The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/11/03 AGENDA FILE 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 · Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 11, 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 - 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) 4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-minutes 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Interlocal Agreement between the C~TY OF BREMERTON and KITSAP TRANSIT regarding the "Bremerton Conference Center" project (#AB03-109) 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Ordinance [First Reading] regarding Zoning Text Amendment to Bremerton Municipal Code 21.02 Figure 152(b) Footnote relating to Building Height within the Downtown Zone (#AB03-110) B. Resolution No. 2893 setting a Hearing Date of July 9, 2003 for Vacating the Southerly 6 feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive & Saunders Avenue (#AB03-111 ) 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. To discuss "LITIGATION" per R.C.W. Chapter 42.30.110 (1) (i) 11. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING E-maik citycouncil@ci,bremerton.wa.us · Web: www. ci.bremerton.wo.us DATE SUBMITTED: May 22, 2003 BILL # _ 0 ''~ AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Date: N/A Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING Date: May 2~, 2003 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 478-5280 SUMMARY: Attached are the Meeting Minutes for the regular City Council meeting of May 14, 2003. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for May 14, 2003 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0 APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ,~ff~.~_. ~' RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented AGENDA STATUS: Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] Public Hearing [] Information [] [ Study Session [] TAPES #1892 & #1893 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 14, 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, May 14, 2003, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Eric Younger, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Mike Shepherd was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Acting Deputy City Clerk Cherie Henry; and Council Assistant Christine Grenier Ellingson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnel[, followed by the invocation provided by Council Member Daren Nyaren. President Arend$ made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room to discuss updates to the meeting agenda. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - April 23, 2003 (#AB03-076) B. Minutes of Meeting - April 30, 2003 (#AB03-077) C. Contract Modification Agreement No. 1 with Air Systems Engineering, Inc. for Mechanical Upgrade of Lobby/Overlook Area at Jarstad Aquatic Center (#AB03-078) D. Change Order No. 1 with Star Seismic LLC for "Casad Dam Intake Tower Seismic Brace Fabrication and Supply" Project (#AB03-079) E. Contract for Purchase of Water Booster Pumps and Electric Motors for "West 650 Pressure Zone Improvements" Project (AB03-080) #0025 M/S/C (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: Olsen, McConnell, Rollman, Younger, Maupin, Short, and Arends Abstained: Nygren Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention C -EAIMS & 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. #0050 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell) On May 14, 2003, the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 280499 through 281050; EFT's 7645 through 7655C; and P7646 and P7662 in the total amount of $2,493,704.07; and Regular Payroll for the pay period ending April 30, 2003 in the amount of $1,140,976.16. COUNCIL MEMBERS Mike Short invited citizens to attend the next District 8 & 9 Neighborhood meeting to be held Thursday, May 22 from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. in the Oyster Bay Conference Room to hear presentations on "Water Quality" and an "Update on Downtown Redevelopment Projects". TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 2 of 10 Will Maupin reiterated the invitation for citizens to attend the District 8 & 9 meeting; and also reported on the USS CAMDEN Homecoming and YMCA "Partners with Youth" rally he attended last week. Ed Rollman on behalf of Council member Mike Shepherd, announced that members of the Residential Parking Committee would present a "Proposal for Residential Parking" at the next District 5 Neighborhood meeting this Thursday, May 15 beginning at 6:30 P.M. at the Memorial Lutheran Church located at 10th & Veneta; welcomed back the USS CAMDEN; thanked the legion of volunteers who will be involved in the Armed Forces Day Festival on Saturday; and asked people to remember Dwayne Hodges, Armed Forces Volunteer and local war hero. Daren Nvc~ren announced that representatives from the BREMERTON ICE ARENA, as well as CHAFFEY HOMES would be available at the next District 3 Manette Neighborhood meeting to provide an "Update on the Development of Eastparl(' on Tuesday, May 27 from 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. at the Manette Senior Center. Cecil McConnell commended the Fire Department for their efforts in helping a woman in his neighborhood whose house was on fire last week. Wayne Olsen invited citizens to attend the Lions Club Pancake Breakfast which starts at 7:00 A.M. on Saturday. He also referred to recent Letters to the Editor printed in The Bremerton SUN regarding the opinions expressed about the "lack of activities" surrounding the returning Naval ships, and suggested to those individuals who feel that more needs to be done to welcome back troops to join the Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce to give their views. Carol Arends announced the 55th Annual Armed Forces Day Parade would be held this Saturday; and the next District 6 & 7 Meeting would be held on Thursday, May 29th starling at 6:30 P.M. at the Public Works Facilities Building located at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue. The discussion will include the "Residential Parking Proposal'. MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Bozeman ... · Proclaimed May 18 - 24, 2003 as "Public Works Week", which was accepted by Michael Mecham, City Engineer; · Proclaimed May 15 - 26, 2003 as "Poppies Day", which was accepted by a representative of the American Legion Auxiliary; · Introduced Matt Keough from the Planning Department who updated the Council on volunteer efforts of the coordinating council who spent the last year coming up with goals and ideas over the last year for the City's future and planning needs. Mayor Bozeman specifically thanked the following volunteers: Craig Lachlan, Linda Stretka, Rebecca Bordero, Scoff BuckinRham, and Victor Targett; · Announced that a suspect has been apprehended for the recent murder by Pendergast Fields, and commended the Police Department for their action in this matter; · Agreed with comments made by Wayne Olsen, and established that there was plenty of support for the return of the USS CAMDEN; · Was pleased that the Washington State Ferries would be offering free passage to any servicemen and children under the age of 18 from military families during the weekend to promote the City's Armed Forces Day Festival; · Congratulated Greg Meakin and the Haselwoods on the opening of the BREMERTON ICE ARENA this coming weekend; TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 3 of 10 · Shared an e-mail from a Seattle couple who are thrilled with all of the projects that are underway and now wish to move to Bremerton; · Announced that $18 Million in federal and state funding will be received this month for City projects ($6.2 Million will be allocated for ferry terminal; $11 Million for the Gateway Project; $500,000 for the Boardwalk; and $250,000 for the Jarstad Aquatics Center); · Hoped for resolution and closure with respect to a policy issue being discussed on the agenda later this evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Allen Shute expressed his concern over wheelchair access and reminded local businesses that they are required to be ADA compliant. He also believed that the public "has the right" to speak at City Council meetings. Mr. Lubovich explained that the public does not "have the right" to speak at Council Meetings except during Public Hearings as required by law. He established that the City Council does however voluntarily provide an opportunity to the public to speak on issues related to City business as a courtesy. Lennie Meder extended an invitation to the Council to attend the "Asian Pacific-American Heritage Month Reception" on Saturday, May 24 from 1:30 to 4:30 P.M. David Sister of the BREMERTON ICE ARENA offered gratitude to the City for the expedient progress of this project, and mentioned that speed skating may be developed as a future program. Don Larson offered several maple trees on behalf of Kitsap Trees, and stated that people may call 373-7593 for more information. He reiterated his request that the City consider starting an underwater park as part of the new marina. Pat Wright of JUST YOUR CUP O' TEA, and Chairman of the Armed Forces Festival Committee, announced the 55th Armed Forces Festival and the accompanying events to take place this weekend. He encouraged people to check out The Bremerton SUN or BREMERTON PATRIOT for the pullout section which provides further details and information about this upcoming weekend. John Thomas acknowledged receipt of a letter from the City in response to a previously asked question regarding the cost of new manhole covers in the City, but was still displeased with the expense to the taxpayers for this project, even though he was told the EPA paid for the improvements because people do pay federal taxes too. 8A - APPOINTMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HOLDEN TO BREMERTON HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (#AB03-081): Sherril Huff-Menees, Municipal Services Coordinator, announced that there is a vacancy on the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners effective in July 2003 due to the retirement of Butch Dunlop. The Mayor recommends that Christopher Holden fill that vacancy. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Short stated that he had had an opportunity to meet Mr. Holden at last night's committee meeting, and emphasized that he was well spoken and would make an excellent addition to the Housing Authority. Mr. Maul=in looked forward to working with Mr. Holden in the next few years; and thanked Mr. Dunlop for his many years of service. TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 4 of 10 #1425 MISICIU (Short/Younger) Move to approve Christopher Holden to fill the vacancy on the Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, with the term effective July 2003. 8B - RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM THE HOME PROGRAM TO LIHI TO REHABILITATE PROPERTY AT 704 CHESTER AVENUE (#AB03-082): Marylyn Waibel, HOME Program Coordinator, summarized that as a member of the Kitsap County HOME Consortium, the City of Bremerton receives an annual allocation of HOME funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to expand the supply of safe, sanitary and affordable housing for Iow income persons. The LOW INCOME HOUSING INSTITUTE {LIHI) is requesting a deferred loan of $740,000.00 in HOME funds to rehabilitate the property at 704 Chester (Chester Terrace Apartments). The total development budget will be $7,165,186.00. It was explained that affordable safe family housing is needed in Bremerton, the City's HOME policy allows for projects that promote rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings, and LIHI has the demonstrated ability to develop the project, therefore staff recommends approval of the funds. Sharon Lee, Executive Director of LIHI, gave a presentation on previous successes and plans for Chester Terrace, and thanked the Council for their consideration for funding the renovation of Chester Terrace. Plans would include renovation of the building while retaining its historical character, getting the building up to code, installation of a new elevator, adding new appliances, abating the site, adding on-site manager, setting affordable rent, and involving tenants in managing the building. Once funding is acquired, project construction could proceed in about 6 months. Mayor Bozeman expressed his desire to include Ms. Lee in future discussions of other possible renovation projects in the City. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Short asked how the management of the building would be accomplished. Ms. Lee answered that the intention was to form a resident council to deal with tenant issues, and to have an on-site residential manager. Mr. Short also asked how much funding has the organization received towards this project? Ms. Lee stated that the project is approximately 60% funded. Mr. McConnell asked for clarification on what amount is requested from the city for this project? Ms. Lee responded that the higher figure includes the prior allocation that went towards purchasing the building. The current figure is for the renovation project. Mr. Rollman wondered if there would be enough parking spaces available for tenants and their guests. Don Riddell of LIHI, pointed out that the maximum number of spaces is allowed and there will be on-street parking available as well. Mr. Olsen expressed concerns over whether or not LIHI would be able to obtain necessary grant funding, and whether the loan would be committed prior to LIHI receiving the grants. Ms. Waibel said that the motion can be amended to make receipt of the loan contingent upon getting the grants in place. Mr. Ny.qren provided his support for revitalization efforts and this particular project. Mr. Youn~ler requested that Ms. Waibel explain to the public how HOME Funds are allocated. Ms. Waibel stated that approximately $450,000 is made available to the City from HUD each year, and that money may be used strictly for housing activity like down payment assistance TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 5 of 10 program. Currently, the fund has a balance of $1,045,000 and the money must be committed within 2 years of receiving the money and spend the money within 5 years of committing that money to a project. Mr, Youn~ler was pleased with LIHI projects and hopes that renovation of the building will be good for the community and pose fewer demands on the Police Department. Ms, Arends was pleased with the proposed changes for Chester Terrace especially those changes dealing with supervision and management, parking issues, and traffic concerns. #2350 M/S/C (Short/Maupin) Move to allocate $740,000 from the HOME program to LIHI to rehabilitate the property at 704 Chester Avenue (Chester Terrace Apartments). Voted in favor of Motion: Rollman, Younger, Maupin, Short, McConnell, Nygren, and Arends Voted opposed to Motion: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-No Discussion by Council Members continued regarding whether or not a stipulation could be p/aced on the funding so that if L/H/ could not obtain grant funding then the City would be reimbursed for the loan. Since the funding would be committed for 5 years, the Council determined that if the funding were not used, the City would be able to utilize that funding for other projects at that point of time. It was determined that the loan would not be dispersed until the grant funding was acquired by L/H/. 8C - CONTRACT WITH FISCHER GENERAL CONTRACTING ~ INC. FOR RENOVATION OF STORAGE BUILDING FOR USE BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT rPUBLIC SAFETY BONr) ISSUE] {#AB03-083): Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, stated that the Public Safety Bond Issue included renovation of an existing pre-engineered metal building for use as office space and vehicle storage for the Police Department. It will include approximately 2,500 square feet of office space, and 2,500 square feet of vehicle storage space. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Olsen asked Police Chief Rob Forbes if he was satisfied with the amount of space provided in the building. Chief Forbes answered he was satisfied with the proposed site, and that they have been meeting weekly to review the contract. Mr. Rollman asked if staff was satisfied with the condition of the roof. Ms. McCluskey stated that the metal roof is 20-years old, and there are no plans to repair or replace the roof at this time. However, when replacement is needed, the roof would be covered with funds from the Facilities Fund, not Public Safety Bond funds. #3190 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve contract with FISCHER GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC. in the amount of $120,000 plus Washington State Sales Tax; and authorize the Mayor the execute the same. TAPE #1893 8D - SETTING SALARY RANGE FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES COORDINATOR (#AB03- 084): Carol Conley, Human Resources Director, explained that the City Council approved a new job description for the "Municipal Services Coordinator" position on April 9, 2003, and now desires to establish a salary band for the position based on this approved, revised job description. She briefly summarized what has occurred with this position up to this point, and then recommended that the position salary range be set at Band 15 of the Management Salary Pay Plan. TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 6 of 10 Del Knauss reminded Council that there is already a signed Employee Agreement for this position, which was agreed on by all parties involved, and already had a set salary. He urged the Council to reset the salary to that of previous arrangement which was Band 11, Rate 4, because he believed that hat setting the salary at Band 15 is too high. Mayor Bozeman stated that this a public policy issue. He also wished to express his suppod for Sherdl Huff-Menees who currently serves in that position. Ms. Arends indicated to the Mayor that this issue is not about any particular individual nor should include any discussion about any individual employee. The issue is setting the salary for the position whose description was recently approved. Mayor Bozeman pointed out that the job being discussed is completely different than the job done under previous administrations, and in fact, is now different from the position he intended it to be. However, he hoped for this issue to be resolved, so the administration may move forward. Mr. Short asked if the City received the additional information he had requested regarding a similar position advertised for the City of Bainbridge Island. Ms. Conley replied that she has a copy of the job description from Bainbridge Island available for his review, and added that in a conversation with the Bainbridge Island Human Resources Director, she admitted that the jobs were a close match, but that from her perspective, she believed their pay rate was Iow. Mr. Short commented that he and President Arends have spent a considerable amount of ti~ee on this issue because the Bremerton City Charter sets the authority for the City Council to establish the duties and responsibilities for these types of positions. He encouraged the Council to establish the pay band tonight so everyone can move forward. Mr. Maupin commented that Mayor Bozeman has made a lot of good changes, as evidenced by all the great projects going on in the City right now. He understands that to debate an individual's salary in public is a difficult situation for both the Administration and the Council. At this point, he believes it would be best to support the proposal presented by the Administration, which was developed with direction from the Human Resources Director. Mr. Short addressed a previous comment by Mr. Knauss, clarifying that the previous agreement is not being considered in its original form because the job description has changed. Mr. Nyaren appreciated the efforts of the Council President and Council Vice-President for their involvement in attempting to resolve this issue, and asked for support in approving band 15. Mr, McConnell reiterated that this situation stems from a violation of the City code. He further emphasized that setting the salary range at Band 15 is too high, and suggested Band 13. Mr, Rollman asked if the Council is within their legal rights to use the salary comparisons to determine a salary range for this position. Ms. Conley answered yes with respect to population, assessed valuation, organization of employees, and labor market. She elaborated that the AWC Salary Survey mentions some of these factors which were used to compare positions from different cities. Mr. Rollman asked if the Human Resources Director is the expert when it comes to recommending salaries for positions. Mr. Lubovich answered yes, and that Council should rely on her recommendations. Mr. Rollman asked if the Council is within their rights based on the Charter to decide a salary for a position. Mr, Lubovich stated that if the Council were to make a major change to the salary recommendation, then the Council would need to show good reason. Any recommendation has room for error, but since the Human Resources Director is the resident expert on this matter, the recommendation should receive consideration. 7 TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Younger agreed that the Council are not experts on this type of issue, and therefore must rely on the recommendations given to them, however, he stated his intention to ask numerous questions to understand the reasoning and process used to come to the conclusions presented. Ms. Conley continued that it is not uncommon that the same job may have a multitude of names. Mr. Youn~ler asked if it would be prudent to check job titles and descriptions to make sure the jobs are valid for the study. Me. Conley stated yes, and explained that there are varying degrees of matches with job titles and job descriptions. Sometimes jobs appear to be similar but are not in terms of duties. Mr. Younger asked if an analysis was done initially before this issue came about. Ms. Conley replied that after the change in the job description, certain duties were changed and therefore the recommended salary went from a Band 17 to a Band 15. Mr. Younger asked when the study was done back in August 2002, was the job description different than the present job description? Me. Conle¥ answered yes, and added that the recommendation was based on "Internal Equity" or where that job fits in the organization of the City. Mr. Younger asked for clarification on local labor market conditions. Ms. Conley described the job descriptions for jobs available for Bainbridge Island and Port Orchard, and had reviewed those job descriptions. The Council recessed at 7.'30 P.M. and returned at 7:40 P.M. Ms. Conley continued, and stated that those jobs were not total matches and indicated that there were some differences in who the staff person would report to. She repeated that differences in city organization and differing duties makes it difficult to match the job description to any given job description provided by other cities. However, one job description was a close match in Lynnwood. Other issues were discussed which included market conditions. It was determined that neighboring cities have smaller populations and varying valuation. She mentioned that if Council did not feel comfortable supporting the position at Band 15, they go no lower than Band 14. Mr. Short clarified that Band 17 was the salary set for the job description before it was revised. He recalled discussion with Council President and Human Resources Director Carol Conley, where both options of Band 15 and Band 14 were mentioned for the revised job description. Ms. Conley established for Mr. Younger that when an ordinance to amend the entire budget was passed last August by the Council, it included the setting of the position at Band 17. Mr. Younger concluded that after considering all the factors presented, recommended placing this position at Band 14. Mr. Olsen provided a summary of events that led to this discussion on salary for this position, and conceded that no matter what is decided, problems will still exist. He referred to the discussions held with the Human Resources Director, Council President, and Vice-President, and inquired how serious Band 14 was considered. Ms. Conley answered that Band 14 would work if that is what the Council wants, but she reiterated her recommendation for Band 15. Mr. McConnell agrees that the issue must be decided so Council can move on, but based on recommended Pay Bands for similar job descriptions, he maintains that the job salary be set at Band 12 or Band 13. Mr. Olsen asked if Council picks the Band and Rate for the position, or just the Band. Ms~ Conley said that while Council may set the Band, the current salary would determine what Rate the salary would be set at. TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 8 of 10 Ms. Arends explained that she has been heavily involved in this issue with Council Vice- President Short, and they consulted with legal counsel as early as January on this issue raising the possibility that the City was out of compliance with the BMC and Charter. She emphasized that the City is accountable, and this issue would need to be resolved prior to any future State audits. She understands the need for this position and hopes that setting the salary would resolve this issue. It was not the intent of the Council to make this issue personal or to lower anyone's salary. She wishes to move on to more important projects and other issues, and appreciates the leadership of the Mayor's office and would not want anything to jeopardize that. #0500 Main Motion - (Maupin/Nygren) Move to set the salary range for the position of "Municipal Services Coordinator" at Band 15. No vote was taken at this time as discussion continued... #0515 Amended Motion - (Younger/McConnell) Move to set the salary range for the position of "Municipal Services Coordinator" at Band 14. No vote was taken at this time as discussion continued... Mr. Meul~in expressed concern regarding the cost to the citizens if this issue was not resolved expediently, and believes the Human Resources Director is presenting a proposal that is fair. Mr. Olsen reminded the Council that they should rely on the recommendations of the staff. #06'15 Amended Motion - (Younger/McConnell) Move to set the salary range for the position of "Municipal Services Coordinator" at Band 14. Voted in favor of the Amended Motion: McConnell, Rollman, Younger Voted opposed to the Amended Motion: Maupin, Short, Olsen, Nygren, Arends Motion failed: 3-Yes; 5-No #4)660 Main Motion - (Maupin/Nygren) Move to set the salary range for the position of "Municipal Services Coordinator" at Band 15. Voted in favor of Main Motion: Short, Olsen, Nygren, Maupin, Arends Voted opposed to Main Motion: McConnell, Rollman, Younger Motion carried: 5-Yes; 3-No 9A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING A PORTION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN 5TM & 6TM STREETS~ AND PACIFIC & WASHINGTON AVENUE-~ (#AB03-O85): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, pointed out that the City initiated the vacat on of a portion of the alley between 5th & 6~ Streets, and Pacific & Washington Avenues. This date has been scheduled for a public hearing in accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code, and for first reading on the proposed ordinance vacating the subject alley. The vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting City owned property to provide a site compatible for usage for the Bremerton Government Center. Access to the waterfront will not be impeded with this vacation. This is a Class [! Right-of-Way, and compensation is not required in accordance with BMC 11.20.080. There were no comments from the public. #1980 MIS/C/U (Rollman/Younger) Move to approve the attached ordinance on first reading, vacating a portion of the alley located between 5t~ & 6t~ Streets, and Pacific & Washington Avenues. TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 9 of 10 9B - PUI~ILIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2892 APPROVING INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT WITH KITSAP COUNTY FOR WATER MAIN CONTSTRUCTION (#AB03-086): Michael Mm=ham, City Engineer, mentioned that the City and Kitsap County negotiated a written agreement for the City to construct a water main to serve the County's Central Communications Center Project as part of the City's West 650 Pressure Zone Transmission and Distribution Mains Project. The agreement specifies the roles and responsibilities of the City and County with respect to the construction process and specifies that the County will pay all design and construction costs for segments of water main, including change orders. There were no comments from the public. Mr. McConnell asked if a resolution and agreement can be approved in the same motion. Mr~ Lubovich responded yes. #2090 MISICIU (ShortJMcConnell) Move to approve Resolution No. 2892, and authorize the Mayor to execute the Interagency Agreement with Kitsap County. 9C - CLOSED RECORD HEARING REGARDING SWC PARTNERSHIP APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL BUSINESS (#AB03-087): President Arends read the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any Council Members should excuse themselves. All Council Members remained seated. President Arend$ then asked if any member of the public believes any Council Member should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There were no objections stated, so all Council Members remained seated. Mr. Lubovich emphasized that this was a "Closed Record" hearing, and the public will not have the opportunity at this hearing to provide any comments. The law states that with permit issues one hearing is allowed. Comments were taken at a previous hearing held by the Hearing Examiner. Further, the Council has three choices for action tonight: adopt and approve; modify and approve; or reject and deny the findings provided by the Hearing Examiner. Robert Grumbach, Planner, emphasized that the Hearing Examiner recommends a site- specific rezone from Iow-density residential (SF-3) to general business (GB) for the property located at 3915 Wheaton Way (200 feet west of the right-of-way). The recommendation includes five (5) conditions to be imposed for future site development. Mr. RoIIman asked if all of the conditions were met. Mr. Grumbach responded yes. Mr. Lubovich added that the proposed ordinance is part of the Council packet and addresses the issues discussed. Mr. McConnell referred to the sign-in sheet for the previous hearing, and noted that several individuals signed their names, however, not all of the individuals were accounted for in the testimony portion of the report. Mr. Grumbach explained that at least one individual that he is aware of attended the hearing but did not speak. There were no comments from the public. #2505 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Rollman) Move to approve and adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings and recommendation, and to direct staff to prepare and submit the appropriate ordinance to the City Council for action. TAPES #1892 & #1893 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 10 of 10 With no further business, the regular meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Prepared and Submitted by: CHRISTINE GRENIER ELLINGSON Council Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton CNP J/cge/Is DATE SUBMITTED: May 27, 2003 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Date: N/A Meeting Minutes - May 21, 2003 COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: June 11, 2003 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 478-5280 SUMMARY: Attached are the Meeting Minutes for the regular City Council meeting of May 21, 2003. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2003 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): 0 APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented AGENDA STATUS: Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] Public Hearing [] Information [] [o~ Study Session [] TAPE #1894 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2003 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4"~ Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council members Eric Younger and Will Maupin were 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 Reverend G.T. Johnson of the Brownsville United Methodist 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. CONSENT AGENDA A. Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for Mobile Computers (#AB03-088) B. Professional Services Agreement with Measurement Research Corporation for the "2003 Pavement Condition Survey" (#AB03-089) #0025 MlSlClU (McConnell/Olsen) 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. #0045 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Rollman) On May 21, 2003, the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 281051 through 281247; P7666C; EFT7668; and EFT7671 through EFT7677 in the total amount of $957,186.78. COUNCIL MEMBERS Wayne Olsen was impressed that a marching band from the City of Sultan was performing in the Armed Forces Day Parade. Daren Nvoren congratulated Greg Meakin on the opening of the ice arena; and announced that representatives from the BREMERTON ICE ARENA, as well as CHAFFEY HOMES would be available at the next District 3 Manette Neighborhood meeting to provide an "Update on the Development of Eastparl~' on Tuesday, May 27 from 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. at the Manette Senior Center. Ed Rollman thanked Greg Meakin and the Haselwood's for their efforts in opening the ice arena; was pleased with the turnout at the Armed Forces Day events; told the public to call the State Patrol if anyone spots a bear since the State Patrol would be responsible for dispatching a Fish and Game Warden to investigate; noted the presence of the cranes in the downtown area; and announced that the next District 4 Meeting would be held tomorrow at the Washington Mutual Bank building located at 5~h and Pacific Avenues from 7:00 to 8:30 P.M. to hear a residential parking proposal. TAPE #1894 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 2 of 5 Mike Shepherd commented on last week's district meeting which included discussion on parking issues; and announced that the Memorial Day Ceremony would be held at the Ivy Green Ceremony located at the corner of 13th & Naval Avenue on Monday, May 26th starling at 1:00 P.M. Mike Short reported on the District 8 and 9 meeting held last Thursday, and thanked all the citizens who attended. Carol Arends. mentioned the Armed Forces Day Parade, and thanked Pat & Susan Wright and all of the volunteers who participated. She also discussed a KRCC Countywide Planning Policies meeting to be held tomorrow at the Presidents' Hall at the Fairgrounds from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M.; and announced that the next District 6 & 7 meeting would be held on Thursday, May 29th starting at 6:30 P.M. to be held at the Public Works Facilities Building located at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue. The discussion would include review of the parking committee findings. MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Bozeman ... · Invited the public to sign up for a passenger ferry demonstration by Kitsap Transit on Saturday, May 24th · Thanked Charleen Burnette of BKAT for televising the Armed Forces Day Parade · Complimented Michael Wilson, Finance Director and his staff for the quarterly finance report that was recently produced · Thanked Greg Meakin, the Haselwood's, and City Attorney Roger Lubovich for their involvement in bringing the ice arena project forward · Stated that he will continue to work with the legislature to acquire more funding for downtown improvements for the capital budget, and indicated stated that funding has been secured for a naval museum · Informed Council that an annexation project will be presented in the next few weeks · Expressed a commitment to consider funding sources for a new skateboard park · Proclaimed the Week of May 18m through May 24th as "Emergency Medical Services Week", which was accepted by Fire Chief Al Duke PUBLIC RECOGNITION Pat Wright thanked the many people who offered their assistance in the very successful 55th Annual Armed Forces Day parade. Alex Hesse Sie;lert, Executive Director of POSITIVE SOLUTIONS BENEFITS RESOURCE CENTER, submitted a letter into the record expressing his concerns with the CDBG funding process. Police Chief Rob Forbes invited the public to attend the Law Enforcement Memorial Service on Friday, May 23 at 1:00 P.M. at the Rotary Evergreen Park. Gordy Byrd commented that he was happy to be here tonight. 8A - EASTPARK PHASE ! - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE CHAFFEY CORPORATION (#AB03-090): Gary Sexton, Economic Development Director, summarized that the Phase I Development Agreement between the City of Bremerton and CHAFFEY CORPORATION sets forth the agreement for CHAFFEY to perform a market study, create a critical path for design development coordination with the City's Department of Community Development, development of a concept site plan, TAPE #1894 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 3 of 5 architectural review, and study for proposed housing types and mixture. The agreement includes payment of a fee in the event of termination, and an option to purchase upon approval of design and other conditions. Herb Chaffey was in attendance to answer any questions. There were no comments from the public. Mr. N¥~lren asked for clarification on the process that Chaffey would go through to reach the development phase of the project. Mr. Sexton explained that a market study would be conducted to come up with housing alternatives to meet the needs of the City and community, and emphasized there would be meetings held to incorporate public comments. An appraisal would be done and a sale price would be set. Once the parcel is sold then construction could begin. #1600 MIS/CIU (Nygren/McConnell) Move to approve and authorize the Mayor to finalize and e;recute the Eastpark Phase ][ Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the CHAFFEY CORPORATION in substantially the same terms and conditions as contained in the proposed agreement, as amended. 8B -PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT WITH STIRNCO STEEL STRUCTURES, INC. FOR FIRF STORAGE AND BUILDING [PUBLIC SAFETY BOND ISSUE] (#AB03-09`1): Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, stated that the contractor will provide an approx. 50 by 66 foot pre-engineered metal building, including concrete foundation and floor slab to be located adjacent to the Olympus Avenue Fire Station No. 3. This building is a replacement building for the current Fire Department warehouse which houses the antique fire truck, back up fire pumper, and bunker gear. An additive bid was received for a wash bay of approximately 5C by 25 feet. Fire Chief Al Duke provided comments in support of this agreement. There were no comments from the public. #'1927 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve contract with STIRNCO STEEL STRUCTURES, INC. for replacement building and wash bay, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the same in substantially the same form as attached. 8C - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT BUILDING rPUBLIC SAFETY BOND ISSUE] (#AB03- 092): Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, reminded Council that the City made an offer on the US Bank Building last year. It was determined at that time that the location across from the new Government Center and in the downtown core was ideal for a Public Safety Facility housing both Police and Court. The lot size is approximately 52,090 square feet. The three story building, built in 1977, is approximately 20,500 square feet. There are 68 parking spaces on site. The Bank accepted our offer and has been in the process of finalizing their agreement for a new location. The attached purchase and sale agreement provides for a due diligence period of 60 days for the City to obtain clear title, perform environmental assessments, and obtain an appraiser's confirmation of property value. The City has obtained sufficient information from the current owners of the building, and property to be confident that we can complete our review in the 60 day period. There were no comments from the public. #2227 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Rollman) Move to approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement with US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION in the amount of $1,000,000; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the same in substantially the same form as attached. TAPE #1894 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 4 of 5 8D - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ARAI/JACKSON ARCHITECT & PLANNERS FOR POLICE AND MUNICIPAL COURT BUILDING [PUBLIC SAFETY BONI3 ISSUE] (#AB03-093): Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, pointed out that the City issued an RFQ for architect services in February, and 12 responses were received. The project team selected four firms for interview, which were held in March. The interview team evaluated each firm based upon the following criteria: a) strength of the proposed team; b) demonstrated flexibility in design concepts; c) experience in designing Police/Court Facilities; d) compatibility/responsiveness to owner team; and e) location of key personnel. The architect firm of ARAI/JACKSON ARCHITECT & PLANNERS was selected. Municipal Jud~le James Docter provided his comments in support of the selection of this firm. There were no comments from the public. #2570 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Rollman) Move to approve professional services contract with ARAI/JACKSON ARCHITECT & PLANNERS for design of the Police and Court Facility. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO. 4854 (SECOND READING) VACATING A PORTION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN 5TM & 6TM STREETS~ AND PACIFIC & WASHINGTON AVENUES (#AB03-085): First reading of the ordinance was heard on May 14, 2003. Mike Mecham, City Engineer, was available to answer any questions. There were no comments from the public. #2791 M/S/C/U (Rollman/McConnell) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4854 on second reading, vacating a portion of the alley located between 5th ~ 6th Streets, and Pacific & Washington Avenues. 9B - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) APPROVING SW{': PARTNERSHIP REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 (SF- 3) TO TO GENERAL BUSINESS (CB) (#AB03-094): RoRer Lubovich, City Attorney, explained that at the Closed Record Hearing on May 14, 2003, the City Council accepted the findings of the Hearing Examiner, who recommended approval of the SWC Partnership Rezone from Single Family 3 (SF- 3) to General Business (CB). The proposed ordinance accomplishes the rezone. There were no comments from the public. #29t5 MISIC/U (McConnell/Rollman) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 9C - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT (#AB03-095): Mike Mecham, City Engineer, mentioned that City staff have prepared a new Transportation Development Code Ordinance that defines the responsibility of development with regard to transportation improvernents. The new ordinance repeals existing BMC Chapter 15.01.100 entitled "SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS" and replaces it with a new chapter 15.01.100, amends Chapter 11.08 and Chapter 11.10 relating to sidewalk construction and maintenance, adds a new Chapter 11.12 entitled "TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CODE" and amends Section 13.10.080. Attached is a summary of the major features of the Transportation Development Code Ordinance. There were no comments from the public. #3375 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Nygren) Move to approve the proposed ordinance relating to transportation development and improvement on first reading, as amended. TAPE #1894 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 5 of 5 9D - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING BMC CHAPTER 11.03 RELATING TO LONG TERM RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS (#AB03-096): Mike Mecham, City Engineer, said that the current criteria in Chapter 11.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code provides for long-term use of City right-of-ways up to five years. The proposed ordinance provides for extended long-term right-of-way use permits up to 10 years under certain circumstances. These circumstances may include structures, facilities, and uses that involve capital expenditures and long-term commitment of use for private development. There were no comments from the public. #3520 MISIC/U (Short/Olsen) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. With no further business, the regular meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 7:10 P.M. Prepared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton CAIP JIIslcge DATE SUBMITTED: May 21, 2003 BILL # Li 3 . !,l.. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~ CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Date: May 27, 2003 BID AWARD-TEC Construction, Inc.- COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 11, 2003 Biosolids Roof Structure Department: Public Works & Utilities Presenter: Gene Sampley Phone: 478-5315 SUMMARY: Bids were opened on Monday, May 19,2003 for the Forestry Division's Biosolids Roof Structure. A total of six (6) bids were received for the project (see attached Bid Opening List). The low bidder is TEC Construction, Inc. from Kingston, WA for the Lump Sum Bid of $59,300.00. The total contract amount, including Washington State Sales Tax, is $64,340.50. ATTACHMENTS: Bid Opening List. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This project was included in the 2003 Capital budget. Sufficient funds are available within the Water Fund (401) capital budget to provide for this project. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the City Council approve this Bid Award to TEC Construction, Inc. in the amount of $64,340.50, and authorize the Mayor to execute th i s contract. AGENDA STATUS: Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] [8 Public Hearing [] DATE SUBMITTED: May 2, 2003 BILL # AGENDA BILL 3D CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Award Contract for Committee Meeting Date: Construction of West 650 Pressure Zone COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 11, 2003 Transmission and Distribution Watermains. Department: PW&U, Engineering Presenter: Robert Earl Phone: 473-5344 SUMMARY: Sealed bids for construction of the project titled "West 650 Pressure Zone Improvements, Transmission & Distribution Mains" were opened on ~Jne $~ 2.003 The engineer's estimatefortheproject_is$ /, ff q"o I, C/ ,oI /l'/,~rl. j~r' bidswerereceivedforthis project. 5-J{"61/,1 ('~lt~i ~ was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder with a bid of $ 1, {a g' (o. I (a O, ffoq.._ (including sales tax). ATTACHMENTS: 1) Bid Tabulation 2) Project Map FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Budget is $2,060,000 APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR~.~'~ CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPE~TIONS: ~e {{ ~K~ ...... CO~CIL P~S~ENT: ~COMMENDED MOTION: I move to award a contract in the amount of $/~ ~ g&2/& O, X& with ff~an ~a/~p for construction of the project titled "West 650 Pressure Zone ~provements, Tr~smission & Disthbution Mains" and authorize the Mayor to execute the necess~y contact documents for construction. AGENDA STATUS: ]Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] ! Public Hearing [] Information [] o~ 0 Study Session [] ~ ~ ~ ~ /6. I ~~ui , ,~' I i DATE SUBMITTED: May 22, 2003 BILL #. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Award Contract for the Casad Committee Meeting Date: June 3, 2003 Dam Intake Tower Upgrades project COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 11,2003 Department: PW&U, Engineering Presenter: Michael C. Mecham Phone: 473-5288 SUMMARY: The City was awarded Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan No. 01-65101-002 for a Seismic Upgrade to the Casad Dam Intake Tower, the loan amount is $1,020,000, and is the source of funding for the Casad Dam Intake Tower Upgrades project. Sealed bids for construction of the project titled "Casad Dam Intake Tower Upgrades" were opened on May 27, 2003. The engineer's estimate for the project is $370,000. Ten bids were received for this project. DBM Contractors, Inc., was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder with a bid of $244,070.75 (including sales tax). ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Bid Tabulation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project is funded by a $1,020,000 DWSRF loan and is included in the 2003 budget. CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR . FISCAL/BUDGET: HE^R0 JUNE }, 2003 OPERATIONS: HE^R0 J01,1E }, 2003 COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: MOTION NO. 1 - I move to accept Drinking Water State Revolving Loan No. 01-65101-002, in the amount of $1,020,000. MOTION NO. 2 - I move to award a contract in the amount of $244,070.75 with DBM Contractors, Inc., for construction of the project titled "Casad Dam Intake Tower Upgrades" and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary contact documents for construction. AGENDA STATUS: Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] Public Hearing [] Information [] Study Session [] a3 DATE SUBMITTED: May 22, 2003 BILL #_~. & i L '~: AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Award Contract for the Casad Committee Meeting Date: June 3, 2003 Dam Intake Tower Upgrades project COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 11,2003 Department: PW&U, Engineering Presenter: Michael C. Mecham~(¢,~ Phone: 473-5288 SUMMARY: Sealed bids for ~-o~$'~oe,'P~ o~,~ of the project titled "Casad Dam Intake Tower Upgrades" were opened on May 27, 2003. The engineer's estimate for the project is $370,000. /O bids were received for this project. _F) _1~ b{K ~.0 ¢F/t~_'~og~2 was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder with a bid of $ ,~9 ~ ,9 ?~. 7 5~- (including sales tax). ATTACHMENTS: 1) Bid Tabulation; FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The project is funded by a $1,000,000 DWSRF loan and is included in the 2003 budget. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: , . :~,~;-,~.~ !. ~q~,, FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PP StDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to award a contract in the amount of $,,¢9g~. O'PO.'~ ~' with Oig/,(4 ~'~..~ for construction of the project titled "Casad Dam Ir~take Tower Upgrades" and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary contact documents for construction. AGENDA STATUS: Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] Public Hearing [] Information [] Study Session [] DATE SUBMITTED: 5/22/03 BILL # AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement between Committee Meeting Date: 5/27/03 the City of Bremerton and Kitsap Transit COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: ,'~tTe, /t ~ ~ ~ ? Department: Economic ' Development Presenter: Gary Sexton Phone: 360.473.5282 SUMMARY: 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. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap Transit regarding the Kitsap Regional Conference Center Project. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The fiscal impact reaffirms the pre-existing cost allocation for the Conference Center and adds additional contribution from Kitsap Transit APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ~'~-~~ Fl NANCE D ' RECTOR FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: /.,~ ,. ,~ .'7 · RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap Transit regarding the Kitsap Regional Conference Center Project in substantially the same terms as contained in the proposed agreement. AGENDA STATUS: Consent [] New Business [] Old Business [] Ordinance [] COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution [] ~ Public Hearin¥ [] Information [] Study Session [] INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND KITSAP TRANSIT REGARDING THE KITSAP REGIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER PROJECT This Interlocal Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of the day of June, 2003 by and between THE CITY OF BREMERTON (the "City") a Washington first class charter city and KITSAP TRANSIT ("KT") a Washington Municipal Corporation organized as a Public Transportation Benefit Area. SECTION ONE RECITALS 1.1 The City is cooperating with several governmental agencies, including KT, Kitsap County (the "County"), the Kitsap Public Facilities District (the "PFD") and with private sector parties to develop and finance a Regional Conference Center (the "Conference Center Project") located adjacent to the Bremerton Transportation Center (the "BTC"). The County and the PFD have designated the City as Lead Agency to complete the Conference Center Project pursuant to a separate Interlocal Agreement between the City, the County and the PFD. 1.2 The Conference Center Project includes not only conference center rooms, but associated parking facilities, plazas, a hotel, one or more restaurants, retail space, office space and other amenities and features, all of which are essential and integral components of the Conference Center Project. 1.3 The City and KT previously executed a Memorandum Of Understanding ("MOU") dated April 2, 2002, by which the City and KT agreed to explore the feasibility of integrating KT's Phase D BTC Project into the City's Project. Reference is made to the recitals set forth in the MOU as a reference to provide an understanding of the prior history of the Conference Center Project, as it relates to KT's participation. 1.4 Following the execution of MOU, the City, as the Project Lead Agency determined that the public interests would best be served by following the Design- Build Model set forth in Chapter 39.10 RCW relative to the construction of the Conference Center Project. The City warrants it undertook, followed, completed and/or complied with the procedures and process required by RCW 35.57.020(7) and the applicable provisions set forth in Section 39.10.051. 1.5 The City ultimately selected Opus Northwest, LLC ("Opus") to serve as the Developer for the Conference Project. 1.6 As the City undertook negotiations with Opus, Opus advised the City that it would only complete the Conference Center Project if the Conference Center Project specifically included supporting office and retail space. At the time, KT {NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page I of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings~JOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc and the City contemplated that KT would negotiate the transfer of the air rights above the CRB Pad to the City for ultimate transfer to Opus to enable Opus to construct and retain ownership of the Commuter Retail Building, subject to a retained option to lease one floor thereof. 1.7 As Opus began preparing its design and construction plans, the City, KT and Opus began negotiating for KT's transfer of the CRB Pad air rights and KT's potential lease of one floor of the Commuter Retail Building. Opus, the City and KT were unable to come to terms. Further, during this process, KT re-examined its long-range office needs and, as a result of intervening developments, concluded that KT might ultimately require more than one floor of office space for its own uses. A~s a result of these factors, KT concluded that the public interests would best be served by KT's ownership of the entire Commuter Retail Building. 1.8 The Architect retained by Opus is at the 90% design stage for the Conference Center Project. The Design includes the functional integration of the Commuter Retail Building as an essential component of the Conference Center Project. Accordingly, the Commuter Retail Building cannot be segregated or isolated fi.om the other elements of the Conference Center. 1.9 In order to insure the success of the Conference Center Project, the City wants to insure the first and third floors of the Commuter Retail Building are available for lease by private sector tenants for a minimum period often (10) years. 1.10 The City desires to retain control over the completion of the design and construction of all the components of the Conference Center Project including the Commuter Retail Building so ns to assure the full integration of the Commuter Retail Building into the Conference Center Project. 1.11 By allowing Opus to continue with the design and construction of the Commuter Retail Building, KT and the City will derive cost savings arising from the resulting economies of scale. 1.12 KT warrants it has received the FTA's approval for the funding of the Phase D BTC grant funds necessary to proceed with the public parking facilities encompassed within that grant. 1.13 The "Preliminary Phase" contemplated by the MOU has been completed. The purpose of this agreement is to memorialize the "Final Development Plan" contemplated by the MOU and to set forth the parties' rights, roles and responsibilities as they relate to KT's participation in the Conference Center Project. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 2 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings',JOHNSTON\Local Settings\Temp~[nterlocalAgmt63new.doc SECTION TWO AGREEMENT AND INCORPORATION OF RECITALS This Agreement is being entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. Thc recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. SECTION THREE DEFINITIONS All words used in this Agreemem shall be given their normal and ordinary meaning unless otherwise defined differently in this section~ Certain terms have been defined in the Recitals. The following additional terms are the special definitions for the purpose of this Agreement only: "Conference Cemer Project" means the Transit-oriented development intended to serve as a Regional Cemer as defined in RCW 35.57.020 located adjacent to the BTC and will include a Conference Center facility, a Parking Facility, a restaurant, public transit related facilities, a hotel, pedestrian oriented retail space, pedestrian oriented public spaces, professional office space and residential and Port facilities and improvemems. "Parking and Plaza Facility" shall mean the parking garage, plaza and associated streetwork and streetscape that will be an integral part of the Conference Center Project. The Parking and Plaza Facility excludes the "HOV Garage" which is separately defined herein. "Developer" means Opus NW, LLC. "KT Property" refers to the two parcels of land described or depicted in Exhibit 1. Individually, these two parcels may sometimes be referred to as KT Parcel 1 and KT Parcel 2, respectively. "City Property" refers to the 5 parcels of land described or depicted in Exhibit 2a - e. Individually, these parcels may sometimes be referred to as City Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. "HOV Garage" refers to the area of land described or depicted in Exhibit 3 devoted exclusively for transit-related use. The HOV Garage includes 60 parking stalls. After the Parking Facility is constructed, the 60 HOV stalls will be located on the existing lower level on the area of land described or depicted in Exhibit 3 beneath the CRB Pad. The "CRB Pad" refers to the area of land over which the Commuter Retail Building will be built and is described or depicted in Exhibit 3. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 3 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and SettingsLlOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc The "Commuter Retail Building" refers to the three story mixed use retail and office building to be constructed on the CRB Pad as an integral part of the Conference Center Project. "Kiss And Ride Facility" means an area of land to be used by the public to drop- off and pick-up passengers fxom the BTC. "Shared Project Expense" refers to the cost of completing the Parking and Plaza Facility that are allocated between the City and KT as either described as such in this Agreement or set forth in the Parking Facility and Plaza Project Budget as an expense to be allocated between the City and KT. The Parking and Plaza Facility Project Budget (hereinafter referred to as the "Parking Budget") has been mutually approved by the Parties. "KT's Pro-Rata Share" means the share oftbe cost oftbe Parking and Plaza Facility allocated to Kitsap Transit pursuant to the Parking Budget. KT's Pro-Rata Share varies for different elements and components oftbe Parking Budget and reference is made to the Parking Budget to the cornputation of KT's pro-rata share of such elements and components. IfKT's Pro-Rata Share for a given element is not allocated in the Parking Budget, such share shall be deemed 18.6% of the total savings attributable to such element. "Project Footprint" means the total land on which the Conference Center Project will be built consisting of KT Parcels 1 and 2 and City Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. SECTION FOUR DESIGNATION OF LEAD AGENCY Subject to the terms hereof, the City shall serve as the Lead Agency to complete the Conference Center Project. The City shall be responsible for coordinating the design and construction oftbe Conference Center Project with its other public partners, the Washington State Ferry System and U.S. Navy to the extent the Conference Center Project involves, impacts or effects said entities. SECTION FIVE THE PARKING AND PLAZA FACILITY 5.1 General Provisions. The City shall be responsible for thc design, construction, oversight, inspection, completion and financing of thc Parking Facility, subject to and in compliance with the terms of this Section 5. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 4 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and SettingskIOHNSTON\Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new. doc 5.2 Construction Terms. 5.2.1 Contract With Developer. The City has contracted with the Developer for the construction and completion of the Parking and Plaza Facility, pursuant to a contract dated November 15, 2003. 5.2.2 Plans. Pursuant to the Main Contract, the Developer and its design consultants and engineers are required to develop final Plans and Specifications (collectively, the "Plans") consistent with general design standards and specifications heretofore jointly developed and approved by the City and KT. The Plans shall be subject to KT's approval, which shall not be withheld except for just and reasonable cause. The Parking and Plaza Facility shall be completed in accordance with the Plans approved by KT within the time specified in the Critical Path Schedule mutually approved by the Parties and in a good workmanshiplike manner in conformance with acceptable industry standards for similar parking facilities. The completion date set forth in the Critical Path Schedule may be extended for force majeure or other delays beyond the reasonable control of the City and the Developer. 5.2.3 Permits. The City shall be responsible for securing all required permits required for the completion of the Parking and Plaza Facility. 5.2.4 Legal Requirements. The City shall insure the Parking and Plaza Facility is completed in compliance with, and that the Developer complies with, all applicable requirements of State, Federal and local laws, including the following: a. The Federal contracting requirements set forth in FTA Circular C4220.1D and the FTA Master Agreement dated October 1, 2002; b. The bonding requirements of Chapter 39.08 RCW; c. The retention requirements of Chapter 60.28 RCW; d. The Design-Build requirements of Chapter 39.10 RCW; and e. All applicable environmental laws, including applicable City regulations, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), CERCLA (42 USC §9603), MTCA (RCW 70.105(D)), and the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1321). Pursuant to WAC 197-11-944, the City shall serve as the nominal lead agency, whereby the City shall be responsible for complying with the duties of the lead agency under all applicable SEPA rules. In addition, the City shall comply with the NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact issued by the FTA on May 22, 2001. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 5 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and SettingskJOHNSTON~Local Set~ings\Temp~[nterlocalAgmt63new. doc 5.3 Project Monitoring And Review By KT. KT reserves the right to retain or provide third-party services for Alternative Cost Analysis, Federal Compliance and limited project monitoring/consulting focused on plan, specification and progress report review and limited project monitoring limited to the review of Plans and Specifications (collectively "Project Monitoring") as a Shared Joint Project Expense. The City will maintain and permit the inspection and/or audit by KT of all contracts, documents, plans, specifications, permits and records of both the City and Developer pertaining to the Parking and Plaza Facility. During the course of construction, the City will permit KT and/or its designated representatives access to the site to inspect and/or monitor any and all work encompassed within the Parking and P!a?a Facility. All requests for inspections and documents shall be directed to the City's Director of Economic Development, who will, in turn, arrange for KT's site inspections and/or document review. 5.4 Financial Obligations. 5.4.1 KT. The City guarantees KT's Pro-Rata Share of the cost of the Parking Facility is $4,000,000.00, which sum is the KT Base Pro-Rata Share~ subject, however, to the additions and deductions hereinafter described. The KT Base Share was computed in accordance with the Parking and Plaza Facility Project Budget Spreadsheet approved by the Parties, which was, in turn, based on the Contract Price for the Parking and Plaza Facility negotiated by the City with the Developer.. 5.4.2 Increases. In addition to the KT Base Pro-Rata Share, KT shall reimburse the City for the following: a. All costs or fees for additions to the Parking and Plaza Facility not within the existing scope of the existing preliminary plans and specifications that are requested solely by KT for which the City is not willing to share, which additions shall be specified in a written Change Order; b. Any other additions hereinal~er agreed to between the City and KT in writing. 5.4.3 Decreases. The KT Base Pro-Rata Share will be decreased by the following surns: a. KT's Pro-Rata Share of any savings passed on to the City by the Developer by reason of a reduction in the Contract Price between the City and the Developer by deductive Change Order or otherwise and approved by This sum is still being analyzed. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 6 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings~JOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~lnterlocalAgmt63new.doc b. KT's Pro-Rata Share of any liquidated damages assessed by the City against the Developer; and c. Any other deductions hereinafter agreed to between the City and KT in writing. 5.4.4 Other Costs. Subject to the allowable Increases and Decreases allocated to KT in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3, the City shall be solely responsible for all costs, fees and expenses in excess of the KT Base Pro-Rata Share. 5.5 Payment Of KT's Share Of The Cost Of The Parking Facilities. KT's Base Pm-Rata Share of the cost of the Parking and Plaza Facilities as allocated and computed in accordance with Section 5.4 shall be paid as follows: 5.5.1 Credit For Payments Made To Date. KT has heretofore pald the sum of $69,169.00 relative to Joint Project Expenses, which sum shall serve as a credit against the KT Base Pro-Rata Share. 5.5.2 Concurrent Payment. Concurrently herewith, KT shall pay the City the sum of $432,095.00 as a further credit against the KT Base Pm-Rata Share. 5.5.3 Other Payments. As the City receives progress payment applications from the Developer, the City shall transmit copies thereof to KT, together with City's payment application setting forth KT's Pro-Rata Share. Within 15 days of KT's receipt of each progress payment application, KT shall remit it's Pro-Rata Share thereof, subject to the procedures set forth in Section 5.5.4 below. 5.5.4 KT Payment Procedures. Any objections which KT may have regarding a Project Application For Payment shall be made in writing by KT within 15 days of receipt of the application for payment. Failure to provide a timely written objection shall not, however, constitute any waiver of right to withhold and/or not approve any subsequent payment application. KT shall pay all approved portions of Applications For Payment within the time periods specified in Section 5.5.3. All payment applications fi.om the Developer shall be accompanied by the federally required certification forms. 5.5.5 Final Payment. Final Payment of KT's share shall be governed by the following procedures: a. Upon Final Completion, the City shall submit a Final Payment Application (clearly marked as such), give notice to KT and coordinate a completion inspection with KT's project representative. b. During the completion inspection, the City shall prepare a written punch work list of any uncompleted or deficient work for transmittal to the Developer. Thereafter, the City shall cause any such punch work list to be INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 7 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and SettingskJOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new. doc promptly completed and arrange a final inspection for KT's Final Acceptance. Final Payment of KT's share shall be paid within 30 days after KT's Final Acceptance and KT's receipt of three (3) sets of final record, "as-built", construction drawings and operations manual, one of which shall be in an electronic CD format (CAD file); 5.6 Retainage. Retaiuage shall be governed by Chapter 60.28. Retainage shall not be released by the City until 30 days after KT's Final Acceptance and the City's compliance with Chapter 60.28 RCW. 5.7 Payment Of City's Share. Subject to KT's duty to remit its Pro-Rata Share of the cost of the Parking and Plaza Facility as provided in Section 5.5, the City shall be responsible for the full and timely payment of all costs, fees and expenses arising fi.om the design, construction, administration and completion of the Parking and Plaza Facility, whether due the Developer, consultants, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, taxing authorities or otherwise. The City warrants it has sufficient non-contingent funds available to fully complete the Parking and Pla?a Facility in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement, any other agreements between the City, other public agencies who are participants in the Project and any agreements with the Developer, subject only to KT's payment of KT' s Pro-Rata Share. 5.8 Ownership And Management. 5.8.1 Allocated Parking Stalls. Subject to the provisions of Section 5.8.2, all parking stalls within the Parking and Plaza Facility shall he allocated between KT and the City as follows: KT: 116.5 stalis (the "KT Stalls") City: 404.5 stalls (the "City Stalls) Subject to the provisions of Section 5.8.2, KT shall retain ownership of the KT Stalls, and the City shall retain ownership of the City Stalls. The allocation of the parking stalls was based on the assumption that the Joint Parking and Plaza Facility will consist of 521 new stalls and the total costs thereof are allocated in accordance with the Parking Budget. If the number of stalls change or the allocated stalls change, the stalls will he allocated by separate agreement in accordance with the methodology set forth in the approved Parking Budget. 5.8.2 Parking Management. All stalls within the Parking and Plaza Facility shall he managed, operated and/or subject to the Conference Center Parking Garage Agreement to be negotiated and mutually approved by the Parties. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 8 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and SetfingsklOHNSTON~Local Settings\TempXInterlocalAgmt63new.doc 5.9 Insurance; Destruction. 5.9.1 Insurance Requirements. The City and KT shall each maintain and keep in force property insurance on that portion of the Parking and P!a?a Facility owned by them. The insurance shall be written on a replacement cost basis and shall insure against all risks of direct physical loss, subject to the standard and customary exclusions found in property policies written for similar governmental entities. The property insurance required by this section may be included in blanket policies written for the City or KT and may be subject to the same deductible used by each party for other insured properties. Each party shall be responsible to the other for payment of such deductible. Coverage for earthquake, flood and terrorism shall not be required. The City and KT shall each maintain and keep in force comprehensive liability insurance in an amount not less than $5 million per occurrence. Each shall name the other an additional insured. 5.9.2 Adjustments. The types of policies, risks insured, coverage amounts, deduct~les and endorsements may be adjusted from time to time as the City and KT may mutually determine and agree. 5.9.5 Destruction. a. If the Parking and Pla?a Facility is totally or partially destroyed at any time aider the execution of this Agreement and the insurance proceeds (less any deductible) are sufficient to pay the cost or reconstruction or restoration, then the City shall reconstruct or repair the damage consistent with the terms and intent of this Agreement. If the insurance proceeds (less any deductible) are insufficient to reconstruct or repair the Parking and plata Facility, then the City may nonetheless elect to reconstruct or repair the Parking and Plaza Facility or to terminate this Agreement. b. If the City is unable to reconstruct or restore the damage to the Parki~4~ Facility, KT shall he entitled to a pro-rata share of the insurance proceeds, based on the ratio of the amount of payments made by KT pursuant to this Agreement divided by the total construction costs of the Parking and Plaza Facility. e. Until Final Acceptance, the City shall be responsible for processing and the defense of any claims arising fi.om any destruction or damage to the Parking and Plaza Facility or other casualty arising therefrom, including property damage, personal injury and death. 5.10 Indemnification. 5.10.1 In General. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold KT and its respective directors, officers, employees and agents ("Indemnitees") harmless from all claims, liabilities, causes of action and demands, regardless of the nature o£the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 9 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~ocuments and Settings~JOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc claim, arising directly or indirectly fi:om the planning, permitting, construction and completion of the Parking and Plaza Facility and Conference Center Project, except for claims arising fi:om the sole negligence of any Indemnitee. In the case of concurrent negligence of the City and an Indemnitee, each party shall hold the other party harmless fi.om their proportionate share of the resulting damages. 5.10.2 Exceptions. The general indemnification and hold harmless provisions of Section 5. t 0.1 do not extend to (1) the operation of the Parking and Plaza Facility following final acceptance of the Parking and Plaza Facility, which liabilities associated with the ownership, maintenance and operation of the Parking and Plaza Facility is allocated in the Parking Maintenance Agreement; (2) the specific duties allocated to KT under this Agreement, including specifically the Commuter Retail Building. 5.10.3 Fl'.4 Compliance. In addition to the Federal contracting requirements, construction and completion of the Parking and Plaza Facility is governed by the additional terms set forth in this Section 5.10: 5.10.4 Incorporation Of FTA Terms. All contractual provisions required by DOT as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1D dated August 4, 1998, as amended, and FTA MA 9 dated October 1, 2002, are hereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event ora conflict with any other provisions contained in this Agreement. The City shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act or refuse to comply with any requests fi'om KT which would cause KT to be in violation of the FTA terms and conditions. 5.10.5 Ownership Of Documents And Assets. All designs, drawings, specifications, technical data and other documents or information produced by Developer pertaining to the Parking and Plaza Facility shall be the sole property of the City and KT and the City and KT shall be vested with all rights therein of whatever kind and however created, provided, however, any design documents not stamped and signed by appropriate registered professional architects or engineers shall be deemed to be incomplete and requiring further review or design completion. Title to all property furnished by KT or the City shall remain in the name of KT and the City, respectively, and they shall become the owner of the work, product and other documents, if any, prepared by Developer pursuant to the City's contract with Developer unless otherwise expressly provided herein. 5.10.6 Changes. Any proposed change in the scope of work, design or construction of the Parking and Plaza Facility shall be submitted to KT for its prior approval. 5.10. 7 Warranty Of The Work. The City warrants to KT that all materials and equipment furnished with respect to the Parking and Plaza Facility will be new unless otherwise specified by KT, free fi:om faults and defects and in INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 10 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 CSDocuments and Settings~JOHNSTONSLocal Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc conformance with Plans, Specifications and Documents approved by KT. All work not so conforming to these standards shall be considered defective. If requested by KT, the City shall furnish satisfactory evidence as to the kind and quality of materials and equipment. The Work relative to the Parking and Plaza Facility (the "Work") must be of first quality and the workmanship must be the best obtainable in the various trades. The Work must be of safe, substantial and durable construction in all respects. The City hereby guarantees the Work against defective materials or faulty workmanship in accordance with the terms set forth in the City's Design Build Contract with Opus. 5.10.8 No FT~I Liability For FTA Withdrawal. In the evem the FTA withdraws its approval, fails to fund the approved grant or demands the return of FTA grant funds allocated to the Parking and Plaza Facility, the FTA shall not have any liability to the City. SECTION SIX THE COMMUTER RETAIL BUILDING 6.1 General Provisions. The Commuter Retail Building shall be designed, constructed, financed and owned in accordance with the provisions of this Section Six. 6.2 KT's General Responsibilities. Except as set forth in Section 6.3, notwithstanding the City's execution of the "CRB Addendum", KT shall be responsible for the payment, financing, insurance, lease-up, ownership and operation of the Commuter Retail Building. 6.3 City's General Duties. The City shall have the following duties with respect to the Commuter Retail Building. a. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-944, the City shall serve as the nominal lead agency, whereby the City shall be responsible for complying with the duties of the lead agency under ail applicable SEPA roles. b. The City as the Lead Agency shall be responsible for the construction, oversight, permitting, inspection and completion of the Commuter Retail Building pursuant to Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents approved by KT. c. The City, as the Lead Agency for the Conference Center Project, shall cooperate with KT as necessary to insure the coordination of the construction of the Commuter Retail Building with and as an integral element of the Conference Center Project as a whole, so long as KT bears INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 11 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Setlings~JOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc all costs related to the design, construction and completion of the Commuter Retail Building. 6.4 Ownership. KT shall retain exclusive ownership and control of the Commuter Retail Building. 6.5 Contract With Developer. The City shall contract with the Developer by Addendum (the "CRB Addendum") to the Main Contract, for tbe design and construction of the Commuter Retail Building in a form approved by KT. The final construction and design of the Commuter Retail Building shall be subject to the following: a. The City shall not execute or approve any modifications to the CRB Addendum, any related design and construction documents or any change orders without the express written consent of KT. b. In connection with any modifications to the design, the City and KT will work cooperatively to insure any design changes are harmonious with the Conference Center Project as a whole. c. On the City's receipt of Progress Billings ~om the Developer, the City shall promptly remit copies thereof to KT and KT shall promptly remit payment thereof so as to insure timely payment to the Developer. d. KT's Representatives with respect to the Commuter Retail Building are Richard Hayes and Don Laford of URS Corporation, either of whom shall have the right to approve modifications and change orders. e. KT reserves the right to monitor construction so as to insure timely and proper completion in accordance with Contract Documents. When requested by KT, the City shall arrange for such inspections, testing, examination and audits as designated by KT, which inspections, tests, examinations or audits shall be undertaken by individuals or entities directed by KT at KT's sole cost and expense. f. Concurrently with the City's receipt of any notices, communications or correspondence fi.om the Developer or any authority having jurisdiction over the inspection and construction of the Commuter Retail Building, the City will promptly provide KT with copies thereof and/or any information acquired by the City. g. KT shall be solely responsible for the full and timely payment of all costs and fees allocated to Lead Agency under the CRB Addendum. Conversely, KT shall receive all liquidated damages and savings that may be payable under the CRB Addendum. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 12 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and SettingsLlOHNSTONXLocal Settings\TempXlnterlocalAgmt63new.doc h. When and if requested by KT, the City shall assign the CRB Addendum or divisible portions thereof to KT as KT deems necessary to protect its interest in the Commuter Retail Building. In the event of a breach by the Developer and/or a dispute, KT shall assume responsibility for prosecuting and defending any claims at KT's sole expense. The City shall take no action to enforce any right or remedy without the approval of KT. 6.6 Indemnification. 6.6.1 In General. KT shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents ("Indemnitees:) harmless fi:om all claims, regardless of the nature of the claim, arising directly or indirectly fi:om the planning, fmancing, ownership and operation of the Commuter Retail Building, except for claims arising fi:om the sole negligence of any Indeumitee. In the case of concurrent negligence of KT and an Indemnitee, each party shall hold the other party harmless fi:om their proportionate share of resulting damages. 6.6.2 Exceptions. The general indemnification and hold harmless provisions of Section 6.6 do not extend to the breach of any of the City's express warranties and duties under this Agreement, including specifically the warranties set forth in Sections 1.4 and 6.3. SECTION SEVEN OTHER PROPERTIES 7.1 HOV Garage. 7.1.1 Permanent Ownership. KT shall retain exclusive ownership and control of the HOV Garage and shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof 7.1.2 Temporary Construction Easement. During the Conference Center Project Construction period, the City and the developer shall have the right to use and occupy the HOV Garage for access, storage and other construction purposes related to the Project, so long as the policies of liability insurance provided by the City or in the City's Design Build Contract with Opus include coverage for the HOV Garage and all activities thereon, or adjacent thereto. 7.1.3 Permanent Access Easement. On the completion of the Parking and Plaza Facility, the City shall convey a perpetual non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over, across and through the drive aisles of the Parking and Plaza Facility and the entrances, approaches and access roads to the Parking and Plaza Facility fi:om the nearest permanent public street. 7.2 Hotel And Restaurant Pad Air Rights. The City and KT shall convey the air rights above the Hotel and Restaurant Pads, to the Developer for fair market value as INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 13 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 CSDocuments and SettingsXJOFINSTON2Local Settings\/emp~InterlocalAgmt63new. doc established by independem appraisal subject to the applicable rules of the FTA regarding Joint Developments. The net proceeds fi.om the sale of those air rights after payment of the closing costs allocated to the seller shall be allocated to the City and KT in fair shares. As of the date hereof, the parties estimate the fair market value of these air rights is $500,000.00 and that, subject to confirmation of the value by appraisal, KT's share thereof is $250,000.00. 7.3 Kiss And Ride. The City and KT shall use their best efforts to develop a Kiss And Ride facility consisting of 24 spaces at the SW comer of Second Avenue and Washington. The parties' respective duties and obligations with respect thereto will be developed by separate agreement hereto. 7.4 Cross Easements. KT and the City shall grant and establish public cross- easements to provide pedestrian access over and across the sidewalks, plazas and walkways abutting each component of the Conference Center Project. As to the private components of the Conference Cemer Project, the City shall insure the Developer and any private party who acquires properties within the Conference Cemer Project footprint dedicates the abutting sidewalks and walkways for pedestrian access. 7.5 Other Properties. Except as set forth in this Agreement, the City and KT shall retain title to all land owned by either of them and subject to the Cross-Easements or any express restrictions set forth herein, are flee to convey, dispose, improve or encumber any such land as such owning party deems appropriate or necessary. 7.6 Miscellaneous. On the conveyance of the Easements described in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.4, all existing easements within the Project Footprint shall be extinguished. 7.7 BTC FTA Assets. The existing FTA assets now encompassed within the BTC which are to be relocated, recorrfigured, removed or disrupted as either (I) required by the Washington State Ferry Department; (ii) required or designated in the Conference Center Plans; or (iii) mutually agreed by the City and KT, including parking stalls, pedestrian zones, landscaping, bike locker areas, directional signage, storage units, telescopes and plagues shall be replaced or relocated by the City at no cost to KT. SECTION EIGHT DISPUTE RESOLUTION 8.1 Ia General. Ifa dispute arises between the parties on account of this Agreement, including the performance of any provision of this Agreement or the interpretation thereof, the parties agree to follow the procedure set forth in this Section Eight. It is the goal oftbe parties to resolve their differences as early in this step process as possible. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 14 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings~JOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~lnterlocalAgmt63new.doc 8.2 Step One - Informal Discussions. The Designated Represematives shall meet to see if the matter can be informally resolved. This may involve more than one meeting. 8.3 Step Two - Written Notification And Resolution. If informal discussions are not successful, then a written notice of dispute shall be mailed to the address for notices set forth in Section 9.1, as well as to the Designated Representative. The notice shall set forth the nature of the dispute and the desired outcome. A written response shall be provided within ten (I0) business days. The response shall provide the respondha4g party's version oftbe dispute and a proposed resolution. The parties shall meet within ten (10) business days after the response is received in order to see if the matter can be amicably resolved. If the matter is amicably resolved at this stage, the affected parties shall sign a Memorandum Of Understanding with regards thereto. 8.4 Step Three - Litigation. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences at Step Two, either party may initiate an action in Kitsap County Superior Court. The parties agree that jurisdiction and venue lie exclusively in Kitsap County Superior Court. SECTION NINE MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notices. All notices and other written communications required by this Agreement shall be in writing and, except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Agreemem, shall be deemed to have been given at the time of delivery if personally delivered, or at the time of mailing if mailed by first class, postage pre- paid and addressed to the party at its address as stated below or at such address as any party may designate at any time in writing. To City: Mayor City of Bremerton 239-4t~ Street Bremerton, WA 98337 With Copy To: Gary Sexton City of Bremerton 239-4~ Street Bremerton, WA 98337 To Kitsap Transit: Richard Hayes, Executive Director Kitsap Transit 200 Charleston Blvd. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 15 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings~lOHNSTON~ocal Settings~Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc ¥o Bremerton, WA 98312 With Copy To: Ronald C. Tempteton Matty 8: Templeton 3212 NW Byron Street, Suite 104 Silverdale, WA 98383 9.2 Severability. It is the intent of the parties that if any provision of this Agreement or its application is held by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or void, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Agreement or its application to other entities, or circumstances shall not be affected. The remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. The rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular invalid provision~ However, if the invalid provision or its application is found by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be substantive and to render performance of the remaining provisions unworkable and non-feasible, and is found to seriously affect the consideration and/or is inseparably connected to the remainder of this Agreement, then the entire Agreement shall be null and void. 9.3 Modification. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties. No change, termination or attempted waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on any of the parties unless executed in writing by each of the parties. This Agreement shall not be modified, supplemented or otherwise affected by the course of dealings between the parties. 9.4 Benefits. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties to this Agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. 9.5 Assignment. The rights granted by this Agreement may not he assigned without the written consent of all the parties hereto. 9.6 Supplemental Documents And Signature Authority The patties agree to complete and timely execute all supplemental documents ("Supplemental Agreements") necessary or appropriate to fully implement the terms of this Agreement. The following persons shall have the authority to sign or approve all the agreements specified herein including the CRB Addendum, the Conference Center Parking Garage Agreement, Change Orders, the instruments and agreements specified in Section Seven and the Supplemental Agreement: For The City: Gary Sexton, Project Coordinator or Cary Bozeman, Mayor For KT: Richard Hayes, its Executive Director INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 16 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings~lOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new.doc 9.7 Filing Of Agreement With County Auditor. Within five (5) days bom the date of this Agreement, as set forth in Section One, the original of the Agreement shall be filed by the City with the Kitsap County Auditor, as required by the provisions of RCW 39.34.040. The City shall provide KT with a conformed copy thereof. 9.8 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that any party may require specific performance o£any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies that may he available as a matter of law. 9.9 Complete Agreement.. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties hereto concerning the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may not be amended except as provided herein. This Agreement replaces, supersedes and satisfies the MOU, provided in the event ora dispute, the MOU may be used as a resource to explain the underlying history or as an aide to resolve any ambiguities. However, the terms of this Agreement control over any inconsistent provisions of the MOU. 9.10 Execution In Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall he an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. SECTION TEN ENUMERATION OF EXItlBITS The Exhibits to this Agreement consist of the following: Exhibit 1: KT Parcels 1 and 2 Exhibit 2: City Parcels 1-5 Exhibit 3: HOV Garage and CRB Pad CITY OF BREMERTON By CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor Attest: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 17 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documants and Settings~JOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new. doc Clerk Approved as to form: ROGER LUBOVICH, City Attorney KITSAP TRANSIT By. RICHARD HAYES, Executive Director Attest: CATHIE KNOX-BROWNING, Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: RONALD C. TEMPLETON, General Counsel INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - Page 18 of 18 Created on 6-3-03 C:~Documents and Settings~lOHNSTON~Local Settings\Temp~InterlocalAgmt63new. doc q3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. pARCEL A: LOTS I AND 2 IN BLOCK 2 OF TOV~4 OF BREMERTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH TI4AT PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY ADJOINING OR ABI~'I-I'iI~G ON THE EAST LYING BETWEEN THE PROJECTIONS EASTERLY OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES OF SAID LOTS, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAV~; ALSO TOGETHER _WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF VACATED FRONT (FIRST) STREET AND WASHINGTON AVENUE AD$OINING OR ABUt-riNG THEREON, WI'IICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW. PARCEL B: LOT 3 IN BLOCK 2 OF TOWN OF BREMERTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY ADJOINING OR ABU l liN(3 ON THE EAST LYING BETWEEN TI-IE PROJECTION OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHI~RLY LINES OF SAI~ LOT 3, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAIl) PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, PURSUANT TO KITSAP COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. PARCEL C: LOTS 4, $, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 2 OF TOWN OF BREMERTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED ALLEY ADJOIIN~NG OR ABU'I'i'ING ON THE EAST LYING BETWEEN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 4 AND THE NORTH]~RLY LINE OF LOT 7 PRO~ECTED EAST, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW. PARCEL D: THE sOUTH~ASTERLY 30 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PRQPERTY: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 34, TOWNSFI]1) 24 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, ~V.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF FRONT (NOW FIRST) STREET, I}REMERTON, WASHINGTON, 14 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH]E SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I IN BLOCK 2 OF TOWN OF BREMERTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTHEASTERLy PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 2 A I)[STANCE OF 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLy PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF FRONT STREET 234 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO INNER HARBOR LrNE; ~ENCE SOUTHWESTERLy PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 2 A i)[STANCE OF 60 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF FRONT STREET; ~)[ENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; Page 2 CONT. - - OI~DER NO. 890745-C3 ?O~ETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED FRONT (FIRST) STREET ~G OR ABLFrTING TI-iEREON, WHICH UPON VACATION, AT'FACHED TO SAID PREMI~S BY ~ERATION OF LAW; F.,XCEPT FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE ANY PORTION THEREOF LY{'NG EAS~Y OF THE INNER IIARBOR LINE. PARCEL E: THAT PORTION OF TH~ GOVERNMENT LOT I, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 24 N~RTH, RANGE 1 EAST. W.M., IN KI~rSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THE TIDELANDS AD/OINING, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TH~ MOST SOUTHERLy CORNER OF BLOCK 2 OF TOVs~ OF BREblERTON, ACCORDING TO FLAT RECORDED IN VOLUM~ 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30; THENCE SOUTH 45.20'30" EAST ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF FIRST STREET 14.18 FEET 'l'O THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 35~'37'10- EAST 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45'20'30' EAST 34.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45'29'10" EAST 14.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35'~36'30'' EAST 5.90 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLy CORNER OF EX/STING BRICK BUILDING; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLy WALL OF SAID BUILDING AND THE LINE OF SAID ' WALL PRODUCED, SOUTH 45'20'30~ EAST 129.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41°53'20" WEST 79.39 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLy LINE OF FIRST STREET; THENCE NORTH 45°20'30" WEST ALONG SAID LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED FRONT (FIRST) STREET ADJOINING OR ABUTI'ING ON THE SOUTH, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID pREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: COMMENCING AT MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 45o20'30- EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLy LINE OF FIRST STREET 14.18 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; . THENCE NORTH 35o37'10- EAST 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°20'30- EAST 34.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON TH~ NORTHEASTERLy LINE OF FIRST STREET WHICH IS SOUTH 45o20,30" EAST 23.69 FEET FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEG{Iql~I'NG; THENCE NORTH 45020'30" WEST 23.69 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINN[~/G; INCLUDING WITH SAID EXCEPi~D TRACT, THAT PORTION OF VACATED FR(.~ (FIRST) STREET ADJOINING OR AB~G SAID EXCEPTED TRACT ON THE SOUTH, ~I/'H/CH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW. Page 3 12/20/2002 13:34 FA,~ UNIT $ I~JO08 LEGAL DESCR~TXON ORDER NO. 890/44=(:3 PA~.CEL I: THAT PORTION OF C.~OVF--~'qML~T LOT 3, SRCTION 13, A~rD THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, SECTION 24, AND TIDELANDS ADJOINING, ALL IN TOWN~H~ 24 NORTH, P.A.NGE I EAST, W.M., I!N K1TSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMM~-.NCING AT THE MOST SOI.,rrH~RLY CORNER. OF LOT I IN BLOCK 2 OF TOWN OF BKEMEKTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLD'M~ 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30, IN IQ~rSAP COUNTY, WA~IINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 45°20'30" EA,qT ALONG TH~ NORTIt~A~-r]~.LY MARGIN OF FI~qT STREET (FRONT ~l~-.~ ]~q SAID PLAT A DISTANCE OF 14.18 FEET TO TH~ MOST SOUT~I~LY CORNER OF AN AI.r.EY DELINEATED ON BLOCK 2 OF SA.~D PLAT; TI~CE NORTH 35°37'10" EA~r 60.00 FEET A~ONO SA~D D~I.I~=ATED ALLEY TO 'r~:Lt~ TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, W~CH LS ALSO CALLP. r~ POl~rr "A" FOR REFERL~CE PURPOSES; THENCE SOUTH 45°20'30" EAST PARALLEL TO 'l~ NOR'i'I-t]~6~I'~Y MARO]~ OF Ffl~T STREET (FRONT ST~ ~-'1~) TO AN ~N~TERSECTXON WI'i~ ~ INNER HARDOR LINE DI~,I~EA't~..J~ ON 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL MAP OF -£~-Lt~ B~RTON T~DELA..~S, ON F~LE IN ~ Oi,-~,tCE OF TH~ COM~O,.qSIONF. R OF PUBLIC LANDS, OLYMPL~ WA~tLtNGTON; T~NCE NOR'rt~I~TER~Y ALONG SAID I~N-ER HAI~3OR L~NE TO TH~ ~GIN OF 2ND ~,-i'KEET AS DELINF_ATED ON SAXD SL?I)T.~M~qTAL THENCE NORTh'W~-i-~.A~LY ALONG SA~D ~%L~ROIN TO A POEqT ON ~ MOST EASTERLY COR.~ER OF TH~ ALLEY DI~,INEAI~D ON BLOCK 2 Eq PLAT OF TOWN OF BP,.~,~TON; THENCE SOUTH 35O37'10" W'EST ALONG SA~D ALLEY 247.21 FEET TO ~ TRUE pOI]~T OF EXCEPT THAT PORT~ON DESCRIED AS FOLLOWS: CO~%~ENCI~G AT POE~T "A" H~=~ETOFORE DESCR.I~ED; £N~NCE SOUTH 4~°20'30" EAST P.A~LLEL TO T~E NORTH~..ASTERLY ~LA~O~ OF F~ST ~-txEET 34.02 ~ET TO 'f~LE TRUE POINT OF BEO]~%~fl~G OF ~ E~CEPT~ON; THENCE NORTH 45°29'10" EAST 14.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35~36'30'' EAST 5.~0 FEET TO TI~ SOUTHWEST COR]~R OF AN EXLSTINO BR~CK BUR,DING; T~ENCE SOUTH 45~20'30" EAST ALONG ~ SOnY WALL THEREOF 129 FEET; TH~CE SOUTH 41°53'20" W~ST 20 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO T~E SO~ BOUNDARY OF T~E ~ TRACT H~RETOFORE DESCRIED; THENCE NORTH 45~20'30" W~ST ~29.4! FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO TH~ TRUE POI~'T OF BEGIN~'~G. PARCEL ri; COMMENCING AT A FOI~IT ON ~ NOR~Y LI~N'E OF FRONT STI~.EET, ALSO K2~OWN AS FI~qT STREET, BRE~fl~RTON, WA~H~GTON, WHICH IS SOUTH 45°20'30" EAST A DISTANCE OF 14.18 FEET PROM TH~ SO~T CORN'ER OF LOT I IN BLOCK 2 OF OR~GI~S~L PLAT OF TOWN OF BP,~M~RTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT R~CORDED ~N VOLUM~ 2 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 30, IN K~TSAP COUNTY, WAShinGTON; THENCE NORTH 35'37'10" EAST FOR A DISTA~CE OF 60 FEET; TH~_~fCE Sou'r~ 45°20'30" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 163.43 FEET TO TH~ TRUE PO[~l' OF Page 2 12/~0/2002 ~;34 FA.,[ UNiT 5 [~007 DESCRIFrION CONT. ORDEI~ NO. ~90"/44-C3 THENCE SOUTH 45~20'30" EAST 45 FI~T; THL~NCE SOUTH 4F'~3'20" ~ ~9.39 ~, MO~ OR L~, ~ ~ NO~~Y ~ OF ~ NOR~t'~Y ~ONG ~ ~ NOK~ 4l'53'20' ~ 59.39 ~, MO~ OR T~E~ ~ ~T ~K~ON OF VA~ ~O~ ~ ~t~T ~JO~G OK ~b't-r~G ~ON, ~ ~ON VA~ON, A~A~ ~ ~ P~ BY OPtiON Of ~T ~R~ON OF ~~ L~ 1, W.M., ~ ~ ~ ~JO~O, FO~OWS: CO~G AT ~ MO~ ~U'i'~Y ~ OF L~ I ~ BL~ 2 OF ~ OF B~N, ACCO~G ~ P~T ~O~ ~ ~, W~ON; ~CE SO~ 45~0'30' ~ ~ONG ~ NOR~-I~Y ~ OF ~T ~'i~T ~O~ ~ 14.18 ~T TO ~ ~ ~ ~N~ ~ ~0'30" ~ ~.~ ~; ~ ~ SO~ 45~20'30" EA~ ~.6~ ~ ~OM ~ ~ ~ OF BERG; ~N~ NOR~ 45~20'30" ~ 23.69 ~T TO 'l'~ ~ PO~ OF BEG~G; T~E~ ~ ~T ~R~O~ OF VACA~ ~O~ ~b t t~G ~ON, ~ ~N VACA~ON, A~AC~ TO S~ P~SES BY OPtiON OF ~W. P~CEL ~: LOTS 8 ~ ~ ~ BL~ 2 OF ~ Of B~N, AC~G TO P~T ~CO~ VOL~ 2 OF P~TS AT PAGES) 30, ~ ~ CO~, W~ON; T~R ~ ~T POR~ON OF VA~D ~EY ~O~G ~ ~N VACA~ON, A~A~D TO ~ P~SES BY OPtiON OF ~W. Page 3 ' / DAFE SUBMITTED: 5/28/03 BILL # ~,,i~ .- i~ AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON 9A CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public hearing and ordinance Committee Meeting Date: 6/03/03 regarding zoning text amendment to BMC COUNCIL MEETING Date: 6/11/03 21.02 Figure 152(b) Footnote relating to Department: Comm. Development building height within the DW zone. Presenter: Chris Hugo, Director Phone: 473-5243 SUMMARY: On December 30, 2002, the City Council adopted new Downtown development regulations including a limitation on maximum building heights and number of stories in the DW Downtown Waterfront Zone. On March 03, 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 heating on March 18, 2003, The City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the change. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Staff report Planning Commission minutes of public hearing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve ordinance on first reading. Move to pass ordinance on second reading. AGENDA STATUS: Consent New Business Old Business Ordinance COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution Public Hearin8 Information ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of thc City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending BMC 21.02 Figure 152(b) Footnote of thc Bremerton Municipal Code relating to building height within thc DW Zone. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted new development regulations on December 30, 2002 to implement new downtown development goals and policies that were added to the Comprehensive Plan on November 28, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, on March 18, 2003, reviewed the height provisions of the DW Zone and determined that the specified configurations of floors did not meet Comprehensive Plan expectations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to restrict the maximum height of buildings within the DW zone while permitting for maximum flexibility in the design of buildings with respect to the allowable number of floors; and WHEREAS, a change to the specification of allowed floors is not inconsistent with other Bremerton Municipal Code provisions regulating height and bulk in the DW Zone; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTIONL BMC 21.02 Figure 152(b) Footnote of the Bremerton Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby amended to read as follows: *The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, Height, and WAC 173-27-030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than .q~.'e six stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added height of any roof(s) gtr,:cture shall be excluded from the height determination. SECTION Z 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. SECTION3. 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. Building Height Restrictions 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 Attomey PUBLISHED the day of ., 2003 EFFECTIVE the _day of ., 2003 ORDINANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\DW Zone Amendment. doc Building Height Restrictions EXHIBIT Downtown District Buildin§ Heights Ord~nanoe# Appendix Figure 152(b) 6TH 5TH A 4TH 2ND STREET PUGET SOUND NAVALSHIPYARD F"'"IAREA A: 100 Foot Height Limitation r~AREA B: 70 Foot Height Limitation DAREA C: 70 Foot Height Limitation. see footnote) ' The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured t: ~rton SMP hr, and WAC 173-27-030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be five feet the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added heii~'J ! excluded from the height determinatiln. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT IPROPOSAL: Zoning Code text amendment to BMC 21.02 Figure 152(b) to allow a maximum of six stories in the Downtown Waterfront zone. DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 17, 2003 APPMCANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority (PL03-0007) CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director - Community Development Department; Phone: (360)473-5243 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone district. BACKGROUND: Amendments to the Zoning Code (BMC 21.02) to implement new 2001 Downtown Development goals and policies were adopted by the City Council on December 30, 2002. These amendments added a new section to the BMC, 21.02.152, that created two new zone classifications (DC Downtown Core and DW Downtown Waterfront) and established development standards. Among these standards is a specification of maximum building height that is presented in Figure 152(b) (Exhibit A) as three designated UHeight Areas." In Height Area C, the maximum allowed building height is explained in the footnote on Figure 152(b): The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, "Height," and WAC 173-27-030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than five stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added height of any roof structure shall be excluded from the height determination. In addition to maximum allowed building height, expressed as a maximum number of stories not to exceed a maximum elevation, the new standards also included a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for buildings. The maximum attainable FAR for the DW distdct is 2.0 for residential projects that include specified amenities. An FAR of 2.0 means that the building total floor area cannot be more than two times the site area. For example, a site of 40,000 square feet can support a building with up to 80,000 square feet of floor space (the code lists uses and spaces that are exempt from the calculation). The floor space can be distributed on two or more floors, up to the maximum height limit of the DW zone. FAR is the primary tool for controlling the mass of buildings. Outside of any other urban design controls, it trades site coverage for increased structure height (see figures at Exhibit B). The greater the FAR allowed, the bigger the allowable building - if one structure is allowed twice the FAR of another of the same footprint, it can be twice as high. Prior to the adoption of the December 30, 2002, zoning amendments, the maximum allowed building height along the downtown waterfront was 40 feet as specified in the recently rescinded Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: On November 28, 2001, the Bremerton City Council adopted the following policy as part of supplemental Downtown Development Goals and Policies that were added to the CBD element of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan: 4. Structures should be terraced down toward the water in order to maximize views and reinforce the stepped form of downtown. View corridors in alignment with east/west upland streets should be preserved. The new goals and policies were supported by an "Illustrative Plan" map prepared by Calthorpa and Associates. The map provides a conceptual graphic expression of the goals and policies but includes no specification of maximum building heights. Dudng the public process to comment on the proposed goals and policies prior to adoption, the record appears to encourage Iow-rise development but there was no definition of "low- rise" in the proposal. However, a draft set of development regulations was presented for public review concurrently with review of the goals and policies. That draft indicated a proposed maximum building height of 60' in the proposed Downtown Waterfront (DVV) zone. ANALYSIS: During both the Planning Commission's and City Council's deliberations on the Dec. 30, 2002, zoning amendments to implement the new Downtown Development Goals and Policies, there was considerable discussion about waterfront building heights. The Community Development staff presented the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority's (KCCHA) expressed concerns about the impact of the 60' maximum allowed height on property it recently acquired in the DW zone. The staff also drew attention to the effect of WAC 173-27-030 (9) that defines the method of measuring building height within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program. It was noted that the definition of height in the State code could effectively limit development along the downtown shoreline to four stodes. As a response to the WAC issue, the staff offered the following revision to the draft 60' height specification: The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, "Height, ' and WAC 173-27-030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than five stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue et the site's front property line (edge of right- of-way). The added height of any roof structure shall be excluded from the height determination. The intent of this modification was to avoid having to utilize the WAC method of measuring building height with the proposed 60' limit. Instead, the 60' was converted to the number of stodes that are common within that height limit, five. Additional allowances to accommodate the declining elevation of Washington Avenue and architecturally significant roof features were included. To insure that unanticipated structure designs couldn't greatly exceed Plan expectations, an additional limitation of 70' as determined by the WAC method for measurement was also incorporated into the proposal. Finally, the 2.0 FAR bulk standard was retained, providing the most effective control over building mass. The City Council adopted the revised language as offered by staff. PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT: Proposed revision to BMC 21.02 Figure 152 (b) Footnote: *The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, Height, and WAC 173-27-030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than five six stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added height of any roof structure shall be excluded from the height determination. The proposed amendment can be considered a minor revision to the existing development regulation, with minimal substantive effect. The ability to develop a sixth story on a building produces the corollary adjustment of site coverage, i.e., the building becomes correspondingly narrower. The overall height control of 70' still applies. While this modification may produce expanded view corridors adjacent to extended street ends, its primary benefit is the additional residential units that a sixth fioor can accommodate. These units will add to the downtown resident population and add to market demand for a broader range of goods and services downtown. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on the original development regulation as a non*project action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on July 14, 2001. The proposed text amendment is considered a minor revision to the original regulation with minimum substantive effect. There is no change to the bulk regulations that control the overall use intensity of a site. A memorandum that states this conclusion has been entered into the official record. DECISION CRITERIA: AS provided in BMC 21.02.925, the City Council may approve an amendment if the following questions can be answered, "Yes:" (1) Is the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? (2) Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the affected code and avoid conflicts with other codes? F~NmNG OF PLAN / ZONING CONSISTENCY: The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to implement the Downtown Development Goals and Policies as adopted on November 28, 2001, and to maintain regulatory consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as provided in RCW 36.70A.040. The amendment must also be found to be consistent with all other provisions of the Zoning Code. Staff report prepared by: ~-"~' ~.~(~L-~-[""'-- Dated Chds Hu~;)~, Director 5-/ EXHIBIT A Downtown District Building Heights ord,na~oe# Appendix Figure '152(b) 6TH 5TH 4TH B 2ND STREET PUGET SOUND ~'X NAVALSHIPYARD [~AREA A: 100 Foot Height Limitation F'~AREA E: 70 Foot Height Limitation F~AREA C: 70 Foot Height Limilation, Special Consid, (see footnote) The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bre~l~Aon SMP Cha Height, and WAC 173-27-030 (9, rovi{ ed that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than~%-..,stories plus five fee e the elevation of Washington Avenue ,t the site's front properly line (~dge of right-of-way). The added hei~t~3f any roo.~ excluded from the height determination. FLOOR AREA RATIO Floor area ratio (F,A,R.) is the relationship between a building's total floor area and its site coverage, For example, a F.A.IA. of 1.O means that there is a one-to-one relationship between allowed floor area and site coverage, To illustrate, a one-story building can cover the full site (A), a two-story building can cover up to half the site (B), and a four-story building can cover up to J./4 the site (C). 4-story 1-story 2-story ~ A, B, C, Similarly, a F.A.P,. of 3.0 creates a three-to-one relationship 12-story between floor area and site coverage, allowing the following building forms: (note that although these sites are the same sizes as above, the allowed 6-story buildings are throe times larger because the FAR is three times greater) g-story A. B. C. F,A,P,, is a way to control the overall size of a building while still allowing it to be built in different shapes. It can either be short and wide, covering a lot of its site, or it can be tall and stender, leaving much of the site open, This provides architects and developers greater flexibility in design. However, other codes can still place overall limits on the height of structures, In the second example above, a height limit of 90 feet, for example, would still not allow e twelve story building under a 3,0 F,A.R Minutes for Approval of Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kennedy at 5:37 p.m. 11. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood, Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Dingtield and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the agenda as written. Callod for a vote: Dingficld: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as written. For the record, Commissioner Wood amved at 5:40 p.m. IV. Approval of Minutes The Regular Meeting of February 18, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Dingtleld to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Minutes approved as written. V. Public Meeting Chairman Kennedy moved directly to the call to the public portion. A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments from the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the public meeting portion. B. Public Meetino 1. Public Hearing: Commissioner Kennedy then opened the meeting up for public hearing. a. PL03-0007 - Downtown Waterfront (DW) Zone Height Area C Text Amendment. Proposal by the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing to amend BMC Figure 152(b) to alter the provisions of Height Area C to allow a maximum of six stories of building plus five feet and a roof structure. Plannino C~nrnmi~inn M~tino- lMarc, h 1R 200q Paoe 1 c~l Commissioner Kennedy asked the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority (KCCHA) to make their presentation. Gary Tusburg presented for the KCCHA. This is the hearing on the application from the item that we discussed informally at the last Planning Commission meeting. The purpose of this proposal is to revise the text in the Downtown Waterfront zoning area. Recognizing that there is a height limit of 70 feet, there is, of course, no wish to change that height limitation. The issue that came up in the present text was that there is a limitation of five stories. It is possible under the height limitation of 70 feet, to get six stories. As most of you know, there is a plan for a set of four buildings on the waterfront that will be built into condominiums. You may well imagine then, that the sixth floor does make a significant difference in the number of people we can attract into the downtown redevelopment area. So, what we're asking you to do is to recognize and agree with us that the buildings underneath the 70 foot limit will not change the present restriction of 70 feet. However, inside that envelope - using 10 foot ceiling (I suppose), we can get six, rather than five stories. Therefore, without changing your vision of what that area will be we can increase the density and we propose to you that this is a good thing. No only from the economic standpoint, which it is obviously because it makes better use of the land purchased with public dollars - but it also brings more people into an area that we are trying so desperately to revitalize. By doing this, he thinks that we can create a more appealing building that is a little bit over the standard downtown and readily seen from the waterfront and becomes a promenade. If you wish we can go back through the proposed plan that we have for that area. We have Mr. Curt Callison from Sienna Architectural firm if you have any further question of how that might work. He then asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any questions from the commission. Commissioner Nelson stated that at the last meeting (study session) you talked about the reason for the sixth story. Mr, Callison stated that if you can get more units into one of the buildings it becomes more viable economically. What we've done in order to create view Corridors is not build the entire length of Washington in the downtown zone. We wish to separate it into four parcels with a wide view spread between the four parcels. This makes it even more necessary to get a little bit more height so that we can increase that density. Commissioner Kosnsko asked where the proposal was with regard to the FAR (floor area ratio) of two (that is allowed). He also said he was interested in seeing some sectional representation as to how this fits. He also had a question for Mr. Hugo - We are talking about measuring the 70 feet according to the Shoreline code. He then asked Mr. Hugo to review how that measurement is done. Mr. ltngo suggested that the Commission would like to have the staff report at this time and come back to Mr. Callison. The Commission agreed. He referred the Commission to the staff report that was distributed. This report presents a fairly extensive background on the evolution of the zoning text provision that is currently in the zoning code. The new section of downtown regulations that was Planning, Cnmrni~itm Mee~tino March 1R ?O0'I Paoe ? cdv 1 1 adopted last December 30th to implement the Downtown Goals and Policies that were adopted by the City Council a year previously. He referred the Commission to the third page of the report which has the current language in the BMC related to height in the Downtown Waterfront zone. Right below that is a paragraph, "The intent of this modification was' to avoid having to utilize the WAC method of measuring building height with the proposed 60' limit. Instead, the 60' was' converted to the number of stories that are common within that height limit, five. Additional allowances to accommodate the declining elevation of Washington Avenue and architecturally significant roof features were included. To insure that unanticipated structure designs couldn't greatly exceed Plan expectations, an additional limitation of 70' as determined by the WAC method for measurement was also incorporated into the proposal. Finally, the 2.0 FAR bulk standard was retained, providing the most effective control over building mass. The City Council adopted the revised language as offered by staff" Mr. Hugo explained that the 60' height standard was the one that was in the dra~ regulations for two years from inception back in the fall of 2000 until adoption in December of 2002. Right up until the last minute that 60' was out there in front of the public. So, we're trying to deal with respecting the public process that created that 60'. In that public process there was no recognition of how that 60' would be implemented in a shoreline environment. I saw no discussion in the record that there was recognition that by the WAC definition in the shorelines of how you measure building height that the 60' would operatively become something less than that. Then in the next box is a proposal to change that five stories to six and an explanation of that. The proposed amendment can be considered a minor revision to the existing development regulation, with minimal substantive effect. The ability to develop a sixth story on a building produces the corollary adjustment of site coverage, i.e., the building becomes correspondingly narrower. The overall height control of 70' still applies. Fffhile this' modification may produce expanded view corridors' adjacent to extended street ends, its primary benefit is the additional residential units that a sixth floor can accommodate. These units will add to the downtown resident population and add to market demand for a broader range of goods and services downtown. One of the biggest goals for the downtown effort is to add to market demand for a broader range of goods and services downtown. Then it goes on to make a statement about SEPA that relates to a memoranda that has been entered into the file. This Plannino C'nmrninninn Meetino Mlarah 1R 900'4 Paoe q nit` 1 I memo essentially says that this amendment has been reviewed, but it attaches back to the original SEPA Determination as a non-project action on July 14, 2001. The staff report then notes that the decision criteria for you to approve this change, which are: (1) ls the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? (2~ Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the affected code and avoid conflicts with other codes? The report then includes a finding of plan/zoning consistency that needs to be made. When you come to the end of your deliberations he said he would ask them to make findings on the decision criteria. He then asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kosusko asked Mr. Hugo to review how the 70 feet is measured in the Shoreline environment. Mr. Hugo said that you take the average existing grade of the building site (footprint) and take the average point of grade - the building height is measured from that point of average grade to the highest point of the building, including roofs. Mechanical is not included. Commissioner Kosusko asked for clarification - is it the average grade at the perimeter of the building or the perimeter of the lot? Mr. Hugo said that it is the average grade at the perimeter of the building. Then we have a provision in the new downtown code in the DW zone that applies to both the DC (Downtown Core) and DW (Downtown Waterfront) zones that describes building height. This provision states that elevator towers and other pertinences like roof mechanical and parapets are excluded. It essentially would be six stories plus five feet plus a roof desig~ and not to exceed 70 feet but excluding those other pertinences like parapets and elevator towers. Commissioner Kosusko asked again for clarification. For instance if you had a lot that had 30 feet of slope on it, you are effectively measuring from 15 feet down the slope - is that correct? Mr, Hugo and Mr. Callison agreed that was a correct statement. Mr, Cailison said that yes - you would measure from 15 feet down the slope to 70 feet high. He said further, that like on Washington you would be starting below the grade and going up 70 feet and you still might not eclipse 60 feet from the area. Mr. ltugo stated that the applicant had some drawings that might help illustrate this. The illustrations were helpful to me when I was wrestling with this. For a matter of consistency. Mr. Callison of Sienna Architecture introduced himsel£ He first answered the question of the FAR by saying that the way they have been drawing the site is in two phases. Phase one would be the northern face, north of Burwell. South would be Plannino C'c~rnmi~icm Meetino- Marah 1 R ?003 Pno'e 4 nF 57 Phase Two. The phase one site has an FAR of 1.45 calculated so far, incorporating the sixth floor. Phase two has an FAR of 1.5 calculated at this point. He offered drawings to the Commission. Commissioner Kosusko asked to see some of the drawings. There was a short discussion over the drawings, with Mr. Callison answering questions. Commissioner Kosnsko, after looking at the drawings had a question about the height of the buildings. He said that the measurement was from average to the highest point of the roof structure - however, them is a line drawn that is parallel to the ground. This suggests to him that the definition would be a horizontal plane not a sloping plane on the height limit. Mr. Callison said that the reason he put the angled one in - this is building A, the average grade starts below the 33 line. So it's down here and ifI went 70 feet up straight up, that's your line. It is the same line that is just above the roof right there (pointing to the drawing). He said that drawing up the plans, he never penetrated 70 feet. Commissioner Kosnsko said that it sounded to him like you would go around the perimeter of the building and find what the average elevation of the perimeter of the building was and that is the point you would measure the 70 feet from. Mr. Callison said yes, but he could not do that because it goes into other code issues (high rise issues, 75 feet), everything over 75 feet is considered a high rise. Even if be extended the line flat because of the grade. This prompted a short discussion about which point to measure from. Mr. }Iago commented, referring to the Staff Report. He stated that he made one reference to the Comprehensive Plan. It notes the one supplemental policy that was adopted in December of 2001, as a part of the new Downtown Development Goals and Policies, number four. "4. Structures should be terraced down toward the water in order to maximize views and reinfome the stepped form of downtown. View corridors in alignment with east/west upland streets should be preserved." This line seems to better represent the intent of trying to terrace the edge of buildings down. If you had a horizontal line you could build out to the full bulk of that horizontal plane - in this case you would probably extend that upper roof all the way out if you wanted to, and split the building. This sparked another discussion of Mr. Callison's drawings and how the 70 feet are measured. The discussion was concluded by l~lr. Callison saying that all the floors (of all the buildings) ended up lining up all the way across. They are stepping down the hill nicely and correlating to each other, so we don't just have all these odd buildings. It works better to start with one plaza and work from that. Plannino ('t~rnmig~ion Meetino March 1R ?O0~I Paete 5 ntv I 1 Mr. Hugo stated that even though the policy talks about terracing, he thought the intent was that as you looked at the buildings from the water they should represent the form ora hill. But the building part of the sights do not drop offas dramatically as if you go further north in the same zone. That is where there is no choice but to do stronger terracing. Here it is only evident in one or two steps of the building. If we do something like lower deck townhouses or something, there would still be some of that imagery of the step buildings. All of these issues were considered as I did the staff report. Commissioner Kosusko asked about ceiling heights at street level. Mr. Callison stated that at street level the ceiling heights will probably be 18 feet. He said that at street level these spaces will be some form of retail. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any further questions from the commission. There were none. She then asked if there were any questions from the public. Seeing none, the public hearing portion was closed and opened the session to the commission for discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend to the City Council that we amend the zoning text. Amend Bremerton Municipal 21.02, Figure 152(b) Footnote: "The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, Height, and WAC 173-27-030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than six stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added height of any roof structure shall be excluded from the height determination. Some discussion followed the motion .... Commissioner Kosusko stated that the commission struggled with this height issue the last go-around. In some ways it was pushing it a bit compared to what we heard from the public to allow the height in the first place (60 feet). We are not allowing any more height. It actually sounds like we might not allow any more stories on two of those four buildings. He said that he is a little tom about this. He thinks the commission may have erred too much in allowing height and we keep going and going Considering the zoning we have in place and what the applicant is asking for, he cannot say that we cannot allow this. Maybe the chance we had to control height along the shoreline has passed because we have already allowed this. Commissioner Dingfield said that she appreciated what Commissioner Kosusko was saying. She said that what she likes about the amendment we are proposing tonight is what it allows in terms of view corridor. It allows the applicant in this case, to make this change opens up the view corridor for the public much more. So they are actually exceeding the view corridor goals and it was public access which this project is allowing and it visually opens up the corridors as well. She told Commissioner Kosusko that she could understand his struggle... Commissioner Kosusko said that he would accept that argument except they are no where near the FAR. ff adding that extra story put them at 1.95, then I would buy the argument they are allowing extra view corridor. But adding that extra story still Planning, Oommi~inn Meetinc, March 1 R doesn't get them close to that FAR - so it is not like they are squeezing the building down in order to add the story in order to keep under the FAR. He said that he appreciates the view that we'll have from Washington Avenue. Commissioner Wood stated that she agrees with Commissioner Kosusko about the height restriction. Her only hesitation is that in the past it did creep up to 70 feet and she wonders what kind of president is being set for future projects. They answered our questions about what it's going to look like from the street and it looks pretty good. Commissioner Nelson stated that this amendment as it states here, is considered to be a minor revision. He said that he can appreciate the view corridor it will allow. Even more importantly, from a property management standpoint - he realizes the importance of getting the sixth stow and having additional units can certainly make this project more feasible. He spoke to the applicants and stated that he can support their request for this amendment. Commissioner Kosnsko stated that it is a stow of the most valuable units and does make the project more feasible. There was a concurrence among the commission that no additional height is actually being added. Commissioner Kennedy stated that we really aren't increasing the height. We are already at 70 feet. So, if we were saying "Let's go to 90 feet" she said that the commission would probably not recommend that. However, since we are not really increasing that height limit, but just defining that another stow can be that another stow can be fit in there (if it can be), allows for future development to go to the lesser FAR and to open up the stories. It is kind of the best of both worlds. It give a developer the ability to possibly go higher and get more oftbe view - which was consistently important to the public. This is not perfect for everyone but it is a good middle-ground. She then asked if there was any further discussion. Seeing none, she asked for the vote. Commissioner Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; Kennedy: yes. The motion carried. 2. Workshops: a. Update on the Comprehensive Plan and Planning Process. Mr. Paul Rogerson said that he always feels like he is preaching to the choir when he does an update to the Comp Plan to the commission because the group are all members of the Coordinating Council. He stated that the following products have been completed: 1. Draft of the Plan Introduction Chapter. 2. Draft Element Introductions 3. Draft Land Use Element (not quite available yet), about 21 pages right now and there are a couple of sections that need to be completed. 90% draft, should be about 30 pages on completion. 4. Parametrix, our consultant is working on the Transportation Element and should be done approximately the end of this month. Planninc, C'c~mmie. qion M.,~ino March I R '900~ Pacm 7 ntv 11 DATE SUBMITTED: May 19,2003 BILL # ~ ) - it AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution # ~ ~ Setting a Committee Meeting Date: June 3, 2003 Hearing Date of July 9, 2003 for Vacating COUNCIL MEETING Date: JUNE 11, 2003 the Southerly 6 Feet of East 31st Street Department: PW&U, En$ineering between Olympus Drive and Saunders Presenter: Michael C. Mecham~e~r~ Avenue. Phone: 478-5288 SUMMARY: 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1 .) Resolution # ~ ~ q 9; 2.) Site Map; 3.) Engineering Staff Report FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: ~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: Ix[ "r / ¢'"--- OPERATIONS: ~ ~ ~{ ~,.~,._~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~ ~Z.e ;~.~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to pass Resolution #~8~.~, setting a hearing date of July 9, 2003, for vacating the southerly 6 feet of East 3 pt Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. AGENDA STATUS: Consent New Business Old Business Ordinance COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Postpone [] No Action Resolution Public Hearin[ Information ~ I Study Session 7 RESOLtmON NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation of the southerly 6 feet of East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue. WHEREAS, the City has initiated the vacation of the southerly 6 feet of East 31 st Street between Olympus Drive and Saunders Avenue; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTIONL A public hearing will be held on July 9, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. or later at the Bremerton City Hall, 239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation. SECTION2. If fifty percent or more of the property owners abutting said right- of-way file written objections to this action prior to the time set for public hearing herein, the hearing shall be canceled and there shall be no further proceedings under this resolution. SECTION 3. Severabilit~. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this __ day of ,2003. CAROL AR_ENDS, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\East 31 st Vacation.doc 1 East 31st Street Vacation - Public Hearing w n" u.i n STREET VACATION REQUEST EAST 31sT STREET ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 9, 2003 PREPARED BY: Gunnar Fridrikseon, Civil Engineer SUMMARY A. Applicant: City of Bremerton 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Location: The southerly 6 feet of right-of-way for East 31st Street between Olympus Drive and Sanders Avenue. B. Attachment: None BACKGROUNO The City of Bremerton has initiated the vacation process to vacate a portion of East 31st Street Right-of-Way. The area to be vacated is behind the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk, and has been maintained as yard area. See the attached application for a sketch of the area in question. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITIONS · Functional Classification Local Access · Existing R-OW Width 60 feet · Proposed R-O-W Width 54 · Pavement Width 32 · Surface Type Asphalt · Curb and Gutter standard curb · Sidewalks 4 foot sidewalks April 14, 2003 East 31st Street Vacation Page 1of 5 HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Councit needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of East 31st Street is not required for public use. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: This is a vegetated portion of the right-of-way. The maintenance has been and will remain the responsibility of the City, as the adjacent property owner. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: The use of East 31st Street as a thoroughfare will not be impacted by this vacation. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exiets. Staff Position: No future use of this portion of right-of-way is anticipated. April 14 2003 East 31 Street Vacation Page 2 of 5 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: The City of Bremerton is the only abutting property owner. SHOREI~INE ACCESS This portion of right-of-way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. An easement for Puget Sound Energy shall be granted for a guy pole and anchor located in the vacation area. City Utilities have been reviewed. An easement for the existing storm line in the vacation area shall be granted. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES N/A. City inflated vacation. COMPENSATION N/A. City intiated vacation. STAFF RECOlliIMENDATION No adverse comments were received from Police, Fire, Legal, Engineering or Community Development staff. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested without modification. April 14, 2003 East 31st Street Vacation P~ge 3 o~ 5 Looking westerly from the intersection of E. 31st Street and Olympus Drive at vacation area. Vacation will constitute the area from the cyclone fence to approximately 3.5 feet behind the existing sidewalk. April 14 2003 East 31 Street Vacation Page 4 of 5 At Wright Avenue (approximately mid-block) looking easterly at vacation area. Note PSE guy pole and anchor in area of vacation. April 14, 2003 East 31st Street Vacation Page 5 of 5 DATE SUBMITTED: 6/11/03 BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Litigation Committee Meeting Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: 6/11/03 Department: City Attorney Presenter: Roger Lubovich Phone: SUMMARY: An executive session was held after general business during the 6/11/03 City Council meeting to discuss potential litigation. A~er discussion the City Council reconvened and passed a motion to authorize the Office of the City Attorney to file suit. ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: CONSENT AGENDA [] OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: I 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. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action