Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/03 AGENDA FILE 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 ,, Fax (360) 478-5251 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JULY 9, 2003 1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room A. General Council Business 2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in Council Chambers A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - June 11, 2003 (#AB03-120) B. Contract Award to A.M. James Company, Inc. for Reservoir No. 6 - Elevated Tank Repair and Seismic Upgrades (#AB03-121) C. Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement with Acres International for Security Assessment of Casad Dam and the Water System (#AB03-122) D. Renewal of Banking Services Contract with Bank of America (#AB03-123) 4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Purchase and Sale Agreement for Property Located at Kitsap Lake; and Related Budget Adjustment (#AB03-124) 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES A. Ordinance No. 4859 [Second Reading] relating to Regulatory Licenses and Fees (#AB03-117) B. Ordinance No. 4860 [Second Reading] adding a new section to Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, providing standards for the siting of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (#AB03-118) C. Ordinance No. 4861 [Second Reading] amending Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, relating to the regulation of Off-Premises Signs (#AB03-119) D.Ordinance [First Reading] vacating the Southerly Six Feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue (#AB03-125) 10. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www. ci.bremerton.wa.us DATE SUBMITTED: June 18, 2003 BILL # 03 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 3A CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting - Committee Meeting Date: N/A June 11, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 25, 2003 Department: City Council Presenter: Carol Arends Phone: (360) 478-5280 SUMMARY: Attached are the minutes for the Council Meeting held June 11, 2003. ATTACHMENTS: Minues for June 11, 2003 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0 APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: ~/[~ MAYOR: Iq FISCAL/BUDGET: JJ/l~ CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: lq/g COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~ ~a~. d~t~-/ RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the Consent Agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action t TAPE #1897 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 11, 2003 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, June 11, 2003, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Eric Younger was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Jonathan Oleeon with Youth Ministries at Sylvan Way Baptist Church. President Arends made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room to discuss updates to the meeting agenda; and 2. There will be no Council meeting next Wednesday, June 18 due to the lack of a quorum. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - May 14, 2003 (#AB03-104) B. Minutes of Meeting - May 21, 2003 (#AB03-105) C. Bid Award to TEC CONSTRUCTION, INC. for Biosolids Roof Structure for Forestry Division (#AB03-106) D. Contract Award for Construction of "West 650 Pressure Zone Transmission & Distribution Watermains" Project (#AB03-107) E. Contract Award for the "Casad Dam Intake Tower Upgrades" Project (#AB03-108) #0035 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Rollman) 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. #0075 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) On June 11, 2003, the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 281530 through 281864; and EFT's 7690, 7691, 7693, 7695 through 7698, 7770 through 7702, and P7694 in the total amount of $1,721,974.78; Regular Payroll for the Pay Period ending May 31, 2003 in the amount of $1,140,655.12; and Retiree Payroll for the Pay Period ending May 31, 2003 in the amount of $138,445.16. COUNCIL MEMBERS Mike Short applauded the efforts of the D.A.R.E. program and commended the 60 students who recently graduated the program during a ceremony at Kitsap Lake Elementary School. Will Maupin reported on his attendance at the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council meeting, where a Resolution was approved to designate Silverdale as a "Puget Sound Regional Growth Center" which will put Silverdale in line to receive funding for transportation issues. He also attended the Kitsap County Board of Health and Kitsap Transit Board meetings; and mentioned the "First Friday Art Walk" he attended last week. TAPE# 1897 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 2 of 4 Mike Shepherd also attended the "First Friday Ad Walk", noting in particular the new medical exhibit in the Kitsap Historical Society Museum; announced his intention to attend the Association of Washington Cities Annual Conference in Spokane next week; and discussed his participation in the Ferry Advisory Committee meeting held last Saturday. Ed Rollman was proud to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the new Emergency Services Center; and provided a brief report on the Residential Parking Committee meeting. Lastly, he complimented Legislative Assistant Lori Smith for her assistance in adding the City Council Goals on the City web site. Daren Nvgren concurred with the positive comments made by Council Member Rollman, and also thanked Legislative Assistant Lori Smith for the work she provides for the Council. He was sad to note the passing of Jean Staley, a resident of Manette, and sent his condolences to her family. Lastly, he thanked members of "BUGS" (Bremerton Urban Garden Society) for all their hard work and efforts to create gardens in the community. Cecil M~Connell invited citizens to attend the next District 1 & 2 Town Meeting on Thursday, June 19 from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. to hear a presentation on the proposed "1% for the Arts Initiative". Wayne Olsen noted that he would not be at the District 1 & 2 Town meeting due to his plans to attend the AWC Conference in Spokane, but encouraged residents to attend. He also reported on his attendance at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Emergency Services Center. Carol Arends reported that she also participated in the Emergency Services Center groundbreaking ceremony and several First Friday Art Walk activities. MAYOR'S REPORT - Ma}for Bozeman ,.. · Informed the Council of the DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY'S intention to discontinue security services at Jackson Park, and hoped that a solution can be found so there will not be a strain on local law enforcement; · Announced that a "Regional Forum on Passenger Ferry Service" will be held Tuesday, July Ist from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on the Royal Argosy ship; · Was encouraged by interest generated at a meeting to discuss waterfront condominiums; · Stated that Bremerton Central Lions Foundation has pledged $25,000 towards a campaign for a new skateboard park; · Mentioned an e-mail received from a college student with suggestions on improving City's website, such as adding links with photographs of ongoing City projects; · Said that there may be a request for a tax increase to cover ferry service improvements on the November ballot; and · Congratulated Kathleen McCluskey on receiving a community service award from the Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Michael Mecham, City Engineer, announced WSDOT will be striping Kitsap Way from 11th Street to the SR3 Interchange beginning next week. TAPE# 1897 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 3 of 4 8A - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND KITSAP TRANSIT REGARDING THE "BREMERTON CONFERENCE CENTER" PROJECT (#AB03- 109): Gary Sexton, Economic Development Director, stated that the Interlocal Agreement is the second phase, final agreement of understanding between the CITY OF BREMERTON and KITSAP TRANSIT. The agreement sets out reconfiguration of property ownership, distribution of costs for the parking garage, plaza and streetscaping, distribution of air space sale revenues, allocation of environmental and indirect costs, as well as reaffirmation of development and management responsibilities. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Rollman asked what kind of involvement the Navy would have in this project. Mr. Sexton clarified that the Navy would have no involvement in this project. #t 200 M/S/C/U (Short/Olsen) Move to approve and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the Interlocal Agreement between the C~TY OF BREMERTON and KITSAP TRANSIT regarding the Kitsap Regional [Bremerton] Conference Center Project in substantially the same terms as contained in the proposed agreement. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENI~iIENT TO BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE 2t.02 FIGURE 152 (B) FOOTNOTF RELATING TO BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE (#AB03-110): Chris Hugo, Community Development Director, reminded the Council that on December 30, 2002 they adopted new downtown development regulations which included a limitation on maximum building heights and number of stories in the downtown waterfront zone. On March 3, 2003, the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority applied for an amendment to the zoning code text to allow up to six stories rather than five as specified in the new regulations. The proposed change does not alter the maximum allowed building height or the amount of allowed building bulk. Following public hearing on March 18, 2003, the City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the change. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Maupin commented that this is a good revision in the code since it would encourage more people to build businesses downtown; and asked if there were limitations on the amount of space a business can take up on a property. Mr. Hugo responded that the limitations allow views around buildings and this could be accomplished by 1) setting a limit for the ratio of total floor area to site area; and 2) having a view corridor requirement. Mr. Rollman asked where the property line would be measured from for homes along Washington Avenue. Mr. Hugo emphasized that the measurements are taken from the center of the building footprint per state law to determine building height since the properties in the downtown area have downward sloping grades. He clarified that the change in code only affects buildings taller than 5 stories. Mr. Rollman asked if the City can charge impact fees for any view corridors that would be compromised. Mr. Hugo answered that the issue was considered in the planning stages of the Conference Center project so the view corridor would not be impacted. #1395 M/SIC (Maupin/Olsen) Move to approve ordinance on first reading. Voted in favor of Motion: Rollman, Shepherd, Maupin, Short, Olsen, McConnell, and Arends Abstained: Daren Nygren Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention TAPE# 1897 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 11, 2003 Page 4 of 4 9B - PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2893 SETTING A HEARING DATE OF JULY .97 2003 FOR VACATING THE SOUTHERLY 6 FEET OF EAST 31sT STREET BETWEEN OLYMPUS DRIVE AND SAUNDERS AVENUE (#AB03-11'1): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, explained that the City initiated the vacation of the southerly 6 feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. The vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting City owned property to provide adequate area for fire station expansion. This is a Class I Right-of-Way and compensation is not required in accordance with BMC 11.20.080. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Rqllman asked if there were tenants, landlords, or homesteaders living on this site. Mr. M~cham assured him that there were not. #t475 MISIC/U (McConnell/Rollman) Move to pass Resolution No. 2893, setting a hearing date of July 19, 2003, for vacating the southerly 6 feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. The Council met for an Executive Session in the Council Conference Room from 6:20 to 6:37 P.M. to discuss "Litigation". They reconvened in the Council Chambers at approx. 6:38 P.M. 10A - EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A "LITIGATION" ISSUE (#AB03-112): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, provided information to the Council during an Executive Session in the City Council Conference room to discuss a litigation issue. After the discussion, the Council reconvened and took action to allow the City Attorney to file suit against KCM, Inc. There were no comments from the public. #1598 M/S/C/U (Maupin/McConnell) Move to authorize the Office of the City Attorney to file suit for breach of contract and other causes of action against KCM, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of TETRA TECH, INC. With no further business, the regular meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 6:39 P.M. Prepared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton CNP JIIslcge DATE SUBMITTED: June 24, 2003 BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONTRACT AWARD- Committee Meeting Date: July 1, 2003 A.M. James Company, Inc.- Reservoir 6- COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 9, 2003 Elevated Tank Repair & Seismic Upgrade Department: Public Works & Utilities Presenter: Dan Miller ~ Phone: 473-2314 SUMMARY: Bids were opened on Monday, June 23, 2003 for the Reservoir 6-Elevated Tank Repair & Seismic Upgrade. A total often (10) bids were received for the project (see attached Bid Opening List). The low bidder is A.M. James Company, Inc. fi.om Gig Harbor, WA for the Lump Sum of $83,479.00. The total contract amount, including Washington State Sales, is $90,574.72. ATTACHMENTS: Bid Opening List. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. The lump sum bid amount is within the Water Fund Capital Budget listed under Reservoir Seismic Upgrades. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ]~'~d FISCAL/BUDGET: ~" ~-' ....... ~'~-' OPERATIONS: ,~ /( * ~ ~ CONSENT AGENDA ,~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT: d~,~ ~/~-4c~dx-ed RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the City Council approve the contract award to A.M. James Company, Inc., in the amount of $90,574.72 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. DATE SUBMITTED: June 20, 2003 BILL # 0-3 ~/~, AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 3~ CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment Number 3 Committee Meeting Date: 7-1-03 Professional Services Agreement with Acres COUNCIL MEETING Date: 7-9-03 International - Security Assessment for Department: Public Works & Casad Dam and the water system Utilities Presenter: Kathleen Cahall ~ Phone: x2315 SUMMARY: The City's water utility has a federal requirement to perform a vulnerability assessment of the dam and other water system components. Athough the majority of the assessment is being performed in-house, an outside expert is needed to provide specific security evaluations· Acres is currently performing work for the City on dam projects and has the expertise needed to perform these evaluations. This work was anticipated and funds were budgeted for the Water Resources Division of the Public Works and Utilities Department. An additional task to design a chalnfall for the Casad Dam valve project was also added at a cost of $1,800. The total cost of this amendment is $37,930· ATTACHMENTS: Amendment 3 and scope of work/budget FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This work was anticipated and funds were budgeted for the Water Resources Division of the Public Works and Utilities Department. The total cost &this amendment is $37,930. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ~ CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET' · &;i J} ~'~' ,, I CONSENT AGENDA ~] OPERATIONg: ~ "' I COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: It is reccomended that City Council approve Amendment Number 3 to the professional services agreement with Acres International and authorize the Mayor to sign, subject to City administrative policies and procedures. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND ACRES INTERNATIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 PROJECT Casad Dam Intake Tower Seismic Upgrade CONSULTANT Acres International THIS AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY AMENDS THE AGREEMENT (the "Contract") entered into between the City of Bremerton and .4cres Internationalt on January 1, 2002 All provisions in thc Contract shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified by this document. Whereas additional professional services were requested by the City of Brcmerton, Acres International desires to modify the contract as further described in Attachment A. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, the modifications to the Contract are as follows: Exhibit A (Scope of Work) is modified as follows: Additional tasks to be added for the Amended Scope of Work are attached as Attachment A. Exhibit B (Compensation) is modified per the budget in Attachment A. The original contract amount was One Hundred Fifty-two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-eight Dollars ($152,858.00~. Amendment 1 to the Contract was executed on February 12, 2003 which added Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five Dollars {$35~275.00}. Amendment 2, based on time and materials, added Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Eight ($21~338.00). The City shall pay the Consultant for the additional work described above for this proposed Amendment 3, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty ($37~930.00) for a total amended contract amount of Two Hundred Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and One Dollars ($247,401.00)~ including this Contract Modification. II. Consultant accepts all requirements of this Contract Modification by endorsing below. Consultant further agrees that this Contract Modification constitutes full and final settlement of all claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind, including costs of delays, related to any work either covered or affected by this Contract Modification. The parties whose names appear below swear under penalty of perjury that they are authorized to enter into a contract modification that is binding on the parties of this contract. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract Modifications on the day and year first written above. Division Mgr - approved to process ~.~ ~ ~'~ '~ - O..~ Initials and Date Dept. Director - approved to process Initials and Date CONSULTANT THE CITY OF BREMERTON By_ By Cary Bozeman Its Its Mayor DATE: DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Bremerton City Attomey City Clerk NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: Mr. Robin G. Charlwood City Clerk Vice President City of Bremerton Acres Intemational Bremerton, WA 98337 150 Nickerson Street Suite 310 Seattle~ WA 98109 (206) 352-5730 CONTRACT AMENDMENT 2 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 ~ ~ Professional Services Agreement Amendment 3 Attachment A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR ACRES INTERNATIONAL SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR DAM AND WATER SYSTEM SECURITY ASSESSMENT (The tasks below are only the additional tasks for the amended contract) Background The City of Brernerton Water Utility (Bremerton) is required by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a Vulnerability Assessment (VA) on its water system, including the dam, to be submitted before December 31, 2003. Bremerton is performing the majority of the VA in- house using the Sandia RAM-W method. Bremerton desires assistance in the VA in evaluating security system effectiveness to determine the Protection System Effectiveness (PE) for its critical water facility assets. In the RAM-W methodology, the following formula is used to determine risk (R): R = PA*(1-PE)*C R = Risk P^ -- Design Basis Threat PE = Protection System Effectiveness C = Consequences Additionally, Bremerton has been requested by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to perform a security assessment of Casad Dam following the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) procedure. The following scope describes the work to be accomplished. Scope of Work Task 1.5 Project Management Robin Charlwood, Jim Rutherford, and/or Lane McNitt will perform the site visits and technical work on this project. N. Reid and J. Mullins will input on the SCADA work. If these individuals are not available, then Acres will obtain prior approval from the City for alternates. The work products for Tasks 12 - 18 are directly related to the City's VA and exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(1)(ww). All work products are to be clearly labeled CONFIDENTIAL and NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. Appropriate precautions will be taken to ensure confidentiality. No work products shall be kept by Acres after this project is finalized. Deliverables for Tasks 12 - 18 shall be hand delivered, prepared in MS Word, and in electronic format only. There will be a project initiation meeting on the first day of the site visits. There will also be a meeting with the City's VA team to discuss findings and recommendations. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 3 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 [ [ DELIVERABLES: · l-hour project initiation meeting · 2-hour project completion meeting · 1 electronic copy water system security assessment report in Word · 1 electronic copy of Casad Dam security assessment in Word Task 9.11 Chainfall Design Inspect the valve house floor to verify site conditions. Select a chain fall hoist that will support the Howell Bunger valve weight and allow it to be moved 3' from the connection flange. Provide structural calculations that verify the capacity of the valve house floor and design the anchorage needed. Provide a single detail drawing of the installation. DELIVERABLES: · Select a chain fall hoist · One detail drawing of the installation TASK 12 Review Water System Data Sheets for Physical Protection Features Bremerton will supply facility information and data sheets listing the current status of the physical protection features currently in place for Casad Dam and other critical assets. Attached is FORM 1 as an example. Bremerton will also supply the design basis threat (DBT) as determined through the RAM-W process. (Includes potential threats from Vandals/Criminals and/or Insiders) Acres will carry out a brief review of the DBT and consider potential threats from National groups and International Groups by briefly interviewing selected local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. These are normally considered in FERC Dam Security Assessments. TASK 13 Review Water Utility Security Policies and Procedures Bremerton will supply any policies and procedures relating to security and dam safety, including the dam emergency action plan (EAP). DELIVERABLE: · Acres will review and provide any comments in a brief memo to Br~rnerton. TASK 14 Review Facilities in the Field Acres will perform site visits to review existing security measures in place. Acres will be accompanied by Water Utility staff who will assist in answering questions. Bremerton's security system supplier (Fire One) may also be present at these site visits. The visit will be to approximately 12 facilities that Bremerton and Acres will identify prior to the site visit and will include Casad Dam and its components, all critical facilities, and representative examples of typical pump stations and reservoirs. These facilities are all within several miles of each other. Acres has been presented with a preliminary list of facilities. DELIVERABLE: · 2-3 days for site visits. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 4 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 Io~ TASK 15 Review Performance of Existing Security Systems Acres will develop a worst-case scenario for each critical facility. Both insider and outsider DBTs will be considered. Estimate the P~ relative to the design basis threat by determining the following: Ability of the existing system to DETECT the design basis threat (DBT = P^). Ability of the existing system to DELAY the DBT. Ability of the existing system to RESPOND to the DBT. Acres will rate the above abilities as high, medium, or low and document this information on Form 2 attached DELIVERABLE: · Form 2 filled out, and Pe determined. TASK 16 Review Cyber Threat Vulnerability Bremerton will perform an initial review of the Water Utility SCADA. The City will provide this to the consultant for review. Recommend SCADA upgrades. DELIVERABLE: · Report on recommended SCADA upgrades. TASK 17 Recommend Security Improvements Based on the evaluation above, make recommendations for security system improvements - considering both procedures and equipment - for each critical facility and provide budget-level cost estimates. DELIVERABLE: · A list of security system improvements with budget-level cost estimates where appropriate. Task 18 Casad Dam Security Assessment and Security Plan Acres will perform a security assessment for Casad Dam using FERC procedures. Bremerton has already determined the DBT. Evaluate and, where necessary, recommend changes to security procedures and other measures to meet requirements similar to those of FERC's security program as specified for Group 2 dams in their letter to licensees dated June 7, 2002. Since no power is generated at Casad Dam, its operation is regulated by Ecology and not FERC; however, Ecology has stated that this level of assessment would be appropriate for Casad Dam. Acres will perform a VA Analysis for Casad Dam using the automated FERC "RAM-C" methodology. Acres will review the Casad Dam EAP and prepare a brief memo with any recommendations regarding the integration of security procedures with the EAP (as recommended by FERC for Group 2 dams). DELIVERABLES: Acres will produce two reports: · Security Assessment (includes threat assessment, consequences and assessment and completion of the APPA Dam Security Checklist) in a separate technical report on Casad Dam appropriate for submission to the Department of Ecology. · Security Plan (which includes reactions to various alert levels etc.) Task 19 Additional Work CONTRACT AMENDMENT 5 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 Additional work maybe requested of Acres during the course of this project. Expenditure of the funds designated tbr this task in the budget must have prior written authorization from the City. CONTRACT AMENDMENT 6 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 ~ ~ FORM I WATER SYSTEM DATA COLLECTION WORKSHEET PHYSICAL PROTECTION FEATURES Facility: Assets: Date: Recorded by: Physical Protection Features I Description Notes (1) Facility Boundary +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (la) Fence height and construction (lb) Vehicle barders - number and type (lc) Natural barriers {2) Property Entrance (describe type of entrance) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (2a) Personnel -number, type, and construction (2b) VehicJe - nursber, type, and construction (2c) Entrance locks - fist lock series (2d) Address clearly identified [] Yes [] No (3) Distance between boundar~ &facility (4) Facility construction (5) Facigty entrances (doors, windows, vents, skylights) - list number and construction (6) Distance between facility entrance and critical asset (7) Seneom I Monitors (fence, intrusion, door/gate position, penetration, motion) (8) ID checks [] Yes [] No (9) Detection by pemonnel (inspection frequenc;/) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (Sa) Operators (8b) Police inspection route (8c) Caretakers (8d) Other personnel (8e) Neighbors (10) Detection Assessment: [] Camera [] Site Visit (11) Tamper Indicatin~ measures +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (1 la) Intrusion Alarms (type) (11al) local [] Yes [] No (11a2) remote to SCADA [] Yes [] No (11a3) remote to Alarm Call Center [] Yes [] No (11b) Other alarms (type) !1161) local [] Yes [] No (1162) remntetoSCADA [] Yes [] No ~__ (1163) remote to Alarm Call Center [] Yes [] No (1_1c) Customer calls (iow pressure, no water, etc) ~ [] Yes [] No (12) CommunicationLinss-VoiceTelephone i [] Yes [] No (13) Communication Linee-$CADA [] Phone [] Radio [] None (14) On-Line Analyzem (such as CI~, turbidity or pH meters) - list (15) Area Lighting - (switch, photo cell or motion etc) (16) Other. (t7) Other- Additional Information Attached or Available: [] Additional notes [] Site map [] Photo [] Piping diagram [] Other CONTRACT AMENDMENT 7~, June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 FORM 2 Form 2 Potentially Effective Physical Protection Systems (PPS) Features Facility: PPS Features Outsider DBT Insider DBT Detection )elay Reponse Note: PE is the lowest of detection, delay, and response. Low effectiveness ~ 0.1 - little evidence of system effectiveness Medium effectiveness = 0.5 = evidence of general but not specific capabilities High effectiveness = 0.9 = evidence of specific security system capabilities to address specific concerns CONTRACT AMENDMENT 8 June 23, 2003 Project Number: 417 ~ ~ DATE SUBMITTED: June 24, 203 BILL # 03 ~/,Q 3 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 3D CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Date: July 1, 2003 Banking Services Renewal COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 9, 2003 Department: Finance Department Presenter: Cathy Johnson Michael Wilson Phone: 473-5296 SUMMARY: The City Treasurer is required by state statute to select one or more financial institutions, either on an annual basis or at such other times as may be deemed necessary, for providing needed banking services for the City. The City of Bremerton currently has an agreement with Bank of America for comprehensive banking servies. This agreement is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2003. After review of the City's banking service needs, evaluation of the submitted proposal from Bank of America and meeting with BofA representatives, it is our recommendation to accept the proposal for extending banking services with the Bank of America through June 30, 2005. ATTACHMENTS: A. Agreement for banking services with Bank of America B. Proposal l~om Bank of America for banking services FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Increase in the cost of banking services are estimated to by $195 per month. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA l~J] OPERATIONS: .... J COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~'f.f¢.~.~ /'ff4~_~,.~:.~/ RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to accept the proposal from Bank of America for banking services and authorize the Mayor to f'malize and execute the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action City of Bremerton Banking Services Proposal Presented by Bank of America May 15, 2003 I. Bank of America Team Client Team Client Manager · Role/Responsibility: The role of the Client Manager will be to orchestrate the City's experiences with Bank of America. Kerrin will serve the City of Bremerton's primary advocate to bring to bear all of the resources of Bank of America and the Client Management Team to help the City of Bremerton achieve its overall strategy and goals. Treasury Management Officer · The role of the Treasury Management Officer is to serve as an expert in the management of financial assets and related operations. Judy will proactively identify opportunities for the City of Bremerton to achieve or enhance its overall strategy through the innovative management of its assets, focusing on operational processes, create solutions for identified client needs from the services offered by Bank of America and other partners, and insure the appropriate fulfillment and service of all accepted solutions. Marketing Specialist · The role and responsibility of a Marketing Specialist is to support the Treasury Management Officer in identify potential solutions to clients needs on Treasury - Management products and processes. Wendy will assume responsibility for follow- ,~ up and resolution of problems. Will assist the Treasury Management Officer by overseeing Service Center activities and responding to Service Center questions. ~ The Marketing Specialist will assist clients with coordinating the documentation ~: preparation function for the implementation of new, or change to existing Treasury Management products. Client Support Associate ~ · The role of the Client Support Associate will be to provide expert resolution of Client ,_ i service issues and credit issues escalated beyond the Commercial Service Center. ~1 BankofAmerica II. Technology Philosophy Our Technoloqy Philosophy: Bank of America's technology philosophy is commitment to delivery of the highest standards of security and reliability over the Internet. We are dedicated to making the connection between your needs and technology work as never before. Bank of America has demonstrated our commitment to technology and the Internet in the following ways: · First bank to provide Internet platform for managing bank activity. · August 2001 Global Finance Magazine names Bank of America 'Best Internet Bank of North America' · September 2001 Treasury and Risk Management Magazine 'Best Internet Bank' · In just one year Bank of America has installed a new digital check imaging technology infrastructure that helps clients get information faster. This results in the following benefits to clients: · Bank associates can retrieve images very quickly, resulting in improved customer service; i.e. 5 seconds versus 3-4 business days · The new technology has vastly improved the quality of the check images that clients receive. · Digital images available at teller stations have already helped to prevent check fraud on your accounts. · The technology opens up ingenious new products and services for you, our corporate clients, · Pioneer in the development of Electronic Data Interchange. · Top provider of treasury management services to large corporate, financial institution and government agency clients. · This years budget for technology and upgrades was $150 million · First bank to introduce Web-based invoice presentment and payment. · Industry leader in introducing lockbox imaging in 1996. · Spent over $20 million in 2001 to move digital read-heads on all our check sorting equipment and to ensure that our Internet products are completely computerized (data does not fall on the floor in the back room). · On going training of Treasury Management Technical Specialists to be knowledgeable on current product offerings (Customer Initiated Payment, Invoice Presentment and Payment, Electronic Billing and Payment etc). Incorporatin.q the Internet: Bank of America has incorporated use of the Internet into the delivery of our Treasury Management, Merchant Services, Investments, and Commercial Cards. ~1 ~( BankofAmerica dddd dddd~d~oo~dd¥4~Kd~ ; K;~ ¥~d ~ d dddd ddd~d~ddddddddd ddd d ddd d2 dd ~ d ~°°~8~88988~88~8888888°°~888888oo o o ~oooo~o8ooo~o888888°°88°88°8 °°8© d~dd ddd¼d~ddddddddddd dd ddddf dddd o o o o o o o ~ ® 8 o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ oooo°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ° ° ~ ° ii i ,; ooooooO~OOOOOOOOOOOOO° o~oq~qq~ooo o~ . Bankof America,,. Public Secto~ Banking May 15, 2003 800 5thAvenue, Floor 34 Mike Wilson Cathy Johnson Fax 206.358.88!8 Finance Director Assistant Treasurer City of Bremerton City of Bremerton 239 4th Street 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Bremerton, WA 98337 Re: Banking Services Renewal Dear Mike and Cathy: On behalf of Bank of America, we appreciate the opportunity to provide the attached proposal to renew the City's banking services contract. With your agreement to the proposed pricing, we will extend the existing contract for two years through June 30, 2005. I want to highlight some of the key reasons we believe Bank of America is the most qualified banking partner to assist the City. Experience: Bank of America has dedicated the greatest level of resources to focus on municipal clients of any bank in Washington. We have a specialized group dedicated to serving only public sector clients. We are the most active bank underwriter of municipal bonds. We are the clear leader in providing bank credit products and are particularly strong in proving the full range of hedging products to municipal clients. These capabilities allow us to provide you the moat informed advice on a wide variety of subjects. in addition to the Treasury management services described in the attached proposal, we provide operational lines of credit to support the daily cash management activities of the City of Bremerton. We currently have an $2,000,000 Daylight Overdraft limit and a $700,000 ACH limit in place to the facilitate movement of funds. We review these limits annually for appropriateness. Competitiveness: The most recent Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) report indicates Bank of America has the largest deposit share in Washington State, at 21%, followed by our nearest competitors at 16% and 11%. For the City, this means an account at Bank of America will provide immediate access to funds on a larger share of deposits. Because the Washington State Treasurer banks with Bank of America, the City may transfer funds to the Treasurer as an intrabank transfer. For investments to the State's Local Government investment Pool, the City may transfer funds through a special function at a cost per transaction of only 50 cents, substantially less than that of a wire transfer. The Bank is offering the City a non-interest bearing Certificate of Deposit at 120% of the Treasury bill with no requirement for reserves, as an alternative method of compensation for banking services. At today's treasury bill rate of 1.15%, this will result in a rate to the City of 1.38% ('i.15% x 1.20% = 1.38%), or effectively 33% higher than the earnings allowance with Investments: Our focus on serving the investment needs of municipal clients throughout Washington allows Bank of America to capably advise the City of Bremerton. As a primary dealer Bank of America Phone (206) 358-8175 FAX (206)358-8818 City of Bremerton Banking Services May 15, 2003 ~n US Government Securities, we can offer the widest range of investments at the most competitive rates. Our proposal includes information on banking services not currently being utilized by the City and alternative ways of doing business that may result in cost savings to the City. While cost is an important component of banking, our objective is, along with competitively priced transaction costs, to deliver outstanding customer service that consistently meets or exceeds the City's expectations. The overall value of a relationship with Bank of America includes customized banking solutions and superior customer service. The City of Bremerton is a valuable customer of the bank and you can be assured that your banking "team" will do whatever we can to provide the City with the services you require. I look forward to continuing to work with you both. Sincerely, ~¢errin M. Gibt~taC~s Judy Bonheur Senior Client Manager Treasury Management Officer Please acknowledge your agreement of this extension by signing below. Agreed & Accepted this day of ,2003 By: Its: Bank of America Phone (206) 358-8175 FAX (206)358-8818 a5 DATE SUBMITTED: June 18, 2003 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Kitsap Lake Property Purchases Committee Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 9, 2003 Department: Parks & Recreation Presenter: Jodi Wroblewski Phone: 360/473-5429 SUMMARY: In 2002, the city of Bremerton sold. 18 acres of park land to Bremerton Chrysler for $51,000. This sale settled an encroachment issue by this business. Because the property was given to the City for park purposes, it was required that the City replace it with more park land. Two pieces of property were identified south of Kitsap Lake Park; a 10 acre parcel owned by John Branin and J.L. Heagy and a .87 acre parcel owned by Terry Ryon. Both properties were appraised by A.C.E. PS, Inc. and were found to have significant wet-lands. After negotiating with the property owners and receiving the National Park Service approvals, the Parks & Recreation Department is prepared to purchase the two pieces of property as replacement for. 18 acres lost by encroachment. ATTACItMENTS: 1. Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement with John Branin and J.L. Heagy 2. Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement with Ter~ Ryon 3. Budget Adjustment FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $51,000 from the sale of the portion of SR-3 Park has been set aside in the Contingency Reserve Fund. The purchase price of the 10 acre Branin/I-Ieagy property is $43,000. The purchase price of the .87 acre Ryon property is $5,000. Leaving a balance of $3,000 that will be set aside for Kitsap Lake Park development. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: "' i CITY ATTORNEY: , ' ~~z~, FISCAL/BUDGET: ~i ~'\ i, ~ '~ ~'- ?~---k;. ': CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement with John Branin and J.L. Heagy and the Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement with Terry Ryon with substantially the same terms and conditions as contained in the proposed agreements. Additionally, I move to approve the related Budget Adjustment subject to current City Administrative policies and procedures. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action Attachment I REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This contract controls the terms of the sale of real property. (Please read carefully before si~nino_.) This Agreement is entered between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation, whose mailing address is 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337, ("Buyer"), and John S. Branin, an individual, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 7172 #272, State Line, Nevada, 89449 and J.L. Heagy, an individual, whose mailing address is 99 Pinewood Road, Clarksburg, WV 26301, ("Sellers), for the sale and purchase of real property as follows: East half of the North half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 20, Township 24 North, Range 1, East, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington; Except that portion conveyed to Kitsap County for road by Auditor's File No. 826622. 1. PROPERTY. The property, including all improvements and appurtenances situated thereon, which Buyer agrees to buy and Sellers agrees to sell, is comprised of two parcels. The first parcel, hereinafter referred to as ("Parcel A"), is commonly known to be located near the Northwest comer of West Kitsap Lake Road, on the North side of Kitsap Road, and is directly south of the existing Kitsap Lake Park, Bremerton, Washington 98312. Parcel A shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Property," which Property is legally described in Exhibit A (Parcel A), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. A map indicating the location of the Property is also attached as Exhibit B (Parcel A), incorporated herein by this reference. 2. PURCHASE PRICE. The total purchase price for the Property is Forty-Three Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($43,000.00), payable on closing. 3. CONTINGENCIES. This agreement is contingent upon: (a) Acceptance of its terms by the Bremerton City Council. (b) Buyers review and approval of the title report on the property prior to Closing. (c) The National Parks Service acting for the Secretary of the Interior approving the purchase of these properties as satisfying the City's obligation to obtain replacement property consistent with the attached agreement between the Buyer and the Nation al Parks Service (See Attachment "A"). (d) With respect to Parcel A, the Buyer agreeing to use the sellers' names (Branin-Heagy) or another name approved by the Sellers when the improvements on the property [i.e. Nature trail or Boardwalk] are ever given a title. (e) With respect to Parcel A, the Buyer agreeing that Sellers shah have the right of first refusal to re-purchase property at the original sales price should City wish to use property for non-park purposes. This contingency will no longer REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page I of 5 Attachment 1 be in effect as of twenty-five (25) years fiom the signing of this agreement. (f) Buyer agreeing to place a non-revocable covenant on the property restricting its use to park purposes only. Should any of these contingencies not be met prior to closing, then this Agreemem shall terminate and neither Buyer nor Sellers shall have any further rights, duties or obligations hereunder. 4. CONVEYANCE AND CONDITION OF TITLE. The title to the real property shah be conveyed by Sellers to Buyer at closing by Statutory Warranty Deed, flee and clear of all liens, encumbrances or defects except those described in Paragraph [5] below. 5. TITLE INSURANCE. At Closing, Buyer shall be responsible for obtaining title insurance. For purposes of this Agreement, the following shall not be deemed encumbrances or defects: rights reserved and federal patents or state deeds; building or use restrictions consistent with current zoning, utility and road easements of record, and the restriction to use the property for park purposes or the requirement to offer Sellers right of first refusal to re-purchase property. If title cannot be made so insurable prior to the Closing date called for herein, unless, Buyer elects to waive such defects or encumbrances, this agreement shall terminate. 6. CLOSING COSTS AND PRO-RATIONS. The cost of closing, if any, shall be shared equally between Buyer and Sellers, except those fees which are expressly limited by Federal Regulation. Sellers shall pay for excise tax and revenue stamps. Taxes for the current year, rents, interest, Association, Condominium and/or Homeowner's fees, water and other utility charges, if any, shall be pro-rated as of date of closing unless otherwise agreed. 7. CLOSING OF THE SALE. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FOR THIS AGREEMENT, this sale shall close on ,2003 which shall also be the termination date of this agreement unless said closing date is extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties. Closing, for the purpose of this agreement, is defined as the date that all documents are executed and the sale proceeds are available for disbursement to the Sellers. 8. CASUALTY LOSS. If prior to closing, improvements on said premises shah be destroyed or materially damaged by fire or other casualty, this agreement, at option of the Buyer, shall become null and void. 9. POSSESSION. Buyer shall be entitled to possession on closing. 10. SELLERS' REPRESENTATIONS. Sellers represent: (a) that they will maintain the property in present or better condition until time of agreed possession, (b) that they have no knowledge or notice fi'om any governmental agency of any violation of laws relating to the subject property except:. REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 5 Attachment 1 (c) that the property is not encumbered by any leases. 11. SELLERS' ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIONS. Sellers represent that to the best oftbeir knowledge that they are not aware of existence of, or have caused or allowed to be caused, any environment condition (including, without limitation, a spill, discharge or contamination) that existed as of and/or prior to the closing date or any act of omission occurring prior to the closing date, the result of which may require remedial action pursuant to any federal, state or local law or may be the basis for the assertion of any third party claims, including claims of governmental entities. This provision shall survive the closing and be in addition to Sellers' obligation for breach of a representation or warranty as may be set forth herein. 12. SELLERS' INDEMNITIES: Sellers agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Buyer, against and in respect of, any and all damages, claims, losses, liabilities, judgments, demands, fees, obligations, assessments, and expenses and costs, including, without limitation, reasonable legal, accounting, consulting, engineering and other expenses which may be imposed upon or incurred by Buyer, or asserted against Buyer, by any other party or parties (including, without limitation, a governmental entity), arising out of or in connection with any environmental condition existing as of and/or prior to the closing date, including the exposure of any person to any such environmental condition, regardless of whether such environmental condition or exposure resulted from activities of Sellers or Sellers' predecessors in interest. This indemnity shall survive the closing and be in addition to Sellers' obligation for breach of a representation or warranty as may be set forth herein. 13. DEFAULT AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. (a) Buyer's I)ef~ult. IF BUYER DEFAULTS HEREUNDER, SELLERS SHALL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. (b) Sellers' Default. IF SELLERS DEFAULT HEREUNDER, BUYER SHALL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. (c) Attorney's Fees and Costs. In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. 14. NOTICE TO SELLERS. This form contains provisions for an agreement for the purchase and sale of real estate. The Buyer makes NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND that this form, or any of its provisions, is intended to meet the factual and legal requirements of a particular transaction, or that it accurately reflects that laws of the State of Washington at the time you enter the agreement. THIS AGREEMENT HAS SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES AND YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL COUNSEL REGARDING THESE CONSEQUENCES. If you do not understand the effect of any part, consult your Attorney before signing. REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 3 of 5 Attachment 1 15. NON-MERGER. The terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed merged into the deed, and shall survive the Closing and continue in full force and effect. 16. NOTICES. All notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sent U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, or by facsimile transmission addressed as set forth below: (a) All notices to be given to Buyer shall be addressed as follows: Mayor City of Bremenon 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 (b) All notices to be given to Sellers shall be addressed as follows: John Branin J.L. Heagy P.O. Box 7172 - #272 99 Pinewood Road State Line, Nevada, 89449 Clarksburg, WA 26301 Any party hereto may, by written notice to the other, designate such other address for the giving of notices as being necessary. All notices shall be deemed given on the day such notice is personally served, or on the date of the facsimile transmission, or on the third day following the day such notice is mailed in accordance with this paragraph. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMEWr. This Agreement, including all incorporated exhibits, constitutes the full understanding between Sellers and Buyer. There have been no verbal or other agreements that modify this agreement. 18. BINDING EFFECT AND SURVIVAL. This Agreement shall be binding upon parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns; and the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall survive the closing of this transaction. 19. DATE OF MUTUAL ACCEPTANCE. For the purposes of this Agreement, the date of mutual acceptance of this Agreement shall be the last date on which the parties to this Agreement have executed this Agreement as indicated below. 20. EXPIRATION OF OFFER. Sellers shall have only until 5:00 p.m. on __ to accept the purchase and sale agreement as written, by delivering a signed copy thereoft~ the Buyer or the Buyer's agent. If Sellers do not so deliver a signed copy within said period, this agreement shall lapse and all right of the parties hereunder shall terminate. REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 4 of 5 3O Attachment 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thc parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date set forth below. BUYER: SELLERS: THE CITY OF BREMERTON By:. Cary Bozeman, Mayor John S. Branin Dated: Dated: J. L Heagy Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This comract controls the terms of the sale of real property. (Please read carefully before si~ning.) This Agreement is entered between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington municipal corporation, whose mailing address is 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337, ("Buyer"), and Terry Ryon, an unmarried person between the dates of August 1, 1983 and August 4, 1993, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 4061. Bremerton, WA 98312-0061, ("Seller"), for the sale and purchase of real property as follows: That portion of the following described property lying westerly of Price Road: The Southhalf of the North half or the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington; Except road. 1. PROPERTY. The property, including all improvements and appurtenances situated thereon, which Buyer agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell, is comprised of one parcel. The parcel, hereinafter referred to as ("the Property"), is commonly known to be located at the Northwest intersection of Price Road and West Kitsap Road, Bremerton, Washington 98312. The Property is legally described in Exhibit A (Parcel B) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. A map indicating the location of the Property is also attached as Exhibit B, incorporated herein by this reference. 2. PURCHASE PRICE. The total purchase price for the Property is Five thousand and. No/100 Dollars ($ 5,000.00), payable on closing. 3. CONTINGENCIES. This agreement is contingem upon: (a) Acceptance of its terms by the Bremerton City Council. (b) Buyers review and approval of the title report on the property prior to Closing. (c) The National Parks Service acting for the Secretary of the Imerior approving the purchase oftbese properties as satisfying the City's obligation to obtain replacement property consistent with the attached agreemem between the Buyer and the National Parks Service (See Attachment "A"). (d) Buyer agreeing to place a non-revocable covenant on the property restricting its use to park purposes only. Should any oftbese contingencies not be met prior to closing, then this Agreement shall terminate and neither Buyer nor Seller shall have any further rights, duties or obligations hereunder. 4. CONVEYANCE AND CONDITION OF TITLE. The title to the real property shall be conveyed by Seller to Buyer at closing by Statutory Warranty Deed, flee and clear of all liens, encumbrances or defects except those described in Paragraph [5] below. REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 5. TITLE INSURANCE. At Closing, Buyer shall be responsible for obtaining title insurance. For purposes of this Agreement, the following shall not be deemed encumbrances or defects: rights reserved and federal patents or state deeds; building or use restrictions consistent with current zoning, utility and road easements of record, and the restriction to use the property for park purposes. If title cannot be made so insurable prior to the Closing date called for herein, unless, Buyer elects to waive such defects or encumbrances, this agreement shah terminate. 6. CLOSING COSTS AND PRO-RATIONS. The cost of closing, ifany, shallbe paid by Buyer. 7. CLOSING OF THE SALE. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FOR THIS AGREEMENT, this sale shall close on ,2003 which shall also be the termination date of this agreement unless said closing date is extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties. Closing, for the purpose of this agreement, is defmed as the date that all documems are executed and the sale proceeds are available for disbursement to the Seller. 8. CASUALTY LOSS. If prior to closing, improvemems on said premises shall be destroyed or materially damaged by fire or other casualty, this agreement, at option of the Buyer, shall become null and void. 9. POSSESSION. Buyer shall be entitled to possession on closing. 10. SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS. Seller represents: (a) that he/she will maintain the property in present or better condition until time of agreed possession, (b) that he/she has no knowledge or notice fl~om any governmental agency ofany violation of laws relating to the subject property except:_ (c) that the property is not encumbered by any leases. 11. SELLER'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIONS. Seller represents that to the best of his knowledge that he is not aware of existence of, or has caused or allowed to be caused, any environment condition (including, without limitation, a spill, discharge or comamination) that existed as of and/or prior to the closing date or any act of omission occurring prior to the closing date, the result of which may require remedial action pursuant to any federal, state or local law or may be the basis for the assertion of any third party claims, includin~ claims of governmental entities. This provision shall survive the closing and he in addition to Seller's obligation for breach of a representation or warranty as may be set forth herein. 12. SELLER'S INDEMNITIES: Seller agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Buyer, against and in respect of, any and all damages, claims, losses, liabilities, judgments, demands, fees, obligations, assessments, and expenses and costs, including, without limitation, reasonable legal, accounting, consulting, engineering and other expenses which may be imposed upon or incurred by REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 4 33 ATTACHMENT 2 Buyer, or asserted against Buyer, by any other party or parties (including, without limitation, a governmental entity), arising out of or in cormeetion with any environmemal condition existing as of and/or prior to the closing date, including the exposure of any person to any such environmental condition, regardless of whether such environmemal condition or exposure resulted from activities of Seller or Seller's predecessors in interest. This indemnity shall survive the closin4g and be in addition to Seller's obligation for breach of a representation or warranty as may he set forth hereir[ 13. DEFAULT AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. (a) Buyer's Default. IF BUYER DEFAULTS HEREUNDER, SELLER SHALL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. (b) Seller's Default. IF SELLER DEFAULTS HEREUNDER, BUYER SHALL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. (c) Attorney's Fees and Costs. In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. 14. NOTICE TO SELLER. This form contains provisions for an agreement for the purchase and sale of real estate. The Buyer makes NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND that this form, or any of its provisions, is intended to meet the factual and legal requirements of a particular transaction, or that it accurately reflects that laws of the State of Washington at the time you enter the agreemem. THIS AGREEMENT HAS SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES AND YOU ARE ADVISED TO SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL AND FINANCIAL COUNSEL REGARDING THESE CONSEQUENCES. If you do not understand the effect of any part, consult your Attorney before signing. 1S. NON-MERGER. The terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed merged into the deed, and shall survive the Closing and continue in fall force and effect. 16. NOTICES. All notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall he in writing and shall be sent U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, or by facsimile transmission addressed as set forth below: (a) All notices to he given to Buyer shall he addressed as follows: Mayor City of Bremerton 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 (b) All notices to be given to Seller shall be addressed as follows: Terry Ryon P.O. Box 4061 Bremerton, WA 98312-0061 Either party hereto may, by written notice to the other, designate such other address for the giving of notices as being necessary. All notices shall be deemed given on the day such notice is personally served, or on the date of the facsimile transmission, or on the third day following the day such notice is mailed in accordance with this paragraph. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all incorporated exhibits, constitutes the full understanding between Seller and Buyer. There have been no verbal or other agreements that modify this agreement. 18. BINDING EFFECT AND SURVIVAL. This Agreement shall be binding upon parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns; and the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall survive the closing of this transaction. 19. DATE OF MUTUAL ACCEPTANCE. For the purposes of this Agreement, the date of mutual acceptance of this Agreement shall be the last date on which the panics to this Agreemem have executed this Agreemem as indicated below. 20. EXPIRATION OF OFFER. Buyer shah have only until 5:00 p.m. on · to accept the purchase and sale agreement as written, by delivering a signed copy thereof to the Buyer or the Buyer's agent. If Seller does not so deliver a signed copy within said period, this agreement shall lapse and aH right of the parties hereunder shall terminate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date set forth below. BUYER: SELLERS: THE CITY OF BREMERTON By: Cary Bozeman, Mayor Terry Ryon Dated: Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney R 5LEGAL~Depatlments-GenerahParks~EPSA-tyon.doc REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Page 4 of 4 Attachment 3 CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST Requesting Department: Parks & Recreation Adjustment Number: To Be Assigned Approval Authority Required: [] Finance Director [] Mayor [~ Fiscal & Budget [] Council SOURCE OF FUNDS: USE OF FUNDS: Description Amount Descdotion Amount Contigency Reserve Fund $ 51,000.01 Purchase of two pieces of $ 48,000.00 Proceeds from sale of park land property for park purposes Deposit in Fund 112 for $ 3,000.00 future park development of said properties total $ 51,000.00 NARRATIVE: In 2002, the City of Bremerton sold .18 acres of park property to Bremerton Chrysler for $51,000. This sale seftred an encroachment issue by this business. Because property was a portion of properly given to the City for park purposes, it was required that the City replace it with mare park land. Two pieces of property were identified south of KJtsap Lake Park; a 10 acre parcel owned by John Branirt/J.L Heagy and a .87 acre parcel owned by Terpj Ryon. Both properties were appraised by AC.E. PS, Inc. and were found to have significant wet-lands. After negotiating with the property owners and receiving the National Park Service approvals, the Parks & Recreation Department is prepared to purchase the two pieces of property as replacement for the .18 acres lost by encroachment. Department Head Si~lnature Date Director Si~lnat~e ( ~ Finance Director's Comments: ~. , ,J /,Date [~Recommended [~]Not Recommended ~~Z~,~ ¢;3'~_) ~ LF~na~ce D~rectors S~nature - LJa~e Mayor Comments: r--~Recommended [] Not Recommended [~Approved [] Denied Mayor's Si~lnature Date Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: []Approved [] Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Date 34, DATE SUBMITTED: June 4, 2003 BILL # 03 - AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ I1~ CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON Committee Meeting Date: June 10 2003 ORDINANCE RELATING TO COUNCIL MEETING Date: REGULATORY LICENSES AND FEES Department: Finance Department Presenter: Michael Wilson Phone: 473-5590 SUMMARY: The current provisions of certain chapters of Title 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to regulatory licenses and regulations of certain business are either duplicative of state law, outdated and/or pre-empted by state law. Additionally, the provisions of Ch. 5.80 relating to Amusement Devices would be more appropriately codified as a chapter within Title 3 and the provisions of Ch. 5.10 relating to Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers would be more appropriately codified as a chapter within Title 9. The proposed ordinance updates Title 5 relating to regulatory licenses and modifies Rate Table A of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to eliminate certain regulatory fees consistent with the proposed changes to Title 5. ATTACHMENTS: 1)Staff Report 2)Proposed Ordinance /V'~. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Potential loss of $12,780 annually in regulatory license fees, which would be significantly off-set by reduced staff time in processing and reprocessing applications as currently required by the BMC. / APPROVALS: / DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: (~ ~ ~:~ CITY ATTORNEY: ~ '~ ~-..._~2~..-~~ FINANCE DIRECTOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNC~ PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve ordinance no. ~ ~ on second reading. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action 37 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Title 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code by repealing and amending certain chapters relating to regulatory licenses and regulations of certain businesses; creating a new chapter, Chapter 9.20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers; re-codifying Chapter 5.42 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Hotels and Motels to Chapter 9.34; re-codifying Chapter 5.80 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Amusement Devices to Chapter 3.74; and further amending Rate Table A of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to regulatory license fees. WHEREAS, the current provisions of certain chapters of Title 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to regulatory licenses and regulations of certain business are either duplicative of state law, outdated and/or pre-empted by state law; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the provisions of Title 5 to eliminate duplicative and pre-empted chapters and update outdated chapters; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Chapter 5.42 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Hotels and Motels would be more appropriately codified as a chapter within Title 9 of the Bremerton Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Chapter 5.80 of the Bmmerton Municipal Code relating to Amusement Devices would be more appropriately codified as a chapter within Title 3 of the Bremerton Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Chapter 5.10 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers would be more appropriately codified as a chapter within Title 9 of the Bremerton Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to update Rate Table A of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to regulatory license fees to eliminate certain regulatory fees consistent with the proposed changes herein; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following Chapters of Title 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Business Licenses and Regulations" are hereby repealed in their entirety: 5.12 Closing Out, Removal and Distress Merchandise Sales 1 Regutatory Licenses 5.25 Christmas Tree Lots 5.30 Farmers Market Vendors 5.38 Theaters 5.46 Liquor Establishments 5.48 Sale and Distribution of Malt Liquor 5.54 Taxicabs 5.60 Utilities 5.76 Advertising Matter 5.84 Sound Equipment 5.98 Shuttle Bus and Limousine Services 5.99 Violation - Penalty SECTION 2. Chapter 5.10 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers" is hereby repealed in its entirety and a new Chapter 9.20 entitled "Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers" is hereby created to read as follows: Chapter 9.20 PAWNBROKERS AND SECOND-HAND DEALERS Chapter 19.60, RCW, entitled "Pawnbrokers and Second-Hand Dealers," with the exception of those provisions contained therein for which a violation constitutes a felony crime, is adopted by reference as currently enacted and as hereafter amended from time to time, and shall be given the same force and effect as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 3. Chapter 5.03 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "General Provisions for Regulatory Licenses" is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR REGULATORY LICENSES 5.03.010 PURPOSE (a) It is expressly the purpose of this chapter to regulate and license certain business activities which may be injurious to public health and safety and which may affect the social well being of the City and its residents. b.(b.) This chapter is not intended to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefitted by the terms of this chapter. (bc_) It is the specific intent of this chapter to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon the license holder or applicant for a license. No provision of, nor term used in, this chapter is intended to impose any mandatory duty upon the City or any of its officers or employees. (e_d) Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the City, or its officers, employees or agents, for any damage resulting from the failure of the license holder or applicant for a license to comply with the provisions of this chapter, or by reason of or in consequence of any act or omission in 2 ~ Regulatory Licenses ,.9 connection with the implementation or enforcement of this chapter on the part of the City by its officers, employees or agents. 5.03.020 $GOP-g ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS. The provisions contained in chapter 3.86 BMC shall be fully applicable to the provisions of this chapter except as expressly stated to the contrary herein. 5.03.030 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the definitions contained in chapter 3.48 BMC shall apply equally to the provisions of this chapter as applicable unless the term is defined otherwise in this chapter. 5.03.9~9040 ,~ ~,m Tr,,~ ~'~n~r FOR ~ECULATORY r ~,~e~ r~,~T~T~'~ LICENSE REQUIRED-APPLICATIONS. The provisions of this chapter shall apply whenever a regulatory license is required by a chapter in this Title. The licensee shall be the person or entity who owns the business. Where the license applicant is a corporation, the term "applicant" shall include principal officers and managers. Where the license applicant is a partnership, the term "applicant" shall include principal partners and managers. Each applicant shall provide, at a minimum, the following information: (a) Tree name and any assumed names or aliases used. (b) Home address and telephone number. (c) Sex, weight, height, color of eyes and hair. (d) Date of birth. (e) Social Security number. (f) A copy of applicant's identification which must include some form of picture identification, i.e., a driver's license or Washington State identification card. (g) The business occupation and/or employment history of the applicant for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of application. (h) Residence address(es) of the applicant for the five (5) years preceding the date of application. (i) The business name, business address, and telephone number of the proposed business. (j) A listing and explanation of all services to be. (k) A description of any other business activity to be conducted on the premises or adjoining premises owned and controlled by the applicant. (1) The principal enterprise of the business if different from the activity being licensed. Regulatory Licenses (m) Whether the applicant has ever been convicted, forfeited bail, or pled guilty to any crime, excluding minor traffic offenses. If so, state the charge and the nature of the crime, the name and location of the convicting court and the disposition thereof. (n) Written declaration by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing information contained in the application is tree and correct, said declaration being duly stated and signed. (o) Such other relevant identification and information necessary as the City Clerk may reasonably require to discover the troth of statements made in the application. (p) Authorization for the City, its agents and employees to seek information and conduct an investigation into the troth of the statements set forth in the application and the qualifications of the applicant for the license. 5.03.04~050 LICENSE ISSUANCE - FEES. (a) Application must be received by the City Clerk at least three (3) weeks prior to issuance. (b) License fees will be due upon application. The City Council shall establish appropriate fees pursuant to Chapter 3.01. Unlegg (3)L 5.03.0r~0060 Ts~e's, Tee s-,nt~*~Jne ~'r~n r~e~AT GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE. Regulatory Licenses (a) In addition to the other penalties provided by law, any regulatory license issued under the provisions of this title may be denied or revoked pursuant to the provisions of this chapter at any time, where: (1) The required information has not been provided or the correct license fee has not been tendered or the to the City and in the case of a check or bank draft, not honored with payment upon presentation. (2) The application is not in compliance with federal, state or local laws. (3) The license was procured by fraud, false representation or material omission of fact, or for the violation of or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Title by the person holding such license, or any of his servants, agents or employees, while acting within the scope of their employment; or (4) The licensee or employee of the licensee violates any of the provisions of the applicable chapter under this title or any applicable city, state or federal law, including, but not limited to Chapters 3.48, 3.50, 3.86 and 5.02 BMC, or the purpose for which the license wag issued is being abused to the detriment of the public, or such license is being used for a purpose different from that for which it was issued. (5) The licensee submits a false or fraudulent City tax return or makes a false statement on any City tax return. (6) The licensee fails to pay any license fee or tax to the city when due including, but not limited to any taxes pursuant to Title 3 BMC. (7) The licensee or employee has been convicted of a crime involving the business. (8) The applicant is not 18 years of age or older. 5.03.~a070 T T~nm~ e~r~n~m,~x~ nD o~'~rn~ ~, ~Tn'n'r m ~ ............................................ DENIAL AND REVOCATION - PROCEDURE- 1~ ..... ~1 ~creunder c ...... :~.4 (a) Any application for the issuance or renewal of a license issued under this title may be denied, or any license issued under this title may be revoked based on one or more of the grounds set forth in BMC 5.03.050. Regulatory Licenses (b) The Director, or designee, ("Director") having the authority to issue said license shall have the power and authority to deny the issuance of or revoke any license issued under the provisions of this title. The Director shall notify such licensee in writing by certified mail or personal service of the denial or revocation of his or her license application or license and the grounds therefore. (c) Any applicant or licensee may, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date that the denial or revocation notice was mailed to the applicant or licensee, appeal from such denial or revocation by filing a written notice of appeal setting forth the grounds therefore with the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC. A filing fee as set forth in chapter 3.01 BMC shall be submitted with the appeal, which filing fee is required to process the appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures for hearing contested cases set out in Chapter 2.13 BMC. After the hearing thereon the Administrative Hearing Examiner shall, after appropriate findings of fact, and conclusions of law, affirm, modify, or overrule the denial or revocation and order issuance or reinstatement of the license, and may impose any terms thereupon.. (d) No renewal or revocation of a license issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall take effect until fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the notice thereof by the Director, and if the appeal is timely filed, the renewal or revocation shall be stayed pending final action by the Administrative Hearing Examiner. All licenses which are revoked shall be surrendered to the City on the effective date of such revocation. (e) The decision of the Administrative Hearing Examiner shall be final. The applicant or licensee and/or the City may seek review of the decision by the Superior Court of Washington in and for Kitsap County within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the decision. If review is sought as herein prescribed the renewal or revocation shall be stayed pending final action by the Superior Court. (f) When revoked, the license shall be canceled and immediately surrendered to the Director. Upon revocation of any license as provided in this chapter no portion of the license fee shall be returned to the licensee. (g) Upon denial or revocation, the person whose application was denied or license revoked shall not be granted a license for a business, upon any new application that may be made, for a period of ninety (90) calendar days from date of denial or revocation and further, no license shall be issued until such person cures any defaults that resulted in the denial or revocation. (h) A denial or revocation of a general business license pursuant to Chapter 5.02 BMC shall constitute an automatic denial or revocation of a related regulatory license issued under this Title to the business for which the general business license was issued, and the procedures set forth in this section shall not be applicable. Regulatory Licenses 5.03.080 FACILITY STANDARDS. It shall be the duty of the licensee and its employees to comply with fire, building, land usc, sanitation and health regulations. 5.03.090 OPERATING REQUIREMENTS. It shall be the duty of the licensee and its employees to meet the following operating requirements: (a) The regulatory license shall be prom~'nently posted in a location of public view in the licensee's place of business at all times and such permit shall not be tampered with in any manner. (b) No establishment granted a license under the provisions of this chapter shall place, publish or distribute or cause to be placed, published or distributed any advertisement, picture or statement which is known or through exercise of reasonable care should be known to be false, deceptive or misleading in order to induce any person to purchase or utilize goods or services of the business. (c) No person granted a license pursuant to this chapter shall operate the establishment under a name not specified on the license nor shall that person conduct business at any location not specified on the license. 5.03.100 SALE OR TRANSFER OR CHANGE OF LOCATION. Upon sale, lease, transfer, or relocation of a business, the regulatory license thereof shall be null and void. 5.03.110 APPLICABILITY. All persons who are required to be licensed by this chapter shall be subject to all of the conditions and requirements of this chapter, whether they actually obtain the licenses required or not. 5.03.120 RULE MAKING. The City Clerk shall have the power and duty, from time to time, to adopt, publish, and enforce rules not inconsistent with law for the purpose of carrying out the provisions hereof and it shall be unlawful to violate or fail to comply with any such rule. 5.03.130 ADDITIONAL LICENSES. The issuance of a license under this chapter shall not relieve the licensee from securing any other licensee from securing any other license(s) required by federal, state or local law. 5.03.140 UNLAWFUL - VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES, (a) It shall be unlawful: (1) For any person to engage in business without having obtained a regulatory license as required in this title or for a person to engage in business after denial of a license application or renewal or after revocation of a regulatory license. (2) For the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, or other officer of any company to engage in business without having obtained a regulatory license as required in this title or for a person to engage in business after denial of a regulatory license application or renewal or after revocation of a regulatory license. Regulatory Licenses (3) For any person to violate any provision of this chapter. (b) Non-payment penalty. Failure to pay the license fee within ninety (90) days after the date of expiration shall subject the licensee to a monetary penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) to reinstate the license, in addition to the required license fee. (c) Civil penalties. In addition to any other violation set forth in this title, any violation of BMC 5.03.140(a) constitutes a civil violation under chapter 1.04 BMC for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and enforcement may be required as provided therein. (d) Criminal penalties. In addition to the foregoing penalties or any violation set forth in Chapter 3.86 relating to the administration of this chapter, any person who violates or fails to comply with BMC 5.03.140(a) shall, upon conviction, be punished as described in the general criminal penalty provisions of BMC 1.12.020(2). Such person will be guilty of this violation for each day, or portion thereof, during which the business is so engaged or carried on. SECTION4. Chapter 5.42 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Hotels/Motels" is hereby re-codified as Chapter 9.34 of the Bremerton Municipal Code and amended as follows: Chapter $,499.34 HOTELS/MOTELS $~M~t09.34.010 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter the term "hotel/motel" means and includes hotels, motels, roominghouses, lodginghouses, and any building, portion of building or group of buildings used for human habitation containing two or more rooms intended or designed to be used or which may be used for sleeping or living purposes by tourists or temporary guests for periods of less than thirty days which are rented or hired out for compensation as a business. Places where children, elderly people, invalids or convalescents are exclusively accommodated are not to be considered hotels/motels. ~4-~3d1909.34.020 REGISTER TO BE KEPT. Every person conducting any hotel/motel shall keep a register, in which all guests, roomers and lodgers shall be required to register their names and addresses. The person in charge of registering guests shall indicate on the register the date of each registration and time and date 8 Regulatory Licenses of departure, and shall write opposite the name or names of each such guest, roomer or lodger the number of the room or rooms assigned to such guest, roomer or lodger, and the number of any and all rooms to which such guest, roomer or lodger may subsequently be assigned to occupy. Every hotel/motel register shall be open to ~nspect~on at all reasonable t~mes by v ..... law enforcement officers and the health officials of the City, the State or other governmental agency during all bbc-hours in which the hotel/motel is open for the reception of guests, roomers or lodgers. All such registration books shall be preserved for the period of at least two years. 9.34.030 VIOLATION - PENALTY. Any violation or failure to comply with any provision of this Chapter by any person constitutes a civil infraction as defined in BMC 1.12.020(3) subiect to assessment and enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.12 BMC. SECTION5. Chapter 5.80 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Amusement Devises" is hereby re-codified as Chapter 3.74 of the Bremerton Municipal Code and amended as follows: Chapter 5Z93.74 AMUSEMENT DEVICES 3.74.010 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS. The provisions contained in chapter 3.86 BMC shall be fully applicable to the provisions of this chapter except as expressly stated to the contrary herein. ........ 3.74.020 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the definitions contained in chapter 3.48 BMC shall apply to the provisions of this chapter as applicable unless the term is defined otherwise in this chapter. In addition, the following definitions will apply: (a) "Amusement device" means a game or device which is primarily a game of skill, including, but not limited to, games or devices requiring hand-eye coordination and/or intellectual processes, wherein achieving high scores in playing the game is determined by the skill of the players and not as a result of chance or an element of chance as a part of the game. Amusement devices may confer only an immediate and unrecorded right of replay to the players. This includes, but is not limited to, pool and billiard tables, shuffleboards, music machines, video games, pinball games, riding devices, televisions and devices for display of pictures or views on film; provided, that it does not mean or include any machine or twice used exclusively for the vending of merchandise. (b) "Amusement device owner" means a person, corporation or firm who has legal title to an amusement device, as defined in subsection (a) of this section, or who as a purchaser is entitled to possession under a retained title contract, conditional sales agreement, vendor's lien agreement or other purchase agreement of an amusement device, as defined in subsection (c). (c) "Penny arcade" means a place of business established chiefly for the amusement of its customers by the use of amusement devices and/or other types of coin-operated devices. 9 Regulatory Licenses (d) "Shooting gallery" means a place of public amusements where bullets, arrows or projectiles of any kind may be shot, thrown in any manner or by the use of any type of force or power, projected at targets, upon payment of a fee or charge, or for other consideration. Exempted from this definition are establishments that provide electronic dart games. 5.~.~2~3.74.030 SHOOTING GALLERIES UNLAWFUL. Because of the hazard to the public and in the interest of public peace, health and safety, it is unlawful to operate a shooting gallery or galleries in the city. 5.~a.~2~3.74.040 LICENSE - REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to own and/or operate any amusement device for commercial purposes without having first obtained and being the holder of a valid city business license pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Chapter 5.02 of this code. g,80-,0403.74.050 AMUSEMENT DEVICE TAX. (a) Any person, firm or corporation which owns any amusement device for commercial purposes shall be required to remit to the city a tax which shall be equal to the gross receipts derived therefrom multiplied by the rate of two percent. (b) The tax shall be payable in quarterly installments on or before the thirtieth day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. (c) The tax remittance, as herein provided, shall be accompanied by an amusement device location schedule every calendar quarter. (d) In the event that the amusement device tax is not paid on or before the due date, there shall be added to the amount due a penalty fee as follows: (1) One through thirty days, ten percent of tax due, minimum penalty of throe dollars; (2) Thirty-one through sixty days, fifteen percent of tax due, minimum penalty of four dollars; (3) Sixty-one or more days, twenty percent of tax due, minimum penalty of five dollars. (e) In addition to this penalty, the city treasurer may charge the taxpayer interest of one percent of all taxes and fees due for each thirty-day period or portion thereof that such amounts are past due. (f) Failure to make payment in full of all tax amounts and penalties within sixty days following the day the tax amount initially became due shall be both a civil and criminal violation of this section. ~d}-503.74.060 DISPLAY OF OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS ON AMUSEMENT DEVICE REQUIRED. (a) It is a violation of this chapter for the owner of any amusement device to fail to display his/her name and current address on each amusement device when in use or available for use or play. (b) It is unlawful for the owner, operator, manager, or other person in charge of any place or location to permit or allow to be used or played in such place any amusement device not having attached thereto the name and current address of the owner of the amusement device. 10 Regulatory Licenses SECTION 6. Rate Table A of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to regulatory license fees is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A of this Ordinance. The repeal of any fees herein does not create a right of reimbursement of all or any portion of the fee paid for a current license issued under Title 5. SECTION 7. Severabilit~. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION& Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2003 PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2003 CAROL ARENDS, Council President 11 t~ Regulatory Licenses Approved this day of ,2003 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of ,2003 EFFECTIVE the day of ,2003 ORDINANCE NO. R:~LEGAL\Ordinances~.dministration',,Regulatory Licenses-l.doc 12 ~t Regulatory Licenses ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES REGULATORY LICENSE FEES 2003 RATE BMC ~.~018.06 Ambulance Co. Sewices Ambulance Inspections $60/veh ....... BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation Non-Profit $25/60 days Professional Fundraiser $675/60 days BMC 5.22 Dance/Public $265/yr or $70/30 days BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios $700/yr Dancers $100/yr BMO 9.48 Fireworks Stands $100/stan~yr BMC 10.24 Housemoving/Oversize Loads $600+$65/mile to .10 of a milo BMO 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor $150/veh/yr BMO 5.16 Peddlers $75/yr or $25/30days BMC 5.04 Petshops $150/yr Grooming Parlors $50/yr Animal Welfare Facilities $50/yr BMC 5.36 Special Events: Profit $675/event Table A - A13 EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - RATE TABLE A Ail Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees REGULATORY LICENSE FEES 2003 RATE Non-Profit $70/event BMC 5.20 Street/Sidewalk Vendors $250/yr BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant $400/30 days ~"" ~ 38 ?'""t'c $275/yr BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 2003 RATE BMC 5.02 $55/yr PARKING 2003 RATE O~cOn-Street Locations Not to Exceed $20/3 hrs $30/10 hrs Off-Street Location Not to Exceed $20/3 hrs $30/10 hrs Parking Garage Not to Exceed $100/mo DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEE~ 2003 RATE Per Page $.15/pg Audio or Video Tapes Cost of Tape +$8.50 Computer Disks $8.50 Certification $3.50 Blue Prints- Aerial Photos, Drawings, Maps $8/pg Documents: Medical Records $19/1st 5 pages $.83/Pgs 6-31 $.63/Pgs 31 + Table A - A14 EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES 2003 RATE Fire Reports $.15/pg Budget $25 Annual Report $25 CHECK HANDLING FEE $40 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXAMINER $150 APPLICATION OR APPEAL Table A - A15 EXHIBIT A 52- Fiscal Impact of Repealing Certain Regulatory Licenses REGULATORY LICENSE REASON FOR REPEAL I IMPACT REVENUE LOSS Pawnbrokers/Secondhand Regulated under RCW 19.60 $ 3,225.00 Dealers Closing Out Sales State preempted jurisdiction $ Christmas Tree Lots No extraordinary regulatory purpose $ 195.00 Farmer's Market Specific to Boardwalk location $ Theaters Covered by commercial bldg fire inspections $ 1,040.00 Hotels/Motels Covered by commercial bldg fire inspections $ 911.00 Liquor Establishments Licensing live entertainment struck down by $ Court re 1st Amendment expression Sale/Distribution of Malt Lqr Never Used $ Ambulances Inspection Fee in lieu of $ Taxicab Cos. Regulated under RCW 46.72 $ 5,100.00 Taxi Drivers Regulated under RCW 46.72 $ 1,541.00 Advertising Matter Covered under BMC 6.28 Lifter Control $ 768.00 Sound Equipment Never Used $ Shuttle Bus / Limo Regulated under RCW 46.72A $ TOTAL LICENSE REVENUE LOSS $ 12,780.00 ** These regulatory licenses are either never used or they are not effectively supported with a regulatory scheme. The loss of revenue is balanced by the saving of admin time that can be more effectively used in tax/license discovery and customer service. DATE SUBMITTED: June 11, 2003 BILL # 0 3 - I I ~ AGENDA BILL 9 B CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Wireless Telecommunications Committee Meeting Date: 6/17/03 Facilities ordinance COUNCIL MEETING Date: 4r.--K~-~,.,~ ~ '7 - q-O3 Department: DCD 0 I('{~ { ~,~L6CgX. C_.P~_~ /~0. t./t ~ 0 Presenter: Paul Rogerson Phone: 478-5283 SUMMARY: At the request of the Council, the Department of Community Development has conducted a citizen process leading to the development of a draf~ ordinance adding a new section 21.02.335 to Bremerton Mmcipal Code. The new section would add standards for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Bremerton. Effected facilities include attenna arrays, equipment enclosures, support towers, and site improvements associated with so-called "cell phone" services. The proposed ordinance also includes sections discussing removal of abandoned facilities, p~mit processes, application submittals, etc. The proposed ordinance addresses a moritorium that expires on July 23, 2003 The propposed ordinance will be heard before the Planning Commission on June 17, 2003. ATTACHMENTS: draft ordinance$ ~fx~fr~2 f'~ot'~ll' f[o,~xv4*x~ C_~vtmi.~;*~ 04tr~u'lc'e-5 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): none A PP R O V ALS: ~( ,t/q.~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: .. CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: ;~ [-\-,- . ' ~ I CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: ~;.,v.t,~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT: .... , - --a: .... ~ an lqr~t r~nclino RECOMMENDED MOTION: h-nov,, to I move to pass ordinance no. z/~; O on second reading COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adding a new section to Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code providing standards for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 stat. 56, 31-136, hereinafter the "Act") was designed to remove regulatory barriers and encourage competition among all types of communication companies; and WHEREAS, the Act ratifies the authority of local governments to regulate telecommunications services and carriers, but also limits local government's authority in certain respects; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been reviewing its policies with regard to the zoning and placement of wireless communication facilities as defined in RCW 35.99.010 (hereinafter "wireless communication facilities" or "facilities") in the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the City is facing an increasing number of applications for construction of wireless telecommunication facilities within the City and the City has not yet adopted a comprehensive telecommunications siting and design ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City must adopt ordinances, policies or plans for dealing with the inflow of telecommunication facilities to the City that will potentially deal with issues relating to the siting and development of these facilities, including, but not limited to, the following: · Zoning · Clustering of facilities · Collocation, development standards, visual impact mitigation, noise, tower construction; and WHEREAS, because the Bremerton Municipal Code does not adequately address the various impacts that wireless communications facility uses present, the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare would be jeopardized by the establishment of such facilities prior to a review of the matter and possible adoption of new regulations by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Bremerton would be well-served if the City more fully addressed and understood the potential impacts in the form of health, safety, economics, hazards to traffic, and aesthetics these facilities impose upon neighboring properties and the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2868, 2872, and 2882 imposing a moratorium barring acceptance for any building, land use, or development permit of Wireless Communication Facilities approval for the purpose of siting and/or development of wireless communication facilities within the City of Bremerton until additional review has been completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the City Council on the issue of wireless communication facilities within the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed development standards for wireless telecommunication facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt standards relating to the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAiN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION1. A new section, Section 21.02.335 entitled "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" is hereby added to Title 21 Bremerton Municipal Code to read as follows: 21.02.335 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES (a) Purpose and Intent. The City has received requests to site wireless telecommunications towers and antennas. The purpose of this section is to provide specific regulations for the placement, construction, modification and removal of these facilities. Pursuant to the guidelines of Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 USC Section 332(c)(7), the provisions of this chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications facilities, nor shall the provisions of this chapter be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent wireless services. The goals of this section are to: (i) encourage the location of towers in nonresidential areas and to minimize the total number of tall towers throughout the City, (ii) encourage the joint use of existing tower sites, (iii) encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the impact on the City is minimal, (iv) encourage users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the visual impact of the towers and antennas, (v) strongly encourage the providers of personal wireless services to use concealment technology, (vi) provide standards for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities, and (vii) facilitate the ability of the providers of wireless telecommunications facilities to provide such services throughout the City quickly, effectively and efficiently. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the promulgation of this chapter is warranted and necessary: (1) To manage the location of towers and antennas in the City; (2) To protect residential areas and other land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas; (3) To minimize visual impacts of towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscaping, screening, innovative camouflaging techniques and concealment technology; (4) To accommodate the growing need for towers and antennas; 2 ,~_ IYireless Communication Facilities (5) To promote and encourage shared use and co-location on existing structures and towers as a desirable option rather than construction of additional single-use towers; and (6) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties through engineering and proper siting o f wireless telecommunications facilities. (b) Definitions. In addition to the definitions provided in Section 21.02.070 of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply to this section: "Abandonment" or "abandoned" means: to cease operation for a period of ninety (90) or more consecutive days unless documentation is provided to the City that negotiations are underway potentially leading to the sale, lease, or resumption of operations, in which case a wireless telecommunications facility may not be considered abandoned for an additional period not to exceed 90 (additional) days; "Antenna" means any exterior equipment attached or mounted to a building or tower in the form of one or more rods, panels, discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio or electromagnetic frequency signals. (1) Omni-directional antenna transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a 360; radial pattern. For the purpose of this document, an omni-directional antenna is up to 15 feet in height and up to seven inches in diameter. If otherwise meeting the definition, a whip antenna is an omi-directional antenna. (2) Directional antenna transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less-than 360. (3) Parabolic antenna is a device of generally parabolic shape for the reception and transmission of radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattem. Also referred to as a satellite dish. "Cell on Wheels" (COW) means a mobile telecommunications facility transported by a motor vehicle for temporary on-site use. "Co-location" means the placing of a wireless telecommunications antenna on an existing support stmctum. "Concealed" means a wireless telecommunication antenna or facility that is not evident; it is disguised, hidden by or integrated with a structure that is not a telecommunication tower; or, a personal wireless service facility that is placed within an existing or proposed structure. "Equipment structure" means a structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communication signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning, backup power supplies and emergency generators. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration. "Facilities" see Wireless Communication Facility. "FCC" means Federal Communications Commission. 3 ~,-,~ Wireless Communication Facilities Ot "Height" in context of this section, means the following: (1) Related to Tower I and Tower II support structures: the dimension of the tower as measured from the base of the tower at the foundation center to the top of the tower excluding antenna's (2) Related to existing or proposed buildings: height is determined as per section 21.02.220 BMC, except that the highest point of a building with a pitched or hipped roof shall be considered, for purposes of this section, to be the highest point of the roof. "Provider" means every corporation, company, association, joint stock company, firm, partnership, limited liability company, other entity and individual licensed to provide personal wireless services over personal wireless communication facilities. "Residential zones" means the zoning districts listed in the City of Bremerton Zoning Code Chapter 21.02 BMC as SF~I, SF-2, SF-3, DR, MF, CBR, MXD. "Residential Use(s)" means structures meeting the definition of Group R, Division 3 occupancies under the Uniform Building Code 1997 edition or equivalent definition as subsequently adopted by the city. "Satellite Dish" see Antenna, Parabolic antenna. "Support Structure" means any existing or proposed building, utility pole, or tower capable of supporting a wireless telecommunications antenna. Support structures include, but are not limited to, existing buildings, water towers, and utility poles and/or towers. "Tower" means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including but not limited to self-supporting lattice towers, guy towers or monopole towers. (1) "Type I Tower" means a tower up to, but not exceeding, 60 feet in height. (2) "Type II Tower" means a tower greater than 60 feet in height. "Whip Antenna" see omni-directional antenna "Wireless telecommunication facility" means facilities for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for communication, cellular phone, personal communications services, enhanced specialized mobile radio or any other services licensed by the FCC, and unlicensed wireless services including but not limited to associated equipment shelter, support tower and antenna array. (c) General provisions. (1) Not Essential Public Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities are not considered essential public facilities and shall not be regulated or permitted as essential public facilities. (2) Exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: Wireless Communication Facilities (i) Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by the FCC (ii) Antennas and related equipment no more than three feet in height that are being stored, shipped, or displayed for sale (iii) Facilities used for the purpose of public safety by public or semi- public entities, including but not limited to police communications, hospitals communications and 911 system communications (iv) Wireless radio utilized for emergency communications in the event of a disaster (v) Licensed amatuer (ham) radio installations (vi) Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct home satellite services, when an accessory use of the property (vii) Routine maintenance of otherwise permitted wireless telecommunications facilities (viii) Subject to compliance with all applicable City, State, and Federal standards, an emergency repair of a wireless telecommunications facility, provided that a permit is applied for within 30 days after completion of such emergency repair. (3) Principal or Accessory Use. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities may be considered either principal or accessory uses. A different use of an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility on that lot. (4) Prohibited Use. Type I and Type II towers are prohibited in single family residential zones. (d) Permits Required. (1) An application to site a wireless telecommunications facility shall be subject to the criteria set forth below for determination of the required permitting process type. Only when the application does not meet a criteria of the highest level process type shall the next process type be considered. The order of process type criteria for locating wireless telecommunications facilities, with Type I being the highest level, shall be as follows: (i) Type I Administrative Decision. a. Co-location of antennas on towers per subsection 21.02.335(g) in nonresidential zones. b. Co-location of antennas on existing support structures, excluding towers, in any zone per subsection 21.02.335(i). (ii) Type II Administrative Decision. a. New Type I towers and associated equipment and antennas in nonresidential zones. (iii) Type III Administrative Decision. a. Any wireless telecommunications facility not included above. Including but not limited to: 1. Any Type I tower in a residential zone and associated antenna and equipment enclosures. 2. Any Type II tower and associated antennas and equipment enclosures. (2) A permit shall expire consistent with the provisions of section 106.4.4 UBC, or equivalent subsequently adopted provision of building code, except that the permit for 5 Wireless Communication Facilities construction of a wireless telecommunications facility shall expire one (1) year after the effective date of the permit approval. (3) Permit fees. Fees associated with permits and reviews required under this section will be in accord with the adopted fee schedule. (4) Other costs. In addition to the application fee, the applicant shall reimburse the City for costs of professional engineers and other consultants, mutually acceptable to both applicant and City, hired by the City to review and inspect the applicant's proposal when the City is unable to do so with its existing staffing resources. By way of illustration and not limitation, these professional services may include engineering and technical review, legal review, planning review, Hearing Examiner services, environmental review, critical areas review, financial and accounting review, soils review, and mechanical and structural engineering review. In the event that a project requires professional services beyond that which is included in the base fee, the applicant shall reimburse the City the full cost of such engineer or consultant services plus a City service change of 10% as calculated from before tax cost. (e) Standards for review and approval. In addition to any other applicable Federal, State, or local codes, standards or regulations, all projects requiring permits under this chapter shall also meet the following standards and approval criterion: (1) General. (i) All required submittals per section (f) below shall be provided unless expressly waived by the Director of Community Development or his/her authorized representative. (ii) Prior to permit approval all applications shall be accompanied with a completed Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 7460-1 Airspace form with applicable Agency comments if the facility is located within five (5) miles of any airport. The City may incorporate comments provided in the (FAR) Part 77 Airspace Form into its Decision as Conditions; and (iii) An agreement between the applicant and City shall be provided establishing that if technology should change and a Wireless Telecommunication Facility becomes obsolete, and the use of the facility abandoned or discontinued, the applicant shall remove facilities per section (i) (Abandonment or Discontinuation of use) below. (iv) No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise levels above 45 dB as measured from the nearest property line on which the WCF is located, except temporary generators used during power outages and natural disasters. Such temporary use shall be for the shortest time period practical. (v) In the case of co-location, all standards set forth in subsections 21.02.335(g) and/or (h) BMC shall be met. (2) Site development standards: (i) Type I and Type II Towers shall be setback a distance equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower from non-conforming residential use as measured from the wall of any supporting equipment enclosures of building or the base of the tower, whichever is nearer. The setback shall be measured to the nearest property line of the parcel upon which the non- conforming residential use is located. (ii) Type I and Type II towers shall be setback a distance equal to 3 times the height of the tower from any conforming residential use as measured from the wall of any supporting equipment enclosures of building or the base of the tower, whichever is nearer. The setback shall be measured to the nearest property line of the parcel upon which the conforming residential use is located. Wireless Communication Facilities (iii) Wireless telecommunications facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available technology. This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, location, color, stealth technologies, and/or other tactics to achieve minimum visibility of the facility as viewed from public streets or residential properties. All screening and camouflaging is subject to the approval of the city. (iv) Tower bases, equipment enclosures and cabinets and related security fencing shall be screened from public view. This screening requirement may be met in a number of ways, including use of a solid masonry wall, earthen berms, or landscaping. If landscaping is employed, it shall meet all applicable requirements of section 21.02.710 BMC. (v) In reviewing the proposed placement of a wireless facility on the site and any associated landscaping, the City may make a condition of the permit that the applicant supplement existing trees and mature vegetation to more effectively screen the facility. (vi) Type I and II towers, antennae, and any associated hardware and equipment shall be painted a non-reflective color or color scheme appropriate to the background against which the facility would be viewed from a majority of points within its viewshed. A proposed color or color scheme shall be approved by the city. (vii) Security fencing, if used, shall conform to the following: a. No fence shall exceed eight (8) feet in height; b. Security fencing shall be effectively screened from view through the use of appropriate landscaping materials; and c. Chain-link fences shall be painted or coated with a nonreflective color, and shall have a minimum three (3) foot deep area to be planted with approved plant species in a manner that will completely screen the fencing (viii) No wireless equipment enclosures reviewed under this section shall be located within required yard setback areas. (ix) Type I and Type II towers shall not be located in view conSdors as defined under the Bremerton Shorelines Management Program. (x) Type I and Type II towers shall not be illuminated or have lights located upon them except as required under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other State or federal regulations. (f) Required Submittals. Application for any Type I or Type II permit, and other related requests shall include any combination of site plans, surveys, maps, technical reports, or written narratives necessary to convey the following information in addition to the requirements of all other applicable ordinances. Unless otherwise adjusted by the Director of Community Development, submittal requirements will include the following: (1) Photo simulations of the proposed facility from affected residential properties and public rights-of-way at varying distances; (2) A site or combined site and vicinity plan clearly indicating the site location, type and height of the proposed tower (if any) and antenna, on-site and nearby land uses and zoning, roadways, proposed means of access, setbacks from property lines, sufficient to demonstrate that setbacks and other pertinent requirements of this chapter have been met. Such drawings shall specifically include elevation drawings of the proposed tower (if any), any other proposed structures, the setback as described in subsection 21.02.335(e)(2)(i) between the proposed facility and any nearby residential zone or use; (3) A site elevation and landscaping plan indicating the specific placement of the facility on the site, the location of existing structures, trees, and other significant site features, 7 Wireless Communication Facilities the type and location of plant materials used to screen the facility, and the proposed color(s) of the facility, and the method of fencing, and finished color and, if applicable, the method of camouflage and illumination. In the case of co-location on existing support structures this requirement may be adjusted by the Director as appropriate; (4) A signed statement indicating that; (i) the applicant and landowner (if different) agree they will diligently negotiate in good faith to facilitate co-location of additional wireless telecommunication facilities by other providers on the applicant's structure or within the same site location and (ii) the applicant and/or landlord agree to remove the facility within sixty (180) days after abandonment per subsection 21.02.3350); (5) Copies of any environmental documents required by any federal agency. These shall include the environmental assessment required by FCC Para. 1.1307, or, in the event that an FCC environmental assessment is not required, a statement that describes the specific factors that obviate the requirement for an environmental assessment; (6) Legal description of the parcel; (7) A letter signed by the applicant stating the tower will comply with all FAA regulations and EIA Standards and all other applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations; (8) Certification that the antenna usage will not interfere with other adjacent or neighboring transmission or reception functions; (9) The telecommunications provider must provide documentation that it is licensed by the FCC if required to be licensed under FCC regulations; (10) The telecommunications provider must supply documentation that it has consulted with hospitals, medical clinics, and other similar medical uses within a radius of 1,000 feet of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and that such hospitals, clinics and medical uses testify that the wireless facility will not cause interference, malfunctions, or improper operation of any diagnostic, analytical, or therapeutic equipment uses in the care, treatment, or diagnosis of medical patients. (11) The applicant, if not the telecommunications service provider, shall submit proof of lease agreements with an FCC licensed telecommunications provider if such telecommunications provider is required to be licensed by the FCC; (12) All applications shall be accompanied with a completed Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 7460-1 Airspace form with applicable Agency comments if the facility is located within five (5) miles of any airport. The City may incorporate comments provided in the (FAR) Part 77 Airspace Form into its Decision as Conditions; (13) An agreement between the applicant and City shall be provided establishing that if technology should change and a Wireless Telecommunication Facility becomes obsolete, and the use of the facility abandoned or discontinued, the applicant shall remove facilities per section (j) (Abandonment or Discontinuation of use) below; (14) A technical report demonstrating the service requirements of the applicant and demonstrating need for the proposed facility at the location proposed, At a minimum, the technical report shall include; (i) a map of the area to be served by the tower or antenna, (ii) its relationship to other cell sites in the applicant's network including technical data related to frequencies, range, capacity etc, and (iii) an evaluation of existing buildings taller than thirty feet (30'), within one-quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed tower or antenna which from a location standpoint could provide part of a network to provide transmission of signals. The technical report should demonstrate how the proposed site fits into the providers overall network; 8 Wireless Communication Facilities (15) An altemative sites report must be submitted. The report shall; discus all potential sites investigated, including at a minimum all nearby priority locations as listed in subsection 21.02.3350) below; summarize technical data and other rationale as to why a potential site was not appropriate and considered further; and include a demonstration that: (i) the applicant has contacted the owners of structures in excess of thirty feet (30') high within a one-quarter (1/4) mile radius of the site proposed and which fi.om a location standpoint could provide part of a network for transmission of signals; (ii) asked for permission to install the antenna on those structures; and (iii) access/location was denied for reasons other than economic feasibility; and (16) When there is a technical disagreement relating to location, height or related issues the City and the Applicant may retain a mutually acceptable technical expert in the field of RF engineering to provide technical advise to the City on the proposal. The cost for such a technical expert will be at the expense of the Applicant. (g) Co-Location on Type I and Type II towers. Type I and Type II towers permitted under this Chapter shall be designed to accommodate co-location. The following provisions shall apply: (1) All new Type I Towers shall be designed to accommodate at least one additional provider. Type II towers shall be designed to accommodate at least two additional carriers. The City of Bremerton may deny a project for a Wireless Telecommunications Communication Facility if co-location is not provided. (2) Additional tower height provided for co-location shall be the minimum needed. Separation between existing and potential additional antenna arrays shall not exceed (15') unless a technical rationale for a larger separation, acceptable to the City, is provided during permit approval for initial tower construction or for any modification of existing towers adding tower height. (3) An owner of a Type I or Type I1 Tower approved under this Chapter may not deny a Wireless Provider the ability to co-locate on their facility at a fair market rate or at another cost basis agreed to by the affected parties. (4) In the event co~location is found to be not feasible, a detailed written statement or report demonstrating the reasons for the unfeasibility shall be prepared by the applicant. The City and the applicant may retain a mutually acceptable technical expert in the field of RF engineering to review the applicant's unfeasibility report. The technical expert will provide comments on the unfeasibility report and provide comments on how the facility could be designed to accommodate co-location if possible. The cost for such a technical expert will be at the expense of the applicant. (h) Co-location on Support Structures other than Type I and Type II Towers Wireless telecommunications facilities may be co-located on existing or proposed support structures other than Type I or Type II towers under the following conditions; (1) Type I and Type II towers may not be placed on any other existing or proposed support structure; (2) Whip antennas may exceed the structure height by a maximum of 15 feet, and other omni-directional antennas may exceed the structure height by a maximum of 10 feet; (3) Wireless telecommunications facilities may be mounted on one or more building facades or on one or more sides ora mechanical equipment enclosure; (4) The wireless telecommunications facilities of one provider, including all appurtenances and screening, shall not exceed 5% of any facade of a building. The wireless Wireless Communication Facilities telecommunications facilities of all providers located in the support structure shall not exceed 10% of the building facade; (5) Exterior equipment stmctures placed on existing support structures may not exceed 500 cubic feet with a 5-foot height limit above existing building height in residential zones; and (6) Antennas may be attached to ball field light standards, electrical transmission towers, water tanks or existing utility poles, provided that: (i) In residential zones, supporting equipment enclosures and structures shall be in side or rear yards and otherwise adhere to the building setback requirements of the zone, and (ii) Utility poles in any zone shall not be extended or replaced such that overall height is increased more than 20 feet above the pre-existing pole or the average height of existing poles within 300 feet whichever is less. (i) Priority of Locations and Consideration Process. The order of priorities for locating new personal wireless service facilities shall be as follows: (1) Place antennas and towers on public property if practical. (2) Place antennas and towers in districts zoned BP (Business Park), (IP) Industrial Park, or (IG) Industrial General. (3) Co-locate antennas on appropriate rights of ways and existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers and smokestacks. (4) Place antennas and towers in other zone districts which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. (5) Only after an applicant has provided an alternative sites report per subsection 21.02.335(0(11) that demonstrates that priority sites per this section have been investigated shall other sites be approved. (j) Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. (1) At such time that a provider plans to abandon or is required to abandon, the operation of a wireless telecommunications facility, such provider will notify the City Department of Community Development by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment. Such notice shall bc given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment. (2) In the event that a licensed provider fails to give such notice, thc personal wireless facility shall be considered abandoned. (3) Upon abandonment, the provider shall physically remove thc wireless telecommunications facility within 180 days from the date of abandonment. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to: (i) Removal of antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject property. (ii) Removal of Type I or Type II towers. (iii) Transportation of thc antennas, mount, equipment cabinets, security barriers, and towers to a location outside of the City of Bremcrton. (iv) Restoring the location of the personal wireless facility to its natural condition, except any remaining landscaping and grading. (k) Maintenance. (1) Wire less telecommunications facilities shall be maintained. For purpose of this section, maintenance shall include but not necessarily be limited to the following: 10 Wireless Communication Facilities (i) keeping of all plant materials used for screening in a live and health condition; (ii) regular painting of towers, enclosures, fences and all paintable items on the site such that mst, peeling paint, or oxidation is not evident; (iii) repair of any loose or hanging equipment or parts; and (iv) replacement of missing plants, fencing or fencing parts, or other portions of towers, enclosures, and other equipment. (1) Enforcement. Violations of this section, Section 21.02.335, shall be subject to enforcement pursuant to Section 21.02.940. SECTION2. Effective Date, Repealer, Revival of Moratorium. Upon the effective date of this ordinance the moratorium imposed on the acceptance and processing of applications for land use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities established by resolutions No. 2868, 2872 and 2882 is repealed; provided, however, that if this ordinance or any portion of this ordinance is held to be void for any reason, the moratorium therein established shall be immediately reinstated for a period of six (6) months to allow the City to formulate and pass new provisions. SECTION3. Severabilit~. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2003 PASSED by the City Council the day of ., 2003 CAROL ARENDS, Council President Approved this day of ,2003 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney 11 t ~ }Fireless Communication Facilities t~ O PUBLISHED the day of ,2003 EFFECTIVE the .day of ., 2003 ORDINANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\Wireless Communication Facilities.doc 12 --_ Wireless Communication Facilities City of Bremerton Department of Community Development 2003 Zoning Code Amendment Staff Report Applicant or proponent (file number): City of Bremerton (PL03-0027) Date of Proposal: June 25, 2003 Proposal: Amend Chapter 21.02. Brcmerton Municipal Code (Signs) by adding new section 21.02.350 entitled Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The new section would add siting criteria for the placement of new antenna arrays, support structures (towers), equipment enclosures, and site improvements related to wireless telecommunications (commonly called cell telephone) facilities in the City of Bremerton. Contact: City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development: (360) 478-5275 Background: Procedural History Procedural History Resolution 2868, establishing a moratorium on acceptance of applications for, or any building, land usc, or development permit or approval for the purpose of siting and/or development of wireless telecommunications facilities in Bremerton was passed by the City Council on July 24th, 2002. Subsequently, a public hearing was conducted and findings of fact supporting the action were adopted by Resolution 2872, passed by the City Council on August 14~h, 2002. Resolution 2872 establishes that the moratorium expires on January 23~, 2003. Basis for the Moratorium Resolution 2871 adopts findings of fact that establish the basis for the moratorium. In summary, those findings establish that the City Council felt that time was needed to review City policy and regulations regarding wireless telecommunications facilities - commonly called "cell towers". The findings state that the Council felt that such towers may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and that potential impacts needed to be studied in greater depth. In addition the council stated that the City should address issues including zoning, clustering, collocation, development standards, visual impact mitigation, and construction -just to name a few. The Council also formally noted that such moratoria were allowed under RCW 35.63.200. Moratorium Extended On December 1'7, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended */hat additional time bc given for thc formation of a citizen's workgroup charged with responsibility to recommend potential additions and amendments to city codes related to regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities. On January 22, 2003, thc Council concurred and adopted Resolution :2883 extending thc moratorium until July 23, 2003. Staff was instructed to form a cRizcn commRtcc and return before that time with recommended changes to city codes. Citizen process A citizens group was formed consisting, as instructed, of two members of the Planning Commission, two members of the Comprehensive Plan Coordinating Council, two representatives of the telecommunications industry, and two at-large citizens. The group met on five occasions during March and May 2003, developing the recommended amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code discussed in this staff report. Planning Commission recommondation: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 17, 2003. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission approved a motion recommending approval of the draft ordinance with two amendments. The recommended amendments are included in the draft ordinance attached. The Planning Commission minutes will be provided before the hearing. Review of Recommended Amendments to Zoning Code This staff report will discuss each sub section of the new section of BMC discussed in the ordinance. Discussions will attempt to summarize the most notable features of a proposed code subsection. For full details, refer to the attached ordinance. Subsection 21.02.335(a) Purpose and Intent This subsection accomplished several goals. First it establishes that the City does not intend to prohibit wireless telecommunications facilities in a manner that would violate the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Second, the section establishes the general goals of the remainder of the code section. Most notable of these goals is to protect residential areas, encourage co-location, encourage mitigation of various impacts, and facilitate successful provision of services. Finally, the subsection presents findings that are adopted by the City. These include the finding that it is necessary to protect residential areas, minimize impacts, accommodate a growing need for the technology, and avoid damage to adjacent properties. Subsection 21.02.335C0) Definitions The definitions subsection provides definitions of terms unique to the wireless telecommunications section. Most notable are definitions that clarify that "support structures" may be either existing buildings or structures or so-called "towers". Towers are defined as having two types based on height. Other terms may be discussed in this staff report as necessary to clarify the intent and effect of the proposed ordinance. Subsection 21.02.335(c) General Provisions This section clarifies several issues related to the wider spectrum of City Codes and State land use law. First it is clarifies that WTF's are not essential public facilities as defined under the Growth Management Act and therefore are not subject to roles requiring widespread allowance of those types of facilities. The subsection also lists types of equipment or facilities that are exempt from all effect of the WTF's section. Notable here is the exemption of radio equipment operated by emergency providers and the like, small home satellite dished for TV reception, emergency repairs, and ham radio installations. Finally, this subsection clarifies that a WTF may be the primary use on a property (or a secondary use). Subsection 21.02.335(d) Permits Required. This section establishes which permit process a particular type of WTF project must go through. In sum, smaller projects - such as placing an antenna on an existing building, or an antenna on an existing tower in a non-residential zone - may be permitted by an administrative Type 1 process. Type I decisions are made by the Director of Community Development without public hearing. It is important to note that the Director must still review the application under all relevant provisions of the ordinance, however. New Type I towers in non-residential zones must go through a Type II process - this may require a public hearing if the Director so determines. Type I towers are the smaller of the two tower types and cannot exceed 60 feet in height as defined in section 21.02.350(b) definitions. All taller (Type II) towers, and smaller (Type I) towers in a residential zone, are subject to a Type III Special Use Permit process. This includes a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Subsection 21.02.335(e) Standards for review and approval This subsection established the criteria under which all applications for a wireless telecommunications facility are reviewed - regardless of the process being employed. A complete understanding of this section requires a detailed reading of the ordinance language. What follows is only a general summary of several selected points. An applicant must demonstrate that; 1) he has signed an agreement with the City in which he agrees that he will remove abandoned facilities (21.02.350(e)(1)(iv)); 2) Any proposed tower is setback from residential properties a distance equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower if the residence is a non-conforming use in a non-residential zone, or 3 times the height of the tower from any residence in a residential zone (21.02.350(e)(2)(i and ii)); 3) WTF facilities shall be camouflaged by using materials and colors that blend with surroundings; 4) sites must be screened with landscaping, walls, etc; 5)security fencing must be provided and screened; and 6) towers shall not be located in view corridors. Subsection 21.02.335(0 Required Submittals This section lists drawings, informational materials, and agreements that the applicant must provide as part of a complete application for a wireless telecommunications facility. Once again, this section requires a full reading for complete understanding. The following is a summary will not discuss submittals that are widely understood, such as site drawings and designs. The applicant must submit a signed statement agreeing that it will negotiate in good faith with other wireless providers to allow co-location of other's antenna's on an existing tower or on the same parcel/site. The applicant must provide an agreement with the City that it will remove obsolete or abandoned facilities. The applicant must submit a technical report (detailed more extensively in subsection 21.02.350(0(13)) demonstrating the need for the facility proposed at the location proposed. The applicant must submit an "alternative sites report" demonstrating that it has investigated other potential locations for the facility that are listed as "priority locations. (see section 21.02.3500)). Finally, this subsection establishes that disputes regarding the technical reports will be resolved by a third party expert - agreeable to both the applicant and City - paid for by the applicant. Subsection 21.02.335(g) Co-location on Type I and Type II Towers This subsection establishes standards and requirements related to placing additional antenna arrays on existing "cell-towers" (co-location). It addresses both the larger and smaller types defined within the ordinance. It sets a requirement that all newly constructed towers be designed to allow co-location of at least two additional WTF providers. It establishes that that additional tower height designed for future co- locations shall be the minimum necessary (defined as based on maximum 15 foot separation between arrays). Finally, the subsection provides that the applicant my provide a report demonstrating that allowing co-location is not feasible The City may retain an expert acceptable to the applicant to review such a report. Subsection 21.02.335(h) Co-location on Support Structures other than Type I and Type II Towers Standards for locating antenna arrays on support structures other than towers are provided. These other types of support structures may include existing buildings, utility poles, water tanks, etc. The subsection establishes maximum heights for various antenna types, and the proportion of building roof area and fagade that can be covered by a facility. In addition, the subsection establishes that, when antenna arrays are located on light standards, electrical towers, water tanks, and existing utility poles, the associated equipment enclosures (if any) cannot be placed in a front yard and that such co-location shall not exceed the height of nearby existing utility poles by more than 20 feet. Subsection 21.02.3350) Priority Locations and Consideration Process This subsection creates a "prioriW" list of locations where the public prefers wireless telecommunications facilities to be located. They arc list in priority order. This list is referenced by the application submittals section. Applicants must submit a report demonstrating that they have investigated locating their proposed facility on any and all available types of properties on this list. The section provides that he City will not approve other sites until this investigation report has been provided. The priority locations (in order) are 1) public property, 2) business park and industrial zones, 3)co-locating on existing structures, and, 4) zones (other than business park and industrial) that do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. Subsection 21.02.3350) Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use This subsection requires the wireless provider to remove facilities that are no longer in use. The City must be notified 30 days before such abandonment and the facility removed within 180 days after. Subsection 21.02.350(k) Maintenance This subsection requires the provider to perform regular maintenance including painting, repairing of damage, and replacing dead or missing plants, fencing, and screening. Decision Criteria: Text amendments to the zoning code are legislative matters. As such, there are no formal criteria for review save compatibility with the comprehensive plan. The 1995 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan -Utilities Element, includes a goal statement and related policies regarding the design of public utilities and antennas and towers specifically. This is thc policy language most applicable to wireless telecommunications facilities in the document. This goal and policies are as follows; GOAL: Facilitate the provision of utilities that are environmentally sensitive, safe and reliable, and aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses, and available at reasonable economic costs. Policies 1. Minimize visual impacts of antennas and towers on surrounding neighborhoods and other view sensitive areas such as parks 1.a. Encourage siting of antennas and towers in industrial areas and commercially designated areas and near transportation and utility corridors 1.b. Encourage shared sites and towers to minimize the need for new towers (Utilities--page 4, 1995 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Determination: A Determination of Non Significance was published on June 21,2003 and was final on publication. Date and Method of Public Notice: Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bremerton Sun on June 21, 2003. Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Rogerson, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Planning Commission minutes June 17, 2003 (pending) Minutes for Approval of Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. IlL Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. Mr. Hugo requested a revision to the agenda under the public meeting phase - switch la and lb, due to the fact that Icad staffwas briefing thc City Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Buckingham to approve the agenda as revised. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as revised. IV. Approval of Minutes The Regular Meeting of May 20, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy; abstained. Minutes approved as written. V. Public Meeting Commissioner Kennedy moved directly to the call to thc public portion. A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments fi.om the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the public meeting portion. B. Public Meeting 1. Public Hearing: [Commentary notes arc enclosed in brackets.] a. PL03-0018 - An ordinance amending Sectiun 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of Brernerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations and permit requirements. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and turned thc meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 1 0£25 Mr. Hugo presented the staffreport. He stated that the Commissioners had some background on this previously. This proposal is being brought in an attempt to correct some deficiencies of the fence regulations that are causing difficulty with compliance. There are also some issues of potential inequities and problems with property entries s that are not addressed in the code. The largest problem is that there are too many fence installations in the city that violate our standards for fences. This is despite the fact that over a year ago, staff sent out an appeal to all fence contractors in the area with a copy of all the cities regulations. We asked for their cooperation in all installations and that they adhere to the city's standards. We asked them to advise their clients that there are standards and that they, the contractors, cannot do whatever the client wishes - if it doesn't comply with the city's standards. Unfortunately that appeal has not been respected. Some of the companies that we ensured received the letter continue to install new fences that violate the code. The biggest issue is with height. The code is written around a very traditional, friendly neighborhood concept offences. Higher fences are appropriate in back yards where there is a desire for privacy. But in front yards, we still hold to the notion of openness and having light and air come into our big picture windows and the front of our homes. Front yards then are limited to fences of no higher than three feet if they are solid and no higher than 42 inches it is a chain link fence. However, all over the city we see fences that are being built up to six feet and sometimes even higher, regardless of these limitations. In this proposal, you have a draft of the ordinance. The working draft did not get put into a hearing draft that would reflect some of the comments made by the Commission during the workshop on this item. The major changes to our ordinance, comes in two areas. The first is in 21.02.230, which lays out the dimensional standards for fences. There is a revised requirement in Section fo) that now limits the granting of a Type III Special Use Permit (SUP) for higher fences to side and rear yards. It also lays out a set of criteria, the first of which is that the fence or wall has to be shown necessary to provide privacy or security between a residential and a non-residential use. We have had people who wanted to put up an eight foot fence in the back yard just to get better separation from their neighbors. Perhaps the thinking is that maybe if a higher fence (greater than six feet) is warranted that it should be to provide safety and security from a non-residential use. We should not be walling offthe whole neighborhood with fortress-like, eight foot high fences. The Type III SUP is still available, but only in side and rear yards and it is only allowed if we are shielding between residential and non-residential use. The second area of change is in the design of the fence. The design will present a finished appearance on its outside face. We don't define finish. This is being proposed as a Type III. Mr. Hugo recommended that we keep it as a Type III. He said that this type of application should face a very high level of review. It shouldn't be anything that our staffreviews. It should go through an open, public review process where neighbors can comment on it. Part of that comment could be directed at the visual appearance of the fence. Will it be a neighbor-friendly fence? The hearing examiner should make the determination because of the variety of materials and styles Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 2 of 25 offences. Mr. Hugo thinks it would be very difficult to predefine this. However, the heating examiner, based on experience, public comments and submittal of fence design could determine if an applicant has shown a good finished side of the fence to your neighbor or not. Mr. Hugo said that the City Attorney had reviewed this language and had no problems with it (finish) being an undefined term. So, he was not recommending any changes to this portion of the code. The third point is that an additional fence or wall height shall not detract from adjacent residential property owners' use and enjoyment of their property. This could be approached several ways. We could require property owners in the neighborhood to sign off on the proposal, giving their approval. He said that he didn't like that approach because you never know who the next property owners might be. People sell their homes. It should not be something that is voted on by the current community or the current profile of the community. It should be something that is found to be acceptable in long duration. To do that, people in the neighborhood should comment. The heating examiner has to listen to those comments and decide if, over time, the people change is it likely to reflect the same type of comments that future neighbors will have. If they do, is this (eight foot fence) something that is really necessary? He said that the public comment and the hearing examiner reflecting on that comment is a judicious way to deal with the potential impact or consequence of higher fences. Mr. Hugo referred the group to Section (f). This section is where we note that some people put nice architectural features into their entries such as trellises or entry gates. This ordinance now provides for that. He read directly from the draft ordinance: "...architectural appurtenances such as trellises or entry gates to define a walkway or driveway entry are allowed in a fi'ont yard up to 90" high, provided that no individual structural support for such features shall be more than 12" square in section, any gate shall not obscure more than 20% of visibility to the yard as viewed perpendicular to the gate's installation and iii) any entry feature greater than three feet in height shall not be more than sixteen feet wide for driveway entry." Ninety inches is not what you had during the workshop. It was 84" or seven feet. He said he bumped it up to seven and a half feet. He then mentioned that he had looked at some garden magazines and that the majority of the trellises were seven feet, some were higher. The standards for the entry way and drive way (iii) was actually tested out on a couple of our compliance cases - these are comfortable standards for what you would expect on a normal installation. He then moved on to Section 2. This section sets up the conditions for requiring a building permit for most fences. The only fences that will be exempt from the requirements of a building permit are fences not more than two feet high or fences that are temporary for construction fences. The temporary fences on construction projects tend to be put there for security and public safety. They are protecting deep wholes on the site, dangerous equipment, potential exposure to electrical, etc - these fences need to be over six feet high, just to keep people who don't have a right to be on the property offthe site when it's not occupied. The only thing that is really critical in this section is under (2)(e), which reads: Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 3 of 25 "Work Exempt from Permit" A building permit shall not be required for the following: ..... 2) Fences a) not exceeding 2 feet in height, and b) fences not exceeding eight feet in height installed on a temporary basis, such as construction site fences, for a period not exceeding 12 months." If someone needed something beyond that (12 months), they could come in and ask for an extension. Extensions are common practice for all kinds of permits in our department. So if we have a major project, like our downtown projects that may take 18 months, we can accommodate that. He said this concluded the staff report and asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Hugo. Commissioner Wood asked what happens when a person is half-way through a fence project that is non-compliant. She spoke ora specific project on Pacific Avenue. Mr. Hugo answered by saying that if the department sees work going on that is out of compliance, even if it is a fence, we will stop-work it. We do it as quickly as we can because we can save the property owner money if we catch it early. This is one of the reasons for the building permit requirement. The requirement for a building permit allows us to stop and measure any fence activity we see to determine if there is an issue or permit requirement. If it is a construction fence that is not over eight feet, there is not a permit issue and not a compliance issue. Anything else, our field people can do a quick check and confirm that there is a building permit. If they don't have a building permit, then it is a stop-work immediately. Then they will have to come in and submit plans. The plans would have to be checked off as compliant and from that point on, they are directed down a safe path for them and a compliant path for us. In time, with enough public notice and public education, we will hope that most people will just come to our office, review their plans, pay their $50.00 permit fee and get started off correctly. The fee will be nominal, not much more than $50.00. Commissioner Kosusko asked if this was basically a bigger stick, an easier way to identify fences that are out of compliance. Mr. Hugo said yes, and that it also gets the contractors in the mode of working through a process. In business the typical contract will state that the contractor is responsible for securing all approvals and permits. That way, if we go back to the property owner about a fence that is out of compliance, the owner has recourse against the contractor. Contractors will not suffer too many of those setbacks before they all start following the rules. He believes this ordinance will be an effective tool to get us fence installations that are in compliance. Over time, it should reduce trauma in the community and reduce our workload for compliance. Commissioner Kennedy asked a question about the three foot maximum in the front yard. Why was the height a foot taller for Cyclone fences? Mr. Hugo stated that in the current code it is six inches taller for cyclone fences. The reason is that they don't make 42 inch cyclone fence as a standard. They do make 48 inches. This is a policy call for the Planning Commission and the City Council. We put 48 inches in so that if someone says that three feet isn't tall enough to safeguard my child or keep my dog in the yard, they have the option of putting in a 48 inch cyclone fence. Forty-eight inches should keep in most smaller dogs and children. Strictly a reference to the safety issue, but there are aesthetic impact and if you don't think that is the right trade- off, go back to something else. Commissioner Kennedy stated that she thought it Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 4 of 25 would be nice to have that front height be the same for whatever kind of fence you put up. There was a short discussion about the visual impact of cyclone fences and the safety issue of small children and pets. Mr. Hugo stated that when he briefed the City Council about this issue, they were not very sympathetic to increasing anything. There were proponents on both sides of the 42 inch versus 48 inch cyclone fence issue as well. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there the 48 inches is the only standard height for cyclone fences or is there a standard 36 inch standard. Mr. Hugo said that he believes there is a 36 inch standard. Commissioner Buckingham then stated that this would not create an undue burden on people wanting to build fences if it were lowered to the 36 inch. Mr. Hugo agreed. Commissioner Kosusko stated that during the workshop they discussed conditions for fences on top of retaining walls or bulkheads. Where the measurement is taken? If the retaining wall is over 30 inches, the fence need to be almost guardrail height. Mr. Hugo said that yes, they had discussed that issue. He said that this is almost a bigger issue than we have the ability to take on right now. The Commission will need to come back to it. This is one of those gray areas in the code that needs some definition. He said that the staffwill need to go out and look at some of the contextual examples that the Commission provided and come up with some ways that we can discuss it in the code that makes sense. Commissioner Kosusko asked how he thought this would be applied right now. Mr. Hugo said it would applied on a case by case basis and as consistent as possible. Commissioner Buckingham asked about Section (2)(e)(2)(a). Work exempt from permits, fences not exceeding two feet in height. He asked how this height was determined. Mr. Hugo stated that up to two feet could be like a little picket fence. If someone is doing that around their front yard, we would have no interest in that at all. It would be entirely decorative, cannot possible get in the way of views, and if one of our field people sees one of those going up, we won't worry about it. Now, if it goes up to about 30 inches, someone on our staffmay show up to measure it and ask if there is a permit. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was an idea of what the 'nominal fee' for the building permit would be. Mr. Hugo said that he had mentioned $50.00 (about one hour work of staff time), which would be enough that the public would be compensated just for the permit recordkeeping. It would be a simple permitting process, but we would at least look at the plans and make sure that there are no violations regarding setbacks. We would look at a simple site plan and pay attention to it out in the field. Conmaissioner Nelson asked a question regarding community education. He wanted to know if we were creating any brochures or special documents to share with people. Mr. Hugo said that we do have brochures. He feels this is a community paradigm. People have seen folks build fences any way they wanted to for 50 years and believe this is normal business. So they are not inclined to come in and find out what the rules are, particularly if their fence contractor who ignores all the roles - which seems to be the model here. He spoke of one particular fence contractor who continues to violate Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 5 of 25 the rules. This upsets him since he wrote them a personal letter and asked them to stop doing it. They don't seem to care. Commissioner Nelson said that he didn't see the issue of fence heights on busy stree, ts or arterials being dealt with in this draft ordinance. Mr. Hugo said that this concept ~s one that he finds some favor with because he drafted something like that about ten years ago, for another city. It was adopted. He has looked at it again and said that it probably would not work in Bremerton. The idea was to look at our high volume, vehicular arterials like 11th Street, coming down towards Warren Avenue. Warren is a State travel route through the City. Allowing people who have residential properties along that street to build a higher fence to give them some screening from noise, litter, and high visibility of all the strangers going past their front yard. He discussed this with the City Council and they did not find favor with it. He said that he would not want to bring something forward that he believes will be "dead on arrival" when it comes from the Commission. Mr. Hugo stated that the Commission could bring it back up and put it in but that it was his clear direction from the City Council that the idea of higher fences being allowed for noise buffers would not fly. When he reviewed the conditions included in the other city's ordinance, he doesn't think it could work here because of the environments that it dealt with were fairly degraded environments today. The kind offence you would have been required to build in that other city probably would not have been built by anyone. The fences had to be solid or articulated with breaks in the fence, landscaping on the outside of the fence within those setbacks - it would have been a very expensive fence. Then the condition under which you could have that fence: you still had to have the ability to come out of your driveway and have enough distance to see up and down the sidewalk to make sure you weren't backing out and causing a pedestrian danger. There are rich enough place where people would do it because they have the money and the need for ' d that degree of privacy. This problem is not addressed here; we haven t solve anything; and this is something for the staff and the Commission to figure out. They are bad environments. Commissioner Nelson asked how we arrived at a $50.00 for the fee. He thought it was a little high. Mr. Hugo stated that considering the cost of a cedar fence that he doesn't think $50.00 is very much. People put thousands of dollars into fences and spending $50.00 to get it right is money well spent. That is what we are there for to make sure they get it right so that they don't have to back up. We have people doing thousands of dollars worth ofretm-fits on brand new fences. One guy down on Oyster Bay got a five or six foot high fence all around their property and had to cut three feet offof that, re-do the rails. When they are done it will be well over $1,000.00. Without these changes, they would have had to take down about a $10,000.00 entry gate. Fifty dollars is a pretty good deal. Mr. Hugo says that it is fairly generic. There is probably 15 minutes of counter time; 15 minutes to check out the site plan; and then there will be a little bit of field time to make sure, as part of the official inspections, that everything is being done according to the plan. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo. Page 6 of 25 Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Commissioner Buckingham asked about the transition. If someone were in the process of constructing a fence (that is conforming to the current code) when this ordinance is adopted, how would they be affected? Mr. Hugo stated that if they are conforming, we would not expect them to come in now and get a permit. This would be fi.om the date of adoption. From that date forward, anyone who embarks on any activity would have to comply. Anyone in the process right now of building a non- compliant fence, just like anyone else - we go out right now and stop-work them and get them to undo what they have done. Commissioner Kennedy opened the floor for public testimony. Mr. Loui Mitchell of 2333 l0th Street, Bremerton. He said that he was at juvenile court today addressing this very issue. He said that he is a victim of malicious mischief and has been for several years. Finally, wimessed and apprehended the juvenile. The first instance, he got a quote from Viking Fence of $4,100.00. He said that he also has a bulkhead property that was referred to. He said that they (Viking Fence) did know the rules and regulations and quoted them to him. Mr. Mitchell said that the reason he was interested in getting a fence ~as not to keep juveniles out for future incidents, but to keep his dog in. The second backup was to have a dog. On the street where he lives, there is lots of traffic that comes from Callow Avenue and cuts off to points unknown. He's had three trees broken off at the base after replacing them a second time. He has had flowers and plants pulled out of his front yard property. He knows that a 3-4 foot fence is too little to preclude someone interested in doing damage. They did apprehend a person who had a record. It continues and he said he didn't know if he would get any compensation for the fence. Fences are expensive. Chain link fences are cheap. He believes that the way this ordinance is written, it will encourage more chain link fences. He thinks the motivation is dogs, on his street there is a ton of dogs. When a dog barks, all the lights come on and everyone looks out of their windows. It is not an inconvenience any more - it is a benefit to hear a dog bark in certain neighborhoods. He described it as fortuitous that he has had that recent experience and is at the hearing. He said that he would need to keep at least a medium sized dog in his front yard, which is his intent and reason for getting a quote from Viking Fence. Even medium sized dogs are capable of jumping. Then he would have a liability. If the highest fence that he could install would be a chain link fence - he would have to weigh the unattractiveness of the chain link against comfort and security. He would probably not put in the chain link and briefly described his home. He believes that many people would go for the chain link fence which would actually increase what you (PC) are trying to prevent. Commissioner Kennedy then closed the public comment section and opened it back up to the Commission. Mr. Hugo said that he wanted to note that currently the 42" chain link height is in the code. He has interpreted that to mean that it is okay to have a little bit higher fence as long as you can see through it. We have had some applications in which people Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 7 of 25 wanted to have a wood fence that was higher. He has told them they could not go higher than three feet if the fence is solid. However, they could go to another six inches with a top rail that is only supported every four feet or so. Still that top six inches is as transparent as a two inch tube rail across the chain link fence. The only reason for that distinction was one of transparency. So, if you go away from the 42 inches, it take away his ability for this interpretation allowing another six inches of decorative wood-style top on a solid fence. He said he would do the same thing with the 48 inch height chain link fence. However, it is easy at 42 inches and not so sure it would be as easy at 48 inches. There was a short discussion about the height, solid versus transparent, and definitions. Commissioner Kosusko stated that we have to decide what is important. Is it more important to have an aesthetic pleasing streetscape or that someone can have a barking dog at the sidewalk barking at you when you walk by. He thinks that if everyone is participating in their street front and it is attractive/inviting some of these issues of vandalism start to go away. This, in his mind, is a more proactive way to handle it rather than allowing someone to build a higher barrier. After a short discussion the consensus of the group was that the maximum height should be 36 inches, no matter what it is made of. This discussion included the desire for a more walkable ctty as mentioned in the draft Comprehensive Plan and the arterials and canyon like streetscapes. Mr. Hugo stated that the SEPA Determination regarding this item will not be official until two days hence. He asked the Commission to continue this item until the next regularly schedule meeting and take final action one month from now. A non-project ' an DNS (Determination of Non-Significance) will be issued. There won t be y substantive issues with SEPA. We didn't quite make the publication date so we need this item continued. Commissioner Kennedy closed the discussion on this item and asked for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to continue PL03-0018 - An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of the BMC relating to fence height regulations and permit requirements - unffi the next regularly scheduled meeting (July 15, 2003). Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes~ Motion carries. b. PL03-0027 - Consideration of an ordinance adding a new section 21.02.350 to the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities." The proposed section would add siting standards and permitting process requirements for · · ' ' · including antenna arrays on the placement of wireless telecommumcataons famht~es existing structures and new "cell towers" within the City of Bremerton. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and then turned the floor over to Mr. Rogerson. Page 8 of 25 Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 77 Mr. Rogerson informed the group that he had just completed a City Council briefing on this item a few minutes ago. He then reminded that Commission that this item is in a tight schedule because we are responding to a moratorium. Mr. Rogerson provided some background on this ordinance. In December of last year this Planning Commission recommended that staff form a public process to develop the ordinance. The City Council followed through in January, 2003, by instructing the staffto implement the process. A citizen workgroup with a specific composition: two (2) members of the Planning Commission; two (2) members of the coordinating council [the group developing the Comprehensive Plan]; two (2) representatives from the industry and two (2) at-large citizens. That group was formed and the members from this Commission were Commissioner Buckingham and Commissioner Kosusko. From the Coordinating Council we had John Hayes-Larson and Linda Streissguth. The industry was represented officially by Steve Meadows of GTE. Steve warned us ahead of time that he had other commitments and handed off industry representation responsibilities to two other people: Kristina Park of Singular and Khris Conaxsis of AT&T Wireless. There were two slots on the committee from the industry which was shared during the course of the process by three people. These three people were working as a consortium. The two at-large citizens were Loui Mitchell and Jane Reese. We had good attendance - looking back at the records: Of the five meetings, Commissioner Buckingham attended four; Commissioner Kosusko attended four or five; Mr. Larson attended four or five; there was at least one industry representative at every meeting; Loui Mitchell attended four of the five meetings; and Jane Reese attended four of the five meetings. Dave Magnemat, Deputy Director of Cencom for Kitsap County participated to ensure that we did not negatively impact emergency communications with this ordinance. Mr. Rogerson then read directly from the draft ordinance. The consensus of the group was that this ordinance creates strong protection for neighborhoods. Not only through the standards that it establishes but more importantly, through its incentive approach. It creates incentives in process for locating facilities in locations that don't insult res. id.ential neighborhoods; incentives for co-locations; and incentives for looking at priority locations (not near neighborhoods). There are processes in how easy it is to get a permit and what you need to do going through the steps that point an applicant away from single family neighborhoods consistently. There is an inherent set of incentives in this ordinance to move these facilities away from neighborhoods, a strong set of submittal requirements and a long list of submittal requirements. These requirements ask the industry to go through a very strenuous effort to justify the need and location that they claim to need for one of these facilities. The ordinance also creates a priority locations approach. Mr. Rogerson then asked the Commission to refer to the draft ordinance and he started through it section by section. Subsection (d) - Permits Required. This section establishes which permit process a particular type of wireless telecommunication project must go through. Smaller projects, such as placing an antenna on an existing building or an antenna on an existing tower in a non-residential zone - may be permitted through the least strenuous permit process available, Type I Administrative process. This process is essentially Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 9 of 25 over-the-counter. Decisions are made by the Director of Community Development with minimal or no public notice required. It would be pretty easy for an applicant of one of these low impact facilities to get a permit. New Type I towers (60' or less in height) in a non-residential zone must go through a Type II Administrative process. It is still administrative, where the decision is made by the Director of Community Development, but now the process requires public notice to adjacent property owners. All Type I towers (60' or higher), where ever they are located and the smaller towers, if they are in a residential zone have to go through the most strenuous permit process - Type III permit process or a Special Use Permit process. This includes public heating and public notice both. Mr. Rogerson stressed that fact that this hierarchy exists as an incentive approach to getting these facilities to locate in the least intrusive locations possible. That is the real important factor in Section (d). ~ - Standards for review and approval. This subsection establishes the criteria under which all applications for wireless telecommunications facilities are reviewed. This is whether the process is reviewed by the Director of Community Development or by the Heating Examiner in Type II processes. These are the standards for approval regardless of process. The high points - An applicant must demonstrate: 1) (1)(iii) The applicant must has signed an agreement with the City that he agrees that he will remove abandoned facilities, 2) (2)(i) The tower must be setback from residential properties a distance equal to 1.5 times the height of the tower if that residence is a non-conforming use, in a non- residential zone. But if that residence is a conforming use (a residence in a residential zone), then the setback requirement becomes 3 times the height of the tower. [This was one of the last issues that the group considered. There was a lot of difference of opinion about what reasonable setbacks were. There was a feeling that 1.5 times the height was not enough of a setback. The compromise was that 1.5 times was enough from non-conforming residential uses - but a more strenuous setback would help protect residential uses when they are conforming uses.] Mr. Rogerson explained the difference between conforming and non-conforming residential use. A non-conforming use, by intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code is intended to go away over time. Therefore, the eventual use of that property is the more intense use, whatever the zone is. So, the need for protection there would be less. Now, in a conforming zone - the future use, as far as the community has planned, is for residential uses. Here the protections would need to be more strenuous. 3) (2)(iii) This section also says that wireless telecommunications facilities shall be camouflaged. [That is a term used in many of these ordinances. This ordinance has this requirement. That camouflage should be accomplished by using materials and colors that blend with surroundings.] The standards also include that the sites must be screened with landscaping, walls, berms, etc., to screen the view from outside the property to equipment enclosures, etc. The screening is aimed at the facility and the camouflage is aimed at the tower. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 10 of 25 4) (2)(vii) This standard says that security fencing must be provided and that the fencing itself, must be screened. [Not only do you have to provide security fencing to keep kids from climbing on the tower, but you have to screen that fencing so that the fencing itself doesn't become a visual intrusion in the neighborhood. So then you have landscaping, slats, and a variety of methods enumerated in the ordinance that you can employ to make the fence itself less intrusive.] 5) (2)(ix) This standard says that a tower cannot be located in view corridors. [Right now, we do have view corridors defined in the Shorelines Master Program. The way this is worded, if there are other definitions that come out of the comprehensive planning process for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, it can be applied to those types of view corridors.] Subsection (f} - Required Submittals - This section is long. He covers some highlights. The required submittals include - The applicant must submit: 1) (4) The applicant must provide a signed statement agreeing that it would negotiate in good faith with other wireless providers to provide co-location. [This is a requirement that the applicant proposing to build a facility (most likely a tower), states to the City upfront in writing that they will allow co-location if technically feasible. The City then has it on record that this facility will allow co-location.] 2) (12) The applicant must provide an agreement with the City that it will remove obsolete or abandoned facilities. 3) (13) The applicant must submit a technical report demonstrating a need for the facility proposed at the location proposed. [This is a fairly strenuous technical document that demonstrates technical need for the facility at the location proposed.] 4) (14) The applicant must submit an alternative sites report. This report is similar to the technical report. The applicant must demonstrate that they have investigated other potential locations for the facility that are listed on the priority locations later in the ordinance. 5) (15) This section establishes that disputes regarding the technical reports (te. chnical report demonstrating need/location, and technical report demonstrating priority location investigation) can be resolved by a third party, agreeable to both the applicant and the City (paid for by the applicant). Subsection (g) Co-Location on Type I and Type II towers. Mr. Rogerson explains the difference between Type I and Type II towers. Type I towers are the smaller towers (60 feet or less in height). Type II towers are 60 feet or more. This section covers them both and establishes standards and requirements related to replacing of additional antenna arrays on existing towers, so-called co-location. It sets a requirement that all newly constructed towers be designed to allow co-location of at least two additional antenna arrays. It establishes that the additional tower heights designed for that future co-location be the minimum necessary. [He gave a bit of history - The group was concerned that if we required co-location it would essentially drive the applicant to build a taller tower to provide for additional co-locations. This is tree. Ultimately, the group's decision was that on balance it is preferable to have slightly taller towers that provide for co-location than to have additional towers proliferated around the community. So, this was a balancing act. It was felt that co-locations, even if it drove slightly taller towers were preferable to Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 11 of 25 multiplying towers in the community.] In an effort to minimize the impact that would have and the drive toward taller towers, this section also says that the additional height of a tower designed to created the potential for co-location should be the minimum necessary. That is defined as based on a 15 foot maximum, 15 foot separation between antenna array locations. That 15 foot separation is an industry standard required to avoid signal interference between antenna arrays. It is the minimum for them, maximum under the ordinance. Finally, this subsection (g) provides that the application may provide a report demonstrating that co-location is not technically feasible. This is something we almost have to do because there may be technical reasons that the co-location won't work. But they would have to demonstrate to the City the technical rational for that or co-location is assumed. The last thing in this section is that the City may retain and expert acceptable to both the applicant and the city, to review a feasibility report that disputes the feasibility of co-location. ~- Co-location on Support Structures other than Type I and Type II Towers. This provides standards for locating antenna arrays on support structures other than towers. These structures are defined in the definition section. They may include such things as: existing buildings, existing utility poles, water tanks, etc. This subsection establishes maximum heights for various types of antennas (i.e. 15 feet for a whip antenna, 10 feet for a panel antenna) and it also establishes the proportion of building roof area and proportion of building facade that could be covered by a co-located antenna array or facility. In addition, this subsection establishes that when antenna arrays are located on light standards or electrical towers, water tanks and existing utility poles - the associated equipment enclosures, if any, cannot be located in the front yard AND that such co- locations shall not exceed the height of nearby existing utility poles by more than 20 feet. The applicant will need a side yard or rear yard to locate that equipment enclosure. In addition, while using an existing utility pole you cannot increase the overall height of the pole by more than 20 feet. This is to ensure that we do not get many towers all down the 'd "su er oles" that look like a telephone pole at the bottom street. The intent is to avm p p but when you look up it is 60 feet tall and for all intents and purposes, it is a cell tower. Subs~ - Priority of Locations and Consideration Process. This is a list of priority locations which says that when an applicant is preparing a submittal package, he has to do a priority locations report. In the report he must demonstrates that he has considered all the locations types on that list in reasonable proximity. And that he is either going to be locating on a type of property on the list or can demonstrate the technical reason why he cannot. This is in priority order- he must check for: 1) public property; 2) business park and industrial zones; 3) co-locating on existing structures; 4) zones other than business park and industrial zones - zones that do not adversely impact residential zones. Until this has been done, the application cannot be processed on any other type of property. This is a teckmical report that is part of his submittal package. Mr. Rogerson then reminded the group that we will have the ability to hire an expert to review these technical reports. Subsection (i) - Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. This subsection requires that if a provider decides to abandon use of the facility, they need to let the City know 30 days before the abandonment occurs. Then the facility must be removed within 180 days after abandonment. There are some definitions about what abandonment means and some Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 12 of 25 requirements about removal of a facility completely from the City so that it doesn't become a code enforcement issue for us (like a stack of parts somewhere). Mr. Rogerson reminded the group once again that we are working under a moratorium that expires on July 23, 2003. The City Council is scheduled to hear this ordinance by June 25, 2003; with the second reading scheduled to occur on July 9, 2003; adoption would then occur on July 22, 2003 - one day before the moratorium expires. The SEPA determination on this ordinance is pending - we will release it to the newspapers as soon as we understand the pleasure of this commission. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the Commission can proceed on the ordinance if the SEPA is pending. Mr. Rogerson answered that from his experience working in other jurisdictions, it can be done either way on a legislative, non-project action. In fact, the tradition was to wait on SEPA until after recommendations were made by Planning Commission or equivalent board. He said he was aware of discussions in the City about this issue. Mr. Hugo stated that he has had the same experience as Mr. Rogerson. He said that right now we have a very conservative SEPA planner on staff. He said that he listens to her very closely and that we have taken other actions in the past two years - in advance of the SEPA Declaration. If something were revealed, we would come back to the Commission. As a legislative, non-project action - nothing is going to come out of the SEPA Determination. Mr. Rogerson stated that he had reviewed this issue with our SEPA planner in the last day or two and she said the same thing Mr. Hugo is saying now. For a non-project action we are good to go. Commissioner Kennedy then asked if there were any questions from the Commission for staff. Commissioner Wood asked a question about the height ratio (1.5 or 3 times), and if it were related to electro-magnetic field (EMF) issues. Mr. Rogerson stated that it clearly was NOT an EMF issue. It is an issue of how the community feels. It is a matter of what came out of the discussion. There were opinions within the committee that ranged from 1.5 times being adequate in all situations to 500 feet being preferable. Three times the height is going to be between 180 and 200 feet. Commissioner Kosusko asked if staff could talk a little about the Telecommunications Act regarding the EMS. Mr. Rogerson stated that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 made it real clear that jurisdictions cannot consider the affects of EMS radiation in regulating wireless telecommunications facilities. The underlying logic is that it is the purview of the federal government under FCC and they have determined at a higher level that those impacts are not an issue. Commissioner Wood asked about flag poles. She said that near the fairgrounds there are very large towers that look like flagpoles but they have antennas on them. She was wondering if someone says they are putting up a flagpole could they bypass this ordinance and put cell tower equipment inside it. Mr. Rogerson discussed how the proposed ordinance treated the subject of camouflage. He stated there was lots of discussion in the committee and little confidence that the stealth and camouflage techniques really accomplished their goals. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 13 of 25 Mr. Hugo said the answer is no. They could not circumvent our procedures. We would look at the situation described as a cell tower installation. It doesn't matter what it looks like. They wouldn't be putting up the flagpole if it wasn't for the interest of having a cell tower in it. So we would look at that as being a camouflaged cell tower - not a flagpole that just incidentally has a cell tower facility inside. He said it was an instance of something looking like a duck. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck. We are pretty good at spotting ducks. Commissioner Nelson had further questions about the Telecommunications Act. He said that he reviewed it and said that it is pretty broad. Even though staff has reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions, the act says that as a community we cannot discriminate or prevent cell towers from locating here (based on EMF). His concern about this ordinance is that it has not tested. How have such ordinances stood up in court cases.? He asked for staff's opinion, after reviewing this ordinance and those from other jurisdictions - do you feel we are pretty safe? Mr. Rogerson said this is the third cell tower ordinance he has drafted, so he has had a lot of exposure to the case law and research. Also, there is nothing in this ordinance that has not been patterned after ordinances from other jurisdictions, so these are tried and tested methods. They are not new inventions for the City of Bremerton. Also, the City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and came back with almost no changes to what the committee drafted - he said it was a very good ordinance in his experience. Mr. Hugo spoke to the issue of the setback. Regarding the zone, setback requirements stretch the ability of the zone to accommodate these facilities. If you took that analogy another step to the issue of adult entertainment, court cases have said that you cannot use a set of standards which once combined, essentially excludes the use from the community all together. In this case, just listening to the standards drafted, that it does not exclude these from our environment. He thinks that the industry can fred locations in residential and non-residential areas that will meet these standards. It is most critical that there is the ability to accommodate the network and the environment. You can do so with reasonable locational and design conditions imposed. This ordinance seems to do this pretty well. Commissioner Buckingham added that when the committee started this process one of the first things they did was look at existing ordinances from other cities that proved to be functional and workable. They specifically looked at an ordinance from east King County that ran into some serious legal issues. They really made a point of steering away from the issues that would come back to haunt us. Commissioner Kennedy then asked if there were any more questions from the Commission. Seeing none, she moved opened the floor to public comment. Loui Mitchell of 2333 10t~ Street, Bremerton. He stated that he was one of the citizens involved. He said there were many issues he wanted to talk about but acknowledge the lateness of the hour. He said that it is complicated and he would make it as simple as possible. He stated that Andy and Scott (Commissioners Kosusko and Buckingham) knows he was very serious about certain points of view. He said that he was still dismayed and unsatisfied. Mr. Mitchell stated that the committee had been meeting regularly at 1:00 on Fridays and that he had made them aware that because of other Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 14 of 25 scheduling problems he was only available after 1:00. There was advanced notice at the end of a 480 word e-mail sent by Paul (Mr. Rogerson). In the second to the last sentence of that 480 word e-mail stated "By the way, we are changing the time from 1:00 to 10:00." He said he didn't read the whole e-mail because it said, "These are excerpts of the rough draft. However, I have attached the entire draft if you want to read it." So he went straight to the attachment. He missed the meeting. He said that he was the arm-twister that Paul mentioned, the guy that said 500 foot setback. But it's funny, out of all the input that came from various citizens and Commissioners, he said that he was the only individual that was asked to backup my 500 foot recommendation with published research that I needed to find on my own. The 1.5 times or the 3 times that you see were simply values put out there and agreed to without type of similar request. The reason he was on the committee is because he was a vocal citizen, as Chris (Mr. Hugo) remembers, leading a large group of citizens against the installation ora cell tower on 6th Avenue. They had worked on it for over a year and had participated in two public heating processes. They submitted federal case law bolstering their point of view where federal courts have ruled in favor of municipalities all over the country. He said that as long as you have aesthetic and property value impacts stated in your zoning lots, they will back that up. He submitted a published report from the Appraisal Institute of America of Chicago, Illinois. It is an environmental source when you are looking at buying, renting or living in homes. 50 Things To Avoid - number 45 is Radio Communications and Cell Towers. He quoted, "The proximity to RC, radio or cellular towers can devalue a residential property, due to the concerns over visual impacts the pool of potential buyers for properties visually impacted by RC towers may be reduced. Studies by real estate appraisers and other experts have shown property devaluations from proximity to RC towers. The mount of the devaluation is difficult to predict. One study shows a decline between three and twelve percent." This was on record and has been part of public hearing presentations that I mentioned. The hearing examiner rejected this because I was not a professional. Because reading a published report was not the same as having an expert testify. He stated that he had been in contact with the University of Texas. They have a report that is not published - but he referred to an e-mail. The report (e-mail) states that they found three to five percent devaluation as much as .5 kilometers (1,600 feet) next to a home. So the 1.5 times or 3 times can be disputed. Has been disputed but has not been listened to. In tonight's staff report, under decision criteria - it states the 1995 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. But in minutes of the Planning Commission from the meeting of December 17, 2002, he read testimony from Paul under recommendations stating, "The regulations in this area, like all others, must be consistent with the Comp Plan. At this current juncture the 1995 is undergoing complete rewrite. For this reason it is illogical to base development of new or amended complete rewrite regulations on the 1995 Comp Plan. Rather, any amended or new regulations must be compared and related to the goals, policies and maps currently being developed for the updated plan..." and it continues. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 15 of 25 So, he says, he is a little confused as to what the criteria is. How we are able to take 1.5 times as gospel without any type of request for published research? Where he, who has done research and represented citizens have suggested 500 feet setback and he was asked to come up with the research and did - and still was not listened to. The Telecommunications Act, yes there are restrictions on EMF frequencies because RC towers reach 1,800 megahertz, which is close to microwave. So, they have to operate at a much reduced power level because of that higher threshold. But what the telecommunications act states is that you cannot use it when talking about health. It doesn't say anything about fear. There are court cases that say people don't want to buy a house because they are afraid of the unknown. They can read reports saying that it is safe until the cows come home. But if they are afraid and fear is in the marketplace, they are going to overlook that house and look at another house. It may result in the low end (3%), it may result in the high end (12%). You don't know because there are other factors. He stated that he could go on and on, but he won't. He said there were a lot of thing he wanted to say but thought he had made his point. There are lots of quotes from Chris, Commissioner Dingfield, and City Council in approving this from the Council meeting July 24, 2002 - which approved the moratorium. All statements about protecting residential property. This ordinance, if you read it, only gives a provider steps to walk through on the way to your house. It does not restrict in any way, shape, or form someone from putting a 60 foot tower, 160 feet from your property or 1.5 times. It gives you a few more hoops to jump through. If you put a certain setback, as he suggested, 500 feet - you cut out all those hoops. You just say, "500 feet away from a house and you are off limits. We are a big city and can find other ways." And if we can get television signals and other types of signals without having a television tower in my back yard, we sure we can get a cell phone signal just as easily. He then asked if the group had questions for him. Comraissioner Kennedy called point of order. Public are not asked questions. Mr. Mitchell asked if he would be allowed to rebut or would this be his only opportunity. Commissioner Kennedy stated that this was his only opportunity. Mr. Mitchell stated that there were some quotes he wanted in the record. 1) Chris Hugo - Planning Commission minutes, July 24, 2002. "There is a need for wireless communications facilities ordinance both to give applicants some predictability in the permitting process and to protect the public interest in protecting aesthetics of community, because in many cases the public feels that these facilities are unsightly. The question is how to accommodate the industry without impacting property values." 2) City Council minutes - July 2002. "Potential impacts from the health, safety, economics, hazards, and aesthetics of these facilities imposed on neighboring properties and the community as a whole." 3) As far as being under the gun because of the ending of the moratorium - December 17, 2002, Paul Rogerson. "By simply holding an additional public hearing and re-adopting or adopting new findings of fact [which he says he presented tonight], the City Council can extend the moratoria for another six months." Mr. Rogerson continued, "Recommendation ora workgroup so the outcome of the process can be consistent with the Comp Plan." [Mr. Mitchell Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 16 of 25 says that he presumes he is referring to the new Comprehensive Plan, which he mentioned earlier and not the old one which was mentioned tonight.] Mr. Mitchell summarized by saying that as Paul mentioned, it has to be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan as was discussed by the City Council in their approval for this ordinance. Commissioner Dingfield mentioned that both of these things (billboards and cell towers) do have visual impacts to the city. He said there were a couple of things in the ordinance he wanted to speak to. Subsection (f) Requirements and submittals, #8. "Antenna usage will not interfere with other adjacent neighboring transmission and reception functions." His question was - What if it does interfere? What is the recourse for citizens? For example, if you have it near a rest home or medical facility where it may be interfering with heating devices or pace makers or other type of equipment - what is our recourse? How do we address that? Iten~ #13 A demonstrated need for proposed facility. His questions was - What level of service constitutes a need? In the public hearing process Qwest said that they needed to have a cell tower here - even though they have transmission and people are able to make calls here. They wanted a level that would penetrate any building, any where, any basement (skin level). When is enough, enough? If you have service in the area, is that enough? How do we address that? Subsection (g) Co-location. It should read, "We WILL deny new cell towers if they are not co-located." Are we going to request that co-location be part of the law or are we going to say that we prefer co-location but if for some reason you can't have it we won't do it. He said he thinks this needs to be addressed. He said that he didn't read anything in there about clustering. So, if we are not going to allow co-location, does that mean that we are going to allow another tower adjacent to an existing tower to minimize the impact? He said that should be addressed also. Three of the things that he reiterates, in closing: 1) Restricting the locations near medical facilities because of sensitivity to medical equipment; 2) 500 foot setback, which he believes he has backed up with on-the-record documentation; 3) Attractive nuisance, which occurs when you put a facility near somewhere that becomes an attraction to kids. We have a public property requirements that requests that providers site these cell towers in publicly owned property first - which is correct. The telecommunications act requires that you look at federal property first and then you go down the ladder before looking at private property. Schools are public property. You set one near a playground, in front of a school or behind a school - which this seems to suggest we do. What happens when a kid starts climbing up that and injures himself?. Where does the attractive nuisance liability fall? Is it with the City? Is it with the telecommunications provider? Or is it with the School? He said that he didn't believe that any of these issues are adequately covered in this ordinance. Mr. Mitchell said that he and Paul had a good conversation a week or two ago. He then requested that his name be removed from the work group. He said that as someone who has researched this issue more than anyone in the room - he doesn't feel Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 17 of 25 that any of the suggestions he made were listened to or heeded. He then repeated that he wanted his name removed from the work group and asked that the Commission consider his comments. Commissioner Kennedy then asked if there was any further comment from the public. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing portion. She then asked Mr. Rogerson if he would like to respond to the public comments. Mr. Rogerson stated that he wanted to answer the process issues that Mr. Mitchell mentioned. 1) Mr. Mitchell said that he had a meeting time slip by him because of the last line of a 400 word e-mail. Mr. Rogerson said that he wanted to correct the record. The decision to move the meeting time from 1:00 to 10:00 on the Friday he referred to, occurred at the previous meeting and he was there. He was aware of the meeting time change. What came with the e-mail was only a reminder. 2) Mr. Mitchell states that he advocated for a 500 foot setback - which is tree. He then approached me either at the conclusion of a meeting or on the phone - in person at the counter several days after the meeting. He asked if he brought in some documentation from sources (Mr. Rogerson said he believes the Appraisal Assomat~on report) that talk about setbacks - if the information c°uld be f°rwarded to the rest of the committee so they could consider his plea for a 500 foot setback more seriously. Mr. Rogerson told him yes, provide me with the documentation. However, Mr. Rogerson said that he never received the information and still does not have it. He did call later and said that he didn't have time or there was some other problem, but the information was never received. 3) References to the 1995 Comprehensive Plan versus the update. It is true that Mr. Rogerson did mention early on in the process (last December) that it is a real difficulty in comparing compliance or consistency on this issue with the Comprehensive Plan whose days are numbered. And that we should, more logically, look to the coming Comprehensive Plan. As the issue unfolded and we arrive at this juncture - the updated 2003 Comprehensive Plan is still not adopted. He said that he anticipated that it would be. 4) Regarding the affect on medical equipment or medical facilities. It is true. Mr. Mitchell did bring this up during the discussions. It is not reflected and certainly could be put in there. He said that it should probably be tied to the technical reports of some sort so that the issue is addressed adequately in our view. 5) References that the priority that lists public property as a top priority might direct a facility into a schoolyard or adjacent to a school - he doesn't believe this to be possible. Because the public entity that controls those properties still have the ability to say yes or no. All the applicant has to do is mention in their report that "They said we couldn't put it in the 1st grade class room." Then that issue is addressed. It is not a commandment that they MUST go on public property, simply that the issue must be addressed and disposed of. Mr. Itago asked Mr. Rogerson to speak to the 500 foot radius, based on his work with the Comprehensive Plan and the analysis of the various land use districts. He asked if a 500 foot radius were applied to the residential planned properties in the city, and knowing what the city's expectations are for how residentially planned areas will be developed (at what densities), could you site a tower in any residential part of the city? Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 18 of 25 Mr. Rogerson stated that without doing the mapping, he could not make an absolute statement about that. The difficulty he anticipates is that the majority of the city still going to be in single-family neighborhoods (and there would be a real radius problem there). However, a great majority of the remaining designations would be mixed use in some nature, in which residential uses, will be mixed in with other uses. This is the change that the Comprehensive Plan update would install in our planning paradigm. With mixed uses now being the model in many of the other zones and the setback from residential would start applying more broadly in the community. It could potentially increase our difficulty in siting one of these facilities. Commissioner Buckingham wanted to comment on his recollection of the meetings. He said the he recognizes that Mr. Mitchell has an obvious concern and the Commission doesn't want to minimize those concerns. He further said that he could agree and can understand the impact it could have to property value, which is very important. He said that he didn't have any heartburn over 500 feet. However, with mixed use concepts we ran into problems with this issue. He couldn't remember what the group's outcome was on the issue but he remembers that they discussed the percentage of residential use in the mixed use zones and using that as a criteria. Mr. Rogerson said that he believed the discussion Commissioner Buckingham was describing happened during the last meeting. The group recognized that with mixed use being thc model in thc vast majority of thc zones in the future then this radius issue would become a much larger problem. Then he recalls Commissioner Buckingham suggested some kind of calculation based on thc mix of uses. The outcome of that discussion was that it was just administratively very difficult to address. He said hc was confident that there was no consensus to do anything like that because it was so operationally difficult. We did have that conversation. Commissioner Nelson apologized to thc Chair for being out of order earlier. He then stated that a~er heating public testimony and having reviewed the material over the last few days, wc are in the middle of technology that could all change tomorrow. Cell towers could become smaller, they could bc every three or four blocks, they could be any number of things. With regard to different types of technology (satellites, etc.) all this could change. His concern is that we are not going to get rid of cell towers. So all these issues to try to figure out ways to no~t have them can take up a lot of time. It appears that we have done a lot of work. The committee has done good work. Hc said that having this ordinance in hand answers and addresses most of his concerns. There arc three areas of concern: I) Aesthetics - how they look. We cannot get around that. To provide incentives for people to camouflage them is something he would like to see happen; 2) Tower sharing or co-location; 3) This city should bc fair with companies who are trying to provide us with technology that allows us to use our cell phones and wireless laptops, etc. This is important to him personally. He is concerned that we will be discussing the extension of the moratorium for another six months - not the right approach. Commissioner Buckingham stated that he agrees with Commissioner Nelson that this issue needs to be put to bed. He further stated that on the one hand, we have the property values being negatively impacted and on the other hand - who really wants to buy a house in a city where they cannot get cell service. This is the balance that we need Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 19 of 25 to create. Certainly, the cell companies would love to inundate us with towers but he thinks we've made a good effort to address all the concerns. He then recommended that we make a 500 foot setback in purely residential zones. Otherwise, we fall back to the existing setbacks in non-residential or even mixed use zones. He reminded the group that the setback is only an issue for Type I and Type II towers, not for smaller co-located facilities which are most likely NOT a visual impact to begin with. He also recommended that in the review process or application process - add some line regarding a study. The applicant should demonstrate that they have contacted any medical facilities within a certain range regarding impacts. Commissioner Buckingham then commented positively on the co-location incentives. He said that he doesn't think it needs to be changed and cannot be strengthened - it is very clear. Commissioner Nelson asked if we had considered doing a "pre-siting" map that would show the zones or areas that meet the siting requirements. He thought that with all the current mapping being done for the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps this is something we could consider. Mr. Itugo said that he wanted to speak to the 500 foot setback. In residential zones, if we say 500 feet, there will not be any in residential zones. Our idea of having residential land uses isn't out in the suburbs or rural areas. He said that he cannot imagine a place in the city where you are going to have any sites that are not within 500 feet ora residence. He said that he didn't know where that would be. Commissioner Buckingham stated that from the committee discussions, what Mr. Hugo just said would not necessarily be a bad thing. However, he was talking about strictly residential use zones. Not mixed use zones. Mr. Hugo stated that we choose to do that, it is a trick. We would then have a provision in the code that says you can do this - but it is impossible to do it. Courts don't like that. He said that there are large areas of the city that are low density - he was considering all residential densities. You will not find a site that does not have residents within 500 feet. If this is what we want to do - we just need to say that and see if that stands up. Commissioner Buckingham said that in all of the discussion the committee had, we were trying to minimize to the point of not having Type I and Type II towers in residential areas. This may not be necessary technologically. Mr. Hugo said that no, it may not. But we should just say that. The idea of setting up something where there is the appearance of the ability to do something - this goes back to the adult entertainment cases. They set up standards which give the appearance to site one of these businesses but when you actually do the mapping - it's not there. They have struck those down every time. Commissioner Buckingham stated that he could not remember industry representatives insisting on Type I or Type II towers insisting that they had to be able to site Type I and Type II towers in residential areas. Commissioner Kosusko stated that they actually spoke of the alternatives in those areas. The utility pole thing, which he finds is just a tower with electrical wires going across it. They spoke of other alternatives like that. He then stated that he was taken aback at the statement that the committee didn't listen to this 500 foot argument. To Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 20 of 25 him was somewhat personal because in the committee they were all working together and he take affront to that statement that they were somehow not listening. Commissioner Kennedy called point of order as Mr. Mitchell began to respond to Commissioner Kosusko's statement. Commissioner Kosusko continued by saying that the other reason he took affront is that he is a design professional, who is trained in aesthetic things. For him to talk about setback means something to him. Mr. Mitchell brought up an example from a group in Texas regarding devaluation. The distance was halfa kilometer. If that is the case, why are we not talking about halfa kilometer? Where did 500 feet come from? Continuing on, he said that there are many things that affect property values (i.e., the 7-11 down the street, the rental house down the street that is not taken care of). Many things affect your personal property value. If we are talking about three percent because there is a cell tower 250 feet away, so be it. That is the price you pay for living in a city where all kinds of stuff fit together. We need to determine how much affect we can accept in our city from things like a cell tower or a 7-11 or a run-down house, etc. He continued by saying that we've talked about the school issue and the medical issue. He then said that he remembers (from the Telecommunications Act) that affect on medical facilities was probably paid attention to pretty hard by the federal regulations. Mr. Hugo asked the committee members and staffif they looked at they horn array type of a.n. tennas (the antlers versus the flush-mount) and if you discriminated on enwronments? For example if you are in a residential then if has to be a flush-mount? Was that reviewed? Mr. Rogerson answered the question by saying the no. There was then a brief discussion about the different types of antennas and environments. The committee did start off discussing these but dropped it because it was a further layer of complicafion. The consensus of the group was that cell towers are not going away - we need to allow for them, maybe even in residential areas. The only problem is that people can see them. Commissioner Kosusko stated that he understood that the different types of arrays are used for different distances and uses. In listening to the industry representatives, it is not ~kely that we re gmng to get some monstrous array m a valley in a residential area. The whole idea of a specific setback affecting the aesthetics is a little dubious in this case. He referred to the Texas report (quoted by Mr. Mitchell). There is a difference in the topography between Bremerton and Texas. He thought that to set a specific distance which is unrelated to the height doesn't seem to answer that issue as well as setting a ratio. Commissioner Kennedy stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kosusko regarding the ratio. She said that she believes that the committee had come up with recommendations that balances out all the needs. She said she didn't see a need to change it because all the issues have been hammered out by the committee. She said that she would be willing to entertain a motion. Commissioner Kosusko had one more comment. He said that he was still struggling with a comment made by Commissioner Buckingham regarding allowing a tower in a Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 21 of 25 residential zone. He said that he would like to see that struck (Type I tower in a residential zone). He then suggested that it read, "Type I tower in a single-family residential zone" or more of a neighborhood zone. He said that he doesn't think that a 60 foot tower, in any case, is aesthetically an option in a single-family zone. Setback three times or 1 ½ times or 500 feet if we decide that. There was then a short decision about which tower, if any, should be allowed in a single-family residential zone. Commissioner Buckingham stated that it is important to remember that as this ordinance is laid out now, nowhere does it allow - anywhere, the concept of a Type I or Type II tower in a single-family residential zone. The setback requirement is not within a single-family residential zone. This is in a non-single-family residential zone. With the setback then, where the residential zone and the single-family residential zone starts across the street or wherever - there is enough space that people don't feel that it is literally sitting in their back yard. He then spoke specifically about the tower on 6th Street. We are not suggesting that we are going to have 60-80-100 foot towers in regular, low-density, residential neighborhoods. Mr. Rogerson asked the group for clarification about exactly what language they want changed. There was a discussion on the issue. After some discussion, Mr. Rogerson suggested that the change be made to Section (c) General Provisions - add a new subsection which addresses prohibited uses. Commissioner Buckingham suggested that we consider addressing the issue of medical facilities since we are not sure how the FCC or the federal government regulates the distance from medical facilities. He said that we need to have something that ensures us that the application has considered it. Mr. Rogerson then proposed the change be made as follows: (c) General provisions. (Bottom of page 3) (4) Prohibited Uses. (i) Type I and Type II towers in a single-family residential zone. The group agreed on this change. Commissioner Nelson showed some concern about the change. Commissioner Buckingham reassured Commissioner Nelson that the change is consistent with the intent of the committee, it was simply an oversight. It was never the intent to allow those kinds of towers in single-family residential zones. Commissioner Nelson asked where the incentives are mentioned in the draft ordinance. Mr. Rogerson answered by saying that the incentives are created by allowing less intense type of facilities to go through simpler permitting processes. Other incentives are indirectly attained by taking advantage of co-location. Some of the incentives are implied and are woven throughout the document. Commissioner Kosusko stated that there was one area of concern during the committee discussions. Having additional requirements that the application had to prove as part of the Special Use Permit (SUP) - an additional list of hardships and why they should be allowed to proceed through an SUP. He then asked if there was an addition list or reference to such a list. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 22 of 25 Mr. Rogerson answered by stating there is not an additional list that an SUP applicant would have to satisfy. They would have to satisfy the same list, it is the strenuousness of the process. Remember that an SUP also has to go through this threshold set of requirements that speaks to impacts to adjacent properties, etc. In that sense, there is some additional requirements once you enter the arena of a Special Use Permits. Specific to cell towers.'? No - it is the same list for all three processes. Public hearing is an additional level of strenuousness for an applicant to go through. Mr. Hugo asked if this would change or prohibit the addition of antenna on public facilities like water reservoirs or such that could end up in residential zones in the city. Mr. Rogerson answered that he didn't think so because of the exemption. Antennas that are on water tanks that are for public safety, for fire and police response .... Mr. Hugo interrupted by clarifying that he meant the ability to put a private antenna on a city facility in a single-family zone. Commissioner Kosusko stated that we specifically said Type I and Type II towers will be prohibited in single-family residential zones. Commissioner Buckingham said that if they wanted to place an array that was smaller than a Type I or Type II tower, that could be an acceptable use in a single-family residential zone. That is the type of co-location we are really trying to encourage. Mr. Rogerson stated that the place where that is most noticeable is in the table under Type I administrative decisions. The second point is that co-location of antennas on existing support structures in any zone, only has to go through a Type I process. Commissioner Kennedy asked the group how the medical issue should be dealt with. Mr. Rogerson referred the group to the submittal requirements. The eighth current submittal requirements reads, "Certification that the antenna usage will not interfere with other adjacent or neighboring transmission functions." There was then a short discussion about how to include the medical issue. The consensus of the group was to handle it by adding a new subsection under submittal requirements addressing medical facilities/instruments Mr. Rogerson stated that one of the concerns he heard from Mr. Mitchell in public testimony was that, if you have that kind of requirement and it tums out that it is violated - then is there any recourse? He wanted to clarify that he had heard that testimony. Mr. Hugo stated that would be a legal case at that point. He explained that if they have answered the stipulation then they would have had some kind of statement from the facility. That makes it their private, civil issue from that point on. Mr. Rogerson then summarized that staffhas been directed to add a new subsection addressing medical instruments and a new subsection under general provisions that lists towers in a single-family residential neighborhood as prohibited. Commissioner Kennedy closed the discussion on this item and asked for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Wood to recommend approval of PL03-0027 - adding a new section 21.02.350 to the BMC entitled "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities," with two changes [add a subsection under general provisions listing prohibited uses as Type I and Type II towers in single-family residential zones and adding a new subsection under submittal requirements (f), addressing medical facilities and equipment.] to the City Council. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Motion carries. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 23 of 25 2. Workshops: a. None. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: None. B. Director Report: Chris Hugo. 1. CDBG Advisory Members - Mr. Hugo informed the group that we are setting up a new process for our Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations this year. We are amending the annual plan. We are proposing two committees: 1) Capital Committee, who will look at all the capital projects in the Block Grant program as apposed to the community service projects. The structure that is being set up is a review committee that has one Council member and one Planning Commission member added to another group of more technical people. This committee would consider $600,000.00 (or whatever portion of the CDBG is for capital projects), going through the process of reviewing the applications, scoring them, and making recommendations. We are looking for an appointment or volunteer. The appointment should be completed and approved by Council by August 13, 2003. This could be decided at the next meeting. Commissioner Kosusko nominated Angela Wood. There was a short discussion about the committee and who could be called for further information. This issue will be decided at the next regularly scheduled meeting. 2. Presentations & Invitation - Mr. Hugo informed the group that he made a presentation to the Downtown Rotary and will be presenting to the Central Lions Club. He has a PowerPoint presentation which includes maps, photos, and some number items. There is not as much specific detail fi:om the plan [Comprehensive Plan]. We are working on it. He suggested that if the members of the Commission had clubs or groups that would benefit fi.om the presentation to let staff know. He spoke to some of the reactions fi.om the Rotary, which were favorable. 3. KRCC Status Re ort - Commissioner Kosusko wanted to know what the status of the KRCC process. Mr. Hugo responded by saying that it is still working out. The new director, Kamuron Gurol has a delicate balancing act to play with the three commissioners. He is working hard. Chris gave a briefing about some of the concerns of the group and stated that progress is reasonable. He said that Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners is the tail wagging the dog. It represents about one percent of the county but has about sixty percent influence right now. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. 1. Mr. Rogerson - Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing. The public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan did not happen this evening. We are still dedicated to having that public hearing at your next meeting (July 15, 2003). He then asked the Commission to review their personal schedules for the next month and be prepared to continue that Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 24 of 25 hearing to subsequent evenings - one week out, each time. Commissioner Kennedy wanted the staff to please have the "timing" lights working prior to that public hearing. Commissioner Kennedy asked what the progress was on the Transportation Element. Mr. Rogerson answered by saying that he met with the consultants, Parametrix, two weeks ago. That meeting was a follow-up on a conversation in which he was told that it would take three more months to complete the Transportation Element. They were told that this was unacceptable and they negotiated. By the end of this month, they will provide us with modeling numbers. They will also provide project lists and estimated costs for projects that respond to level of servie deficiencies by mid-July. He suggested that the Transportation Element not be reviewed at the first heating. We will have the crucial pieces under the Growth Management Act [Capital Facilities that respond to the level of service issues]. 2. Liaison With City Council - Commissioner Buckingham spoke briefly about creating more of a relationship with the City Council regarding items being forwarded to them. According to the by-laws, it is the duty of the Vice Chair to be a liaison to the City Council. He stated that he would happy to fill that function. There was a short discussion of the group with suggestions of how that could be done effectively. Mr. Hugo said that staff would work with Commissioner Buckingham toward a protocol to make this function effective. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 15, 2003. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Jessica Kennedy, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 25 of 25 DATE SUBMITTED: June 11,2003 BILL# AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Off-premises Sign Ordinance/~0- q861 Committee Meeting Date: 6/17/03 COUNC1L MEETING Date: 6r--'~w-~ Department: DCD Presenter: Paul Rol$erson/Chris Hugo Phone: 478-5283 SUMMARY: At the request of the Council, the Department of Community Development has conducted a citizen pr°cess leading to the development of recommended changes to the sign chapter of the zoning code. The proposed ordinance recommends that off-premises signs, vehicle mounted signs, and most billboards be added to the existing list of prohibited sign types. It also suggests new siting standards for "sandwich board" signs and additional mechanisms for amortizing non- conforming signs. This proposed ordinance addresses a moritorium that expires on July 23, 2003. This proposed ordinance was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 20, 2003. ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance, Staffreport for Planning Commisson public hearing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): none APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ~_ _ Fr ^NcE Dn CTOR: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: ~ ~6 ~.Fp~,-,.~' ~; v,,'p'~d ~dh~mlce on ~trst rea,1;,,~ I move to pass ordinance no. /-//$6 [ on secund reading. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the regulation of off- promises signs, including standards for sandwich board signs and a process for the amortization of non-conforming off-premises signs. WHEREAS, on July 24, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2868 imposing a moratorium barring acceptance and approval of any building, land use, or development permit for off-premises signs within the City of Bremerton until additional review had been completed and any necessary code revisions had been adopted by the City Council on the issue of off-premises signs within the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, On August 14, 2002, the City Council, after public hearing on the matter, adopted Resolution 2871 providing findings of fact as required under RCW 35.63.200 and continuing the moratorium until January 23, 2003; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003 the City Council, after public hearing on the matter, adopted Resolution 2883 extending the moratorium for six months which will expire no later than midnight, July 22, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City has convened a public process to develop recommended amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code related to off-premises signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bremerton conducted a public hearing on the matter and has recommended adoption of the amendments; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 21.02.330(b) of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Definitions: (1) Abandoned Sign. Any nonconforming sign, including its structure and other components, which is located on vacant property or an unoccupied building for a period of six months or more and which, during that time, is not used for legal sign purposes; or which relates to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies; and/or which has been allowed to deteriorate to become a public hazard or eyesore. (2) Alteration. Any change in the size, shape, method of illumination, position, location, construction or the supporting structure of a sign. (3) Area of a Sign. The total space within the frame or outer dimensions of a sign and including any logos or other artistic or architectural features that are directly related to 1 Off Premises Signs or an integral part of the sign, in the opinion of the Director. (See BMC 21.02.330(g) for measurement information.) (4) Awning/Canopy. A temporary or movable shelter (awning), or a fixed rigid shelter (canopy) supported entirely by the exterior wall of the building and generally extending over a pedestrian walkway. When used in conjunction with signs, only that portion of the awning or canopy that is actually used as a sign shall be included in sign area calculations. Lighting of the awning or canopy, whether directly, indirectly, or by back-lighting shall have no effect on the sign requirements, unless lighted signs are specifically prohibited in that area or zone. (5) Billboard. A sign structure subject to the provisions of this chapter erected for the purpose of leasing advertising space to promote an interest other than that of an individual, business, product or service available on the premise where the billboard is located. (65) Bulletin Board/Kiosk. A permanent sign structure intended to accommodate changeable copy, such as private or public notices, special event information, and other short-term messages, and generally at a scale suitable for pedestrians and not intended to be read by passing motorists. These signs are exempt from sign permits and size requirements if they are provided for the use of the general public and not for commercial advertising purposes. (76) Changeable Copy/Message Center/Readerboard Sign. A permanent sign structure that may be internally or externally illuminated and intended to accommodate changeable lettering, numbering, graphic displays, or other short-term messages. Generally used for commercial advertising or for public service announcements of current or coming events. (Also see: Public Information/Identification Sign.) (8~) Construction Sign. A sign that relates directly to a construction project taking place on the premises and may include such information as the name of the project and contractors, phone numbers, completion dates, and similar information about the proj eot. (~g) Directional Sign. A permanent sign which is designed solely for the purpose of directing motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, or other traffic, or individuals, toward a specific destination or route. (109) Free-standing Sign. A sign that is supported by columns, uprights, or braces in or upon the ground and not attached to any building. (11~4~) Frontage. The actual length of the front property line abutting a street or alley (if no street frontage), or the length of the property line of a flag lot that most closely parallels the street it most directly relates to. (1244) Grade. The level of the surface of the ground that lies immediately below a sign or proposed sign location. When a slope is involved, the grade shall be the average of the levels at each supporting member of the sign's structure. (13~20 Identification Sign. A sign intended solely to inform the public of the use of a property, building, office, or premise, and which may typically include the address, suite number, or other identifying information, but that does not include advertising or messages that are not necessary for the identification of the premises. (1413) Illegal Sign. Any sign or advertising device which was erected or altered in violation of the sign codes in effect at the time of such action and which remain in violation of existing codes. 1(~-14) Incidental Signs. Signs that are intended for the convenience of the public, which are informational only, and which do not include the advertising of products or 2 ~ q Off Premises Signs services. Such signs include business hours signs, credit card signs, entrance and exit signs, and similar signs, some of which may be required by law for safety purposes. (16&5) Maintain. To allow to exist or continue to exist. Also, where the context indicates, to keep in a safe, neat and clean condition. (174-6) Marquee. A permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by a building and projecting away from the building, usually over a public walkway and typically common to theaters. A marquee itself is not a sign, but is commonly used to support signs. (184~) Moving, Flashing, or Animated Sign. Any sign that includes action or motion, including flashing lights, color changes, revolving or waving actions other than wind actuated elements such as flags, pennants, banners, and similar devices. These types of signs do not include time/temperature signs, nor electronic or electric reader-board or message center signs with messages that change no more frequently than two second intervals. (194,g) Multiple-building Complex. A group of structures housing a combination of business, office, residential, or other uses, and which shares a common area, access, parking and/or other facilities. (204-9) Multiple-occupancy Building. A single building housing more than one retail business, office, commemial venture or other allowed land use. (21~0) Nonconforming Sign. A sign that was legally established, but no longer conforms to the current sign standards of this Section. (22) Off-Premises Sign. Any sign or type of sign that contains a message or directs attention to a business, profession, product, event, activity, or service that is not related to a use or activity conducted or offered on the premises or at the location where the sign is located, excluding official road direction signs but including the sign face(s) that contain(s) the message or direction noted above, as well as the pole or other structure upon which the sign face is attached. Off-premises signs include off-premises banners and signs carried by hnrnatx beings or live animals when carried on the public right-of-way or any off-premises location. (23-24-) Portable Sign. Any sign designed to be moved easily and not permanently affixed to the ground or to a structure or building. A-frame or sandwich board signs and movable readerboard signs are examples. (24) Premises. Contiguous land in the same ownership or control not divided by a street or public right~of-way. (253-3) Projecting Sign. A sign, other than a wall sign, which is attached to and projects from a structure or building facade and the face(s) of which is not parallel to the building's facade. This sign may be supported by a structure in addition to its building or wall support. (16g-3) Public Information/Identification Sign. A sign intended solely to inform the public of events or activities of community interest, to identify the entrance to or exit from the City or a district or neighborhood within the City, and which does not include the advertising of any business, product or service of a commercial nature, nor any logo, symbol, or other indication of a commercial message or sponsorship. (27) Sandwich board sign. (also known as A-board sign): A portable sip:n constructed of two equal or roughly equal portions, hinged at the top such that when placed on the ground the sign is self-supporting. Sandwich board signs typically form the shape of a letter "A" when opened and resting on the ground. 2(~g4) Sign. Any communication device, structure, or fixture which is intended to identify a building, place, use, business or event, to make a statement, or to promote the sale 3 Off Premises Signs 100 of products, goods, or services using graphics, letters, figures, symbols, trademarks, or written copy is a sign. Painted wall designs or patterns of an artistic or architectural nature which do not represent a product, service or registered trademark, do not identify the user, and do not otherwise meet the above definition, are not considered signs. Ifa design or pattem is combined with a sign, only that part of the design or pattern which cannot be distinguished from the sign will be considered part of the sign. (29g-5) Sign Structure. Any structure specifically intended to support a sign, and which may include supports, uprights, braces, framework, or other members needed for support. (30-24) Temporary/Special Purpose Sign. A Sign that is not permanently affixed and which is intended for short-term use, such as to advertise a specific activity such as a special promotion, sale, or fund-raising event. Signs advertising property for sale or rent, political or election-related signs, and garage/yard sale signs are other examples, as are banners, flags, pennants, searchlights, and balloons and similar devices. (See Figure 330.) (31) Vehicle or trailer mounted sign. A sign placed or maintained on a stationary automobile, truck, trailer, or any other motor-driven vehicle which would otherwise be prohibited. Vehicle or trailer mounted signs do not include signs painted or placed on commercial vehicles announcing or advertising the regular business activity of the vehicle owner. Vehicle or trailer mounted signs do not include signs on vehicles for sale at a licenses sales lot. Vehicle or trailer mounted signs do not include signs on public transit vehicles including busses and licensed taxi-cabs. (32~7-) Wall Sign. A sign attached directly to or erected against the wall of a building with the face parallel to the facade of the building and extending no more than twelve inches from the wall. SECTION2. Section 21.02.330(0 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Prohibited Signs" is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Prohibited Signs: The following signs are prohibited within the City limits of Bremerton and shall be subject to removal through amortization or other means: (1) Strobe lights and signs containing strobe lights or any other flashing, moving or animated features that are visible beyond any property line. Readerboard or message center signs that change copy no more frequently than two second intervals, and time/temperature signs are exempt from this provision. (2) Signs placed or painted on any motor vehicle or trailer that is not operable and routinely used to transport or provide the goods or services being advertised, or that is parked with the primary purpose of providing a sign that would not otherwise be allowed. (3) Any private sign placed within a public right-of-way, on a public sidewalk, or overhanging a public right-or-way; except that signs overhanging a public sidewalk may be permitted if there is a minimum of eight feet of vertical clearance between the sidewalk and bottom of the sign. (Publicly-owned or installed signs not included.) (4) Any sign that is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to public safety due to its design, materials, physical condition, or placement. (5) Signs painted, attached to, or otherwise supported by rock formations, utility poles, trees, or other plant materials. (6) Bench signs, when installed within the public right-of-way. When on private property, the size of a bench sign will be counted toward the total allowable sign area. 4 Off Premises Signs (7) Portable signs within anythe public right-of-way except sandwich board signs per Section 21.02.330( ), and when obstructing a pedestrian walkway, bikeway, or driveway on private property. (8) Off-premises signs. (9) Vehicle or trailer mounted signs. (10) Billboards. SECTION3. Section 21.02.330(h) of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Sign Placement Requirements" is hereby amended to read as follows: (h) Sign Placement Requirements: (1) All signs, including supporting structures, shall be erected or placed totally within the boundaries of the site and not within any public right-of-way, with the following exceptions: i. Public authority and other traffic-related signs. ii. Approved signs overhanging public walkways. iii. Approved sandwich board signs per section 21.02.330(s) BMC. (2) Vision clearance areas shall be maintained at all intersections of private and public roadways, alleys, and driveways, to prohibit any sign within fifteen feet (15') of such intersections (see illustration). (3) A vision clearance setback shall be maintained a distance of at least ten feet (10') from the edge of any existing roadway or from the proposed edge of a planned road or road proposed to be widened. Any sign located within this strip shall be either (a) lower than thirty-six inches (36") above grade, or (2) higher than eight feet (8') above grade. Any posts or other supporting structures shall have a diameter no greater than twelve inches (12") within this area. (4) A pedestrian clearance vertical distance of eight feet (8') from grade or sidewalk to the lowest part of the sign is required for any sign extending over public sidewalks or other walkways. (5) A projecting sign may extend beyond the property line and over a public pedestrian walkway for a maximum distance of six feet beyond the property line, but in no case shall a sign extend beyond the sidewalk and over a street or other area used by motor vehicles. (6) Free-standing signs shall not extend beyond property lines. SECTION4. Section 21.02.330(p) of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Nonconforming Signs" is hereby re-codified as Section 21.02.330(q) and amended to read as follows: 5 Off Premises Signs (q) Nonconforming Signs (1) Applicability. This section applies to the maintenance, repair amoritization, as appropriate, and removal of nonconforming signs. (2) Definitions. i. "Effective Date of this Section" means the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Section, ,2003. ii. "Nonconforming sign" means any sign as defined in Section 21.02.330(b). iii. "Section" means Section 21.02.330(q) unless otherwise defined. (3) Eligibility. Any nonconforming sign located within the city limits on the Effective Date of this Section, or located in areas annexed to the city thereafter which does not conform with the provisions of this section, is eligible for characterization as a legal nonconforming sign provided it meets the following requirements: i. The sign was covered by a sign permit on the Effective Date of this Section, if one was required under applicable law; or ii. If no sign permit was required under applicable law for the si.tm, the sign was in all respects in compliance with applicable law on the Effective Date of this Section. (4) Allowed. All legal nonconforming signs are allowed subiect to all permit requirements, the provisions covering loss of legal nonconforming status and other limitations set forth in this Section. (5) Exclusions. No temporary signs, portable signs, special signs, or incidental signs shall be eligible for characterization as legal nonconforming signs. (6) Legal nonconforming sign permit. i. Required. A legal nonconforming sign permit is required for each legal nonconforming sign. The permit shall be obtained by the sign user or the sign owner, or the owner of the property upon which the sign is located, within sixty (60) days of notification by the city that the sign is legal nonconforming. The permit shall be issued for no fee and shall expire at the end of the applicable amortization period prescribed in subsection 22.01.330(q)(7). 6 Off Premises Signs ii. Necessary information. Applications for a legal nonconforming sign permit shall contain the name and address of the sign user, the sign owner and the owner of the property upon which the sign is located, and such other pertinent information as the Director of Community Development may require to ensure compliance with the Code, including proof of the date of installation of the sign. iii. Failure to comply. A legal nonconforming sign for which no permit has been issued within the sixty (60) day period shall within six (6) months be brought into compliance with the Code or be removed. Failure to comply shall subject the sign user, owner and/or owner of the property on which the sign is located to the remedies and penalties of Section 21.02.940 BMC. (7) Amortization. i. Purpose. In order to ease the economic impact of this Code on businesses or persons with substantial investment in signs in existence on the Effective Date of this Section provides for up to five (5) or ten (10) years, as applicable, of continued use of a nonconforming sign in its existing state. During this period, it is expected that the sign may be amortized in its value over this time period and/or may be amortized for federal income tax purposes; provided, however, that whether a sign is amortized for tax purposes shall not affect the application of this section. ii. All legal nonconforming signs shall be discontinued and removed or made conforming within ten (10) years from the Effective Date of this Section for billboard signs and within five (5) years from the Effective Date of this Section for off-premises signs ( the "amortization period"). Additionally, all signs which are made nonconforming by a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Code, Chapter 21.02 BMC, or by subsequent action or activity such as government acquisition of property for right-of-way pursuant to Section 21.02.330(10), shall be discontinued and removed or made conforming within the applicable amotization period after the date of such amendment, action or activity. Upon the expiration of the amortization period, the sign shall be brought into conformance with this Section, with a permit obtained, or be removed A sign prohibited pursuant to Section 21.02.330(f} BMC may not be brought into conformance and must therefore be immediately removed upon the expiration of the amortization period. Amortization is the sole method of compensation for removal of signs pursuant to the this Section. (8) Permitting, Removel and Amortization Exemption. The permitting, removal and amortization provisions of Subsection 21.02.330(q)(6) and Subsection 21.02.330(q)(7) do not apply to any sign which would require the city to pay compensation for its removal under any federal, state or other law, including Chapter 47.42 RCW, The Highway Advertising Control Act--Scenic Vistas Act. (9) Loss of legal nonconforming sign status. All nonconforming signs shall be immediately removed or modified to conform to all the provisions of this chapter, and a new permit secured therefor, and such nonconforming sign shall immediately lose its legal nonconforming designation when one or more of the following events occurs: a. Structural changes. The applicant is making structural alterations or increasing the gross floor area of any structure that houses or supports the use with which the legal nonconforming sign is associated. b. Other alterations. The applicant is making any change, alteration or performing work other than normal maintenance or other than tenant improvements, in any twelve (12) month period to any structure that houses or supports the use with which the 7 Off Pretnises'Signs nonconforming sign is associated and the fair market value of those changes, alterations or other work exceeds twenty-five (25) percent of the assessed value of that structure based on the building permit valuation tables. c. Abandonment or business cessation. The subject property containing the sign is abandoned for ninety (90) or more consecutive days or the activity conducted on the subject property ceases for one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days. d. Sign alterations. The applicant is making changes, alterations or performing any work to the legal nonconforming sign other than regular and normal maintenance. Prohibited sign alterations include enlarging the sign face, relocating the sign or replacing the sign; provided, however, that replacing any individual tenant's identification sign in either a center identification sign which separately identifies the tenants or in a tenant directory sign shall not result in the loss of such sign's legal nonconforming si~ designation. e. Change in use. There has been a change in use on the subiect property as that term is defined in Chapter 21.02 BMC. f. Change in tenant. There has been a change in business or change in single occupancy tenant on the subject property. In connection with any multiuse or multMenant complex, the foregoing events which require that a nonconforming sign be either removed or brought into conformance with this Code, shall apply only to the individual owner's or tenant's building-mounted or freestanding signs who has triggered the elimination of the legal nonconformance and not to the other si~n~ located on the subject property, including any copy change in a center identification or tenant directory sign in order to include such tenant's name. (10) Government acquisition of property for right-of-way. i. A sign that becomes nonconforming with respect to its setback from the edge of a public right-of-way as a result of a local, state, or federal government acquisition of property for right-of-way expansion shall be characterized as a legal nonconforming sign and shall be allowed subiect to the requirements of this Section. ii. The city may, through a Type II permit, allow the placement of a new sign or relocation of an existing sign within a required setback if it meets all of the following criteria: a. The enforcement of this Code would result in substantial hardship to the applicant because no feasible location exists to place a sign on the subiect property other than in a required setback, and such hardship was created solely by local, state, or federal government acquisition of property for right-of-way expansion and not by any action of the applicant; b. The sign is not prohibited by Section 21.02.330(I) BMC and, except for location within a required setback, complies with all other requirements of Section 221.02.330 BMC; c. The sign complies with the city's minimum sight distance at intersection requirements pursuant to Section 21.02.33(h) BMC; and d. Location of the sign with a required setback is otherwise consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. SECTION 5. A new section 21.02.330(p) entitled "Sandwich Board Signs" is hereby added to the Bremerton Municipal Code to read as follows: 8 I 0 ~ Off Premises Signs (p) Sandwich Board Signs: Sandwich board signs are intended to be viewed primarily by pedestrians. They are appropriate in areas featuring buildings at or near the public sidewalk and otherwise displaying a pedestrian oriented design ethic and are considered an amenity that compliments the ambiance and attractiveness of such areas. They are not appropriate in areas where commercial activities are separated from the public right-of-way by parking lots, along high speed arterials, and in areas generally oriented toward non-pedestrian travel. Sandwich board signs may be placed on sidewalks or portions of the public right-of-way used as pedestrian walkways subject to the following conditions and requirements. (1) Sandwich board signs may be placed on a public sidewalk or other portion of the public right-of-way commonly used for pedestrian passage. (2) A minimum four (4) feet of unobstructed sidewalk or pedestrian path must be maintained. Sidewalks less than four feet in width will not accommodate a sandwich board sign. (3) Sandwich board signs may not be placed in the driving lanes of a public street or in parking stalls on the public right-of-way. (4) One sandwich board only is allowed for any licensed business, provided that the sign is placed within 12 inches of the face of the structure. The sign must be displayed immediately adjacent to the main entrance the business employing the sign. (5) Sandwich board signs must be placed immediately adjacent to the front of the building along the rearmost edge of the sidewalk or pedestrian pathway. (6) Sandwich board signs shall not exceed 32 inches in width or 36 inches in height as displayed. (7) Sandwich board signs must be professionally lettered, neatly painted or assembled, and remain in good repair. (8) Sandwich board signs shall be constructed so as to avoid being blown or washed from their intended location and so as to avoid tipping or falling. (9) Sandwich board signs shall not be internally lit, not have moving parts, nor shall any attachment or portion of the sign extend beyond the 32 by 36 inch maximum dimensions established in subsection 6 above. (10) Any site landscaping required by the City of Bremerton shall not be altered to accommodate the sandwich board sign. (11) Sandwich board signs shall be displayed during daylight hours only and shall be removed by the business owner immediately after dusk each day. (12) Placement of Sandwich board signs on the public right-of-way in violation of this section will result in immediate removal of the sign from the public right-of-way by City personnel. (13) Not block intersections or otherwise constitute a public safety hazard. SECTION6. Section 21.02.330(q) of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Removal of Signs" is hereby re-codified as Section 21.02.330(0 and amended to read as follows: (q) .(D_Removal of Signs: (1) The sign user, owner and/or owner of the property on which an abandoned, dangerous, defective, illegal, or prohibited sign is located shall remove or cause to be 9 lO ¢ Off Premises Signs removed any such sign as required in this Section. Failure to comply shall subject the sign user, owner and/or owner of the property on which the sign is located to the remedies and penalties of Section 21.02.940 BMC. SECTION 6. Termination of moratorium. The moratorium established for off- premises signs as adopted pursuant to City Council resolutions 2868, 2871 and 2883 is terminated on the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 7. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2003 PASSED by the City Council the day of ., 2003 CAROL ARENDS, Council President 10 107 Off Premises Signs Approved this day of ,2003 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of ,2003 EFFECTIVE the day of ,2003 ORDINANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\Off Premises Signsl.doc 11 ! 0 ~ Off Premises Signs City of Bremerton Department of Community Development 2003 Zoning Code Amendment Staff Report Applicant or proponent (file number): City of Bremerton (PL03-0024) Date of Proposal: June 25, 2003 (hearing before the City Council) Proposal: Amend Chapter 21.02.330 Bremerton Municipal Code (Signs) by adding new definitions to section 21.02.330(b), amending section 21.02.330(f)(Prohibited Signs); adding new section 21 .-2.330(s) creating standards for the use of sandwich board signs, and adding a new section 21.02.330(r) creating new amortization processes for off-premises signs and billboards. Contact: City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development: (360) 478-5275 Background: Procedural History Original moratorium Resolution 2867, establishing a moratorium on acceptance of applications for, or approval of permits for off-premises signs was passed by the City Council on July 24th, 2002. Subsequently, a public hearing was conducted and findings of fact supporting the action were adopted by Resolution 2871, passed by the City Council on August 14th, 2002. Resolution 2871 establishes that the moratorium expires on January 23rd, 2003. Basis for the moratorium Resolution 2871 adopts findings of fact that establish the basis for thc moratorium. In summary, those findings establish that the City Council felt that time was needed to review City policy and regulations regarding off-premises signs. The findings state that the Council felt that such signs may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and that potential impacts needed to be studied in greater depth. In addition the council affirmed its awareness that it must not infringe upon free speech rights, but that such moratoria were allowed under RCW 35.63.200. Moratorium Extended On December 17, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended that additional time be given for the formation of a citizen's workgroup charged with responsibility to recommend potential additions and amendments to city codes related to off-premises sign regulation. On January 22, 2003, the Council concurred and adopted Resolution 2883 extending the moratorium until July 23, 2003. Staff was instructed to form a citizen committee and return before that time with recommended changes to city codes. Citizen process A citizens group was formed consisting, as instructed, of two members of the Planning Commission, two members of the Comprehensive Plan Coordinating Council, two representatives of the sign industry, and io9 two at-large citizens. The group met on four occasions during March and April 2003, developing the recommended amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code discussed in this staff report. Planning Commission recommendation: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 20, 2003. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission approved a motion recommending approval of the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission minutes are attached. Review of Recommended Amendments to Zoning Code Recommended changes to Bremerton Municipal Code addressing off-premises signs are put forth in the draft ordinance (attached as Exhibit 1). In broad brush, the draft ordinance would; 1) prohibit off- premises signs, billboards, and "vehicle or trailer mounted signs", 2) create new standards for the placement of"sandwich board signs", and 3) create a new amortization process for existing off-premises signs and billboards. This staff report will discuss each section of the proposed ordinance in detail. Section 1. New definitions Section 1 suggests that six new definitions be added to the definitions section of the zoning code (section 21.02.330(b) BMC). The new definitions are: numbers ;(5) Billboards, (22) Off-premises signs, (24) Premises, (27) sandwich board signs, and (31) Vehicle or trailer mounted signs. Of particular note is the difference between a "Billboard: and an "Off-premises signs". A billboard is a sign that occurs at a location other than the business location being advertised and offers advertising space for lease. An off- premises sign is similar, excludes billboards, and does not offer space on the basis ora lease, but is for use by a specific party. Off-premises signs also include signs held by a person or live animal when being carried on the public right-of-way. While the proposed ordinance adds both sign types to the "prohibited signs" list, the different definitions were necessary because of different treatments under the "amortization" section to be discussed below. Section 2. Clarification of the "Prohibited Signs" Section This recommended amendment provides that the prohibited signs list is clarified in two ways. First, subsection (f)(7) is amended such that sandwich board signs are not to be included in the prohibition against "portable signs". Secondly, Off-premises signs, vehicle or trailer mounted signs, and billboards are added to the prohibited signs list as new subsections (f)(8), (9), and (10). Section 3 Amends "Sign Placement Requirements" section Section 3 amends section 21.02.330(h) by adding a new subsection (1)(iii) which clarifies that sandwich board signs are not amongst those that cannot be placed on a right-of-way. Section 4 Amendments to the nonconforming signs section, including addition of amortization process for legal non-conforming signs - including existing off-premises signs and billboards This section adds an essentially new "Non-conforming Signs" section' (section 21.02.330(q)BMC) to the sign code. The section is intended to clarify and add better detail to the more general previous language - especially as related to amortization. Most specifically, this new section sets specific time deadlines for removal of non-conforming signs. Of note is the following 1. Adds a new section (1)(i) defining the "effechve date of this ordinance". This wilt be employed later to set timelines for amortization. 2. sets-up requirement that a (free-of-charge) permit be obtained for legal non- conforming signs within 60 days of notification from City that such sign is non- conforming (see section (6) 3. If the free permit is not obtained, the non-conforming sign must be removed within 60 days (section (6)(iii)). Ilo 4. If the permit is obtained, sign must be removed within 5 years, or 10 years for a billboard. (section (q)(7)(ii)) 5. Section (q)(8) - Legal nonconforming billboards subject to the Federal Highway Advertising Control Act - Scenic Vistas Act are exempt from amortization requirements. This is because the City would be liable for compensation under Federal law. 6. All non-conforming signs, including billboards, loose legal nonconforming status upon any of five different events (see section (q)(9) (a-f) and must be removed immediately. Those events are; a. Major structural changes to the related place of business (on the sign location) b. Changes in structure of the business being advertised (off the signs' site) that exceeds 25% of its value. c. Abandonment or cessation of the business at the location of the sign d. Major changes to the sign itself e. Change of use (as classified by the zone code) at the property where the sign exists f. Change in tenant at the location of the sign. 7. Section (q)(10) establishes that if a sign becomes non-conforming due to govemment acquisition of right-of-way (setback), it may be allowed to retain its legal non- conforming status under certain conditions (listed). This section is not specifically related to off-premises signs. Section 5 New standards for sandwich board signs This section adds a new section 21.02.330(p) creating new standards for thc siting of sandwich board signs. It begins by establishing that the intent of thc standards is to allow usc of sandwich board signs when intended primarily for viewing by pedestrians. Thc opening statement is careful to state outright that sandwich boards arc not appropriate in areas where large parking lots separate the public sidewalk from thc commercial structure. Thc section then recommends eleven standards for the placement of sandwich board signs. Of particular note are thc following: #2 An adequate area of unobstructed sidewalk must be maintained for pedcs~an traffic. The 48 inches requires also exceeds the minimum requirement for handicapped accessibility under ADA and State accessibility standards - 42 inches. ~ A limit of one sandwich board per business is established. Thc citizens group felt that this would adequately limit thc number of signs on thc sidewalk - and was equitable. #5 The requirement that sandwich board signs be in front of thc business was added to prevent sandwich board signs from being placed "at thc end of thc block", "across thc street" or in a number of other now typical locations that arc more "off-premises" than a business-fronting sidewalk location. #6-#9 Standards 6 through 9 arc related to visual quality, protection of property values and rights, and public safety. #11 Standard number 11 is a tough violations provision. The committee felt that the privilege of displaying signs on the public right-of-way should be accompanied with a provision making it easy for public staff to quickly correct any abuse of the community's roles and regulations. This was also related to sensitivity about violations of handicapped accessibility/passage requirements. Section 6. Amendments to the "Removal of Signs" section. Section 6 adds a new subsection (r)(1) to section 21.02.330(0 making removal of illegal signs a matter subject to the regular hearing examiner violation process recently adopted (section 21.02.940 BMC.) Earlier draft amendment language is struck Decision Criteria: Text amendments to the zoning code are legislative matters. As such, there are no formal criteria for review save compatibility with the comprehensive plan. The 1995 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan is remarkably silent on issues of community quality, design, or aesthetics. However, this proposal does not appear to be inconsistent with the 1995 Comprehensive Plan in any regard. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the 1995 Comprehensive as currently constituted. Environmental Determination: A Determination of Non Significance was published on June 21, 2003 and was final on publication. Date and Method of Public Notice: Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bremerton Sun on June 21, 2003. Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Rogerson, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Planning Commission minutes of May 20, 2003 DATE SUBMITTED: June 20, 2003 BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: HEARiNG AND Committee Meeting Date: N/A ORDINANCE # VACATiNG COUNCIL MEETING Date: JULY 9, 2003 THE SOUTHERLY SIX FEET OF EAST Department: PW&U, Engineering 31sT STREET BETWEEN OLYMPUS Presenter: Michael C. Mecharn, :l~lv~~-'~' ~' DRIVE AND SAUNDERS AVENUE. Phone: 473.5288 ' SUMMARY: The City initiated the vacation of the southerly six feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. This date has been scheduled for a public heating in accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code for first reading on the proposed ordinance vacating the subject property. The vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting City owned property to provide adequate area for fire station expansion. This is a Class I right-of-way and compensation is not required in accordance with BMC 11.20.080. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance# __. B. Site Map FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No Impact. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: . CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: /~lea.,,,i b,/3/a3 CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: /']~sr'd l~/3/o3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: A, I move to approve the attached ordinance on first reading, vacating the southerly six feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. B. I move to pass Ordinance # __ on second reading, vacating the southerly six feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action ab/Agenda Bills 2003/East 31~ Vacation Ordinance { I ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, relating to the vacation of streets, vacating the southerly six feet of East 31 st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue in the City of Bremerton. WHEREAS, the City has initiated the vacation of the southerly six feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Sannders Avenue in the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution No. 2893 declaring its intention to vacate the southerly six feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue, which resolution also set a hearing to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation; and WHEREAS, fewer than fifty percent of the property owners abutting said right- of-way filed written objections to this action prior to the time set for public hearing herein; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held with proper notice on July 9, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this vacation is sought to provide adequate area for fire station expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the public to proceed with the vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the preparation of an ordinance vacating the portion of said streets; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION2. The southerly six feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue in the City of Bremerton, as described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby vacated to the abutting property owners including any and all easements contained therein. 1 Street Vacation - 31st Street SECTION 3. Reservation qf Easements. a. An easement is reserved for the City of Bremerton, Public Works and Utilities Department for operation, maintenance and repair of sewer lines over, under and upon the entire area vacated pursuant to this ordinance. b. An easement is reserved for Puget Sound Energy for operation, maintenance and repair of power lines and appurtenances over, under and upon the existing facilities within the area vacated pursuant to this ordinance. SECTION 4. No vested rights shall be affected by the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Severabilit~. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2003. PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2003. CAROL ARENDS, Council President Approved this day of ,2003. CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of ,2003. EFFECTIVE the day of ,2003. ORDINANCE NO. ab:Wacations\East 31 ~ S~'eet Ordinance 2 Street Vacation - 31st Street