Project Agreement for Pendergast Regional Pak Lighting Project; (2) Motion to adopt Resolution No.:2.7~ authorizing an inter-fund loan to the Civic Improvement Fund from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund; and (3) Motion to approve budget Adjustment Request No. 00-4. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Cris Gears ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Cris Gears EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION tOA PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL #: ~ I Oblllt 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The City would not be able to accept the IAC grant and would be unable to complete the project. The Department would not be able to re-locate adult leagues so that Lions Park fields could be focused on youth sports, and the all-weather soccer fields could not be used on weekdays in the late fall and winter months due to early darkness. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: With the lighting of the athletic fields, the Parks & Recreation Depa,tment will be able to schedule the softball fields for late afternoon and evening play. The Department will be able to move the adult softball leagues to Pendergast Regional Park. This will allow Lions Park ballfields to be used by more youth programs. In addition, the Department will be able to host large tournaments on the weekends. The all-weather soccer fields will be used year-round with scheduling after dark during the late fall and winter months. The lighted facilities will provide the City. with additional revenue (which will be somewhat offset by an increase in maintenance and operating costs) and will enhance the local economy by bringing visitors to the community for large tournaments (see attached projections). 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: *Note: The contribution from the City's Hotel Motel Tax provides for an initial commitment of $15,000 plus annual payments of approximately that same amount to pay back the $145,000 inter-fund loan over the course of 20 years. This matter was discussed with Council at a study session on December 22, 1999, with follow-up discussion suggesting that ballfield revenues derived from the lighting project could replace the annual Hotel Motel Tax contribution at such time as they are capable of covering the loan payments. 23 PENDERGAST REGIONAL PARK LIGHTING PROJECT SOURCES & USES OF FUNDS SOURCES OF FUNDS Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) $ 150,000.00 Kitsap County 200,000.00 City of Bremerton 160,000.00 Donations 10,000.00 FC Kitsap Soccer Club Women's State Soccer Club Bremerton Athletic Roundtable Pendergast Memorial Committee In Kind Services 30,000.00 Navy CBU Ace Paving Total Sources $550;000.00 · USES OF FUNDS Estimated project: $550.000.00 REsox,uTio 7 ¥ A RESOLUTION authorizing an Interfund Loan to the Civic Improvement Fund from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund and dedicating future Hotel/Motel Tax revenue for repayment. WHEREAS, the Civic Improvement Fund has an immediate need for cash with which to provide a portion of the financing for improvements at Pendergast Regional Park; and WHEREAS, the size and nature of this transaction does not lend itself to an external financing; and WHEREAS, surplus cash in an amount sufficient to meet the short-term needs of this settlement is presently on hand in the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, let it be resolved, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to make an interfund loan from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund to the Civic Improvement Fund in an amount not to exceed $145,000. This loan shall bear interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum and shall be repaid in its entirety not later than December 31, 2020; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that $15,000 of Hotel/Motel Tax revenues from the Civic Improvement Fund shall be dedicated annually for repayment of this interfund loan. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of , 2000. CAROL ARENDS, Council President CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST Requesting Department: PARKS DEPT. Adjustment Number: 00 - 4 IApproval Authority Required: ['-]Treasurer r'-~Mayor ~ Fiscal & Budget [~Council SOURCE OF FUNDS: USE OF FUNDS: Descd ption Amount Descd pti on A mount ROOSEVELT TRUST: Grant Revenue 150,000 Capital Project 550,000 County Contribution 200,000 Transfer from Hotel Motel 160,000 Donations 40,000 EQUIPMENT RENTAL: Reduce Ending Cash 145,000 Interfund Loan 145,000 HOTEL MOTEL TAX FUND: Interfund Loan from ER & R 145,000 Transfer to Roosevelt Trust 145,000 NARRATIVE: This adjustment provides for the installation of lighting at Pendergast Regional Park with funding provided by lAC, Kitsap County, Bremerton and donations from local businesses and individuals. Department Head Signature Date Di~ctor Signature Date Treasurer Comments: ~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended Treasurer' ~?~te ~ Mayor Comments: ~- ~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended ~ Approved ~ Denied ~- ~~ Mayor's Signature DAte Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Approved ~ Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date schedule February 25, 2000 INTERFUND LOAN AMORTIZATION FROM CIVIC IMPROVEMENT TO EQUIPMENT RENTAL 20 years = 6.5 % PAYMENT PAYMENTS YEAR NUMBER TOTAL INTEREST PRINCIPAL 2001 1 (13,159.68) (9,425.00) (3,734.68) 2002 2 (13,159.68) (9,182.25) (3,977.43) 2003 3 (13,159.68) (8,923.71) (4,235.96) 2004 4 (13,159.68) (8,648.38) (4,511.30) 2005 5 (13,159.68) (8,355.14) (4,804.54) 2006 6 (13,159.68) (8,042.85) (5,116.83) 2007 7 (13,159.68) (7,710.25) (5,449.43) 2008 8 (13,159.68) (7,356.04) (5,803.64) 2009 9 (13,159.68) (6,978.80) (6,180.87) 2010 10 (13,159.68) (6,577.05) (6,582.63) 2011 11 (13,159.68) (6,149.17) (7,010.50) 2012 12 (13,159.68) (5,693.49) (7,466.19) 2013 13 (13,159.68) (5,208.19) (7,951.49) 2014 14 (13,159.68) (4,691.34) (8,468.33) 2015 15 (13,159.68) (4,140.90) (9,018.78) 2016 16 (13,159.68) (3,554.68) (9,605.00) 2017 17 (13,159.68) (2,930.36) (10,229.32) 2018 18 (13,159.68) (2,265.45) (10,894.23) 2019 19 (13,159.68) (1,557.33) (11,602.35) 2020 20 (131159.68) (803.17) (12,356.50) (2631193.55) (1181193.55) (1451000.00) RESOLUTION I~.IMBER ~ ~ ~- \ q ciel RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINg APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOIl PARK DEVELOPMENT A resolution authorizing application for funding assistance for outdoor recreation projects to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor P, ecreation as provided by the Youth Athletic Fields Program. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Kitsap County. has approved a Comprehensive Park. P, ecreation and Habitat Plan on June 27, 1994_ which identifies a need for additional athletic fields in the County; and, WItEREAS, as a result of a public vote on the creation ora new professional football stadium in Seattle, the Youth Athletic Facilities Account has been established to assist local recreation facility providers fund the development, improvement and maintenance of athletic facilities throughout the State; and, WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Kitsap County considers it in the best public interest to increase the use potential of Pendergaast Fields by the addition of lighting to the existing fields and to add fields at Veteran's Park in Port Orchard: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of Kitsap County, Washington: 1. That the Director of Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department be authorized to make formal applications to the Intrragency Committee for Outdoor Kecreation; and, 2. That any funding assistance so received be used for adding lights to the existing fields at Pendergaast Park and constructing new fields at Veteran's Park; and, 3. That the County's share for the project will be derived from Park Impact Fees, the City of Bremerton, donations, and volunteer labor; and, 4. That Kitsap County does hereby certify that the County is responsible to support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. Dated this J~ [$f day of J (4/1/,G', 1999. KITSAP COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOT PRESENT Charlotte Oarrido, Chair ~'~s Endr~sen, cOmmissioner ATTEST: CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 TO: Mike Shepherd and City Council FROM: Cris Gears RE: Fin~cial impact of tights at Pendergast Park DATE: December 22, 1999 The following estimates are based on information gathered by staff: New revenue to City from additional softball league fees $ 27,000 New revenue to City from increased rental fees for tournaments 2,200 New revenue to City from additional tournaments 2,800 New revenue to City from additional soccer usage 20,000 Total gross annual new revenue to City $ 52.000* *Gross revenue does not reflect City's cost to operate pro~mmms and maintain facilities. Actual net increase would be approximately 40% of the gross revenue. Revenue est/mates for hotel/motel business tax have not been calculated. However, the additional usage (above) should result in the following: 4,400 additional visitors for expanded weekend softball tom'naments (2-day events) 3,200 additional visitors for state/regional tournaments O-day events) 5,400 additional visitors for expanded soccer u~age (2-3 day events) Without data from prior years, we can't accurate,!y estimate how many of these new visitors would stay overnight in Bremerton, or how many 6fthem would stay in a single room 30 · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom · !'Jk IOU1DOOR YAF Project Agreement i ]RECRERTiON Youth Athletic Facility Grant Account Project Sponsor: Bremerton Parks & Rec Dept Project Number: 99-1553D Project Title: Pendergast Regional Park Lighting lAC Approval Date: 11/19/1999 A. PARTIES OF THE AGREEMENT This Project Grant Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC), P.O. Box 40917, Olympia, Washington 98504-0917 and Bremerton Parks & Rec Dept, 680 Lebo Blvd, Bremerton, WA 98310 (Project Sponsor) and shall be binding upon the agents and all persons acting by or throu~]h the parties. B. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement sets out the terms and conditions by which a grant is made from the Youth Athletic Facility Grant Account of the State of Washington's General Fund. The grant is made by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation to the Project Sponsor, for the project named above. C. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The subject project is described on the attached Project Summary. D. TERMS OF AGREEMENT The Project Sponsor must insure that the facility developed, improved, and/or maintained through the Youth Athletic Facilities Account funding identified in the Project Agreement is made available for public youth and/or community athletics for a minimum of twenty (20) years from the date of project completion. E. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The Project reimbursement period shall begin on January 4, 2000 and end on January 30, 2001. No expenditure made before or after this pedod is eligible for reimbursement unless incorporated by written amendment into this Agreement. F. PROJECT FUNDING The total grant award provided by lAC for this project shall not exceed $150,000. lAC shall not pay any amount beyond that approved for funding of the project. The Project Sponsor shall be responsible for all total project costs that exceed this amount. The contribution by the Project Sponsor toward work on this project at a minimum shall be as indicated below: Percentage Dollar Amount lAC - YAF -IMPROVING 27% $150,000 Project Sponsor 73% $400,000 Total Project Cost 100% $550,000 G. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS All rights and obligations of the parties to this Agreement are subject to this Agreement and its attachments, including the Sponsor's Application, Project Summary, Eligible Reimbursement Activities Report, and the General Provisions. Except as provided herein, no alteration of any of the terms or conditions ofthisAgreement will be effective unless provided in wdting. All such alterations, except those concerning the period of performance, must be signed by both parties. Period of performance extensions need only be signed by IAC's Director. The Project Sponsor has read, fully understands and agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions as set forth in these documents. YAF Project Agreement Youth Athletic Facility Grant Account Chapter 43.51 RCW, Chapter 286 WAC Page I of 2 PROJAGR1 ,RPT H. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STA TUTES~ RULES~ AND lAC POLICIES This Agreement is governed by, and the Sponsor shall comply with, all applicable state and federal laws and the-provisions of Chapter 43.51 R:CW, Chapter 286 WACand published agency policies, which are incorporated herein by fl3is reference as if fully set forth. I. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS (none) J. PROJECT GRANT AGREEMENT REPRESENTATIVE All wdtten communications sent to the Sponsor under this Agreement will be addressed and delivered to: Project Sponsor lAC Name: Jodi Wroblewski Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Title: Project Manager Natural Resources Building Address: 239 4th PO Box 40917 Bremerton, WA 98310 Olympia, Washington 98504-0917 www.wa .gov/iac These addresses shall be effective until receipt by one party from the olher of a written notice of any change. K. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement, along with all attachments, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding this Agreement shall exist or bind any of the parties. L. EFFECTIVE DATE This agreement, for project #99-1553D, shall be effective upon signing by all parties. STATE OF WASHINGTON INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION Laura Eckert Johnson, Director PROJECT SPONSOR BY: DATE: TITLE: Pm-approved as to form by the state Assistant Attorney General YAF Project Agreement Youth Athletic Facility Grant Account Chapter 43.51 RCW, Chapter 286 WAC Page 2 of 2 PROJAGR2.RPT ~ · ~, i [ntera~enc~ '~ la" lCom~'"~~ Youth Athletic Facilities oumooR (~ RECRERTION Improving CateDory Post-Evaluation Project Summary TITLE: Pendergast Regional Park Lighting NUMBER: 99-1553D (Development) STATUS: Committee Funded SPONSOR: Bremerton Parks & Rec Dept EVALUATION SCORE: 60.6667 COMMITTEE RANKING: COSTS: SPONSOR MATCH: lAC - YAF - IMPROVIN $150,000.00 27% Appropriation \ Cash Local $400,000.00 73% Cash Donations Donated Labor Grant - Other Total $550,000.00 100% DESCRIPTION: The project objective is to light three softball fields and two all-weather soccer fields at Pendergast Regional Park. Safety lights will be added to the parking lot. LOCATION INFORMATION: Pendergast Regional Park is located in southwest Bremerton, on the Kitsap Peninsula YAF GROUP: North Olympic COUNTY: Kitsap SCOPE (ELEMENTS): Architectural & Engineering Sales Tax Utilities Lighting Site Preparation FISCAL YEAR: 2000 I DATE PRINTED: February 10, 2000 1PAPSUM2.RPT Pendergast Regional Park Lighting !~1 RECR£RTION~ Eligible Reimbursement Activities Report Project Sponsor: Bremerton Perks & Rec Oept Project Number: 99-1553 D Project Title: Pender§est Regional Park lighting lAC Approval: 11/19/lg99 Development Project: Element Item Unit Quantity Description Architectural & Engineering A & E development Lump Sum 1.00 Lighting Parking and roads Lump sum 13,00 13 poles saftey lighting Lighting Recreation - field lighting Lump sum 20.00 20 poles field lighting Sales Tax Sales Tax Lump Sum 1.00 Site Preparation Site preparation - other Lump sum 1.00 trenching Utilities Electric transformers/panels Lump sum 1.00 additional transformer ELIGREIM.RPT Februar~ 10, 2000 Page: I I}1~111 Milestone Report By Project i~ ltEI;Eltll011 Project Number: 99-1553 D Project Name: Pendergast Regional Park Lighting Sponsor: Bremerton Parks & Rec Dept lAC Project Manager: Kammie Bunes Project Start 01/04/2000 ~ A&E Complete/Permits Submitted 05/01/2000 Plans & Specs Reviewed by lAC 06/15/2000 Bid Awarded 08/10/2000 ! Construction Started 10/01/2000 Project Complete 01/30/2001 70 day construction period Final Docs & Billing to lAC 03/15/2001 = Milestone Complete -- Critical Milestone 55' 1MILESTO.RPT February 10, 2000 Page: 1 JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-1 /~~~ I lnteragency °r Project A§reement IRECRERTION General Provisions Table of Contents Page A. 1. Headings, Definitions, and Framework of Agreement ........................................................ 3 B. Performance and Requirements -- General Responsibilities 2. Performance by Sponsor ............................................................................................... 4 3. Restrictions on Assignment ........................................................................................... 4 4. Responsibility for Project ............................................................................................... 4 5. Independent Capacity of the Sponsor ............................................................................. 4 6. Compliance with Applicable Law .................................................................................... 5 7. Conflict of Interest ....................................................................................................... 5 8. Requirements of the National Park Service ....................................................................... 5 9. Acknowledgments and Signs ......................................................................................... 5 C. Funding, Reimbursements, Records, and Inspections 10. Project Funding ............................................................................................................ 6 I 1. Project Reimbursements ................................................................................................ 6 1 2. Non-availability of Funds ............................................................................................... 6 1 3. Records and Reports ..................................................................................................... 6 14. Authority to Inspect/Right of Entry ................................................... : ............................. 7 D. Acquisition and/or Development -- Methods and Requirements 1 5. Provisions Applying to Acquisition Projects ...................................................................... 7 1 6. Provisions Applying to Development Projects ................................................................... 7 1 7. Hazardous Substances .................................................................................................. 8 3¢ JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-2 E. Facility Uses and Fees 18. Restriction on Conversion of Facility to Other Uses ........................................................... 9 19. Construction, Operation, Use and Maintenance of Assisted Projects .................................... 9 20. Income, Income Use ................................................................................................... 10 21. Preferences for Users .................................................................................................. 10 F. Special Provisions 22. Provisions Related to Nonprofit Sponsors ....................................................................... 11 23. Liability Insurance Requirements for Firearm Range Sponsors ........................................... 11 G. Remedies and Disputes 24. Waiver of Default ................... ' .................................................................................... 11 25. Application Representations -- Misrepresentations or Inaccuracy or Breach ......................... 12 26. Indemnity ..................................................................................................................12 27. Termination and Other Remedies .................................................................................. 12 28. Disputes .................................................................................................................... 12 29. Governing Law/Venue ................................................................................................. 13 30. Severability ...............................................................................................................13 JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-3 Section 1: Headings, Definitions, and Framework of Agreement (A) Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered a substantive part of this Agreement. (B) Definitions. Acquisition - The gaining of rights of public ownership by purchase, negotiation, or other means, of fee or less than fee interests in real property. Agreement - The accord accepted by all par~ies to the present transaction; the Project Agreement, supplemental agreement, and/or intergovernmental agreement between lAC and a Sponsor. Applicant - Any agency or organization that meets the qualifying standards, including deadlines, for submission of an application soliciting a grant of funds from lAC. Application - The forms approved by IAC's board or its Director for use by applicants in soliciting project funds administered bY lAC. Board (lAC) - The committee created under RCW 43.99.110 includes eight members. Three are agency heads: the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Director of Parks and Recreation, and the Director of Fish and Wildlife (or their designees). Five, by appointment of the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, are members of the public at large who have demonstrated interest in and a general knowledge of outdoor recreation in the state. Development - The construction of facilities to enhance outdoor recreation or habitat conservation resources. Director - IAC's Director or the Director's designee. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC) - The Executive branch state agency, including a board, Director, and personnel, created by RCW 43.99.110 and 43.99.130. Project - The undertaking that is the subject of this agreement and that is, or may be, funded in whole or in part with funds administered by lAC. Project Summary - One of the document formats approved by IAC's board or Director for use by applicants in soliciting project funds. Sponsor o The applicant who has been awarded a grant of funds and is bound by this executed Project Agreement; includes its officers, employees and agents. (C) Framework of Agreement. This Agreement provides for the orderly completion of the proposal contained in the Sponsor's application for public funds administered by lAC. In summary, it provides the following guidance: (1) Timeliness. For the Sponsor to undertake and complete the Project in a timely manner, in accordance with the approved Project proposal and applicable laws; (2) Reimbursements. For lAC to provide reimbursement to the Sponsor for eligible Project' costs. Sponsor reimbursement requests shall be made not more than more than once monthly and not less than yearly, in accordance with lAC format and policy; (3) Recognition. For the Sponsor to provide acknowledgment of IAC's funding contribution, through signs, written recognition in printed materials, and/or in dedication ceremonies; JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-4 (4) Public use & inspections. For the dedication of the area or facility to the described public use and purposes, [including a deed-of-right where applicable], and to permit regular inspection by lAC; and (5) Other obligations & remedies. Sets-forth obligations and remedies. Section 2: Performance by Sponsor The Sponsor shall undertake the Project as described in this Agreement, on the Project Summary, in the Sponsor's application, and in accordance with the Sponsor's proposed goals and objectives described in the application or documents submitted with the application, all as finally approved by lAC. All submitted documents are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Timely completion of the Project is important. Failure to do so, as set out in this Agreement, is a material breach of the Agreement. Section 3: Restriction on Assignment The Sponsor shall not assign this Agreement, or the performance of any obligations to lAC under this Agreement, or any claim against lAC it ma~ have under this Agreement, without the express written consent of the Director. Section 4: Responsibility for Project While lAC undertakes to assist the Sponsor with the Project by providing a grant pursuant to this Agreement, the Project itself remains the sole responsibility of the Sponsor. lAC undertakes no responsibilities to the Sponsor, or to any third party, other than as is expressly set out in this Agreement. The responsibility for the design, development, construction, implementation, operation and maintenance of the Project, as those phases are applicable to this Project, is solely that of the Sponsor, as is responsibility for any claim or suit of any nature by any third party related in any way to the Project. The Sponsor shall defend at its own cost any and all claims or suits at law or in equity which may be brought against the Sponsor in connection with the Project. The Sponsor shall not look to lAC, including any of IAC's employees or agents, for any performance, assistance, or any payment or indemnity, including but not limited to cost of defense and/or attorneys' fees, in connection with any claim or lawsuit brought by any third party related in any way to the Project, including but not limited to, its design, development, construction, implementation, operation and/or maintenance. Section 5: Independent Capacity Of The Sponsor The Sponsor and his or her employees or agents performing under this Agreement are not employees or agents of lAC. The Sponsor will not hold himself/herself out as nor claim to be an officer or employee of lAC or of the state of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Sponsor make any claim of dght, privilege or benefit which would accrue to an employee under Chapter 41.06 RCW or Chapter 28B.16 RCW. The Sponsor is responsible for withholding and/or paying employment taxes, insurance, or deductions of any kind. Section 6: Compliance with Applicable Law The Sponsor will comply with, and lAC is not responsible for determining compliance with, all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies, including, but not limited to: State Environmental Policy Act (under which the Sponsor shall serve as lead agency); Americans with Disabilities Act; Architectural Barriers Act (restoration and improvement projects only); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Jury 29, 1999 General Provisions-5 Acquisition Policies Act (PL91-646, RCW 8.26.010); Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices; permits (shoreline, HPA, demolition); land use regulations (comprehensive areas ordinances, GMA); and federal and state safety and health regulations (OSHAANISHA). The Sponsor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless lAC from all liability, damages and costs of any nature, including but not limited to costs of suits and attorneys' fees assessed against lAC, as a result of the failure of the Sponsor to so comply. Section 7: Conflict of Interest Prohibited lAC may, by written notice to the Sponsor terminate this Agreement if it is found after due notice and examination by lAC that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act, Chapter 42.52_ RCW; or any similar statute involving the Sponsor in the procurement of, or performance under, this Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminated as provided above, lAC shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies against the Sponsor as it could pursue in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the Sponsor. The rights and remedies of lAC provided for in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The existence of facts upon which lAC makes any determination under this clause shall be an issue and may be reviewed as provided in the "Disputes" clause of this Agreement. Section 8: Requirements of the National Park Service If the Project has been approved by the National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, for assistance from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund-(LWCF), the Project Agreement General Provisions as contained in Section 660.3 Attachment B of the L&WCF Grants-/n-A/d Manual as now existing or hereafter amended are made part of this Agreement, and the Sponsor shall also abide by these Agreement General Provisions. Further, the Sponsor agrees to provide lAC with reports or documents needed to meet the requirements of the Agreement or Section 060.3 Attachment B of the L& WCF Grants-/n-A/d Manual. Section 9: Acknowledgments and Signs (A) In Publications. The Sponsor shall include language which acknowledges the funding contribution of the program to this Project in any release or other publication developed or modified for, or referring to, the Project. (B) Signs. The Sponsor also shall post signs or other appropriate media at Project entrances and other locations on the Project which acknowledge the program's funding contribution as provided by lAC policy, unless waived by the Director. (C) Ceremonies; The Sponsor shall notify lAC no later than two weeks before a dedication ceremony for this Project. The Sponsor shall verbally acknowledge the program's funding contribution at all dedication ceremonies. Section 10: Project Funding (A) Additional Amounts. lAC shall not be obligated to pay any amount beyond IAC's dollar amount or the Project percentage as identified in this Agreement (whichever amount is less), unless that additional amount has been approved in advance by IAC's board or Director, and incorporated by written amendment into this Agreement. (B) Before the Agreement. No expenditure made, or obligation incurred, by the Sponsor before the effective date of this Agreement shall be eligible for grant funds, in whole or in part, unless specifically approved by IAC's board or Director. The dollar amounts identified in this Agreement shall be reduced as necessary to exclude any such expenditure from participation. JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-6 (C) After the Implementation Period. No expenditure made, or obligation incurred, following the implementation period shall be eligible, in whole or in part, for grant funds hereunder. In addition to any remedy lAC may have under this Agreement, the amounts identified in this Agreement shall be reduced to exclude any such expenditure from participation. Section 1 1: Project Reimbursements (A) Compliance and Retainage. Disbursement of grant monies by lAC to the Sponsor under this Agreement shall be made in accord with applicable statutes, rules and lAC policies, all conditioned upon proof of compliance with the terms of this Agreement by the Sponsor. lAC reserves the right to withhold disbursement of the final ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the grant to the Sponsor until the Project has been completed and approved by the Director. A Project is considered "complete" when (1) all approved or required activities (acquisition, development, maintenance, education and enforcement, etc.) are complete, (2) on-site signs are in place (if applicable), (3) a final Project report is submitted to lAC with the Sponsor's final request for reimbursement, (4) the completed Project has been approved by lAC, and (5) fiscal transactions are complete, (B) Compliance and Payment. The obligation of lAC to pay any amount(s) under this Agreement is expressly conditioned upon strict compliance with the terms of this Agreement by the Sponsor. (C) Invoice Frequency. Sponsor must submit at least one invoice voucher a year but should not submit more than one voucher per month. A year end voucher should account for all activity up to and including June 30, the last day of the State's fiscal year. Sponsors should submit the year-end billing to lAC not later than July 15th of each year. Final reimbursement requests should be submitted to lAC within ninety (90) days of either completion of the Project or the termination date, whichever comes first. (D) Payment for Land Purchases. Reimbursement for real property acquisition, either fee or less than fee interests, is based on the land values established per lAC guidelines, lAC will not reimburse for partial acquisition costs or any interest payments associated with the acquisition of real property purchased on installment. Section 12: Non-availability of Funds If amounts sufficient to fund the grant made under this Agreement are not appropriated by the Washington State Legislature, or if such funds are not allocated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) to lAC for expenditure for this Agreement in any biennial fiscal period, lAC shall not be obligated to pay any remaining unpaid portion of this grant unless and until the necessary action by the Legislature or OFM occurs. If lAC participation is suspended under this section for a continuous period of one year, IAC's obligation to provide any future funding under this Agreement shall terminate. Termination of the Agreement under this section is not subject to appeal by the Sponsor. Section 13: Records and Reports The Sponsor shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence of accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and propedy reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, or audit by personnel duly authorized by lAC, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law, rule, regulation, or contract. The Sponsor will retain all books, records, documents, and other materials relevant to this Agreement for six years after settlement, and make them available for inspection by persons authorized under this provision. Section 14: Authority to Inspect/Right of Entry The Sponsor shall provide right of access to its lands and facilities to lAC, or any of its officers, or to any other authorized agent or official of the state of Washington or the federal government at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and/or quality assurance under this Agreement. Jury 29, 1999 General Provisions-7 Section 15: Provisions Applying to Acquisition Projects The following provisions shall be in force only if the Project described in this Agreement is for the acquisition of outdoor recreation or habitat conservation land or facilities: (A) Relocation Assistance-L&WCF. When Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds are part of this Agreement, the Sponsor agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1894 (1970)--Public Law 91- 646; as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, PL 100-17- 1987, and the applicable regulations and procedures of the Department of the Interior implementing that Act. (B) Relocation Assistance-State Funds. When state funds are included in this Project, the Sponsor, if required by law, agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy of the State of Washington (Chapter 240, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sass., RCW 8.26.010), and Chapter 468-100 WAC. (C) Housing & Relocation. In the event that housing and relocation costs, as required by federal law set out in subsection (A) above and state law set out in subsection (B) above, are involved in the execution of this Project, the Sponsor agrees to provide any housing and relocation assistance that may be necessary, with the understanding that eligible relocation costs may be part of the total Project cost. (D) Evidence of Land Value. Before disbursement of funds by lAC as provided under this Agreement, the Sponsor agrees to supply evidence to lAC that the land acquisition cost has been established as per lAC procedural guidelines, which are incorporated by this reference. (E) Evidence of Title. The Sponsor agrees to show the type of ownership interest for the property that has been acquired. This shall be done before any payment of financial assistance by lAC. (F) Deed of Right to Use Land for Public Purposes. The Sponsor agrees to execute an instrument or instruments which contain (1) a legal description of the property acquired under this Agreement, (2) a conveyance to the State of Washington of the right to use the described real property forever for outdoor recreation or habitat conservation purposes, and (3) a promise to comply with applicable statutes, rules, and lAC policies with respect to conversion of use. Section 16: Provisions Applying to Development Projects The following provisions shall be in force only if the Project described in this Agreement is for development of outdoor recreation or habitat conservation land or facilities: (A) Construction Document Review and Approval. The Sponsor agrees to submit one copy of all construction plans and specifications to lAC for review. Review and approval by IAC's Director will be for compliance with the terms of this Agreement. (B) Contracts for Construction. Contracts for construction shall be awarded through a process of competitive bidding if required by state law. Copies of all bids and contracts awarded shall be retained by the Sponsor and available for lAC review. Where bids are substantially in excess of Project estimates, lAC may, by notice in writing, suspend the Project for determination of appropriate action, which may include termination of the Agreement. (C) Construction Contract Change Order. Sponsors must get prior written approval for all change orders that reduce or significantly change the scope of the Project, as finally approved by IAC's board. (D) Nondiscrimination. Except where a nondiscrimination clause required by the United States Department of the Interior is used, the Sponsor shall insert the following nondiscrimination clause in each contract for construction of this Project: JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-8 "During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees to comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. Section 17: Hazardous Substances (Al Certification. The Sponsor shall inspect, investigate, and conduct an environmental audit of the proposed acquisition site for the presence of hazardous substances and certify that no hazardous substances were found on the site. (B) Responsibility. Nothing in this provision alters the Sponsor's duties and liabilities regarding hazardous substances as set forth in Chapter 70.105D RCW. (C) Definition. "Hazardous substance," as defined in RCW 70.105D.020 (7), means: "(al Any dangerous or extremely hazardous waste as defined in RCW 70.105.010(5) and (6) , or any dangerous or extremely dangerous waste designated by rule pursuant to chapter 70.105 RCW; "(b) Any hazardous substance as defined in RCW 70.105.010(14) or any hazardous substance as defined by rule pursuant to chapter 70.105. RCW; "(c) Any substance that, on March 1, 1989, is a hazardous substance under section 101 (14) of the federal cleanup law, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 (14); "(d) Petroleum or petroleum products; and "(el Any substance or category of substances, including solid waste decomposition products, determined by the director [or director's designee of the department of ecology] by rule to present a threat to human health or the environment if released into the environment. "The term hazardous substance does not include any of the following when contained in an underground storage tank from which there is not a release: Crude oil or any fraction thereof or petroleum, if the tank is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local law." (D) Hold Harmless. The Sponsor will defend, protect and hold harmless lAC and any and all of its employees and/or agents, from and against any and all liability, cost (including but not limited to all costs of defense and attorneys' fees) and any and all loss of any nature from any and all claims or suits resulting from the presence of, or the release or threatened release of, hazardous substances on the property being acquired. Section 18: Restriction on Conversion of Facility to Other Uses The Sponsor shall not at any time convert any real property acquired or any facility developed pursuant to this Agreement to uses other than those purposes for which assistance was originally approved, without the approval of IAC's board or Director, in compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and lAC policies as identified in this Agreement. It is the intent Of IAC's conversion policy that all lands acquired and all lands developed with funding assistance from lAC remain in the public domain in perpetuity unless otherwise identified in the Agreement. By lAC policy and federal law a conversion may occur under any of the following circumstances: (Al Conveyance. Property interests are con~eyed for non-public outdoor recreation or habitat conservation uses; (B) Use. Non-outdoor recreation or habitat conservation uses (public or private) are made of the Project area, or portion thereof; (C) Development. Non-e~igible indoor recreation facilities are developed within the Project area without prior approval of IAC's board or Director; or (D) Termination of Use/Non-Conformance. JULY 29, 1999 Gene,~al Provisions-9 (1) Outdoor Recreation Projects - Public use of the property acquired or developed with lAC assistance is terminated. (2} Habitat Conservation Projects - The property acquired no longer meets or conforms to the intent of the category in which it was funded. (E) Element Change. A major change in an element described in the Agreement. When approved by IAC's board or Director, certain elements may be deleted from the Project Agreement without invoking the requirement to replace the elements. Such deletions are allowed when IAC's board or Director determines that the elements are not needed or cannot be retained for public use due to one or more of the following conditions: · Obsolescence · Extraordinary vandalism · Acts of Nature · Designed life expectancy reached · Fire · Property or property rights lost as a result of legal action · ICC National Trails System Act reversion order (National Trails System Act 8(d), 16 U. S. C. § 1247(d); WAC 286-27-060(2)). Section 19: Construction, Operation, Use and Maintenance of Assisted Projects Except for habitat conservation~ areas generally closed to the public, Sponsors must ensure that properties or facilities assisted with lAC funds, including undeveloped sites, are built, operated and maintained: (A) Appearance. To appear attractive and inviting to the public except for brief installation, construction, or maintenance periods. (B) Laws. According to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including public health standards and building codes. (C) Safety. In a reasonably safe condition for public use. (D) Maintenance. Throughout its estimated life so as to prevent undue deterioration that would discourage public use. (E) Availability. For public use at reasonable hours and times of the year, according to the type of area or facility. (F) Nondiscrimination. In compliance with all federal and state nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. Section 20: Income, Income Use. x In this context, the words habitat conservation refer to the three programs in IAC's Habitat Conservation Account: Critical Habitat, Natural Areas, and Urban Wildlife Habitat. Jury 29, 1999 General Previsions- 10 (A) Income. (1) Compatible source. The source of any income generated in an lAC assisted project or project area must be compatible with the element(s) defined in the Project Agreement. The way the project or project area is defined varies with the source of funds provided by lAC. That is, income generated in a project assisted with funds that originate from: (a) A state source must be consistent with the limits of the element(s) assisted by lAC (for example, within the area of an athletic field or habitat area). (b) The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund must be consistent within the boundary described in chapter 660.2.6.A. ("project area") of the L&WCF Grants-in-Aid Manual. (2) Fees. User and/or other fees may be charged in connection with land acquired or facilities developed with lAC administered grants if the fees are consistent with the: (a) Value of any service(s) furnished; and (b) Value of any opportunity(/es) furnished and (c) Prevailing range of public fees in the state for the activity involved. Excepted are Firearms and Archery Range Recreation Program safety classes (firearm and/or hunter) for which a facility/range fee must not be charged (RCW 77.1 2.72). (B) Income use. Regardless of whether income or fees in an lAC assisted area (including entrance, utility corridor permit, cattle grazing, timber harvesting, farming, etc.) are gained during or after the reimbursement period cited in the Agreement, unless precluded by state law, the revenue may only be used to offset: (1) The Sponsor's matching funds; and/or (2) The Project's total cost, and/or (3) The expense of operation, maintenance and/or repair of the facility or program assisted by the lAC grant and/or (4) The expense of operation and maintenance of other units in the Sponsor's park and recreation and/or habitat conservation system and/or (5) Capital expenses for similar acquisition and/or development. Section 21: Preferences for Users Sponsors shall not express a preference for users of lAC grant assisted projects on the basis of residence (including preferential reservation, membership, and/or permit systems) except that reasonable differences in admission and other fees may be maintained on the basis of residence. Even so, lAC discourages the imposition of differential fees. Fees for nonresidents must not exceed twice the fee imposed on residents. Where there is no fee for residents but a fee is charged to nonresidents, the nonresident fee shall not exceed the amount that would be imposed on residents at comparable state or local public facilities. JULY 29, 1999 General Provisions-11 Section 22: Provisions Related to Nonprofit Sponsors A nonprofit or not-for-profit organization sponsor shall: (A) Strive to maintain a nonprofit or not-for-profit status (including registering with the Washington Secretary of State) throughout the Sponsor's obligation to the Project as identified in this Agreement. However, should a change in status become inevitable (for example, due to dissolution), within 30 days the Sponsor shall name a qualified successor that will agree in writing to assume any on-going project responsibilities. A qualified successor is any party eligible to apply for funds in the subject grant program and capable of complying with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (B) Provide for operation and maintenance of the assisted facility. Should the Sponsor fail in this obligation for any reason, the Project will be considered converted and subject to all remedies available to lAC. (C) Not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, gender, income, race, or religion. Section 23: Liability Insurance Requirements for Firearm Range Sponsors The Sponsor shall procure an endorsement, or other addition, to liability insurance it may currently carry, or shall procure a new policy of liability insurance, in a total coverage amount the Sponsor deems adequate to ensure it will have resources to pay successful claims of persons who may be killed or injured, or suffer damage to property, while present at the range facility to which this grant is related, or by reason of being in the vicinity of that facility; provided that the coverage shall be at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the death of, or injury to, each person. (A) The liability insurance policy, including any endorsement or addition, shall name Washington State and lAC as defined in this Agreement as additional insureds and shall be in a form approved by IAC's board or Director. (B) The policy, endorsement or other addition, or a similar liability insurance policy meeting the requirements of this section, shall be kept in force throughout the Sponsor's obligation to the Project as identified in this Agreement. (C) The policy, as modified by any endorsement or other addition, shall provide that the issuing company shall give written notice to lAC not less than thirty (30) calendar days in advance of any cancellation of the policy by the insurer, and within ten (10) calendar days following any termination of the policy by the Sponsor. (D) The requirement of Subsection A through D above shall not apply if the Sponsor is a federal, state, or municipal government which has established a program of self-insurance or a policy of self-insurance with respect to claims arising from its facilities or activities generally, including such facilities as firearms or archery ranges, when the applicant declares and describes that program or policy as a part of its application to lAC. (E) By this requirement, lAC does not assume any duty to any individual person with respect to death, injury, or damage to property which that person may suffer while present at, or in the vicinity of, the facility to which this grant relates. Any such person, or any other person making claims based upon such death, injury, or damage, must look to the Sponsor, or others, for any and all remedies that may be available by law. Section 24: Waiver of Default Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of the Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be JULY 29, 1999 Gene~'al Provisions-12 construed to be a modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such in wdting, signed by the Director, or the Director's designee, and attached to the odginal Agreement. Section 25: Application Representations -- Misrepresentation or Inaccuracy a Breach lAC relies upon the Sponsor's application in making its determinations as to eligibility for, selection for, and scope of, funding grants. Any misrepresentation, error or inaccuracy in any part of the application may be deemed a breach of this Agreement. Section 26: Indemnity The Sponsor shall defend, protect and hold harmless the state of Washington, lAC, or any employees thereof, from and against all claims, suits or actions arising from the Sponsor's acts which are libelous or slanderous, which result in injury to persons or property, which violate a dght of confidentiality, or which constitute an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark or tradename through use or reproduction of matedal of any kind. Section 27: Termination and Other Remedies lAC may require strict compliance by the Sponsor with the terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirements of the applicable statutes, rules and lAC policies which are incorporated into this Agreement, and with the representations of the Sponsor in its application for a grant as finally approved by IAC's board. IAC's board, or the Director, may suspend, or may terminate, IAC's obligation to provide funding to the Sponsor under this Agreement: · In the event of any breach by the Sponsor of any of the Sponsor's obligations under this Agreement; or ,, If the Sponsor fails to make progress satisfactory to IAC's board or Director toward completion of the Project by the completion date set out in this Agreement; or · If in the opinion of IAC's board or Director, the Sponsor fails to make progress necessary to complete any other project assisted with grant funds from lAC within the completion date set out by agreement with lAC for that project. In the event this Agreement is terminated by IAC's board or Director, under this section or any other section after any portion of the grant amount has been paid to the Sponsor under this Agreement, IAC's board or Director may require that any amount paid be repaid to lAC for redeposit into the State Account from which the funds were derived. The Sponsor understands and agrees that lAC may enforce this Agreement by the ~'emedy of specific performance, which usually will mean completion of the Project as described in this Agreement. However, the remedy of specific performance shall not be the sole or exclusive remedy available to lAC. No remedy available to lAC shall be deemed exclusive, lAC may elect to exercise any, any combination, or all of the remedies available to it under this Agreement, or under any provision of law, common law, or equity. Section 28: Disputes Except as may otherwise be provided in this Agreement, when a bona fide dispute arises between IAC's board or its Director, and the Sponsor and it cannot be resolved, either party may request a dispute hearing according to the process set out in this section. Either party's request for a disputes hearing must be in writing and clearly state: (al The disputed issues; (b) The relative positions of the parties; (c) The Sponsor's name, address, Project title, and lAC project number. JULY 29. 1999 General Provisions-13 In order for this section to apply to the resolution of any specific dispute or disputes the other party must agree in writing that the procedure under this section shall be used to resolve those specific issues. The dispute shall be heard by a panel of three persons consisting of one person chosen by the Sponsor, one person chosen by IAC's Director and a third person chosen by the two persons initially appointed. If a third person cannot be agreed upon, the third person shall be chosen by IAC's Chair. Any hearing under this section shall be informal, with the specific processes to be determined by the disputes panel according to the nature and complexity of the issues involved. The process may be solely based upon written material if the parties so agree. The disputes panel shall be governed by the provisions of this Agreement in deciding the disputes. The parties shall be bound by the decision of the disputes panel, unless the remedy directed by that panel shall be without the authority of either or both parties to perform, as necessary, or is otherwise unlawful. Request for a disputes hearing under this section by either party shall be delivered or mailed to the other party. The request shall be delivered or mailed within thirty (30) days of the date the requesting party has received notice of the action or position of the other party which it wishes to dispute. The written agreement to use the process under this section for resolution of those issues shall be delivered or mailed by the receiving party to the requesting party within thirty {30) days of receipt by the receiving party of the request. All costs associated with the implementation of this process shall be shared equally by the parties. Section 29: Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington. In the event of a lawsuit involving this Agreement, venue shall be proper only in Thurston County. The Sponsor by executing this Agreement, acknowledges the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Washington in this matter. Section 30: Severability If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. -- END -- AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION # "~ '7 z~ 3, FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 ESTABLISHMENT OF A ONE-WAY STREET ON ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. PORTIONS OF CHESTER AVENUE AND THE ORIGINATOR: Randy Witt, City Eng~e~r ALLEY ADJACENT TO PSNS. DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2: CLEARANCES: (comment on bac 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities .. A. Drawing of proposed street directioh Public Works Operations Manager changes. Fire Chief ~--~"--, B. Resolution # ~-~ 7~. Police Chief .~'~/~. Administrative Services Manager -~~ Budget and Finance Committee -- ~/' ! _ l? Operations Committee ~k~E~_~)}(>ff.~ ~~ON__ APPROVEDcoUNCiL PRESIDENTBY COUNCIL ~ FOR~SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends establishment of a one-way street on Chester Avenue south of Gregory Street and the alley adjacent to PSNS from State Avenue to Chester Avenue. This will modify the existing travel directions as shown on the attached diagram. The reason for this modification is to provide paid on-street parking on the east side of Chester Avenue south of Gregory Street (adjacent to PSNS). This one-way street proposal was reviewed and discussed at a public meeting on January 25, 2000, and approved by the Traffic Safety Committee at their meeting of February 17, 2000. Staff recommends establishment of the one-way streets by approval of the attached Resolution. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council pass the attached Resolution #,~'7~[ which establishes Chester Avenue as a northbound one-way street south of Gregory Street and the alley south of Gregory Street adjacent to PSNS as an eastbound one-way street from State Avenue to Chester Avenue. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED A~~E~ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE D 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~ 4q 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The existing street circulation system will remain in its current condition. No additional on-street pay parking will be provided. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The on-street parking will be pay parking, estimated to provide $~ annually to the Public Works Operations Budget. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES 20045/Agenda Bills, One-Way Street Chestcr Ave, ab RESOLUTION NO. C~ 7'~+ A RESOLUTION declaring that a portion of Chester Avenue and the alley adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard be one-way streets. WI-IEREAS, the City desires to provide additional on-street parking on the east side of Chester Avenue south of Gregory Street; and WI-IEREAS, to allow for traffic circulation and emergency access on Chester Avenue with the additional parking, that portion of Chester Avenue must become a northbound one-way street; and WHEREAS, to make the directional traffic flow in the area work, the alley south of Gregory Street adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard between State Avenue and Chester Avenue must be converted to an eastbound one-way street; and WHEREAS, City staff held a public meeting on the one-way street proposal for this area on January 25, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Traffic Safety Committee endorsed the one-way street concept on this portion of Chester Avenue and the alley adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at its meeting of February 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, RCW 46.61.135 and WAC 308-330-207 authorize the City Council to determine and declare one-way streets for streets under City control following engineering and traffic investigations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. Chester Avenue south of Gregory Street to its terminus at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard be one-way northbound. 2. The alley south of Gregory Street adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard between State Avenue and Chester Avenue be one-way eastbound. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000. CAROL ARENDS, Council President AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION # oQ74~''~ FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 RESTRICTING ACCESS TO MEAD AVE. NORTH ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. OF KITSAP WAY, AND RECONFIGURE MEAD ORIGINATOR: Randy Witt, City Engin~qer~,, AVE. TO A 2-WAY STREET FROM KITSAP DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2000/~_ WAY TO 9TM STREET 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on ba~k~ifneg/es~ ~X~.~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities t~ ~-'~J A.eroposed Resolution 09.75[ Public Works Operations Manager x,~ ~ ~, . B. Map of location -- Police Chief ,,.~/~.~/'~ ~ ~ .~ Fire Chief ~_._._._, ~'.(.~--" Administrative Services Manager ~ t~,.,_~ ..___ Budget & Finance Committee ~):~ Operations Committee ~Jz.7/ ENDORSE NT W OmAT ON ' ' VA PROV D ¥COUNCILP S DEmFORSUB TTA : AYOR L COUNCmPRESn ENT 4. S~Y STATEMENT ~ REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends restricting access to Mead Avenue at KJtsap Way on the north leg of the intersection. In conjunction with this change, the existing southbound one-way street must be reconfigured for two-way traffic between Kitsap Way and 9t~ Street. After receiving several complaints about lef~ turning movement conflicts and near collisions at this intersection, a traffic study was done. Staff determined that there is a safety issue of potential collisions with motorists turning lef~ onto Cambrian Avenue with motorists turning left onto Mead Avenue. The Traffic Safety Commission recommended temporarily blocking this portion of the intersection, which was done in July of 1999. Since this date there have been no comments or complaints from the public on this action. The Traffic Safety Commission recommended permanent closure of this leg of the intersection at its meeting on February 17, 2000. City Council is being requested to approve the blocking of Mead Avenue and the change to two-way traffic. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council pass the attached Resolution # ~'q~q~vhich restricts access to Mead Avenue north of KJtsap Way and reconfigures Mead Avenue to a two-way street between Kitsap Way and 9~ Street. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OFACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE D 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The temporary barricade in place now will be removed and the pre-July 1999 traffic pattern will be re-instituted, allowing traffic to turn into and out of Mead Avenue onto Kitsap Way. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No impacts 7. RESEARCH SOURCES AGENDABL RESOLUTION NO. ~[ -7 ~ 5 A Resolution permanently blocking the access to Mead Avenue from Kitsap Way (north side of the intersection), and making Mead Avenue a two way street from Kitsap Way to 9th Street. WHEREAS, the City may limit the utilization of any right of way provided there are alternate routes for vehicular movement without undue inconvenience and the public interest and safety are served, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a safety problem exists at the intersection of Mead Avenue and Kitsap Way due to conflicting left turns at the intersections of Mead Avenue and Kitsap Way, and Cambrian Avenue and Kitsap Way, and; WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton's Traffic Safety Commission approved temporary closure of Mead Avenue, and; WHEREAS, City staff placed a barricade on Mead Avenue in July of 1999 temporarily blocking access to Mead Avenue (north leg of intersection) off of Kitsap Way, and; WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton's Traffic Safety Commission recommended permanent closure of Mead Avenue on February 17, 2000, therefore; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1. Mead Avenue (north leg of intersection) at Kitsap Way will be permanently blocked to vehicular traffic. Section 2. Mead Avenue from Kitsap Way to 9th Street will be changed to 2-way traffic. Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. PASSED by City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of ,2000. CAROL ARENDS Council President AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # , FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 VACATING PETERS STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. FROM POINDEXTER AVENUE TO HUMPHREY ORIGINATOR: Randy WAtt, City Engineer AVENUE DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2000/~/,~k 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back i~n, ec~t~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ~////-~ A. Ordinance # City Attorney (,~.~,._,f*~~ B. Vicinity Ma~. City Treasurer ~ C. Staff Report. Director, Community Development II,[,ar~; ,,m r'- Council Budget & Finance Committee""~ Operations Committee MAYOR Q)~ _x/).¢~ /',-- COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: City staff has received a petition to vacate Peters Street fight-of-way between Poindexter and Humphrey Avenues. A hearing date of March 8, 2000 was set by City Council on February 8, 2000 to hear this request for vacation. This fight-of-way consists of approximately 250 feet by 60 feet of undeveloped area, much of which is on a steep slope. The vacation is being requested to eliminate a piece of undeveloped fight-of-way and increase the buildable area of the abutting properties. Posting of the hearing notices and mailings to the adjacent property have been completed in accordance with the Bremerton Municipal Code. Specific items for City Council consideration are outlined in the Staff Report. The request before the City Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of Peters Street. 8. RECOMMENDATION: A. Motion to approve the attached Ordinance, vacating Peters Street fight-of-way. B. Motion to pass Ordinance # , vacating Peters Street fight-of-way. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OFACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED tEA COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DA 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The area will remain right-of-way with no furore plans for public access development. Adjacent property owners will be restricted from developing in this area. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: No impact. Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact 7. RESEARCH SOURCES BMC 11.20 Vacation of Public Rights-of-Way RCW 35. 79 Streets 99331 Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Tax Parcel #: Not Applicable. Abbreviated Legal Description: A PORTION OF PETERS STREET, LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 23 AND LOTS 1, 7, AND 8, BLOCK 24, PLAT OF OLE HANSON'S NAVY YARD ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGE 56, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SEC 21, T. 24 N., R. 1E. ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE Vacating a 60 feet wide by approximately 250 feet long area of right-of-way located along Peters Street between Poindexter Avenue and Humphrey Avenue. WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Haselwood has been petitioned to vacate this undeveloped right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. THAT PORTION OF PETERS STREET, LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 23 AND LOTS 1, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 24, PLAT OF OLE HANSEN'S NAVY YARD ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGE 56, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 15, BLOCK 23, SAID PLAT OF OLE HANSON'S NAVY YARD ADDITION; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LOINE OF SAID LOT 15 A DISTANCE OF 48 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE WHICH LIES 30 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF TAND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SAID PETERS STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 15 A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE LYING 30 EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF POINDEXTER AVENUE; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID LINE 44 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE LYING 30 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PETERS STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 279 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE LYING 30 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF HUMPHREY AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID LINE 95 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE LYING 30 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF PETERS STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 214 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. Easements are reserved for all public utilities which have been established within the right-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. An easement is reserved for Puget Sound Energy utilities and is described as follows: A STRIP OF LAND, 10 FEET WIDE AND 160 FEET LONG LYING WITHIN THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: WITHIN THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF PETERS STREET AND LYING IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION FROM POINDE×TER STREET TO BE RESERVED FOR PUGET SOUND ENERGY'S UTILITY RIGHTS. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000.. CAROL ARENDS, Council President APPROVED this day of ,2000. LYNN HORT©N, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk 070 ~ - 00~ O0 (' , ~ ._ 1:' ~ PRESU.ED VACA --.~~b ~ uu~-uu ~ , ' I~ ~ ~ ~ ,, , / ' ' :': ~: L~ ~11111111111111~: / ~ 002-00~ ?::~; ~ 001=' .: ':~ I o~ 6-oo t ................... i: ~ _. . Site Map o~ Proposed Vacation Peters Street STREET VACATION REQUEST PETERS STREET ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 8, 2000 PREPARED BY: Ned Lever SUMMARY A. Applicant: Charles Haselwood (Agent for Coca Cola) P.O. Box 4999 Bremerton, WA 98312 Location: The entire portion of Peters Street bounded on the east by Humphrey Avenue on the west by Poindexter Avenue and on the north and south by Block 23 and Block 24 of the plat of Ole Hanson's Navy Yard Addition. B. Attachment: A notarized Right-of-Way Vacation Consent from Coca Cola BACKGROUND The applicants have petitioned the City of Bremerton to vacate a portion of Peters Street Right-of-Way that abuts Coca Cola's property (approximately 15,620 sf). There are two other properties that abut this portion of the right-of-way that did not participate in the application. The vacation will eliminate a piece of undeveloped right-of-way and will increase the buildable area of the abutting property. A portion of the proposed area to be vacated has been maintained as lawn by the adjacent property owners and the remainder is located on a steep, brush covered slope adjacent to a historical gravel pit. The only improvement on this right-of-way is a Puget Sound Energy power line that serves the adjacent residential properties. See the attached application for a sketch of the area in question. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS · Functional Classification LocalAccess · Existing R-O-W Width 60 feet · Proposed R-O-W Width N/A · Pavement Width N/A · Surface Type N/A · Curb and Gutter N/A · Sidewalks N/A February 24, 2000 Peters Street Vacation Page 1 of 5 ._ HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC '11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of Peters Street is not required for public use. Due to the topography of the area it will never be utilized as a connector between Poindexter Avenue and Humphreys Avenue. The only public use is a Puget Sound Energy power line that serves the adjacent residential properties. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: This is a vegetated portion of the right-of-way. The maintenance has been and will remain the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: Improving this portion of dead end right-of-way will in no way enhance the traffic circulation in the area. Other routes of travel are in place. 5: Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: No future use of this portion of right-of-way is anticipated. February 24, 2000 Peters Street Vacation Page 2 of 5 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: No objections have been received from any abutting property owners to date. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All pdvate utility companies have been contacted. The only utility in the proposed vacation area is a Puget Sound Energy power line. An easement must be withheld for this utility. The legal description of the easement is included in the Vacation Ordinance. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES The request for the vacation was made by more than two-thirds of the owners abutting the property to be vacated on a front footage basis. COMPENSATION There is no compensation required for this property as it is categorized as a Class III or undeveloped right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No comments were received from Police, Fire, or Community Development staff. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested without modification. February 24, 2000 Peters Street Vacation Page 3 of 5 February 24, 2000 Peters Street Vacation Page 4 of 5 NL/nl 99313 February 24, 2000 Peters Street Vacation Page 5 of 5 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION CONSENT IBottling Company of Los Angeles BCI Coca-Cola' ._. ..... r ..... , .... , owner of property which adjoins that portion of Peters Street in Bremerton, Washington, which is currently in the process of being vacated, does hereby consent to said vacation. See attached Exhibit "A" for vacation exhibit. Signed this /~ day of ,4 c)~t),'/- , 19.. ~ ~ BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles STATE OF GEORGIA ) : SS. COUNTY OF ~ ) On this 4t3'~q day of ,4. O~-tg~:rr- , t999, before me personally appeared g~oO~,/ ~. ~'t~ , to known to be the ~~~v~ I/7~ .~c/4o of lcI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los'A~gelt,h~t executed the within and foregoing imstrtanent, and acknowledged said instrument to be the flee and voluntary act and deed of said Corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that ~/~ was authorized to execute said instmm~. In !hrlmess Whereof~ I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written_ NOTARY PUBLIC~ ~d f°r the/State of Georgia My Common ~kes: ~om. Puffin, co~': (: :.;~. Georgia .M~' ~'--'~,, ~..;,e~ May 15. 2000 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # ., FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 VACATING 12th STREET AND 2 ALLEYS ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. BETWEEN PARK AND ELIZABETH AVENUES. ORIGINATOR: Randy Witt, City Engineker DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2000/~,~ 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back/ ne s . 3. EXttlBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ~-,~°'~ ,~., A. Ordinance # City Attorney (,zx,,_.~/~bt..~Cr~,~.~ B. Vicinity Map. City Treasurer "~'~ ,~..~*: - ~- ' C. Staff Report. Director, Community Development ~,~ Council Budget & Finance Committee Operations Committee ENDORSEMENT- X~7 INFORMATION MAYOR ~~57. ~'~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: coUNcm PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: City staff has initiated the process to vacate 12TM Street and 2 alleys between Park Avenue and Elizabeth Avenue. A hearing date of March 8, 2000 was set by City Council on February 8, 2000 to hear this request for vacation. This right-of-way consists of three undeveloped strips; one 20 feet by 148 feet, another 14 feet by 132 feet, and another 14 feet by 282 feet. A City park, a parking lot, and the Kitsap Community Resource's Facility are currently encroaching on these rights-of-way. Posting of the hearing notices and mailings to the adjacent property have been completed in accordance with the Bremerton Municipal Code. Specific items for City Council consideration are outlined in the Staff Report. The request before the City Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of a part of 12® Street and the alleys. 8. RECOMMENDATION: A. Motion to approve the attached Ordinance, vacating 12t~ Street and 2 alley rights-of-way. B. Motion to pass Ordinance # ., vacating 12~ Street and 2 alley rights-of-way. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED __ TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The strips of land will remain rights-of-way with no developed or proposed access development on them. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: No impact. Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact 7. RESEARCH SOURCES BMC 11.20 Vacation of Public Rights-of- Way RCW 35.79 Streets 99331 Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Tax Parcel #: Not Applicable. Abbreviated Legal Description: A PORTION OF BLOCK 4 AND 5 OF THE PLAT OF CENTRAL ADDITION TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SEC., 14, T. 24 N., R. 1, E., W. M., RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE Vacating a 20 feet wide by 148 feet long portion of right- of-way located at 12th Street east of Park Avenue and two alley rights-of-way; 14 feet wide and 132 feet long, and 14 feet wide and 132 feet long south of 13th Street and east of Park Avenue. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has initiated the process to vacate this undeveloped portion of the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. THAT PORTION OF THE PLAT OF CENTRAL ADDITION TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON, SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, MOR PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AN ALLEY OF 14 FEET WIDTH AND APPROXIMATELY 290 FEET IN LENGTH LYING ADJACENT TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 1. AND 8, BLOCK 5 OF THE SAID PLAT. AN ALLEY OF 14 FEET WIDTH AND APPROXIMATELY 132 FEET IN LENGTH LYING ADJACENT TO AND IN BETWEEN LOTS I THROUGH 8, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 5 OF THE SAID PLAT. AN ALLEY BETWEEN LOT 5, BLOCK 5 AND LOTS 1 AND 11, BLOCK 4 OF THE SAID PLAT. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ., 2000. CAROL ARENDS, Council President APPROVED this day of ,2000. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk -73 t ~ ~/??//////?,~//////////?////////7////?//,~ L~  ~J~699 A~64787~ f fth Street .;, ~2th Street and Alleys Proposed Vacations STREET VACATION REQUEST FOR 12TM STREET AND ALLEYS BETWEEN ELIZABETH AVE. AND PARK AVE. ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 8, 2000 PREPARED BY: Jeff Shea SUMMARY A. Applicant: City of Bremerton 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, WA 98310 Location: A 20 feet wide by 148 feet long portion of 12th Street between Park Ave. and Elizabeth Ave. An alley 14 feet wide by 132 feet long located between and parallel to Park Ave. and Elizabeth Ave. An alley 14 feet wide by 282 feet running between Park Ave. and Elizabeth Ave. parallel and between 13th St. and 12th St. BACKGROUND The City of Bremerton has initiated the vacation process to vacate a portion of 12th St. from Elizabeth Ave. to the alley, an alley from Elizabeth Ave. to Park Ave. between 12t' St. and 13th St., and an alley between the above mentioned alley and 12th St. The ROWs are currently part of a City park and City property leased to Kitsap Community Action Program (KCAP) with Kitsap Community Resource (KCR) facilities built on them. The ROWs have not been improved for ROW purposes. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS · Functional Classification Undeveloped · Existing R-O-W Width 14 - 20 feet · Proposed R-O-W Width 0 · Pavement Width 0 · Surface Type N/A · Curb and Gutter N/A · Sidewalks N/A February 29, 2000 12th Street and Alley Vacation Page 1 of 3 HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: These alleys and this portion of 12th Street have not been improved for ROW purposes and currently have a building and a parking lot built on this area. A portion of a City park overlays part of the ROW. The buildings and parking lot house the Kitsap Community Resource Center and a day care center. The buildings and parking lot are on property owned by the City of Bremerton and leased to the Kitsap Community Action Program. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: This portion of the right-of-way is not being used for public way purposes. All agreements between the City and the lessee will remain in force. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: Since this is not used as a thoroughfare, this section is not applicable. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: No future use of this portion of right-of-way is anticipated. February 29, 2000 12th Street and Alley Vacation Page 2 or 3 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: The City of Bremerton is the only abutting property owner. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. Them am no utilities in this area. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES N/A. This is a City initiated vacation of right-of-way COMPENSATIONN/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No comments were received from Police, Fire, or Community Development staff. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested without modification. February 29, 2000 12th Street and Alley Vacation Page 3 of 3 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # , FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 VACATING A PORTION OF SHORE DRIVE ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. BETWEEN PERRY AVENUE AND IRONSIDES ORIGINATOR: Randy Witt, City Engineer, AVENUE DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2000/'] 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on bac~i,~~ ..~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ~ ~/7 A. Ordinance # City Attomey (.~~~ B. Vicinity Mai). City Treasurer ~f · C. Staff Report. Director, Community Development If ~l~b~Jr~§,,.c~. _ Council Budget & Finance Committee~'~"'~'~'~ Operations Committee ~...~ ~ ENDORSEMENT ,k' INFO~TION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR COUNCrLPP, SIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: City staffhas initiated the process to vacate a portion of Shore Drive between Perry Avenue and Ironsides Avenue. A hearing date of March 8, 2000 was set by City Council on February 8, 2000 to hear this request for vacation. This fight-of-way consists of approximately 265 feet long by 10 feet wide of undeveloped right-of-way along the south side of the right-of-way. Both the City and the County have inaccurately described this right-of-way in the past as a 50-foot right-of-way. Existing properties abutting this right-of-way have structures built to this 50-foot right-of-way line and are encroaching on City right-of-way. Posting of the hearing notices and mailings to the adjacent property have been completed in accordance with the Bremerton Municipal Code. Specific items for City Council consideration are outlined in the Staff Report. The request before the City Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of a portion of Shore Drive. 8. RECOMMENDATION: A. Motion to approve the attached Ordinance, vacating a portion of Shore Drive right-of-way. B. Motion to pass Ordinance # , vacating a portion of Shore Drive right-of-way. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED l~~_ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~~l~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The adjacent properties will continue to have structures encroaching onto the City right-of-way. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: No impact. Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact 7. RESEARCH SOURCES BMC 11.20 Vacation of Public Rights-of-Way RCW 35.79 Streets 99331 Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document'Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Tax Parcel #: Not Applicable. Abbreviated Legal Description: A PORTION OF SHORE DRIVE (WATER STREET) BLOCK 24 AND 25 OF THE PLAT OF DECATUR VOL. 1, PG. 67 RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SEC. 13, T. 24 N, R. 1 E. ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE Vacating a 10 feet wide by 265 feet long portion of right- of-way located along Shore Drive from Perry Avenue to Ironsides Avenue. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has initiated the process to vacate this undeveloped portion of the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SHORE DRIVE (FORMERLY WATER STREET), LYING NORTHERLY OF AND ABUTTING LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, BLOCK 24 AND LOTS I THROUGH 6, BLOCK 25, LOCATED IN THE PLAT OF DECATUR, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, PAGE 67, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SITUATE IN GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day'of ,2000. CAROL ARENDS, Council President APPROVED this day of ,2000. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk 001-00 011-00 012-00 001-00 005-00 007-00 ~' ~ 011-00 001-00 011-00 i 001-00 002-00 001-00 010-00 003-00 010-00 001-00 ~,"' 006- O0 N 009-00 .~, 004-00 008-00 007-00 ~. N(,/ ', 005-00 '" 'X" ×,'N .~ ',, oo,-o, ~ ~ ~ ~ M. LT. EL T. GOVERNMENT LOT 4 PA TENTED t0/10/66 VOL 2 PG 41 Shore Drive Prop os e d Va ca tio n STREET VACATION REQUEST SHORE DRIVE ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 8, 2000 PREPARED BY: Ned Lever SUMMARY A. Applicant: City of Bremerton B. Location: A 10 foot wide by 265 foot long section of right-of-way located along the south margin of Shore Drive between Perry Avenue and Ironsides Avenue. C. Attachment: Exhibit showing the Vacation Area BACKGROUND The Department of Public Works and Utilities proposes vacating a portion of Shore Drive right-of-way. Both the City and the County have inaccurately described this right- of-way in the past as a 50-foot right-of-way. The original plat for this area allows room for interpretation of the width. It has recently become evident that the right-of-way should actually be 60 feet wide. Existing properties that abut this right-of-way have structures that were built to the 50-foot right-of-way line and are actually encroaching on City right-of-way. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS · Functional Classification Local Access · Existing R-O-W Width 60 feet · Proposed R-O-W Width 50 · Pavement Width 12 · Surface Type Asphalt · Curb and Gutter None · Sidewalks None February 24, 2000 Shore Drive Vacation Page 1 of 4 ,~..~ HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 1'1.20.'120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of Shore Drive is not required for public use. The street is well defined by a concrete wall on the north side and existing residences and garages on the south side. No widening of Shore Drive is anticipated in this area. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: This is a vegetated portion of the right-of-way. The maintenance has been and will remain the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: There are no other proposed circulation routes. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: No future use of this portion of right-of-way is anticipated. Again the paving section is well defined by existing structures. 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: A single written objection has been received by an adjacent property owner. February 24, 2000 Shore Drive Vacation Page 2 of 4 004 SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. There are no utilities in this area. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES N/A This is a City initiated vacation. COMPENSATION Compensation is not required since this vacation would simply place the right-of-way line where it has long been considered to be. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No comments were received from Police, Fire, or Community Development staff. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested without modification. February 24, 2000 Shore Drive Vacation Page 3 of 4 February 24, 2000 Shore Drive Vacation Page 4 of 4 P01 MAR ~3 'f'JO 09:35 RECEIVED OFFICE OF C~ C~RK SIGNAT~E AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # , FOR AGENDA OF: March 8, 2000 VACATING A PORTION OF CHESTER AVENUE ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. FROM 11TMSTREET NORTHWARD 120 FEET ORIGINATOR: Randy Witt, City Engineer. DATE SUBMITTED: February 29, 2000 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back,~-~ -,..~'~/)/..O3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ~/2""-~tP~ ~ A. Ordinance # City Attomey Q.~'/_~~ B. Vicinity Map. City Treasurer .~Q~.'--~I,~,.Co.,..----, C. Staff Report. Director, Commtmity Development (v ,-- -:-,,.,a,., counml Budget & Finance Conumttee ~ (~:~/ ,/ W.T=ON MAYOR COUNCm PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: City staff has received a petition to vacate a portion of Chester Avenue from 11a Street northward 120 feet. A hearing date of March 8, 2000 was set by City Council on February 8, 2000 to hear this request for vacation. This right-of-way consists of approximately 120 feet long by 8 feet wide of undeveloped right-of-way. The fight-of- way is being requested to be vacated to increase the buildable area on the lot. Posting of the hearing notices and mailings to the adjacent property have been completed in accordance with the Bremerton Municipal Code. Specific items for City Council consideration are outlined in the Staff Report. The request before the City Council is to approve, disapprove, or modify this vacation of a portion of Chester Avenue. 8. RECOMMENDATION: A. Motion to approve the attached Ordinance, vacating a portion of Chester Avenue right-of-way. B. Motion to pass Ordinance # , vacating portion of Chester Avenue right-of-way. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OFACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED !~Et COUNCIL DIRECTIVE D 11. AGENDA BILL NO:~~(~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The buildable area of the adjacent properties will be restricted if the vacation ordinance is not passed. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: No impact. Budget: No impact Facilities/Equipment: No impact 7. RESEARCH SOURCES BMC 11.20 Vacation of Public Rights-of-Way RCW 35. 79 Streets 99331 Filed for Record at Request of: When Recorded Return to: Name: Bremerton City Clerk Address: 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Document Title: Ordinance No. Reference Number of Document Assigned or Released: Not Applicable Grantor's Name: City of Bremerton Grantee's Name: Not Applicable Tax Parcel #: Not Applicable. Abbreviated Legal Description: A PORTION OF LOT 5, TRACT 8 OF THE PLAT OF WARREN SMITH'S ACRE TRACTS, RECORDED IN VOL.2 OF PLATS, PAGE 51, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SEC. 14, T. 24 N., R.1 E. ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE Vacating a 8 feet wide by 120 feet long portion of right- of-way located along Chester Avenue from 11 th Street northward 120 feet. WHEREAS, Mr. Richard Sollom has petitioned to vacate this undeveloped portion of the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, notice has been posted and published according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the portion of the right-of-way set forth herein is not needed for present or future use and should be vacated to allow the abutting property owners to maintain the parcel, now therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Vacation. The following right-of-way is hereby vacated to the adjoining property owners. THE EAST 8 FEET OF THE WEST 15 FEET OF THE SOUTH 125 FEET OF LOT 5, TRACT 8, WARREN SMITH'S ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 51, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 4.62 FEET. Section 2. Reservation of Easements. This vacation shall have no affect on public utility easements or private easements which have been established within the rights-of-way subject to this vacation ordinance. Section 3. Effective date. This vacation shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ., 2000. PASSED by the Gity Gouncil of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000. CAROL ARENDS, Council President APPROVED this day of ,2000. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk o~-oo ~ ~ o~-o~oo~-oo 015-00 005-00 ~ ~ oo~-oo o~2-oo ~ ~ · o~o-oo ooz-oo o~~ / ~ ~ ~ 014-00 ~ ~ ~ 0~2-00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 0 010-00 Chester Avenue Pro p o s e d,- V a cati o n STREET VACATION REQUEST CHESTER AVENUE ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: March 8, 2000 PREPARED BY: Ned Lever SUMMARY A. Applicant: Richard Sollom 5050 State Hwy 303 NE Bremerton, WA 98310 Location: An 8 foot wide by 120 foot long portion of Chester Avenue located along the east margin of Chester Avenue and north of and adjacent to 11th Street. B. Attachment: None BACKGROUND The applicant has petitioned the City of Bremerton to vacate a portion of Chester Avenue Right-of-Way that abuts his property (approximately 963 sf). No other properties abut this portion of the right-of-way. The vacation will eliminate a piece of undeveloped right-of-way and will increase the buildable area of the abutting property. A portion of the proposed area to be vacated has been maintained as landscaping and the adjacent property owners have used a portion as gravel shoulder parking. See the attached application for a sketch of the area in question. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS · Functional Classification Local Access · Existing R-O-W Width 60 feet · Proposed R-O-W Width 52 · Pavement Width 28 · Surface Type Asphalt · Curb and Gutter standard curb on the west side · Sidewalks 5 foot sidewalk on the west side February 24, 2000 Chester Avenue Street Vacation Page 1of 5 HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of Chester Avenue Street is not required for public use. Directly north of the proposed vacation area the street is confined by a steep slope that is protected with a guardrail. This guardrail is located adjacent to the current edge of pavement. Due to this topographic restriction it is unlikely that curb and gutter and sidewalk will be installed on the west side bf the street. Even so, there will be approximately 16 feet of right-of-way remaining between the existing edge of pavement and the proposed right-of-way line which should leave adequate room for future improvements 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: This is a vegetated portion of the right-of-way. The maintenance has been and will remain the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: The use of Chester Avenue as a thoroughfare will not be impacted by this vacation. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: No future use of this portion of right-of-way is anticipated. February 24, 2000 Chester Avenue Street Vacation Page 2of 5 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: The petitioner, Richard Sollom, is the only abutting property owner. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. There are no utilities in this area. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES The request for the vacation was made by 100% of the owners abutting the property to be vacated. COMPENSATION The compensation amount has been determined utilizing the Kitsap county Assessor's land value of the abutting properties. The amount is $1,609.00, which is equal to one- half of the average property value of the abutting properties weighted on a front footage basis. This amount has been paid by the applicant to the City of Bremerton. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No comments were received from Police, Fire, or Community Development staff. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested without modification. February 24, 2000 Chester Avenue Street Vacation Page 3of 5 February 24, 2000 Chester Avenue Street Vacation Page 4of 5 NL/nl February 24, 2000 Chester Avenue Street Vacation Page 5of 5 AGENDA BH,L BREMERTON CITY COUNCIl, 1. SUBJECT: Closed Record Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: March 8~ 2000 Appeal of Planning Commission decision to allow a Shoreline ORIGINATING DEPT.: DC ~ .~ {¥I ' Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) for a US Navy/PSNS ORIGINATOR: B±ll Pal navigational dredging and pier replacement project. DATE SUBMITTED: Marc-~2, 2000 ~ /,ne~)~ry),~ ff/O~, CC Resolution// AVAILABLE II'l THE ~//~/r~//~,_///~, ~rt~t. Appeal Application COUNCIL OfFiCE ~L~NNA ~AEANCA ,' City Attorney File Record of PC Decision Supplemental Arguments ENDORSEMENT__X Im*O ,R JON__ APPROVED H¥ COUNCm 'RESiD .NT FOR SUBMITTAr: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The appellant requests a review of Planning Commission's approval for a Shoreline CLIP for navigational dredging and pier replacement for the US Navy/PSNS at Sinclair Inlet. A Public Heating was scheduled for December 21, 1999, but due to lack of a quorum, the hearing was continued until January 4, 2000. The Commission voted 5-0 for approval. On January 18, 2000 The Suquamish Tribe appealed to City Council for a Closed Record Heating to review that decision. Appeal issues are as followings: A. Whether the CUP violates the Notice requirements of the SMP and SMA. B. Whether the CUP violates the Goals of the SMP. C. whether the CUP meets the standards from Shreline of Statewide Significance. D. Whether the CUP violates the Conditional Use Permit requirements. 5. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Affirm, which would let the Planning Commission's decision stand and give the applicant a valid permit. 2. Keverse, which would invaliitate the pe~miV. 3. Remand with instructions, which would remm the permit application to the Planning Commission for additional proceedings as instructed. 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A 7. NOTICE OF ACTION ~ PULLED __ TABLED __ APPROVED __ DISAPPROVED __ AMENDED __ lit" COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: qq LIST OF DOCUMENTS 1. Navy's Shoreline Conditional Use Permit application A. Cover letter from Peter Havens (1 page) B. Shoreline Permit Submittal Checklist (2 pages) C. Application form (4 pages plus diagrams) D. Dredge Management Plan (13 pages plus diagrams) E. Aerial photos (1 page) F. Navy's November 1999 SMA Review (8 pages) {3. Navy's Public and Agency Involvement summary (2 pages) 2. Notices A. Notice of Application (1 page) B. Published Notice (1 page) C. Declaration of Posting (1 page) D. Mailing list (3 pages) 3. Planning Commission materials A. 4 January report from Jori Holan (4 pages plus attachments) B. 4 January Suquamish Tribe letter (2 pages) C. Draft minutes of meeting (8 pages) D. Resolution No. 2000-02 (1 page) 4. Notice of Action Taken (1 page) 5. Appeal A. Request for Review (1 page) B. 18 January Suquamish Tribe letter (2 pages) 6. Briefs A. Suquamish Tribe's Opening Brief(19 pages) B. Navy's Response (5 pages and fax cover) C. Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief and Certificate of Service (8 pages)  DEPARTMENT OF The NAVY ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY, NORTHWEST NAVAL FACILITIES EN(~INEERING COMMAND 19917 7TH AVENUE N.E. POULSBO, WASHINGTON 98370-7570 5090 Ser 05EP/5326 10 November 1999 Phil Berry City of Bremerton Planning Department 286 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Dear Mr. Berry: The Navy proposes to construct the infrastructure needed to support the NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carrier homeport at Naval Complex Bremerton. We are submitting the enclosed documents for consideration under the City of Bremerton Shoreline Management Act procedures. As discussed with Mr. Neil Bass of this office, we request our application be available for the Planing Commission at the regularly scheduled December 1999 meeting. The proposed projects include the dredging and disposal of approximately 324,950 cubic meters of sediments from Piers D, B, and 3 and a Turning Basin and approach channel and demolition of existing Pier D and construction of a new larger pier along the centerline of the existing Pier D. These projects are addressed in detail in the enclosed application documents and the enclosed Final EIS Executive Summary. Please call me at (360) 396-0916 if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Peter W. Havens Supervisor, Environmental Planning and Natural Resources Team Enclosures: (1) Environmental Planning Documentation; U.S. Navy. Military Construction Project P338 Dredge pier D, B, 3 and Turning Basin, Naval Complex Bremerton, 10 November 1999 (Original and 5 Copies) (2) Executive Summary, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, June 1999. (6 copies) Shoreline Permit Submittal Checklist U.S. Navy Military Construction Project P338 Dredge Pier D, B, 3 and Turning Basin Naval Complex Bremerton 10&. 13/08/1999 83:87 3604785278 ~ITY DEVEL.OPNEN PAGE 81 Applicant ~T. s. NA~-Y File #: Permit:. ----Substantial Development ×× Conditional Use _ Vadance WAC f73-27-fSO: A complete application for a substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain, es a minimum, ~ following information: I Al~icant'$ name, address, phone number.' u.s. NAV~ 2 Cont~ct person's name, a~:tm~s, phone ?eter Havens (360) 396-0902 number if other than al~licant 3 Property owner's name, address, phone U.S. number, if other than al~plicant 4 Locetlon Of property, inctudi~g:a<ldress; 1/4 Sections N~. 23, NE 27, SW 23, section, townshlp, mnge to nearest quart®r or Sg 23, ['~ 26, Sg 22 quarter section, or latitude/longitude to nearest TownshiD 25, North, Range 1, F. ast minute ......... 5 Name of shoreline (water body) at site. Sinclair Inlet 6 Generaldescrlptlon ofl:~'oposed project Channel dredg±ng, Construct including: proposed use/uses; activities CVN Homeport ?ier. necessary to accomplish project. . .......... 7 General descrlptlon of property as it now exis~' E×±sting 60 £t × 1150 ft ?±er inc.,luding:physicalcharactedstJcs; Demo & Construct 150 ft x 1310 ft improvemeflts and struc~u., _r~..~,_, Pier D. 8 Gerteral descripfio, ofvi(~.Ry of proposed Construction is princ_iply in the project Inc~dir~: k~ent~catJon of adjacerlt heart of the Bremerton Naval uses, structures ar~ Imp~vernents; i.ter~Ry of Complex. devalopme~ p. yaca! cflamcte.stlcs. ~ The applicant should be the owner of the property orthe pdmary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or tximary proponent. SHORELINE PERMIT SUE~41TTAL CHECKLIST Page I of 2 11/88/1999 83:87 3684785278 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN PAGE 82 · :.~: ~! ~:. ~a{~~l~.*tll~,l~f~11.~t~l~l~;~ ~.,~:~ ~ ........ ~..:.: ........... ,,,,:~:..~:...: ..... :..~.:,~ _ ~. ~ .~ ~ .......... :~ ........ ~ ................. ~ ........ ..,... A Oou~a~ of ~l(s) ~ land u~n ~i~ d~elo~em a ~d ., B Omina~ high ~er ma~ (0~ ~ all wme~ .... ~i~ I~ ~Ja~nt to or ~in ~uMa~ of C ~ing a~ ~~ I~ ~mou~.~ ~ D Dellne~on of ail ~la~ areas that ~i1' ~ ........ aRe~ or u~ as ~ .~ d~o~ent. . ...... E General i~i~fion of cham~er ~ v~on found on ~e. F DimenNons and I~tions ~'~11 e~ing and ~~ ~m~u~ and Im~v~en~ in~i~: ~ildi~s: ~v~g~e~ areas: m~s; ~ilRies; ~c tan~ a~ dmi~; m~ed~ ~k~l~ or sur~a~e; ~o~er man~e~ fa~. . ...... ~' ~em a~l~Ue: la~ping ~an for ~mje~. H ~em apelike: Uans for deveio~ent ~ areas on or off ~e ~ relegation for impa~s ~~ ~h ~~ ~je~ ~1~ ~ntain info~ation ~nsl~ent ~h th~ a~li~tion ~ulmme~. I Quanta, ~u~ and com~"of any fill material ~a~ on sRe ~her tem~m~ or ~anent. J Qua~y, ~m~on an0 ~ination of any ex~vat~ or d~ed material. K Vi~n~y map ~ relatio~hip of pm~ and pro~s~ develo~ent or u~ to roads, ~il~es, ~ng develo~ents a~ u~s on ~ja~nt ~~. . ..... L ~em a~li~ble: depi~on of imams to ~ from e~ing r~dential u~s and public areas. , ....... M r VaHan~ a~i~fions - dea~ Indi~e: ~ere deveto~e~ ~u~ o~ur ~hom a~mval of a vaHan~; ph~i~l features a~ ~r~m~an~s on pm~y that ~ov~e a b~is for the mqu~; Io~fion of adja~nt ~m~ums and uses. . ...... ~ Location of OHWM may be an approximate location except: for any development where a determination of consistency with applicalole regulations requires a precise location of the OHWM, the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the OHWM is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall Indicate the distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline. WAC 173-27-180 (9)(b) 2 Land contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property and the extent of proposed change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours approximated for the area. SHORELINE PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Page 2 of 2 11/08/1999 03:0? 0604785278 CO~UNITY DEVELOPMEN PAGE 03 CITY OF BREMERTON APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT, SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CONDmONAL USE, REVISION TO AN EXISTING PERMIT, OR VARIANCE PERMIT TO THE APPLICANT: This is an application for Substantial Development, Conditional Use, Revision to an Existing Permit, or Vadance Permit, as authorized by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. It is suggested that you check with appropriate local, state, or federal officials to determine whether your project falls within any other permit systems. Additional information may be requested from the applicant as the project review proceeds. Check Applicable box: D Substantial Development F~x Conditional Use FI Revision E~ Variance 1. Applicant: U.S. Navy, Public Works Officer Address: 1400 Farragut Avenue , Bremerton, WA 98314 City/State: Zip: Day phone: w/area code 2. Contact person: Peter W. Havens 19917 7th Avenue NE Address: City/State: Poulsbo, WA Zip 98370~-~7570 Day phone: (360) 396-0902 w/area code U.S. Navy 3. Property owner: Address: City/State: Zip .. Day phone: w/area code 4. Fair Market Value of Project: $71,700,000 1 11/0@/1999 03:0? 3604?852?8 CO.UNITY DEVELOPMEN PAGE 5. What is the general location of proposed project (please list section to the nearest quarter section, townst~ip, and range) with street address (if address exists) or closest cross street: 1400 Farragut Ave., Bremerton, WA 1/4 Sections NE 23, NE 27, SW 23, SE 23~ NW 26, SE 22 Townmhi? PA North, Range 1 East. 6. Name of water area and/or wetlands which development is proposed to be within 200 feet: $inc!_ai_~ 7. Descdbe the current use of the property with existing improvements: Industrial. U.S. N~vv Ship.yard 8. Describe the proposed use of the property (be specific): Navagational dred~in~ and Navy Carrier (CVN) berthin8 pier. 9. Descdbe the general vicinity of the proposed project, lndude identification of the adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical characteristics: Sinclair Inlet channel dredging, Bremerton Naval Complex p..i..er D. 9ier B. and pier 3 dredging, demolition and re-co, ns.tr, uction of pier D. and. H~mm~ ~¢ pier 8. NOTE: ITEMS 10,11 AND 12 ARE TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIALS 10. Nature of existing shoreline: A. Type of Shoreline: (i.e. marine, stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, etc.) B. Type of Marsh: (i.e. accretion, erosion, high bank, Iow bank, etc.) C. Material(s): (i.e. sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, nprap, etc.) D. Bulkheading: (show extent and type, if any ) 2 11/88/i999 83:87 3684785278 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN PAGE 85 11. In the event any of the proposed buildings or structures will exceed 35 feet above the average grade level, indicate the approximate location and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view: '12. If the application involves a conditional use or variance, explain that portion of the' Master Program that explains which proposed uses may be a conditional use, or in the case of a variance, from which use the variance is being sought: 13, APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS: NOTE: · USE ONLY 11" X 17" OR LARGER PAPER. · DRAW ALL SITE PLANS AND MAPS TO SCALE CLEARLY INDICATING SCALE ON LOVVER RIGHT-HAND CORNER · ATTACHED ALL PLANS AND MAPS TO THE APPLICATION Site Development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawings to depict clearly a~) required information, photographs and text which shall include: (1) the boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed; (2) the ordinary high water mark of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the boundary of the project. This may be an approximate location provided, that for any development where a Determination of Consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark. If so then, the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location, as indicated on the plans, shall be included in the development plan. Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to nor within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline; (3) existing and proposed land contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing' character of the property and to determine the extent of proposed change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary, that will not be altered by the development, may be indicated as such and contours approximated for that area; 3 ll/88/lggg 83:87 3684?8§2?8 COWMUNITY DEVELOPMEN PAGE 86 (4) a delineation of all wetland areas that will be altered or used as part of the development; (5) a general indication of the character of vegetation found on the site; (6) the dimensions, height, and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to buildings, paved or gravel areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfieids, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities; (7) where applicable, a landscaping plan for the project; (8) where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information consistent with the requirements of this section; (9) quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether temporary or permanent; (10) quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material; (1 1 ) a vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, existing developments and uses on adjacent properties: (12) where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public areas; and (13) on ali variance applications, the plans shall cleady indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance, physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and uses. ,~0'..~,~, V~ao~ , am the ~~ agent for a permit pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and hereby state that the foregoing statements, answers and information are, in all respects, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature) (Date) Please print name: Peter W. Havens Elliot Bay ~ "' ::'" 1 ['~ / PROJECT SITE Disposal Site -';'i::: I' "~ / 4733'10N ~ ~, _ P~et X -- '-'.-.-:; ~ 3~' so"w :..: ;'.::". Kilometem 0 5 Figure 1, Vicini~ Map. 0 3 Miles mlg-n, avy~sns perm,ts~fl(Jures',~gu~e 1.dsf 101'27199 , I ~ ~ , I [~ ~ ~ __ ~ I _ ~so fl SINCLAIR (46 m) INLET ~tem 0 120 240 Figure 2c. Plan View - Pier D Replacement. 0 1~0 F~t n~g-nav~osns pen~ts~figums~gure2c,dsf 10/27/99 Design Elev. -48.9ft ( -14.gm~ng Ground. ~ Existingpier ~_~j~Design Elev. -48.9ft (-14.9m) (CVN, Typ.) ~__ Over Dredge and Over Dredge and ~ Pay Limit Elev. -49.9ft (-15.2m) Pay Limit Elev. -49.9ft (-15.2m) Cross Section C - Pier D West & East Existing /--- Existing Ground /-- Design Elev. -46,3 ft (-14.1m) Design Elev.-46.3ft (-14,1m)---.~ ~ Existing Ground Existing Pier Pier Over Dredge and ~ Pay Limit Elev. -47.2ft (-14.4m) Over Dredge and Pay Limit Elev. -47.2ft (-14.4m) Cross Section D - Pier B Cross Section E - Pier 3 Notes: 1. Elevations based on MLLW (source NOAA chart 18449 4/92). 20m Figure 3b. Cross Sections - Pier D, Pier B, and Pier 3. (66 ft) 20 m (66 ft) rntg-navy~ps~ permits~gufe$~f,3ure3ba dsf 10/27/99 - ~ ....X._ Over Dredge and Pay Limit Elev. -42ft (-12.8m} Cross Section A - Turning Basin  '"~- Over Dredge and l~o ~[{~S: P,y Um~t E~,v. 4~ (-~2.Sm) l. Elevations based on MLLW Cross Section B - Channel (source NOAA chart 18449 4/92). 2ml (6.6 fl) __ Figure 3a, Cross Sections - Turning Basin and Channel, 20m (66 10X Vertical Exaggeration 150 ft (46 m) 4.MHHW ~ ~ ~ Varies Melers Notes: 0 Figure 3c. Cross Section - Pier D Reconstruction. 1. Elevations based on MLLW (source NOAA chaff 18449 4/92). T 0 10 Noah Feel mtg-naw\psns perm~tshflgutes\figure3c dsf 10/27t99 ~-CONTAINMENT CELLS STOCKPILE STOCKPILE . I Figure 2 Dredge Material Transfer Site- Potential Layout 1~7 DREDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN (DMP) U.S. Navy Military Construction Project P338 Dredge Pier D, B, 3 and Turning Basin Naval Complex Bremerton Contact Peter W. Havens Engineering Field Activity Northwest 19917 Seventh Ave., NE Poulsbo, WA 98370-7570 (360) 396-0916 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. ! 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 DREDGING METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 3 4. I Horizontal and Vertical Controls During Dredging ................................................................................ 3 4.2 Dredge Equipment .................................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Separation of DMMP Suitable and Unsuitable Material ........................................................................ 4 4.4 Debris Removal Plan ................................................................................................................................ 5 4.5 Modification of Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 6 4.6 Water Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 7 5.0 OPEN WATER DISPOSAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................................................................. 7 5.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Navigation Methods and Positioning Protocol ........................................................................................ 8 6.0 UPLAND DISPOSAL METHODS .................................................................................................................. 8 6.1 Offloading- Shoreside Handling ............................................................................................................. 8 6.2 Shoreside Containment Area .................................................................................................................... 8 6.3 Shoreside Runoff Containment and Treatment ....................................................................................... 9 6.4 Transportation of Upland Disposal Materials ....................................................................................... 10 6.5 Landfill .................................................................................................................................................... I 0 7.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... II 7.1 Project Team ........................................................................................................................................... 1 ! 7.2 Monitoring and Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 1 ] 7.4 Quality Control ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Page ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The navigation dredging and disposal project includes the removal and disposal of approximately 324,950 cubic meters of sediments. Of the total quantity of material, approximately 24,750 cubic meters of material is suitable for open-water disposal by bottom dump barge to an approved Dredge Material Management Program (DMMP) site in Puget Sound. The remaining material, approximately 300,200 cubic meters, is unsuitable for open-water disposal. This material will be transported by land to an upland disposal site that is permitted to receive DMMP unsuitable sediments. The Navy understands this is a unique and challenging project. The Contractor, in addition to the normal means and methods involved in any dredging and disposal job, will pay special attention and implement controls that minimize environmental impacts and meet environmental requirements. Because of concerns about the water quality effects of dredging at the Bremerton Naval Complex, additional measures will be used to minimize the suspension of sediment into the water column. The dredge bucket operator will be instructed to limit the "bite" of the bucket on the seafloor to'no more than the volume of sediment than the bucket can hold without overflow. This will also reduce the quantity of sediment that is suspended during dredging. Precision dredging (placement of the bucket on the seafloor) will also be used, so the desired post-dredging contours are achieved without using the bucket to "smooth" the bottom (which tends to increase sediment suspension). In addition, dredging will be performed by a knowledgeable contractor with demonstrated ability to minimize water quality effects when dredging contaminated sediments. The contract documents for construction, which include drawings and specifications, require the Contractor to use appropriate means and methods for the entire process from the dredging to the disposal of the spoils to minimize adverse environmental impacts (for example, turbidity, erosion, and adverse water quality impacts). The Navy will emphasize these requirements throughout the course of the project in written and oral communications with the Contractor. The Navy will use site observations to monitor the implemented best management practices (BMPs) employed to meet permit requirements and minimize environmental impacts. Water quality standards for the marine waters of Sinclair Inlet (Class A, WAC 173-201 A) will apply to this project, except as specifically modified by conditions of the permit. All permits for the project, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorizations, Hydraulic Project Approval, Water Quality Certification, and Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion, will be included as part of the contract documents between the Navy and the Contractor. The Contractor will follow all permit conditions. This DMP outlines construction requirements of the Contractor for management of the dredging project as well as for dredge spoil handling at the dredge site and the point of disposal, including intermediate handling or transportation and soil stabilization requirements. The plan addresses critical aspects of the dredging project, including the method for separation of DMMP unsuitable material from sediments suitable for open-water disposal, the removal of all floatable and Page 1 nonfloatable debris, the accuracy of disposal within the specified disposal zone, and the BMPs utilized at the point of upland transfer and disposal. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is one of two major facilities projects needed to create the capacity to home port a NIMITZ-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) at Naval Station Bremerton. The home port proposal, its purpose and need, and home port alternatives has been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (EIS). The project involves dredging of approximately 324,950 cubic meters of material from the turning basins and piers at Naval Station BremertOn and the Bremerton Naval Shipyard. The dredging operations are required to maintain navigation and moorage capabilities for the Navy's CVN and AOE vessels. The general finished dredge depths for the construction range from - 12.5 meters to -14.9 meters below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Dredging will be accomplished by mechanical means by clamshell dredging onto a barge with subsequent transportation to disposal sites. The dredging site consists of a mix of materials suitable and unsuitable for DMMP open-water, unconfined disposal. Both types of material are located in both the surface and subsurface layers of the dredging prism. The complex "checkerboard" pattern of materials requires stringent control methods to ensure environmental protection during and after the dredging and disposal operation. A portion of the dredge material is being re-tested currently to refine disposal option volumes. Disposal of the dredged materials will be a combination of open-water disposal for DMMP suitable material and upland disposal for DMMP unsuitable material. Reid Middleton, Inc., an engineering firm specializing in marine and dredging design, has completed engineering plans and specifications detailing required dredging limits, environmental controls, and related requirements. These engineering documents detail the following general requirements as stated in this DMP. These documents will form the technical basis of the construction contract between the Navy and the Contractor. 3.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE Construction documents for the project are complete. The exact timing of the project depends on receipt of permits and award of the construction contract. Following processing of contracts, submission of required submittals, and completion of the required Dredging and Disposal Quality Control Plan (QCP) and predisposal conference meeting with the appropriate permitting agencies, the Navy will notify the Contractor to proceed with onsite work. No in-water work will occur during the fish closure windows identified in the Hydraulic Projects Approval Permit issued by the DFW and as directed by National Marine Fisheries Service. It is Page 2 expected that dredging will begin following the June 15, 2000, opening of the fish closure window. Dredging is projected to be accomplished on a five day per week, single shift per day basis. Production of approximately 900 cubic meters per shift for DMMP unsuitable materials disposed of at the landfill is expected. Dredging of approximately 1500 cubic meters per day of DMMP suitable material for disposal at the Eltiott Bay disposal site is anticipated. Weather, equipment breakdowns, or other unforeseen conditions may necessitate adjustment of dredging working schedules and production rates. This adjustment might occur by adding a night shift for unloading at the transfer site and/or by working weekends, subject to City ordinances relating to noise abatement. The EIS identifies noise ordinance requirements for both the DOD (NAVFAC P-970) and the City of Bremerton. In residential areas, the City of Bremerton Ordinance allows noise levels up to 60 dBA eminating from temporary construction activities 24 hours per day. Due to the distance to the nearest on-base and off-base sensitive receptors, the dredging is expected to have less than a significant adverse noise impact. The Navy will monitor the Contractor to ensure that noise and other impacts outside normal working hours fall within the permit requirements and the EIS. 4.0 DREDGING METHODS AND PROCEDURES 4.1 Horizontal and Vertical Controls During Dredging Surveys will be accomplished in conformance with the hydrographic survey Class 1 criteria in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Manual "Hydrographic Surveying, EM 1110-2-1003." The Contractor may use more advanced, proven technology. Horizontal control will be established by color coded range boards installed on piers at the north end of the east and west dredge areas. Points for locating the range boards will be established under the direction of a state of Washington licensed professional surveyor and will indicate the boundaries between the dredge management units and the outside edges of the required dredged areas at grade. Dredge operators will align the dredge bucket relative to the established range boards for proper placement. In open areas where range boards may not be feasible, laser guided survey equipment may be utilized to delineate limits of dredging. Vertical control will be establish'ed by a surveyed tide board to show the elevation of the water surface. Soundings by lead line and/or fathometer will be measured from the water surface to determine bottom elevations. Operating cables to the clamshell bucket will be marked to indicate the depth of the bucket below the water surface. Dredge personnel will sound with a lead line and/or fathometer to confirm dredge depths before relocating the dredge. Control of positioning will be under the direction of the project superintendent. The project superintendent will have a minimum of five years in management of clamshell dredging operations. The superintendent will ensure the coordination of work between dredging personnel Page 3 and the professional surveyors. The surveyors will perform the final record surveys for each of the dredge material management units (DMMUs) as each unit is completed. 4.2 Dredge Equipment Major equipment to be utilized during dredging will, as a minimum, include one or more of each of the following: · Derrick barge floating clamshell bucket, boom, anchor spuds, and anchor wires. An environmental-type clamshell dredge will be used for this work. This type of clamshell has side plates and overlapping closure to reduce the hydraulic flushing of materials dredged. · Tug, towing winch, VHF radios, autopilot, radar, and global positioning system (GPS) for navigation and location of dump site coordinates. · Bottom-dump scow with hydraulically actuated pockets for bottom dump of material at the open-water disposal site. Flat-decked barge (for disposal of upland materials with rubber-tired loader on board for bunching dredge spoil during unloading at transfer site. 4.3 Separation of DMMP Suitable and Unsuitable Material Five zones of dredging are identified for the project as follows: (1) Pier D east, (2) Pier D west, (3) Pier B, (4) Pier 3, and (5) Turning Basin and Entrance Channel. Separation of DMMP suitable and unsuitable material within each layer of a zone will be accomplished by first dredging the surface layer of unsuitable DMMUs. After the surface layer of the DMMP unsuitable DMMUs has been removed to the prescribed boundary lines and appropriate record surveys completed, the DMMP suitable surface DMMUs will then be dredged and their record surveys completed. A similar procedure will be used on subsurface DMMUs. DMMP unsuitable materials will be dredged first in each instance to preclude contamination of DMMP suitable materials. Materials from the areas that are designated for upland disposal will be excavated from the sea floor using the clamshell and loaded onto flat-decked barges. Each will be fenced on all four sides to contain materials and will be equipped with drain ports to release free water overboard. These ports will be closed as necessary to limit turbidity while the barge is in transit and from the transfer site. In order to minimize free liquid content, the clamshell used for this job will be sized appropriately and, wherever possible, obtain full buckets for the planned cut. The Contractor will avoid multiple grabs and will not stockpile sediment on the bottom. The clamshell operator Page 4 will pause briefly at the water surface when retrieving the bucket in order to allow free water to escape prior to placing sediment on the barge. Flat scow barges handling DMMP unsuitable material will be fenced on all four sides to contain materials and will be equipped with drain ports to release free water overboard. These ports will be closed as necessary to limit turbidity while the barge is in transit to and from the transfer site. After loading, the barge will be allowed to sit undisturbed at the dredge site to allow for material consolidation and drainage of free water. Based on available information, it is expected that most of the dredged material will dewater at a very slow rate. To help the DMMP unsuitable material to meet moisture content requirements for upland disposal, dredged material may be placed on barges for up to 72 hours before being moved to the transfer site. At the transfer site, the dredged material will be stockpiled and loaded on rail cars or trucks for transport to a landfill. The water may drain into Sinclair Inlet while complying with applicable water quality regulations and permits within the transfer site dilution zone. Other barges may be utilized at the site to allow dredging to continue while the first barge is draining. The Contractor will adhere to local, state, and federal spill reporting requirements at all times. The Navy or Contractor will contact Ecology's Spill Response Office at (425) 649-7000 in the event of a petroleum release during dredging. During dredging operations, spill booms will be placed around the dredging area to contain oil or other floating material throughout the dredging operations. In the event of an emergency spill, the Contractor will immediately notify the Shipyard NESCOM, Shipyard phone (360) 476-2222, or 91 lon U.S. West outside lines or cellular phones, then notify the Contracting Officer. The Government will respond to all emergency spills. Contractor will follow incident commander verbal instructions. Contractor will reimburse the government for assistance of emergency spill cleanup and disposal. 4.4 Debris Removal Plan All floatable debris of significant size (that is, anything greater than 0.6 meters in length) will be collected. All floatable and nonfloatable debris (for example, sunken logs, riprap, non-natural material) encountered during the operations will be kept separate from open water' disposal material. A separate barge will be moored on the site for all encountered debris. Photographs and inventories will be taken on a weekly basis to document the quantity and nature of debris encountered. The debris will then be taken from the barge, characterized and handled as DMMP unsuitable dredge material, and disposed of at the landfill. One person on site will be trained to recognize and alert workers and the Navy Contracting Officer of potentially dangerous debris (for example, drums or other indications of disposal of chemicals or hazardous material). Workers will be educated and cautioned to be aware of the potential presence of dangerous debris. Navy personnel will be called immediately upon encountering dangerous debris and will dispose of such debris according to the appropriate designation. Page 5 4.5 Modification of Water Quality Standards Conditions listed below are anticipated to be issued under the authority of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173-201A to allow short-term modification of state water quality standards. Except as specifically authorized by the State's Water Quality Certification, all applicable provisions of WAC 173-201A will be met. Dilution zones specified below are established to allow only temporary exceedances of turbidity and dissolved oxygen criteria during dredging and disposal of dredged material. All other applicable water quality criteria apply throughout the receiving water. Dilution zones are established as follow: A temporary dilution zone will be established extending 90 meters radially from the point of dredging. This zone will be in place only during and immediately after active dredging. · A temporary dilution zone will be established 45 meters radially from the barge(s) used to temporarily store and dewater dredged material. This zone will be in place only during and immediately after dredged material is stored or transported on the barge(s). · Disposal operations are subject to the conditions of the dilution zone established under DMMP for approved DMMP disposal sites. A temporary dilution zone will be established extending 30 meters radially from the single discharge point at the dredge material transfer site. This zone will be in place only during and immediately after material is transferred at the site. This project is subject to Class A water quality criteria contained in WAC 173-201 A, except as modified as follows: · Turbidity: The Class A water quality criterion for turbidity is waived only within the dilution zones specified above. · Dissolved Oxygen: The Class A water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen (6.0 mg/L, or no more than 0.2 mg/L less than existing levels when natural conditions cause the dissolved oxygen to fall below 6.0 mg/L) is waived only within the dilution zones specified above. Within the dilution zone, dissolved oxygen is at no time to fall below 4.0 mg/Lo · Toxic conditions resulting in distressed or dying fish are not allowed. If these conditions exist, dredging will cease immediately; and the Contractor will contact the Navy Contracting Officer and note the incident on the daily log. The Contractor will also collect fish specimens and water samples in the affected area and, within the first hour of Page 6 such conditions, will take measurements of dissolved oxygen in the area affected. Measurements and samples must be taken before allowing dredging to resume. 4.6 Water Quality Monitoring Suitable materials will be loaded onto a split-hull bottom-dump scow. Before the onset of operations and throughout the course of work, the seals on the barge will be inspected to ensure proper operation. During dredging operations, the potential exists for excessive siltation and/or excessive spillage during offloading operations. Water quality will, therefore, be monitored to ensure that applicable thresholds are not exceeded outside specified dilution zones. Monitoring results will be reported to the Navy Contracting Officer on a weekly basis. If water quality becomes a problem, dredging operations will cease until testing in the dilution zone falls within the required parameters. Accidental spillage or release of petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials into the water column is also a possibility. Every effort will be taken during the transfer of products and during fueling to prevent such incidents. If a spill occurs, dredging operations will cease immediately, and work boats will verify the pre-deployed oil boom contains the affected area. If a sheen is created by dredging, the Contractor will immediately notify the Shipyard NESCOM, Shipyard phone (360) 476-2222, or 91 Ion U.S. West outside lines or cellular phones, then notify the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will notify the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Environment, Safety, and Health Office. Water containing oils, grease, or other hazardous materials from washdown of equipment or working areas will not be discharged into State waters, except as authorized by a NPDES or State waste discharge permit. All construction debris will be properly disposed on land, so it cannot cause adverse impacts to water quality. 5.0 OPEN WATER DISPOSAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES 5.1 Location The Elliott Bay DMMP site is the preferred site. Disposal operations and dredged material effects will be in conformance with DMMP and permitting agency requirements. When capacity of the scow is reached with material suitable for open water disposal, it will be towed to the approved DMMP open-water disposal site. During transit, the tug will maintain continuous radio contact with the U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System according to statutory commercial operating regulations. Barges used to transport the dredged material to the DMMP site or to the transfer site will not be filled beyond their capacity to completely contain he dredged material. The barge will be outfitted to prevent exceedances of water quality standards beyond those authorized by conditions in Section 4.5 of this DMP. Page 7 All tug boat captains will be licensed appropriately and qualified according to U.S. Coast Guard regulations. All marine operations will be under the direction and supervision of the project superintendent for the Contractor. 5.2 Navigation Methods and Positioning Protocol The tugboat will be equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) for use during disposal operations. Additionally, the tug captain will maintain contact with the U.S. Coast Guard Radar Vessel Traffic System during the tow to and from the open-water disposal site. Before and at the conclusion of dumping dredge sediments, the Coast Guard radar operator and tug captain will verify the location of the barge within the authorized dumping zone. At the conclusion of each dump, the tug captain will record the location of the dump, quantity discharged, and the name of the Coast Guard operator verifying the discharge locations. The original copy of this form will be forwarded to the Navy Contracting Officer. 6.0 UPLAND DISPOSAL METHODS All DMMP unsuitable material will be disposed of at a permitted upland disposal site. This project provides for (1) segregation of sediments during dredging operations to minimize the quantity of high water content material that is handled, (2) draining water from dredge sediments on flat scows into the permitted dilution zone, (3) offloading and treatment of sediments to meet moisture standards at a permitted disposal facility, and (4) transportation by rail or truck of materials from the staging area to a permitted landfill for disposal. 6.1 Offloading - Shoreside Handling The dredged material will be unloaded from the barge into the storage area where it will be allowed to drain. Offloading will be performed by placing the material barge and unloading equipment as close to the containment area as possible in order to minimize the distance for over-water movement of materials. The clamshell operator will take precautions to avoid overloading the bucket in order to minimize spillage during unloading. A front-end loader will be required on the sediment barge to assist with bunching the materials to allow proper bucket loading. 6.2 Shoreside Containment Area Materials will be offioaded from the barge stockpiled at the transfer site shown in Figure 1. This transfer site has been utilized in the past for similar staging and dewatering operations for Navy dredging projects. The transfer site would be installed similar to Figures 1 and 2 including improvements to facilitate the handling and treatment of runoff. The transfer site is constructed with an asphalt surface and an impermeable liner of reinforced polyethylene placed on a sand layer to prevent tearing or puncturing of the liner. The area is covered by asphalt concrete pavement placed on the shaped fill material to further contain dredged materials. The transfer site is sloped to allow for the flow of dredged spoils away from Page 8 Sinclair Inlet and toward the handling operation. The perimeter of the transfer site will be constructed of interlocking concrete block or other suitable walls to prevent the material from migrating outside the cell. Openings in the blocks will allow for drainage of free liquid, which will be processed through the onsite treatment system. A seal coat will be applied to the pavement to prevent penetration of liquids into subsurface soils. If sufficient paved 'and contained area does not exist at the site to provide for stockpiling material and loading, additional area may be constructed using a design similar to the existing transfer site. All paved areas will have extruded curbing around this perimeter to contain runoff. Runoff will be directed to sumps that convey water to settling tanks before discharge into Sinclair Inlet. Runoff from precipitation over the dredged material will also be piped to the settlement tanks for treatment prior to discharge. Return water will not exceed State water quality standards. The transfer site will be used only for temporary storage of dredged material, treatment of slurry water from the material, and transfer vehicle access. No unit of dredged material will be kept on site for more than 7 days. The quantity of material on site at any time will not exceed the capacity of the site's runoff/slurry water treatment system. The transfer site will be used only for temporary storage of dredged material, treatment of slurry water from the material, and transfer vehicle access. The quantity of material on site at any time will not exceed the capacity of the site's runoff/slurry water treatment system. Because the transfer site is contained, it is highly unlikely that an accidental release of liquid or dredged materials to Sinclair Inlet will occur. The containment area is constructed to eliminate the migration of materials into the waterway; however, the Contractor's quality control staff will check the integrity of the system visually on a daily basis. At the completion of dredging and transfer operations, the site will be returned to the original or otherwise acceptable condition. 6.3 Shoreside Runoff Containment and Treatment The shoreside containment area will be sloped to sumps that drain to a central pumping basin. The system will have "catch" points to allow for precipitation of heavier solids. The water will then be conveyed into a series of tanks. The tanks will be sized and baffled in order to provide a total retention time of 24 hours for the settlement of suspended solids before returning the water to Sinclair Inlet. A five-year storm event will be used to size the tanks. Oil separation and/or sorbents will be used to remove any oil sheen that may be present in the tanks. Excess water will be aerated before reintroduction to Sinclair Inlet. The settling and aeration will ensure that water quality standards for discharge of drainage from the staging area site conform to the dilution zone requirements. If needed to meet water quality standards, additional treatment may include filtering or polishing with granular activated carbon (GAC). Water quality will be checked to ensure that the conditions of the permitting agencies are met. Water will be monitored for dissolved oxygen and turbidity on an incoming and outgoing tide at the start of the job for the period of one week. If tests are consistent with the permit requirements, visual observations will be conducted on a daily basis thereafter. Page 9 While dredge materials are held at the transfer site, containment will be inspected visually once per day, seven days per week, by the Contractor Quality Control (CQC) manager and the results noted in a bound serialized notebook. Any problems will be rectified immediately and reported to the Navy. Dredge materials at the transfer site may be covered during continued wet weather to prevent further hydration of the materials. 6.4 Transportation of Upland Disposal Materials The material will be segregated within the shoreside containment area based on moisture content. Following drainage of free water, the material will be loaded into rail cars or trucks and taken to a permitted landfill. Loader operators will be trained in procedures for handling problem waste and will use measures standard to an environmental remediation project. Transport vehicle tailgates or other openings will be provided with a double locking assembly, with a special seal to provide a leak-proof closure. All vehicles will be inspected on a daily basis to ensure safe and trouble-free operations. Drivers will be specially trained in hauling problem waste, attend health and safety briefings, and be familiar with all applicable rules and regulations. Vehicles will be loaded at the staging area, which must be paved and kept free of soils or debris. Materials will be loaded in such a manner as to minimize spillage onto the loading area. Any spilled materials will be removed promptly to prevent tracking of soils outside of the loading area. Before departing the site, vehicle payloads will be covered with tarps, sideboards will be cleaned, and the remainder of the vehicle inspected visually and cleared of any loose debris. Trucks will pass through a wheel wash prior to departing for the landfill, and spilled soil will be swept and collected from rail vehicles. BMPs, including street sweeping and/or washing as necessary, will be employed to prevent tracking dirt from the transfer site and onto City streets. All vehicles (both trucks and railcars) will be inspected before departure from the site for materials on sideboards, undercarriages, or tires. Tailgates will also be inspected for leaks to prevent spillage during transportation. A transportation spill response team, specially trained supervisor, and Contractor-owned equipment will also be available should there be an accidental release. Planning will be provided for accidental discharge during transportation from either equipment failure or traffic accidents. To further decrease the likelihood of transportation problems, trucks will remain in contact with the site through two-way radio and will be instructed to report any spillage or accidental release immediately. A sweeper and other spill equipment will remain available.. 6.5 Landfill An appropriately-permitted disposal site will be utilized for the upland disposal site. The Navy will allow disposal only at a landfill permitted to accept Problem Wastes that operates in Page 10 compliance with federal, state, and municipal requirements. A description of typical operations and BMPs in place at permitted landfills follows. Upland disposal sites are designed and oPerated to minimize impacts to the environment. Facilities operate in compliance with the state's Solid Waste Regulations. Typical controls may include bottom liners, leachate systems, surface water systems, covers, and gas controls. Permitted landfills are monitored through ground water, surface water, and gas monitoring programs. Materials not subject to the landfill's solidification/stabilization requirements will be disposed of at the landfill without further treatment. Materials with a water content or consistency unacceptable for immediate final placement at the landfill will first be treated to reduce the water content of the material. Before returning to the public road system, trucks exiting the landfill will be directed to a wheel wash facility so mud and excess dredge materials are not tracked onto public roads. Drainage from the wheel wash will be handled by the landfill leachate treatment system. 7.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 7.1 Project Team The Contractor's team will be assembled to provide the Navy with the greatest degree of construction and environmental expertise at a reasonable cost. The Contractor will be a construction firm with considerable experience in civil construction, dredging, and hauling of both DMMP unsuitable and suitable dredge material. The Contractor will assume direct responsibility for all in-water and land operations, including dredging, barge operations, stockpiling, soil stabilization, water handling and disposal, materials handling, truck loading, and transportation. The Contractor must demonstrate at least three years' experience in the dredging and handling of dredge materials. The Contractor will have equipment necessary to complete this project successfully. The project wilt be directed by an experienced project manager who is skilled in civil and environmental construction and remediation operations and who has at least five years' experience as a superintendent of dredging projects. The superintendent and field crews assigned to this job will be experienced in remediation and DMMP unsuitable waste operations. Moreover, the crews will be trained in water management, waste handling, disposal procedures, and compliance with permit requirements. This will include regular health and safety meetings and on-going training. 7.2 Monitoring and Reporting The Contractor will maintain a daily project log of all dredging operations to be submitted once each week to the Navy Contracting Officer. Each daily entry in the project log will include the following information: Page 11 · General description of the type of work performed each day. · Quantity of material dredged each day and the location dredged (that is, DMMU designations). · Quantity of material disposed of at the DMMP site. · Quantity of material placed at the transfer site. · Approximate quantity of water discharged from the transfer site. · Quantity of material removed from the transfer site and taken to the upland disposal .facility. · Results of the daily monitoring. · Any incidents of distressed or dying fish in the project vicinity, any slicks or sheens on the water outside of the containment booms, and any other observations that suggest exceedance of State water quality standards. If oil or other material is recovered with absorbent pads or booms, the type of material recovered and the approximate quantity recovered will be included in the log entry. Monitoring at the DMMP disposal site will conform to DMMP management standards. For the first week of operations at the transfer site, the Contractor will perform daily water quality monitoring of the discharge from the transfer site. Sampling and testing will conform to Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) protocols or equivalent. Daily sampling and testing will include the following: · Turbidity · Dissolved oxygen · PH Sampling and testing will take place approximately one hour after operations begin on site each day and again approximately one hour before operations end each day. Monitoring results of the above sampling and testing will be compiled daily and will be provided to the Navy Contracting Officer once daily for the first week of transfer site operations. Additional monitoring and site controls may be required if these results show non-compliance with permit conditions. Within 30 days of completion of the upland disposal operations, the contractor will provide the Navy Contracting Officer with written documentation from the upland disposal facility showing the total quantity of dredged material disposed of at the facility. Page 12 7.3 Quality Control The Contractor is required by the Navy to employ a full time CQC manager to implement and manage a quality control program. The CQC manager may not also perform the duties of project superintendent. The CQC manager will attend the Coordination and Mutual Understanding Meeting, conduct the CQC meetings, perform submittal review, ensure testing is performed, and prepare CQC certifications and documentation required by this contract. The CQC manager will be responsible for managing and coordinating the three phases of control. An alternate CQC manager will be designated for the project who will be responsible for performing the CQC manager's duties in the event of an absence. The project manager will implement the controls required by the program and ensure work is accomplished according to the contract specifications and/or approved field changes. The CQC manager will be responsible for overall compliance with the requirements of the quality control program. The construction superintendent will ensure that planning and coordination with engineers and managers is maintained and that work crews produce a quality product in strict compliance with contract specifications. The Navy will meet and coordinate with the project superintendent and the CQC manager to ensure that all environmental and operational controls required by the contract and permits are followed for the project. The Contractor and Navy will participate in the predisposal conference and all other meetings and notifications that may be required by the permitting agencies. Page 13 13 . TO 5,q__qsocrl~ G.~TE I-CONTAINMENT CELLS STOCKPILE STOCKPILE Figure 2 Dredge Material Transfer Site- Potential Layout (Overview) ~ . ~ ~,,,-,,',-=_.,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_~ :~m'A~ Bremerton Overwater Park Approx_ 46,000 sq. ft. wycof~Wal Pier D footpdm The total proposed overwater structure as a result of the Pier D exl~ansion is approx. 4.25 times greater ,-. than that of Brem- [ ~ erton O~e~ater Park. Overwater Park footprint . / / Navy Pier D Expansion '"--.~.~<?'_ / Total Proposed Add'l Over,water Structure: '// / 196,500 sq. ft. L / COI~IP,~RLFON OE PIER D EXP~NJlON .~ND BREt~IERTON OVER~R P,~RK BY JlZE Engineering Field Activity Northwest City of Bremerton Shoreline Management Act Review U.S. Navy Homeport Facilities Development Navigation Dredging and Pier D Replacement November 1999 Neil Bass - (360) 396-0902 Peter Havens - (360) 396-0916 Engineering Field Activity Northwest Engineering Agenda FiehlActivity Northwest · MCON project overview Regulatory summary Dredged materials management Anticipated.schedule 2 . . Engineering MCON Project Overview FiehlActivity North west NORM PIER 3 1 J9.0 feet (-15 maers)~LW 1 46.1 feet (-14 m~e~s) MLLW --Oly Dod< 6 "' 1 41.0 feet (-125 meters) MLLW Transfer Site Naval StOlon Bremerton Dredging Pier D East, Pier D West, Pier D Turning Basin Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Dredging Pier 3, Pier B, Pier B Truning Basin, Inner Channel 3 Engineering CERCLA FieldActivity North west Navigation dredging located within CERCLA site CERCLA integrated with planning for Navigation dredging Collaborative atmosphere established with agencies CERCLA program now reviewing active remediation options (dredging) 4 Engineering National Environmental Policy Act FieldAetivity Northwest · Draft EIS Complete Final EIS Complete Public review Complete Record Of Decision December 99 5 Engineering Endangered Species Act NorthFiehlActivitYwest Salmon protected as of March 99 Biological Assessment (BA) evaluates impacts to habitat, populations, and ~ndlv~duals Formal Consultation initiated by National Marine Fisheries Service 6 Engineering Clean Water Act (CWA) Field Activity Northwest * Puget Sound Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) · Navy Coastal Zone Management Act Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) · City of Bremerton Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Conditional Use Permit * NMFS/USFWS ESA Consultation · Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) * CWA Section 401 Washington Water Quality Certificate (WQC, or "401") * CWA Section 404 Army Corps of Engineers authorization 7 Engineering Anticipated Schedule FieidActivity Northwest * CWA Application submitted September 1998 * DMMP sediment analysis Spring 1999 Interim Suitability Determination September 1999 Repeat bioassays Fall 1999 ~ * CWA Application updated November 1999 · CWA Section 401 review Spring 2000 · Permit Spring 2000 8 Public and Agency Involvement Navy CVN Homeport Facilities Development Pier D Replacement and Dredging at Piers D, B, and 3 and Turning Basins Contact Peter Havens Engineering Field Activity Northwest (360) 396-0916 The following summarizes public and agency involvement in the Navy's Proposed Pier D replacement and dredging at Pier D, Pier B, Pier 3. and the turning basins. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The Navy EIS, Developing Homeport Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, addresses facility improvements at Coronado CA, Pearl Harbor HI, Everett WA, and Bremerton WA as alternative sites for CVN homeporting. Coordination meetings were held with NW agencies as listed by section 1.8 of the Final EIS. Notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 1996, and public comments were received until February 28, 1997. Public scoping meetings were held at Bremerton WA on Februaw 3. 1997 and at Everett WA on February. 4, 1997. The Draft EIS was published and made available to the public and agencies for a 75-day period. A public heating was held in Silverdale WA during this review period. Public and agency comments on the Bremerton portion of the Draft EIS can be found in Volume 8 of the Final EIS dated July 1999. Agency Process Coordination Regulatory agencies at the midlevel managers level were briefed during a period from September 98 through February 99. Meetings and e-mail through summer 1999 provided quarterly update briefs on project progress. Agencies involved include: · Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Bonnie Bunning, Mark Mauren) · Washington State Department offish and Wildlife (Sara LaBorde. Steve Keller, Doris Small) · Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Coordination Section, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance (Rick Vining) · Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program (Tim Nord, Marian Abbett) · Washington State Department of Ecology, NW Regional Office, Shorelands (Sandra Lange) · City of Bremerton, Planning Department (Jon Holen) · The Suquamish Tribe (Tribal Council, Randy Hatch, Richard Brooks, Phyllis Meyers) · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Nancy Harney) · National Marine Fisheries Service (Steve Landino, Rachael Friedman-Thomas) Page 1 of 2 · U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fred Seavy) · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jack Gosett) Puget Sound Dredge Material Management Program (Dave Kindall) · Bremerton-Kitsap Health District (Scott Daniels) · Kitsap County Watershed (Dave Dickson, Rick McNicholas) · Kitsap County Planning (Renee Beam) Natural Resource Coordination The Navy and a team of resource agency staff developed a Sinclair Inlet resource assessment (Aquascape Plan) that identified opportunities for habitat enhancement. Meetings were held September 98 through December 98. Agencies involved included: · Washington State Department of Natural Resources as Lead Agency (Mark Mauren) · Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (Doris Small) · Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Coordination Section, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance (Rick Vining) · Washington State Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program (Marian Abbett) · City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities (Mindy Fohn) · The Suquamish Tribe (Phyllis Meyers) · U.S. Navy (Peter Havens) CERCLA Coordination Throughout the planning for the facilities development projects, Navy has coordinated with Sinclair Inlet remediation activities conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Resource Conservation and Liability Act (CERCLA = "Superfund"). The proposed facilities development projects have been briefed and discussed at stakeholder meetings and the public Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) during the winter and spring of 1999. The facilities development projects, also known as the navigation projects have been determined to be consistent with proposed cleanup plans. U.S. Army Corps Permit Public Comment Period The proposed project will be made available for a 30 day public comment and agency review through Corps permit process in the January. to February 00 time period. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Bremerton Planning Commission The Bremerton Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review the following item during its regular meeting on Tuesday, December 21, 1999, which will begin at 5:30 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, WA. Project: PL99-0086 for Shoreline Conditional Use for navigation dredging and Pier D Keplacement in Sinclair Inlet. Applicant: U.S. Navy Public Works Officer, 1400 Farragut Street, Bremerto~ WA 98312 Location: Sinclair Inlet at PSNS Bremerton, WA Any interested persons may appear and provide testimony on the matter at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Further, any person may submit comments within 30 days of the last publication of this notice. Any party submitting comments entitles that party to receive a copy of the action taken on the application. The Department of Community Development, located at 286 4th St., Bremerton, WA 98337, will receive written comments and other exhibits on the above item up to 5:00 PM on the day of meeting. Written comments and other exhibits may also be submitted prior to the close of the public meeting. Staff reports and copies of pertinent materials can be obtained from the Department of Community Development. Staff reports will be available by 5:00 PM on December 15, 1999. Call James Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information. DECLARATION OF POSTING In Reference to: ON ii- % : 'tq ,2000 at ~ ' '~'~ am I posted a I am a United States citizen over the age of twenty-one, and am competent to make this Declaration. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Dated: Il' 2. ~ - ~': ~' /~:',~/-~..'~,,?~/~.~ ; ' Signed: . , Signed at Bremerron, Washington RONALD D 8,: DEBORAH L AD,au'vIS COUNTRYWIDE FUNDING MALLIE STOCKTON P O BOX 10211 6905 W HAUSER LK RD VAN NUYS CA 91410-0211 POST FALLS ID 8385-~ ROGER E SILKETT SR L & C DYNASTY LP 2815 TRENTON P O BOX 798 BREMERTON WA 98310-5241 SNOQUALMIE WA 98065 DAN MONTGOMERY & CONCEPCION ROGER E SILKETT CONTINENTAL 4439 NE FOREST DR 601 UNION ST STE 2000 BREMERTON WA 983 I0 SEATTLE WA 98101-2326 PAULINE A LEWIS 724 S SUMMIT AVE JEFFREY J & SAM S BAHK BREMERTON WA 98312 1116 CHARLESTON BEACH BREMERTON WA 98312 WILLIS R COFFER JACK G & JOANNE JAMES 732 S SUMMIT NORTHWEST MTG INC BREMERTON WA 98312---t525 405 SW 5TM ST DES MOINES IA 50309-4603 RICHARD A BURGGRAF FLEET MTG GROUP INC REGNELD & PATRICIA ROBINSON P O BOX 100563 P O BOX 1445 FLORENCE SC 29501 BREMERTON WA 98337 RIC~-iARD H SMITH M BERG 744 S SUMMIT _,6~9 MCCALL BLVD BREMERTON WA 98312 BREMERTON WA 98312-4626 SOL'ND INSTITUTE OF FAMILY & GENE R & I'CATHLEEN WILKINSON 754 S SUMMIT CHILDRENS SERVICES BREMERTON WA 98312-4525 1200 NAVY YARD HIGHWAY BREMERTON WA 98312 GEORGIA J GATZE C/O ACCUBANK MTG BREMERTON ROOFING INC 2310 MILDRED ST W 120 1108 HIGHLAND AVE TACOMA WA 98466 BREMERTON WA 98337-5600 MARY L b/lORE THOMAS & KAREN PIDDUCK 3204 ROCKY PT RD 3290 NE ARROWHEAD DR BREMERTON WA 98312 BREMERTON WA 98311-9618 14-q ROBERT F & CAROL L MAKINS BRUCE A BODINE 2616 MARINE DR 1401 SPRAGUE AVE B REMERTON WA 98312 TACOMA WA 98405-2968 DARREL KASSAHN THOMAS & KAREN PIDDUCK PO BOX 1549 1108 HIGHLAND AVE SILVERDALE WA 98383-1549 BREMERTON WA 98337-5600 CAROLYN CARLSON DOUGLAS E WRiGHT 19950 URBAN AVE 317 FIELD RD E SUQUAMISH WA 98392-9774 SPANAWAY WA 98387 ,~MELIA L!LLARD MARGARET M REI. N-BOLD DARRELL L TUCKER 2531 FIR AVE NO B 634 NAVY YARD HWY BREMERTON WA 98310 BREMERTON WA 98312 ROY & MICKEY L CARPENTER PRO RENTALS 61)5 S C,&MB RIAN P O BOX 3010 BREMERTON WA 98312-~5 i ': BREMERTON WA 98310 BILL OSTERHOUT DAN & PEGGY ISA_BELL 4228 I63~ AVE SE 7l RIVER RD BELLEVUE WA 98006-I 869 TAHUYA WA 98588-9769 VERNA C ISENBERGER KITSAP COUNTY T.&X TITLE RICHARD ROBERTSON (5 i-t DiV~.SiON 5422 SE LAKE VALLEY RD PORT ORCHARD WA 983(~--677 PORT ORCHARD WA 98367 JAMES J JR & COLLEEN M RICH THOMAS J FORDAHL NATIONSBANC MTG 4366 TANDA .NV/ 101 E MAIN ST STE 400 BREMERTON WA 98310 LOUISVILLE KY 40202 BEVERLY I GENTLE WILLIAM MARK DALTON 704 SU~IMIT 7403 WYOMING ST E BREMERTON WA 98312 PORT ORCHARD WA 98366 MIKE R GIUFFRE FLEET MTG GROUP INC P O BOX 100536 FLORENCE SC 29501 ,MPdMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE ,/DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION ATTN: DORIS SMALL - ENVIRONMENT.AZ REVIEW 4735 E. ,MARGINAL WAY SOUTH 501 HIGH ST. SUITE 108 P.O. BOX 47703 SEATTLE, WA 98106 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 OLYMPIA. W:\ 9850.-t-7703 DEPT. OF ECOLOGY/SHORELANDS DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES ,/' DEPOT. OF TPo,¥NSPORT:\I'iON NORTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE SOUTH PUGET SOU ~%FD REGION PROJFs~GI~ER ATTN: ALICE SCHISEL P.O. BOX 68 8293 SP~ CREEK RO,M3 3190 160TH AVE SE OLYIvlPIA, WA 98022 PORT©RCI-0S, tRD. WAS 983tS- BELLEVUE, WA 98008-5452 KITSAP TRANSIT SUQUAMISH TRIBE 234 S. WYCOFF ATTN: PHYLLIS MEYERS BREMERTON, WA 983112 P.O. BOX BOX 498 SUQUAMISH, WA 98392 i.51 ~_ OF_ B6,~4.z Date: January 4, 2000 '~~~'~ To: Planning Commission  From: Jon Holan Subject: PL99-00086, U.S. Navy The proposed U.S. Navy project for dredging and pier reconstruction is beyond tidal areas which are considered by state law as shorelines of state-wide significance. In the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), these areas have a blanket designation of"Natural" and makes reference to a set of principals and guidelines related to these shorelines. The previous staff report addressed the project's consistency with the state shoreline policies (RCW 98.58.020) but did not discuss the local program. Thus, the purpose of this memo is to address the local program provisions related to the proposed dredging and reconstruction project. The following are principles and development guidelines stated in the City's SMP with appropriate comment related toeach guideline. Recognize and Protect the State-wide Interest Over Local Interest 1. SoLicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing state-wide interests by circulating ... requests for substantial development permits on shorelines of state-wide significance to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizens' advisory committees, local officials, and state-wide interest groups. Comment: Both projects are being processed through the conditional use process to allow public comments both at the local and state level. However, prior to submission for the shoreline permit application, the U.S. Navy had conducted several public meetings, met with federal, state and tribal agencies and is obtaining several permits from state and federal agencies concerning various aspects of this project. Attached is a list of consulted agencies and persons who commented on the ElS which included this project. Ihus, staff believes that the intent of this consultation has been met. In addition, the State Department of Ecology in its review of the permit will be requesting comments and any further solicitation can be accomplished through that portion of the conditional use permit process. 2. Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs, and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. Comment: The proposal is not the development of use regulations. Regarding the administration of regulations, staff has reviewed those applicable use regulations related to the proposed dredging and pier reconstruction in the prior staff report. Other agency's programs and policies will be addressed through other permits required for the project as cited in the previous staff report. To the extent that there may be additional concerns, these can be addressed through the DOE review of the use permit. 3. Solicit comments, opinions, and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanogrpahy, geology, aquaculture, and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management. Comment: The project received analysis conducted by persons with expertise through the EIS process. Further, the Navy is pursuing various permits and biological determinations on the proposed project which has also required persons with expertise to analyze the proposal. Thus, staff believes that no od_d_itional expertise could be brought to the review of the project through the shoreline permit process. Preserve the Natural Character of the Shoreline 1. Designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to minimize man-made intrusions on shorelines. Comment: As discussed in the previous staff report, the proposed pier reconstruction is being placed in an industrial area whichhas already been disrupted It is staff's understartding that the size of the proposed pier cannot be significantly reduced in size and that open pile pier is being designed for the project which is consistent with the City's ,.~1/17~. The Navy also has requested a Biological Assessment to address Endangered Species Act (ESA) related issues and must comply with that determination. Further, the Navy has applied for other permits from State Department offish and Game and the Corps of Engineers for the pier and dredging. Thus, staff believes that due to its location and through the design of the pier as well as other processes the Navy is required to meet, staff believes that man-made intrusions caused by the project on the shoreline will be minimized However, a representative of the Suquamish Tribe has indicated that there exist potential mitigation measures which the Tribe has identified which would address potential impacts to certain species offish. Attached is a draft list of those potential measures which to staff's understanding, has been reviewed with the U.S. Navy representatives and any of these measures could be included as a condition of this permit. 2. Upgade and re-develop those areas where intensive development already exists, in order to reduce their adverse impact on the environment and to accommodate future growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or underdeveloped. Comment: As stated above, staff believes that the project is designed and will adhere to permit requirements and a biological assessment to reduce adverse impact which will accommodate future growth. Since the location is an existing industrial area, issues associated with growth into low intensity areas is not an issue. Result in Long-Term over Short-Term Benefit 1. Preserve the shorelines for future generations. For example, actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shorelines of state-wide significance should be severly limited. Comment: The proposed pier is within an industrial area and would not have an irreversible detrimential impact on the already disrupted conditions of the area. The dredging is making relatively deep water (for 2 certain biologic resources) deeper, l$'-hile the dredging wouM alter natural conditions, no adverse detrimental impacts have been identified as a result of the project when compared with current conditions. Any adverse impacts would be ad_~_ essed through other permits and from the biological assessment. Further, due to the purpose of the dredging to accommodate an aircraft carrier, the project could not be done through the strict adherance of this guideline. Thus, staff believes that, to the extent of the project's objective, the intent of this guideline will be met. 2. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments in relationship to long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environment. Comment: As discussed in this memo and the previous staff report, the project will be developed with the intent of minimizing impacts allowed on the environment. Given the borne porting alternative selected by the U.S. Navy, the project is necessary to implement that alternative. To staff's knowledge, there are no other alternative locations or pier designs which can further reduce environmental impacts caused by the project although offsite mitigation measures may be possible. Thus, the project does not represent a short-term gain or convenience of development since it is not for economic benefits but rather for national defense based on the selected borne porting alternative. Due to that situation, it must must be located where proposed and the impairments to the natural environment are intended to be minimized 3. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new development, re- development of existing facilities or for the general enhancement of shoreline areas. Comment: The project is located in an industrialized area which has already been disrupted Further, it is within a military facility where public access or benefit to the City from improved design would be minimal. Thus, smff ftnd~ that complying with this guideline is not essential and to the extent that the pier and dredging has been designed to minimize impacts, the intent of this guideline will be met by the project. Protect the Resouces and Ecology of the Shoreline 1. Leave undeveloped those areas which contain a unique or fragile resource. Comment: To staff's knowledge, the only potential fragile resource are salomoid listed as "threatened" According to the EIS, identified impacts to adult salmon would be mitigated through operational requirements and any further requirements though the biological assessment. Further, the near shore conditions have already been disrupted concerning salmon habitiat. 2. Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter the natural function of the water system. In areas where erosion and sediment control practices will not be effective, excavations or other activities which increase erosion are to be severly limited. Comment: The applicants have prepared a dredging plan to address sedimentation issues and thus the intent of this guideline has been met. 154 3. Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas which cannot be maintained in a natural condition under human use. Comment: The site is a military facility where there is no public access and the pier area has already been disrupted (and not in a natural state). Increase Public Access to Publicly Owned Areas of the Shoreline Comment: While the facility is "publicly owned", the nature of the facility for military use will not allow allow public access. Thus, the two guidelines under this principle are not applicable. Increase Recreational Opportunities for the Public on the Shoreline Comment: As a military facility, there are no potential recreational opportunities associated with the proposed project, nor is the proposed project intended to improve recreational opportunities. Thus, the two guidelines under this principle are not applicable. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis and the analysis contained in the previous staff report, staff concludes that the proposed dredging and pier reconstruction project would meet the requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program and the policies constained in RCW 90.58.020. 4 14.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 2 Abina, LT. J.G. 1997. CO1VLNAV Base Seattle. 3 A.rden, Hiram. 1998. Environmental Planner, Seattle Corps of Engineers. Seattle, Waskin~on 4 Ament, S. 1998. Waskin~on Depaut~-~ent of Fish and Wildlife, Sequim, Wasking-ton. October 26. 5 Briggs, Bill. 1999. Land Use Planning, Port of San Diego. 6 Brock, Gerald. 1997. Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations, North K/t_sap School 7 District, Poulsbo, Washington. 8 Brydges, Gall. 1999. City of Coronado, California. 9 Butt, Donna. 1997. EP.~aN'W. 10 Casora, Jose. 1997. NASNI. 11 Clement~ Larry. 1997. Executive Director for Finance and Operat/ons, Marysville School District, 12 Marysville, Washm~on. 13 Collins, W. 1997. Southwest Division South Bay Area Focas Team, Env/ronmental Eng'meer. 14 Combs, James. 1998. Land Use Spedalist, City, of Bremerton Permitting Department. Bremerton, 15 Washin~on. 16 COtvh-NAV Surface Group, Pacific Northwest Operations. 1997. 17 Coon, John. 1997. CVN Homeporting Coordinator. Southwest Division, Naval Facilities 18 Engineering Command, San Diego. 19 Cozakos, Athena. 1997. Environmental Department Head, Navy Public Works Center, San Diego. 20 Curry, Monica. 1999. Engineer, San Diego Gas & EleOa4c. 21 Decker, Cindy. 1997. Assistant Suverintendent for Business Services, Bainbridge Island ScinOol 22 District, Bainbridge Island, Washin~on. 23 DezoteLl, David. 1997. Engineering Draftsman, Code 416 (Planning and Engineering), PubLic 24 Works, NAVSTA Everett, July 9, 1997. 25 Draper, Wait. 1997. Director of Finance and Operations, Bremerton School District, Bremerton, 26 Washin~on. 27 D3,~'e, John. 1999. Engineer, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Eng-ineering Command, San 28 Diego. 29 Englesby, Steve. 1997. Planner, City of Everett. 14.0 Persons and Agencies Contacted 14-1 Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 Evanson, ~. 1998. Waskington Delva~ha~ent of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washirt~on. 2 November 16. 3 Forkenbrock, John. 1997. Executive Director, National A3sociation of Federally Impacted School 4 (NAFLS), Waskington, D.C. 5 Forys, Dr. Karen. 1997. Superintendent, North.shore School District, BotheR, Washington. 6 Fountain., Dorm. 1997. Executive Director of Business, South Kit. sap School District, Silverdale, 7 Washing-ton. 8 Fuller, David. Suquamish Tribal Geolo~t. 9 Goff, T. 1997. Seaworld Marine Mammal Curator. 10 Grayson, Gary. 1997. Pubhc Works Depa~Luient, NAVST_~Y Everett. 11 Gregoir, Dennis. 1998. Port of Everett Planning Depa~ha-~ent. Everett, Washington. 12 Herold, Debbie. 1997. Public Works Dep~Lment, NAVSTA Everett. 13 Hirt~, Jan. 1997. Ac~/ng Assistant Director, Fac3/ties Planning Depa~t~'~ent, San Diego 14 Unified School District, San Diego, California. 15 Hofhnan, R, National Marine Fisheries Service, San Diego, Coliforrtia. 16 FIusson, Bruce. 1997. Assistant Supe.--Lntendent for Business Services, San Diego Unified ~Lool 17 District, San Diego, California. 18 Irvine, Jerry. 1998. Planner, City of Everett. Everett, Was~hin~on. 19 Jal/o, C. 1997. Environmental Analyst, Ogden Environmental Services. 20 ~effery, Iai. 1997. Engineering Field Activity, Northwest. 21 Kelley, Lt. Steven. 1997. /'441 COMI~AVBASE, Pearl Harbor. 22 Kleeman, Ed. 1999. Senior Planner, City of Coronado. 23 Kole, Ron. 1999. Supervising Public Irffora~tion Officer. San Diego Munidpal Sanitary, DL~trict. 24 K_rauss, J.C. 1998. Dredging Manger, Durra Dred~'tg Company. 25 Mac. h, Rich. 1997. Southwest Division South Bay A_rea Focus Team, Environmental Engineer. 26 Magee, Mike. 1997. Installation Restoration Manager, NASAl. 27 Maher, Efleen. 1998. Planner, Port of San Diego Environmental and Planning Delva~'t,i~ent. San 28 Diego, CA. 14-2 157 14.0 Persons and Agencies Contacted Volume 1 CMN Homeporting Analysis 1 Matra, Mike. 1997. Public Works Environmental Division Director, Naval Station Everett. 2 McCay, Patrick. 1999. Southwest Division ~outh Bay .&rea Focus Team. 3 McKeighen, Bill. 1997. Budget and Finance Manager, Edmonds School District, L,vrmwood, 4 Washin~on. 5 Niitchell, Arlene. I997. Fiscal Services Coordinator, Coronado Unified School District, San Diego, 6 Califorrda. 7 ivIWR. 1997. 8 Naval Clinic Command. 1997. 9 NAVSTA Port Ops Chief Quartermaster. 1997. 10 Newman, Captain Roger. 1997. USN (Ret.). 11 Nysewander, D. 1998. Washington Depa~ba-~ent of Fish and Wildl~£e, Olypmia, Washin~on. 12 October 19. 13 Ochoa, Sal. 1999. Project Architect, Port District of San Diego. 14 Pagliaro, Jesse. Process Control Supervisor, Point Loma Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment 15 Facili~. . 16 Pentilla, D.E. 1998. Wash.m~on Depa~mxe.,~t of Fist~ and Wildlife, Re~ort 4 Marine Resources. 17 October 19. 18 Perdue. 1999. Depa~LaLent of the Navy. 19 Pitch. ford, Clark. 1997. PSNS Breme~on air lvrograms manager. 20 PowelI, Gary. 1997. Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations, Centzai IGtsap School 21 District, Silverdale, Washin~orr. v_?.o Price, Larry,-. 1997. Director of Facilities, Marysville School District, Marysville, Washington. ?.3 Read, R. California Depazm~ent of Fish & Game. Telephone conversa~on with D. Heilprin 24 (SAIC). 25 Reyes, R. 1997. Justice and Associates. 26 Riddle, ~eff-zey. 1997, Deputy Superintendent, Everett School District, Everett, Washin~on. 27 Richard, Tim. 1997. Senior En~ineer, City of Bremerton. 28 Rogers, John. 1999. Engineer, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 29 Diego. 14.0 Persons and Agencies Contacted 1~3 Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 Sac_ha, Susan. 1997. Secretary to the Deputy Superintendent, Everett School DLstr/ct, Everett, 2 Washington. 3 Scott, Lt. Start. 1997. COM2~AV Surface GrOup Pacific N'W Operat/ons. 4 Sc.kroeder, Michael. 1997. Executive Director for Business and Operations, Snohomish School 5 District, Snohomish, Washington. 6 Selrdck, C. 1997. SDCAPCD. 7 SLzemore, B. 1998. Washington Depa~Lment of Fish and Wildlife - Point Whitnev Shell/-Lsh 8 Laboratory. October 23. 9 Snyder, S. 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Wash.~ngton. 10 Trevino, Rene. 1997. Facilities Manager, CONCNAVBASE, San Diego. 11 Walsh, Timothy. 1997. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 12 Webb, Carolyn. 1997. Executive Director of Business Services, Mukilteo School Distr~ct, Everett, 13 Washington. 14 Williams, Claude. 1997. Air pollution engineer, PSAPCA. 15 Wyn'mn, Karen. 1999. Project Manager, Port of San Diego. 16 Yatsko, Andrew. 1997. A.rchaeolog-ist, NASNI. 14-4 14.0 Persons and Agencies Contacted i 11.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION, -, AND DISTRIBUTION LIST 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND I.NWERAGENCY COORDINATION 4 A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on 3 December 1996. scopmg Four 5 hearings were held, as follows: in Bremerton, Washington, on 3 February 1997; in Everett, 6 Washington, on 4 February 1997; in Pearl City,, Hawaii, on 6 February 1997; and in Coronado, 7 California on 10 Februar7 1997. A summary,, of issues identified at the scoping sessions and in 8 letters received in responses to the NOI are included in Appendix B. 9 In addition to the scopmg sessions, several meetings were held. A description meetings of these 10 presented in section 1.6. individuals and received either Notice of Availability of the Draft ELS or I 1 The following agencies a 12 a copy of the Draft ELS. DISTRIBUTION LIST 13 14 Elected Officials 15 A.kaka, Daniel, U.S. Senator, U.S. Senate Federal Bldg. #3104, Honolulu, HI 16 Cayetano, Benjamin, Governor of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 17 Chopp, Frank, Washington State Senator, Seattle, WA 18 Dicks, Norm, U.S. House of Representatives, Tacoma, WA 19 Dora_n, Don, Mayor of Mukflteo, Mu241teo, WA 20 Eh.u-m, Jennifer, U.S. House of Representatives, Bellevue, WA 21 Garda, Nestor, U.S. House of Representatives, Honolulu, I4I 22 Gorton, Slade, U.S. Senator, Bellevue, WA 23 Hansen, Edward, Mayor, City of Everett, Everett, WA 24 Hargrove, James, Washington State Senator, Olympia, WA 25 Harris, Jeremy, Mayor, Honolulu, HI 26 Horton, L~m_rt, Mayor, City of Bremerton, Bremerton, WA 27 Locke, Gary, Governor, Washington State Legislative Building, Olympia, WA 28 McDermott, Jim, U.S. House of Representatives, Seattle, WA 29 Metcalf, Jack, U.S. House of Representatives, Everett, WA 30 Mink, Patsy, U.S. House of Representatives, Honolulu, lEI 31 Murray, Patty, U.S. Senator, Seattle, WA 32 Okamura, Tom, State Representative, House of Representatives, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 33 Owen, Brad, Washington State Senator, Olympia, WA 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List 11-1 Volume I CVN Homeporting EtS 1 Rinehart, Nita, Washington State Senator, Seattle, WA 2 Sakamoto, Norman, Hawaii State Legislature, Honolulu, HI 3 Sheldon, Betfi, Washington State Senator, Olympia, WA 4 WeatherkilI, Leslie, Mayor, Port Orchard, WA 5 Weiser, David, Mayor, City of Marysville, Marysville, WA 6 Wt-dte, Rick, U.S. House of Representatives, Poulsbo, WA 7 Office of the Mayor, City of Seattle, Seattle, WA 8 Bowie, Maria, Representatve Brian Bilbray, San Diego, CA 9 Clark, Roberta, c/o Cong-ressman Fdckuhte, Mount Lake Tew, WA l0 Hammer, Dan, Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, San Diego, CA l 1 Slater, Para, Board of Supervisors, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA 12 City Council, Ci,ty of Oceanside, Oceanside, CA 13 Federal and State Agencies/Officers 1,$ Martin, Stephen, Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA 15 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Everett, WA 16 CirieLlo, Sal, C~]EPA/Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Berkeley, CA 17 Sarb, Sherilyn, California Coastal Commission, San Diego, CA 18 Gimeno, Alice, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Cypress, CA 19 Mingay, Marsha, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Long Beach, CA 20 Rege, D.IL, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, C,v'press, CA 21 Yen, Cl-da-~, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, C,vpress, CA 22 Zarnoch, Joe, C~]~fomia Environmental Protection Agency, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, 23 Public Participation and Education, Long Beach, CA 24 Silva, Betty, California State Lands Commission, Sacramento, CA 25 C~Nforrfia Transportation Quali~ Advisory Committee, Washington, DC 26 Caltrans, District 1!, San Diego, CA 27 Priolo, John, Chapter 19, Pearl Harbor Slmipyard/.krea Federal Managers Association, Pearl Ci~', 28 HI 29 Defense Technical Information Center, Customer Service Help Desk (DTIC-BLS), Fort Belvoir, VA 30 Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Seattle, WA 31 Dept. of Science, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Long Beach, CA Sterret, Klm, Dept. of Boating and Waterways, Sacramento, CA 32 33 Anderson, Bruce, Deputy Director for Environmental Health State of Hawaii, Dept. of Health, 34 Honolulu, HI 11-2 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 Wilson, Michael, Director, Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI 2 Egged, Rick, Director, Office of Planning, Dept. of Business Economic Development/Tourism, 3 State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 4 Director, Washin~on Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA 5 Rigsby, James, District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA 6 Smith, Robert, Ecoregion Manager, Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Honolulu, ? HI $ Environ.mental Services Division, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Long Beach, CA 9 7ohn, Steven, EPA, Los Angeles District, Los .Angeles, CA 10 Beaverson, Chris, EPA Reoqon ×, .Sea.e, WA 11 EPA 1Re,on X Enviroranental Review, Seattle, WA 12 EPA Re,on X, IR Coordinator, Seattle, WA 13 Gustafson, Joarme, Everett Area Land Manager, Washin~on State Dept. of Natural Resources, 14 Sedro-Woolley, WA 15 Quack, Dot, Executive Director, California Re~onal Water Quality Control Board, San Diego 16 Re,on, San Diego, CA 17 Helfrich, Paula, Executive Director, Hawaii Island Economic Development Board, Hilo, HI 18 De!aplaine, Mark, Federal Consistency, Supervisor, California Coastal Commission, San Frandsco, 19 CA 20 Ken_ney, Martin, Fish a.nd Wildlife Enhancement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA 21 Hawaii Chapter American Fisheries Society.., Honolulu, HI 22 Mc_N'aliy, Patrick, Hawaii Document Librarian, Hawaii State Public Library System, HawMi State 23 Library, Honolulu, HI 24 Tsu_hako, Vicki, Manager, Pacific Islands Contact Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 25 Honolulu, HI 26 Zilges, Gordon, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, WA 27 National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 28 Hoff-man, Robert, National Marine Fishe~es Service, Southwest Re,on, Long Beach, CA 29 Martin, Terry, Office of Environmental Affairs Dept. of Inter/or, Washington, DC 30 Gill, Gary, Office of Environmental Quality, Control State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 31 Office of Historic Preservation, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA 32 NRta, Eugene, Protected Species Prog-ram Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. 33 Dept. of Commerce, Honolulu, HI 34 Sou_nd Air Pollution Control Seattle, WA Puget Agency-, 35 Sanderson-Port, Patricia, Re~onal Environmental Officer, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, San Francisco, 36 CA 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List 11-3 Volume 1 CVN I-Iomeporting EIS 1 Worthley, Fred, Regional Manager Region V, California Dept. of Fish & Game, Long Beach, CA 2 Gill, John, Reg-ulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Eng-meers, Los .angeles District, Los _angeles. 3 CA 4 Rodgers, Rod, Sr. Evaluator U.S. General Accounting Office NSIAD/NSA - Rm. 4015, Washington, 5 DC 6 State Clearinghouse, Sacramento, CA 7 Kaneshiro, Kenneth, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of 8 Ag-ricukure, Honolulu, HI 9 State Dept. of Health Services, San Diego, CA 10 State Lands Commission, Sacramento, CA 11 Salazar, Lu, State of California Dept. of Transportation Planning, San Diego, CA 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Dredged .Materials Management Office, Seattle, WA 13 Gossett, Jack, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Reo~ulatory Branch, Seattle, WA 14 MacFarlane, Stephen, U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA 15 Smhl, Tom, U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA 16 Lundin, Larry,, U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area Resource Planning, Alameda, CA 17 Seavey, Fred, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA 18 Ross, Brian, U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency, Reg-ion IX, San Francisco, CA 19 Fred.rick, David, USFWS, No. Pacific Coast Ecoreg-ion Western Washin~on Office, Lacey, WA 20 Waskin~on Dept. of Community Development, Olympia, WA Abbett, Marian, Washington Dept. 21 of Ecology, Olympia, WA 22 Washington Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review, Olympia, WA 23 Washington Dept. of Ecology Northwest Reg-ional Office, Environmental Review, Bellevue, WA 24 Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, SEPA Center, Olympia, WA 25 Washington Dept. of Transportation Environmental Review, Olympia, WA 26 Mauren, Mark, Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, South Puget Sound Re,on, Enumdaw, 27 WA 28 Inman, Rebecca, Washington State Dept. of Ecotog'y Environmental Review Section, Olympia, WA 29 Le, Hoa, Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA 30 Reagan, Chris, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, WA 31 Cababa, Robin, Acting Commander, United States Army Corps of Enomkneers, Pacific Ocean 32 Division, Fort Shaffer, HI 33 Moss, Frederick, Ckie£ Office of Prog-ram Audits & Environmental Analysis, Cai/EPA Dept. of 34 Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, CA 35 Broman, Commander, Commander DPL, United States Coast Guard, 13ah Coast Guard Distric.L 36 Seattle, WA 11-4 11.0 Public Involvement and Inte~agency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 Coil/ns, T.H., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard 14th Coast Guard D/strict, Honolulu, HI 2 Sel/gman, Peter, Marine Environmental Support Office & Naval Warfare Systems Center (D3621), 3 San Diego, CA 4 Obrey, Jr., Ronald, National Association of Superintendents of U.S. Naval Shore Establishments, 5 Pearl Harbor, HI 6 Leicht, Greg, Restoration Advisory Board, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA 7 Uchytil, Carl, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander 13th District, Seattle, WA 8 Farrel, ChieL David, Office o£ Federal Activit/es, Re,on IX, U.S. Environmental Protection 9 Agency, Environmental Review Section, San Francisco, CA 10 Local Agencies/Organizations 11 Harrover, Poppy, ADI Technology Corp. Four Crystal Park, Arlington, VA 12 Kajihiro, Kyle, Al=SC Hawaii Area Program Office, Honolulu, HI 13 Miura, Mike, Aiea Neighborhood Board, Aiea, HI 14 Aiea Public Library, Aiea, HI 15 .Mr Pollution Control District County of San Diego, San Diego, CA 16 Tanimoto, Grant, Aliamanu Neighborhood Board, Honolulu, HI 17 Pilkenton, Brad, American Lemon Post #6, Everett, WA 18 Audubon of San San CA Pugh, 5odety Diego, Diego, 19 Bainbridge Island Echoois =o0o ~upermtendent, Bainbridge Island, WA 20 Bayfront Conservancy Trust, Chula Vista, CA 21 Board of Supervisors, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA 22 Carpenter, Ron, Bremerton School DistrSct, Bremerton, WA 23 Bremerton School District #100-C 5uperintemdent, Bremerton, WA 24 Bremerton-K/tsap County Health District, Bremerton, WA 25 Stewart, Ga/2, c/o News 8, San Diego, CA 26 Webster, Hugh, c/o Pacific Ship Repair, San Diego, CA 27 Casa Guadalupana, CathoLic Workers, San Diego, CA 28 Friesena, H. Paul, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Evanston, IL 29 Central K/tsap School District #401 Superintendent, N-W Silverdale, WA 30 Frank, Jr., B~, Chair, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA 31 Ora, Charles, Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 32 Youckton, Melvin, Chehal/s Tribe, Oakville, WA 33 Hart/s, George, Church of the Crossroads, Honolulu, HI 34 Cit)- of Arlington, Ci~ Adrrfi.rdstrator, Arlington, WA 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List 11-5 m Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 City of Arlington, Public Works Dept. Director, Azlington, WA I 2 City of Bremerton Commum ,ty Development, Bremerton, WA 3 City of Bremerton Plarming Dkector, Bremerton, WA I 4 Ewing, David, City of Imperial Beach, Imperial Beach, CA 5 City of Marysville, City Planner Building and Planning Dept., Marysville, WA m 6 city of Marysville, Public Works Dept. Director, Ivlarysville, WA 7 City of Seattle Planning Dept., Seattle, WA I 8 Palma.nteer, Jr., Ed, Colville Con.federated Tribe, Nespelem, WA 9 Shaffer, James, Commissioner, Port of Everett, Everett, WA [ i0 Lylu, Joseph, Committee ot Bridge the Gap, Los Angeles, CA 11 Conservation Council for Hawaii, Honolulu, 1-II I · 12 Coordinating Committee Everett/Snohomish Cotmty Impact, Everett, WA 13 Coronado Eagle, Coronado, CA m · 14 Granzer, Charles, Coronado Environmental Action Group, Coronado, CA 15 Coronado Journal, Coronado, CA [ 16 Mallgren, Laura, Coronado Journal, Coronado, CA I7 Coronado Public Library, Coronado, CA 18 Coronado Unified School Disix-ict, Coronado, CA 19 Navarro, Ed, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, San Diego, CA m 20 Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Southern Service Center, San Diego, CA 21 Jones, .Michael, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy Urdvemity, of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI , 22 I .imtiaco, Felix, Dept. of Wastewater ,.'vlana§ement, City, and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI 23 Story, Tom, Deputy Director, Development and Environmental Planning, San Diego, CA 2'4 Thomassy, Tim, Director, Business Development Newport News Shipbuilding, Arlington, VA 25 Director, City of Everett Plarmmg Dept., Everett, WA 26 Hunter, Laura, DJ_rector, Clean Bay Campaign, San Diego, CA 27 Hanaike, Donna, Director, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, 28 HI 29 Sprag-ue, Kenneth, Director, Dept. of Public Works, City, a.nd County of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI 30 Olivers, Clair, DLrector, Everett PubLic Works Utilities Dept., Everett, WA 31 Robinson, L., Director, Fleet Support Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News, VA 32 Draper, IV, Walter, Director of Finance and Operation, Bremerton School District, Bremerton, WA 33 Fra2kel, David Kimo, Director, Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter, Honolulu, HI 34 Director, Snohomish County Planning Dept., Everett, WA 11-6 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 Director, Western Office Project Review Advisory Council on I-tismric Preservation, Golden, CO 2 Sehmer, Sue, Documents IAbraaSan Everett I_Library, EvereX, WA 3 Smith, Judy, Documents Librariarr Monog'raphs, Acquisition Services, Fort ColLins, CO 4 Earthtmst, Aikah.i Park Shopping Center, Kailua, HI 5 Economic Development Corporation, San Diego, CA 6 Economic Development Council of Kitsap Courtty, Bremerton, WA 7 Smith, fr., W. Earle, Economic Developmemt of Kitsap County,, Bremerton, WA 8 Hicks, Ralph, Envizorcmental Management Coord~ator San Diego Un.flied Port District, San 9 Diego, CA 10 Ewa Beach Public and Sctxool Library, Ewa Beach, I-ti 11 Howes, Sa_~cLra, Executive Eft_rector, Bremertort Area Chamber of Commerce, Bremertort, WA 12 Curtis, Hem'y, Executive Director Life of the Land, Honolulu, I-II 13 Umebayaslxi, I4_Lro, Executive Director Peace Resov. rces Cooperative, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, 14 Bra_rtde_r~bu.rg, Richard, Executive Director, Port of Bremertor~, Port Orchard, WA ~5 Hokaz~son, Russet1, Executive Officer, Snohomish County-Camaro Assoc. of Realtors, Everett, WA 16 Friends of the Earth, Seattle, WA 17 Greenpeace, Seattle, WA 18 Greenpeace Foundation of Hawaii, Kail~, I-:LI 19 Toya.ma, Ben, Hawa~ Federal Employees, .&iea, 20 Kelly, ~ohn & Marion, Hawaii Nuclear .a, bolition, Honolulu, 21 HawaLi's Thousand Fffends, Kailua, 22 HawaJ_ian Electric Company, Honolulu, HI 23 Hawafian Telephone Company, Honolulu, 24 McCacdey, Larry,, Hazardous Material Speda!~sts, Port of San Diego, Attrt: Faxvirortmenat 25 Nianagement, San Diego, CA 26 Hazardous MateriaLs Management Division, Count- of San Diego, Dept. of Health Services, 27 EnvLronmentaI Health Services, San Diego, CA 28 Sclxmidt, Fred, Documents Dept., The Libraries, Fort ColLL~, CO 29 Lee, Vivian, Hoh Tribe, Forks, WA 30 Gordon, M.Lke, Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu, 31 Reppun, John, Hu.i Mala. ma AJna O Koolau, Karteohe, 32 I Love a Clea_rr San Diego County Incorporated, San Diego, CA 33 Price, Les, ~amestow~ S'KlaHam Tribe, SequLm, WA 34 Nemena, Glen, Kalispel Tribe, Usk, WA 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagewcy Coordination, and Distribution List 13-7 Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS 1 Davis, Irmgard, KCAP, Bremerton, WA 2 Johnson, Jearmi, KC.A_P, HS/ECEAP, Bremerton, WA 3 King County Executive, Seattle, WA 4 Kimball, Rick, Kitsap County Dept. of Commtmity Development, Port Orchard, WA 5 Murphy, Joe, Secretary-Treasurer, Kitsap County Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Bremerton, 6 WA 7 K2tsap Count?- Health Dept., Port Orchard, WA 8 Beam, Renee, Kitsap County, ShoreLi.nes, Port Orchard, WA 9 Kit.sap Library, Port Orchard Branch, Port Orchard, WA 10 Kitsap Re~onal Library,, Bremerton, WA 11 St. John, Alison, KPBS Radio, San Diego, CA 12 Lakewood School District #306, Superintendent, Lakewood, WA 13 Harvey, E. Miles, Landing Homeowners .4.ssociation, Coronado, CA 14 Chemisky, Joe, LCC, Pearl City, HI 15 Young, Frank, Liberty Be11 Estates, Poulsbo, WA 16 Life of the Land, Honolulu, HI 17 Charles, Frances, Lower Elwha S~lallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA 18 Jefferson, Merle, Lummi & Nooksack Treaty Drainage :&rea Lummi Tribe, Bell.ingb~m, WA 19 McCarty, Jr., Harry,, Makah Treaty Drainage Area, Makah Tribe, Neah Bay, WA 20 Mamala Bay Study Commission, Honolulu, HI 21 Feek, President;, Dick, Mary Ann Hunfi_n~on, Secretar?-; Fred Schoneman Commissioner, Port 22 Bremerton, Port Orchard, WA 23 Marysville School District #25 Superintendent, Marysville, WA 24 Mountain Defense Leag-ue, San Diego, CA 25 George, Wayne, Muckieshoot & Suquamish Treaty Drainage .&rea Suquamish Tribe, Suquam2sh, 26 WA 27 Kinggeorge, Gilbert, Muckleshoot Tz2be, Aubua-n, WA 28 Schelb, Galen, Napolitano Realty, Better Homes & Gardens, Coronado, CA 29 M_iiler, Ron, NASCO, San Diego, CA 30 Erikson, Jan, Director of Ship Repairs, NASSCO, San Diego, CA 31 Aid, Catherine, National M21itary Family Association, Poulsbo, WA 32 Native Hawaiian Advisory Council, Kailua, HI 33 President, Navy Leag-ue Honolulu Council, Honolulu, HI 34 Headquarters, Navy Leag-ue of the United States, Arlington, VA 11-8 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume 1 CVN Homeporting EIS ! Robinett, Henry., NW Re~onal President, Navy League of the United States, Everett Cotmcil, 2 Everett, WA 3 Kautz, Geor~arma, Nisqually T~be, Olfmpia, WA 4 Kelly, Bob, Noo 'ksack Tribe, Demmg, WA 5 North Kitsap School District #400 Superintendent, Poulsbo, WA 6 Northwest Indian Fksheries Commission, Lacey, WA 7 Cayan, Phyllis, Chairperson, Oahu Burial Committee, Aiea, I4I 8 Ocean Beach Planning Board, Inc., Ocean Beach, CA 9 Oleto, Honolulu, HI 10 Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Secur/t-y, De_nman Island, BC I 1 Gebert, Dave, ParamelMcs, Bremerton, WA 12 Peace Leaders International, San Diego, CA 13 Souza, Jerry, Pearl City Neighborhood Board, Pearl City, HI 14 Pearl City Public Library, Pearl City, t-II 15 Moshay, Mark, PEPS Local 6, Bremerton, WA 16 Endresen, Chris, Phil Best, Charlotte Garrido, Kitsap County Board of Commissioners, Port i7 Orchard, WA i8 Pilchuck Audubon Soc_ie .t-y, Everett, WA 19 Planning Dept., Ci~ of Coronado, Coronado, CA 20 Plutonium-Free Future Hawaii c/ Frances t--II o Vigliekno, Spokesperson, Honolulu, 21 PoInt No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA 22 Charles, Ron, Point No Point Treaty, Council, Kingston, WA 23 McCauly, Larry,, Port District, San Diego, CA 24 Jones, Gerald, Port Gamble ST, lal/am Tribe, Kingston, WA 25 Houser, Mark, Port Gardner Informal:ion League, Everett, WA 26 McDowel, Joel, Port of Bremerton, Port Orchard, WA 27 lvtohr, John, Port of Everett, Everett, WA 28 Port of Everett, Port Commission, Everett, WA 29 Andrecht, Kenneth, Port of San D/ego, San Diego, CA 30 Libida, H. Paul, Port of San Diego, San Diego, CA 31 Bermet, D/ck, President & CEO, Everett Area Chamber of Commerce, Everett, WA 32 NLh.ipali, Kunani, President, Htri Malama i Na Kupuna o Hawaii Nei, Haleiwa, HI 33 Parpia, Zak/.r, President, Master Builders Assoc. of King & Snohornish Counties, Bellevue, WA 34 Brady, Kat, President, Pacific Women's Network, Honolulu, HI 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List 11-9 Volume I CVN I-Iomeporting EIS I Soriano, joan, President PS,NBA, Bremerton, WA 2 Gat. zke, Dave, Project Manager, Heartland, Seattle, WA 3 Griggs, Jerry,, Property, Manager, Viewcrest Villages, Bremerton, WA 4 Olson, John, puget Sound Navy News, S~verdale, WA 5 Puget Sound Re~onal Council, Seattle, WA 6 Shippentower, Nancy, Puyallup Tribe, Puyallup, WA 7 Moon, Mel, Quileute Tribe, LaPush, WA $ Harp, Jim, QuinauJt Tribe, Taholah, WA 9 San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA ~-~ 10 San Diego Baykeeper, San Diego, CA 11 San Diego Chamber of Commerce, San Diego, CA 12 San Diego Harbor Safety Committee, San Diego, CA 13 San Diego .Military Toxics Campaig-n Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego, CA 14 San Diego Oceans Foundation, San Diego, CA 15 San Diego Union - Tribune, San Diego, CA 16 Crawley, James, San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego, CA 17 Sacks, Steve, SAN~IDAG, San Diego, CA 18 Joseph, Lawrence, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, Da_,-rm~on, WA 19 Claycomb, William, Save Our Bay, Imperial Beach, CA 20 Olds, Clara, Save Our Bays and Beaches, Honolulu, HI 21 Heffetz, Ruth, School of Medicine University of California, San Diego, La Jo]la, CA 22 Science and Industry Section San Diego Library, San Diego, CA 23 Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA 24 Seattle Leag-ue of Women Voters, Seattle, WA 25 Offiey, Ed, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle, WA 26 Clutter, Stephen, Seattle Times, Lyrmwood, WA 27 Dawe, James, Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon, San Diego, CA 28 W2-dtish, Herbert, Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Tokeland, WA 29 Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Honolulu, HI 30 Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA 31 Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter, San Diego, CA 32 Kimura, Edward, Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter, San Diego & Imperial Counties, San Diego, CA 33 Evilt, Mar?', S~git Valley Herald, Mount Verdon, WA 11-10 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume 1 CVN Homeporting EIS 1 James, Gordon, Skokomish Tribe, Shelton, WA 2 Kirkpatrick, Job. n, SMS, Honolulu, HI 3 Sno-isl Reg-ional Library System, Marysville, WA 4 Krider, Jim, Snohomish County Courthouse, Everett, WA 5 Drewel, Robert, Snohomish CotmD' Executive, Everett, WA 6 Snohomish Corm .ty Plarmirtg Dept., Director, Everett, WA 7 Snohomish Corm ,ty Public Works Dept., Director, Everett, WA' 8 South Kit~ap School District #402 Superintendent, Port Orchard, WA 9 Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Albuquerque, NM i0 Seyler, Warren, Spokane Tribe, Wellpirtit, WA 11 Whitener, A~-tdy, Squaxin Island Tribe, Shelton, WA 12 Chamberlain, John, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 13 Head, Richard, SRS Tectmolo~es, .krlirtgton, VA la Shiptey, Priscilla, Stillaguamish Tribe, Arlington, WA 15 Meyers, Phyllis, Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA 16 Surfriders Foundation, Carlsbad, CA 17 Loomis, Lorraine, Swinomish, Upper Ska~t, & Sauk-Suiattle Treate Drainage Area, Swonomish 18 Tribe, LaCormer, WA 19 The California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter, San Diego, CA 20 Copeland, Joe, T'ae Herald, Everett, WA 21 Haley, Jim, The Herald, Everett, WA 22 Joknson, L., The Johnson Partnership, Seattle, WA 2_3 The Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, CA 24 Jar&i'tow, Ca_roi, The Peace Resource Center of San Diego, San Diego, 25 Pritchett, Lloyd, The Sun, Bremerton, WA 26 Simons, William, The Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA 27 Williams, Terry, The Tulalip Tribes, Marys¥ille, WA 28 Berry, Alex.is, Tribal Admin.kstrator, The Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, WA 29 Tulalip Tribes, Board of Directors, Marysvi.ne, WA 30 Tuna Boat Owners Co-op Inc., Honolulu, HI 31 Skekell, Margaret, Ult:rasystems Environmental, Izvtrte, CA 32 Maloney, Doreen, Upper Ska~t Tribe, Sedro Woolley, WA 33 Phuoc, VLrgtrda Mason Medical Library, Seattle, WA Washington Envizonmental Council, Seattle, WA 34 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List 11-11 Volume I CIZN Homeporting EtS 1 Menimck, Jerry, Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, WA 2 Woods, Betty., Chair, Board of Directors, Economic Development Cotmc. tl, Snohomish Cotm~-, 3 Everett, WA -I Hazen, Robin, County Council, Everett, WA 5 Norris, Jerry, Executive Director, Pacific Basin Development Council, Honolulu, t4_I 6 Seattle Cit-v Council, Seattle, WA 7 Simonds, Kitty, Western Pacific Regional F~skery, Management Council, Honolulu, t-II $ Ordsl-d, Acting Chief Planning Officer Plarming Dept., City & County of Honolulu, Honolrdu, HI 9 Sato, Raymond, Manager & Chief Eng4neer, Board of Water Supply City & County of Honolulu, 10 Honolulu, HI 11 Individuals 12 Adriann, Jim, Bremerton, WA 35 Bt421, Jack, San Diego, CA 13 AXken, Carol, Honolulu, HI 36 Brown, Ken, Bremerton, WA 14 Aleck, Nancy, Honolulu, HI 37 Brown, Larry, & Daphne, Coronado, CA 15 Anderson, Tom, Seattle, WA 38 B~dges, Gall, Coronado, CA 16 Arena, Tom, San Diego, CA 39 Bunch, Larry., Coronado, CA 17 .&rena, Tom, San Diego, CA 40 Bu_rt, .Z2len, Bremerton, WA 18 A.rends, Carol, Bremerton, WA 41 Butler, Marvin, Bremerton, WA 19 Arg-us, Roger, Encimtas, CA 42 Butts, Donna, Silverdale, WA 20 Arper, Roland, Port Orchard, WA 43 Cab211, Carol, Coronado, CA 21 Atkinson, Dermis, Marysville, WA '44 Calabro, Edward & Janet, Everett, WA Ballard Fred, Sandra, Honolulu, HI 45 Callahan, Earle, Coronado, CA 22 23 Baratt2, E., Ewa Beach, HI 46 Casady, Derek, La Jolla, CA 24 Baril, Bob, Mu2cilteo, WA 47 Casseday, ~ack, K&rkland, WA 25 Barrett, Lindsay, Coronado, CA 48 Catherwood, Kathryn, Coronado, CA 26 Berk, Harold, Coronado, CA 49 Cent, W., Port Orchard, WA 27 BerthoL Joyce, Coronado, CA 50 Chemey, Dan, Coronado, CA 28 Bet. z, Pamela, Sultan, WA 51 Christen.sen, Bill, Sflverdale, WA 29 Black, J.ngton, Dick, Coronado, CA 52 Cinc~reLli, Kasey, San Diego, CA 30 Bott, Brian, Honolulu, HI 53 Clark, Alan, Coronado, CA 31 BowLing, George, Everett, WA 54 Cohen, Andrew, La Jolla, CA 32 Bradbury, Cyth2a, Coronado, CA 55 Cohen, blark, Coronado, CA 33 Bravo, Jose, San Diego, CA 56 Cobh, Loris, Coronado, CA 34 Breglio, Robert, Coronado, CA 57 Collins, James, Bremerton, WA 11-12 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume I CVN Homeporting EIS i Commerford, Jess, Washington, DC _34 Etchen, Deb, San Diego, CA 2 Con. low, Judy, Silverdale, WA 35 Evans, John, San Diego, CA 3 Copper, Elizabeth, Coronado, CA 36 Evans, Wa,v-ne, Bremerton, WA 4 Corbell, Randall, Port Orchard, WA 37 Ewing, Louis, Coronado, CA 5 Correa, Jr., Freeman, Aieu, HI 38 Faino, R., Bremerton, WA 6 Coy, Gary, Seahurst, WA 39 Far~Jaing, Shem, Monroe, WA 7 Craeger, Mill~e & Gander, Coronado, CA 40 Field, bfari¥-n G. & W.S., Coronado, CA 8 Crawford, Wayne, Coronado, CA 41 Floyd, Ned & Lynne, Coronado, CA 9 Crawley, Donna, Coronado, CA 42 Forbes, Charles, Marysville, WA 10 Cristensen, William, Bremerton, WA 43 Foster, Clifton, Coronado, CA i I CrisHll'i, Joseph, Coronado, CA 4~ Fountain, Dorm, Port Orchard, WA 12 Croft, Ken & John, Coronado, CA 45 Freiboth, David, Seattle, WA 13 Curran, Gloria, Coronado, CA 46 Gal]ijon, Simon, Sflverdale, WA 14 Dana_her, Tom, Bremerton, WA 47 Gange, Dennis, Bremerton, WA 15 Daugherty, Jeanne, Coronado, CA 48 G~zzo, Jean, Coronado, CA 16 Davaw, Cluistopher, Wahiawa, HI 49 Gill, Betsy, Coronado, CA 17 Del Grosso, Pat, Bremerton, WA 50 Giorgio, Lou, Coronado, CA 18 Delaney, James, Everett, WA 51 Gonzales, Dave, Honolulu, HI 19 De]asalaz, Joseph, Coronado, CA 52 Gorder, Gary,, Marysville, WA 20 den Daulk, Donald, Coronado, CA 53 Gosse!in, Julie, Bremerton, WA 21 Devoe, Violet, San Diego, CA 54 Gould, Bill, Pearl City, HI 22 Dittbenner, Richard, Coronado, CA 55 Graf, Therese, Del Mar, CA 23 Dixon, ]ames, Bremerton, WA 56 Grazian, Julie, Coronado, CA 24 Doph, Pegg-y & Bert, Everett, WA 57 Greenawalt, Paul, S/.lverdale, WA 25 Doman, t~., Coronado, CA 58 Guard, Tim, Honolulu, HI 26 Dou.mas, Jennifer, Lemon Grove, CA 59 Hafey, Robert, Coronado, CA 27 Duncan, Edward, Coronado, CA 60 Hames, Ruth, Norman, OK 28 Dvornick, Gene, Everett, WA 61 Hanson, Larry, Everett, WA 29 Dwyer, Craig, Seattle, WA 62 Haptas, Joe, Bremerton, WA 30 Dyer, Louis & Beverly, Coronado, CA 63 Ha~-ey, E. Miles, Coronado, CA 3 l Edling, Shelly, Silverdale, WA 64 Hatcher, Linda, Honolulu, HI -~_ ELLis, ~oe, San Diego, CA 65 PIatheway, Harper, Coronado, CA 33 Emery, Christine, Bremerton, WA 66 Heru-y, Carl, Everett, WA II.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List 11-1.3 Volume ] C1ZN Homeportin~ EI$ i Hill, Hap, Coronado, CA 34 Lau, Patricia, Coronado, CA 2 Hirsch, Leonard & Elaine, Coronado, CA 35 Lauback, Charles, Bremerton, WA 3 Hoffma_n, Russell, Carlsbad, CA 36 Lewis, Valerie, Coronado, CA 4 Hollinger, Para, Coronado, CA 37 Li, Danny, Honolulu, HI 5 Honan, Nancy & Stephen, Coronado, CA 38 Liborio, Kevin, Aiea, HI 6 Homich, Elizabeth, Coronado, CA .39 Linden, Bob, Escondido, CA 7 Homing, Spence, Bremerton, WA 40 Lindsay, R.B., Coronado, CA 8 Hosenpud, .Anita &Irv, San Diego, CA 41 Livingston, Robert, San Diego, CA 9 Hunter, K., Coronado, CA 42 Logsdon, Joyce, Coronado, CA 10 Hunting, Daniel, Coronado, CA 43 Lora_ng, Rod, San Diego, CA 11 Jacobson, Gary, E1 Cajon, CA 44 Lorerczen, Fred, Coronado, CA 12 Jasinger, William, Poulsbo, WA 45 Malama, Kaonohi, Kailua, HI 13 Jensen, Brenda, Everett, WA 46 Malley, C.T., Bremerton, WA 14 Johnson, Judy, Bemidgi, 1VIN 47 Mang!allan, Ed, Ewa Beach, HI 15 Jones, Bob, Silverdale, WA 48 Marsh, Joan_ne, Lakeside, CA 16 Jonietz, Karl, Bremerton, WA 49 Martin, Christopher, San Diego, CA 17 Kaupp, Sandor & Stepharde, Coronado, CA 50 MaP-an, John, Coronado, CA 18 Kawamoto, Cai, Honolulu, HI 51 Martin, Reisha, Coronado, CA 19 Kercheval, R.M., Coronado, CA 52 Mascarenas, David, Everett, WA 20 Kern, Judy, Honolulu, HI 53 Masliyak, Natalie, San Diego, CA 21 Killy, M., Honolulu, HI 54 blattoon, Leslie, Kwawa, HI 22 King, Doug, Bremerton, WA 55 McCarthy, Dixie, Coronado, CA 23 Kirk, Margaret, Bremerton, WA 56 McClam, Pat, Everett, WA 24 Kirkwood, Stephen, Chula Vista, CA 57 McClaran, John, Coronado, CA 25 Klinkert, Jessica, Bremerton, WA 58 McCoy, John, Marysville, WA 26 Knopp, Daniel, Everett, WA 59 McDonough, Ginna, Coronado, CA 27 Kom, Kendall, Ewa Beach, HI 60 McGreal, Randy, Bainbridge Island, WA 28 Krakan, Rob, Ewa Beach, Id/ 61 Mckechrde, J., Coronado, CA 29 Kadet, Paul & Shirley, Coronado, CA 62 Mc_Kinme, Jill, Everett, WA 30 Krischano, Kris, Everett, WA 63 Mc ~Kiman, Dan, San Diego, CA 31 Lardizabal, .42, Honolulu, HI 64 McLaren, Nancy, Everett, WA 32 Larson, Diane, Coronado, CA 65 McSwain, Dorthy, Coronado, CA 33 Larson, Virgirda & Don, Coronado, CA 66 lVleraz, Gregorio, San Diego, CA 11-14 11.0 Public Involvement and lnteragency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume I CVN ttomeporting 1 NLiller, Tom, Coronado., CA 34 Pearce, Darcy, Bremerton,~WA 2 NLitchell, Ann, Coronado, CA 35 Ferez, Em/e, Bremerton, WA 3 M. itc_heL1, Ken, San D/ego, CA 36 Fi/kantow, Bradford & Noema, Everett, WA 4 Moncrief, Pt-ill, Port Orchard, WA 37 Pit-ton, Jim, Holonulu, HI $ Montalbano, Frank & Pa~ric~a, Coronado, CA 38 Player, Shannon, Coronado, CA 6 Montgomery, Carlos, Bremerton, WA 39 Player, Terry, Coronado, CA 7 Moore, Vanessa, La Jolla, CA 40 Fohlod, David, San Diego, CA 8 Moore, Jr., Paul, Lakeside, CA 41 Prager, Albert, Coronado, CA 9 Morr/son, Amy, Bremerton, WA 42 Puffer, E., Bremerton, WA 10 Moses, Dale, Everett, WA 43 Qu/stor£ Bill, Everett, WA 11 Moslfirffer, Carl, Bremerton, WA 44 Radc!iff, Renee, Everett, WA 12 Murphree, Michele, San Diego, CA 45 Rebuffattee, Ann, Coronado, CA 13 Myers, Harold, Coronado, CA 46 Reed, .Mike, C/re. la Vista, CA 14 Myers, Phyllis, Suquamish, WA 47 Reid, Jerry, Bremerton, WA 15 Naple, Tim, Coronado, CA 48 Keilly, Duntxam, Coronado, CA 16 Neptun, Lyle, Spring Valley, CA 49 Re.~-nolds, Jeff, Port Orchard, WA 17 Nickerson, Russell, Bremerton, WA 50 Rickmond, Mike, San D/ego, CA 18 Nies, W., Coronado, CA 51 Ricks, Brian &Doris, Coronado, CA 19 Olson, Warren, Bremerton, WA 52 Riley, Joarm, Coronado, CA 20 Omaye, T., Aiea, Id/ 53 Rnade, Jim, San D/ego, CA 2l ©~Cu~an, David, Seattle, WA 54 Rocke~, Norm, Bremerton, WA 22 Osborne, Art & Pat, Coronado, CA 55 Rodge~, Terry, San Diego, CA 23 Ora, Charles, Honolulu, HI 56 Rough, J.L., Coronado, CA 24 Ovroom, Al, Coronado, CA 57 Rummel, Bruce, Seaffie, WA 25 Owen, Me§art, San Diego, CA 58 Ryan, Barbara, Coronado, CA 26 Ozawa, Debra, Honolulu, HI 59 Rya.n, Erika, San Diego, CA 27 Palmer, R., Honolulu, HI 60 Sayer, George, Coronado, CA 28 Parmalee, 5andra, Bremerton, WA 61 ~Cqheibisch, Al, Coronado, CA 29 Parsons, Alex, San D/ego, CA 62 Sc_hSebert, N., Coronado, CA 30 Paseman, Robert, Coronado, CA 63 Sc_h.rader, Jr., Harry, Coronado, CA 31 Patton, Joseph, Ariington, WA 64 ~c¢,_hulman, A., Honolulu, HI 32 Patton, K., Bremerton, WA 65 Schwartz, Gerald & Eleanor, Coronado, CA 33 Pa~', BLll, Honolulu, HI 66 Seag-ull, E., San Diego, CA 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List Volume 1 C'v-N Homeporting EIS l i Sewall, R., Coronado, CA 30 Tanaiski, Therese, Del Mar, CA 2 Shaffer, Gretchen & Jim, Everett, WA 31 Thompson, Dolores, San Diego, CA 3 5haf£er, Patricia, Coronado, CA 32 Thompson, Kent, C_hula Vista, CA 4 Sharkey, Frank, Poulsbo, WA 33 Thompson, Timothy, Port Orchard, WA 5 5hauers, A/an, Silverdale, WA 34 Tyler, Lois, Honolulu, HI i 6 Sheller, G., Coronado, CA 35 Urage, Edmund, Waipahu, HI 7 Shepherd, ,Mike, Bremerton, WA 36 Uyehara, Richard, Pearl City, HI 8 Sievers, Kirke, Everett WA 37 van den Akker, Myra, Coronado, CA 9 5imon, Barbaza, Coronado, CA 38 Van Dcventer, Jess, National City, CA I0 Sing, Alison, Ly-rmwood, WA 39 Van Fossen, Jerry., Bremetton, WA 11 Singletary, J., Honolulu, HI 40 Van Rooy, Art, Coronado, CA 12 Sissons, Veronica, Chula Vista, CA 41 VanFossen, Jerry, Bremerton, WA 13 Slagle, Brian, Bremerton, WA 42 Vemetti, James, Coronado, CA 14 Sloan, Diane, Bremerton, WA 43 Vidal, Gerald, Pearl City, PU 15 Smith, H. Lagdon, Coronado, CA 44 Vines, Jr., Cruz, Pearl City, HI 16 Smith, N., San Diego, CA ~5 Virg4tlo-Emery, Christine, Bremerton, WA 17 Smith, Raymond, Anacortes, WA 46 Vivian, Laurence, San Pedro, CA 18 South, Steve, Lemon Grove, CA 47 Weaver, Joe, Coronado, CA 19 5pache, Christy, Port Orchard, WA ~8 Weber, Jr., Joe & Margaret Everett, WA 20 Spector, Ira, Coronado, CA 49 We£xel, A., Belmont Shores, CA 21 Sprag-ue, Donnie, Port Orchard, WA 50 Williams, Daryl, Marysville, WA 22 Stephason, Ray, Everett, WA 51 Wfi!j~rns, Lyre-t, Coronado, CA 23 Stihl, John & Cathy, Coronado, CA 52 Wilt~, J., Coronado, CA 24 Strickland, James O. & Sandra, Coronado, 53 WoLff, Monte, Everett, WA 25 CA 54 Yee, Calvin, Honolulu, Id/ 26 Sturgeon, Bill, Coronado, CA 55 Yokota, Clyde, Honolulu, Il/ 27 Sullivan, Dot/, Coronado, CA 56 Zeller, R.G., Coronado, CA 28 Sult,, Jay-ne, Coronado, CA 57 7~rnsen, Dan, Bremerton, WA 29 Swanson, Steve, Bremerton, WA s9 11-16 11.0 Public Involvement and Interagency Coordination, and Distribution List SUQUAMISH TRIBE'S DRAFT MITIGATION MEASURES nU_'3.L Sinc[sh' lnic't ~s irnmense!y impcrmnt to ~c S~ish Td~ ~ from · histor~i ~ c~llal ~it cu~ cff~ on ~al ~r~, ~ ~ imp~t of fiau~ ~ivhim on ~c Inl~ ~ its watch.. Our u~tc g~l is thc r~:ctation and pr~mion ot Sinc~k Inl~'s natural r~o~m. We ~ve ~or~ ou~in~ so~ sugg~6~ and id~ w~ch c~ld ~e cit~ ~ ~i~6~ ~ ~b~t ~nhancemen1 ptojec:s which ~e ~t~ve will ass~ the r~ov~ of S~cla~ [nl~ ~d ~ mtu~l r~o~c~, 4: ~is p~nt w~ comid~ th~ lint to be a ~ ~d are soEciti~ co~enm. Thee proj~ a~ simply i~ at r~is ~int w~ch ~ve not ~d~gone ~y I~h~l or ~ f~ib~i~ a~ysis. ~ obj~tive m in~m ~mc d~ai~c ~ ~is ~uc ~ ~o ~t~ ~te a ~ ofcl~y deg~ pr~L~ which ad&~ ~c n~ds ot Si~l~ir bfi~ e,~d which have the ~up~n ~ ~e vaffous ~ource again, Pi~c review ~ i~, ~akt commonLY, a~ ad~itiom tc ~ l~ m you ~ Ca. E~ii co~e~ m Sc~ Poza~ck~ at scottp~suquamish.nsn.us. W~king Draft l.~t ofMiti~dan / Habi~t E~asnc~l Sure, om ~d Idos f~ S~ciair tnl~ Remove riprap and fill martial at ~e mou~ of~kjack Creek a~ cringe a more pur~: create imeflidal, ea~fine h~bi~ fo~' juv~ie saimomds and shellfish 2. ~ment of the ma~h along ~e n~h shore of~c Go~ ~. A-~I[ cuN~ c~tly connec~ ~s ~h !o ~e G~ m~a. ~is ~h~t ~ ~ imorove0 ~ ~v~g fill ~ aiio~ng a ~re m~al t~I flow ~o t~ ~k q"~ rail line could moved m the oth~ side of the r~d or could be sup~ ~ ~ p~: crmte imen~al m~sh ~b~at acc~sible to j~w~ib o~lmonids 3. Wfig~ C~ m~ ~ncement R~i~e l~ ~t~g culv~ wi~h a bd~e to ~llc~' f~ a ~e ~ 0~ fl~w ~nto lhe ~t~. p~: z~.le ~i~L ~ari~ ~b~t aze~ibte to juv~ile ~tmomds along ~ of Sincl~ Creat~ no,shore ~bitat along ~e north shore of Si~lmr inl~. Th~ ~n ~ acco~lish~ by ~oving rip~p ~d fi~ w~a[ along ~e no~ shore of Sincla~ {n[~ Th~ ~y also r~uite moving ~e raiir~d a~ $R 304. ~lte~ti~ety, deep w~er ~bim~ ~n ~ conv~ tc s~silow wat~f~t ~b~t ~ J~l sl~e for ~s i~i~t 8: t and should ~ comp~ of ~lwia[ suitable f~ ~ s~tt ~ mM t~e spa~&~ rip~ should be a~ve the high wat~ ~E 'l'hh c~Id ~l~ be ~ne in conju~tion w~ 2 a~ 3. pur~: cr~ shallow subtidal and int~i~l ~bimt ~juv~ile ~l~nid~ forage fis~ and shetlfmh which ~ cu~t~ lacki~ along the north ~ of SJ~air ]nl~. 5. ~ ~si~ ~ive !~ ~r s~ ~wing into Shc~ !~ for ~tio~p~ematio~ fl~c~aeL GorsK Rms, ~d ~o~ Ct~ are ~sibdifim. p~r~e: c~te buff~s n~ s~itive salmon 6. Remove old ~om pil~ scan~ ~al~om S~hir tnl~ p~: remo, e eo~mimtion so~ in Sinca~ 7. Sa lside fidelan& al~g Ross poim fi~r p~ion of this im~nsnt forage fish ~swniag ~ which cma ~en be a~ed to ~e e~isting WDFW p~tM ~. ~or elimimte ~e r~ ar~nd Poim ~nd cr~le t p~k at ihis site. p~: prol~ t~ imposer s~smdt spaw~ng ~ ~nd ~e sedJmem 8. Remove a~at~ ~g~ .~ d~ ffc. m t~ b~om of Si~.r I~ (i~glud~g ~unken s~ps). 9. Remove moored shes and their anchor buoys ~om the middle of Sinclair Inl~. FISHERIES DEPARTMENT Area Code (360) 394-5248 Fax 598-4666 THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, Washington 98392 January 4, 2000 Planning Commission City of Bremerton 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 RE: Dred~ng and Pier Construction at the Bremerton Naval Complex Dear Planning Commissioners: The site for the above-reference proposal is within the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Suquamish Tribe. The Tribe reserved the right to fisheries resources within its usual and accustomed area with the Trea~ of Point Elliot-t, and employs professionals to protect them. Although there have been many adverse environmental impacts in Sinclair Inlet, there remain a wealth of natural resources as well as economic and aesthetic amenities associated with the waters of the inlet. The Tribe generally finds that other governments in this region share the Tribe's desire to have a clean, healthy and productive natural environment in which to live and work. The work the Navy proposes entails deepening and increasing over-water coverage for a portion of Sinclair Inlet. The reconstructed Pier D would be 196,500 square feet. The existing Pier D is 69,000 square feet. This would result in an additional 127,500 square feet in area, and does not include coverage of additional vessels. From an ecological perspective, the area near the shore at the shipyard is already too deep and dark. Fish and invertebrate species typically found in aquatic environments near the shore have been affected by the habitat being so altered. Several documents describe this in more detail, including the Sinclair Inlet Existing Conditions Data Compilation, January 13, 1999. The work now proposed would exacerbate these depth and light problems along the City's waterfront. The Navy focuses attention on sediment quality. Contaminated sediments do exist at the site and it would be ecologically beneficial to remove them from the biologically active zone. The Tribe supports removal of contaminated sediments and is participating in the ongoing Superfund cleanup activities at the shipyard and other locations. However, sediment contamination is not the only issue. The City of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) designates the shoreline of the shipyard as Urban Industrial. Below the intertidal area is defined in the SMA as Non- Tidal Puget Sound. Non-Tidal Puget Sound has been designated as shoreline of state- wide significance subject to requirements in Chapter 4 of the SMP. Much of the work proposed would occur within shorelines of state-wide significance. The principles listed in the SiMP for shorelines of statewide significance are consistent with the goals of the Suquamish Tribe. The ecological conditions of Sinclair Inlet need improvement, not further degradation. Where impacts cannot be avoided mitigation, which improves conditions, should be required. The impacts of this proposal include physical as well as chemical alterations. The Tribe has several mitigation ideas that have been provided for the record. Thank you for consideration of these comments. I welcome your questions and comments and can be reached at 360-394-5249. Sincerely, Phyllis Meyers Fisheries Environmental Program Manager Cc: Tribal Council Randy Hatch, Fisheries Director Peter Havens, U.S. Navy Doris Small, WDFW Alice Schisel and Sandra Lange, WDOE Draft Minutes for Approval Planning Commission Meeting Januarx- 4. 2000 I. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Dingfield, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Boyd, Commissioner Griggs and Commissioner Wolfe were present. Quorum certified. II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order bv Chairman Dingfield at 5:35 p.m. III. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Boyd to approve the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Griggs. Agenda approved. W. Public Meeting A_ Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agendal: None. B. Heating: 1. Zoning Ordinance Special Exception (PL99-0089) located at 1916 Taft Avenue. Applicant: Anne Cross Call to the Public (those in support of the application~ - none. Call to the Public (those ~ainst the applicationl - none. Call to the Public (comments of a neutral nature) - none. 2. Shoreline Conditional Use for navigation dredging and Pier D Replacement in Sinclair Inlet (PL99-0086). Applicant: U.S. Navy Public Works Officer Commissioner Dingfield asked if any members of the Planning Commission had any conflict of interest or appearance of fairness on this issue. None were noted. Commissioner Dingfield asked the members of the public in attendance if they felt any members of the Planning Commission had any conflict of interest or appearance of fairness with this issue. None were noted. Planning Commission Meeting January. 4, 2000 - Page I of 12 14o Mr. Holan asked the Commissioners to refer to a desk item that he had provided them just prior to the beginning of the meeting. This is a memorandum dated Januan' 4. 2000 which is an analysis that was not provided in the original staff report dealing with the area below the tidelands. The area is in the natural designation and as a result needs to be reviewed with regards to certain principles and guidelines that are stated in the City's Shoreline Master Program. Also attached to the memo is information that was received from the Suquamish Tribe with regards to some potential habitat enhancement suggestions for Sinclair Inlet. which they believe might be appropriate as part of the mitigation process..Also as a desk item. the Public Works Officer provided a listing of the various agency process coordination and Arm',' Corp permit review process that the Navv has gone through with this project. Mr. Holan also commented that they are incorporating the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which was prepared for the Homeporting analysis, which this project is a result of. Chairman Dingfield pointed out that she noticed Commissioner Griggs' name was shown on the Public Involvement and Inter-Agency.' Coordination Distribution List. He had been in a different position at the time and has since retired from that position. She asked Commissioner Griggs if he felt that he had an~v particular conflict with this project. Commissioner Griggs stated that he did not have any issues with this project. Mr. Holan noted that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to conduct dredging xvithin the area around Pier D to accommodate an aircraft cartier to be homeported in Bremerton. [n addition, there is also a proposal for Pier reconstruction which involves the elimination of Pier 8. and the reconstruction of Pier D. This particular part of the project is allowed through a Substantial Development Permit. However, they have incorporated both for the purposes of review of this Conditional Use Permit. The project is located within the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The shoreline designation is Induslrial. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Heax~,· Industrial. Based on the definitions in the state law, as well as the Cit-,"s Shoreline Master Program, the portion of the project which extends bevond the tidal area is an area that has been identified as an area of statex~Sde significance. This is to review the project in relationship to principles and development guidelines associated with shorelines of statewide significance. The staffhas had an opportumty to review the proposed project, both iv. respect to the pier construction and removal, as ,,,,'ell as the proposed dredg/ng. The',' have reviewed it in terms of applicable policies of' the Shoreline Master Program, as well as the regulations associated for pier construction and dredging. Staffhas found that the project is consistent with the goals, policies and applicable regulations for both dredging and pier construction/removal. With regards to the various principles related to Shorelines of Statewide Significance requirements: 1) to recognize and protect statewide principles over local interests - staff believes that this particular principle, in terms of the associated design guidelines has been met. This particular project is required to receive a number of different permits, including a hydraulics permit from Fish and Wildlife, permits from the Department of Ecology for the clean water act. The Navv has also requested a biological assessment from the National Marine Fisheries Sen, ice because of the potential issue xvith endangered or threatened species. There has been a number of different levels of participation. The NaD' has conducted scoping meetings on the EIS as well. He believes that this particular project has complied with this process. 2) Preservation and natural character of the shoreline - a) to designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to minimize manmade intrusions on the shoreline - the proposed pier is in an industrial area and is a replacement of an existing pier. Pier 8 will be removed. The reason for the pier expansion is to provide sufficient room to service an aircraft carder. Planning Commission Meeting JanuaD' 4, 2000 - Pagc 2 of 12 and anv reduction in the size of the pier would not allow the Navv to accomplish the stated purpose of the project. If there is a reduction in order to mitigate impacts, ~is would not achieve the objectives of the project. The design oft.he pier is an open pile pier, which is consistent with the Citv's shoreline regulations. The Navy has requested a biological assessment to address the EndangerEd Species Act, and is requesting various permits from state and federal agencies. The staff believes that due to the pier's location and through the design or' the pier, as well as other processes, man-made intrusions caused by the project on the shoreline will be minimized. However, in discussing ti'tis matter with a representative of the Suquamish Tribe, the Tribe believes that there are potential mitigation measures (which are attached to the report) that addresses potential impacts to certain species of fish. Mr. Holan said that most of the mitigation measures do not directly relate to the project, but are basically mitigation by providing some other enhancements elsewhere. This is something that the Commission can consider in deliberating on the Conditional Use Permit in terms of considering any- of these off-project enhancements. The Commission needs to keep in mind when reviewing these measures that in terms of' the success of the mitigation measure, not only does it accomplish the stated purpose, but also what's the feasibili~' of the measure to be implemented. Some of these measures ma.',' include lands which are not owned bv the Nw~.'y, so whether the Navv would have the ability to complete those mitigation measures is something that the Commission might want to consider. It is Mr. Holan's understanding that the Tribe independently- has been in discussions of these mitigation measures with the Navv representative. The SMP states to upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development already ex.ists in order to reduce their adverse impacts on the environment and accommodate future growth, rather than allowing high intensi~, uses to extend in low intensi~' use or underdeveloped area. The staff believes the Naw has taken measures to minimize those impacts on the environment. This is an area that has already been modified as a result of past practices with the ability to anchor or to allow for larger ships to be docked at the facilitv in prior years. Because it is a redevelopment of an e.,dsting area it is not pushing development out into a low intensity area or an underdeveloped area. From that standpoint they believe it meets the intent of the guideline. With regards to long-term versus short-term benefits, one of the criteria is to preserve the shoreline for future generations. The proposed pier is within an industrial area and would not have an irreversible detrimental impact on the already disrupted condition of the area. The dredging is making relatively deep water deeper to accommodate the aircraft careers. While the dredging would alter natural conditions, no adverse detrimental impacts have been identified when compared to current conditions, particularly with respect to biological resources. With regards to sediment and control of contaminated sediment - the Na~w' has gone through an extensive process to ensure that requirements of the Clean Water Act are being met. Due to the proposed purpose of the dredging to accommodate an aircraft cartier, the project could not be done through strict adherence of this guideline, thus staff believes that to the extent of the project's objectives, the intent of this guideline is being met. This is not an economic project, it is a project for national defense purposes. This particular project is necessal~.' to implement as part of the homeporting alternative that was selected by the U.S. Navv. The staff believes that through the other permitting processes there are opportunities to mitigate'or reduce impacts. An additional guideline requires that the project actively promotes aesthetic consideration when contemplating new development, redevelopment of existing facilities, or general enhancement of the shoreline area. This is in an existing development area (industrialized area), an area that is being used for militao' purposes. Staff believes that the intent and purposes of this criteria is being met. To protect resources and ecology of the shoreline - the staff believes that through the processes that the Navv is using that the intent of mimmizing those impacts on the resources and ecoloD' are being done to the extent that they can be done in order to carry out the project. Planning Commission Meeting Janua~' 4, 2000 - Page 3 of 12 Increasing public access to publicaily owned areas of shoreline - while this area is in the broadest sense a publically owned area. it is a military facilit-,' where there is limited, it' not any, public access allowed. Stall' believes that this particular pnnciple is not applicable in this instance, as is the case with increasing recreational opportunities for the public. Again. this is a military facility with no public access. Mr. Holan summarized that the stalThas found that the proposed Conditional Use Permit has met the various criteria for approval for the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. They also found that it was consistent and carries forth the stated policies under the State Shoreline Management Act. For those reasons, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Wolfe asked what other permitting processes there were to mitigate any potential impacts. Mr. Holan noted that there is a hydraulics permit by Department ofFish and Wildlife. a Corps permit to address the clean water act impacts, the Department of Ecolo~' also reviews compliance with clean water act compliance, and the Navy. has requested a biological assessment from the Natural Marine Fisheries in order to identify any potential impacts and mitigation measures that can be used to minimize impacts on threatened species. Mr. Peter Havens, Environmental Planner, Engineering Field Activity Northwest, Poulsbo, applicant, works with facili~' development with all the navv bases in this region. He is the designated agent for this permit application. He noted that there is an executive summary of the EIS in the packet the Commissioners and public received. There is a statement of the purpose and need of these projects and it refers to the development of facilities that directly support the homeporting and maintenance berthing of C¥~' aircraft carriers, so this project is in direct support to the continued operations of the Shipyard here in Bremerton. There is no proposed additional homeporting. This is simply to take care of the existing vessels that are currently in Bremerton. The alternative that the Navv has chosen would be Alternative II in that document. The Na~x.' is an applicant for the Shoreline Management Act because ofr, vo laws. The first that they are required to comply with is the Coastal Zone Management Act. That law requires federal facilities to be consistent to the maximum extent practical with the approved Coastal Management Plan of coastal states that are engaged in coastal management activities. In the state of Washington the approved coastal management plan is the municipal and the count',' coastal management programs, or the shoreline management programs, through the Shoreline Management Act. In order for them to be totally compliant with the coastal zone management act. they have to demonstrate how the project is consistent with the Ci .ty's guidelines and standards for shoreline development: but they also must proceed through the procedures of the shoreline management act in those cases where they are not exempt from that process. In this case they have a portion of their project which extends outside of government oxxned property, therefore, they are in the coastal zone and are subject to the procedures the Shoreline Management Act. The approach has been supported bv a court case between the Friends of the Earth and the Army Corps of Engineers several vears ago that resulted from the development of the Everett Naval Base. The result of that court case in effect was that the Naxw was required to work through the Shoreline Management Act process when it went forward with a clean water act permit application. Going forward towards a clean water act permit, which is ultimately granted bv the Army Corps of Engineers. they must step through a series of permit procedures. The Shoreline Management Act is one of the first procedures that they are required to go through. This particular part of their permit procedure will be reviewed by the state Department of EcoloD'. They will make sure that this process is complete before they will approve the clean water act Section 401 water quality certificate for this project. In order for Planning Commission Meeting Januao' 4, 2000 - Page 4 of 12 the Arrnv Corps of Engineers to provide a permit l'or the Navv. the state must approve the water qualits.' aspects through the water qua. lib' certificate. They have been striving to work on public coordination and agency coordination. As this project is located in the Shipyard where there are some identified contaminated sediments, and there is an ongoing program to clean up those sediments, these projects, which are not pan of the clean-up program, have been coordinated with that clean up program. Mr. Havens said that the Navv has asked the coordinating agencies to provide suggestions for improvements to the projects (improve environmental qualits.' and to reduce the impacts of the projects). The Suquamish Tribe has provided a list of mitigation measures that the',' feel are appropriate for this area. Some of these measures are interesting and the,,' are initiating efforts with the Tribe to identifi,' the scope of these mitigation measures and also to identify, the appropriate support within the Navv commumtv for the projects, as well as funding for the projects. This involves a lot of bureaucrats so th~' ha'ye to move a lot of people to get these measures working. Commissioner Adams asked if Mr. Havens knew if there were an.,,- sunken ships in the inlet. Mr. Havens responded that several years ago there had been a report of a ship that had been tied up to a buoy' to the west of the Shipyard, and the next report was that this ship had sunk. There has been no other information to his knowledge about this ship. He suspects that since this is an industrial area and a harbor, this inlet would have several items of interest that are on the bottom. This is something that he is also interested in looking into further. Commissioner Wolfe asked if Mr. Havens could comment further on what biological opinion thev are pursuing in regards to dredging. Mr. Havens stated that the Na,m is currently' engaged in formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This involves the Naxw determining the likelihood of the effect to the species in question and the habitat of that species. Ultimately what would be the effect on the continued existence of that threatened or endangered species. The,,' have prepared an assessment of the likelihood of that effect, which has been provided to the National Marine Fisheries Serx, ice. The Fisheries Sen'ice has responded informalN to the Navv. The Naw has provided some editing to the document and has responded with a final document. The'National Marine Fisheries Sen, ice are in their review process for that assessment. The Navv does not know what the conclusion will be but the,,, are expecting a t'avorable outcome and an agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the scope of this project and the effect on endangered species. Mr. Holan commented that there is a statement contained in the EIS identil}:'ing that if there are any mitigation measures that the National Marine Fisheries Sen'ice identifies that them' will be implemented as mitigation measures for the project. Chairman Dingfield stated that it sounded like this project and the coordination with the other entities involved in the clean up activities in Sinclair Inlet might enhance or speed up some of those clean up acti~,'ities. Mr. Havens said that the people who are working ~,,ith the clean up recognize that a portion of the excavation going towards the navigational dredging actually does remove some of the contaminants. Unfortunately, the navigation dredging is not in those locations where the high levels of contaminants are. The clean up groups are considering other measures for those other areas. When a facilities development project is proposed in a Superfund site, they do not preclude or interrupt the decisions of the Superfund process. This is the reason for integration and coordination v~Sth that group. The Naw's Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 2000 - Page 5 of 12 proposals are consistent with the measures that are being considered for the remediation efforts in the Shipyard area. Chairman Dingfield asked Mr. Havens if he could prox ide information on how the dredged material is transferred to another site. Mr. Havens stated that a portion of the sediments are designated as suitable for in-water disposal by a consortium of federal and state agencies. The remainder or' the material which is not suitable for in- water disposal, must be taken elsexvhere. In this region that would be a sanitar,; landfill. The wa',' this is done is by dredging by clamshell barge and put the material on the barge at the dredge site. The barge is then moved over to the shoreline and transfer the material to a holding site right at the shoreline. The site for this particular project is just to the west of the inactive fleet at the Shipyard. From there the material is loaded on either trucks or rail cars and transport it by way of normal transportation facilities to a nearby sanitao' landfill (Olympic Vie,,,,' Landfill). or a larger landfill such as the ~ Landfill. Call to the Public (those in support of the application) - None. Call to the Public (those against the application) Phyllis Meyers, Environmental Program Manager - Fisheries Department, Suquamish Tribe, stated that she felt the Suquamish Tribe is not opposed to this project, but would like to see it modified with the addition of conditions or mitigation. Of all the permits required for this project, she felt that the shoreline permit, or compliance with the state Shoreline Management Act, is one of the most important. The site for this proposal is within the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Suquamish Tribe. The Tribe reserved the right to fisheries resources within the usual and accustomed fishing area and employs professionals to protect them. There have been many adverse environmental impacts in Sinclair Inlet, there remains a wealth of natural resources, as ',','ell as economic and aesthetic amenities associated with the waters of the Sinclair Inlet. The Tribe generally finds that other governments in this region share the Tribe's desire to have a clean, health'`, and productive natural environmental in which to live and work. The work the Na'o' proposed entails deepening and increasing over-water coverage for a portion of Sinclair Inlet. The reconstruction would result in an additional 127,500 square feet in area. and does not include coverage of additional vessels. From an ecological perspective, the area near the shore at the Shipyard is alreadv too deep and too dark. Fish and invertebrate species .typically found in aquatic environments near the shore have been affected by the habitat being so altered. The work nov~' proposed would exacerbate these depth and light problems along the City's waterfront. She indicated it would affect Chinook salmon to some degree, however, it would be difficult to measure the exact impact. Ms. Me,,ers said that the Na'o,' focuses attention of sediment qualit?.'. Contaminated sediments do exist at the site and it would be ecologically beneficial to remove them from the biologically active zone. The Tribe supports removal of contaminated sediments and is participating in the ongoing Superfund cleanup activities at the Shipyard and other locations. However, sediment contamination is not the only issue. The City of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program designates the shoreline of the Shipyard as Urban Industrial. Below the intertidal area is defined in the SMA as non-tidal Puget Sound. Non-tidal Puget Sound has been designated as shoreline of statewide significance. Much of the work proposed would occur within shorelines of statewide significance. The principles listed in the SMP for shorelines of statewide significance are consistent with the goals of the Suquamish Tribe. The ecological conditions of Sinclair Inlet need improvement, not further degradation. W'nere impacts cannot be avoided, Planning Commission .,Meeting January. 4, 2000 - Page 6 of 12 mitigation, which improves conditions, should be required. The impacts of this proposal include physical, as well as chemical alterations. The Tribe hash several mitigation ideas that have been provided for the record. Commissioner Griggs asked if Ms. Meyers was t'amiliar with the downtown boardwalk pier that had been built approximately eight years ago near the ferry terminal and wondered how it might compare in size to the project being discussed tonight. He had heard that biolo~sts had said that the boardwalk should not be put in because the shadow would chase away the fish. He heard later that the fish loved the shadows. He also asked if one of the mitigation measures which required moving the railroad in SR-304. He felt that was a bit drastic. He can understand cleaning up the water, but he feels moving a railroad and a highw~' is too much. MS. Meyers responded that the type of habitat that is really important that has been impacted the most is the loss of the shallow water area around the perimeter, the inter-tidal habitat (the beaches). Any place that they. could get the beaches back without just filling in the ba.v would be extremely productive ecologically. There is a section of the rail-line goes between a lagoon and the inlet, and it could go along the side of the highway instead of away from the highway around a marsh. There looks like there are places where they could change the alignment and take out a lot of fill. The Tribe would like to see which of those projects might be feasible. This would be one way of getting back a large portion of inter-tidal habitat. Call to the Public (comments of a neutral nature) - None Mr. Holan noted that as a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. this not only has to go through local review, but it also has to be reviewed bv the Department of Ecolo~'. Once the City does take action on it. there is 30 day review period for any further comments. Mr. Havens added that the Shoreline Management Act approval process is one of several items required in order to obtain water qualits' certification bv the State. The Department of Ecolog?' is involved in this in several points to review various approvals. One of those points is the review of the deliberations of the Planning Commission. The hydraulic project approval, which is the State Fish and Wildlife review, is a separate process and is another item that is required for the water quali .ty certification. There are approximately 15-20 items that need to be complied with. Closed to the Public and Open to the Commission for Comments/Recommendations/Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Adams to approve the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for navigation dredging and Pier I) replacement in Sinclair Inlet (PL99-0086) be approved and encourage continued discussions with the Suquamish Tribe toward mitigation and habitat enhancement projects. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boyd. Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote from the Commissioners to approve the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (PL99-0086). Commissioner Adams, yes; Commissioner Boyd, yes; Commissioner Griggs, yes; Commissioner Wolfe, yes; Chairman Dingfield, yes. Motion passes. This hereby adopts Resolution 2000-02 of the City of Bremerton Planning Commission. 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezones (PL99-0011). Lead Agency: City of Bremerton, Depariment of Community Development. Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 2000 - Page 7 of 12 C. Meeting: None. V. Business Meeiing A. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Boyd and seconded by Commissioner Griggs to approve the minutes of the November 16, 1999 meeting. Motion passed. B. Directors Report: C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: Election of Officers - continued to the January 18, 2000 meeting. VI. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Jon Holan. Secretarv Approved by: Joan Dingfield, Chairman Planning Commie, sion Meeting Janua%, 4. 2000 - Page 8 of 12 , BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER 2000-0~ WHEREAS, the U.S. Navy, Public Works Officer filed an application for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to conduct dredging in Sinclair Inlet, demolish Pier 8 and reconstruct Pier D at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Navy issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Home Porting of Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (N-EPA), that EIS addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, said document and analysis substantially complies with the State Environmental Policy Act, and pursuant to Washington Administrative Code Section 197-11-600; and WHEREAS, Notice of Application for the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit were published on November 27, 1999 and December 4, 1999; and WH2EREAS, the public hearing was opened on December 2 I, 1999 but was continued to January 4, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating on January 4, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, the Planning Commission is the final authority for the City to approve, approve with conditions or deny Shoreline Conditional Use Permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bremerton Planning Commission makes the following findings in support of the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (PL 99-0086), U.S. Navy as applicant. 1. The Shoreline Conditional Use Permit pertains to proposed dredging of Sinclair Inlet, demolition of Pier 8 and reconstruction of Pier D at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to accommodate an aircraft career as a result of the alternative selected by the U.S. Navy in the home porting for Nimitz-Class Aircrat~ Carriers for the U.S. Pacific Fleet and that said project is for the purposes of national defense; and 2. Based on the analysis provided in the staff report and memo dated January. 4, 2000 and testimony received at the public heating, the proposed permit is consistent with and promotes the applicable goals and policies of the City of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), complies with applicable regulations of the SMP and promotes the applicable policies of the State of Washington's Shoreline Management Act as expressed in RCW 90.58.020; provided that the U.S. Navy continue discussions with the Suquamish Tribe concerning the implementation of mitigation and habitat enhancement projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Bremerton Planning Commission does hereby approve the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (PL99-0086) for the U.S. APPROVED: ATTEST: X5'" ~Iofan, Secretary CITY OF BREMERTON NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN Applicant: U.S. Navy, Public Works Officer 1400 Farragut Avenue Bremerton, WA 98314 Location: Sinclair Inlet - PSNS Proposal: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for Sinclair Inlet navigational dredging and pier demolition and replacement. File#: PL99-0086 Please direct any questions, comments, or requests for additional information to the Bremerton Department of Community Development, 286 Fourth Street, or phone (360) 478-5275. Date of Notice: January 10, 2000 Action Taken By: Bremerton Planning Commission Action Taken: APPROVAL Deadline for Comment: January 24, 2000 ~i/i~/2eee i4:'~7 ~6e47~27~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN PAGE PE~IT CENTER BREMERTON ~ ~ou~ St~ ~n~ wA 98331 BUILDING DEPARTME~ Request for Review of Decision of Director, Planning Commission or to Appeal a Cease & Desist Order Reference: Zoning Code Section 21.02.935 & 22.02.945 (Your name) (Your mailing address) (Telephone Number) LFbq el _ cog ~ Please pray/de a concise statement of the specific finding(s) or conclusion(s) to be rvvicwcd, together w/th tutorial facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional paper if necessary. Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why thc decisionYa~,'on shoul{be ;'~; ~ c.,.~ ? z z reversed, modified or remanded. Use additional pages if necessary 5%.~ ~,., ¢-~r~ ]~ ~ -~,~, ,x % ~ ' ApPellants Signature Fee: Review to City Council - $170.00 Review to Planning Commission - $120.00 (Only applicable to a Cease & Desist Order Appeal) Reviews will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council hearing date mailed to your address given above. The City, Council decision is the final legislative decision. Last printed 12/01/99 2:22 PMC:XaMy DocumentskForms~ApplicationskRequest for Review of Decision of Director.doc Fit .RIES DEPARTMENT Area Code (360) 394-5248 ~ ~ Fax 598-4666 THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, Washington 98392 January 18, 2000 Planning Commission City of Bremerton 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 RE: Shoreline Permit for Dredging and Pier Construction at the Bremerton Naval Complex Dear Planning Commissioners: The Suquamish Tribe requests the Planning Commission review the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed dredging and pier reconstruction at the Bremerton Naval Complex. Goals of the Shoreline Master Program The proposed projects would not achieve the Goals of the Shoreline Master Program (S1V[P) provided in Chapter Two, particularly the Conservation Goal. Environmental impacts of the proposals have not been adequately identified or carefully evaluated as part of this review. Shorelines of State-wide Significance Most of the work proposed would take place in areas defined as shorelines of state-wide significance. The proposals do not achieve the principles for shorelines of state-wide significance found on pages 4-18 through 4-20 of the SMP. Many of the development guidelines for shorelines of state-wide significance were not followed for this proposal. T'h~es~ns-'wer_~n~~f th-e r~-ec~-decigi-on_ufl'dl-the~a~ of the · Prior to making a decision on the Conditional Use Permit, it was not circulated to adjacent jurisdictions for comments or opinions. · Various agency policies regarding mitigation were not taken into account in administering use regulations for the proposed actions. · Little or no input from individuals with expertise, as specified in the SMP, was sought. · Upgrading or redeveloping areas to reduce adverse environmental impacts was not seriously considered, even though opportunities for mitigation may be available. Conditional Use Permit The proposals do not meet the criteria for authorizing Conditional Uses. The criteria, "The proposed used will cause no unreasonable adverse affects to the shoreline environment" specified on page 7-3 of the SNIP has not been met. Furthermore, the Planning Commission erred in concluding that the "public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect" if the project were to proceed as proposed. In conclusion, the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed dredging and pier reconstruction at the Bremerton Naval Complex does not meet the requirements of the City of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program and thus, is not consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. Sincerely, Phyllis Meyers Fisheries Environmental Program Manager Cc: Tribal Council Scott Wheat, Tribal Attorney Iq&- - FEB ~ & 2U~0 BRE~ERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT 4, BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL BREM ERTON, WASHINGTON 6 SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ) ) ? Petitioner, ) ) No. PL00-000$ ~ vs. ) 9 ) SUQUAMISH TRIBE'S BREMERTON PLANNIN(5' ) OPENING BRIEF 10 COMMISSION, ) ) 11 Respondent. ) 3.2 ') 13 INTRODUCTION 14 For the reasons set forth specifically herein, Petitioner, the Suquamish Indian Tribe 15 ("Tribe") requests that the Bremerton City Council ("City Council") reverse the Bremerton 3.6 Planning Cornmission's approval of Shoreline Conditional Use Permit number PL 99-0086 3.9' 18 ("CUP"). because such approval violates the City's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") and 3.9 the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA"). 20 2:1. PROCEDURAL POSTURE On January 4, 2000 the Brernerton Planning Commission approved the CUP at issue, ,?,4 which authorizes the Navy to engage in substantial development activity in Sinclair h-ret - a shoreline ofstatewide significance under the Washington Shoreline Management Act. RCW TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - I Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 I q 3 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 90.58 et seq. The Tribe timely appealed this decision to the City Council. The Tribe has '1 recently been n'otified that this appeal is set for a "closed record" hearing, and now submits this memorandum of points and authorities for consideration by the City Council prior to rendering its decision. 4 6 ISSUES PRESENTED 7 A. Whether the CUP Violates the Notice Requirements of the SMP and SMA2 1. Are SMA Notice Requirements Satisfied When a Notice of Application Fails 9 to Disclose O..ther Permits which Must be Obtained for the Project? 10 2. Are SMA Notice Requirements Satisfied when "A~encies with Jurisdiction" are Not Provided a Copy of the Notice of Application? 12, 3. Are SMP Notice Requirements Satisfied when Adjacent Jurisdictiofis, Statewide Interests Groups. and A~encies with Expertise are not Provided a 13 Copy of the Notice of Application? 14 1.5 B. Whether the CUP violates the Goals o£the SMP. 16 C. Whether the CUP meets the standards for Shorelines of Statewide Significance. D. Whether the CUP violates the Conditional Use Permit requirements. 1.9 20 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ~1 The CUP would authorize the Navy to engage in a substantial dredging and pier 2,2, reconstruction project within Shorelines of Statexvide Significance without any binding requirement to protect natural resources or mitigate the significant environmental and 2,4 economic impacts associated with the project. Instead, the sole "condition" attached to the 2,5 2,6 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 2 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE I q 4 P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 CUP is that the Navy continue engaging in "discussions" with the Tribe "concerning '1 implementation of mitigation and habitat enhancement projects." Nothing within the Authorizing Resolution requires the Navy to actually implement mitigation and habitat enhancement projects. See Bremerton Planning Commission Resolution Number 2000-02 § ("Resolution"). Finally, assuming, for the sake of argument that the Navy will voluntarily 6 agree to implement unspecified mitigation and enhancement projects at some undetermined 7 point in the future, applicable state and local law simply does not allow such an ';approve noxv plan later" approach to protecting Shorelines of Statewide Significance. 9 Additionally, the Cit-~,'s attempt to provide notice of the CUP application fell far short 10 of minimum notice requirements imposed by the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA"). RCW 90.58 et seq. The public was not notified of other pern'fits required of the project, 13 despite the fact that City staff were fully aware of such additional pern-fit requirements. Nor 14 did the City send copies of the Notice of Application to other "agencies with jurisdiction" as 21.5 required by the Shoreline Management Act. Finally, the City failed to send copies of the '16 Notice of Application to adjacent jurisdictions, citi7en's advisory committees, local officials, 1'7 18 and state-wide interest groups as required by the City's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"). ].9 ARGUMENT 20 A. The CUP was Approved in Violation of l~linimum Notice Requirements of the ~.1 SMA and SSIP. The "Notice of Application" prepared by the City was not sent to all required parties ~4 nor did it contain the minimum information required by the SMA and the SMP. For these reasons alone, the Planning Comnfission's approval of the CUP should be reversed. 26 TRIBI?S OPENING BRIEF- 3 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE II q ~ P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-331 I Fax (360) 5984293 1. The Notice of Application Violates SMA Public Notice Requirements Because it Failed to Disclose Other Permits which are Required for the :1. Proiect. When a local government receives an application for a permit to engage in substantial development within a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, it must provide notice to the 4 15 public. RCW 90.58.140; WAC 173-27-110. Minimum requirements of such notice include 6 "It]he identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by ? the local government." WAC 173-27-110(2)(c). In this case, City officials were fully aware that several additional permits are required 9 for the project, yet did not i~clude this information within the Notice of Application. For 1.0 ~nstance, City Officials acknoxvledged before the Planning Commission that "[t]his particular 1.29, 'ect is required to receive a number of different permits, including a lnydraulics permits 1.:3 from Fish and Wildlife. permits from the Department of Ecology for tile clean water act [Sic]. :1.4 The Navy has also requested a biological assessment frorn the National Marine Fisheries 1.,5 Service because of tile potential issue xvith threatened or endangered species." Draft Minutes, 1.6 Planning Commission Meeting, January 4, 2000, p. 2. Additionally, City Officials were 18 aware'tlnat the Am~y Corps of Engineers must also issue a Clean Water Act Permit for the project. Draft Minutes, Planning Commission Meeting, January 4, 2000, p. 4. See also ~0 Depm-tment of Community Development Planning Staff Report Regarding Shoreline Conditional Use Pen¥fit for U.S. Navy (File #: PL99-0086), p. 2 (acknowledging that a Joint Aquatic Resources Pen-nit, a Coastal Consistency Determination and a Dredge Management ;~4 Plan are required lbr the project); Id. at 8 (acknoxvledging that the U.S. Amqy, Corps of Engineers must issue a Hydraulic Project Approval and Clean Water Act 404 Permit for the ~6 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 4 Office of the Tribal Attorney TIlE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 i ~ ~ Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-33 i 1 Fax (360) 598-4293 project). Yet this infon'nation was not included in the Notice of Application. See Notice of 1_ Application and Planning Commission Public Hearing; Newspaper Article 3310 Legal Notice of Application and Planning Commission Meeting. Failure to meet this important requirement deprives the public of vital information in connection with the CUP application. The CUP approval should be reversed for this reason alone. ? 2. SMA Notice Requirements xvere not Satisfied Because "A~encies with Jurisdiction" were not Sent a Copy of the Notice of Application. ' 8 9 The SMA requires t.hat "agencies with jurisdiction" be served a Notice of Application 1.0 for a "shoreline management substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit." WAC 173-27-110(1). In determining which agencies constitute "agencies with jurisdiction," reference is made to the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). WAC 173-27-110(6). 13 SEPA regulations define an "agency with jurisdiction" as follows: '15 "Agency with jurisdiction" means an agency with authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part ora nonexempt proposal (or part of a proposal). The term does '16 not include an agency authorized to adopt rules or standards of general applicability that could apply to a proposal, xvhen no license or approval is required from the 17 agency for the specific proposal .... Federal agencies with jurisdiction are those from 18 which a license or funding is sought or required. 19 WAC: 191-11-714(3). :20 For purposes of the project at issue, "agencies with jurisdiction" include: The Washington Department offish and Wildlife (Joint Aquatic Resources Permitting Authority); The Washington State Department of Ecology (approval of CUP required); The 23 1~4 Arm.-,, Corps of Engineers (Coastal Consistency Determination) (Clean Water Act 404 25 Permitting Authority) (Dredge Management Plan), and; The National Marine Fisheries TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 5 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE i q 7 P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 5984293 Service (Authority which determines compliance with the Endangered Species Act). Remarkably, however, none of these agencies are listed on the mailing list accompanying the Notice of Application. Moreover, the "e-lnail'' con'espondence in the record mentions agencies and local governmental bodies which .the Navy "recommended" be sent copies of 4 :he Notice of Application - yet none of the above-mentioned "agencies with jurisdiction" are included on this list.} The January 4, 2000 staff memorandum to the Planning Commission makes much of 8 the fact that numerous agencies, local jurisdictions, and individuals were afforded the 9 opportunity to review and c~mment on the Environmental Impact Statement issued in 1. O connection with the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. January 4, 2000 Memorandum to the Planning Comnfission, p. 1. Yet, nowhere in this encyclopedic 13 EIS is the requirement ora SMA CUP even mentioned. Even if the SMA CUP requirement 14 was mentioned in the ElS. the underlying purpose of SMA notice requirements would not ~5 have been met. Clearly, the purpose behind requiring a Notice of Application to be served '16 upon agencies with jurisdiction is to provide such agencies with notice of the hearing date 1'7 '18 and deadline for submission of comments, thus providing an opportunity for agency '19 comments to be considered prior to making a decision on the application. Nothing in the 20 ElS can be considered to have met the spirit behind this important requirement, as no relevant deadlines xvere disclosed. Accordingly, the Planning Commission's approval of the CUP should be reversed. ,~4 a5 ~Whilc the Tribe is included on this list. the Tribe did not receive a copy of the "Notice of Application." a6 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 6 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE I q ~ P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 3. SMP Notice Requirements were not satisfied because Adjacent Jurisdictions, Statewide Interests Groups and Agencies with Expertise were not Provided a J- Notice of Application. :,'5 The SMP directs the City to "[s]olicit comments and opinions from groups and 4, individuals representing state-wide interests by circulating.., requests for substantial development permits on shorelines of state-wide significance to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen' advisory committees, local officials and state-wide interest groups." SMP. p. 4-18. Aside fi'om the flawed assumption that circulation of the ElS somehow met ' O the requirement that such organizations receive "requests for substantial development 10 permits," nowhere does the record demonstrate compliance with this requirement. As previously discussed, the EIS does not provide such organizations with a copy of the CUP application, it does not provide for notification of the hearing date, and it does not provide the deadline for submission of comments. Without notification of these specific 1.5 dates, the above-mentioned organizations, agencies, and individuals were deprived an ].6 opportunity to comment on the project, and the Planning Commission was unable to reap the ].? benefits of their expertise. Accordingly, this important SMP requirement was not satisfied and the decision at issue should be reversed. '19 20 2'1 B. The CUP violates Several SMP Goals. 22 Consistent with the SMA, the SMP contains several substantive goals which must be met prior to approval ora shoreline development permit. These goals are designed to protect 24 the sanctity of the shoreline environment, to foster public access to shorelines, and to maintain and enhance industries which are dependant upon accessible, environmentally- TRIBE'S OPENING BR1EF- 7 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMIS. TRIBE t ~ q P.O. Box498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 5984293 healthy shorelines. As specifically set forth below, the CUP is hopelessly in conflict with 'l several of these goals. 1. Plan and foster all reasonable and appropriate uses xvhile protecting and enhancing; the quality of the shoreline of Bremerton. The CUP, as approved, simply ignores the unavoidable impacts of the project on 5 fishing. First, the project promises to further degrade fish habitat in Sinclair Inlet. Second, ? the project, particularly during the construction phase, will greatly reduce fishing opportunities. The Tribe and its members have a significant stake in maintaining and enhancing 1.0 fishing opportunities in Sinclair Inlet. Without conceding jurisdiction, waiving sovereign lg immuni~, submitting federally reserved rights to detemfination, subordinating appellant's 13 rights to rights arising under State laxv, or otherwise compron-fising the procedural and ].4 substantive rights of the appellant and the United states, the Tribe has significant federally :1.5 reserved proprietary imerests within Sinclair Inlet and its tributaries, including, but not 16 limited to, fishing rights. United States v. State of\Vashin~ton, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (1049) 1.8 (W.D. \Vash. 1978) (reserved fishing right including the exclusive treaty right to harvest one 1.9 half of the harvestable sah'non running through Sinclair Inlet and its tributaries) 20 The Suquamish Tribe continues to exercise its treaty right to fish in this area, typically from mid-July to mid-September. This is ack~mwledged on page 16 of the Biological Assessment and 4.17-2 of the final ElS. Tribal fisherman currently suffer lost fishing opportunities due to go, vessel traffic conflicts during fishing seasons in Sinclair Inlet. The project will only exacerbate ti'tis problem. TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 8 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 c~ 00 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-33 ! 1 Fax (360) 598-4293 Dredging operations are proposed to begin June 15, 2000 and, according to page 8 of the 'l JAP.PA form, the estimated project duration is 30 months. Tribal access to this treaty- reserved resource will thus be restricted either by equipment, operations, or Naval vessels, during and after dredging and construction. The Navy cun'ently has two large vessels moored in the central portion of Sinclair Inlet which inhibit fishing. Mooring additional ships in 6 Sinclair Inlet will further inhibit access to this important fishery. In addition, the revised 7 bottom contour of Sinclair inlet is likely to increase the difficulty of treaty fishing after 8 dredging. Throughout the record, ~ity officials opine that since the Navy maintains a "restrictive 10 zone" ~vithin Sinclair Inlet, issues of public access do not arise. These officials fail to point 1,2 out, however, that the proposed turning areas are beyond this restrictive zone. Thus, public (including tribal) access will be diminished, both during and after the construction phase. 14 Finally, as set Ibrth specifically beloxv, the habitat wi'rich sustains these fisheries resources 15 will be adversely affected. The project xvill contribute to the cun-mlative degradation of aquatic habitat that has occurred throughout the history, of the BNC. The incremental 17 18 deepcning and filling that has occurred over the past 100 years has resulted in the current :1.9 situation which is an almost total loss of shallow water habitat along the north shore of 20 Sinclair Inlet. // // 24 // TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 9 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE ,.,--'1 ?.o. 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598.-4293 2. Circulation Goal: Provide and efficient circulation system for the shoreline area which is adequate for marine and land traffic without detractine from 1. shoreline amenities. As set forth immediately above, the "circulation system" within Sinclair Inlet will sustain substantial loss as a result of the project - particularly during the construction phase. 5 Yet. no conditions are attached to the CUP to mitigate this loss. 6 3. Recreation Goal: Protect and improve recreational opportUnities consistent ' lB with COl-nmunity needs throut~h the development of publicly owned shorelines. {~ _. 1.0 The Suquamish Tribe, in conjunction with the City of Bremerton and other agencies, 1'1 developed a facility in Gorst Creek that greatly increases the number of salmon returning to Sinclair Inlet. The Tribe is only entitled to half the harvestable return. The remaining portion 13 of the hmwestable return supports a sport fishery. This is a significant local recreational 14 1.5 oppo~-tunity. This sport fishery xvill suffer equal loss as the Tribal fishery, as set forth above. ].6 1."/ 4. Conservation Goal: Preserve shoreline natural systems and areas havin~ 1.8 unique aesthetic or environmental qualities. 1.9 Sinclair Inlet is the only location in Kitsap County xvith a chinook population large 20 21 enough to support commercial harvest. The smwival of juvenile salmon during their outward 22 migration is necessary for returning adult populations. A critical component of sufficient survival rates for juvenile salmon is a healthy shallow water habitat. (See section 5 of the Biological Assessment, starting on page 21.). TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 10 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMIS. TRIBE ~[ 0 gl- P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 The substantial dredging that has ah'eady occurred in Sinclair Inlet has resulted in a substantial loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging an additional 425,000 cubic yards of sediment will ob~'iously contribute to the cumulatix~e loss ofnearshore habitat. Accordingly, this project cries out for attachment of conditions which will mitigate this damage, such as 4, restoration projects. § 6 5. Historical/Cultural Goal: To protect, preserve and restore shoreline areas identified as havitm historical, cultural, or educational value. 8 Based on archaeological records and historical accounts, the presence of other 9 archaeological sites at subticJhl locations in Puget Sound, and the geolologic record, cultural 1. O resources may very well be located within the project area and promise to be disturbed by dredging and construction activities. For instance, a significant archaeological site was found 13 at a subtidal location at West Point, a few miles from the project area.: Archaeological 14 resources are non-renewable and have, over time, been severely adversely impacted.. 15 Tellingly, the authors of the EIS acknowledge that cultural resources rnight have been 16 destroyed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on page 4.13-1 of the final ElS. 1'7 18 It is ve~7 important to the Suquamish Tribe that care be taken to avoid further adverse '19 impacts. Knowledge of imnaeasm'able value could potentially be lost if an archaeological site 20 were destroyed as a result of this project. Preventive measures can and should be taken, including a cultural resources survey by a professional archaeologist xvith local knowledge and experience. 2 Larson, L.L. and Dennis E. Lewarch. 1995. The Archaeolotzv of\Vest Point. Seattle, Washington. 4000 ~5 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gafi~erer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound, Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Gig Harbor, \VA. TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- l 1 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 ~'o~ O 3 Suquarnish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 The Navy's response to the Tribe's comments regarding this issue in the EIS was '1 unsatisfactory. The Navy seems unaware of the threat posed by the project to cultural resources that may be present within Sinclair Inlet. Furthermore, the fact that the Navy may have placed fill on top of cultural resources on former tidelands does not mean that those cultural resources xvere necessarily destroyed. The Tribe seeks the meaningful participation 5 of a qualified archaeologist as part of this proposal, and this has yet to be accomplished. 8 C. The CUP fails to meet the SMP and SMA protective standards applicable to 9 Shorelines of Statewj.de Sienificance 10 According to the SMP (pps. 4-18) "The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 1.,2 designated certain shoreline areas as shorelines of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus '1:5 designated are important to the entire state. Because these shorelines are major resources 1.4 from which all people in the state derive benefit, this Master Program gives preference to '15 uses which favor public and long-range goals. In the City of Bremerton, Puget Sound, '16 exclusive of tidelands, is a shoreline of statewide significance. Accordingly, this Master 18 Program shall give preference to uses which meet the principles outlined below in order of .19 preference. Guidelines roi' implementation lbllow each principle." As set forth below, the CUP violates several of these principles. 1. Statewide over Local Interest ,24 Recognizing statexvide interest over local interest and the related requirement to seek I~5 expert advice in administering the SMP is identified as a priority for protecting Shorelines of 26 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 12 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE . P.O. Box 498 0 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-331 i Fax (360) 598-4293 Statewide Significance. Having failed to properly notify appropriate agencies of the CUP 1, application, the City clearly did not accomplish this. The City did not "recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs and recomnqendations in developing and administering use regulations," as specified in the SMP. Instead, City officials determined, 4, "other agency's programs and policies will be addressed through other peru:its," as indicated 5 6 in the report dated January 4, 2000. ? In approving the CUP, the City did not accept the responsibility for protecting statewide interest for shorelines of statewide significance and instead abdicated these impo~'tant responsibilities to'~)ther permitting agencies. Yet'nowhere does the SMP or SMA 10 authorize such an abdication of SMA responsibilities. Instead, the SMA establishes a permit system with the primary responsibility for its administration upon local government. See Batchelder ¥. City of Seattle. 77 Wn. App. 154 (1995), reconsideration denied, review 1.4 de, led, 127 Wn.2d. 1022. 1.5 '16 2. Preservin~ Natural Character 18 The City made no attempt with this proposal to preserve the Natural Character of the '19 Shoreline, and has adopted the position that "since the location is an existing industrial area, 20 issues associated with groxvth and loxv intensity areas is not an issue." See Staff Report; January 4, 2000 Memorandum to Planning Con:mission. However, an industrial zoning ~3 designation does not render the subject area a "dead zone" for fish. Instead, the project area I~4 is a documented migration zone roi' several species of salmon, including chinook recently 25 listed under the ESA. Various species of rockfish, flatfish, shellfish, baitfish, benthic 26 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 13 Office of the Tribal Attorney 'm~. SUQU^M~SI~ 'rva~ ~'3"x o"- P.O. Box 49~ Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 organisms and generally, a whole ecosystem live in the project area. (See pages 9 through 14 'l of thc Biological Assessment, August 1999.) The presence of these fish, and the important migration area that the project area intersects mandates that protective measures be taken. 4, 3. Long term over Short term Benefit 5 6 The Navy proposes, as part of this project, to dispose of the contaminated sediments ? within Sinclair Inlet. Rather than the upland disposal described in the application, the Navy 8 proposes, for cost saving reasons, a confined aquatic disposal system ("CAD"). CAD is a new, relatively untested, dii'posal method and the long term effects have not yet been 10 determined. The Navy admits that confined'aquatic disposal is relatively untested on page 1:1. 1.111O.13 in the fifth paragraph of the final ElS Volumes 8-10. The various staff reports flatly 113 neglect to articulate, much less address, these concerns. 14 4. Protect the Resources and Ecolozv of the Shoreline 116 Some of the subtidal lands in Sinclair Inlet the Navy proposes to dredge are 18 undeveloped. The aquatic portion of the project area supports chinook sah-non, which have 19 been listed as threatened species according to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. 20 For this reason, the Navy prepared a Biological Assessment for the proposal) The presence 2'1 of juvenile salmon (chinook and other species) in the project area is documented in this I~3 Biological Assessment on pages 22 and 23. The proposed activity would increase existing ~4 '~ SAIC, 1999, Final Biological Assessment, Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carriers Homeportin~ and Maintenance Berth lmprovemeuts. Bremerton Naval Complex. Bremerlon Washineton, SAIC, Bothell, WA ~6 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 14 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE o~ o (o v.o. so~ 498 . Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 ecological problems associated xvith depth and light for an area so near shore. From an '1 ecological perspective, the area near the shore at the shipyard is already too deep and dark. Fish and invertebrate species, documented to be present in the Biological Assessment, are typically affected by the habitat being so altered. The work now proposed would exacerbate these depth and light problems along the City's waterfront. 5 6 The Navy proposes demolition of Pier 8 as mitigation for impacts associated with the "/ proposal, but does not explain how the resulting benefits will provide adequate mitigation for 8 the project. In fact, redevelopment of Pier D completely overshadows any unstated benefits derived from the Pier 8 dern-$1ition, due to a dramatic net increase in over water coverage. See CUP Application; EIS. 1,9, The Navy correctly notes the improvement to sediment quality that will occur from 13 the p~-oject, focuses attention on sediment quality. Contaminated sediments do exist at the 1.4 site and it would be ecologically beneficial to remove them fi-om the biologically active zone. 15 The Tribe supports removal of contaminated sediments and is participating in the ongoing 2.6 Superfund cleanup activities at the shipyard and other locations. However, as discussed 1.5' 18 above, sediment contamination is not the only issue. 19 Importantly, the Tribe, in filing this appeal, is not seeking to simply play the role ora 20 "backseat quarterback" to this project. Instead, the Tribe has several mitigation ideas for improving habitat conditions for juvenile salmon in Sinclair Inlet near the project site. Tribal I?.2 members and staff agree that some of these alternative mitigation ideas would provide greater i~4 environmental value, especially for salmon. The Tribe does not propose the Navy leave the ,9..5 aquatic zone within the Bremerton Naval Complex undeveloped. Hoxvever, there are ways to ~6 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 15 Office of the Tribal Attorney TH~ SUQU^M~S~I Tm~E ~. 0'7 P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 protect the resources and ecology of the area in such a way that this SMP principle in the '1 could be achieved. The Tribe wishes to see compliance with the SMP and SMA, with the resuhant protection of the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 5. lncrease Public Access to Publicly Owned Shorelines 5 6 Even though the project area is within the usual and accustomed fishing area of the ? Suquamish Tribe, the Tribe is not allowed access to part of the project area and, as set forth above, access to the remaining project area xvould be severely constrained during dredging and disposal operations. 10 1~, D. Whether the CUP violates the Conditional Use Permit requirements. 13 Conditional uses may only be authorized if the proposed use is consistent with the SMA 14 and the policies of the SMP. The Tribe has demonstrated that the proposal is not consistent ~5 with the policies of the SMP regarding shorelines of statewide significance. In addition, the 16 the pl'oposed disposal of contaminated sediments to be inconsistent with the SMA. 18 The Navy proposes to construct and use "confined aquatic disposal" (CAD) for 19 contaminated sediments, in addition to dredging and pier construction activities. Most of the 20 sediments that xvould be placed in the CAD would be from military construction, not Superflmd cleam]p. Of the 425,000 cubic yards of sediment to be dredged, only approximately 30,000 are suitable roi' open-xvater disposal, according to documentation for the permit. An estimated 130,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of sediment must be cleaned up for Superfund. The CAD must be large enough roi' not only the contaminated sediments 26 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 16 Office oft.he Tribal Attorney T.~ SU(~U^MIS. Tm~e & 0 8 P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 associated with the Superfund cleanup, but also for the contaminated sediments associated 1 with the military construction project. Therefore, the CAD facility is for the military construction project, as well as for Superfund cleanup, and subject to the regulatory requirements of the SMA. The CAD facility is inconsistent with the regulations on page 6-25 4, of the SMP. 6 hnportantly, the CAD is not within the scope of the CUP. The CAD requires '/ additional dredging, transport and disposal of clean sediments in Elliott Bay, filling with 8 contaminated sediments, and capping. Construction of the CAD is not described in the application, its affects on th~' environrnent are not asSessed, and its impacts are not mitigated 10 as part of the CUP. Additionally, the Tribe is concerned about turbidity associated with all 11 sediment dredging, transport and disposal, in-water. Water quality impacts could be 13 significantly increased as a result of the proposed in-xvater disposal activities. 14 Conditional uses may only be authorized if the proposed use will not interfere with ].5 the normal public use of' public shorelines. ,As set forth above, however, the project will 16 interfere with treaty fishing activity. Dredging is proposed for June 15, 2000 to February 15, 18 2001. around the clock, and xvill impede navigation with the presence of extensive '19 equipment. The Tribe is concerned about the effect of dredging and in-water construction on 20 treaty-reserved fishing rights in Sinclair Inlet. The Tribe conducts a chinook salmon fishery from mid-July to mid-September in Sinclair Inlet. Tribal fishers typically place fishing gear in close proximity to the Bremerton Naval Complex because this is where the fish g4 congregate. The Tribe is concerned that Tribal access to this treaty-reserved resource will be 25 restricted either by equipment, operations, or Naval vessels, during and after dredging and ~6 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - I7 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE :2 0 q r.o. ~o~ 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 5984293 construction. The Navy cun-ently has two large vessels moored in the central portion of I, Sinclair Inlet which inhibit fishing. Mooring additional ships in Sinclair Inlet will further inhibit access to this important fishery. The Tribe is also concerned about interference with the migration patterns of returning adult fish. Text in the third paragraph on page 40 of the § Biological Assessment states adult salmon are expected to avoid areas of increased turbidity. Since returning adults migrate through the project area, this avoidance would impact treaty 7 fishing activities. Conditional uses may be authorized if they will cause no unreasonable adverse effects 'to the shoreline environmentT'As set forth above, adverse impacts to the shoreline 10 environment are inevitable and no mitigation has been required as a condition of the CUP lg approval. Absent such conditions, the CUP should not have been approved. 13 14 CONCLUSION ].5 The Planning Commission's approval of the CUP should be reversed. First, the project 16 will result in substantial adverse impacts to tribal and sport fisheries within Sinclair Inlet. 18 Second, ~.he project will result in both habitat loss and habitat degradation. To ensure SMP 19 and SMA compliance, mitigative measures should have been attached. Finally, the City's 20 attempt to provide notice of the CUP application fell far short of minimum notice requirements imposed by the SMA and SMP. // ~4 I/ 25 // 26 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF- 18 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 ~ ~ 0 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 5984293 Respectfully submitted this 22'~d day of February, 2000. OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY. 4 Scott Whe-'~, WSBA #25565 Tribal Attorney 5 Attorney for Petitioner 9 -. 10 11. 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 ,°.,4 25 TRIBE'S OPENING BRIEF - 19 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 ~,~ ~ I Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 02/28/00 16:42 FA~ 360 396 FAXM~I~IO ~¢bm~ 2s, ~ooo 6 pages including this .cover page To: Phyllis Meyers, Suquamish Tribe, FAX: 598-4666 Knute Rife, City Attorney, FAX: 478-5161 Form: Neil Bass Engineering Field Activin,, Northwest Naval Facilities Engineering Command 19917 7th Avenue NE Poulsbo, WA 98370-7570 Voice: (360) 396-0902 FAX: (360) 396-0854 Subj: U.S. Navy Reply to Suquamish Indian Tribe Opening Brief Forwarded for your use. A hard copy was delivered to the James Coombe, city planner. Please contact me if the FAX memo is inadequate and I will deliver a hard copy. Sincerely, Neil Bass 02/28/00 16:42 FA~ 360 396 0854 ~ EFAN~ PLNG & RE ~002,'006 BREMBRTON CITY COUNCIL BREMERTON, WASHINGTON SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) No. PL00-0005 ) U.S. Navy Reply to Suquamish ) Indian Tribe Opening Brief BR.EMERTON PLAlXrNING ) COMMISSION, ) ) Respondent. ) ) INTRODUCTION The Navy, as the applicant for tlae Conditional Use Permit (CUP), respectfully submits this Reply to clarify some ~hct~aat misunderstandings or inaccuracies in the Suquamish Indian Tribe's Opening BS~f. ~ CERCLA DREDGING 3.° The subject of the CUP is a Navigational Dredging and Pier Construction Project. The Suquamish Tribe's appea! appears, in part, to be confusing this project with a second project to be conducted under ~e Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil'~t~; Act (CERCLA). The CUP, issued under the Shorelines Management Act (SMA), is for Navigational Dredging at Piers D, B, and 3, Navigational Dredging of two turning basins, dredging a small portion of the channe.; and demolition and re-consmtction of pier D. Concurrently, the Navy is planning for a CERCLA cleanup project scheduled to be done at the same time. The CERCLA cleanv? consists of dredging surface sediments predominantly in the hmer harbor of the Bremcrton Naval Complex and along piers on Navy land along with construction of a Confined Acquatic Disposal (CAD). Pursuant to Section I21(e)(1) of CERCLA, no federal, state, or local permits are required for the CERCLA cleanup. Thus, the CERCLA cleanup action is exempt from administrative processes such a.s a ~ The Navy does not believe it is appropriate to comment on the aIleged procedural notice defects. However, it is clear that the Petit, oner received adequate notice and that numerous Federal and State agencies have been consulted concerning the project. 02/28/00 16:43 FAX 360 396 0554 CUP under SMA. The CERCLA cleanup has been extensively coordinated with the Tribe's fisheries staff, EPA, Washington Department of]Ecology (WDOE) and other affected stakeholders. Pursuant to Section 11 ? of CEKCLA, the Proposed Plan is exl~cted to be available for public review and comment in March 2000. The Navy, EPA and WDOE plan to accomplish the Navigational Dredging concurrently with the CEKCLA dredging in a single, economically attractive and environmentally sound project. Coordinating cleanup activities with Navigational Dredging activities is · expected to maximize regional benefit from any dredging conducted at the Brcmerton Naval Complex. Coordination is planned for three basic reasons. (1) A coordinated proj oct appropriately preserves limited landfill space. The proposed CEF,.CLA cleanup will include a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) facility to be constructed on Navy-owned submerged lands to contain 'CERCLA sediments" and all dredge materials that are determined to bc unsuitable for disposal at the Dredge Material Management Program (DMMP) Elliot Bay site. In this case, unsuitable dredge material would not be transferred to trucks and rail for disposal at a landfill. (2) Coordination benefits the environment by combining in-water activities temporally and spatially, thereby reducing environmental impacts to Sinclair Inlet. This coordination results in better management of sediments, with increased oppomunity for beneficial use and habitat enhancement. (3). Coordinating the two projects allows for economy of effort and efficient usa of taxpayer dollars. Conducting cleanup work in conjunction with the Navigational pr~ect is far less costly than carry/ng out separate projects. Tn:( de~l~s are used most efficiently by combining regulatory processes and b), reducing design and construction costs. The CUP for the Navigational Dredging portion of the work sets forth the maximum amotmt of unsuitable dredge material that would be disposed of in a landfill assuming that the Navigational Drcd_ging and CERCLA projects were executed independently. However, if thc projects arc combined, the navigational unsuitable material v,41i be disposed of at the CERCLA CAD. Construction of a CAD under CEKCLA is not relevant to the CUP (Section D, Tribe's Opening Brief, pg. 16). CERCLA actions arc not subject to the administrative permitting process. The CAD may impose an additional constraint on fishing during the period of construction. However, dredging operations and CAD construction will both be 'shut down' for a two-week period in August to allow for the ~eak of adult Ckinook salmon return and associated fishing opportunities would apply. ~ A significant portion of Petitioner's brief focuses on the goals of/he SMA,. In regard to federal agencies and the SMA, the appropriate focu~ should be water quality issues. Friends of thc Earth v. Nav~,. 841 F.2d 92'/(9°, Circuit, 1955). 2 02/28/00 16:45 F~ 360 396 ~$54 EFANW PLNG & RE 1~004,'006 II. REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE USES The Tribe's appeal appears to assume that their treaty fishing rights would be fully impacted for 3 0 months. As currendy planned, all dredging would be conducted from June 2000 to March 2001. Approximately 50% of the Navigational Dredging will occur at piers D, B, and 3 within the Navy's restricted zone where fishing is historically prohibited. Access to other project areas will be limited during periods of dredging. The Navy has agreed with the Tribe, to 'shut down' dredging and CAD construction operations for a two-week period in August to allow for the peak of adult Chinook salmon return and associated fishing opportunities. Pier D will be consm~cted in a period from approximately December 2000 through September 2002. This work will be accomplished primarily within the Navy's restricted zone and is subject to "shut down" of in-water work consistent with the fish migration periods imposed by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Record of Decision for the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Develop. lng Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-CIass ,4ircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet selected alternative Two. There is no proposed change in Navy Yessel homeporting or vessel traffic and, therefore, no diminished post-construction fishing opportunities. Significant Tribal and recreational fishing opportunities will not be lost as the turbidity zones generated by the &edging will be monitored so that the perimeter of the zone wilt not exceed a diameter of 300 feel There is no permanent withdrawal of public access and that portion of the dredging that occttrs outside of the Navy's restricted area represents a small portion of the Sinclair Inlet cross section. III. PROTECTION OF RESOURCES ECOLOGY OF THE SHORELINE The Navigational Dredging and Pier Construction are subject to numerous federal and state regulations that provide adequate protection of the fisheries resource. Additionally, the CERCLA cleanup will comply with all applicable and relevant requirements (See, 3 02/28/00 16:44 FAX 380 396 0854 EFANW PLNG & RE ~005/0o6 (Attachment 1). Juvenile salmon out migration will be protected by the NMFS directed closure period. There will be no significant loss of shallow water habitat as the Navigational Dredging increases the depth of what is akeady predominately considered to be deep water. Dated this 28th day of February, 2000 Peter Havens Permit Agent for BNC copy to: Bremerton City Council Bremerton Dept. of Community Development Brcmerton City Attorney Suquamish Tribe 4 02/28/00 16:44 FAX 360 396 0854 EF~NW PLNG & RE ~006/006 ATTACHMENT 1 National Environmental Policy Act 0XYEPA) (42 USC 4321-4370a; 40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508, 32 CFR Part 775), CERCLA (42 USC 9601-9675; 40 CFR Part 300), CWA Sec. 115 (33 USC 1265), CWA Sec. 404-Dredge & Fill (33 USC 1314; 33 CFR Parts 320, 323; 40 CFR Part 230), RI-IA Sec. 10 (33 USC 403; 33 CFR Parts 320, 322), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (33 USC 1401-1445), Water Resource Acts (WRAs), CWA Sec. 303-Water Quality-Based Discharge Limits (33 USC 1313), CWA Sec. 401--Water Quality Certification (33 USC 1341(a)), CWA Sec. 401--Water Quality Stds. (33 USC 1313); WA CWA (Ch. 90.48 RCW; Ch. 173-201A WAC), CWA Sec. 401--Temporary Modification to Surface Water Quality (Ch, 173- 20lA WAC), CWA-Sec. 402--NPDES Process Water (33 USC 1342; 40 CFR Parts I22, 124, t25), CWA Sec. 402--NPDES Stormwater (33 USC 1342; 40 CFR Part ][22), CWA Sec. 307-- Pretreatmem Requirements (33 USC 1317; 40 CFR Part 403), Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act (I6 USC 661-661c), KCRA Subtitle C-Waste Identification. (42 USC 6921-6939;.40 CFR Part 261); DW (Ch. 70.105 RCW; Ch. 173-303 WAC), RCRA Subtitle C-Generator Reqts. (42 USC 6921-6939; 40 CFR Part 262); DW (Ch. 70.105 RCW; Ch. 173-303 WAC), RCRA Subtitle C-TSD Reqts.(42 USC 6921-6939; 40 CFR Parts 264, 265); DW (Ch. 70.105 RCW; Ch. 173-303 WAC), RCRA Subtitle C-Land Disposal Restrictions (42 USC 6921-6939; 40 CFR Part 268); DW (Ch. 70.105 P,,CW; Ch. 173-303 WAC), RCRA Subtitle D-Solid Waste Mgt. (42 USC 694!-6949; 40 CFR Parts 257,258); DW (Ch.70.95 RCW, Ch. 173-304, 173-351 WAC), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 USC 2601; 40 CFR Part 761), CAA --New Source Review-- Notice of Construction (42 USC 7411; 40 CFR Part 60); WA CAA (Ch. 70.94 RCW, Ch. 173-400); PSAPCA Reg. I, Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531-1543; 50 CFR Parts 17, 222,' 227, 402), Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC 1361 et seq.; 50 CFR Parts 17, 18,222), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001-3013; 43 CFR I0), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470aa- 470mm; 43 CFR Part 7), National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et seq.; 36 CFR Parts 60-63,800), State Waste Discharge (Ch, 90.54 RCW; Ch. 173-216 WAC), Model Toxics Control Act (Ch. 70.105D RCW; Ch. 173-340 WAC), MTCA, WA CWA- Sediment Management Standards (Ch. 70.10SD RCW, Ch. 173-204 WAC), Hazardous Waste Management Act-- State-Only DW: Criteria of Toxicity, Persistence (Ch. 70.105 RCW; Ch. 173-303 WAC)14, and local regulations which govern the work Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) Reg. I, Bremerton-Kitsap county Board of Health Ordinance No. 1996-11, Solid Waste Regulations]. 1 4 BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 5 BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 6 SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ) ) ? Petitioner, ) 8 ) No. PL00-0005 VS. 9 ) SUQUAMISH TRIBE'S BREMERTON PLANNING ) REPLY BRIEF 10 COMMISSION, ) ) 11 Respondent. ) ].2 .) 1:5 INTRODUCTION 14 As specifically set fortln therein, the Navy's responsive arguments avoid significant 15 legal issues, minimize the extent of tine project tlnat is not associated with the CERCLA 16 cleannp action and thus subject to the SMA, and misinterpret federal case la~v setting forth 17 18 the Navy's obligation to comply with the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA") and the 19 Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"). Exposure of these fatal flaws reveal but one inescapable 20 , conclusion - the CUP approval at issue violates the SMA and SMP and should be reversed. // // 23 24 // 25 // ~6 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-331 l Fax (360) 598-4293 '1 ARGUMENT A. The Navv Failed to Respond to the Tribe's Arguments that SMA and ;5 SMP Notice Requirements Were not Met. 4 In its Opening Brief, the Suquamish Tribe ("Tribe") established that the "Notice of 5 Application" prepared by the City was not sent to all required parties nor did it contain the 6 information required by the SMA and the SMP. Tribe's Op. Brief at 3-7. The Navy ? 8 myopically responds by asserting "it is clear that Petitioner received adequate notice and that 9 numerous Federal and State agencies have been consulted concerning the project." Navy 10 Response Brief at 1, n. 1. Whether the Petitioner and "numerous" federal and state agencies received "notice" of the "project" is simply not the issue. Instead, as set forth in the Tribe's Opening Brier; the SMA required the city to send '14 copies of the "Notice of Application" for a SMA CUP to "agencies with jurisdiction." The '15 SMA also required the City to disclose other permits required for the project. Neither SMA 16 requirement was met. Finally, the City failed to comply with the SMP requirement to circulate the CUP application to "state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen advisory. committees, local officials and state-xvide interest groups." SMP, p. 4-18; Tribe's Op. Brief at 7. 21 As set forth in the Tribe's Opening Brief, these notice requirements are mandatory - and for good reason. For example, circulation ofthe"Notice of Application" would have put "agencies with jurisdiction" on notice that the limited time period had begun to run for submitting testimony concerning whether the CUP application should have been approved and, if so, whether any conditions should have been attached. Circulation of the ElS (which Office of thc Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquarnish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 did not even mention that a SMA CUP xvould be applied for) to Petitioner and "numerous" state and federal agencies simply did not provide notice ofxvhen this important clock started to tick. Thus, neither the letter nor the spirit of these important notice requirements were met. B. All Aspects of the Project not Related to CERCLA Dredging Should have § Been Subject to the CUP. 6 In its CUP application (see page two of the Joint Aquatic Resources permit 8 Application Form) the Naw states, "in order to accommodate the repair and homeporting 9 missions of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for nuclear powered aircraft carriers (CVN), 1.0 four berths need to be deepened .... The proposed dredging for the pier and turning basins will involve removal of approximately 425,000 cubic yard (cy) of sediment." The Navy's stated purpose for dredging and disposing of sediments is to accomplish military construction 13 objectives regulated by the Shoreline Management Act and the City's SMP. CUP 14 ].5 Application. '16 The Navy further states that most of the 425.000 cubic yards of sediment it proposes to dredge for the construction project are too contaminated for open-xvater disposal. August 18 24, 1999 Seattle District Corps of Engineers b~terim Determination o~ the Szdtabilit), of '19 Dredged Material Tested for the Pztget Som~d Naval Shipyard Dredging Project (1998- ~0 ~'1 01967) Evahiated U~der Section 4040 of the Clea~ Water Act (CW, q) for Open-Water Disposal at the Elliott Bay non-dispersive site. Based on this determination, 29,460 cy are suitable for open-water disposal. The Navy states in its CUP' application that the remaining g4 395,575 would be disposed of at an upland permitted landfill. However, as set forth in the ~5 ~6 Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 Navy's Response Brief, it now intends to dispose of this contaminated sediment in the CAD. '! Navy Response Brief at 2. The Tribe is aware of, and supports, the Navy's CERCLA cleanup activities within Sinclair Inlet. These CERCLA activities are not included within the scope of this appeal. § Importantly, however, under the Navy's current plan, a large portion of the sediments the § Navy proposes to dredge and dispose of in the CAD are from the military construction ? project, and is unrelated to the CERCLA clean up. Accordingly, these activities are subject to SMA and SMP regulatory requirements. 9 Even though the Navy admits the CAD will be used for disposal on non-CERCLA 10 related sediments, it remarkably contends that the CAD is an exclusive a CERCLA project 1.12 exempt from SMA and SMP requirements. This contention, as set forth above, is belied by 13 the Navy's own admission that the CAD is also for military construction. This portion of the 14 military construction project ~vas improperly excluded from the scope of the CUP review. 1.5 2.6 C. Within the Context of The Proposed Project, the Navv is Subject to the 17 Requirements of the SMA and SMP 18 In its responsive memorandum, the Navy claims that "in regard to federal agencies 2.9 and the SMA, the appropriate focus should be water quality issues. Navy Response Bric/; at 20 2, n.2. In reality, federal courts have expressly held that Navy dredging activities, even if occurring on "federal lands," are nevertheless subject to state environmental laws, including the Washington SMA and a local jurisdiction's SMP. See California Coastal Commission v. 124 Granite Rock Company, 480 U.S. 572,589-594 (1987); Friends of the Earth v. Navv., 841 125 F.2d 927,934-937 (9th Cir. 1988). Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 Indeed, the Navy's previous attempt to argue that the Coastal Zone Management Act 1 ("CZMA"), 16 U.S.C. § § 1451-1464, exempts its shoreline properties from the SMA and SMPS was flatly rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("9th Circuit"). Friends of the Earth, supra. The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that, absent an § express conflict between a particular, independent federal law, the CZMA does not pre-empt 6 state regulation of activities on federal lands located within a coastal zone. California ? Coastal Commission, supra at 593. D. The SMA does not Allow an "Approve Now Plan Later" Approach. 9 Predictably, the Navy asserts that, because the proposed project will be subject to ~.0 permitting requirements from State and federal agencies, the City need not attach conditions to the CUP to ensure that SMA and SMP requirements are met. Navy Response Brief; at 3-4. 13 This argument has no legal merit. As set forth in the Tribe's Opening Brief, the SMA and the 14 SMP do not allow the City to abdicate to other agencies its responsibility to ensure that ].5 substantial shoreline development activity occurs within acceptable SMA and SM? 1.6 parameters. Tribe's Opening Brief.. at 12-13. The Navy has simply failed to offer a response 2.8 supported by legal authority. 1.9 E. The Navv Fails to Address Loss of Fish Habitat within its "Restriction Zone." The Navy claims that fishing opportunities will not be adversely affected by any construction activities occurring within its "Restriction Zone" because fishing is already 24 prohibited in this area. Such singlemindedness ignores facts set forth within documents 25 prepared by the Navy and included in the record in this case. As set forth in the Tribe's Office of the Tribal Attorney THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 opening brief, record evidence establishes that the Restriction Zone is transected by an 1, important fish migration zone, and also provides habitat for s.everal specifies of fish - including Chinook recently listed under the ESA. Tribe's Opening Brief at 13-16. These same documents also establish that destruction of such habitat, if not sufficiently mitigated, § will invariably result in a decrease of resident fish populations and migrato~ salmonids. Id___:. It goes without saying that fishing opportunities - both tribal and non-tribal - will ? correspondingly decline with the fish population. The Navy's own record documents undermine the position taken in its responsive memorandum. 9 CONCLUSION 10 The Navy has failed provide either law or facts to rebut the arguments set forth in the 12 Tribe's Opening Brief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein and in the Tribe's 13 Opening Brief, the CUP approval should be reversed. 14 Respectfully submitted this 1~ day of March. 2000. 15 OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY 16 Scott Wheat, WSBA #25565 19 Attorney for Petitioner Suquamish Indian Tribe 20 Office of the Tribal Attorney suou^ IS. P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 1, :5 ¢ § BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL $ BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 7 SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ) ) 8 Petitioner, ) ) No. PL00-0005 9 ) 10 vs. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) 1'i BREMERTON PLANNTNG ) COMMISSION, ) 12 ) 13 Respondent. ) 1.4 I, NEOMA BOURn, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 1.5 2.6 Washington, declare as follows: 17 That I am an employee for the office of the Suquamish Tribal Attorney, attorneys 18 for the petitioner Suquamish Tribe, herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I 19 caused SUQUAMISH TRIBE'S REPLY BRIEF along with this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to 20 be served on: 22 Bremerton Dept. of Bremerton City Council Knute Rife Community Development 239 4th Street Attorney for Bremerton 25 286 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 City Council Bremerton, WA 98337 (~) by U. S. Mail 239 4~h Street 24 (~,,¢) by U. S. Mail (~") by facsimile Bremerton, WA 98337 2 5 (~") by facsimile ( ) by personal messenger (~) by U. S. Mail ( ) by personal messenger (~,") by facsimile 26 ( ) by personal messenger Office of the Tribal Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 THe SUQU^MISH TPdBE '~'~ ~ P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293 J. Neil Bass, P.E., Director, Environmental Planning & Natural Resources 2 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Naval Facilities Engineering Command 19917- 7th Avenue N.E. 4 Poulsbo, Wa 98370 (fi) by U. S. Mail 5 (~) by facsimile ( ) by personal messenger 6 7 DATED this 1st day of March, 2000 Neoma Bourfi, Legal Secretary for 9 Tribal Attorney Scott Wheat 10 11 15 16 17 18 !9 20 26 Office of the Tribal Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 2 THE SUQU^MISH TmBE ~ ~}_~' P.O. Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392 (360) 598-3311 Fax (360) 598-4293  mllmlmm i OFFICE OF ~I~Y AT~O~E~ 229 4th Street · Breme~on. Washington 98337 · (36()) 478-5345 · FAX (361)) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal~cimbreme~on.wa, us MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Knute Rife, Assistant City Attorney Re: Navy dredging Shoreline CUP Date: 3 March 2000 1. The Council has before it a closed record appeal of the Planning Commission's granting of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to the U.S. Navy for dredging operations. 2. The Navy has applied for a permit to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1344(t); Friends of the Earth vs. U.S. Navy, 841 F.2d 927 (9th Cir. 1988). 3. The Planning Commission granted the permit at its 4 January meeting. The Suquamish Tribe timely appealed the permit. 4. The Council has been given the basic packet in this case, including the application, the Planning Commission proceedings, and the parties' appeal briefs. Also in the record are the Navy's multi-permit application packet and the Navy's Final ElS, which the City adopted for SEPA purposes. 5. The hearing is to be conducted pursuant to Council Rule 12. Briefly, the Rule provides for the following hearing procedure: a. Appearance of Fairness (disclosures by Council, recusals, challenges) b. Staff introduction and presentation of record c. The Tribe's opening argument d. The Naw's response e. The Tribe's reply f. Closing of the hearing 6. This is a closed record appeal. Ordinarily, there should be no new evidence. Essentially, new evidence is limited to proving a due process violation. Ifa party wishes to offer new evidence (as opposed to cases, statutes, etc.), it is advised that the Council adjourn to meet with legal counsel to determine whether to admit the evidence. 7. The Council may ask questions at any point, either during presentations or after closing the hearing. The Council may seek legal counsel at any point. 8. After closing the hearing, the Council must deliberate. None of this needs to be in public session, and at least part of it should be in closed session with legal counsel. Deliberation will include review of the record and the issues presented. 9. This is an appeal, not an initial hearing. The Planning Commission's decision is presumed correct unless the Tribe can prove the decision is not supported by substantial evidence on Equal Opportunity Employer Navy Dredge Memorandum Page 2 of 2 the record. "Substantial evidence" means what it says: evidence of substance, not trivial evidence. All the evidence in the record is to be read in a light most favorable to the Planning Commission's decision. Any conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in favor of the Planning Commission's decision. 10. The Council should not resolve the matter the same night it hears it. The Council should move to continue the hearing tbr passage of a resolution that includes formal findings and conclusions and the Council's decision. The Motion may also state the date and time of the Council's deliberations. The Motion should take the following form: I move that this hearing be continued to the Council's regular meeting on 5'~/.~r/c'c, for passage ora resolution containing the Council's decision and supporting findings and conclusions. [OPTIONALI The Council will deliberate on this matter on 55/~ ~/o c: in the Council Meeting Room. OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 239 4th Street o Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal@ci.brcmerton.wa.us MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Knute Rife, Assistant City Attorney Re: Navy dredging Shoreline CUP Date: 3 March 2000 1. The Council has before it a closed record appeal of the Planning Commission's granting of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit to the U.S. Navy for dredging operations. 2. The Navy has applied for a permit to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1344(t); Friends of the Earth vs. U.S. Navy, 841 F.2d 927 (9th Cir. 1988). 3. The Planning Commission granted the permit at its 4 January meeting. The Suquamish Tribe timely appealed the permit. 4. The Council has been given the basic packet in this case, including the application, the Planning Commission proceedings, and the parties' appeal briefs. Also in the record are the Navy's multi-permit application packet and the Navy's Final ElS, which the City adopted for SEPA purposes. 5. The hearing is to be conducted pursuant to Council Rule 12. Briefly, the Rule provides for the following hearing procedure: a. Appearance of Fairness (disclosures by Council, recusals, challenges) b. Staff introduction and presentation of record c. The Tri~. e's opening argument d. The Navy's response e. The Tribe's reply f. Closing of the hearing 6. This is a closed record appeal. Ordinarily, there should be no new evidence. Essentially, new evidence is limited to proving a due process violation. Ifa party wishes to offer new evidence (as opposed to cases, statutes, etc.), it is advised that the Council adjourn to meet with legal counsel to determine whether to admit the evidence. 7. The Council may ask questions at any point, either during presentations or at~er closing the hearing. The Council may seek legal counsel at any point. 8. After closing the hearing, the Council must deliberate. None of this needs to be in public session, and at least part of it should be in closed session with legal counsel. Deliberation will include review of the record and the issues presented. 9. This is an appeal, not an initial hearing. The Planning Commission's decision is presumed correct unless the Tribe can prove the decision is not supported by substantial evidence on Equal Opportunity Employer Navy Dredge Memorandum Page 2 of 2 the record. "Substantial evidence" means what it says: evidence of substance, not trivial evidence. All the evidence in the record is to be read in a light most favorable to the Planning Commission's decision. Any conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved in favor of the Planning Commission's decision. 10. The Council should not resolve the matter the same night it hears it. The Council should move to continue the hearing for passage of a resolution that includes formal findings and conclusions and the Council's decision. The Motion may also state the date and time of the Council's deliberations. The Motion should take the following form: I move that this hearing be continued to the Council's regular meeting on ~/o~q/tg~9 for passage of a resolution containing the Council's decision and supporting findings and conclusions. [OPTIONALI The Council will deliberate on this matter on ~/~o~/C~O in the Council Meeting Room. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS - (6:00 P.M. or LATER) ~°'rA~_ ~- A. Ordinance (First Reading) Vacating Peters Street #AB00-069 5-7 Right-of-Way from Poindexter Avenue to Humphrey Avenue B. Ordinance (First Reading) Vacating 12th Street and Two #AB00-070 '70 Alleys between Park and Elizabeth Avenues C. Ordinance (First Reading) Vacating a Portion of Shore Drive #AB00-071 '7~ between Perry Avenue and Ironsides Avenue D. Ordinance (First Reading) Vacating a Portion of Chester #AB00-072 q~c( Avenue from 11th Street, Northward 120 Feet E. CLOSED RECORD HEARING on Appeal of Planning #AB00-073 q~ Commission Decision to Allow a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a U.S. Navy/PSNS Navigational Dredging and Pier Replacement Project; Appellant: The Suquamish Tribe 12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING