HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/00 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 29, 2000
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
B. 15-Minute Executive Session to "Review Labor Negotiations"
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - November 8, 2000 (#AB00-261)
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments limited to 3-minutes)
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Appointment of Joan Taie to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee (#AB00-262)
B. Movinct Legal Department Budget under City Council (#AB00-263) ' /
A. Ordinance (First Reading) Reducing Mayor's Spending Authority (#AB00-264)
B. Ordinance (First Reading) Vacating a Portion of "O" Street (#AB00-265)
C. Ordinance (First Reading) Regarding Annexation of the Real Property Described within the
Adopted Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan (#AB00-266)
D. Ordinance (First Reading) Regarding Adoption of Initial Development Agreement for the
Property Commonly known as the Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan, which establishes a Mixed
Use District (MXD) Zoning Classification for the Property upon Annexation (#AB00-267)
11. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: NOVEMBER 29, 2000
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY C0UNCI L
MINUTES OF MEETING -- NOVEMBER 8, 2000 ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS. PRES I DENT
DATE SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER ~-1, 2OO0
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
/,2
MAYOR: COUNCIL PRESIDENT:~,-~-.~ / '~,~'/j ~-~ 3~£~ ~.~ ~-~_. '
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 AME~ ~_~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: .. "'..~.
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (continued):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
TAPES #1730 & #1731 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 8, 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, November 8, 2000, at 5:30
P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed,
Conrad Esser, David Farr, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne
Olsen. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and
Council Assistant Christine Grenier Ellingson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council member Cecil McConnell, followed
by the invocation given by Retired PastorAIfred Dobson.
President Arends made the following announcements:
(1) Council held a Pre-Council Session in the Council Conference Room to discuss general Council
business; followed by a 5-minute Executive Session to "Evaluate an Application for Employment"
and a 15-minute Study Session to discuss "Year 2001 Legislative Agenda" and "Solid Waste
Transfer Facility" with Mary McClure of Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council; and
(2) Council will hold two Study Sessions immediately following the Council Meeting in the Council
Conference Room to discuss "Gold Mountain Clubhouse" and a 2001-2002 Budget Study Session
to discuss "Overview and Review", "Miscellaneous Expenditures, and "Intergovernmental".
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Meeting Minutes - October 25, 2000 (#AB00-244)
B. Sole Source Purchase of a Toro Grounds Master 3500-D Sidewinder Mower for the Gold
Mountain Golf.Course (#AB00-245)
C. Budget Adjustment for Water Fund No. 401, Wastewater Fund No. 451, and Stormwater Fund
No. 481 (#AB00-246)
#0025 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olson) Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
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.
#0055 M/S/C/U (Law/McConnell) On November 8, 2000, the Council does approve for payment those
vouchers included and further described as follows: 246593 - 246765 in the amount of $319,685.07;
and Regular Payroll for the period ending October 31, 2000 in the amount of $1,010,856.99.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
David Farr commented on the elections and announced that his wife Anna Laurie has unofficially
been elected to Superior Court Judge.
Mike She.oherd was pleased at the voter turnout during the elections; and announced that a District 5
Meeting would be held November 16th at Memorial Lutheran Church located at 10t' & Veneta,
beginning at 6:30 P.M. to discuss senior related issues.
Ed Rollman mentioned that the parking problem on the 600 block on Highland Avenue would be
resolved; and thanked City employees for their efforts throughout the year in providing much needed
information to City Council.
TAPES #1730 & #1731
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 2 of 6
,John Law announced that the next District 3 Meeting would be held on November 21st at 7:00 P.M.
at the Senior Center located at 13th and E. Nipsic to discuss "What is going to happen to East Park".
Cecil McConnell commented on the "Election Night" event held at the Admiral Theater yesterday.
Wayne Olsen thanked all of the candidates involved in the election process; and congratulated Mr.
Farr and his wife on her victory in the polls.
President Arend$ enjoyed the breakfast served by the Public Works & Utilities Department, where
project updates were also provided. She sadly announced that Ralph Smith, a long time District 7
resident, has passed away and expressed her condolences to his family.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Horton read a proclamation reco§nizing the contributions of Americans during the Korean
War, which was accepted by members of The Elizabeth Ellington Chapter of the National Society of
Dau§hters of the American Revolution.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
John B~Irch announced that the Bremerton Elks Lodge on Pine Road would be holding a Veterans
Program on November 9th, and additional information can be obtained by calling 479-1181.
Glen Jarstad provided his comments on the election process.
9A - APPOINTMENT OF STEVEN BERKOWlTZ TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION {#AB00-247):
Mayor Horton provided comments to support her recommendation of Steven Berkowitz to fill one of
the two vacancies currently on the Planning Commission.
There were no comments from the public.
#0660 M/S/C/U (Olsen/Rollman) Move to confirm the appointment of Steven Berkowitz to the
Planning Commission.
9B - APPOINTMENT OF TINY COLLINS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (#AB00-248):
Mayor Hod;on discussed the experience of Tiny Collins to support his appointment to one of the two
vacancies currently on the Civil Service Commission.
There were no comments from the public.
#0730 M/S/C/U (Farr/Shepherd) Move to confirm the appointment of Tiny Collins to the Civil Service
Commission.
10A - ORDINANCE NO. 4726 (SECOND READING) ON STREET VACATIONS FOR PORTIONS
OF COTTMAN AVENUE AND PERRY STREET (#AB00-239): First reading of this ordinance was
heard at the Council meeting on October 25, 2000. Jeff Shea, Senior Engineer, addressed the
questions brought up at the First Reading of this ordinance, as well as the issues raised in a letter by
the attorney representing Mr. Admiral Ross. He reiterated that most of this right-of-way is
undeveloped with a portion of Cottman Avenue being used as a gravel access way. A private street
will be improved to provide access to the property owners, who abut this right-of-way, and access
easements will be granted. The changes made to this ordinance at the request of Mr. Ross were
TAPES #1730 & #1731
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 3 of 6
outlined. The easement would be extended to another right-of-way until F Street is constructed. The
Haselwoods have no intent to construct or maintain the area in question.
Admiral ROSS again expressed his concerns over access to his home and his business, and added
that for as long as his business has been present, Cottman Avenue has been present. John Ross,
Admiral Ross' son, asked for clarification on the temporary easement mentioned earlier, and wanted
to know who destroyed Cottman Avenue initially.
Mr. Shea stated that once F Street is constructed, the temporary easement would be removed since
Admiral Ross would have access along F Street. He reiterated that although access is restricted due
to construction there would be improved access once F Street is completed. He clarified that this
language was included in the ordinance. Glenna Malanca pointed out that the vacation of Cottman
Avenue is at issue not construction related concerns. She directed Admiral Ross to submit those
concerns to the Public Works & Utilities Department.
Glen Jarstad added that vehicular access was limited along Cottman Avenue, and was pleased with
the prospective improvements.
Mr. McConnell asked for "privatization of streets" to be defined; and asked how many ways to
access the property are in the area. Mr. Shea stated that the road would not be dedicated to the City
for improvements, and that the road would be owned by Haselwood Management to be used as a
driveway. He also added that there is only one way to access the property.
Mr. Shepherd asked how soon F Street would be constructed. Fred Nufi representing Haselwood
Management, Inc. summarized that stabilizing the area will begin effective immediately, and would
include efforts to reduce the risk of erosion.
Mr. Esser asked what would make the vacation acceptable to Admiral Ross and what would the
actual restorative effort include. Admiral Ross requested that Cottman Avenue be leveled off so
access is acceptable; and John Ross would like the City to consider opening up further access from
Roosevelt to Cottman in addition to the proposed changes to Cottman Avenue and F Street.
Mr. Reed explained that construction at the Oyster Bay Complex has impacted access for the Ross
family and clarified that the street vacation is a separate access issue. He asked if the ingress and
egress were established would Mr. Ross be satisfied with the vacation. Admiral Ross answered
yes; and Mr. Shea responded again that there would be no improvements along the temporary
easement, which will be in place until F Street is constructed. Mr. Shepherd added that a pile of
gravel left on Roosevelt Avenue made the road impassable and that a contractor who needs to
remove the gravel is causing the problem. Mr. Nufi stated that there is no intent to make
improvements, but the gravel piles will be stabilized.
David Farr stepped out of the meeting at 6:52 P.M.
#2700 M/S/C/U (Olson/Rollman) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4726, vacating portions of Cottman
Avenue and Perry Street, on second reading.
David Farr was not present for this vote; and returned to the meeting at 6:54 P.M.
10B - ORDINANCE NO. 4727 (SECOND READING), LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR
COLLECTION IN 2001 (#AB00-242): First reading of this ordinance was heard at the Council
meeting on November 1, 2000.
TAPES #1730 & #1731
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 4 of 6
There were no comments from the public.
#2775 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Law) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4727 on second reading, levying
property taxes for collection in 2001.
10C - ORDINANCE ~_FIRST READING), RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ON-STREET
PAID PARKING ON FIFTH STREET IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE (#AB00-249): Paula Johnston,
Deputy City Clerk, stated that on October 3, 2000, the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee
reviewed the "No Repark" program for on-street parking in the downtown core instituted last August.
The committee members determined that there was a demand for 3-hour pay-stall parking at the
base of Fifth Street just east of Park Avenue. This location was not identified last summer as an area
for on-street paid parking when City Council passed an ordinance authorizing paid on-street parking
in other areas of downtown. The committee is proposing that the City charge $2.00 for 3-hours of
parking. It was clarified that there would be approximately 5 to 7 of these paid parking spaces.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. McConnell asked if the spaces are filled what would happen to those citizens who have
demonstrated a need for short-term parking. Ms. Johnston summarized that the goal of the City was
to meet demands of citizens, yet still provide free short-term parking for lower demand areas.
Mr. Reed stepped out of the meeting at 6:55 PM.
Mr. She_Dherd asked if 7 spaces were enough to meet volunteer demands and thanked Mr. Rollman
for serving on the Parking Advisory Committee. Mr. Rollman answered that a voucher program
would soon be made available to the volunteers in order to cover the costs of parking fees.
#3200 M/S/C (Farr/Olsen) Move to approve ordinance on first reading relating to the establishment
of on-street paid parking on the 500 block of Fifth Street.
Voted in favor on this Motion: Fart, Esser, Olsen, Law, Rollman, Shepherd, and Arends
Voted opposed to this Motion: McConnell
Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-No
Mr. Reed was absent for this vote; and returned to the meeting at 7:04 P.M.
10D - ORDINANCE NOS. 4728. 4729, 4730. 4731. 4732. 4733, 4734, and 4735 (FIRST
READINGS) REAFFIRMING AND REENACTING PREVIOUS ORDINANCE NOS. 4674. 4675, 4677
4678. 4679, 4680, 4684 and 4685, IN RESPONSE TO PASSAGE OF INITIATIVE-722, (#AB00-
250): Glenna Malanca, City Attorney, summarized that in November and December of 1999
following the passage of 1-695, the City approved a number of ordinances raising rates and fees
primarily routine in nature and financial requirements. Initiative-722 would render those ordinances
null and void as well as limiting property tax to 2% per year and may require refunds of invalidated
fees, taxes, and rates. The financial impact of the initiative if rates and fees are nullified can be found
in Exhibit A; and the impact of the initiative if the City re-adopts the tax and fee ordinances can be
found in Exhibit B.
Cities and towns are now authorized to increase taxes, rates, and fees due to the recent Supreme
Court decision upholding the March 2000 decision by the King County Superior Court that 1-695 is
unconstitutional. The rate and fee ordinances must be approved, published, and become effective
prior to the effective date of 1-722, which is December 7, 2000.
TAPES #1730 & #1731
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 5 of 6
There were no comments from the public.
John Law stepped out of the meeting at 7:08 PM and returned at 7:10 P.M.
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4728.
#3645 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Olsen) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4728 on first reading, reaffirming
and reenacting Ordinance No. 4674 establishing greens fees for the Gold Mountain Golf Course
Complex and repealing Resolution No's 2657 and 2684.
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4729.
#3670 M/S/C (FardShepherd) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4729 on first reading reaffirming and
reenacting Ordinance No. 4675 amending assessments, rates, fees and charges for municipal water,
wastewater and stormwater services and amending Chapter 15.08 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
and Ordinance No. 4642.
Voted in favor of this Motion: Olsen, Law, Rollman, Shepherd, Farr, Esser, Reed, and Arends
Voted opposed to this Motion: McConnell
Motion carried: 8-Yes; 1-No
Mrs. Malanca reiterated that if any part of these ordinances were found offensive, the issue may be
dealt with accordingly at a later date, but the year 2000 budget must be addressed now.
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4730.
#3700 M/S/C (Shepherd/Farr) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4730 on first reading reaffirming and
reenacting Ordinance No. 4677 establishing rates and fees for all municipal licenses, permits,
assessments, charges, user fees, parking fines and creating a new Chapter 3.01 Rates and Fees of
the Bremerton Municipal Code and repealing Ordinance No's 4651 and 4665 and Resolution No's
1924, 2239, 2242, 2247, 2248, 2250, 2368, 2384, 2425, 2484,2487, 2501, 2506, 2551, 2591, 2653,
2659, 2683 and amending Resolution No's 2367 and 2679, and amending Chapter1.12, 2.62, 5.02,
5.03, 5.88, 10.08, and 10.11 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
Voted in favor of this Motion: Rollman, Shepherd, Farr, Esser, and Arends
Voted in opposition to this Motion: Olsen, McConnell, Law, and Reed
Motion carried: 5-Yes; 4-No
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4731.
#4000 M/S/C (Farr/Olson) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4731 on first reading reaffirming and
reenacting Ordinance No. 4678 establishing cost recovery of subsidized costs from non-city residents
utilizing specified city services and amending Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
Voted in favor of this Motion: Rollman, Shepherd, Farr, Esser, and Arends
Voted in opposition to this Motion: McConnell, Law, Reed, and Olsen
Motion carried: 5-Yes; 4-No
Mr. McConnell asked if an automatic increase is included or is there a fiat increase. Ms. JohnstQn
answered that the increase was a fiat 6% rate.
TAPES #1730 & #1731
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 6 of 6
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4732.
#4020 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Rollman) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4732 on first reading reaffirming
and reenacting Ordinance No. 4679 imposing a commercial parking tax; and adding a new chapter to
Title 3 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
Voted in favor of this Motion: Rollman, Shepherd, Farr, Esser, Reed, and Arends
Voted in opposition to this Motion: Law, Olsen, and McConnell
Motion carried: 6-Yes; 3-No
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4733.
#40?5 MISlCIU (FardOIsen) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4733 on first reading reaffirming and
reenacting Ordinance No. 4680 amending maximum penalties for misdemeanors and civil infractions
and amending Chapters 1.12, 2.96, 3.44, 3.64, 3.72, 5.48, 5.54, 5.84, 6.04, 6.28, 7.05, 9.06, 9.08,
9.14, 9.18, 9.29, 9.37, 9.39, 10.14, 10.12, 10.16, 11.08, 13.04, 17.56, 21.02 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4734.
#4150 MISlCIU (Shepherd/McConnelt) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4734 on first reading
reaffirming and reenacting Ordinance No. 4684 establishing a program for elimination of improper
stormwater inflow to the wastewater system and amending Chapter 15.01 General Provision, 15.04
Stormwater; 15.06 Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges and 11.02 Right of Way Use.
There were no comments from the public on Ordinance No. 4735.
#4185 MIS/CIU (FardLaw) Move to approve Ordinance No. 4735 on first reading reaffirming and
reenacting Ordinance No. 4685 establishing rates for inappropriate stormwater inflow to the
wastewater system by amending Chapter 15.06 of the Bremerton Municipal Code and Ordinance No.
4675.
With no further business, meeting concluded at 7:32 P.M. Council then reconvened in the Council
Conference Room for Study Sessions to discuss "Gold Mountain Clubhouse" and the 2001-2002
Budget which shall include presentations on "Overview and Revenue", 'Miscellaneous Expenditures",
and "Intergovernmental".
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
CAROL ARENDS, City Council President
City of Bremerton
CAIP JIIslcge
c: Normal Distribution
File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: November 29, 2000
Appointment to the Public Access Citizens ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive
Advisory Committee ORIGINATOR: Mayor Horton
DATE SUBMITTED: November 21, 2000
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS
Application for Appointmem
ENDORSEMENT ,_~v_. ~~TION APPROVED BY COUNCIL P ~R!3.~ SIDENT FOR SUBMITT4L:
MAYOR ~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~ ~'~5-2-J~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There is a vacancy on the Public Access (BKAT) Citizens Advisory Committee. It recommended Joan Tale Be
appointed to fill the vacancy.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to confirm the appointment of Joan Taie to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMF,,IhI. DE D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATEg~
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
AGENDABL
APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE
dOTE: 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.
Please type or prirlt clearly, DATE:
LOCAL REFEI~ENC~ES. (name & phone number):
._.- / I-
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? I' ~
If yes, how many years have you served on this oommission/~ommittee?
Please turn page --~
WHY ARE YOU APPLYING ~,FOR THIS APOINTMENT?
/ ' ~, ~ , ~.~ -, .~ ,~"~-~ j ~- ~ ~ "
WHICH OF YOUR PERSONAL AND/OR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS PROMPTED YOU TO APPLY FOR
HAvE YOU SERVED ON ANY OTHER BREMERTON BOARD, COMMISSION, COMMITTEE OR TASK
FORCE? IF YES, PLEASE LIST:
.,. ,..
TRAINING,
EDUCATION):
/ ~l/.'~ /} ~' , /'
"':" : '~->-- - -
c: -', ..... y--- ,,: '
WHAT ARE YOUR COMMUNITY INTERES'['_~COMMITTEES, ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIAL
ACTIVLTIES)3' /? - /¥ ~ ~ ,'0/:~ /" ./
We welcome ~ngness to serve Bremerton. Please return this completed form to:
Mayor's Office (360) 478-5266
239 4th Street (360) 478-5883 FAX
Bremerton, WA 98337 E-mail: mayor@ci.bremerton.wa.us
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA: November 29, 2000
Legal Department Budget to be moved to City ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
Council Budget during Budget Approval Process ORIGINATOR: John Law, Council Member
DATE SUBMITTED: Nov. 27, 2000
2. C~EARANCES: (C~nment on back ifnecessa_ry) 3. EXHIBITS:
~ OlJEN~_ 'X. flyI.ALANCA, City Attome2~
Cb ¢E ,ATIONs CO/MMITTEE
COtv mTTEE
ENDORSEMENT ~-~ INFORMATION ~ APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council is considering the need to place the Legal Department's budget under the City
Council budget to better facilitate the direct communication to the City Council of Legal
Department requirements. Ensuring the independence of the City Attorney in providing legal service
to the City is an additional motivation for this Budget consideration.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to provide for the placement of the Legal Department's budget under the City Council budget
during the course of the Council review of the 2001/2002 Budget.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED [-'-I TABLED [~ APPROVED ~] DISAPPROVED [---l AMENDED l--] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: ~
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: (~
/.3
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
No change in the currem submission of the Legal Departmem's budget under the Mayor's proposed budget.
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER ,RESOURCES:
None
11. RESEARCH SOURCES:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
L. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: November 29, 2000
Retention of the current City Attorney ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
as Special Counsel to the City Council ORIGINATOR: Jim Reed, Council Member
in the event of a purported separation DATE SUBMITTED: November 28, 2000
from EmDlowment
2. ~_~: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Glenna Malanca, City Attorney
Council Study Sessions
Fiscal & Budget Chairman
Operations Committee Chairman
ENDORSEMENT [ ] INFORMATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREM~.NT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council is considering the need to provide for the employment of the current City
Attorney as Special Counsel to the City Council, as provided under Section 25 of the City
Charter. The need for this consideration is based upon the opposing legal positions taken by
the City Council and the Mayor regarding the City Council's November 15 acceptance of the City
Attorney's withdrawal of her November I resignation, subsequent to the Mayor's November 2
acceptance of the City Attorney's resignation. The proposed employment of the current City
Attorney as Special Counsel would become effective contemporaneously with the effective date
and time of any separation paperwork relating to the City Attorney's current employment. The
City Council continues to maintain its authority under the terms of the City Charter to accept
the City Attorney's withdrawal of her resignation.
5 . RECOMMENDAT ION:
Move to provide for the employment of the current City Attorney as Special Counsel to the City
Council in the event of separation paperwork becoming effective relating to the City
Attorney's current ,employment. As Special Counsel to the City Council, Glenna Malanca will
become employed under the same terms and conditions, including office space and support staff,
as under her present employment. Her duties as Special Counsel shall be as assigned by the
Council President. A budget adjustment and contract of employment shall be considered by the
Council at its next regular meeting subsequent to the effective date of any separation papers
relating to her present employment. Until such budget adjustment, her position shall be
funded from the Legal Department's budget. The City Council wants the record to reflect that
it believes it has the authority to accept the City Attorney's withdrawal of her resignation,
and is taking this action solely as a preventative measure to avoid confusion regarding the
City Attorney's employment status, which the Council believes remains as the City Attorney.
6. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
8. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Impgrtant legal matters now pending and anticipated to be filed by or against
the City will not receive sufficient legal support,'and the City Council will
not be adequately advised.
9. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTNR~ ~8OUItCBR:
To be determined as necessary.
10. RESEARCH SOURCES:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Ordinance No. FOR AGENDA: November 29, 2000
Amending Chapter 2.76 of the Bremerton ORIGINATING DEPT: City Council
Municipal Code ORIGINATOR: Cecil McConnell,
Councilmember
DATE SUBMITTED: November 27, 2000
2. C.}-.EARANCES: (C...c[mment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
(...-'--~<~ ,.//~,....457~_..~.~/ Ordinance No.
City Attorney
COLrNC~ OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
FISCAL & BUDGET COMMITTEE
ENDORSEMENT [-] INFORMATION [--] APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MAYOR
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council isconsidering the need to amend Chapter 2.76 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to
reduce the Mayor and other employee's spending authority in order to be more informed on the
expenditures by the City.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Record Motion:
Motion to approve Ordinance No. on 1st reading.
Motion to pass Ordinance No. on 2nd reading.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION:
PULLED [--] TABLED [--] APPROVED [--1 DISAPPROVED [~] AMENDED [-] DATE:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: /~~
9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACII,ITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
11. RESEARCH SOURCES:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 2.76 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code and updating the City's purchasing procedures.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Amendment. Section 2.76.300 (a) (3) is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.76.300 PROFESSIONAL AND PURCHASED SERVICES.
(a) (3) All professional ac~pur.~Sservices utilized by the City from $-0- to
$10,000 1,000 in value may be by purchase order and letter of understanding._ Professional arid
P-umhase~Services Agreements in excess of $!0,000 $1,000, but less than $20,000, require a
formal contract ........ ' ~"' *~'~' ~ ....... '~ ........ '~' ,'"' i,",fo,.'T~,,i,qg *~'" Cou.",c~! approved by
the Chairs of the Operations and Fiscal & Budget Committees, or their committee designees,
and the Council President; PROVIDED that= contracts for an amount of more than $1,000 and
less than $10,000 may be made by purchase order and letter of understanding upon the
approval of the Chairs of the Operations and Fiscal and Budget Committees, upon notice to the
Council President. -Purchased Services utilized by the City from $-0- to $10,000 in. value may
be by purchase order and letter of understanding. Purchased Services in excess of $10,000,
but less than $20,000 require a formal contract approved by the Mayor and a memorandum
informing the Council of the nature and amount of the expenditure. Professional and Purchased
Service Agreements i¢~e,,<~,ess-of $20,000 or more require Council approval.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and
publication.
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading 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 S. HORTON
Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE # ., FOR AGENDA OF: November 29, 2000
VACATING A PORTION OF O STREET. ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div.
ORIGINATOR: W. Eugene, Sampley, Director PW~J,SS
DATE SUBMITTED: November 8, 2000 t'-' v ...
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on b ,,~ 3. EXHIBITS
Director, Public Works/Utilities /t"~t"k~_ F_.2-~'~ _ A. Ordinance #
City Attorney _~'~. &~f~ B. Site Map.
Director, Community Development '~:a~gL/----' .... - --- C. Staff Report.
Council Budget & Finance Committee,. ~_~, ~,
Operations Committee ~ ~"c~,--n-'~ .~'~/r
ENDORSEMENT X ~INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR(~.9,/2~ ~{~r~,,... .... COUNCIL PRESIDENT _'~_~Z.~. d"-~'d~.-'/r.~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City has received a petition from Dale and Donna Dahl to vacate a portion of O Street from Oyster Bay
Avenue to 279 feet east. A hearing date of November 29, 2000, was set by the City Council on October 25,
2000. Posting of the hearing notices and mailings to the adjacent property owners have been completed in
accordance with State law and the Bremerton Municipal Code. This right-of-way consists of an unimproved
section of right-of-way currently used as a vehicle access to the property. The furthest east section of this right-
of-way is a deep depression that contains water year round. The vacation is being requested by the abutting
property owners to improve the property for development. 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 O Street.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
A. MoVe. to approve the attached Ordinance, vacating a portion of O Street, on first reading.
B. Move, to pass Ordinance # , vacating a portion of O Street, on second reading.
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. L.,., '~ ~'- ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The street will remain right-of-way, which may restrict development of the 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
ab, Agenda Bills 2000, O Street Vacation
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lori Smith
FROM: Jeff Shea, Senior Engineerq~
DATE: November 27, 2000
SUB J: O Street Vacation additional information
Lori,
City Council asked me to get something from the property owner, Mr. Lachlan, stating his
reservation to the O Street Vacation Petition (the Hearing is scheduled for this Wed.). Mr.
Lachlan faxed the attached letter to me today. Can you insure that each Council member gets a
copy of this for review?
Thanks, Jeff
To: Mr. Jeffry Shea Public Works and Utilities From: xx x 11/26/00 19:23:12 Page 1 of 1
Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware
November 21, 2000
Jeffry Shea
Senior Engineer
Public Works and Utilities
3027 Olympus Drive
Bremerton, WA 98310-4799
Vacation of Right-of-way
O Street, Bremerton, WA
Dear Ivfi'. Shea:
Thank you for contacting me about this issue. I want to let you know that this proposal concerns property that I inherited and am
not completely familiar with but have visited a couple of times. I am currently in medical school m Califorma and haven't had
the chance to look into obtaining an easement to this property up to this point. I hope to move back to Washington in the future
and possibly build on this property. I have a couple of concerns resarding the vacation of this right-of-way. My first concern is
the loss of access to lot//4502-004-003 and the bottom of lot #4502-004-004 which I also own. From what I observed when I
visited this property is that the best access to this property would be Dom the west as the terrain from the east is extremely steep
and would require major construction to allow access. I am also concerned that if this right-of-way vacation is approved and the
neighboring property is developed this might effect some wetlands that I have observed in the area of discussion. I am not sure
if this is a stream or a pond but the few times I have visited this ~operty this water was always there and appeared to be the
habitat for several small birds. Thank you for yotu consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Lachlan Munro
(707) 642-8674
To: Mr. Jeffry Shea Public Works and Utilities From: x x x 11/27/00 21:25:34 Page 1 of= 1
Sent by the Award Winning Cheyenne Bitware
November 27, 2000
Jeffxy Shea
Senior Engineer
Public Works and Utilities
3027 Olympus Drive
Bremerton, WA 98310-4799
Re: Vacation of Right-of-way
0 Street, Bremerton, WA
Dear Ma'. Shea:
I spoke with Donna Oster-Dahl this evening and she cleared up some issues that were unclear to me. Most importantly and most
embarrassmgly, I don't o~m lot 3 like I thought I did. I was confusing the tax assessor g4502-004-004-0003 with the lot
number. I pulled my tax records and verified that I own the lot that joins my property on the opposite side. This means that the
vacation of fight-of-my only effects 70' of my property instead of 140' which I o. riginally th0u~fftt. Tl~.e portion of my lot that
this does effect is probably an area that I would not need access to.['~ith this have any objection with th~"1
~(~acation of the right-of-way 279' east of OYster Bay Avenue. "'~ in mind, I do not
Sincerely,
Lachlan Munro
(707) 642-8674
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:
ORDINANCE #
AN ORDINANCE Vacating a portion of O Street, from
Oyster Bay Avenue to 279 feet East.
WHEREAS, Dale A. Dahl and Donna K. Oster-Dahl have petitioned to vacate
this unimproved 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.
Ordinance Vacating a Portion of O Street
Page 1
THAT PORTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY OF "O" STREET (13th
AVENUE) IN THE PLAT OF BREMERTON HEIGHTS (VOLUME 3, PAGE 41)
EXTENDING FROM THE EAST MARGIN OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OF OYSTER BAY
AVENUE TO THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 27,
BLOCK 1, OF SAID PLAT. BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1
EAST, W.M. CITY OF BREMERTON, 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
Ordinance Vacating a Portion of O Street
Page 2
iS
Z Jl'J 'M ld '
STREET VACATION REQUEST
O STREET
ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: NOVember 29, 2000
PREPARED BY: Ned Lever
SUMMARY
A. Applicants: Dale A. Dahl and Donna K. Oster-Dahl
10230 Yates Ln. NW
Bremerton, WA 98312
Location: O Street from Oyster Bay Avenue to 279 feet East
B. Attachment: Vicinity Map and Vacation Area Map
BACKGROUND
The applicants have petitioned the City of Bremerton to vacate a portion of 0 Street
Right-of-Way that abuts their property (approximately 11,160 st'). The right-of-way is
currently undeveloped and it is unlikely to be developed due its topography. There is a
steep slope and a deep depression located within the limits of this right-of-way.
The vacation will eliminate a piece of undeveloped right-of-way and will increase the
buildable area of the abutting property. See the attached sketch of the area in question.
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS
Functional Classification Local Access
Existing R-O-W Width 40 feet
Proposed R-O-W Width N/A
Pavement Width N/A
Surface Type N/A
Curb and Gutter N/A
Sidewalks N/A
September 26, 2000
O 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 O Street is not required for public use. Due to the topography of
the area it is unlikely that it will be utilized as a connector between Oyster Bay
Avenue and Bremerton Boulevard.
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:
The city has not historically maintained this portion of undeveloped right-of-way.
4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more
useful to the public.
Staff Position:
Currently both the O Street and N Street right-of-ways are developed as
residential driveways. O Street has been used solely by the property to the
north. The properties that are located south of and adjacent to O Street and also
front on N Street have been served by N Street. Two of these parcels are
currently undeveloped and can gain access from N Street in the future.
5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater
public use or need than presently exists.
Staff Position:
There is no anticipated future public use.
September 26, 2000
O 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:
Lachlan Munro, the owner of lot 004-00 had a representative contact the City
verbally requesting that the hearing be postponed until Mr. Munro is available to
participate in the process. Mr. Munro is in the Navy and is currently out of the
country.
SHORELINE ACCESS
This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access.
UTILITIES
All private utility companies have been contacted. There are no existing utilities located
within this portion of the right-of-way.
SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES
The request for the vacation was made by more than two thirds (on a front footage
basis) of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated.
COMPENSATION
This is a Class III right-of-way as defined in Ordinance 4664. This type of right-of-way is
limited to a public easement which is generally unimproved and for which no public
funds have been expended in the acquisition or in the acquisition or providing
improvements. No compensation is required for Class III right-of-way.
STAFF COMMENTS
No comments were received from Police or Community Development staff.
The Fire Department requires that Fire Department Access shall be maintained per the
Uniform Fire Code and Bremerton Roadway Standards via another route. This vacation
will not adversely impact the current ability of the Fire Department to access these lots.
Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested without
modification.
September 26, 2000
0 Street Vacation
Page 3 of 5
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of FOR AGENDA OF: November 29, 2000
Ordinance# regarding annexation of the real ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD
property described within the adopted Port Blakely Sub- ORIGINATOR: Lee A. Wyatt, Planner
Area Plan. DATE SUBMITTED: November 20, 2000
2. CLEARANCF4S: (~omme~ on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
necessary) [~l]~llli~l[ - CC Ordinance# DRAFT 11-17
Bldg. & Plug. Dir.: {~L~'9'~{v~f(~ Annexation of the real property described
~~,~'~~"x ' [ ~ f~ Q...._.,.,,,~ within the adopted Port Blakely Sub-Area
City Attorney: Plan
Notice of Public Hearing
City Clerk: ~ ~TL~2~_~ ~ Notice of Intention of Bremerton
~~ Annexation
F&B Chairman: f Initial Development Agreement
~-..~-~; ~ , ./,? PC Resolution No. 2000-06
ops Ch ,rman:
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR ~'~ ~7~., COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton, Kitsap County and Port Blakely Communities (land owner/developer) have cooperatively prepared
and adopted a Three-Party Agreement which established certain terms and conditions relating to annexation of the Port
Blakely Sub-Area Plan, a large parcel of land (appro-'amately 440 acres) located to the west of Kitsap Lake. The City has
amended its 1995 Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code in such a manner as to facilitate annexation of the Port Blakely
Sub-Area. Consequently, the City has received a petition to annex the property, from the developer and has forwarded the
Notice of Intention of Bremerton Annexation to the Kitsap County Boundary Review Board. Annexation of the property.
implements the agreed upon provisions of the Three-Party Agreement.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
I move to approve <:h~.. ~.,x'- t~--~:,,~ot~:n An Ordinance of the Bremerton Ci~ Council anne. ring 440 acres of real
property commonly known as the Port l:llakely Sub-Area, pursuant to the direct petition method set forth in Chapter 35.13
RCW; describifig the boundaries thereof: requiring said properties to be assessed and taxed at the same rate and basis as the
other property within the City; and fixing the effective date of said annexation.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: _Director, B&PD
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
7. NOTICE OF ACTION 10C
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: -~, ._. (. {~ .
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Failure to approve the Ordinance would result in the inability of the proponents (City of Bremerton
Kitsap County, Port Blakely Communities) to proceed with the proposed mixed use development through
annexation.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Additional staff resources will be required to continue the review and development of the proposed
Master Plan, EIS preparation, and the Master Plan Development Agreement.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Port Blakely Joint Planning Area Sub-Area Plan
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Volume I, dated Sept 20, 2000 (Sept 11, 2000,
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Kitsap Co.)
Kitsap County Zoning Ordinance Volume II, dated Sept 20, 2000 (Sept 11, 2000,
RCW 35.13.177 and. 178 Kitsap Co.)
RCW 36.70A. 10
File Three-Party Agreement between City of Bremerton, Kitsap
County, and the land owner - Port Blakely
Communities
TALKING POINTS CITY COUNCIL PORT BLAKELY
November 29, 2000
ACCO~ING TO THE T~EE P~n~ AGREEMENT:
~1. HOW ~CH OF BREMERTON T~AYERS MONEY WILL BE SPENT ON mE
PRO,ECT ? WE HE~ T~T ONE ~LLION DOLL. S WILL BE SPENT ON RO~S.
~T RO~S- ~RE- O~R ~T PZa~O~ OF T~ ? ~S
A~NG FROM ~E ISSAQUAH DEFELOPME~ BY ~E ~AME COMPANY
~POR~D ~AT ~N~PORTA~ON , E~O~ION, PROBLEM~ E~T ~I~ MUCH ~ND
CLEA~D AND NO CONSTRUC~ON ~TAR~D. B~LDING ~W ~~ ~IN
FORESTED L~ ~PE~S TO BE A COSTLY U~ERTAK~G FOR ~E S/~OU~ING
CO~~TIES.
~2.. HOW ~ ~LLIONS OF T~PAYERS MONEY WILL BE SPENT ON
IN~STRUCT~E FOR ~E PRO.CT ? HOW ~CH B~RTON MONEY ~ICH
COULD BE SPE~ TO ~VITALIZE ~ EXISTING CO~~TY WILL BE EXPORTED TO
~E PORT BLAKELY PROJECT ? ~T BENEFIT IS THE PORT BLAKELY PRO. CT TO
BRE~RTON ? WILL THERE BE LONG TE~ JOBS CREATED *
~3. ~VE ~E COUNCIL ~ THE ~YOR AB~ONED THE REVITALIZATION OF
BREMERTON ~ INVITING A F~THER CITIZEN EXODUS FROM EXISTING
NEIGHBO~OODS - TO "NEW" HOUSING AT PORT BLAKELY - WI~ NO P~CTICAL
T~GIBLE BE~FITS FOR ~E PRESENT NEIG~O~OODS ON THE HORIZON EXCEPT
PE~S A DRE~ OF A POSSIBLE EVE~AL L~GER T~X BASE ?
g4. MOST RESPONSIBLE CO~INITIES BUILD MORE HOUSES, ~ EXP~N~
HOUSING ~EAS ON THE BASIS OF THE ~BER OF NEW CITIZENS SEEKING
EN~LOYMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING BOU~.~IES OF THE CO~NITY. ~T IN
THE WO~D ~E BREMERTON'S ~ASONS FOR BL~ENING EXISTING CITIZENS TO
FIN.~CE 2*-~YjT~~T'PROJECT ?
gS. THIS CITY ~S STE~FASTLY REJECTED THE FACT T~T BRE~RTON
IDEALLY SI~rATED TO BE ~ EXP.~SION BEDROOM CO~NITY FOR THE EAST
SOU~ CITIES ..... PRIDE .~ S~BBO~NESS LOCALLY DICTATING T~T WE W~NT
TO BE ~N I~EPE~ENT SELF S~PORTING CON~NITY - GROWING IN I~US~Y
.&N~ POP~ATION ON O~ OWN MERITS. SO NOW YOU GO ~ F~THER
F~GMENTIZE THE POPULATION WI~OUT EVEN A HINT OR PROMISE OF MORE
BUSINESS CO~NG INTO THE ~EA. ~ ]'-~~7~2~~ HOW DOES THIS
SQU~ERING OF RESOURCES ~ T~ INCOME RELATE TO T~ "~STER PLaN
FOR GRO~ ~AGE~NT" 9
Are~ C~de
598o851 ~
Fa.~ 5~6-629~
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
P.O. Box 498 Suquamlshr Washington 98392
November 29, 2600
l-he Honorable Lynn Hot'ton
Breme~on Cit7 Council Members
City, of Bremerton
239 fourth Street
Brcmerton, WA 98337
RE: Dratt Iuiti~d Developmeut Agreement Between The City of Bremerton and
Port Blakely
Dear Si. rs:
The Tribe has rr '-4 amendmev, ts to the above-mentioned agreemew
submitted by I" · C~. "them. Additionally, Iht Tribe continues so object
~o :he attemp, .i~ the City. and Port Bl~kely ad, nit is a mere
;'gcnemi cot ~ ,.,-,.'W&-'-' ,asons set forth in :he Tribe's November 14. 2000
wrirte:t test,., on Plarming Co.,,aca:ssion, which ts hereby
tn¢o~orated by
OFFICE OF TH.E
Scott Wheal WSBA
A~omey for ~.e Suqu~mish
TOTPt. F. £'2
NOU-!4-2000 14:46 SIJQUAMISH LEGAL P.
Area Code (360) 598-3311
I.egal Dept. Fex (360) S98-4203
legttO .ug.uomish.nm.us
--THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
PO Box 498 Suquaml~h, Wa.hington 98392
November 14, 2000
Br~merton Planning Commission
Brernerton Department of Community Development
286 4th Strut
Br~m~on. WA 98337
RE: Initial Development Agreement Between the City of Bremerton and Port Bia~ly
Thc Suquamish Tribe CTnbe") hereby submits the following testimony in opposition to approval by
the Bremerton Planning Commission of the Above-Mentioned Agreement:
The Initial Development Agreement Erroneot~sty Attempts to.Vest ~e Propofred Prolect.
The ~itial Development Agreement ("IDA") inappropriately attempts to vest the proposed project
what both the City and Port Blakely admit is a mer~ "general concept for development." See IDA.
Telhngly, the IDA points to no City ordinance which would allow vesting at such a "general" and
"conceptual" stage. Them has been no short plat submitted, nor has there even been a "preliminary
s~te plan" submitted for review. Further, the Tribe specifically disagrees with the assextion W~thin the
IDA that its general and conceptual proposal vests under state law.
The Pon Blakely Property at issue CPBP") is not at this time within city limits (as the I, Citsap County'
Boundary Review Board has yet to consider the proposes annexaUon), nor has the rezent UGA
designation of both the City and the County for the PBP survived the statutory period for filing
an appeal to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. This statutory period
does not mn until November 24, 2000. The vesting regim~ proposed in The IDA represents an
attempt to m~maturely vest the general, conceptual plan prior to appeal aha/or petition to the above-
mentionexl administrative bodies - bodies with authority under state !aw ('RCW 36.70A et seq. and
RCW 35.13 et seq) to deny the proposed UGA designation and proposed annexation. The Planning
Commissmn should simply not recommend that the project vest prior to expiration of the statutory.
period for filing a~ appeal.
The SEIS process contemplated in Attachment C reveals the City and Pon Biakely may allow
substantial deviations from yet-to-be dev¢lol~d Master Plan requirements. Yet, presumably, they
would also have the yet-to-be.-eontemplatext deviations vested as well. Such an approach should be
r~.lemcd out of hand, as it is an attempt to vest undefined projects to undefined standards.
HOU- 14-Z.'$3_ O0 14: 4? '..SUQUAM ! SH LEGAL P. 0.'~..
The IDA const/tutes an attempt to vest the property to a (~lbeit genera] and conceptual) zoning
scheme, and as such is subject to SEPA notice a~d s¢opmg requirements - none of which have
occurred het~. Finally, the IDA erroneously assumes that prior SEPA documents issued in
connection with the project somehow "cover" the IDA. Yet no such SEPA documents have
addressed the novel vesting scheme proposed in the K)A. Thus the IDA is beyond the scope of prior
SEPA documents. Approval of the IDA without an additionaJ .S~;~A d~f~lTlfiflation wo~d thus f~l!
astray from SEPA requirements.
PARAGRAPH _6.1
Paragraph 6.1 contemplates the possibility of a rezon..~...~= within the subject ar~. Nowh~n'= do the
Subarea Plan and Threx Party Agreement contemplate, much l~ss allow for, such a possibility. This
Paragraph should thus be stricken in it~ cntir=ty.
PAR .A.~RAPH 7.3
Paragraph 7.3 would allow undefinexl "m/nor modifications" from yet to be ~tablished development
r=quiremaqts to be approved on a pure!y acinumswative level, which, presumably means that such
modifications would esca[n: thc normal procedural safeguards ant/substantive requirements s~t forth
in r.h¢ Bremerton MurU¢ipal Code, This paragraph should be str/¢ken for this reason alone.
Add/tionally, however, ti.us approval process suffer~ from the lack of a defirdtion of what constitutes
a "minor modification" and is therefore beref: of the "regulatory sideboards" rra.luir~d by prior
Central Puget Sound Crrowth Management Hearing~ Board 5ecisions concerning similar issues.
Thc proposed "~'oject Envelope" process .,'afl,ts an attempt, via contract, to shirk thc normal SEPA
review process set forth in thc Bremertori Municipal Cod~. It is mappropr/ate for those within the
gambit of the development to be exempt from requirements that all of res/dents of the city must
comply
Respectfully submitted chis 14:h clay of November, 2000.
OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY
S¢o~t Wheat, WSB^ #25565
A~omcy for the Suquamish
TOTCE. F. ~
~ea Code (~) ~-3311
Cegal DopL F~ (~) 5~293
I~al~uquamish.nzn. us
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
PO ~x ~8 Suquamish, W~hi~ton g~392
~cott
From: Scott ~AOaeat
Department: Leeal Pages iacludlng cover sheet: ,~
(~ax~ by Neoma Bour~ ~60 ( ) f~ by ~nda ~abaf~da - e~359
( ) Hard Copy to Follow ( ) Ple~e Reply
( ) URGEL~IT! Please deliver immediately
IF TRA.'~SMISSION IS UNREADABLE
PLEASE PHONE (360)~98-3311
~y d~ina~, di~butlo~ or cop~s of ~is ~o~ni~ is s~cl~y pmhlbi~, if~ ~ve ~c~ ~is ~F in ..M. p!~ ~Mlfy
~ by ~l~ne i~di=t~y. ~ ~mm thc od~nal ~ to us M ~ able ad~s ~l ~e U.S. ~s~l S~ice. ~ ~11, o~ ~e ~ppy
to ~i~U~ yGu f~ any~St ~k~u.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRElVlERTON, WASHINGTON
ZONING THE SITE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PORT BLAKELY
PROPERTY UPON ANNEXATION AS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY'S
COMP~HENS[VE PLAN BY ORDINANCE 4722; APPLYING THE "MIXED
USE DISTRICT" (MXD) ZONE FOR THE SITE AS ESTABLISHED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 4723; AND ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AS PART OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC ZONING.
The City Council of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, the City amended its 1995 Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 4722 on
September 20, 2000 to adopt the Port Blakely Joint Planning Area Sub-Area Plan as an
amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan, and
WH]EREAS, the City Council o~-' B~-emerton also approved the Three-Party Agreement by
Ordinance No. 4722 on September 20, 2000, and Kitsap County approved the Three -Party
Agreement by Ordinance No. 249-2000, on September I 1, 2000, which Three -Party Agreement
established certain terms and conditions relating to the Port Blakely Sub-Area site commonly
known as the Port Blakely property CPrope~'ty"), and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton, the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners and Port
Blakely Communities executed the Three -Party Agreement consistent with and implementing
the Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan fbr mixed c~se development, land uses, open space, infrastructure
and services, and
WHEREAS, upon annexation oi-' tl~e Property by tile City, the City's Comprehensive Plan
amendments in Ordinance No. 4722 autl~orized the zoning oF tile site l"rom its Kitsap County
Transitional Zone under the Three-Part,,' Agreement and Kitsap County Code to the "tMixed Use
District" (MXD) zone under the Brememm Municipal Code. The MXD zoning category, was
1
added to the Bremerton Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 4723 adopted on September 20, 2000,
and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement attaclned hereto as Exhibit C implements and is
authorized by the Sub-Area Plan and Th~-ee-Party Agreenlent by applying specific project
elements and development standards to the site consistent with the state's development
agreement statute, RCW 36.70B. 170 et.seq., and B~'emerton Municipal Code § 21.02.900, and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council Ineld a public hearing on the proposed MXD
zoning and development agreement on November 29, 2000, and at the conclusion of such
hearing determined that the Port Blakely Sub-Area p~'operty should be zoned "MXD" and a
development agreement adopted concur~-ently as part ct'the zoning, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section l. MXD Zoning; Development Agreement. The Po~-t Blakely Property, as set
forth on Exhibits A and B, is hereby zonecl to Mixed Use District (%¥1XD"), upon annexation, as
authorized by the City's Compretnensive Plan (inclt~ding the Pot-t Blakety Sub-Area Plan) as
amended by Ordinance 4722, and tine Kitsap Count.¥ %-ansitional Zoning under the Three-Party
Agreement and tine Kitsap County Code shall no longer apply to tile Port Blakely Property. The
Development Agreement attached Inereto as Exhibit C is approved as part of the site-specific
MXD zone for the Port Blakely Property, and the Mayo~' is authorized to sign the Development
Agreement in substantially tine same ~b~'m as Exhibit C
Section 2. Ett'ective Date. This o~-dina~ce shall take elTect ten (10) days following
passage and publication. The City Clerk shall certii:y this adoption ordinance to the Kitsap
County Commissioners upon tile ordimmo: ett'ective date
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading ti'tis__ day of ,2000
PASSED by the City Council of Bremerton this__ day of__, 2000.
Carol Arends, Council President
APPROVED this__ day or' ,2000.
Lynn S. Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A--Map of Port glakety Site.
Exhibit B--Legal Description oF Port Blakely Site.
Exhibit C--Development Agreement tbr Port Blakely with MXD zone
3
After Recording Return to:
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 - 1688
At[n: Thomas A Goeltz
INITIAL DEVELOPhlENT AGREEMENT
lie[ween
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREIMERTON
Grantors: Port Blakely %-ee Farms (Limited Partnership), a Washington limited partnership;
and City of Bremerton, a Washington municipal corporation
Grantees: Port Blakely Tree Farms (Limited Partnership), a Washington limited partnership;
and City of' Bremerton, at Washington mc~nicipal corporation
Abbreviated Legal Description: Portions or'Section 7, 18 and 19 of Township 24 North,
Range I East ot'W.M, in Kitsap County, Washington
Additional Legal Description: Attachment
Assessor Property Tax Parcel Account
072401-4-050-2001 192401 - 1-002-2002
18240 l- 1-00 1-2004 192401 - t -00_3 -2001
182401 - 1-003-2002 10240 l- 1-004-2000
182401 - 1-004-2001 192401 - 1-005-2009
182401- 1-005-2000 192401 - 1-006-2008
182401- 1-006-2009 .192401 - 1-007-2007
182401 - [-007-2008 192401 - 1-008-2006
[82401- 1-008-2007 [9240 [- [-009-2005
[ 82401-3-007-2004
[ 82401-4-001-2008 192401-2-002-2000
182401-4-002-2007 [ 92401-3-002-2008
182401-4-003 -2000 192401-3-003-2007
182401-4-004-2005
182401-4-005-2004 192401-4-008-2000
182401-4-000-2003
182401-4-007-2002
182401-4-008-2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa~e
1. PHASED PROJECT PLANNING ..................................................................... 2
I. 1 Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement .......................................................... 2
1.2 Current (Threshold) and Future Development Standards ...................................... 2
1.3 No Development Until Master Plan ...................................................................... 3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 3
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS .AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ........................ 3
3.1 Zoning; Density and Intensity' Standards ............................................................. 3
3.2 Roads/Transpo~-tation Standm'ds .............................................................. 4
3.3 Water and Sanitary Se~,,,e~' Standa~'ds .............................................................. 4
3.4 Stormwater Standards 4
3.5 Open Space, Recreation and %'ail Standards ........................................................ 4
3.6 Capital Facility' Standa~'ds ............................................................................... 5
3.7 Other Standards .......................................................................................... 5
4. SEPA; MITIGATION ...................................................................................... 5
4. l SEPA Determination ~'o~- This .A~reement ..................................................
4.2 Master Plan ElS 5
4.3 SEPA Review Al'te~- N'lasler Plan ElS ............................................................... 5
4.4 Mitigation 6
5. MASTER PLAN PROCESS ...................................................................... 6
5.1 City Coordinator; R. ex'iexx 6
5.2 Content of Master [)lan ............................................................................. 6
5.3 City Review Procedure 6
5.4 Schedule 7
5.5 Future City Processing or" Implementing App,'ovals; Plats; Binding
Site Plans ~ 7
5.6 Grants, LIDs, Etc ........... ......................................................... 7
6. TERM: VESTING: 7
6.1 Term 7
6.2 Vesting ......................................................................................................... 8
6.2.1 Project Elements and Thl-eshold Development Standards .......................... 8
6.2.2 CAOandStormxvaterStandards ............................................................. 8
6._..~ ConstmctionStandards .........................................................................
6.2.4 Reviev,,' Fees 8
6.2.5 Other Fees 8
6.26 City's Reserved Ac~thodty ....................................................
6.3 Annual Revie,a. 9
i
6.4 Due Diligence ...................................................................................................... 9
6.4. l City Notice ........................................................................................... 9
6.4.2 Medintion ........................................................................................... 10
6.4.3 Mediation Repo~l .................................................................................. 10
6.4.4 Compliance with Cotllt Decision or Mediation Report ............................ I 1
6.4.5 Joint PlanningP~'ocess ............................................................................ I1
7. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................
7. [ Governing Law; Interpretation; ..........................................................................
7.2 Authority; Severability ......................................................................................
7.3 Integration; Amendment; Minor Modifications .................................................. 2
7.4 Binding on Successors7 Assignment7 Entbrcement ............................................. 2
7.4.1 Binding Agreemem ............................................................................... 2
7.4._ Assignment ...................................................................................... 2
7.4.3 Enfbrcement ot'.Ag~'eement ........................................................... 2
7.4.4 Development Standat'd Moditications ................................................. 3
7.5 Recording 3
7.6 Headings; Attachments 3
7.7 PBC as Agent ........................................................................................ 3
7.8 Time Is of the Essence ..............................................................................
7,9 Disputes; DetXautt and }Kemedies .................................................................. 13
7.9.1 Dispute Resolc~tion ........................................................................... 13
7.9.2 Det}mttand Remedies ...................................................................... 14
7.9.3 Relief Against Delkmlting Party o~- Po~ion offPrope~y ........................... 14
7.10 Estoppel Certificate t4
7.11 No Thh-d Parry Benefici~-v ....................................................................... 14
7.12 Cooperation 15
7.13 Delays 15
7.14 Notice 15
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A" - Legal Desc~'iption of lh'opet'~5
Attachment '~B" - Map or' Prope~'ty
Attachment "C" - SEPA Complianc~ tbt- lmplCmentiag Approvals
ii
DEVELOP?,IENT AGREEMENT
THIS INITIAL DEVELOI~MENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
effective ,2000, by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a
Washington municipal corporation ("City" or "Bremer'~on"), and PORT BLAKELY TREE
FARMS (LIMITED PARTNERSHIP), a Washington limited partnership ("Port Blakely").
R ECITA LS
A. Port Blakely o,,~,ns approximately 440 acres located adjacent to the City
boundaries and within the designated Urban Growth Area tbr Brernerton, as legally described in
Attachment A ("Property") and shox,~n on the map attached as Attachment B. The City and
Kitsap County each have approved the Port Blakety Sub-Area Plan for the Property, which is
incorporated herein by flais ret~et'ence ("Sub-Area Plan"). The City, Kitsap County and Port
Blakely have entered into a Three-Party .,\grcemcnt which deals with the annexation, processing
and other matters relating to the Property, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Port Blakely desires to annex tile Property into tile City pursuant to Chap. 35.13
RCW ("Annexation Statute"), which authol'izcs the Cit.',' to enter into an annexation agreement
fixing the applicable zoning and other dcx'c!opment stanctarcts. Por~ Blakely has submitted its
Annexation Petition tbr tile Properts', anti tiao City has prox, icteci a Notice of Intent to Annex to
the Boundary Review Board.
C. Further, tile legislature has 'authorized local governments to enter into a
development agreement with tile ox\ncr ul' l'ca[ prOl>e~'ty tu establish certain development rights
(RCW 36.70B. 170 et seq., "Development .*\gl'eCmcnt Statute") Bremel-tOn has implemented the
Development Agreement Statute in Bru~l~crton \lunicipal Code tBMC) ~ 21.02 900.
D. Bremerton also [las adopted the "\Ii\cd Used District" (MXD) zoning
classification, which calls tbr actoption of a Development Agreement to set l:brtb the uses and
development standards in tile MXD zone
E. This Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with
City and State recluirements tbr annexation and Development Agreements.
F. Port Blakelv imends to dc\ c}<)lO a mi\cci-usc light industrial, commercial, retail
and residential project ("Project") by Ix'ox icling a r'angc ot'eml,~loymel~t and housing
opportunities that xvould respond to idcmii'~cd and exolxing marl<et conditions and the feasible
capacity of planned infi'astructure ssstcms to support them
G. Bremerton has determined tl~at tile Project is a development tbr which this
Agreement is appropriate, and desires to enter into this Agreement This Agreement will, among
other things, eliminate uncertainty in long-term planning, provide tbr fine orderly development of'
the Project on a comprehensive basis consistent xxith tile City's current Comprehensive Plan and
the Sub-Area Plan covering tile Propert5. pro\ idc ibr serx ices appropriate for development of the
Project, encourage an eml0loymcnt base x~ ith di', crsitv ot'jobs, improve the City's jobs-housing
-1 ol'2 t-
balance, effectively utilize resources within the City at a low economic cost to its citizens and
otherwise achieve tile goals and purposes tot' which the Annexation Statute and Development
Agreement Statute were enacted.
H. In exchange for tile bet~efits to Bremm-ton described in the preceding recital,
together with other public benefits that will ~'esult fi'om the development of the Project, Port
Blakely will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in
accordance with applicable law, anti theretbre desires to enter into this Agreement.
1:. Concurrent with the app.'oval oFthis Agreement, the Bremerton City Council,
after a duly noticed public hearing, made appropriate findings, including that execution of this
Agreement furthers the public health, sai-'ety and general welti-tre, and that the development of the
Property pursuant to the provisions ct' this Agreement at'e consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, Sub-Area Plan, and the Three-Party Agreement and the annexation
ordinance for the Property.
J. Following annexation, Por~ Blakei5, will develop a Master Plan and prepare a
project-level ElS to t-'urrher refine tile l-'~'ojcct. Upon the City's adoption of the Master Plan, the
City concurrently will consider and adopt additiom~[ Development Standards as arnendments to
this Agreement to implement tile :Master PI:re.
:kG RE E:%I ENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consictcr:~titon ct'thc promises, covenants, and provisions set
forth in this Agreement, tile parties ago'ce as tbtlov~s:
1. PHASED PROJECT PI..-\NNING
1.1 Sub-Area Plan and Thcec-l~arlv .\greemenl
This Agreement implements tile 5ut0-.%'ea Plan and Three-Party Agreement applicable to
the Property as adopted by the City Cot~ncil ill Ordinance No. 4722 on September 20, 2000.
Further, the ordinance adopting this Agreement acl-:nowledges the adoption of the MXD zoning
applied to the Property simultaneously x,,ith its anncxatioil.
1.2 Current (Threshold) and Future Developme,~t Standards
Thi~ Agreement incorporates by this celL=fence, as il' 2flly set t'orth herein, all of'the
"Performance Standards" and other' ccmditicms listed in the Sub-Area Plan and the obligations in
the Three-Party Agreemeut tcollectively adopted and t'et;ert'ed to as 'Wlu'eshold Development
Standards" under this Development Ag~'eemc~t) Further, Port Blakely and the City will adopt
additional future Development Standards as a ~'cs[~lt of the Master Plan to be prepared pursuant
to Section 5 below. These t'utm'e Developmem Standards will coyer subjects including but not
limited to the following: bulk, scale and dim~:nsions: landscaping; parking and loading; road
standards and circulation; and design g<tidclitms. Idpotl the City's adoption of the Master Plan,
the City concurrently shall consider and adopt additional Development Standards as amendments
to this Agreement to implement tile Nlustct' Pllm
oi'21-
1.3 No Development Unlil .Masler Plan.
No development or' the Property shall occur until the City's approval of the Master Plan
and additional Development Standards by the amendment oCthis Agreement.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes 440 acres, ot' which approximately 140 acres will remain
undeveloped due to critical areas, butlbrs and mitigation. 3'ce / 4.1.21 q/'Suh-Area f/an.
Development of the remaining approximately 300 acres will consist of 2.25 million sq.
light industrial, commercial and related economic development land uses and up to 100,000 sq.
~. of retail uses as described in the Sub-Area Plan. 5ce ge~te/'ct/O' ,SgaS' 4.1.21(0 & (5);
4.4.21(1)-(8) of Sttb-Area P/an. Further, the Pi-oject is authorized For 900 detached single-family
equivalent residences (or the equivalent of up to 1,200 multi-t~xmily or mixed use residential
structures). See 2' 4. 1.21(6) (e/',$'td~-:l~'ea
The Project as described in this Agreement and the Sub-Area Plan presents a general
concept for development. The City and Purr Blakeiy recugnize the precise location, amount,
pattern and intensity of proposed dex, elopmcm, locations and dimensions of roads or utilities,
open space and trail corridors within thc Property will be developed through the Master Plan.
Actual amounts, patterns and intensities ol'dcx elolomcnt ~virhi~ the Project will respond to
market conditions as long as consistent xx, ith th~ ox~rall Port Blakely concept and the provisions
of this Agreement.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS AND DEX'ELOPSIICNT STANDARDS
The Project Elements, "Pertbrma~ce Standards" listed in the Sub-Area Plan, and other
development standards and mitigation scr t~rth in this Agreenlent and any amendments hereto
are collectively ret~rred to as the "De~ clvpmcnt Standards." and include the Following:
3.1 Zoning; Densily and Inlensily
Upon annexatiem the Property shull bc zc~n~d N. lix¢ct Usc District ("MXD") under the
Bremenon Municipal Code. The Project x~ ill contain the light industrial, commercial, retail and
residential uses at the densities and intensities consistent with the Sub-Area Plan. The general
permitted and prohibited use categories Ibr thc industrial, commercial and retail potions of the
Project are 5et t~rth in the Sub-Area Plan .%'e ,:' 4. L2 i(5; ~?/'~h'tth-.4/'ett ]~/an, More detailed use
categories will be developed and adopted ~s txtr~ of thc Nlaster Plan. The residential units may
be developed as a mix of detached singtc t~tmilx or thc ~quix al~nt of attached residential units
(i.e., townhouse, condominium, duplex or muhi-t~tmiiy units) at thc ratio of I single t~unily
detached unit=0.75 attached unit, not~ocxcced [,200 attached units Authorizedresidentiai
density ranges fi'om 4 to 8 units/acres, cxcc[;t S to Iv un'ts,' acre are authorized to suppo~ the
Project's central mixed-use service,,'rela~t area. ,%e/)' 4./.2]?5? & (6d ~?f the Sub-Area Plan.
The authorized 2.25 million square t~et or'industrial commercial uses and 100,000 square
feet of retail uses retErs to square t~ct ot'Grvss Flour Area "Gross Floor Area" is defined as
follo~vs for purposes ofdfis Agreement: ~hc m~mber oFsquare Feet of total floor area bounded by
the inside surface of the exterior walls or'thc structure measured at the floorline excluding
-3 of 2
parking levels, vent shat'ts, elevator shafts, stairwells, courts, upper stories of atriums and Iobbys,
mechanical floors or areas, and outside balct0nies that cio not exceed a projection of six feet
beyond the exterior walls off the building.
3.2 Roads/Translmrlation St:~mhu'ds
The Sub-Area Plan establishes Pertbrmance Standards tbr ott~ite traffic generation,
which are incorporated herein. ,S'c,c,/4.3.2/ O/',5'M~-.ql'c, ct/>{¢lll. Further, the City and Po~
Blakely will implement the Nlaster Transportation .Agreement as set t~rth in Section 3 of the
Three-Pa~y Agreement. Road standards, access, circulation, pm-Icing, loading and related
Development Standards will be develop~cl as part or'the Master Plan.
3.3 Water and Snnitary Sewer Standards
Ail development within the Project will be served by public water and sanita~ sewer.
The City has issued a Conditional Water and Sewer .Availability letter dated May 17, 2000,
reflecting adequate capacity, fhcilities and supplies to provide water and sewer service to the
Project upon satisffaction of specific co~clitions including provision ot'onsite and offsite system
improvements. Water and sewer imp~-ox cmcnts ~-cquired to ser~e the Project in phases are
generally described in Table 13 or'the Sub-.,N~-ca Plan 'l'he City and Port Blakely will adopt
mutually approved t~mding methods lbr s~xxcr :md vxatcr IMcilities to serve the Project. Funding
may include developer extensions with latecomer rein]bttrsement systems, local improvement
districts fbr other properties benefited by the improven]ents, credits against connection charges,
pa~icipation in any ~itul-e attthorized tax inc~-cm~nt t]nal~cing, or other mutually approved
funding methods.
3.4 Stormwater Standards
The stormwater drainage system iml>roxetnonts shall be designed as pa~ of the Master
Plan using the City's code and stormxx.~tt~r ma~ttal 'as r~qc~ired under Table 2A of the Sub-Area
Plan. More stringent or alternative ctraina~ ~t~mdarcts may be required to the extent applicable
under ,~¢ 4.2.21(3i q/'z/w 3'~th-.q/'~,r~/'/r,~ On-site portions of the storm drainage system will be
dedicated to tbe City or maintained prix'~tctv as determined in the Master Plan. Off-sitepo~ions
of the storm drainage system, such as alo~g roads, will be dedicated to the appropriate
jurisdiction.
3.5, Open Space, Recreation and Trail Standards
Required open space is established at ',~l>proximatdS, I40 acres (out of the total 440 acres)
as described in 3~' 4./._ Ilo9 q/'//~' .h)//)-.d/'~,c~/'/~ The 140 acre total shall be increased only to
the extent additional sensitive areas are ct<~cttn~cntcd within the Property Stormwater hcilities
and buffer crossing to accommodate utilities, t~'ails and circulation tnay occur within the critical
area buffers to the extent provided in Table 2.-X o/'th~ Sub-Area Plan. ~5'ee )' 4./.21(3) r¢',S)th-
Area P/ott. The Master Plan will includ¢ a coordinated system of active and passive recreation
spaces, including trails or open space corricl~rs that link major areas or'the Project. See 3s'
4. 2.2 I(1) c~'5'tth-.~ I'ert /){c,~.
-4 o1'2 l-
3-7
3.6 Capital Facility Stnndartls
The Level or' Service standards and (trading sources tbr roads, water, sewer, police, fire,
parks/open space, schools and the other capital facilities and services set for'th in Table I I and
elsewhere in tile Sub-Area Plan are adopted t'o~-tile P~'oject.
3.7 Other St:mda,-ds
Any other Pert-brmance Standa~'cts or other' conditions specified in the Sub-Area Plan as
Project requirements are inco~'poratect he~'ein by this re~'erence. Further, additional Development
Standards will be developed as part of tt~e Xlaster Plan anti added to this Agreement by
amend merit.
4. SEPAl MITIGATION
4.1 SEPA Delerminntion for This Agreemenl
The City and County adopted a "Deter'initiation of Significance/Adoption oF Prior
Environmental Documents~' tbs' tile St~l>,Area Plan and Three-Pa~'ty Agreement, including
annexation. Tile City continues to use ph~lsed ~'evievv under SEPA (WAC 197-11-060(5)). The
City has determined that this Ag~'eeme~t is x~.ithin the prior SEPA deternlination for the Sub-
Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement si~ce tile Project elements and Performance Standards and
conditions of the Sub-Area Plan are toeing adopted he~-et~y, and no new project elements or
standards are being adopted with this .-\~'~:~:mcnt. A~l ElS will be required as part of'the Master
Plan.
4.2 Master Plan ElS
Port Blakelv will p~'epa~-e a p~'oject-tevd ElS as i)~t~'t or'tile Master Plan. The EIS will be
prepared by a third-pal-ty consultant s~:kectod by the City ~tt't¢~' County participation itl the
consultation selection process, and I>o~'t Blal<elv x,,.ill ~-eimbu~-se tile cost of the consultant.
Sec. 4 of 3-Par(!'
4.3 SEPA Review After .~lasler Plan ElS
The City trod Port glakelv ime~d that o~ce the N, laste~' Plan EIS is completed, then that
ElS will satist5, all SEP.A requi~'ements tbr bc~ild-out of the Project through Implementing
Approvals (defined in Section 0). SEP.A compliance for tile Master Plan will have analyzed a
"Project Envelope" ~-epresenting tile maximun~ allowable P~'oject densities and intensities
described in Section 3 above using tile Tl~resholct Development Standards and l'nitigation
measures approved in this Agreenlent, z~[o~g with tile additional ft~ture Development Standards
to be adopted as pat-t or'the approval ol'the Xlastel-Plan i"P~'oject Envelope"). The Project
Envelope will be implemented bs,' a se~'ies of pe~'mits trod appi'ovals issued over a period of time,
and SEPA compliance tbs- P~'oject impleme~tz~tio~l x.~,ill be condcicted pursuant to Attachment C.
4.4 Mitigation.
Any mitigation measures specilled in the final ElS as needed to avoid significant adverse
environmental impacts will become Project conditions of the Master Plan. A~er completion of
the Master Plan, the City and Port Blakdy intend that compliance with the Development
Standards and other provisions of this Agreement, as amended, will satis~ all applicable
concurrency and level of service requirements and constitute adequate and su~cient public
facilities and services For the Project unless modified by mutual consent.
5. MASTER PLAN PROCESS
Pon Blakely and the City x~.ill pl'epat'e and consider actoption of a Master Plan for the
Project under the tbllowing proccdu~'cs'
5.1 City Coordinator; Review
The City shall designate a lead pe~'so~ (either a start' person or City-retained consultant)
to coordinate the Master Plan review, i~ctudi~g SEPA compliance, engineering review, tra~c
analysis and other disciplines. Port Blakdy xx ill reimburse the City tbr the cost oFstaffor
consultant work in the review, adoption and implementatio~a of the Master Plan pursuant to a
budget mutually approved bv the Cits aad Po~'t 131akelv.
5.2 Contenl of ~l:lsler Iq:ill
The Oity m~d Port ~lakdv will u,~d~,-~ako ~tudi~s ,~ssa~'v to d~velop the Master Plan,
such as a mnster drainage plan, enviromn~ntal studies, transportation m3d engineering analy~i~, a
perimeter buyer plan (see)' 4./. ~0/~ q/'5///~-A/'~'~//'/~/~/)~ design guidelines For commercial
structures (xee ,ss' 4. 1.30/~ ~?/',S'//l)-.4/'c,~/I'll/IlL a monitoring plan (.s'ec, ,9' ?. 2.201: qfXub-Area P/a//),
open space and critical area btllTe~' m<~dtod~g <.svc, ,,' 4.2.3(~< 're/'5',h-,qrea ]21an), and other
appropriate plans or studies The City 'a~d Pol't Blal<elv ~kish to avoid a duplicative process with
separate consultants and engineer's tb~' I%~'t glakcJ5' trod tho City Consequently, the City and
Po~ Blakely intend to jointly <lesigmnc iadcpc~dcnt co~sultams k~r these various plans and
studies, wtnictn will be thnded by Po~'t Blakdv pt~rsuant to a mutually approved budget and tbrln
agreement. Further, as provided in thc 'l'J~roc-Partv Agreement and Section 4.2.2 1(3) of the Sub-
Mea Plan, the City, Kitsap County and Pol't Blal<dy by mutual agreement ~vill select and retain a
third-pa~y expert to evaluate the N, laster Plm~ EIS m~d envi~'omn=ntal standards ~br onsite
protections.tbr fish resources and other critical resou~'ces As provided in the Three-Party
Agreement, the City, County amd Port [31al<els each x~.ill pay one-third of the costs of retaining
that third-party expert.
5.3 City Review Procedure.
The Master Plan shall be devetOl)¢d 0s utilizing the procedures applicable to
development agreements under BMC ~1 '
o= *)00 and ~l.O2.gS0, i.e a Type lll decision. The
Master Plan's adoption by the City Cou~cil si~all be in the [btm o/'an amendment to this
Agreement and shall add alOlOropriate Dexelopment Standm'ds tbr build-out of the Project.
5.4 Schedule.
The City Coordinator and Port 131al,:dy shall develop and periodically revise a schedule
for completion of the Master Plan and ElS. Once the Master Plan is submitted to the City, the
City shall use reasonable el-Torts to diligently approve it, including appropriate hearings and
decision by the City Council.
5.5 Future City Processing ol' Implementing Apl)rovals; Plats; Binding Site Plans
As part of the Master Plan, the City and Port Blakely will determine whether City
processing ofh'nplementing Approvals shall be conducted with a separate review team or
modified review procedures, or whether applications should be processed under the City's
existing code procedures. [n either event, the Threshold Development Standards set forth in this
Agreement, as amended by the t'uture Development Standards adopted concurrent with the
Master Plan, shall be applied. ,As part of the Master Plan, the City shall review the establishment
of one or more binding site plans for industrial or commercial uses within the Project in
accordance with RCW 58. 17020(7) and .{340(4,) Further, the City will consider adoption of
short plat or long plat subdivision processes and boundary line adjustment provisions to allow
creation of legally conveyable lots
5.6 Grants, LIDs, Etc.
The City and Port Blal<ely x,,ill ccac)pc~"ate and utilize thdr best reasonable efforts to aid
and facilitate tine arrangement of mutuall\ 0cnctSc'ial financial mechanisms for the City, Port
Blakely and subsequent users ut'the I)i-OlOCrt5 Such types of support might include, but not be
limited to, the pursuit of revenue bonds, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements,
grants and other subsidies.
6. TERM; VESTINGi
6.1 Term
The term of this Agreement shall continue Ibc it mil~imum of twenty (20) years, and si'mil
continue thereafter unless and until either tile City or the Port Blakely (or successor owners
which own at least 51% of the Propc~'ty by assessed value, exclucting any City-owned land) gives
notice of termination. Tine City's notice of termination shall use the same notice procedures
which woukd apply to a rezone of tile Pro.jeer Thc City shall mail notice to the Port Blakely
under Section 7.14 and to any business or homcoxx, ncr association or community groups which
the City in its sole discretion cictermincs should l'¢Cei\rc notice, but the failure to provide notice
pursuant to this sentence shall not atTcct thc validity of the City's termination notice using rezone
procedures nor subject the City to any liability. Notice by the Port Blakety (or successors) shall
be delivered to the City as provicted in Section 7. ~4 or'this Agreement. No sooner than six (6)
months after tine notice of termination, tilt: City shall hold public hearings and shall adopt zoning
and related development standards t'br th,: Prol0ct't5. Upon such adoption, this Agreernent shall
terminate and thereafter tine Property shall De gox crncd by tile adopted City zoning and related
developmer~t regulations.
-7 o1'2 I-
So
6.2 Vesting
6.2.1 Project Elemeuts and Thrcshokl Development Stnndnrds
The Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement established the general project elements
and some of the initial perfbrmance standards applicable to the Port Blakely Project, all of which
have been incorporated into this Agreemen~ as Threshold Development Standards pursuant to
Section 1.2. Consequently, m accordance w~th the Development Agreement Statute, Pon
Blakely is vested to the Project Elements and those incorporated Threshold Development
Standards in Sections 2 and 3 during the term of this Agreement. Fu~7her, after this Agreement
is amended to adopt the additional Devdopment Standards to be established by the Master Plan,
and any other subsequent amenctment or'this Agreement, Port Blakely shall be vested to those
additional Development Standards durinS th~ Buildout Period. During the Buildout Period, all
Implementing Approvals shall be governed by these vested Development Standards.
Implementm= Approvals" mean the applications submitted afier adoption of the Master Plan for
land use approvals, entitlements, and permits which implement the Project, including but not
limited to permits tbr grading, site development, building, infi'astructure, plats and bounda~ line
adjustments, and other appt-ovals. During the Buildout Period, the City shall not modi~
impose ne,v or additional De, elopment Stanclards, except as
6.2.2 CAO and Slot'tllX~:ller
Additional o~' modified D¢vetopmcnt Stm~da~'ds Iht' critical areas or stormwater may be
imposed on the Project based on eXl0¢rt r~comm:ndations to the extent provided in
Section 4.2.21(3) and Table 2.-X ol'thc So,b-:M-ca Pltttl and Bection 5 or'the Three-Party
Agreement.
6.2.3 Conslruclion Standards
Ail applications Iht- lmplem~ntit~g Approvals shall contbrm to the most current versions
of the Uniform Building Code, atld Unilb~m Fire Cocte alld similm- construction codes.
6.2.4 Review Fees
Except as otherwise providod in the adoptod N'last=r Plan, Port Blakely and other
applicants shall pay the City r~es in efibct on the date each Implementing Approval is submitted
for processing. The proxies' execution of this A~reement acknox~.ledges receipt of the filing Fee
for an application tbr a development agreemeat under the City's code.
6.2.5 Other Fees
Except as otherwise pro~ided in the 'adopted Nlaste~' Plan, all utility connection Fees and
other Fees not specifically addressed by this prc)x ision shall be paid in accordance with the rules
in e~ect on the date the the-generating activity occurs, but the amount of such fees shall take into
account the 0acilities installod by Port BI',~I<=Ix ttI its c<~st ~and ~ot at the cost of the utility)
-S or'2 I-
6.2.6 City's Reserved Authority
In accordance with RCW 36.70B 170(4), tile City reserves the authority to impose new or
different Development Standards to thc extent required to prevent a serious threat to public
health and safety.
6.3 Annunl Review
A~er approval oFthe Master Plan, Port Blakely will submit an annual report summarizing
the status of the Project to the City Coundl outlining its progress, infrastructure improvements
completed during the preceding year, and general conditions at the Project. Contents of the
annual repo~ shall include, but not be limited to the tbllowing:
· Brief synopsis o/application submittal and review process fbr Implementing
Approvals.
Location and density or" residential ctevulopment as a result oF Implementing
Approvals and predicted near/k~ture progress
· Location and type of non-residential development t'esulting From Implementing
Approvals and predicted n~ar lk~ture progress.
Location and type or' open space and recreational tS~cilities provided through the
hnplementing Approval pt'ocess and predicted near future progress.
Location and type of on-site and ottLsit¢ ['oads, utilities and other infrastructure
providect to date and pro.i~cted construction schedules or' proposed infrastructure
· Pioneering jobs report as defined in th= Sub-Area Plan and Section 8 of the Three-
Party Agreement. The jobs ~'eport will include analysis oFcompleted and
proposed actions being taken to prepare and market the employment sites and
estaNishment of the threshvld level of 500 pioneer-lng jobs within the projecL
The City's review and comments on Port Blakctv's annual project review repo~ will take
place within thMy (30) days after Port Bkikciv's submittal Comments received tkom City
departments will be retorted to thc City Coordinator tbr itppropriate action. If no comments are
received from City departments within the rox icx~ period, then the annual review will be deemed
complete.
6.4 Due Diligence.
6.4.1 City Notice.
The City and Po~'t Blakely ~'¢cognize that numel'ous requirements will affect the
schedule and timing of development of the Project, including but not limited to the fblloxving:
infrastructure and utility plamfing, coo~'dination, tk, mting, permitting and installation;
enviromnental data collection; market conditions amd other tbrces beyond Po~ Blakely's control.
If the City believes Port Blakelv is not cliligentiy i)~'occeding with the submission of the Master
-O or'2 I-
Plan and EIS, then at any time after 30 tnonths fi-om tile et't'ective date of this Agreement, as
extended for any litigation, appeals or other causes beyond tile reasonable control of Port
Blakely, then tile City may deliver al x.x rittcn notice to Po,-t Blakely. Any City notice will set
forth the City's requested specific actions and proposed timetable ~br Port Blakely to complete
the actions. The requested actions anct timetable shall be reasonable and reasonably capable of
being accomplished. If Port Blakely completes the actions within the timetable specified by the
City, the Notice shall be deemed satisfied.
6.4.2 Mediation.
If Port Blakely and the City disagree over tile actions or timetable in the City's
notice, or if Port Blakely has not compietect the items within tile timetable specified ill the City's
notice, then either the City or Port Blaketv can request mediation. The parties will pay equally
the mediator's fees and expenses. Within 14 days following a mediation request, the parties
shall seek to mutually select a single m~:diator who is experienced in real estate permitting and
development ill tile State ot-'Washingtot~ tI"nltttLlal selection sloes not occur within those 14
days, then the parties may seek 'appoimmct~t et'an mediator through application to the Kitsap
County Superior Cout-t usinu the procedures o[-' RCW 704050, and tile Court may select a
mediator who meets tile criteria of real estate experience set f'orth in tile preceding sentence. The
mediator shall establish procedures for submission of information and hearing the positions of
the City and Port Blal,:ety and stroll attempt to t"acilitate a resolution of disputes between tile
parties regarding clue diligence. The mediation will constitute settlement negotiations for
purposes of all state and ~-'ederal rules protecting disclosures made in settlement negotiations.
Communication and material submitted to the mediator are privileged and confidential and not
subject to disclosure consistent ,Mth R('\V 5 ot~ t0T~.).
6.4.3 Mediation Report.
If the parties do not reach tncttu',tl agreement through tile mediation, then the
mediator shall issue a written ~'¢port xxithin oo days at'ter selection of the rnediator. The written
report shall not be binding on the parties, but shall contain the mediator's conclusions and
recommendations on whether (a) Port Blal<e!v has proceeded with due diligence or (b) Port
Blakely should undertal<e additiomd reast)t~able actions, on a specific timetable which is
reasonably capable ofachie,,ing, as set tbrth in thc mediator's written report. If either tbs City or
Port Blakely disagrees with tile mecliator's i'cport, including the reasonableness of the
recommended actions or timetable or xx hcthcr thc /cc0mmem. ted actions were achieved within
the rnediato'r's timetable, then either pa:t> ~mtx coll~tllencc ;.tll action in superior court under
Section 6.4.4 below to detel'minc x~.hcthcr Pot's [?,ltd<ely has met the due diligence provisions of
this Section. Ail5, court action shall be commenced within thirty (.30) days afier tile later of(i)
the mediator's report or (ii) Port Blakelv lhilure to complete the mediator's recommended
actions xvithin the recommended timetable The mediation report shall not be used in any court
proceeding as evidence or tbr any other pUrlOOSc without the ,,x:ritten agreement of both the City
and Port Blakely. Tile mediato~- shall m)t t0c compelled to testitU' or to divulge communications
obtained during tile lnediation, subject to thc c×ceptions set tbrth in RCW 5.60.070, unless both
the City and Port Blakely consent to such tcsti~m)n5
-Ju ot'Zl-
q3
6.4.4 Compliance with Court Decision orMedintion Report.
If(a) a court determines Port Blal<ely has met the due diligence provisions of this
Section or (b) neither party appeals to stq0erior court and Po~7 Blakely completes the mediator's
recommended actions within the recommended timetable, then the City's notice will be satisfied
and this Agreement remains in tZ~II force and ett~ct tbr the Term set tb~h in Section 6.1. Ifa
cou~ determines Port Blakely has not met the due diligence provisions of this Section, as the
court may modif~ the actions or extend the timetable in its discretion to meet due diligence, then
the City therea~er shall have the right to terminate this Agreement through a joint planning
process with Kitsap County as provided in Section 6.4.5 below.
6.4.5 Joint Planning Process.
The joint planning process will determine appropriate alnendments to the land uses and
other provisions of'the Sub-Area Plan ~br the Port Blakely Property, which may include but is
not be limited to reallocating the industt'ial, commercial o~' ~-esidentiat uses to other sites. This
Agreement will remain in fk~ll tbt'ce and elliot t~ntil the et'lbctive date of any Sub-Area Plan
amendment under this Section.
7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Governing Law; Interpretation:
This Agreement shall be gore,'ned b5' and inteq~reted in accordance with the la~vs of the
State of Washington. This Agreen~ent has bccn ~'ex iexxect and revised by legal counsel for all
pa~ies and no presumption or ~'ule that ~t~l~bigt~ity st~all Dc construed against the party drafting
the document shall apply to the interp~'wtation of cntb~'cemcnt or'this Agreement.
7.2 Authority; Severability
Breme~xon and Port Blakely each l-eprcsent and warrant it has the respective power and
authority, and is duly authorized to execute, deliver and per[brm its obligations under this
Agreement. The parties intend this Agreement to be interpreted to the t~ll extent authorized by
law as an exercise or' Bl'emerton's authoritS: to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement
shall be construed to reserve to Bremcrtot~ o~dv that pc)lice power authority which is prohibited
by law from being subject to a mutual ag~-ccmcm with consideration. If any provisions of this
Agreement sqre determined to be c~ncntb~-cc'ablc o~' invalid by a court of law, then this Agreement
shall therea~er be modified to implement thc it~t=t~t or'thc parties to the maximum extent
allowable under law. Ifa court lincls cmc~tb~'ccabilitv or inx, alidity of any potion of this
Agreement, the parties agree to seek diligcnt[5 to moctilS: the Agreement consistent with the
cou~ decision, and no party shall cindertakc an3 actions inconsistent with the intent of this
Agreement until the modification to this .-hgrccmcnt has been completed. If the parties do not
mutually agree to modifications within [b~-tS-fix. e (45) days at, er the court ruling, then either
pa~y may initiate the dispute resolution p~'oceedings in Section 7.12 tbr determination of the
modifications which iml)lement the intont o1' this Agreement and the court decision.
-Il
?.3 Integration; Amendment; 51inor Modifications
This Agreement, along with the Sub-Area Nan and Three-Party Agreement, represent the
entire agreement of the parties regarding the Property, and them are no other agreements, oral or
written, except as expressly set t~rth in this Agreement. Any amendment to this Agreement must
be approved by each of the t~llowing: (a) the City; (b) Po~-t Blakely so long as it owns any
potion of the Property and (c) a Designated Successor, it'any, tbr a specified potion of the
Property. "Designated SuccessoF' is a successol' owner specified in writing by the Po~ Blakely
as such a successor or an association. No pm-cel owner or other' person may seek an amendment
of this Agreement except the Port Blakely or except a Designated Successor as to that potion of
the Prope~y owned by the Designated Successor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a designated
City o~cial may al>prove administ~'ativety minor modifications to the Development Standards.
Administrative Minor Modifications mean those which do aot materially increase impacts on
transpo~ation utility systems or the enviromnent, taking into account agreed upon mitigation,
and those which do not materially reduce butlbrs or open space. FmM~er criteria for
Administrative Minor Modifications will Dc adapted as tktture Development Standards when this
Agreement is amended concurrent with thc Xlasrer Plan.
7.4 Binding on Successors: Assignment; Enforcement
7.4.1 Binding Agreement
This Agreement shall be bindi~g c~pon and inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns ofPo~ Blakely and Bremertoa. All sctccesso~'s in title to all of any potion of the
Prope~y shall be bound by the terms or'this Ag~'eement
7.4.2 Assignment
The parties acknowledge that des dopment of the P~'oject likely will involve sale and
assignment of portions of the PrOlOe~'t5' to otl~c~-19¢rsons xxlao will own, develop and/or occupy
potions oFthe Property and building thc:cot~. Port Blal<dv shall have the right to assign or
transfer alt or any portion of the respectix e interests, ~-ights or obligations under this Agreement
or in the Project to other parties acqui~'ing :}~ interest or estate in alt or any potion oFthe
Prope~y, including transfer oFall inte~'ests tln'ough tU~'eclosure (judicial or nonjudicial) or by
deed in lieu of foreclosure. Consent by thc gr¢m~rton shall not be required tbr any transfer of
rights pursuant to this Agreement. Upot~ ti~e t~'anst'br under this section, the transferee shall be
entitled to all interests and rights and bc su0joct to all obligations under this Agreement as to the
prope~y transferred, and Port Blakelv shall bc ~'¢~¢ascd of liability as to the property transferred.
7.4.3 gnlbrcement of Agrt-t-uleni
The City may entbrce this Agreement Port Blal<elv or any pmW responsible fbr
development of the Project designated by Port Blakely may entbrce this Agreement so long as it
owns any portion of the Property. Any ox~ner's association established by Po~ Blakely may
enforce all provisions of this Agreement as it ~'datcs to pot'tions or'the Property covered by the
association, at the earlier of(a) Po~'t Blakctv's specific assigmnent or'enforcement rights or (b)
a~er the date Port Blakely has conveyed all [oorticms or'thc Property to third pmlies. Each
-1__.
individual parcel owner may el~i-'orce the Development Standards and other provisions of this
Agreement as it directly affects that individual parcel.
7.4.4 DevelopmentSlandard ~lodifications
Any modifications oF Development Standards shall require the written consent of Po~
Blakely and the City, including mino~' moclitications under Section 7.3 above.
7.5 Recording
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B. 190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be
recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor ~md dm-lng the term of this Agreement shall be binding
on the pa~ies, their successors and assig~s.
7.6 Hendings; Attachmenls
The headings in this Ag~-oc~em :~'~- i~s~.~-~cct tbs' ~-ctE~'ence only and shall not be constrtied
to expand, limit or otherwise modify, tl~c t~'~s ~tlld conditions or'this Agreement. Attachments A
through ~ are incorpo~'atecl in tJ~e Agt'c~'mc~t b>' tills ~'elb~'ence as it' ~tlly set tbnh.
7.7 PBC as Agent
Po~ Blakety he~'eby designates Port BlakeI5' Communities, lnc. (~PBC") as its agent with
authority to give notices, approvals and otlqe~-x~ise act pursuant to this Agreement. Unless
othe~ise stated by Port Blakely ~o thc~ Cit5, thc r~p~'csema~ions and actions of PBC shall
represent and bind Port Blakely
7.8 Time Is of the Essence
Time is oF the essence or' this .-Xg~'=~ent and eve~'y p~-ovision hereot~ Unless othe~ise
set fo~h in this Ag~'eement, the ~'elbre~cc to "days" shall mean calendar days, If any time for
action occurs on z~ weekend o~' leg:il holidas, then tl~e time period shall be extended automatically
to the next business day.
7.9 Disputes; Default and Remedie~
7.9.1 Dispule Resolution
In the event of any dislx;te ~'elati~ to ~l~is .Xg~-ec~cm, all parties t~pon the request of any
other pa~y shall meet within sex.'e~ ¢7} dilS's o~' tl~c ~'ectt~es~ to seek in good faith to resolve the
dispute. Bremerton shall send the app~'ol0~-iatc depa~'tmem di~'ecto~' and persons with intbrmation
relating to the dispute, and Port Blal<~lv sl~all s~ct :m oxx ~l'~s ~'epresentative and any consultant
or other person with technical intbrmatio~ o~' expertise that relates to the dispute Any dispute
covered by Section 9 ot'the Tl~ree-Pa~'tv .,~greement shall be governed by its terms and not this
Section.
-1.3 o1:21-
7.9.2 Dei'ault and l,~cnlctlics
No pa~ty shall be in default undex th[~ A~'eement m~e~s it has failed to perform under
this Agreement [~r a period or'thirty (30) d%~s at, er written notice ofdeffault from any other
party. Each notice ~fdefimlt shall specit3,' the nature oFthe alleged default and the manner in
which the default may be cures satis[~ctorily. Il'the nature o['the alleged default is such that it
cannot be reasonably cured within th~ thirty (30) day peri,d, tlaen commencement of the cure
within such time period and the diligent p~'osecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a
cure. Any pa~y not in der~qult under this Agreement shall have all rights and remedies provided
by law including without limitation damages, specific perlbrmance or writs to compel
performance or require action consistent witl~ tl~is .qgt-eemeut.
7.9.3 Relief Against Defaulting Party or Portion of Property
In recognition oFthe anticipated salets) by Po~'t Blakely or'portions of the Property to
others to own, develop and/or occupy within tl~e P~-oject Site, the remedies under this Agreement
shall be tailored to the Property o~' parties as pl-ovicted in ti~e remaining provisions of this
subsection, After the transtar of po~-tio~s of thw l't'ope~'ty tbr which tl~e release of liability
provisions apply under Section 7 4.3., any clai~ncd ctefimlt shall t'elate as specifically as possible
to the po~xion of the Property involved amd any ~'~llleclv against any pa~Xy shall be limited to the
extent possible to the owners or'such po~-tion of the t)~'opel'ly. To the extent possible, Breme~on
shall seek only those remedies which do t~ot adve~'selv altbct the ~'ights, duties or obligations oF
any other nondethulting owner of portio~qs of the Propert5' under this Agreement, and shall seek
to utilize the severability provisions set tbrth in this Agreement.
7.10 Estoppel Certilicat¢
Within thirty (30) clays tblloxxing till'~ % ~'itren t'¢Clttest which any pa~7y or a Mortgagee
may make tkom time to time, the other' pa~-tv to tills Ago'cement shall execute and deliver to the
requesting person a statement certit'k,'in~ that (I) tlnis Agreement is unmodified and in t~ll tbrce
and effect, or stating the date and llill[ll'c c~l' a~lX ~nodificatic~n: (2) to the best knowledge of the
ce~i~ing party, (a) no notice oI'detkmlt h[ts bc¢n sent crueler Section 7.9.2 of this Agreement or
speci~ing tl~e date(s) and nature ot'th¢ ~tic= or'such d~lkmlt trod (b) no written t~otice of
infraction has been issued in connection with thc Pt'oject: and (3) any other reasonably requested
information. Failure to deliver such statement to the ~'oc uestinu
I = party within the thi~y (30) day
period shall constitute a conclusive presctmption agai.nst tl~e pa~%' thiling to deliver such
statement that this Agreement is in tk~ll three and etl~ct without modification or default except as
may be represented by the requesting pa~'ty). The delivery or'estoppel certificate on behalf oF
Bremenon pursuant to this section shall bc deemed an administrative matter and shall not require
legislative action.
7.11 No Third Party Bencllci:trx
This Agreement is made and entc~-cd into tbs- the sole protection and benefit oFthe pa~ies,
their successors and assigns. No othor per'son shall haxe troy right of action based upon any
provision oFthis Agreement.
-14
7.12 Cooperation
The parties shall reasonably provide intbrmation, approvals or consents under this
Agreement. The parties agree to take t~u-ther actions and execute further documents, either
jointly or within their respective powers and authority, to implement the intent oFthis
Agreement. Bremerton and Pot~ Blal<ely will cooperate to achieve the mutually agreeable goals
as set forth in this Agreement, subject to Bremerton's independel~t exercise of judgment. Where
appropriate and consistent with applicable lax< Bremerton shall be the lead agency under SEPA
in implementing this Agreement and Implementing Approvals. Bremenon shall consider use of
its eminent domain powers to t~qcilitate implementation oF this Agreement, subject to
Breme~on's independent exercise oFjudgment tbllox~ing all applicable procedures necessa~ to
use eminent domain power.
7.13 Delnys
If either party is delayed in the perlbrmance ol'its obligations under this Agreement due
to force majeure, then per~brmance oFthose obligations shall be excused for the period of delay.
7.14 Notice
All communications, notices a~M dcmancts of any kind which a party under this
Agreement requires or desires to give to mb' other parU, shall be in writing and either (i)
delivered personally, (ii) sent by fitcsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S, mail, corfified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
and addressed as f~llows:
If to Port Blakely: POt<T BLAKELY TREE FARMS LP
.,.q Fourth Avenue, Floor 10
:ktt~: Jitllles E. Warjone
-l'olephone: (200) 024-5810
Facsimile: (200)024-9745
With a copy to DAVIS WRIGHT TREMA1NE LLP
2000 Century Square
150t Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 9810i-1688
Attn: Thomas A. Goeltz
Teiephone: (200) 028-7662
F:~csimile: (206) 628-7040
If to Bremerton CIT%' OF BREMERTON
Building and Planning Depamnent
280 - 4th Street
~rcmet'ton, WA 98337
Telephone: (360) 478-5275
Facsimile: t3GO) 478-5278
-15 oi'21-
With a copy to: CITY OF BP, EMER. TON
City Clerk
239 - 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Telephone: (360) 478-5290
Facsimile: (360) 478-5200
Notice by hand delivery or facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail,
notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to tile
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or cornmunication
shall be given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into between the City and
Port Blakely as of the __ day o~' ,2000.
PORT BLAKELY TREE FAR. 31S (LlhllTED PAI~.TNERSHIP)
a Washington limited partnership
By:
Judd Kirk, President oFRcal Estate Dixision
CITY OF BREMERTON
a Washington municipal corporation
By:
Lynn S. Horton, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
-16 oi'2 I-
LIST OF ATTACtlM ENTS
Attachment A - Legal Descdption of Property
Attachment B - Map oFPrope~'ty
Attachment C - SEPA Compliance tbr Implementing Approvals
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
7) SS
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that LYNN S. HORTON is the person
who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that she signed this instrm'nent, on oath
stated that she was authorized to execute tile instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the
CITY OF BREMERTON to be the fi-ee and voluntary act of such proxy for the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal this ~ day of ,2000.
Type/Print Name
Notao' Public in and for the State o£Washington
i'esiding at
My Commission expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
On this __ day ot' ,2000, befb~'e me personally appeared JUDD
KIRK, to me known to be the President oFthe Real Estate Division of PORT BLAKELY TREE
FARMS (LIIVllTED PARTNERSHIP), a Washingto~ limited 12artnership, that executed tile
within and foregoing instrument and acknowlcctgt:d the said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of said corporation th,' the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he ,,vas authorized to ,:×,:cut~: at~d i~ fact executed said it'~strument on behalf of
the corporation.
Given under my hand and ol'ticial seal this day o1-' ,2000.
'l'ypc/lh'int Name
Notap,' Public in and tbr the State of Washington
~'esiding
N, Ix, Commission expires
~17 or'2 I-
ATTACH ~,IENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OFPROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PORT BLAKELY JOINT PLANNING AREA
That portion of Sections 7, 18 and 19 of Township 24 North, Range 1 East of the
Willamette Meridian in Kitsap County, Washington, described as a whole as
follows:
Beginning at the section comer common to Sections 17, 18, 19 & 20 of said
Township and Range; thence along the east line of said Section 18, North 02 °33'
36" East 2650.40 feet to the east 1/4 section comer of said Section 18; thence
continuing along said east line of said Section-18, North 02° 13' 37" East 2665.51
feet to the section comer common to Sections 7, 8, 17 & 18 of said Township and
Range; thence along the east line of said Section 7, North 03°14' 29" East 273.70'
feet; thence South 49°06' 36" West 394.86 feet; thence South 22° 15' 57' West
435.82 fee{'; thence South 51 °04' 39' West 573.87 feet; thence South 72°21' 49"
West 281.90 feet to the beginning of a 113 foot radius curve to the right; thence
northwesteHy along said curve an arc distance of 212.28 feet through a central
angle of 107°38. 11"; thence North 208.41 feet to the beginning of a 80 foot
radius curve to the left; thence northwesterly along said curve an arc distance of
159.10 feet through a central angle of 113°56. 42"; thence South 66°03' 19" West
372.14 feet; thence South 24°07' 12" West 254.43 feet; thence South 38°38. 11"
West 566.66 feet; thence South 05°05' 55" West 1897.32 feet; thence South
12°50. 21" West 833.49 feet; thence South 07°48. 19" W~st 495.35 fcct; ther~ce
South 46°57' 31" West 323.73 feet; thence South 33°30' 41" West 410.75 feet;
thence South 17032, 08" West 860.92 feet; thence South 07°42' 01" West
2094.94 feet to the beginning of a 599.00 foot radius curve to the left; thence
southeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 1356.06 feet through a central
angle of 129°42' 36"; thence North 57°59. 25" East 911.61 feet; thence North
61 °35' 44" East 692.67 feet to the beginning of a 1239.00 foot radius curve to the
left; thence northeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 946.35 feet through
a central angle of 43°45' 45"; thence North 17°49. 59" East 1765.31 feet to the
point of beginning.
Parametrlx./nc.
ATTACHMENT B
MAP OF PR
20
19 20
~o/o,/~ ~ ~ Port Blokely Boundary
Section line
600' 1200' Boundary Port Biakel¥
1"=1200' Topography from Walker and Associotes Joint Planning Area
-19
ATTACII~IENT C
SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR I.'~IPLE,'~IENTING APPROVALS
Upon receipt of any application tbr 'an Implementing Approval (defined in Section 6.2),
the City shall unde~ake SEPA compliance as
Step 1 - Project Envelope Determination. First, the City shall determine if the
requested Implementing Approval applied rbr is within the Project Envelope The City can
request the applicant to provided reasonable infformation (including For convenience an
environmental checklist even if a threshold determination is not required under this Step 1) to the
extent needed to determine the requested action is within the Project Envelope. If so, then the
existing SEPA documents and analysis shall be utilized and no ~h~her SEPA threshold
determination is required (see WAC 197- I l-o00{4)(a)) "Agencies acting on the same proposal
for which an environmental document ~.~ as prepared am'e not required to adopt the document.") If
the application is beyond the Project Enx'ciopc, then a threshold determination is required under
Step 2 below.
Step 2 - Threshold Determination. it'~he requested Implementing Approval exceeds
the Project Envelope, then the City ~halI pr<pare a threshold determination, taking into account
the existing SEPA documents and anaks~s and thc gox, erning Development Standards under this
Agreement which address environmental mitigation tbr thc Project Any studies or other
information requested by the City fi'om thc applicant shall relate only to those potential impacts
not adequately covered by thc existing SEPA documents and analysis. The City shall issue a
determination of non-signifi cane e ( D N S) c)~' a miti~at ed D N S (Nl D N S) utilizing an addendum or
incorporating the prior SELL& documents and analysis to the ~k:ltest extent possible, except an
addendum or supplenmmal ElS (SEIS) shall Dc ~'¢quired if the conditions in Step 3 are present.
The City's approval of minor modificatic3ns unclcr Section 7.3 offthe Agreement shall not be
deemed a significant change which would reqmre an SEIS
Step 3 - SEIS. The City shtd[ p~'~pu['~ nn :tdd~ndum or SEIS if there are:
3. l Substantial changes to thc Project so that the proposal or Project Envelope
described in the existing SEPA documnents ttnd analysis a;'¢ likdy to have significant adverse
environmental impacts not previously amdvzcd and x~,hich cannot be mitigated through the
Threshold Development Standards applic:tble to the Project {or revisions, additions and
amendments to those Development Standat'ds }t or'
New intbm'mation n~dicating thc Project is likely to have significant,
adverse environmental impact not prcviocis]3 analyzed in the existing SEPA documents and
analysis and which cannot be mitigated tlu-ou~h thc Threshold Development Standards
applicable to the Project (or revisions, additions al~d ainendmnents to those Development
Standards).
If an addendum om' SEIS is m-equircd, ti~¢ City shall limit th~ scope thereof to the impacts
which required the additional analysis (e ~ ti~¢ Cit3 shall utilize a tbcused scope and
-20 or'2 I-
Step 4 - Modified Development Standards. If the SEIS discloses additional mitigation
is required to avoid a serious ttweat to public health and safety hazards, then the Development
Standards applicable to the Project may be modified.
CITY COUNCIL
239 4th Street · Bremenon. ~3, ashington 98337 · ~ 360) 478-5280 · FAX ~36()~ 478-5251 · citycouncil~ci breme~on.wa.us
NOTICE OF INTENTION
OF BREMERTON ANNEXATION
O~ober 5, 2000
~t~p Co~ Bound~ Rehew Bo~d
~tsap Coun~ Cou~house, MS - 35A
614 Di~sion Street
Pon Orchid, W~hn~on 98366
As required by RCW 36.93, a Notice of Intention is hereby given by: CITY OF BREMERTON
As required by local rule of the Board, we are submitting the following information, attached
hereto as part of this NOTICE OF INTENTION, to assist you in your consideration of this
proposed action. The items submitted are numbered in accordance with the listing below:
NOTICE OF INTENTION
I. A Description of the Nature of the Proposed Action, Including a Citation of the
Statutory Provision Under Which the Action Is Authorized.
The City of Bremerton intends to change it boundaries by annexing 440 acres of
unincorporated Kitsap County, known as the "Port Blakely Sub-Area," by the petition
method pursuant to RCW 35.13.125-i60. This. area has been established by Kitsap
County in its GMA Comprehensive Plan as an Urban Growth Area consistent with RCW
36.70A. 110, and consequently the area is eligible for annexation under RCW 35.13.005.
2. A Brief Statement Regarding the General Background of and the Reasons for
Seeking the Proposed Action.
Kitsap County's 1998 Comprehensive Plan designated the "Port Blakely Sub-Area" for
potential UGA expansion. Since then, the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County have
implemented this designation through a series of actions: (1) a Memorandum of
Agreement and Interlocal Agreement dated 8-24-98; (2) concurrent adoption of the Port
Blakely Sub-Area Plan ("Sub-Area Plan"); and (3) concurrent approval of a Three-Party-
Equal Opportunity Employer
Kitsap County Boundary Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 2
Agreement. The Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement were adopted by' the City on
September 20, 2000, and by the Count>' on September 11. 2000. All of these actions are
based on the annexation of this Sub-Area into the City of Bremerton. See e.g "The
[Kitsap] County will support the annexation in accordance with this [three-party]
Agreement and the [Port Blakely] Sub-Area Plan." Sec. 2 of the Three-Par~.' Agreement.
The Three-Party Agreement requires Port Blakely to submit its annexation petition to the
City within 30 days after adoption of the Sub-Area Plan.
Additional reasons for seeking the proposed annexation are set forth in the Sub-Area
Plan, which amends the Comprehensive Plans of Kitsap County and the City. This
annexation area has been designated for economic development through industrial,
commercial and other employment-generating uses, in a mixed-use concept, along with
supporting housing. The annexation is consistent with the Growth Management Act in
allowing the City, to be the primary, service provider for utilities and services.
3. Legal Description. The legal description of the annexation area is attached as Item 3.
4. Assessor Map. The Kitsap County, Assessor map showing the annexation area and the
current City boundaries is attached as Item 4.
5. Vicinity Map. The vicinitT' map with the annexation area and significant geographic
features with a V: mile surrounding area is attached as Item 5.
6. City Boundary, Map. A map showing the current City of Bremerton boundaries is
attached as Item 6.
7. A Review of Factors Stated in RCW 36.93.170 as They Affect the Proposed Action.
7.1 Population and Territo~.
(a) Population; Territory.; and Population Density.. The 440-acre Sub-
Area Plan is located west of the Kitsap Lake community along the north
boundary, of the City. The Sub:Area Plan allocates 900 single-family units
(or up to 1,200 units of multifamily), which corresponds with a potential
mixed-use housing population ranging ~:¥om 2.238 to 2,724 people (i. e..
900 to 1.200 units multiplied by 2.27 people/household per the housing
element of the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan). This mixed-use
housing population is a reallocation ora portion of the City's existing
population of 20,000 people. See Sec. 1.4 of Plan. Specifically, the
reallocated population is reassigned from the City's downtown central
business district and other business districts which were originally
designated for mixed-use housing as "targeted development areas." As
described in the Sub-Area Plan and appendices, this mixed-use housing
Kitsap County Boundary Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 3
has not occurred in the original targeted development areas and
consequently is being reallocated.
(b) Land Area and Land Uses. The 440-acre Sub-Area Plan property
currently is used for forestry.', but has noxv been placed xvithin the UGA
established bv the County.. The annexation area is proposed for mixed-use
development including the following: 2.25 million square feet of
industrial-commercial uses; 100,000 square feet of retail uses and up to
900 single-family equivalent houses (or 1,200 multi-family units at a
conversion ratio of.75). Approximately 140 acres of the total 440-acre
total area will remain open space and undeveloped due to critical areas.
buffers and mitigation. See Sec. 1.2, 1.3, 3 and 4.1 of Sub-Area Plan for
further description of land area and land uses.
(c) Comprehensive Plans and Zoning. Both the County and City
Comprehensive Plans designate this as an UGA area for industrial and
mixed-use development under the Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A). See Sec. 1.5 and 1.6 of the Sub-Area Plan. Upon annexation.
zoning for the property, will be "Mixed-Use District" under the City's
zoning code.
(d) Service Agreements. The Sub-Area Plan contains a Capital Facilities
element specifying the service providers and costs allocations or
responsibilities for the same. The City will provide the following primary
basic ser%ces: water, sewer, stormwater, solid waste, parks and
recreation, law' enforcement, fire and emergency services. The County
will provide certain administrative facilities such as courthouses and
regional facilities. See Sec. 4, 6 and 5 or the Sub-Area Plan. Other
utilities will be provided bv the service providers currently serving the
area: Puget Sound Energy for electricity; Cascade Natural Gas for natural
gas; and U.S. West for telephone and telecommunications. See Sec. 6 of
the Sub-Area Plan. No service agreements under Chap. 36.115 RCW nor
39.34 are applicable.
(e) Interlocal Agreements. The Three-Party Agreement between the Citx.
County and Port Blakely addresses annexation of the Sub-Area and
constitutes the Interlocal Agreement called for in the County's 1998
Comprehensive Plan Policies UGA 6 tlxrough 13. See Sec. 2 of Three-
Parry Agra. Further, the City and County entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement and Interlocal Agreement dated 8-24-98 which governed
development of the Sub-Area Plan.
Kitsap County Boundary Review' Board
September 29, 2000
Page 4
(f) Per Capita Assessed Valuation. The assessed valuation fbr the Sub-Area
Plan property is $68.200 based on the forest land classification under
Chap. 84.33 RCW: currently there are no residents in the Sub-Area.
(g) Topography, Natural Boundaries, Drainage Basins and Proximity. to
Other Populated Areas. The Sub-Area Plan describes the general site
physical parameters. The site is generally level. Based upon preliminao.'
analysis, the steepest slopes are approximately 15% and there are no
identified areas of instability or seismic activity. Approximately 300 acres
of the total 440 acres are unconstrained by critical areas. The remaining
approximately 140 acres will be set aside to meet critical area regulations
for streams, wetlands and buffers and for open space and consistent uses.
The soils on the site vary in permeability. Drainage from the site flow's
primarily to Kitsap Lake. while approximately 2% to 3% of the site flows
to Dickerson Creek. Both of these bodies of water feed into Chico Creek
which is the home of an important salmon run. The Sub-Area Plan
addresses mitigation measures for drainage and fish habitat and the scope
for further environmental analysis. See Sec. 4.2 Of the Sub-Area Plan. The
site is generally separated by major topographic features: Dickerson Creek
on the ,:,'est and north; steep slopes on the north, east, south and northwest;
and the BPA power line corridor and railroad corridor on the east. The
residential area around Kitsap Lake has been built out. The only
proximate residential neighborhood surrounds Kitsap Lake. with houses
located approximately 300' (from the north end) to 900' (from the middle
and south end) as measured from the eastern boundary of the Port Blakely
Sub-A_rea boundary,. See Fig. 2 and 3 of the Sub-Area Plan.
(h) No Prime Agricultural Soils and Uses. The site does not contain prime
agricultural soils or uses. The site is used for timber harvesting. The Sub-
Area was not designated bv the County as appropriate for forest lands of
long-term commercial significance under the GMA.
(i) Likelihood of Significant Growth in the Area and Adjacent Areas.
The Sub-Area Plan itself is anticipated to develop as mixed use as
described above in the land use discussion {Subsection 7. l(b) above). The
adjacent County unincorporated areas are not expected to change in the
next 10 years since they are not outside of the urban growth areas
designated under the GMA. The site is generally separated by major
topographic features: Dickerson Creek on the west and north: steep slopes
on the north, east. south and northwest: and the BPA power line corridor
and railroad corridor on the east. The residential area around Kitsap Lake
has been built out. Consequently, the impact of development on
unincorporated areas is anticipated to stay directly within the annexation
Kitsap County Boundary Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 5
area. See Fig. 3 and 6 of the Sub-Area Plan. The adjacent incorporated
areas already within the City. may be developed consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and its ability to provide services.
(j) Community. Facility. Location. The communitv facilities currently
provided by the City of Bremerton are set forth generally in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Sub-Area Plan for Port Blakelv describes the
contribution of rights of way or funds for various capital facilities as
development conditions. Existing Fire Station No. 2 can serve this site
and meet LOS for fire and emergency services. See Sec. 5 of the Sub-Area
Plan. There likely will be some utility facilities on-site such as reservoirs.
The Sub-Area Plan did not identi~ any major additional community
facilities on-site, but this will be further evaluated during the master
planning. Contribution of fair share funding will be made as set forth in
the Capital Facilities element of the Sub-Area Plan for off-site facilities.
See same. The Three-Party Agreement contains a master transportation
agreement between the City, County and property owner for transportation
studies and specific access improvements. See Sec. 3 of Three-Party Agm.
7.2 Municipal Services; Prospects From Other Sources; Probable Future Needs.
(a) Need for Municipal Services. The Sub-Area Plan sets forth the required
municipal services and facilities for the annexed area. See Sec. 5 and 6 of
the Sub-Area Plan. The City. has issued certificates of sewer and water
availability consistent with existing City regulations. The City, will
provide other services as noted in Subsection 7.1 (d) above, including fire
and emergency services, law' enforcement, parks, stormwater, water and
sewer. The Capital Facilities element of the Sub-Area Plan sets forth the
LOS standards for development within the annexation area consistent with
existing codes and development regulations. See same. The Bremerton
School District will provide school service.
(b) Effect of Codes, Regulations On Existing Uses. The existing uses in the
Sub-Area are governed by Counts,, codes and state regulations for forest
operations. Upon annexation, the Sub-,Area will be governed by the City's
codes and regulations, along with special environmental controls set forth
in the Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement. See Sec. 4.2 Of the Sub-
Area Plan and Sec. 5 and 6 of the Three Parry .4gm.
(c) Present Cost and Adequacy of Ser~'ices and Controls in the Area. The
Capital Facilities element of the Sub-Area Plan sets forth the existing
adequacy of services for the existing uses, and identifies those services
and funding sources to provide expansion ofser~'ices and facilities. The
Kitsap County Boundary Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 6
cost of existing municipal services is minimal to the site due to its forestry.
use. Regulato~ controls by the county and state for existing uses are
adequate.
(d) Probable Effect and Cost and Adequacy of Services and Controls in
Area and Adjacent Area. The Sub-Area Plan identifies the estimated
costs for extending services and controls. The Capital Facilities element
shows adequate levels of service, costs and funding sources and related
information for infrastructure to serve the annexation area. See Sec. 5 of
the Sub-Area Plan. The Three-Party Agreement contains a master
transportation agreement, with joint funding of $2.4 million by each party,,
individual funding responsibilities of Port Blakely, and phasing and
analysis for transportation needs. See Sec. 3 of rhe Three-Party Agra. The
transportation improvements will benefit adjacent areas. No growth is
expected in adjacent unincorporated areas requiring additional services.
(e) Prospects of Governmental Services from Other Sources; Probable
Future Needs for such Services and Controls. The City does not
require services from other sources to serve the site. as reflected in the
Capital Facilities of the Sub-Area Plan. See Sec. 5 of the Sub-Area Plan.
Transportation improvements may seek state or federal funds, grants or
other sources as a result of the studies under the master transportation
plan. See Sec. 3 of the Three-?ar~ Agra. Improvements to County roads
will be identified and contributions made as a result of the master plan to
be prepared as required under the Three-Party Agreement.
(f) Probable Effect of Proposal on Cost and Adequacy of Services. The
Capital Facilities element sets forth the costs as estimated currently for
services to the Sub-Area. All services are shown as adequate currently or
with concurrency, phasing and contributions as development occurs at the
site. See Sec. 5 of the Sub-Area Plan. The City, has issued certificates of
sewer and water availability consistent with existing City regulations. See
also answers to Subsections 7.2(a) and (d) above.
(g) Effect on Finances, Debt Structure and Contractual Obligations of
Governmental Units. No significant impacts are expected on finances,
debt structure or contractual obligations of governments. The land owner
is obligated to pay its fair share of expanding se~'ices and facilities and is
obligated to pay for the environmental and planning review required. See
Sec. 5 of the Sub-Area Plan; Sec. 3, 4 and 5 of the Three-Par~' Agm. The
compensating tax to be paid by the oxvner when the land is removed from
the forest land taxation will be paid the County. Sec. I0 of the Three-Paro:
Agm. The approved Three-Party Agreement does commit the City and
62O
Kitsap County Boundary, Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 7
County to contribute up to $2.4 million as part of the joint master
transportation plan on the terms set forth therein. Sec. 3 of the Three-Par~
Agm. Future transportation funding decisions will be made by the City
and County respectively. Same.
7.3 Effect on Adjacent Areas, Mutual Economic and Social Interests and Local
Government Structure of the County. The Sub-Area Plan calls for
environmental and aesthetic mitigation to avoid any significant adverse effects on
adjacent areas. The Sub-Area Plan sets forth a series of performance standards
and a detailed scope for further environmental review as part of the master plan
which is required before development of the annexation property. The only
proximate residential neighborhood surrounds Kitsap Lake, with houses located
approximately 300' (from the north end) to 900' (from the middle and south end)
as measured from the eastern boundary of the Port Blakely Sub-Area bounda.D,.
See Fig. 2 and 3 of the Sub-Area Plan.
The annexation area is undertaken expressly to advance mutual economic
interests of the City and County. The area was identified as necessary to expand
Kitsap County's overall industrial and employment base. The annexation is not
expected to have any adverse affect on social interests nor on the structure of local
government within the County.. The City will be the primal' provider of services
consistent with the Growth Management Act and the allocation of responsibility
provided in the Plan and the Three-Party Agreement.
8. A Review of the Effect of the Proposed Action Upon the Objectives Set Forth for the
Boundary. Review Board in RCW 36.93.180.
8.1 Preservation of Natural Neighborhoods and Communities. The annexation
area is adjacent to the existing City boundary'. Once developed under the MXD
zoning and Sub-Area Plan, the site will create natural neighborhoods and
communities. The project will meet the mixed-use criteria in the subarea plan and
will create a strong sense of community. It also will contain mitigation to reduce
off-site impacts on the Kitsap Lake residences, which are located at least 300 to
900' from the boundary of the site and situated on the opposite side of the BPA
corridor, the railroad corridor and West Kitsap Lake Road.
8.2 Use of Physical Boundaries. The 440 acres was selected in large part using
physical boundaries and topography. The site is relatively flat. The City' and
County previously moved the annexation boundaries to eliminate all but 2% to
3% on the land from the Dickerson Creek drainage basin as a mitigation measure
for salmon. The annexation area also was configured so that maximum relatively
fiat developable areas were included and critical areas or other constraints were
minimized. The site is generally separated by major topographic features:
Kitsap County BoundaD' Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 8
Dickerson Creek on the west and north: steep slopes on the north, east. south and
northwest: and the BPA power line corridor and railroad corridor on the east.
8.3 Creation and Preservation of Logical Services Areas. The annexation area will
be a logical extension of the City's service areas as reflected in the Capital
Facilities element of the Sub-Area Plan. As a mixed-use area, services will be
efficient and numerous facilities can serve "double" by being available for both
residential, commercial and related uses.
8.4 Prevention of Abnormal, Irregular Boundaries. The annexation area does not
have abnormal, irregular boundaries. The shape is dictated in part by topography
and physical features and in part by a location of the existing road system and
existing railroad corridor.
8.5 Discouragement of Multiple Incorporations. The annexation will not result in
a new incorporation of small cities. Bremerton is an existing major urban area
and annexation would be consistent with the discouragement of small cities.
8.6 Dissolution of Inactive Special Purpose Districts. The proposal does not
dissolve any inactive special purpose district.
8.7 Adjustment of Impractical Boundaries. The proposal does not affect or adjust
impractical boundaries.
8.8 Incorporation or Annexation of Urban Character Areas. This area was
designated under the Growth Management Act as appropriate for annexation and
urban development. The size and approximate location of this UGA was
reviewed and upheld by the Growth Hearings Board based upon the County's
study and need ~br additional industrial lands and employment base. [GMHB
Final Decision and Order, dated 2/8/99; Compliance Order, dated 10/]1/99.]
The GMA defines "characterized by urban growth" as both land having urban
growth on it or land "located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as
to be appropriate £or urban growth." RCW $6. 70A. 050(17). The County's UGA
designation and the GMHB affirmation establishes the appropriateness of this
proper~y for urban development.
8.9 Protection of Agricultural and Rural Lands Designated for Long-Term
Agricultural or Resource Use. This site has not been designated for long-term
agricultural or forest~ use under the GMA. Although this land historically has
been used for forestry,, the County reviewed and expressly determined not to
designate this land as long-term forestry, land. See GMHB Compliance Order,
dated ] 0/1 LOP
Kitsap County Boundary Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 9
9. Filing Fee. The $50 filing fee is enclosed.
10. The Statement of the Current Status of Environmental Review of the Proposed
Action Including Complete Documentation of the Environmental Review to Date.
The City and County have adopted phased environmental review for the Sub-Area Plan,
Three-Party Agreement, and related Comprehensive Plan and zoning actions. These
include the proposed annexation of the Sub-Area to the City as covered in this Notice of
Intent. The County, and City adopted the Sub-Area Plan and related Comprehensive Plan
amendments, and Three-Party Agreement, based upon the revised Determination of
Significance and Adoption of Environmental Documents. See City and County SEPA
determinations attached The adopted prior documents include the final EIS issued
August 23, 1994 for the County's Comprehensive Plan; the Final SEIS issued
December 2, 1996; and Addendums issued March 12, 1998 and April 11, 1998. The
adequacy of these environmental documents have been upheld by the GMHB. The next
SEPA phase, a project-level master plan EIS, is required under the Three-Party
Agreement. See Sec. 4 of the Three-Party Agra. The Sub-Area Plan itself contains an
extensive scope for that project-level EIS. See Vol. L Appen. ! of the Sub-Area Pldn.
The project-level EIS will be required before any development of the site. See Sec. 4 of
the Three-Party Agm
The total acres of the property involved in this proposed action is 440 acres, and the total
assessed valuation of said property, is $68,200 based on the forest land classification under Chap.
84.33 RCW
Kitsap County Boundary Review Board
September 29, 2000
Page 10
Notice: Process and other communication regarding this proposed action should be directed to
the initiator of this proposal as follows:
Paula Johnston, City of Bremerton
239 4~' Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337
Phone: (360) 478-5311
Fax: (360) 478-5200
Respectfully submitted,
City Council
CITY OF BREMERTON
Carol Are~ds, P-~Sr sid~
Attachments:
Copy of City Resolution Accepting Annexation Area
Copy of Port Blakely 100% Annexation Petition
Legal Description (Item 3)
Assessor Map (Item 4)
Vicinity Map (Item 5)
City Boundary Map (Item 6)
SEPA Determination of City and County.
Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan
Three-Party Agreement
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2000 - 06
WHEREAS the Bremerton Planning Commission is recommending the
adoption of the initial Development Agreement, containing threshold development
standards, between the City of Bremerton and Port Blakely Communities, which
initial Development Agreement implements certain provisions of the Port Blakely
Joint Planning Area Sub-Area Plan and the Three-Party Agreement including
classification of the 440 acre site now commonly known as the Port Blakely Sub
Area as a Mixed Use District (MXD) zone upon annexation.
The Bremerton Planning Commission makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, the City amended its 1995 Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No.
4722 on September 20, 2000 to adopt the Port Blakely Joint Planning Area Sub-Area
Plan as an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Bremerton also approved the Three-Party
Agreement by Ordinance No. 4722 on September 20, 2000, which established certain
terms and conditions relating to the Port Blakely Sub-Area; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4723 on September 20, 2000
amending Title 21.02, Zoning, of the Bremerton Municipal Code to include the Mixed
Use District (MXD) zoning classification; and
WHEREAS, execution of a Development Agreement to initiate the application of
the Mixed Use District (MXD) zone classification .upon annexation is consistent with
implementing provisions of the Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement
for mixed use development, land uses, open space, infrastructure and services upon;
and
WHEREAS, the initial Development Agreement~attached hereto as Exhibit C
applies specific project elements and threshold Development Standards to the Port
Blakely Sub Area consistent with the State's Development Agreement Statute, RCW
36.70B.170 et. seq., and Bremerton Municipal Code § 21.02.900; and
C:\W]2'IDOWS'd)esktop\wyattLr'C-Dev Agra Res 2000-06.doc
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed initial Development Agreement and proposed MXD zoning classification on
October 17, 2000, and at the conclusion of. suc..h hearing determined that the initial
Development Agreement, ~o~l"d~e recommended for approval by the Bremerton City
Council and the Port Blakely Sub-Area recewe the M~xed Use d~stnct zoning
classification; now:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bremerton Planning Commission ,,.
recommends to the Bremerton City Council that the initial Development Agreement.~'~'~*~'~
attached hereto as Exhibit C, subject to future amendments through adoption of a ~"'~
Master Plan for the Port Blakely Sub-Area, be approved, and that upon annexation, the
Mixed Use District (MXD) zoning classification be assigned to the Port Blakely Sub-
Area, and, the Mayor be authorized to sign the initial Development Agreement on behalf
of the City of Bremerton.
PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bremerton,
this ~¢" day of ]~'~-~,~¢/ , 2000.
~Afidrew .~Kosusk~
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Pattie Haas
Planmng Commission Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A-Map of Port Blakely Site.
Exhibit B--Legal Description of Port Blakely Site.
Exhibit C-Initial Port Blakely Development Agreement
C:\W1NDOWS~Desktop\wyatt~PC-Dev Agra Res 2000-06.doc 2
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of FOR AGENDA OF: November 29, 2000
Ordinance# regarding adoption of an Initial ORIGINATING DEPT.: DCD
Development Agreement for the property commonly known ORIGINATOR: Lee A. Wyatt, Planner
as the Port Blakely Sub-Area which establishes a Mixed Use DATE SUBMITTED: November 20, 2000
District (MXD) zoning classification for the property upon
annexation.
2. CLEARAN (~(~omme. n~ on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
necessary) C~_~~ CC Ordinance# DRAFT 11-17 Adopting
BIdg & Ping Dir.: V~ an Initial Development Agreement, for the
site commonly known as the Port Blakely
City Attorney: __ property, and applying the Mixed Use
District (MXD) zone classification to the
City Clerk: ~-x ~ ~ ~ property simultaneously with annexation.
F&B Chairma~ ~/.~/~~-~'~"-~ / Notice of Public Hearing
: Initial Development Agreement
· ~,,~,~ ~~/ PC Resolution No. 2000-06
Ops Chairman:/5/ Planning Commission Minutes of November
14, 2000 (when available).
ENDORSEMENT )q~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City o£ Bremerton, Kitsap County and Port Blakely Communities (land owner/developer) have cooperatively prepared
and adopted a Three-Party Agreement which established certain terms and conditions relating to annexation of ~he Port
Blakely Sub-Area Plan, a large parcel o£ land (approximately 440 acres) located to the west of Kitsap Lake. The City has
amended its 1995 Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code in such a manner as to facilitate annexation of the Por~ Blak¢iv
Sub-Area. Consequently, the City has received a petition to annex the property from the developer and has forwarded the
Notice of Intention of Bremerton Annexation to the Kitsap County. Bounda~ Review Board. Adoption of the Initial
Development Agreement and classification of the Port Blakelv Sub-Area as a Mixed Use District (MXD) zone upon
annexation implements agreed upon provisions of the adopted Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan and the Three Party Agreement.
5. RECOMMENDATION~
I move to appr6ve or4 ~x' ~{:,(tq~a ~An Ordinance of the Bremerton City Council ~zoning the site commonly
known as the Port Blakely property, upon annexation as authorized by the Ci .ty's Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance N~.
4722; applying the "Mixed Use District (MXD) zone classification for the site as established by Ordinance No. 4723' and
adopting an Initial Development Agreement as part of the site specific zoning.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: _Director, B&PD
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED ~ TABLED . APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Failure to approve the Ordinance would result in the inability of the proponents, City of Bremerton and
Port Blakely Communities, to proceed with the proposed mixed use development through further commitment
(fiscally and technically) to the development of the Master Plan, ElS preparation and completion of the
concluding Development Agreement.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Additional staff resources will be required to continue the review and development of the proposed
Master Plan, EIS preparation, and the Master Plan Development Agreement.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Port Blakely Joint Planning Area Sub-Area Plan
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Volume I, dated Sept 20, 2000 (Sept 11, 2000,
Kitsap Co.)
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Volume II, dated Sept 20, 2000 (Sept 11, 2000,
Kitsap Co.)
Kitsap County Zoning Ordinance Three-Party Agreement between City of Bremerton, Kitsap
RCW 35.13.177 and. 178 County, and the land owner - Port Blakely
RCW 36.70A. 10 Communities
File
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
ANNEXING 440 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE PORT BLAKELY SUB-AREA, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECT
PETITION METHOD SET FORTH [N CHAPTER 35.13 RCW; DESCRIBING
THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF; REQUIRING SAID PROPERTIES TO BE
ASSESSED AND TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AND BASIS AS THE
OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY; AND FIXING THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF SAID ANNEXATION.
The City Council of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.13. 125, the City of Bremerton received a Notice of
Intent to Annex from the owner of certain real property totaling approximately 440 acres of land
and commonly known as the Port Blakely Sub-Area, which is shown on the map attached as
"Exhibit A", and as legally described in the attached "Exhibit B," and
WHEREAS, the Port Blakely annexation area is within Kitsap County's adopted Urban
Growth Area (UGA) pursuant to tile lVlay 1998 Kitsap Cot, nty Comprehensive Plan, as amended
on September 11, 2000 to add the Port 131akely Sub-Area as a final UGA, and
WHEREAS, the City amended its 1995 Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 4722 on
September 20, 2000 to adopt the Port Blakely Joint Planning Area Sub-Area Plan as an
amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Council or' Bremen-ton also approved tile Three-Party Agreement by
Ordinance No. 4722 on September 20, 2fO00, and Kitsap County approved the Three -Party
Agreement by Ordinance No. 249-2000, on September I 1, 2000, which Three -Party Agreement
established certain terms and conditions relating to the Port Blakely Sub-Area annexation, and
WHEREAS, the City or' Bremet'tom the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners and Port
Blakely Communities executed the Three -Party Agreement consistent with and implementing
I
the Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan for mixed use development, open space, infrastructure and
services, and
WHEREAS, the annexation of the Port Blakely Sub-Area implements the Sub-Area Plan
and the Three -Party Agreement, and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Annex was signed and delivered to the City on
September 20, 2000 by the owner of the Port Blakely property representing 100% in value
according to the assessed valuation tbr gm~eral taxation of the property, and
'vVI-'I~REAS, pursuant to RCW 35.13 125, the Bremenon City Council met with Port
Blakely on October 4, 2000, which is within sixty (60) days after receipt of'said NotiCe of'Intent
to Annex, and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2000, the City received an annexation petition for the Port
Blakely Sub-Area containing the signature of the owner of 100% in value, according to the
assessed valuation for general taxation, or' thc prope~"ty which is to be annexed, and
WHEREAS, the City oFBremerton filed on October 5, 2000, a Notice of Intent to Annex
the Port Blakely Sub-Area property with the Kitsap County Boundary Review Board, and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation on November 29, 2000, and at the conclusion of such hearing determined that the
Port Blakely Sub-Area property should be annexed, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Annexation: The real property commonly known as the Port Blakely Sub-
Area, approximately 440 acres or' land, as shown on the map oF the area labeled "Exhibit A", and
as legally described in "Exhibit B", both attached hereto and incorporated in full by this
reference, is hereby annexed into and made a part of the City of Bremerton and the boundaries of
the City are so changed.
Section 2. Assumption of'Indebtedness. Pursuant to the terms of the annexation petition,
all property within the territory annexed hereby shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and
on the same basis as property within the City, including assessments fbr taxes and payment of
any bonds issues or debts contracted prio~-to or existing as of the date of annexation.
Section 3: Certificate of Annexation: The Mayor is authorized to sign a certificate of
annexation pursuant to RCW 35.13.260 and the City Clerk will attest and file the certificate with
the Office of Financial Management within 30 days of the effective date of this annexation.
Section 4. Effective Date: This o~'dinance shall take effect ten days following passage
and publication. The City Clerk shall certi~ this adoption ordinance to the Kitsap County
Commissioners upon the ordinance effective date.
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this__ day of__, 2000.
PASSED by the City Council of Bremen-ton this __ day of__, 2000.
Carol Arends, Council President
APPROVED this__ day of ,2000.
'Lynn S. Ho~-ton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A--1Map of Port Blakely Annexation Area.
Exhibit B--Legal Description of Port Blakely Annexation Area.
3
ERRATA # 1
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 2 Of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (detet4o~ & additions)
1.1 Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement
This Agreement implements the Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement
applicable to the Property as adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 4722 on
September 20, 2000. Further, the ordinance adopting this Agreement acknowledges
the adoption of' the MXD zoning applied to the Property simultaneously with its
annexation. The City and Port Blakely intend the Sub-Area Plan and the Three-Party
Agreement remain a part of this Development Aereement reeardless of the outcome
of any armeal of the Sub-Area Plan to the Central Puget sound Growth Manaeement
Hearings Board, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
ERRATA #2
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 3 of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (~tetie~ & additions)
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes 440 acres, of which approximately 140 acres will remain
undeveloped due to critical areas, buffers and mitigation. See ,~' 4.1.21 of Sub-Area
Plan. Development of the remaining approximately 300 acres will consist ora
max__~_imum o~f 2.25 million sq. ft. of light industrial, commercial and related economic
development land uses and up to a maximum of, 100,000 sq. ft. of retail uses as
described in the Sub-Area Plan, with the actual amount specified in the Master Plan
based upon transportation analysis and the final amount of developable acres within
the Proiect. See generally 3g~ 4.1.21(1) & (5); :~ 4.4.21(I)-(8) of Sub-Area Plan.
Further, the Project is authorized for a maximum of 900 detached single-family
equivalent residences (or the equivalent of up to a maximum of 1200 multi-family or
mixed use residential structures). See ~' 4.1.21(6) of Sub-Area Plan.
The parties agree to abide by the thresholds for development as set forth in the
Three-Party Agreement, Subsections 6.1- 6.7 as quoted hereafter:
6. Sub Area Plan Amendments. Unless the parties agree all oarities
will abide by the thresholds for development within the.following
sections o. f the Sub-Area Plan:
6.1 Limitation on number of residences (900 single.family- 1,200
multi-family in Sub-Area Plan .~ 4.1.21 (6.).
6. 2 Limitation Of residential uses to no more than 1/3 o. f trips per
Sub-Area Plan ~ 4.1.21(1.).
6. 3 Off-site trqf. fic generation/}'om uses established within the
Project Area shall not exceed a total of 3,000 P.M. peak hour trips per
Sub-Area Plan .~ 4.3.21 (i.).
6. 4 Monitoring trq.f, fic and reporting at 1, 500 P.M. peak hour trips
per Sub-Area Plan .~ 4.3.21 (2.).
6.5 Limitation to 675 homes until pioneering businesses are
developed per Sub-Area Plan .~ 4.4.21 (2).
ERRATA #3
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 4 of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (deletions & additions)
3.5 Open Space, Recreation and Trail Standards
Required open space is established at approximately 140 acres (out of the total
440 acres) as described in 3~ 4.1.2] (3) o f the Sub-Area Plan. The I ~0 acre te. ta! ska!l
~,~; ....... -~ c, nly +^ *~'~ extent ~-:-~;+;,~ .... ;*: ........... '~ ....... +~ ,,,:+h:~ +h~
tar-opera. Stormwater facilities ~d buffer crossing to acco~odate utilities, trails
~d circulation may occur within the critical ~ea buffers to the extent provided in
Table 2A of~e Sub-~ea PI~. See ~ 4.1.21(3) of Sub-Area Plan. The Master Pl~
will include a coordinated system of active ~d passive recreation spaces, including
trails or open space co~dors that li~ major ~eas of the Project. See ~ 4.2.21(I) of
Sub-Area Plan..
ERRATA #5
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 6 of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (sentences rearranged)
5.2 Content of Master Plan
The City and Port Blakely will undertake studies necessary to develop the
Master Plan, such as a master drainage plan, environmental studies, transportation
and engineering analysis, a perimeter buffer plan (see ac 4.1.30B of Sub-Area Plan),
design guidelines for commercial structures (see ~' 4.1,30B of Sub-Area Plan), a
monitoring plan (see ~ 4. 2.20F of Sub-Area Plan), open space and critical area buffer
monitoring (see ~' 4.2. 30C of Sub-Area Plan), and other appropriate plans or studies.
Further, as provided in the Three-Party Agreement and Section 4.2.21(3) of the SUb-
Area Plan, the City, Kitsap County, and Port Blakely .by mutual agreement will select
and retain a third-party expert to evaluate the Master Plan EIS and environmental
standards for onsite protections for fish resources and other critical resources. As
provided in the Three-Party Agreement, the City, County, and Port Blakely each will
pay one-third of the costs of retaining that third-party expert_. The City and Port
Blakely wish to avoid a duplicative process with separate consultants and engineers
for Port Blakely m~d the City. Consequently, the City and Port Blakely intend to
jointly designate independent consultants for these various plans and studies, which
will be funded by Port Blakely pursuant to a mutually approved budget and form
agreement.
ERRATA #7
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 8 of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (detefio~ & additions)
6.2.1 Project Elements and Threshold Development Standards
The Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement established the general project
elements and some of the initial performance standards applicable to the Port Blakely
Project, all of which have been incorporated into this Agreement as Threshold
Development Standards pursuant to Section 1.2. Consequently, in accordance with
the Development Agreement Statute, Port Blakely is vested to the Project Elements
and those incorporated Threshold Development Standards in Sections 1~ 2 and 3
during the term of this Agreement,as modified under Section 6.2.2. Further, after
this Agreement is amended to adopt the additional Development Standards to be
established by the Master Plan, and any other subsequent amendment of this
Agreement, Port Blakely shall be vested to those additional Development Standards
during the Buildout Period. During the Buildout Period, all Implementing Approvals
shall be governed by these vested Development Standards. "Implementing
Approvals" mean the applications submitted after adoption of the Master Plan for
land use approvals, entitlements, and permits which implement the Project, including
but not limited to permits for grading, site development, building, in/¥astructure, plats
and boundary line adjustments, and other approvals. During the Buildout Period, the
City shall not modify or impose new or additional Development Standards, except as
follows:
ERRATA #9
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 9 of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (~ & additions)
6.2.6 City's Reserved Authority
In accordance with RCW 36.70B. 170(4), the City reserves the authority to
impose new or different Development Standards to the extent required to prevent a
serious threat to public health and safety.
In addition, the identical provisions of Section 5.2 of the Three-Party
A..m'eement and Section 4.2.20(F) of the Sub-Area Plan apply as quoted hereafter:
During the Master Planning phase, a monitoring plan will
be developed./hr stormwater discharge areas./~om the
pro/ect (See Appendix Item 2, Task I1). The Ci~. will
consult with the Count., the Suquamish Tribe and other
interested parties in developing the scope and duration o.f
the monitoring plan.for on-site and off-site impacts. The
data obtained through the monitoring plan will be made
available to the Count., Tribe and other interested parties.
The monitoring plan will have periodic evaluations, and if
monitoring shows the pro.[ect is causing significant adverse
environmental impacts, then the project mit(gation
measures.for subsequent phases will be ad/usted.
ERRATA # 11
November 29, 2000
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
The following language from the November 8, 2000 draft version (Page 13 of 21)
will be changed as reflected below: (detet4ons & additions)
7.4.4 Development Standard Modifications
Except where the City is authorized to impose additional Development
Standards under Section 6.2, ~ =any modifications of Development Standards shall
require the written consent of Port Blakely and the City_., ;--~"-~;~ ~;,,,-,-
At~er Recording Return to:
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 - 1688
Attn: Thomas A. Goeltz
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
PORT BLAKELY AND CITY OF BREMERTON
Grantors: Pon Blakely Tree Farms (Limited Partnership), a Washington limited paanership;
and City of B remerton, a Washington municipal corporation
Grantees: Po~ Blakely Tree Farms (Limited Partnership), a Washington limited pam~ership;
and City of Bremerton, a Washington municipal corporation
Abbreviated Legal Description: Portions of Section 7, 18 and 19 of Township 24 Noah,
Ra~ge I East o~W.M, in Kitsap County, Washington
Additional Legal Description: Am~chment A
Assessor Propeay Tax Parcel Account Numbers:
072401-4-050-2001 192401-1-002-2002
18240~-I-001-2004 192401-1-003-2001
182401-1-003-2002 192401-l-004-2000
182401-1-004-200l 192401-1-005-2009
182401-1-005-2000 192401-1-006-2008
182401-1-006-2009 .192401-1-007-2007
182401-1-007-2008 192401-1-008-2006
182401-1-008-2007 192401-1-009-2005
182401-3-007-2004 192401-2-001-2001
182401-4-001-2008 192401-2-002-2000
182401-4-002-2007 ~92401-3-002-2008
182401-4-003-2006 19240I-3-003-2007
18240[-4-004-2005 19240t-4-007-2001
18240l-4-005-2004 192401-4-008-2000
18240[-4-006-2003
182401-4-007-2002
182401-4-008-2001
73
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. PHASED PROJECT PLANNING ....................................................................... 2
1.1 Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement .......................................................... 2
1.2 Current (Threshold) and Future Development Standards ...................................... 2
1.3 No Development Until Master Plan ...................................................................... 3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 3
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS ,AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ........................ 3
3.1 Zoning; Density and Intensity Standards ............................................................. 3
3.2 Roads/Transportation Standards ..................................................................... 4
3.3 Water and Sanitary Sewer Standards .................................................................. 4
3.4 Stormwater Standards ....................................................................................... 4
3.5 Open Space, Recreation and Trail Standards ........................................................ 4
3.6 Capital Facility Standards ................................................................................. 5
3.7 Other Standards .................................................................................................. 5
4. SEPA; MITIGATION .......................................................................................... 5
4.1 SEPA Determination tbr This Agreement ........................................................ 5
4.2 Master Plan ElS
4.3 SEPA Review After Master Plan ElS ............................................................... 5
4.4 Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 6
5. MASTER PLAN PROCESS ............................................................................ 6
5. l City Coordinatori Review ............................................................................. 6
5.2 Content of Master Plan ...................................................................................... 6
5.3 City Review Procedure ................................................................................ 6
5.4 Schedule 7
5.5 Future City Processing ol' Implementing Approvals; Plats; Binding
Site Plans , .......................................................... 7
5.6 Grants, LIDs, Etc ........................................................................................ 7
6. TERM; VESTINGi ................................................................... 7
6.1 Term ............................................................................................................... 7
6.2 Vesting ............................................................................................................... 8
6.2.1 Project Elements and Threshold Development Standards .......................... 8
6.2.2 CAOandStormwaterStandards ............................................................... 8
6.2.3 Construction Standards ........................................................................... 8
6.2.4 Review Fees ...................................................................................... 8
6.2.5 Other Fees 8
6.2.6 City's Reserved Authority. ............................................................... 9
6.3 Annual Review. 9
i
6.4 Due Diligence ...................................................................................................... 9
6.4.1 City Notice .............................................................................................. 9
6.4.2 Mediation ............................................................................................... 10
6.4.3 Mediation Report ................................................................................... 10
6.4.4 Compliance with Court Decision or Mediation Report ............................ 11
6.4.5 Joint Planning Process ............................................................................ 11
7. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................. 11
7.1 Governing Law; Interpretation; .......................................................................... 11
7.2 Authority; Severability ....................................................................................... 11
7.3 Integration; Amendment; Minor Modifications .................................................. 12
7.4 Binding on Successors; Assignment; Ent"orcement ............................................. 12
7.4.1 Binding Agreement ................................................................................ 12
7.4.2 Assignmer~t ........................................................................................... 12
7.4.3 Enforcement or'Agreement ................................................................. 12
7.4.4 Development Standard Modifications .................................................... 13
7.5 Recording .......................................................................................... 13
7.6 Headings; Attachments ......................................................................... 13
7.7 PBC as Agent ................................................................................................ 13
7.8 Time Is of the Essence ................................................................................... 13
7.9 Disputes; Det~ault and Remedies ....................................................................... 13
?.9,1 Dispute Resolution .............................................................................. 13
7.9.2 Default and Remedies .......................................................................... 14
7.9.3 Relief Against De/'aulting Party or Portion ofProperty ........................... 14
7.10 Estoppel Certificate ........................................................................................ 14
7.11 No Third Party Beneficiary. .......................................................................... 14
7.12 Cooperation ................................................................................................. l 5
7.13 Delays 1.5
7.14 Notice ...................................................................................................... 15
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A"- Legal Description or' Property
Attachment "B"- Map of Property
Attachment "C" - SEPA Compliance t'or implementing Approvals
ii
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
effective ,2000, by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a
Washington municipal corporation ("City" or "Bremerton"), and PORT BLAKELY TREE
FARMS (LIMITED PARTNERSHIP), a Washington limited partnership ("Port Blakely").
RECITALS
A. Port Blakely owns app~'oximately 440 acres located adjacent to the City
boundaries and within the designated Urban Growth Area for Bremerton, as legally described in
Attachment A ("Property") and shown on the map attached as Attachment B. The City and
Kitsap County each have approved the Port Blakely Sub-Area Plan for the Property, which is
incorporated herein by this reference ("Sub-Area Plan"). The City, Kitsap County and Port
Blakely have entered into a Three-Party Agreement which deals with the annexation, processing
and other matters relating to the Property, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Port Blakely desires to annex tile Property into the City pursuant to Chap. 35.13
RCW ("Annexation Statute"), which authorizes the City to enter into an annexation agreement
fixing the applicable zoning and other development standards. Port Blakely has subrnitted its
Annexation Petition for the Property, and tile City has provided a Notice of Intent to Annex to
the Boundary Review Board.
C. Further, the legislature has authorized local governments to enter into a
development agreement with tile owner o~' mai p~-operty to establish certain development rights
(RCW 36.70B. 170 et seq., "Development Agreement Statute") Bremerton has implemented the
Development Agreement Statute in Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) § 21.02.900.
D. Bremerton also has adopted tile "Mixed Used District" (MXD) zoning
classification, which calls for adoption or' a Development Agreement to set forth the uses and
developrnent standards in the MXD zone
E. This Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with
City and State requirements tbr annexation and Development Agreements.
F. Port Blakely intends to dex~elop a mixed-use light industrial, commercial, retail
and residential project ("Project") by providing ',2 ~'ange ot'¢mployment and housing
opportunities that would respond to identilicd and evolving market conditions and the feasible
capacity of planned infrastructure systems to support them
G. Bremerton has determined that the Project is a development for which this
Agreement is appropriate, and desires to enter into this Agreement. This Agreement will, among
other things, eliminate uncertainty in long-term planning, provide for the orderly development of'
the Project on a comprehensive basis consistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan and
the Sub-Area Plan covering the Prol2erty, provide Gr services appropriate for development of the
Project, encourage an employment bas~: with diversity of jobs, improve the City's jobs-housing
-1 of 21-
balance, effectively utilize resources within the City at a low economic cost to its citizens and
otherwise achieve the goals and purposes tbr which the Annexation Statute and Development
Agreement Statute were enacted.
H. In exchange for the benefits to Bremerton described in the preceding recital,
together with other public benefits that will result from the development of the Project, Port
Blakely will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in
accordance with applicable law, and theretbre desires to enter into this Agreement.
I. Concurrent with tile approval of this Agreement, the Bremerton City Council,
afl:er a duly noticed public hearing, made appropriate findings, including that execution of this
Agreement furthers the public health, safety and general welfare, and that the development of the
Property pursuant to the provisions of'this Agreement are consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, Sub-Area Plan, and the Three-Party Agreement and the annexation
ordinance for the Property.
J. Following annexation, Po~'t Blakety will develop a Master Plan and prepare a
project-level ElS to further refine the Project. Upon tile City's adoption of the Master Plan, the
City concurrently will consider and adopt additional Development Standards as amendments to
this Agreement to implement the IVlaster Plan.
AG REEM ENT
NOW, THEREFORE, itl consideration of the promises, covenants, and provisions set
forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. PHASED PROJECT PLANNING
1.1 Sub-Area Plnn a,ttl Three-Party Agreement
This Agreement implements tile Sut0-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement applicable to
the Properly as adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 4722 on September 20, 2000.
Further, the ordinance adopting this Agreement acknowledges the adoption of the MXD zoning
applied to the Property simultaneously with its am~exation.
1.2 Current (Threshohl) anti Futu.'e Development Stnndards
Thi~ Agreement incoq>orates by this ret"erence, as it'~ully set forth herein, all of the
"Performance Standards" and other conditions listed itl the Sub-Area Plan and the obligations in
the Three-Party Agreement (collectively adopted and referred to as "Threshold Development
Standards" under this Development Agreement). Further, Port Blakely and the City will adopt
additional future Development Standat'ds as a result of the Master Plan to be prepared pursuant
to Section 5 below. These f'uture Development Standards will cover subjects including but not
limited to the following: bulk, scale and dimensions; landscaping; parking and loading; road
standards and circulation; and design guidelines. Upon the City's adoption of the Master Plan,
the City concurrently shall consider and adopt additional Development Standards as amendments
to this Agreement to implement the Maste~' Plan.
-2 ol'2 l-
1.3 No Development Until ~M:ister Plan.
No development of the Property shall occur until the City's approval of the Master Plan
and additional Development Standards by the amendment of this Agreement.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes 440 acres, of which approximately 140 acres will remain
undeveloped due to critical areas, buff'ers and mitigation. See 3S' 4. 1.21 oJ'Stth-Area Pla,.
Development of the remaining approximately 300 acres will consist of 2.25 million sq. ft. of
light industrial, comlnercial and related economic development land uses and up to 100,000 sq.
Pt. of retail uses as described in the Sub-Area ?lan. See generally ,f3~,' 4.1.21(1) & (5); 3g3g'
4.4.21(I)-(8) ofStth-Areo ]~[uit. Further, tile Project is authorized for 900 detached single-family
equivalent residences (or the equivalent of up to 1,200 multi-l-'amily or rnixed use residential
structures). See .ss' 4.1.21(6) o./',h'uh-Arer~ /V~m.
The Project as described in this Agreement and tile Sub-Area Plan presents a general
concept for development. The City and Port Blakely recognize tile precise location, amount,
pattern and intensity of proposed development, locations and dimensions of roads or utilities,
open space and trail corridors within tile Property will be developed through the Master Plan.
Actual amounts, patterns and intensities of ctcvelopment within the Project will respond to
market conditions as long as consistent with the overall Port Blakely concept and the provisions
of this Agreement.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Project Elements, "Performance Standards" listed in the Sub-Area Plan, and other
development standards and mitigation set tbrth in this Agreement and any amendments hereto
are collectively referred to as the "Develoloment Standards," and include the following:
3.1 Zoning; Density and Intcnsily Sland:~rtls
Upon annexation, the Property shall De zoned Mixed Use District ("MXD") under tlne
Bremerton Municipal Code. The Project will co,~tain tile light industrial, commercial, retail and
residential uses at tile densities and intensities consistent with tile Sub-Area Plan. The general
permitted and prohibited use categories tbr the industrial, commercial and retail portions of the
Project are set forth in the Sub-Area Plan Stye )' 4./121(5~ o./'Su/>-Areu Pkm. More detailed use
categories will be developed and adopted ~s part of tile Master Plan. The residential units may
be developed as a mix of detached single t:amily or the equivalent oFattached residential units
(i.e., townhouse, condolninium, duplex o~' multi-t:amily units) at the ratio of' I single family
detached unit = 0.75 attaclned unit, not to exceed 1,200 attactned units Authorized residential
density ranges from 4 to 8 units/acres, except 8 to t o units/acre are autlnorized to support the
Project's central mixed-use service/retail area. Xee ,9'3s' 4./. 2/(5) ~. (6) c?/'the Sub-Area Plan.
The authorized 2.25 million square feet of'industrial commercial uses and 100,000 square
feet of retail uses refers to square tbet o£G,'oss Floor Area. "Gross Floor Area" is defined as
follows for purposes of this Agreement: tile number of square feet of total floor area bounded by
the inside surface of tile exterior walls of the structure measured at tile floorline excluding
-3 o1~21-
parking levels, vent shafts, elevator shai-'ts, stairwells, com'ts, upper stories of atriums and Iobbys,
mechanical floors or areas, and outsicle balconies that do not exceed a projection of six feet
beyond the exterior walls of the buildi~g.
3.2 Roads/Transportation Standards
The Sub-Area Plan establishes Perfbrmance Standards for offsite traffic generation,
which are incorporated herein. See ,~s' 4.3.21 o. fXtth-Arert ]~hm. Further, the City and Port
Blakely will implement the IVlaster Transportation Agreement as set forth in Section 3 of the
Three-Party Agreement. Road standards, access, circulation, parking, loading and related
Development Standards will be developed as part of the Master ?lan.
3.3 Water and Sanitary Sewer Standards
All development within the Project will be served by public water and sanitary sewer.
The City has issued a Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter dated May 17, 2000,
reflecting adequate capacity, facilities and supplies to provide water and sewer service to the
Project upon satisfaction or'specific conditions including provision ofonsite and offsite system
improvements. Water and sewer imlorOvements required to serve the Project in phases are
generally described in Table 13 of the Sub-Area Plan. The City and Port Blakely will adopt
mutually approved funding methods l'or sewer- and water facilities to serve the Project. Funding
may include developer extensions with latecomer reimbursement systems, local improvement
districts for other properties benefited by the improvements, credits against connection charges,
participation in any future authorized tax increment financing, or other mutually approved
funding methods.
3.4 Stormwater Standards
The stormwater drainage system improvements shall be designed as part of the Master
Plan using the City's code and stormwat~:r real,ual as required under Table 2A of the Sub-Area
Plan. More stringent or alternative drainage standards may be required to the extent applicable
under $ 4.2.21(3j o./'the Stth-Arert l'hm On-site portions of the storm drainage system will be
dedicated to the City or maintained privately as determined in the Master Plan. Off-site portions
of the storm drainage system, such as along roads, will be dedicated to the appropriate
jurisdiction.
3.5_ Open Space, Recreation and Trail Standards
Required open space is established at approximately 140 acres (out of the total 440 acres)
as described in 3~' 4. 1.21(3) (4/'l/te 3'u/~-.4/.er~/qrm The 140 acre total shall be increased only to
the extent additional sensitive areas are documented within the Property. Stormwater facilities
and buffer crossing to accommodate utilities, trails and circulation may occur within the critical
area buffers to the extent provided in Table 2.4. or' the Sub-Area Plan. See 3s' 4.1.21(3) of Sttb-
Area Platt. The Master Plan will include a coordinated system of active and passive recreation
spaces, including trails or open space corridors that link major areas of the Project. See ,Ss'
4.2.21(1) of Sttb-Arert l~hm.
-4 oi'21-
3.6 Capital Facility Standards
The Legel of Service standards and funding sources fbi' roads, water, sewer, police, fire,
parks/open space, schools and tile other capital facilities and services set forth in Table 11 and
elsewhere in the Sub-Area Plan are adopted t'or the Project.
3.7 Other Standards
Any other Performance Standards or other conditions specified in the Sub-Area Plan as
Project requirements are incorporated herein by this refe,-ence. Further, additional Development
Standards will be developed as part or' tile Master Plan and added to this Agreement by
amendment.
4. SEPA; MITIGATION
4.1 SEPA Determiqation for This Agreement
The City and County adopted a "Determination or'Significance~Adoption of Prior
Environmental Documents" for the Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement, including
annexation, The City continues to use phased ~'eview under SEPA (WAC 197-11-060(5)), The
City has determined that this Agreement is within tile prior SEPA determination for the Sub-
Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement since tile Project elements aud Performance Standards and
conditions of the Sub-Area Plan are being adopted hereby, and no new project elements or
standards are being adopted with this Agreement. An ElS will be required as part of the Master
Plan.
4.2 Master Plnn ElS
Port Blakely will prepare a project-level ElS as part of the Master Plan. The ElS will be
prepared by a third-party consultant selected by tile City a~'ter County participation in the
consultation selection process, and Port Blakely will reimbu~'se the cost of the consultant. See
Sec. 4 of 3-ParO, A,t,,m.
4.3 SEPA Review After Master Plan ElS
The City and Port Blakely intend that once the Master Plata EIS is completed, then that
EIS will satisfy all SEPA requirements tbr build-out of the Project through Implementing
Approvals (defined itl Section 6). SEPA compliance t'or the Master Plan will have analyzed a
"Project Envelope" representing the maximum allowable Project densities and intensities
described in Section 3 above using the Threshold Development Standards and mitigation
measures approved in this Agreement, along with the additional future Development Standards
to be adopted as part of the approval of th~ Master Phtn CProject Envelope"). The Project
Envelope will be implemented by a series of permits and approvals issued over a period of time,
and SEPA compliance for Proiect implemetmttion will be conducted pursuant to Attachment C.
-5 ot'2 t-
4.4 Mitigation.
Any mitigation measures specitied in the final EIS as needed to avoid significant adverse
environmental impacts will become Project conditions of the Master Plan. After completion of
the Master Plan, the City and Port Blakely intend that compliance with the Development
Standards and other provisions of'this Agreement, as amended, will satisfy all applicable
concurrency and level of service requirements and constitute adequate and sufficient public
facilities and services for the Project unless modified by mutual consent.
5. MASTER PLAN PROCESS
Port Blakely and the City will prepare and consider adoption of a Master Plan for the
Project under the following procedures:
5.1 City Coordillator; Review
The City shall designate a lead person {either a staW person or City-retained consultant)
to coordinate the Master Plan review, including SE?A compliance, engineering review, traffic
analysis and other disciplines. Port Blakely will reimburse the City i'br the cost ofstaffor
consultant work in the review, adoption and implementation or'the Master Plan pursuant to a
budget mutually approved by the City and Po~'t Blakely
5.2 Contem of Master Plan
The City and Port Blakely will undertake studies necessary to develop the Master Plan,
such as a master drainage plan, enviromnental studies, transportation and engineering analysis, a
perimeter buffer plan (see 3~' 4. 1.30P3 (?/',5'ltb-.,4re~t ./~/rt/I), design guidelines for commercial
structures (see ,~s' 4. 1.30B ofStth-A/'e~t/~/~t~t), a monitoring plan (.vee 3~' 4.2.20F r?/'Stth-Area
open space and critical area buffer monito,'ing (xee)' 4.2.30(' q/'Stth-Area P/a~t), and other
appropriate plans or studies. The City anti Port Blal<ely wish to avoid a duplicative process with
separate consultants and enginee~-s tbs- Port Blal-:ety and the City. Consequently, the City and
Port Blakely intend to jointly designate ind~,-pendcnt consc~ltants for these various plans and
studies, which will be t'tmded by Port Blakety pursL~ant to a mutually approved budget and tbrm
agreement. Further, as provided in the Th~-ee-Party Agreement and Section 4.2.21(3) of the Sub-
Area Plan, the City, Kitsap County and Port Blakely by mutual agreement will select and retain a
third-party expert to evaluate the Maste,- Plan ElS and environmental standards for onsite
protections_for fish resources and other critical resources As provided in the Three-Party
Agreement, the City, County and Port Blakely ~:ach will pay one-third of`the costs of' retaining
that third-party expert.
5.3 City Review Procedure.
The Master Plan shall be developed by utilizing the procedures applicable to
development agreements under BMC 21.02.900 and 21.02850, i.e. a Type III decision. The
Master Plan's adoption by the City Council shall be in the form of an amendment to this
Agreement and shall add appropriate Development Standards [bt' build-out of the Project.
-0 or'21-
5.4 Schedule.
The City Coordinator and Port Blakely shall develop and periodically revise a schedule
for completion of the Master Plan and ElS. Once the Master Plan is submitted to the City, the
City shall use reasonable efforts to diligently approve it, including appropriate hearings and
decision by the City Council.
5.5 Future City Processing o1' impleme,~ting App,'ovals; Plats; Binding Site Plans
As part oftl~e Master Plan, the City and Port Blakdy will determine whether City
processing of Implementing Approvals shall be conducted with a separate review team or
modified review procedures, or whether' applications should be processed under the City's
existing code procedures. In either event, the Threshold Development Standards set forth in this
Agreement, as amended by the t'uture Development Standards adopted concurrent with the
Master Plan, shall be applied. As part or'tile Master Plata, the City shall review the establishment
of one or more binding site plans tbr industrial or commercial uses within the Project in
accordance with RCW 58.17.020(7) and 040(4). Further, the City will consider adoption of
short plat or long plat subdivision processes and boundary line adjustment provisions to allow
creation of legally conveyable lots.
5.6 Grants, LIDs, Etc.
The City and Port Blakely will cooperate and utilize their best reasonable efforts to aid
and facilitate the arrangement of mutually beneficial fimmcial mechanisms for the City, Port
Blakely and subsequent users of the Propert.~. Such types o['support might include, but not be
limited to, the pursuit of revenue bonds, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements,
grants and other subsidies.
6. TERM; VESTING;
6.1 Term
The term of this Agreement sl~att contimte tbra minimum of twenty (20) years, and shall
continue thereafter unless and until either tile City or the Port Blakely (or successor owners
which own at least 5 I% of the Property by assessed value, excluding any City-owned land) gives
notice of termination. The City's notice ~i~ temlination shall use tile same notice procedures
which would apply to a rezone or' tile Pt-ojcct. 'File City shall mail notice to the Port Blakely
under Section 7.14 and to any business or homeowner association or community groups which
the City in its sole discretion determines shoulcl ,'eceive notice, but the failure to provide notice
pursuant to this sentence shall not afl'ecl tile validity of the City's termination notice using rezone
procedures nor subject tile City to any liability'. Notice by tile Port Blakely (or successors) shall
be delivered to the City as provided in Section 7.14 o~'this Agreement. No sooner than six (6)
months aPter the notice of termination, tim City shall hold public hearings and shall adopt zoning
and related development standards tbr tt~c Prop~rt.~. Upon such adoption, this Agreement shall
terminate and thereafter the Property shall be governed by the adopted City zoning and related
development regulations.
-7 or'2 I-
6.2 Vesting
6.2. l Project Elements and Threshold Development Standards
The Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party .&green'~ent established the general project elements
and some of the initial performance standards applicable to the Port Blakely Project, all of which
have been incorporated into this Agreement as Threshold Development Standards pursuant to
Section 1.2. Consequently, in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Port
Blakely is vested to the Project Elements and those incorporated Threshold Development
Standards in Sections 2 and 3 during the term of this Agreement. Further, after this Agreement
is amended to adopt the additional Development Standards to be established by the Master Plan,
and any other subsequent amendment of'this Agreement, Port Blakely shall be vested to those
additional Development Standards during the Buildout Period. During the Buildout Period, all
Implementing Approvals shall be governed by these vested Develop,nent Standards.
"Implementing Approvals" mean the applications submitted after adoption of the Master Plan for
land use approvals, entitlements, and permits which implement the Project, including but not
limited to perrnits for grading, site development, building, infi-astructure, plats and boundary line
adjustments, and other approvals. During the Buildout Period, the City shall not modify or
impose new or additional Development Standards, except as follows:
6.2.2 CAOandStormwaterStandards
Additional or modified Development Standards ~bt- critical areas or stormwater may be
imposed on the Project based on expet't t'~ccommcndations to the extent provided in
Section 4.2.21 (3) and Table 2A o1' the Sub-Area Plan and Section 5 or' the Three-Party
Agreement.
6.2.3 Construction St:~ndards
All applications tbr Implementing Appt'ovals shall cont'brm to the most current versions
of the Uniform Building Code, and Unit'orm Fire Code and similar construction codes.
6.2.4 Review Fees
Except as otherwise provided in tile adopted Master Plan, Po~-t Blakely and other
applicants shall pay the City tees in et't;,:ct on the date each Implementing Approval is submitted
for processing. The parties' execution or'this ,Agreement acknowledges receipt of the filing fee
for an application for a development agreement under the City's code.
6.2.5 Other Fees
Except as otherwise provided in the adopted Master Plan, all utility connection fees and
other fees not specifically addressed by tiffs prox. ision shall be paid in accordance with the rules
in effect on the date the fee-generating activity occurs, but tile a]llount of such fees shall take into
account the facilities installed by Port Blakely itt its cost (and not at the cost ofthe utility).
-8 of 2 l-
6.2.6 City's l~.ese,'ved At, thority
In accordance with R. CW 36.70t3. [701,4), the City reserves the authority to impose new or
different Development Standards to the extent required to prevent a serious threat to public
health and safety.
6.3 Annual Review
After approval of the 1Master Plan, l~ort Blakely will submit an annual report summarizing
the status of the Project to the City Council outlining its progress, infrastructure improvements
completed during the preceding year, and general conditions at the Project. Contents of the
annual report shall include, but not be limited to the t'ollowing:
· Brief synopsis of application submittal and review process for Implementing
Approvals.
· Location and density ol'~'esidential development as a result of Implementing
Approvals and predicted near future progress
· Location and type of non-residential development resulting from Implementing
Approvals and predicted near l'uture progress.
· Location and type o~'open space and recreational t'acilities provided through tile
Implementing Approval p~'ocess and predicted near future progress.
· Location and type of on-site and oW-site roads, utilities and other infrastructure
provided to date and projocted construction schedules of proposed infrastructure.
· Pioneering jobs report as dctinecl in tile Sub-Area Plan and Section 8 of the Three-
Party Agreement. The.jobs repo~t will include analysis of completed and
proposed actions being taken to prepare and market the employrnent sites and
establishment of tile threshold level of 500 pioneering jobs within the project.
The City's review and comments on l~ort Blal<ely's annual project review report will take
place within thirty (30) days after Port 131al<ely's submittal. Comments received from City
departments will be referred to the City Coos-dinato~: tbr apl>ropriate action. If no comments are
received from City departn~ents within th~: reviex,, period, then the annual review will be deemed
complete.
6.4 Due Diligence.
6.4.1 City Notice.
The City and Port Blakely recognize that numerous requirements will affect the
schedule and timing of development o[' tile Project, including but not limited to the following:
infrastructure and utility planning, coorctimttion, t'uading, permitting and installation;
environmental data collection; market conditions and other tbrces beyond Port Blakely's control.
If the City believes Port Blakety is not diligently proceeding with the submission of the Master
-9 o~'21-
Plan and ElS, then at any time at'ret 36 months fi-om the effective date of'this Agreernent, as
extended for any litigation, appeals o~' other causes beyond the reasonable control of Port
Blakely, then the City may deliver a written notice to Port Blakely. Any City notice will set
forth the City's requested specific actions and proposed timetable for Port Blakely to complete
the actions. The requested actions and timetable shall be reasonable and reasonably capable of
being accomplished. If Port Blakely completes the actions within the timetable specified by the
City, the Notice shall be deemed satisfied.
6.4.2 Mediation.
If Port Blakely and the City disagree over the actions or timetable in the City's
notice, or if Port Blakely has not completed tile items within the timetable specified in the City's
notice, then either the City or Port Blakely can request mediation. The parties will pay equally
the mediator's fees and expenses. Within 14 days following a mediation request, the parties
shall seek to mutually select a single mediator who is experienced in real estate permitting and
development in the State or' Washington. it' mutual selection does not occur within those 14
days, then the parties may seek appointment ol'an mediator through application to the Kitsap
County Superior Court L, sing the procedLt['es of-' RCW 7.04.050, and the Court may select a
mediator who meets the criteria of real estate experience set fbrth in tile preceding sentence. The
mediator shall establish procedures for submission of information and hearing the positions of
the City and Port Blakely and shall attempt to thcititate a resolution or' disputes between the
parties regarding due diligence. Tile mediation will constitute settlement negotiations for
purposes of all state and federal rules protecting disclosures made in settlement negotiations.
Communication and material submitted to the mediator are privileged and confidential and not
subject to disclosure consistent with RC\V .5.00.070.
6.4.3 Mediation Rei)ort.
If the parties do not reach mutual agreement through tile mediation, then the
mediator shall issue a written repo~'t within 00 days after selection of the mediator. The written
report shall not be binding on ti~e parties, but simll cot~tain tile mediator's conclusions and
recommendations on whether (a) Port glal,:ely has proceeded with due diligence or (b) Port
Blakely should undertake additional reasonable actions, on a specific timetable which is
reasonably capable of'achieving, as set t'o~'th in tile mediator's written report. If either the City or
Port Blakely disagrees with the mediator's report, including the reasonableness of the
recommended actions or timetable or whct tlt:r the recommended actions were achieved within
the mediator's timetable, then either party may commence an action itl superior court under
Section 6.4.4 below to determine whether' Po~'t 131akely has met the due diligence provisions of
this Section. Any court action shall be commet~ct:d within thit'ty (30) days after the later of (i)
the mediator's report or (ii) ?ort Blakely fitilure to complete the mediator's recommended
actions within the recommended timetable. Tile mediation report shall not be used in any court
proceeding as evidence or for any other purpose without the written agreement of both the City
and Port Blakely. The mediator shall not be compelled to testify or to divulge communications
obtained during the mediation, subject to thc exceptions set t'orth in RCW 5.60.070, unless both
the City and Port Blakely consent to such testimony.
-10 o['21-
6.4.4 Compliance with Court Decision or Mediation Report.
If(a) a court determines Port Blakely has met the due diligence provisions of this
Section or (b) neither party appeals to superior court and Port Blakely completes the mediator's
recommended actions within the recommended timetable, then the City's notice will be satisfied
and this Agreement remains in fi. tll t'orce and ett'ect fbr the Term set forth in Section 6. I. Ifa
court determines Port Blakely has not met the due diligence provisions of this Section, as the
court may modify the actions or extend the timetable in its discretion to meet due diligence, then
the City thereafter shall have the right to terminate this Agreement through a joint planning
process with Kitsap County as provided in Section 6.4.5 below.
6.4.5 Joint Planning Process.
The joint planning process will determine appropriate amendments to the land uses and
other provisions of the Sub-Area Plan r'or the Port Blakely Property, which may include but is
not be limited to reallocating the industrial, commercial or ~'esidential uses to other sites. This
Agreement will remain in f'ull force and ett'ect until ~he effective date of any Sub-Area Dian
amendment under this Section.
7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Governing Law; Interpretation;
This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for all
parties and no presumption or talc that 'ambiguity shall be construed against the party dral-'ting
the document shall apply to the inteq3retation o~' ¢nt'ot'cement of this Agreement.
7.2 Autho,'ity; Severabilily
Bremerton and Port Blakely each represent and warrant it has the respective power and
authority, and is duly attthorized to execute, deliver and pert'otto its obligations under this
Agreement. The parties intend this Agreement to be inteq)t-eted to tl~e tull extent authorized by
law as an exercise ofBremerton's uuthority to enter-into such agreements, and this Agreement
shall be construed to reserve to Bremcrton only that police power authority which is prohibited
by law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. If'any provisions of this
Agreement_are determined to be unenibt'ceable or ingalid by a court of law, then this Agreement
shall thereafter be lnodified to implement tile intent or'the parties to the maximun'~ extent
allowable under law. IFa court finds unc~tb~'ceability or invalidity oFany portion of this
Agreement, the parties agree to seek diligently to modit:y tile Agreement consistent with the
court decision, and no party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this
Agreement until the modification to this Ag~'eument has been completed. If the parties do not
mutually agree to modifications within tbrty-five/45) days al-'ter the court ruling, then either
party may initiate the dispute resolution proceedings in Section 7 12 for determination of the
modifications which implement tile intent ol"this Agreement and the court decision.
-11
7.3 lntegrntion; Amendment; Minor Modifications
This Agreernent, along with the Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement, represent the
entire agreement of the parties regarding the Property, and there are no other agreements, oral or
written, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Any amendment to this Agreement must
be approved by each of the following: (a) the City; (b) Port Blakely so long as it owns any
portion of the Property and (c) a Designated Successor, if any, for a specified portion of the
Property. "Designated Successor" is a successor owner specified in writing by the Port Blakely
as such a successor or an association. No parcel owner or other person may seek an amendment
of this Agreement except the Port Blakely or except a Designated Successor as to that portion of
the Property owned by the Designated Successor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a designated
City official may approve administratively minor modifications to tile Development Standards.
Administrative Minor Modifications mean those which do not materially increase impacts on
transportation utility systems or the enviconcnent, taking into account agreed upon mitigation,
and those which do not materially reduce buff'ers or open space. Further criteria for
Administrative Minor Modifications will be adopted as ['uture Development Standards when this
Agreement is amended concurrent with the Master Plan.
7.4 Binding on Successors; Assigmnent; E,~l'orcemeut
7.4.1 Binding Agreement
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of Port Blakely and Bremerton. ,All successors in title to all or ally portion of the
Property shall be bound by the terms of this Agt'eement.
7.4.2 Assignment
The parties acknowledge that development or'the Project likely will involve sale and
assignment of portions of the Ih'ope~'t_v to other persons who ,,viii own, develop and/or occupy
portions of the Property and building thereon. Port Btakety shall have the right to assign or
transfer all or any portion of the respective interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement
or in the Project to other parties acquiring an interest or estate in all or any portion of the
Property, including transfer of'all interests ttn'ough fioreclosure (judicial or nonjudicial) or by
deed in lieu of foreclosure. Consent by thc B~'emerton shall not be required for any transfer of
rights pursuant to this Agreement. Upon the transfer under this section, the transferee shall be
entitled to all interests and rights and be subject to all obligations under this Agreement as to the
property transferred, and Port Blakely shall be released o~' liability as to the property transferred.
7.4.3 EulbrcementofAgveemen!
The City may ent'orce this Agreement. Por~ Blakely or aay party responsible for
development of the Project designated by Port Blakely may entbrce this Agreement so long as it
owns any portion of the Property. Any owner's association established by Port Blakely may
enforce all provisions of this Agreement as it relates to portions of'the Property covered by the
association, at the earlier of(a) Port Blakely's specific assignment of enforcement rights or (b)
after the date Port BIakely has conveyed alt portions o(the Property to third parties. Each
-12 o(21-
individual parcel owner may entbrce the Development Standards and other provisions of this
Agreement as it directly affects that iudividual parcel.
7.4.4 Development Standard Motlilicntious
Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of Port
Blakely and the City, including minor modifications under Section 7.3 above.
7.5 Recording
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B. 190, this Agreement or a memorandum thereof shall be
recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor and during the term of this Agreement shall be binding
on the parties, their successors and assigns.
7.6 Headings; Attachments
The headings in this Agreemct~t m-c ins<t't~d for reference only and shall not be construed
to expand, limit or otherwise modi(v th¢ terms and conditions or: this Agreernent. Attachments A
through C are incorporated in the Ag~'ecmcnt by this reference as if ~'ully set forth.
7.7 PBC as Agent
Port Blakely hereby designates Port Blakely Communities, Inc. ("PBC") as its agent with
authority to give notices, approvals and otherwise act pursuant to this Agreement. Unless
otherwise stated by Port Blakely to the City, the represeutations and actions of' PBC shall
represent and bind Port Blakely.
7.8 Time Is of the Essence
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and every provision hereoi': Unless otherwise
set forth in this Agreement, the reference to "days" shall mean calendar days. If any time for
action occurs on a weekend or legal holiday, then the time period shall be extended automatically
to the next business day.
7.9 Disputes; Default and Remedies
7.9.1 Dispute Resolution
In the event of any dispute relating to this Agreement, all parties upon the request of any
other party shall meet within seven (7) days of the request to seek in good faith to resolve the
dispute. Bremerton shall send the appropriate department dil'ector and persons with information
relating to the dispute, and Port Blakely shall st:nd an oxvner's ~'epresentative and any consultant
or other person with technical infom~ation or expertise that relates to the dispute. Any dispute
covered by Section 9 of the Three-Party Agreement shall be governed by its terms and not this
Section.
-13 ol-'21-
7.9.2 Default and Remedies
No party shall be in defimlt under this Agreement unless it has failed to perform under
this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice of default from any other
party. Each notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged default and the manner in
which the default may be cures satisfactorily lfthe nature of the alleged default is such that it
cannot be reasonably cured within the thirty (30) day period, then commencement of the cure
within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a
cure. Any party not in default under this Agreement shall have all rights and remedies provided
by law including without limitation damages, specific perforn~ance or writs to compel
performance or require action consistent with this Agreement.
7.9.3 Relief Against Defaulting Party or Portion of Property
In recognition of the anticipated sale(s) by Port Blakely of portions of the Property to
others to own, develop and/or occupy within the Project Site, the remedies under this Agreement
shall be tailored to tine Property or parties as provided in the remaining provisions of this
subsection. After the transfer of portions of tile Property tbr which tile release of liability
provisions apply under Section. 7.4.3, any claimed defimlt shall relate as specifically as possible
to the portion of the Property involved and any remedy against any party shall be limited to the
extent possible to the owners of such portion of the Properly. To the extent possible, Bremerton
shall seek only those remedies which do not adversely atYect the rights, duties or obligations of
any other nondefaulting owner of portions of tile Property under this Agreement, and shall seek
to utilize the severability provisions set ~brth in this Agreement.
7.10 Estoppel Certificate
Within thirty (30) days Following any ~ritten request whictn any party or a Mortgagee
may make from time to time, the other pm'ty to this Agreement shall execute and deliver to the
requesting person a statement cet'tit'ying that: (l) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force
and eff'ect, or stating the date and nature of:any modification; (2) to tile best knowledge of the
certifying party, (a) no notice ofdet'ault has been sent under Section 7.9.2 of this Agreement or
specifying the date(s) and nature of the notice of such deffault and (b) no written notice of
infraction has been issued in connection with the Project; and (3) any other reasonably requested
information. Failure to deliver such statement to the requesting party within the thirty (30) day
period shall constitute a conclusive presumption agai. nst tile party hiling to deliver such
statement that this Agreement is in t'ull three and e~t'ect without modification or default except as
may be represented by the requesting party). The delivery of estoppel certificate on behalf of
Bremerton pursuant to this section shall bc deemed an administrative matter and shall not require
legislative action.
7.11 No Third Party Benelici:to'
This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties,
their successors and assigns. No other person shah have any right of'action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
-14 of 21-
7.12 Cooperation
The parties shall reasonably provide infommtion, approvals or consents under this
Agreement. The parties agree to take further actions and execute further documents, either
jointly or within their respective powers and authority, to implement the intent of this
Agreement. Bremerton and Po~-t Blake[y will cooperate to achieve the mutually agreeable goals
as set forth in this Agreement, subject to Bremerton's independent exercise of judgment. Where
appropriate and consistent with applicable law, Bremerton shall be the lead agency under SEPA
in implementing this Agreement and Implementing Approva[s. Bremerton shall consider use of
its eminent domain powers to t'acilitate implementation of this Agreement, subject to
Bremerton's independent exercise of judgment fbllowing all applicable procedures necessary to
use eminent domain power.
7.13 Delays
If either party is delayed in the pertbrmance or'its obligations under this Agreement due
to force majeure, then performance or'those obligations shall be excused for the period of delay.
7.14 Notice
All communications, notices and demands of any kind which a party under this
Agreement requires or desires to give to atly other pm-ty shall be in writing and either (i)
delivered personally, (ii) sent by t:acsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested,
and addressed as follows:
If to Port Blakely: PORT BLAKELY TREE FARMS LP
1325 Fourth Avenue, Floor 10
Seattle, WA 98101
Arm: James E. Warjone
Telephone: (206) 624-5810
Facsimile: (206) 624-9745
With a copy to DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
2600 Century Square
150[ Fourth Avenue
Seattle~ Washington 98101-1688
Attn: Thomas A. Goeltz
Tdephone: (206) 628-7662
Facsimile: (206) 628-7040
If to Bremerton CITY OF BREMERTON
Building and Planning Department
286 - 4th Street
Bremen'ton, WA 98337
Telephone: (360) 478-5275
Facsimile: (360) 478-5278
-15 o1'2 I-
With a copy to' ~ CITY OF BREMERTON
City Clerk
_09 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Telephone: (360) 478-5290
Facsimile: (360) 478-5200
Notice by hand delivery or f'acsimile shall be e~t'ective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail,
notice shall be deemed delivered 48 hours at'ret deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a di~t'erem address or person to which such notice or communication
shall be given.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement h~ts been entered into between the City and
Port Blakely as of the __ day of' ,2000.
PORT BLAKELY TREE FARMS (LIMITED PARTNERSi-llP}
a Washington limited partnership
By:
Judd Kirk, President of' Real Estat~ Division
CITY OF BRE3'IERTON
a Washington municipal corpo~-ation
By:
Lynn S. Horton, Mayol'
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk
-16 of 2i-
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Legal Description of Property
Attachment B - Map of Property
Attachment C - SEPA Compliance fbr Implementing Approvals
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
') SS.
COUNTY OF K1TSAP )
I certify that I know or have satisfi~ctory evidence that LYNN S. HORTON is the person
who appeared befbre me, and said person acknowledged that she signed this instrument, on oath
stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the
CITY OF BREMERTON to be the fi'ee and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal this day of ,2000.
Type/Print Name
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
residing at
My Commission expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
On this __ day of ,2000, beibre me personally appeared JUDD
KIRK, to me known to be the President of the Real Estate Division of PORT BLAKELY TREE
FARMS (LIMITED PARTNERSHIP), a Wasi~ington limited partnership, that executed the
within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and
volunta~ act and deed of said corporation tbr the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he was authorized to execute and in 't~qct executed said instrument on behalf of
the corpordtion.
Given under my hand and otlScial seal this ~ day of ,2000.
Type/Print Name
Notary Public in and for tile State of Washington
residing at
My Commission expires
-17 o£21-
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCR! PTION OFPROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PORT BLAKELY JOINT PLANNING AREA
That portion of Sections 7, 18 and 19 of Township 24 North, Range 1 East of the
Willamette Meridian in Kitsap County, Washington, described as a whole as
follows:
Beginning at the section comer common to Sections 17, 18, 19 & 20 of said
Township and Range; thence along the east line of said Section 18, North 02°33.
36" East 2650.40 feet to the east 1/4 section comer of said Section 18; thence
continuing along said east line of said Section.18, North 02°13. 37" East 2665.51
feet to the section comer common to Sections 7, 8, 17 & 18 of said Township and
Range; thence along the east line of said Section 7, North 03°14, 29" East 273.70'
feet; thence South 49°06, 36" West 394.86 feet; thence South 22° 15' 57' West
435.82 fee{'; thence South 51 °04' 39' West 573.87.feet; thence South 72°21. 49"
West 281.90 feet to the beginning of a 113 foot radius cur~e to the right; thence
northwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 212.28 feet through a central
angle of 107°38' 11"; thence North 208.41 feet to the beginning of a 80 foot
radius curve to the left; thence northwesterly along said curve an arc distance of
159.10 feet through a central angle of 113°56. 42"; thence South 66°03' 19" West
372.14 feet; thence South 24°07. 12" West 254.43 feet; thence South 38°38. 11"
West 566.66 feet; thence South 05°05. 55" West 1897.32 feet; thence South
12°50. 21" West 833.49 feet; thence South 07°48, 19" W~st 495.35 feet; thence
South 46°57' 31" West 323.73 feet; thence South 33°30. 41" West 410.75 feet;
thence South 17°32. 08" West 860.92 feet; thence South 07°42. 01" West
2094.94 feet to the beginning of a 599.00foot radius curve to the left; thence
southeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 1356.06 feet through a central
angle of 129°42. 36"; thence North 57°59. 25" East 911.61 feet; thence North
61 °35' 44" East 692.67 feet to the beginning of a 1239.00 foot radius curve to the
left; thence., northeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 946.35 feet through
a central angle of 43°45' 45"; thence North 17°49' 59" East 1763.31 feet to the
point of beginning.
Parametrlx. Inc.
ATTACHMENT B
MAP OF tPERTY ~ 8
PROPERTY 1~
17
20
~1~07 I
~o/o,/o~ ~ Port Blokely Bou~dor y
Section line
I L__.J Io Proposed Development
6oo' ~20o' Boundary Port Blakely
~"=1200' Topography from ~l~er ond Associotes Joint Planning Area
-19 ~1-
ATTACHMENT C
SEPA COMPLIANCE FOIl IMPLEMENTING APPROVALS
Upon receipt of any application ~'or an Implementing Approval (defined in Section 6.2.),
the City shall undertake SEPA compliance as Follows:
Step 1 - Project Envelope Determination. First, the City shall determine if the
requested Implementing Approval applied fo,' is within the Project Envelope. The City can
request the applicant to provided reasonable inf'ormation (including for convenience an
environmental checklist even ifa threshold determination is not required under this Step 1) to the
extent needed to determine the requested action is within the Project Envelope. If so, then the
existing SEPA documents and analysis shall be utilized and no further SEPA threshold
determination is required (see WAC 197-l 1-600(4)(a)): "Agencies acting on the same proposal
for which an environmental document was prepared are not required to adopt the document.") If
the application is beyond the Project Envelope, then a threshold determination is required under
Step 2 below.
Step 2 - Threshold Determi,mtion. li"the requested Implernenting Approval exceeds
the Project Envelope, then the City shall prepare a threshold determination, taking into account
the existing SEPA documents and analysis and the governing Development Standards under this
Agreement which address environmental mitigation for tile Project. Any studies or other
information requested by the City fi-om th~ applicant shall relate only to those potential impacts
not adequately covered by the existing SEPA documents and analysis. The City shall issue a
determination of non-significance (DNS) tot' a mitigated DNS (MDNS) utilizing an addendum or
incorporating the prior SEPA documents and ~naiysis to the fullest extent possible, except an
addendum or supplemental ElS (SEIS) shall be t'equired if the conditions in Step 3 are present.
The City's approval of minor modifications cmcter Section 7.3 of the Agreement shall not be
deemed a significant change which would require an SEIS.
Step 3 - SEIS. The City shall prepare an addendum or SEIS if there are:
3.1 Substantial changes to the Project so that the proposal or Project Envelope
described in the existing SEPA documents and analysis are likely to have significant adverse
environmental impacts not previously amllyzed and which cannot be mitigated through the
Threshold Development Standards applicable ,to the Project (or revisions, additions and
amendments to those Development Standards); or
3.2 New infbrmation indicating tile Project is likely to have significant,
adverse environmental impact not previously analyzed in the existing SEPA documents and
analysis and which cannot be mitigated through the Threshold Development Standards
applicable to the Project (or revisions, additions and amendments to those Developrnent
Standards).
If an addendum or SEIS is requirtzd, th~ City shall limit the scope thereof to the impacts
which required the additional analysis (e.g the City shall utilize a tbcused scope and ELS).
-20 of 2 l-
Step 4 - Modified Development Stand:u-ds. If'the SEIS discloses additional mitigation
is required to avoid a serious threat to public health and safety hazards, then the Development
Standards applicable to the Project may be modified
-21 or'21-
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2000 - 06
WHEREAS the Bremerton Planning Commission is recommending the
adoption of the initial Development Agreement, containing threshold development
standards, between the City of Bremerton and Port Blakely Communities, which
initial Development Agreement implements certain provisions of the Port Blakely
Joint Planning Area Sub-Area Plan and the Three-Party Agreement including
classification of the 440 acre site now commonly known as the Port Blakely Sub
Area as a Mixed Use District (MXD) zone upon annexation.
The Bremerton Planning Commission makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, the City amended its 1995 Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No.
4722 on September 20, 2000 to adopt the Port Blakety Joint Planning Area Sub-Area
Plan as an amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Bremerton also approved the Three-Party
Agreement by Ordinance No. 4722 on September 20, 2000, which established certain
terms and conditions relating to the Port Blakely Sub-Area; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4723 on September 20, 2000
amending Title 21.02, Zoning, of the Bremerton Municipal Code to include the Mixed
Use District (MXD) zoning classification; and
WHEREAS, execution of a Development Agreement to initiate the application of
the Mixed Use District (MXD) zone classification upon annexation is consistent with
implementing provisions of the Port Blakety Sub-Area Plan and Three-Party Agreement
for mixed use development, land uses, open space, infrastructure and services upon;
and
WHEREAS, the initial Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit C
applies specific project elements and threshold Development Standards to the Port
Blakely Sub Area consistent with the State's Development Agreement Statute, RCW
36.70B. 170 et. seq., and Bremerton Municipal Code § 21.02.900; and
C:\WLNDOWS'd)esktop\xwatt~C-Dev Aocn Res 2000-06.doc
5'7,
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed initial Development Agreement and proposed MXD zoning classification on
October 17, 2000, and at the conclusion of. such hearing determined that the initial
Development Agreement, ~s~o~'d~[~e recommended for approval by the Bremerton C~ty
Council and the Port Blak~ely Sub-Area receive the Mixed Use district zoning
classification; now:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bremerton Planning Commission ,',t
recommends to the Bremerton City Council that the initial Development Agreement., ~,~:~-~..t-~
attached hereto as Exhibit C, subject to future amendments through adoption of a ~"'"~
Master Plan for the Port Blakely Sub-Area, be approved, and that upon annexation, the
Mixed Use District (MXD) zoning classification be assigned to the Port Blakely Sub-
Area, and, the Mayor be authorized to sign the initial Development Agreement on behalf
of the City of Bremerton.
PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bremerton,
this ~ ~rc day of [x["ot/c_~,J~¢/ , 2000.
A~rew/Kosusk~0
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Pattie Haas
Planning Commission Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A--Map of Port Blakely Site.
Exhibit B-Legal Description of Port Blakely Site.
Exhibit C--Initial Port Blakely Development Agreement
C:\WINDOWS~Desktop\wyattLPC-Dev Agra Res 20004)6.doc 2 £/~7'
~ ~.i0'.~-29'-~--~D0~ 1S: 5'~ 'DJQUAM f SH uEGP~L P. ~2 '02
Area O~e
598-331
F~ 5g~95
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
P.O. Box ~98 Suquamls~, Washin~on g~g2
l'he Honorable Lyrm Hot, on
Bremc,--ton City Council Members
City of Bremerton
239 fourth Street
Brcmcrton, WA 98337
Draft Iuiti~l Development .-%gr¢¢ment Between The City of Bremerton and
Port Blakely
Dear SLrs:
The Tribe has rr / '-.-t ~mendmer. ts to the above-mentioned agreemen:
submitted by ¥ ~, Cl. "them. Additionally, the ~[ril:~. conthmes te object
to the attemp' .ia the .C.i~ and Port Blakely achnit is a mere
"gcnerai c,r ~.~ ,~ ~'-~--"-' .ascns set forth in ~.h¢ Tril~¢'s November 14. 20¢0
written tes1,,~ on Plarmmg Co..m.m:~;sion, which is hereby
in,:orpomted by r~,.
,lly,
OFFICE OF THE TR~B.~d.
Scott Wl~eat, WSBA ~25565
A~omcy for ~t~e Suq'aarniah
TOTF-4- F.
klOU-!4-~O 14:46 SIJQUAMISH LEGAL P. 02/03
Area Code (360) 598-3311
Legal Dept. F.x ($60) 598-4293
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
PO Box 498 Suqulm~h, Wllhlnglon
November 14, 2000
Brem~rton Placing
B~n ~ment of Co~um~ Dcvclopmcn~
286 4~
B~n. WA 98337
RE: Initial Development Agreement Betweea the City of Bremerton and Port Biakely
Thc Suquamish Tribe ("Tribe") hereby submits the following testimony in opposition to approval by
the Bremerton Planning Commission of the Above-Mentioned Agreement:
The Initial Development Agreement Erroneoqsly Attempts to.yest the Propo/~d Prolect.
Thc Initial Development Agreement ("IDA") inappropriately attempts to vest tl~c proposed project a~.
what both the City and Port Blakely admit is a mere "general concept for development." See IDA.
Telhngly, the IDA points to no City ordinance which would allow vesting at such a "general" and
"c. oneeptual" stage. There has been no short plat submitted, nor has there even been a "preliminary
s~te plan" submitted for review, Further, thc Tribe specifically disagrees with the assertion w~thin the
IDA that its general and conceptual proposal vesta under state law.
The Port Blakely Property at issue ("PBP") is not at this time within city limits (as the Kit.sap County
Boundary Review Board has yet to consider the proposec~ annexaUon), nor has the recent UGA
clesignation of both the City and the County for the PBP survived the statutory period for filing
an appeal to the Central Puget Sound Orowth Management Hearings Board. This statutory period
does not mn until November 24, 2000. The vesting regime proposed in the IDA represents an
attempt to prematurely vest the general, conceptual plan prior to appeal md/or petition to the above-
menu~n~ administrative bodies - bodies with authority under state !aw (RCW 36.?0^ et seq. and
RCW 35.13 et seq) to deny the proposed UOA designation and proposed annexation. The Planning
Commission should simply not recommend that the project vest prior to expiration of the statutory.
period for filing an appeal.
The SEIS process contemplated in Attachment C reveals the City and Pon Blakely may allow
substantial deviations from yet-to-be developed Master Plan reqU.U'cments. Yet, presumably, they
would also have the yet-to-~e-contemplated deviations vested as well. Such an approach should ~
rejected out of hand, as it is an attempt to vest undefined projects to undefined standards.
I-1OU- 14-~300 14;47 '.SUQUAM I SH LEGAL
The IDA constitutes an attempt to vest the property to a (albeit general and conceptual) zoning
scheme, and ~ such is subject to SEPA notice and $cOping requirements - none of which have
occurred here. Finally, the IDA erroneously a~sumes that prior SEPA docurn, nts issued in
connection with the project somehow "cover" the IDA. Ye[ no such SEPA documents have
addressed the novel vesting scheme proposed in thc IDA. Thus the IDA is beyond the scope of prior
SEPA documents. Approval of the IDA without an additional SF_I:~A determination would thus faf!
astray from SEPA requirements.
~PARAGRAPH.,6.,1
Paragraph 6.1 contemplates the possibility of a rezon,..__& within the subject area. Nowhere do the
Subarea Plan and Three Party Agreement contemplate, much less allow for, ~uch a pos:ibility. This
Paragraph should thus be s~ckcn in its
PA RAGRAPH 7.3
Paragraph 7.3 would allow undefined "minor modifications" from yet to be ~tab~ishcd ~veiopment
requirements ~o be approved on a purely adn~ms~xative level, which pr~umably mean~ tha~ such
mocLificatmm would escape thc normal procedural safeguar~ an~ substantive requirements se~ forth
in d~¢ Bremerton Mumcipal Code. This paragraph should be s~cken for this reason alone.
Ad~donalty, however, this approval process suffer~ from the tack of a ~efir~tion of what
a "minor modification" and is therefore borer: of the "regulatory sideboards" rr~luired by prior
Central Puget Sound Crrowth Management I-Iearing~ Board ~ecisions concerning mmilar issues.
The proposed "~oject Envelope" process reflects on at, erupt, via ccntract. W $t~rk the normal
re¥iew process set forth in the Bremerton Municipal Code. It is inappropriate for those w~th.in
garabit of the ~v¢lopmcnt to be exempt from rcqmremcntz ~at al! of resi~n~s of the city mus~
comply with.
Respectfully submitted this 14th clay of November, 2000.
OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL ATTORN'EY
Scott Wheat, WSBA #25565
A=omey for the Suquam/sh Tribe
TOTAL F. ~3
NOL.'-2'3- 2E!Og3 ].6: 5]. r,.~_IQIJRI'I I :-3H LEGRL P. ¢3,,: ¢ ~,32
Area Code (360) 596-3311
legal Dept. Fax (360) 598-4293
I~gal~suquamlah.nsn.us
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE
PO Box 498 Suquami$1~, Washington 98392
Scott Wheat
Office of the Tribal Attorney
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
From; Scott Wheat
Department; Leeai Pages including cover sheet: ~
(~axed by Neoma Bour~ ~.5360 ( ) f~ by ~nda T~af~da - e~359
( ) Hard Copy to Foflow ( ) Ple~e ~ly
( ) ~G~I Plea~ deliver immediately
Message:
IF TRA.'~SMISSION IS ~~BLE
PLEASE PHONE O60)S98-3311
mfomu~on contused iv. this t'a~ mesla$,~ is priv~le~d and c~nfl~-~tlal. It 11 int~d~d only ¢~ ~ ~z of~c ~i~t n~ a~vc (or ~e
you f~ any~SL ~k~,
TAI, KING POINTS CITY COUNCIL PeaT BLAKELY
November 29, 2000
ACCO~ING TO THE T~EE P~TY AGREEMENT:
~1. HOW ~CH OF BREMERTON T~AYERS MONEY WILL BE SPENT ON THE
PROJECT ? WE HE~ T~T ONE MILLION DOLL,S WILL BE SPE~ ON RO~S.
~T RO~S - ~ERE - OVER ~T PERIOD OF T~ ? ~ B~MERTON LEA~ED
AN~ING FROM' ~E I~SAQUAH DE~ELOPME~ BY ~E ~AM~ COMPA~
~PORTED ~AT ~N~PORTA~ON , E~O~ION. PROBLEM~ E~T ~ ~CH ~N~
~LEA~D AND NO CONSTRUC~ON STARED. B~LDING ~W ~~
FORESTED L~ ~PE~S TO BE A COSTLY U~ERTAKING FOR ~ S~OU~ING
CO~NITIES.
~2.. HOW ~ MILLIOSS OF T~AyERs MONEY WILL BE SPE~ ON
IN~STRUCT~E FOR THE PROJECT ? HOW ~CH B~RTON MONEY ~CH
COULD BE SPE~ TO REVITALIZE ~ EXISTING CO~NI~ WILL BE EXPORTED TO
THE PORT BLAKELY PROJECT ? ~T BE~FIT IS T~ PORT BLAKELY PRO, CT TO
BRE~RTON ? WILL THERE BE LONG TE~ JOBS CREATED ?
~3. ~VE mE COUNCIL ~ THE ~YOR AB~ONED mE REVITALIZATION OF
BREMERTON ~ INVITING A F[~THER CITIZEN EXODUS mOM EXIST~G
NEIGHBO~OODS - TO "NEW" tlOUSING AT PORT BLAKELY - Wire NO P~CTICAL
T~GiBLE BENEFITS FOR T~ PRESENT NEIG~O~OODS ON THE HORIZON EXCEPT
~4. MOST RESPONSIBLE CO~rNITIES BUILD MORE HOUSES, ~ EXP~
HOUSING ~EAS ON THE BASIS OF THE ~IBER OF NEW CITIZENS SEEKING
E~LOYMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING BOUntIES OF T~ CO~mTY. ;~T IN
THE WORLD ~E BRZMERTON'S REASONS rea BE~ENING EXISTING CITIZENS TO
FIN~CE ~7~Y~7~_~'~PROJECT ?
~5. THIS CITY ~S STE.~FASTLY R~ECTED THE FACT ~T B~RTON IS
IDEALLY SITUATED TO BE ~ EXP.~SION BEDROOM CO~rNITY FOR ~E EAST
SOU~ CITIES ..... PRIDE ~ S~!BBO~NESS LOCALLY DICTATING T~T WE W~T
TO BE ~N I~EPE~ENT SELF S[~PORTING COmmUNITY - GROWING IN I~US~Y
~N~ POPULATION ON O[~ OWN MERITS. SO NOW YOU GO .~N~ ~THER
F~GMENTIZE THE POPULATION WI~OUT EVEN A HINT OR PROMISE OF MORE
BUSINESS CO~NG INTO THE ~EA. r 7 7- :~~J~2~ HOW DOES THIS
SQU~ERING OF RESO[~CES ~ T~ INCOME RELATE TO T~ "~STER
FOR GRO~ ~AGEMENT" ?